This article was published in the July 2024 issue of Pet Food Processing. Read it and other articles from this issue in our July digital edition.

In early 2024, BSM Partners made public our concerns over an emerging nutritional debate involving a purported link between copper levels in dog food and the development of copper-associated hepatopathies (CAHs). Since then, both the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Pet Food Committee and the editorial board of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) have published decisions in line with our stance, speaking directly to the need for more thorough research on the topic before jumping to conclusions that could ultimately jeopardize the health and wellness of our canine companions.

The argument first surfaced from a researcher at The Veterinary College of Medicine at Cornell University advocating for maximum copper levels to be set for dog food formulations on the assumption that they were associated with increased rates of CAH. This sparked various conversations in the pet nutrition community about current copper recommendations for dog food, but did not result in a clear consensus. For example, AAFCO assembled an expert panel to address the subject, in which panelists determined there was not enough data to alter current copper guidelines. In a split vote, the panel did vote to recommend a voluntary maximum copper limit, but the motion was ultimately voted down by AAFCO’s Pet Food Committee in early June.

In the meantime, four authors — three of whom are scientists currently employed by Hill’s Pet Nutrition — published an article, “Sixteen years of canine hepatic copper concentrations within normal reference ranges in dogs fed a broad range of commercial diets,” in the March 7, 2024, edition of JAVMA. From the time it was published to the end of May, the journal had received at least seven letters from various veterinary scientists around the United States pointing out glaring flaws in the study’s design and review. Ultimately, this dialogue resulted in the first-ever retraction in JAVMA’s 180-year history.

Concerns raised in these letters centered around erroneous copper quantification methods, a lack of diet history information, the inclusion of misinformation, and the extrapolation of data from sick animals onto healthy ones. These flaws ultimately led researchers to unreliable conclusions that would significantly misdirect future research into the topic.

A wake-up call

How can the industry learn from this critical oversight? Firstly, clinical nutrition research projects like this demand a greater level of collaboration, bringing scientists from multiple backgrounds and schools of thought together to better understand the root causes of the issue and develop insights rooted in that multidisciplinary evidence. One-sided research lacking a diverse range of expert opinions and detailed review creates more questions than it answers. 

“One-sided research lacking a diverse range of expert opinions and detailed review creates more questions than it answers,” wrote Dan Su, DVM, of BSM Partners.

Additionally, it’s important to consider disparate nutrition beliefs — among both veterinarians and researchers — as part of this conversation. Contrarian viewpoints will always exist in nutrition, and researchers first and foremost seek validation of their own personal conclusions through research. Allowing personal biases to influence the integrity and implementation of research is irresponsible for pet health, and making space for such misinformation goes against the industry’s mission to advance the science behind pet nutrition. 

The fallout from JAVMA’s retraction underscores the imperative need for robust, transparent research practices based on rigorous methodology in addressing complex nutritional issues that affect our pets. Further, it prompts a reevaluation of research veracity and collaboration in the pet food industry, and emphasizes an urgent need for reliable, interdisciplinary studies to inform responsible dietary choices for dogs.

The bottom line

Nutrition, however vital to pets’ health and wellbeing, is already a confusing and sometimes convoluted realm for pet owners to navigate. Allowing unsubstantiated research to influence pet owners’ decisions and veterinarians’ dietary recommendations stands in the way of the very thing to which our industry has committed: protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of pets.

We maintain that a more concerted, industry-wide approach to clinical nutrition research should be taken to provide greater integrity, transparency and consensus for pets and their owners. Asserting broad generalizations and assumptions based on incomplete evidence sets a dangerous precedent for future research, and this recent JAVMA retraction is a welcome intervention to ensure the nutritional guidelines for pet nutrition are based in scientific evidence, and not speculation.

Dan Su MS, DVM, DACVIM-Nutrition, is a Board-Certified Veterinary Nutritionist® and director of nutrition at BSM Partners.