Cited by 206Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFood Safety and Hygiene

Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in raw meat‐based diets for cats and dogs

Open access
van Bree, Freek P J, Bokken, Gertie C A M, Mineur, Robin, Franssen, Frits, Opsteegh, Marieke, van der Giessen, Joke W B, Lipman, Len J A, Overgaauw, Paul A M·2018·Veterinary Record

Abstract

Feeding raw meat‐based diets (RMBDs) to companion animals has become increasingly popular. Since these diets may be contaminated with bacteria and parasites, they may pose a risk to both animal and human health. The purpose of this study was to test for the presence of zoonotic bacterial and parasitic pathogens in Dutch commercial RMBDs. We analysed 35 commercial frozen RMBDs from eight different brands. Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 was isolated from eight products (23 per cent) and extended‐spectrum beta‐lactamases‐producing E coli was found in 28 products (80 per cent). Listeria monocytogenes was present in 19 products (54 per cent), other Listeria species in 15 products (43 per cent) and Salmonella species in seven products (20 per cent). Concerning parasites, four products (11 per cent) contained Sarcocystis cruzi and another four (11 per cent) S tenella . In two products (6 per cent) Toxoplasma gondii was found. The results of this study demonstrate the presence of potential zoonotic pathogens in frozen RMBDs that may be a possible source of bacterial infections in pet animals and if transmitted pose a risk for human beings. If non‐frozen meat is fed, parasitic infections are also possible. Pet owners should therefore be informed about the risks associated with feeding their animals RMBDs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/vr.104535

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Raw pet food commonly exceeds hygiene thresholds for counts of Enterobacteriaceae.

    “Raw pet food commonly exceeds hygiene thresholds for counts of Enterobacteriaceae.”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as van Bree et al. 2018

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that 14 of 35 tested raw meat-based diets failed E. coli hygiene criteria for human consumption. The paper did not report counts for Enterobacteriaceae as a group or establish that raw pet food generally exceeds a hygiene threshold for that group; it also cautions that its non-random sample cannot support generalisation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The bacteriological quality of raw commercial pet foods, assessed by total bacterial, coliform or E. coli counts, has been noted to fail threshold levels for raw human meat products in a high proportion of sampled foods in both Europe and North America.

    “The bacteriological quality of raw commercial pet foods, assessed by total bacterial, coliform or E. coli counts, has been noted to fail threshold levels for raw human meat products in a high proportion of sampled foods in both Europe and North America (Freeman & Michel 2001, Weese et al. 2005, Kölle & Schmidt 2015, Nilsson 2015, van Bree et al. 2018).”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as van Bree et al. 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • STEC O157:H7 was isolated from around 20% of raw diet samples in a recent survey from the Netherlands.

    “STEC O157:H7 was isolated from some raw diets, around 20% of samples, in a recent survey from the Netherlands (van Bree et al. 2018)”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as van Bree et al. 2018

    The Bacterial analysis section reports E. coli O157:H7 in 8 of 35 Dutch raw-diet products (23%), consistent with ‘around 20%.’ The E. coli O157:H7 methods section describes detection of that serotype, but our copy does not establish that the isolates produced Shiga toxin; the ‘STEC’ designation is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Numbers of E. coli in frozen raw pet food commonly exceed EU limits for minced meat destined for human consumption, sometimes by two or more orders of magnitude.

    “Numbers of E. coli in frozen raw pet food commonly exceed EU limits for minced meat destined for human consumption, sometimes by two or more orders of magnitude”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as van Bree et al. 2018

    The Discussion (page not available) reports that 14 of 35 frozen raw pet foods failed E. coli hygiene criteria for meat intended for human consumption. However, the Bacterial analysis reports a maximum of 11,000 cfu/g—22 times the stated 500 cfu/g upper threshold, not two orders of magnitude above it. The claim's magnitude is therefore not supported for that threshold. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Numbers of E. coli in frozen raw pet food exceed the EU absolute threshold (5×10^3 cfu/g) for raw pet food at the point of production.

