Availability, Brands, Labelling and Salmonella Contamination of Raw Pet Food in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Area
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to characterize the commercially available raw meat pet food diets in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area by (i) determining the number and types of available diets; (ii) assessing pet food stores and brand labels for the provision of precautionary statements regarding the risk of foodborne illness from raw meat; (ii) assessing the labels for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) required content and nutrient-related information; and (iv) culturing purchased diets for the presence of Salmonella. Sixty raw meat diets were purchased, representing 11 different brands from eight different stores. Diets were readily available in the form of raw-frozen, dehydrated or freeze-dried varieties from different protein sources, such as lamb, beef, chicken or duck. All stores promoted raw meat diets; however, none provided foodborne illness warnings. Brands varied greatly in their precautionary statements; none of the diets underwent feeding trials; and nutritional adequacy substantiation was through formulation only. The first five ingredients tended to consist of meat, organ meat (by-products), vegetables, grains and ground bones. Currently, it is required that pet foods have an AAFCO nutritional adequacy statement and provide a guaranteed analysis table. Three brands did not meet these FDA requirements. Thirty-one (51.7%) of the 60 raw meat diets underwent some degree of processing including dehydration, freeze-d…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Surveys of raw pet foods in North America have reported proportions of Salmonella-positive samples ranging between 7.1%, 8%, 9%, 20% and 21%.
“Surveys of raw pet foods in North America (generally frozen and obtained through commercial outlets) have reported proportions of Salmonella‐positive samples ranging between 7.1% (Strohmeyer et al. 2006), 8% (Nemser et al. 2014), 9% (Mehlenbacher et al. 2012), 20% (Weese et al. 2005) and 21% (Finley et al. 2008).”
From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Mehlenbacher et al. 2012
Serovars isolated in studies and surveillance include those considered of particular significance for human salmonellosis.
“Serovars isolated in studies and surveillance of ingredients and raw food for pets or working dogs are diverse (Strohmeyer et al. 2006) and include those considered to be of particular significance for human salmonellosis (Chengappa et al. 1993, Finley et al. 2008, Mehlenbacher et al. 2012, Bacci et al. 2019).”
From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Mehlenbacher et al. 2012
Researchers sampling raw pet foods from commercial outlets have commonly noted that package warnings about preparation and hygienic handling are absent.
“It has been noted by researchers sampling raw pet foods from commercial outlets that package warnings about preparation and hygienic handling of these pet foods are commonly absent (Finley et al. 2006, Strohmeyer et al. 2006, Mehlenbacher et al. 2012, Bojanic et al. 2017, van Bree et al. 2018) and that packaging may be defective and leaky (Bojanic et al. 2017).”
From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Mehlenbacher et al. 2012
Commercially available raw diets are commonly formulated without the benefit of feeding studies.
“Indeed, commercially available raw diets are commonly formulated without the benefit of feeding studies (Mehlenbacher et al. 2012).”
From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Mehlenbacher et al. 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Mehlenbacher, S., Churchill, J., Olsen, K. E., & Bender, J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mehlenbacher, S.
- Bender, J. B.
- Venue
- Zoonoses and Public Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-05-02
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 513-520
- ISSN
- 1863-1959 (ISSN-L)
- 1863-2378
- OpenAlex
- W2108647620
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoonoses and Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- raw pet food, raw meat diet, Salmonella contamination, Minneapolis-St. Paul
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Feed, Consumer Product Safety, Food Labeling, Food Microbiology, Humans, Meat, Minnesota, Salmonella, Salmonella Infections, Serotyping, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Zoonoses, United States Department of Agriculture, Drug Resistance, Bacterial, Food, Preserved, Pets
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
