Common Confounders of Dietary Elimination Trials Contain the Antigens Soy, Pork, and Beef

Determination of Mammalian Deoxyribonucleic Acid in Commercial Canine Treats and Supplements

Feeding an elimination diet exclusively is currently the only accurate diagnostic test for an adverse food reaction in dogs and cats. However, owner compliance has been identified as a challenge, and the inability to limit exposure to other items (including treats and supplements) is a remarkable reason for failure. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the presence of declared and undeclared mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercially available canine treats and supplements using polymerase chain reaction methodology. Eight treat products and 20 supplement products were analyzed for the DNA of 10 mammalian species (bison, cat, cow, dog, goat, horse, mouse, rat, pig, and sheep). The results showed that 88% (7/8) of treats and 40% (8/20) of supplements were found to contain at least one source of undeclared mammalian DNA. Undeclared pig and cow DNA were the most frequently identified, and there were only two instances of negative results for declared species. Because of the frequent finding of undeclared mammalian DNA in the assessed products, avoiding using treats and supplements during elimination trials is recommended.

IgE reactivity to milk components in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions

We investigated the IgE reactivity to crude and purified milk antigens in the sera of 112 dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions (CAFRs). Of the 112 dogs, 33 (29%) had specific IgE for crude milk antigens. In the dogs with milk-specific IgE, IgE reactivity to casein, bovine serum albumin (BSA), α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, and bovine IgG were 81%, 85%, 39%, 27%, and 35%, respectively. Casein and BSA may be important allergens in dogs with CAFRs. Some canine vaccines contain casein hydrolysate as a stabilizer and the pooled serum with anti-casein IgE showed IgE reactivity to the vaccines containing it. Information about IgE reactivity to casein in dogs with CAFRs could be useful for predicting adverse reactions to the vaccines including casein hydrolysate.

Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets

Background

Adverse food reactions (AFRs) are defined as abnormal responses to an ingested food or food additive. Diagnosis and treatment of AFRs consist of the complete elimination of these ingredients in the dietary trial. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of undeclared ingredients in commercial limited-antigen dry food diets that can compromise the results and efficacy of dietary elimination trails. The aim of this study was to assess a selection of commercial canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods for the potential cross-contamination of animal proteins from origins not mentioned on the label.

Results

Eleven canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods (9 novel animal protein foods, 1 vegetarian and 1 hydrolyzed) were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence DNA of animal and vegetal origins. PCR analysis confirmed the contamination of 6 of the 11 (54.5%) limited-antigen wet diets with undeclared animal protein. One of these 6 diets was solely composed of animal protein sources completely unrelated to those declared on the label. None of the foods containing horse meat or fish were contaminated, and neither were the vegetarian or the hydrolyzed food products. Moreover, the results show that had zoological class primers only been used to check for cross-class contaminations, as are generally used in the pet food industry for in-house checks, the apparent contamination rate would have been significantly underestimated: less than 20% (3/11), instead of the actual rate of 54.7% using species-specific primers.

Conclusion

This study reveals a high rate of cross-contamination in dietetic limited-antigen wet canine and feline foods, as previously described for dietetic dry limited-antigen foods (reported to be more than 80%). These results add new fuel to the discussion about the potential causes underlying the failure of elimination diets, since animal protein contaminants may actually be present in the commercial dietetic limited-antigen diets. AFRs may therefore occur as a result of inadequate practices in the pet food industry.

Qualitative and quantitative detection of chicken deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in dry dog foods

Chicken is a common protein source in pet foods and is concurrently listed among food allergens. Commercial over-the-counter (OTC) diets with an alternative animal protein source are considered suitable for dietary elimination trials by pet owners. The potential presence of undeclared chicken-derived ingredients in these diets can compromise the outcome of the trial during the diagnosis of adverse food reactions. The aim of this study was to selectively verify the absence or presence of chicken DNA in 10 OTC dry canine foods, using qualitative and quantitative approaches. The method of identification of chicken-derived protein was elaborated with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, whereas quantitative real-time PCR was used for the quantitative assessment. In most of the analysed samples, the chicken DNA was detectable; however, the quantified amounts were predominantly low, although differences between batches were observed.

