People often ask me what I think of one dry dog food or another, and I have always shared my opinion openly. The point of this series is not to declare one brand good and another bad. It is to show the questions I ask when reading ingredient lists. Surprisingly many questions arise even when a bag looks professional and the product has been on the market for years.<\/p>\n
One thing needs to be clear before the examples. I am revisiting four recipes I originally analysed in 2021. These are not confirmed extracts of manufacturers’ 2026 ingredient declarations. Recipes and translated labels may have changed. The examples are therefore useful case studies, not claims about exactly what is inside every bag sold today.<\/p>\n
The manufacturer’s background matters to me too. Are ingredients traceable? Where is the food made? What quality controls are in place? Can the importer explain the actual origin of ingredients such as glucosamine or egg? I do not think we should reduce all of this to the word \u201cpremium\u201d on a package.<\/p>\n
I have fed Taste of the Wild to my own dogs. Later, I began reading the recipes more critically, and the addition of salt in some formulas raised questions. In High Prairie Puppy, what first caught my attention was the egg product, peas and the amount of plant-derived protein.<\/p>\n
In the original article I discussed avidin in egg white, which binds biotin, or vitamin B7. This mechanism is real, but we need to distinguish raw from processed egg white. Heat treatment reduces avidin’s biotin-binding activity; the presence of a dried or heat-treated egg ingredient in a complete dog food does not itself prove a risk of biotin deficiency. My question remains legitimate, however: is the manufacturer using whole egg, dried egg product or separated egg white, and how is it processed? If the label doesn’t say, we can ask.<\/p>\n
The second issue is the use of legumes. The earlier English ingredient declaration included both pea protein and peas. When the same plant source appears in several forms, it is worth asking how much of the total protein actually comes from animal ingredients and how much from plants. Ingredient order cannot give us that figure. We would need quantities or more detailed information on amino acids and protein sources.<\/p>\n
Possible links between legume-rich foods and canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) have been investigated for years. The FDA reviewed reports of heart disease involving some foods with high legume content. Such reports and associations do not by themselves prove that every pea-containing food causes DCM or that the issue is simply a taurine deficiency. Equally, adding taurine does not automatically rule out every potential risk. The whole recipe must be assessed.<\/p>\n
The most practical lesson was comparing translations. The Estonian list at the time said \u201cbeans\u201d where the English label said \u201cpeas\u201d; other animal ingredients and additives were also described at different levels of detail. When labels disagree, I cannot simply choose whichever version sounds better. The importer or manufacturer should explain the discrepancy.<\/p>\n
The second food raised questions about ocean fish meal, salmon meal, smoked salmon and added salt.<\/p>\n
I am particularly critical of animal protein meals. Many integrative veterinarians also recommend less processed animal protein sources and take a cautious view of heavily processed meat meals. Fish deserves particular scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Industrial fish meal production usually involves considerably more than drying and grinding fish. The conventional process heats and presses the fish, removes some oil and water, then dries and mills the remainder. The freshness of the raw material, processing temperatures and processing intensity can substantially affect final quality.<\/p>\n
With fish, fat oxidation is another concern. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish oils are sensitive to heat and oxygen, and oxidation may continue during storage. Studies have also identified oxidation of fish meal proteins during storage.<\/p>\n
For those reasons, I do not regard fish meal as equivalent to fresh or less processed fish. Meal quality can vary between manufacturers, but an ingredient list alone does not disclose what raw material was used, what temperatures were applied or how oxidation was monitored.<\/p>\n
Those are important questions that a manufacturer should be able to answer. In the absence of answers, I prefer foods that are more transparent about the origin and processing of their animal proteins.<\/p>\n
Smoked salmon in a dog food raises questions for me too. Above all, I want to know whether the ingredient is traditionally smoked fish, fish treated with smoke flavouring, or something prepared by another method.<\/p>\n
Smoking and smoke flavourings are not irrelevant to health risk. Traditional smoking can generate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which have known genotoxic and carcinogenic properties. The safety of smoke flavourings has also been examined by the European Food Safety Authority.<\/p>\n