    “and also exceed the EU absolute threshold (5×103 cfu/g; Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011) for raw pet food at the point of production (Nilsson 2015, van Bree et al. 2018)”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as van Bree et al. 2018

    The Bacterial analysis section reports E. coli counts as high as 1.1×10^4 cfu/g in the frozen raw meat-based diets studied, so at least one measured product exceeded 5×10^3 cfu/g. Our copy does not identify 5×10^3 cfu/g as an EU threshold or establish the products’ counts at the point of production; the study tested the products after thawing them. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. HANDL S. The "BARF" trend -advantages, drawbacks and risks. Vet Focus 2014;24:16-23.
  2. LUMBiS R, CHAN DL. The raw deal: clarifying the nutritional and public health issues regarding raw meat-based diets. The Veterinary Nurse 2015;6:336-41. · DOI
  3. STOGDALE L, DiEHL G. Just how pathogenic to pets and humans are the bacteria in the concentrations found in raw pet foods. Can Vet J 2005;46:967.
  4. WEETH LP. Focus on nutrition: home-prepared diets for dogs and cats. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2013;35:E3.
  5. VODEGEL N, VAN DiJk, E. P, OVERGAAUW PAM. Hyperthyroidism in a dog after raw meat feeding. Tijdschr Diergeneesk 2016;6:32-3.
  6. SCHLESiNGER DP, JOFFE DJ. Raw food diets in companion animals: a critical review. Can Vet J 2011;52:50-4.
  7. LENz J, JOFFE D, kAUFFMAN M, et al. Perceptions, practices, and consequences asso- ciated with foodborne pathogens and the feeding of raw meat to dogs. Can Vet J 2009;50:637-43.
  8. FiNLEy R, RiBBLE C, ARAMiNi J, et al. The risk of salmonellae shedding by dogs fed Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets. Can Vet J2007;48:69-75.
  9. FiNLEy R, REiD-SMiTH R, RiBBLE C, et al. The occurrence and antimicrobial suscep- tibility of salmonellae isolated from commercially available canine raw food diets in three Canadian cities. Zoonoses Public Health 2008;55:462-9. · DOI · Paper page
  10. JOFFE DJ, SCHLESiNGER DP. Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Can Vet J 2002;43:441-2.
  11. MEHLENBACHER S, CHURCHiLL J, OLSEN kE, et al. Availability, brands, labelling and Salmonella contamination of raw pet food in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Zoonoses Public Health 2012;59:513-20. · DOI · Paper page
  12. WEESE JS, ROUSSEAU J, ARROyO L. Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets. Can Vet J 2005;46:513-6.
  13. EWERS C, GROBBEL M, BETHE A, et al. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases-producing gram-negative bacteria in companion animals: action is clearly warranted!. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2011;124:94-101.
  14. RUBiN JE, PiTOUT JD. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase, carbapenemase and AmpC producing Enterobacteriaceae in companion animals. Vet Microbiol 2014;170:10-18. · DOI
  15. GRUNTAR i, BiASizzO M, kUšAR D, et al. Campylobacter jejuni contamination of broiler carcasses: Population dynamics and genetic profiles at slaughterhouse level. Food Microbiol 2015;50:97-101. · DOI
  16. MORé G, SCHARES S, MAkSiMOV A, et al. Development of a multiplex real time PCR to differentiate Sarcocystis spp. affecting cattle. Vet Parasitol 2013;197:85-94. · DOI
  17. ERBER M. Life cycle of Sarcocystis tenella in sheep and dog. Z Parasitenkd 1982;68:171-80. · DOI
  18. OPSTEEGH M, LANGELAAR M, SPRONG H, et al. Direct detection and genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii in meat samples using magnetic capture and PCR. Int J Food Microbiol 2010;139:193-201. · DOI
  19. CHOMEL BB, SUN B. zoonoses in the bedroom. Emerg Infect Dis 2011;17:167-72. · DOI · Paper page
  20. LAMBERTiNi E, BUCHANAN RL, NARROD C, et al. Transmission of bacterial zoonotic pathogens between pets and humans: the role of pet food. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2016;56:364-418. · DOI
  21. GREENE CE. infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 4 th ed. St Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Saunders, 2012.
  22. HOGG RA, HOLMES JP, GHEBREHEWET S, et al. Probable zoonotic transmission of vero- cytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O 157 by dogs. Vet Rec 2009;164:304-5.
  23. MAJOWiCz SE, SCALLAN E, JONES-BiTTON A, et al. Global incidence of human Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections and deaths: a systematic review and knowl- edge synthesis. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2014;11:447-55. · DOI
  24. TREVENA WB, HOOPER RS, WRAy C, et al. Vero cytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 associated with companion animals. Vet Rec 1996;138:400.