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (5): discrepancies between ingredients and labeling in commercial pet foods

Background

Elimination dietary trials for the diagnosis of adverse food reactions (food allergies) in dogs and cats are often conducted with commercial pet foods while relying on their label to select those not containing previously-eaten ingredients. There are concerns that industrial pet foods might contain unlisted food sources that could negate the usefulness of performing food trials. Furthermore, unidentified ingredients might cause clinical reactions in patients hypersensitive to such items.

Results

We searched two article databases on July 7, 2017 and January 12, 2018 for relevant articles, and we screened abstracts from the leading international veterinary dermatology congresses for suitable material. Additional citations were found in the selected papers. In all, we extracted data from 17 articles and one abstract. The studies varied both in the number of pet foods tested (median: 15; range: 1 to 210) and that of ingredients specifically evaluated (median: 4; range: 1 to 11). Studies most often employed either PCR to detect DNA or ELISA to identify proteins from one or more vegetal or animal species; two studies used mass spectrometry to increase the number of detectable proteins. The various methods found ingredients that were not on the label in 0 to 83% (median: 45%) of tested diets; this percentage varied between 33 and 83% in pet foods with “novel/limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Similarly, ingredients were found to be missing from the label in 0 to 38% (median: 1%) of tested foods. Finally, six studies evaluated, among others, several hydrolysate-containing pet foods: mislabeling with unlabeled or missing ingredients was found only in one diet.

Conclusions

The mislabeling of pet foods appears rather common, even in those with “novel” or “limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Unexpected added ingredients are more frequently detected than those missing from the label. There is insufficient information to determine if the presence of a contaminating component will lead to a clinical reaction in a patient allergic to it, as challenges with the mislabeled foods were not performed in dogs or cats allergic to such ingredients. The testing of hydrolysate-containing pet foods found only one instance of possible mislabeling.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1346-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparing immediate-type food allergy in humans and companion animals-revealing unmet needs

Adverse food reactions occur in human as well as veterinary patients. Systematic comparison may lead to improved recommendations for prevention and treatment in both. In this position paper, we summarize the current knowledge on immediate-type food allergy vs other food adverse reactions in companion animals, and compare this to the human situation. While the prevalence of food allergy in humans has been well studied for some allergens, this remains to be investigated for animal patients, where owner-reported as well as veterinarian-diagnosed food adverse reactions are on the increase. The characteristics of the disease in humans vs dogs, cats, and horses are most often caused by similar, but sometimes species-dependent different pathophysiological mechanisms, prompting the specific clinical symptoms, diagnoses, and treatments. Furthermore, little is known about the allergen molecules causative for type I food allergy in animals, which, like in human patients, could represent predictive biomarkers for risk evaluation. The definite diagnosis of food allergy relies-as in humans-on elimination diet and provocation tests. Besides allergen avoidance in daily practice, novel treatment options and tolerization strategies are underway. Taken together, numerous knowledge gaps were identified in veterinary food allergy, which need to be filled by systematic comparative studies.

Determination of mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercial vegetarian and vegan diets for dogs and cats

The determination of undeclared ingredients in pet food using different analytical methods has been reported in recent years, raising concerns regarding adequate quality control, dietary efficacy and the potential for purposeful adulteration. The objective of this study was to determine the presence or absence of mammalian DNA using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on diets marketed as vegetarian or vegan for dogs and cats. The diets were tested in duplicate; two samples were purchased approximately 3 to 4 months apart with different lot numbers. Multiplex PCR-targeted mitochondrial DNA with two species-specific primers was used to amplify and sequence two sections of the cytochrome b gene for each of the 11 mammalian species. Half of the diets assessed (7/14) were positive for one or more undeclared mammalian DNA source (bovine, porcine, or ovine), and the result was repeatable for one or more species in six diets. While most of the detected DNA was found at both time points, in some cases, the result was positive only at one time point, suggesting the presence may have been due to unintentional cross-contact with animal-sourced ingredients. DNA from feline, cervine, canine, caprine, equine, murine (mouse and rat) and leporine was not identified in any samples. However, evidence of mammalian DNA does not confirm adulteration by the manufacturer nor elucidate its clinical significance when consumed by animals that may benefit from a vegetarian or vegan diet.