In 2023, EFSA assessed eight smoke flavourings previously used in the EU and could not rule out genotoxicity concerns for any of them. Their authorisations were not renewed.<\/p>\n
Even more striking is a 2026 European Commission decision not to renew the authorisation of a smoke flavouring extract used in dog and cat food. The reasoning highlighted that dogs and cats may eat the same food for years and therefore experience long-term exposure to potentially genotoxic compounds.<\/p>\n
This does not demonstrate that every dog food containing smoked salmon is carcinogenic. It does show why possible risks associated with smoked ingredients and smoke flavourings deserve serious attention.<\/p>\n
For me the question is simple: why does a dog’s everyday food need smoked fish or a smoky taste at all? If the goal is palatability, could the same result be achieved with less processed, more easily verified ingredients?<\/p>\n
I would therefore ask the manufacturer how the smoked salmon is actually prepared, whether smoke flavourings are used, and what the finished food’s sodium content is. Without that information, long-term suitability is difficult to assess properly.<\/p>\n
My main concern with added salt is not acute salt poisoning. I am interested in why salt needs to be added to a dog’s everyday food and how it might influence taste preferences.<\/p>\n
Human studies show that habitual salt intake can affect the level of saltiness people prefer. A person accustomed to salty food may initially find a lower-salt diet bland, but preferences can change over time.<\/p>\n
Dogs perceive taste differently from humans. They are less sensitive to salty taste, yet studies show that salts can enhance the responses of certain taste receptors to amino acids and umami compounds. So we cannot rule out an effect of added salt on how a dog perceives food. Some dogs may be more sensitive than others.<\/p>\n
Dogs obviously need sodium, but that does not mean every food needs additional salt to enhance its flavour. I would like to know both why salt is added and the actual sodium content of the finished food.<\/p>\n
Whether eating food with added salt for years changes dogs’ preferences so much that switching to less salty food becomes difficult still needs direct investigation. Even so, it is a reasonable question, particularly when a dog eats the same food for years.<\/p>\n
And we have a very personal experience of added salt and canine food preferences. Fenton had been accustomed to a food containing added salt. Switching him to a food with no added salt was incredibly difficult. The first couple of months were a real ordeal, and it took approximately a year and a half before his eating returned fully to normal.<\/p>\n
Today Fenton eats food without added salt without any problem. That experience made me think seriously about how strongly earlier feeding habits might shape a dog’s food preferences. Faddu and Oscar did not have such a difficult transition, suggesting individual differences. For me, that is enough reason to question added salt in everyday dog food and to ask why it is included.<\/p>\n
For years I have been critical of dry foods in which maize, wheat, soy and concentrated plant proteins play such a large role that animal ingredients are pushed into the background. Hill’s Science Plan Chicken is a telling example. In the ingredient declaration examined, maize and wheat come first, followed by chicken and turkey meal. Corn gluten meal and soybean meal are also included. Why would I choose a food for my dogs that contains so much grain and concentrated plant protein alongside its animal ingredients?<\/p>\n
One examined chicken recipe declared 10% chicken and 15% poultry ingredients in total. Those figures describe declared ingredient quantities, not the total percentage of animal-derived protein. But 15% is still a compelling reason to ask how much of the food’s overall protein comes from animals and how much from plants.<\/p>\n
Corn gluten meal and soybean meal contribute to the analysed protein percentage, but that figure does not tell us how much meat the product contains. Recipes vary across years and markets, so any percentage must be tied to the exact label and formula.<\/p>\n
I do not see this as merely a question of meeting minimum nutrient requirements. A dog may be able to digest processed maize and wheat, but that does not answer whether such a choice of raw materials is optimal for long-term feeding. Meeting the standards for complete feed matters, but it does not automatically establish that ingredient quality, degree of processing or proportion of animal-derived nutrients meet my expectations.<\/p>\n
Animal protein meals concern me too. They are heat-processed, concentrated ingredients whose quality depends on processing methods, temperature, freshness and storage. I cannot automatically equate them with fresh or less processed meat. Integrative veterinarians, including Judy Morgan and Karen Becker, have repeatedly urged a critical look at highly processed ingredients. To me, that is a reasonable preference, not an obligation to prove that every bag is harmful.<\/p>\n