  25. WEBER A, POTEL J, SCHäFER-SCHMiDT R, et al. [Studies on the occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in fecal samples of domestic and companion animals]. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 1995;198:117-23.
  26. WEBER A, PLAGEMAN O. Listeria monocytogenes as cause of abortion in dogs. Kleintierpraxis 1991;36:93-4.
  27. STiVER SL, FRAziER kS, MAUEL MJ, et al. Septicemic salmonellosis in two cats fed a raw-meat diet. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:538-42. · DOI
  28. STONE GG, CHENGAPPA MM, OBERST RD, et al. Application of polymerase chain reac- tion for the correlation of Salmonella serovars recovered from greyhound feces with their diet. J Vet Diagn Invest 1993;5:378-85. · DOI
  29. PiRES SM, ViEiRA AR, HALD T, et al. Source attribution of human salmonellosis: an overview of methods and estimates. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2014;11:667-76. · DOI
  30. LEONARD F. Salmonella infection and carriage: the importance of dogs and their owners. Vet Rec 2014;174:92-3. · DOI
  31. HOELzER k, MORENO SWiTT Ai, WiEDMANN M. Animal contact as a source of human non-typhoidal salmonellosis. Vet Res 2011;42:34. · DOI
  32. SATO y, MORi T, kOyAMA T, et al. Salmonella virchow infection in an infant transmitted by household dogs. J Vet Med Sci 2000;62:767-9. · DOI
  33. yOUNUS M, WiLkiNS MJ, DAViES HD, et al. The role of exposures to animals and other risk factors in sporadic, non-typhoidal Salmonella infections in Michigan children. Zoonoses Public Health 2010;57:e170-176. · DOI
  34. CLARk C, CUNNiNGHAM J, AHMED R, et al. Characterization of Salmonella associated with pig ear dog treats in Canada. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:3962-8. · DOI
  35. CAVALLO SJ, DALy ER, SEiFERTH J, et al. Human outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium associated with exposure to locally made chicken jerky pet treats, New Hampshire, 2013. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2015;12:441-6. · DOI
  36. WEESE JS, ROUSSEAU J. Survival of Salmonella Copenhagen in food bowls following contamination with experimentally inoculated raw meat: effects of time, cleaning, and disinfection. Can Vet J 2006;47:887-9.
  37. SCHMiDT VM, PiNCHBECk GL, NUTTALL T, et al. Antimicrobial resistance risk factors and characterisation of faecal E. coli isolated from healthy Labrador retrievers in the United kingdom. Prev Vet Med 2015;119:31-40. · DOI
  38. MARkELL Ek, VOGE M. Protozoa. in:Medical parasitology. 9th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier inc, 2006.
  39. DUBEy JP, LiNDSAy DS. Neosporosis, toxoplasmosis, and sarcocystosis in ruminants. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2006;22:645-71. · DOI
  40. VANGEEL L, HOUF k, GELDHOF P, et al. Bovine sarcosporidiosis or eosinophilic myositis? Vlaams Diergeneesk Tijdschr 2013;83:263-7.
  41. DUBEy JP. Lesions in sheep inoculated with Sarcocystis tenella sporocysts from canine feces. Vet Parasitol 1988;26:237-52. · DOI
  42. GESTRiCH R, HEyDORN AO. [Studies on the survival time of Sarcocystis in the meat of slaughter animals]. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1974;87:475-6.
  43. kOTULA AW, DUBEy JP, SHARAR Ak, et al. Effect of freezing on infectivity of toxoplasma gondii tissue cysts in pork. J Food Prot 1991;54:687-90. on 13 February 2019 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.104535 on 11 January 2018. Downloaded from · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Bree, F. P. J., Bokken, G. C. A. M., Mineur, R., Franssen, F., Opsteegh, M., van der Giessen, J. W. B., Lipman, L. J. A., & Overgaauw, P. A. M.
Affiliations
  • Division of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Bilthoven The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Overgaauw, Paul A M
Venue
Veterinary Record
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01
Volume
182
Issue
2
Pages
50-50
ISSN
  • 0042-4900 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-7670
OpenAlex
W2782560035
Cited by
206
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Veterinary Record (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
Keywords
raw meat-based diets, zoonotic pathogens, Escherichia coli O157:H7, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Sarcocystis cruzi, Sarcocystis tenella, Toxoplasma gondii, commercial pet food, cats, dogs, food safety, parasite contamination
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Diet, Dogs, Food Microbiology, Humans, Meat, Netherlands, Zoonoses, Food Parasitology, Raw Foods

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