Nor should questions about wheat, soy or possible glyphosate exposure be brushed aside. Wheat protein may be a problem for some dogs, although the idea that gluten sticks to the intestinal wall is not an established general mechanism in all dogs. GMO ingredients do not automatically mean glyphosate residues, but consumers can ask about ingredient origins and residue testing. Why should we settle for not knowing when this is food our dogs may eat every day?<\/p>\n
In my original analysis of Royal Canin Maxi, I questioned the use of wheat, maize, rice, corn gluten, soybean oil, animal fat and the term \u201cdehydrated poultry protein\u201d. Some recipes also list fresh chicken, but the whole formula matters more than a single appealing ingredient. Ingredients can vary by market and year; I am discussing the recipe originally reviewed.<\/p>\n
Dehydrated poultry protein is a dried, processed animal protein source. But from which bird species? From which tissues? How intensively was it processed? The same questions arise with dehydrated salmon protein and other heavily processed animal ingredients. The general term does not tell me those things. Organ meats can be valuable ingredients, but that is no excuse for failing to explain what is actually used.<\/p>\n
When a recipe includes several forms of maize or wheat, splitting them across names can make their total contribution less obvious at first glance. I also want to know how much protein actually comes from animal sources and what the sourcing and quality controls look like. Merely saying the recipe is \u201cscience-based\u201d does not answer those questions.<\/p>\n
The term \u201canimal fat\u201d deserves the same scrutiny. It may be a legally acceptable declaration, but I want to know which animal it came from. A manufacturer that confirms the fat comes from the same species used as the protein source gives consumers much more useful information. For me, ingredient transparency and less reliance on grains and plant protein concentrates are legitimate selection criteria.<\/p>\n
We have a dedicated article about hydrolysed protein diets in FendaF’s Health Corner, so I will not explore the entire subject again here. I do want to emphasise that a medical diet’s specific clinical purpose and its overall ingredient quality are two different questions.<\/p>\n
Hydrolysis breaks proteins into smaller fragments to reduce the likelihood of the immune system recognising them. Such food may be useful in an elimination diet, but that does not automatically answer questions about the original raw materials, intensive processing or long-term feeding. An elimination diet can also be carried out successfully with a conventional food containing one clearly identified protein source.<\/p>\n
Hydrolysed ingredients are sometimes added to ordinary recipes for entirely different purposes. These situations should not be confused.<\/p>\n
Several integrative veterinarians have criticised the practice of simply moving dogs with chronic skin or digestive problems from one processed diet to another without examining previous nutrition, gut health and possible underlying causes. I consider that criticism important. It does not mean a diagnostic elimination diet is pointless or that allergies will always disappear through \u201cdetoxification\u201d. It means controlling symptoms should not end our efforts to understand why the problem developed.<\/p>\n
My question remains: is the formula, ingredient source and processing method justified for this particular dog? Who is this diet for and for how long? We discuss hydrolysed diets<\/a> in more detail in a separate article.<\/p>\n FendaF’s practical advice<\/p>\n I have not stopped reading ingredient lists critically. Quite the opposite. The more I learn about dog food, the less willing I am to rely on attractive packaging or vague promises. But I also do not want to turn one word in a list into an entire health diagnosis. When I dislike a recipe, I will say so. When the numbers needed to establish a particular risk are missing, I will say that too.<\/p>\n The most revealing thing is often how the manufacturer or importer answers the question \u201cbut why?\u201d. Why so much pea protein? Why that particular fat? What quality of egg is used? If meaningful information is available and shared transparently, I can decide much more confidently whether a food is right for my dog. A slogan or a claim of trade secrecy about an ingredient’s origin does not inspire trust.<\/p>\n We should neither blindly worship nor blindly condemn dog food brands. Let’s take the names off the bags and look at what was actually put inside.<\/p>\n WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee (2021). Selecting the Best Food for your Pet.<\/a><\/p>\n FDA. Investigation into Potential Link between Certain Diets and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy (2018\u20132022).<\/a><\/p>\n AAFCO. What’s in the Ingredients List?<\/a><\/p>\n AAFCO. Byproducts: understanding animal by-products.<\/a><\/p>\n FDA. Animal Food Labeling and Pet Food Claims.<\/a><\/p>\n Singh & Ramaswamy (2014). Thermal and High-Pressure Inactivation Kinetics of Avidin.<\/a><\/p>\n\n
My most important conclusion<\/h2>\n
Sources<\/h3>\n