The Grain-Free Dog Food Scare: Follow the Evidence. Follow the Money.
The grain-free dog food scare started with a real concern about heart disease, but the early research did not prove that all grain-free foods were dangerous. Some researchers had financial ties to competing pet-food companies. Several named brands later introduced foods with grains, and Mars eventually bought Acana and Orijen. I think the business interests behind this story deserve a closer look. My suspicion that the scare could have helped set up a buyout remains a theory.
Remember when the grain-free dog food you bought because you thought you were making a healthier choice suddenly sounded like it was going to kill your dog?
You had researched ingredients. You had spent the extra money. Then came the headlines about heart disease and a list of familiar brands. Suddenly, the bag in your pantry looked like a threat.
Several of my clients brought those articles to my attention. Nutrition matters in my work. If someone suggests that a food I recommend could hurt a dog, I want to know about it.
There were things that bothered me as I read. But what really stopped me was the list.
Acana. Zignature. Taste of the Wild. Fromm.
I liked these foods. I had used them and recommended them after doing my own research. That did not make them perfect. It meant I needed more than a frightening headline before changing my position.
To me, that list worked like a blacklist. A major publication can damage a business's reputation overnight. Readers might forget the fine print. They remember the brand name.
So I started digging. What had the research actually found? Who was paying for it? And who stood to benefit?
The answers were messier than the message reaching my clients.
In July 2018, the FDA began investigating reports of dilated cardiomyopathy, or DCM, in dogs eating certain diets. DCM weakens the heart muscle and can lead to heart failure. It deserved attention.
That month, the New York Times published “Popular Grain-Free Dog Foods May Be Linked to Heart Disease.” The article described veterinarians' observations and research still underway. It was not reporting a finished experiment proving that removing grains caused heart disease.
In June 2019, the FDA named brands that appeared most often in reports. The New York Post covered the update, followed by the Times article “F.D.A. Names 16 Brands of Dog Food That May Be Linked to Canine Heart Disease.”
The word may matters. The headlines included it. But by the time the story reached some of my clients, a possible connection had become a reason to fear entire brands.
Journalism should help us understand what is known and what is still a question. If a list is going to shape what people buy, its limits deserve as much attention as the names.
So what did the study say?
The December 2018 golden retriever study examined 24 dogs with DCM and low levels of taurine, a nutrient important to heart health. It also included 52 apparently healthy golden retrievers. Twenty-three of the affected dogs had eaten foods that were grain-free, high in legumes such as peas and lentils, or both.
Dogs improved after treatment that included changing their food and giving taurine supplements. That mattered.
But several things changed at once. The researchers were studying dogs already eating these foods, rather than testing otherwise identical recipes with and without grain. They could not establish exactly what caused the illness.
The study gave researchers a reason to keep investigating. It did not prove that every grain-free recipe was dangerous or that adding grain would prevent heart disease.
The FDA's brand chart also counted reports, rather than comparing the chance of medical complications on each brand. It listed brands named at least ten times. The FDA acknowledged that publicity and awareness could affect which cases got reported.
To understand risk, you also need to know how many dogs eat the food. Ten reported cases among a thousand dogs would mean something very different from ten among a million. A list of reports cannot answer that question on its own.
The FDA's later explanation said reports involved foods both with and without grains. It also said there was not enough clear information to declare the diets unsafe and require their removal from the market.
Then grains got a makeover.
Several of the named brands introduced grain-inclusive options in the years following the warnings. Taste of the Wild announced Ancient Grains in September 2019, using sorghum, millet, quinoa, and chia. Zignature announced Select Cuts in February 2020, a line containing grains but no legumes.
Acana offers Wholesome Grains recipes with oats, sorghum, and millet. Orijen launched Amazing Grains in May 2022.
Ancient. Wholesome. Amazing. Grain was getting the full premium treatment.
To an owner who had chosen grain-free for health reasons, that is a hell of a marketing pivot. I see a commercial compromise: offer worried customers grains while keeping the premium image that attracted them in the first place. Same familiar brand, different promise on the bag.
Some companies already sold both kinds. Fromm pointed out in 2019 that it had made food with grains for decades. This was not every brand starting from scratch.
Still, the new products showed how quickly the choices on the shelf could change while researchers were working out what was happening.
Then I got to the money.
A December 2018 commentary reviewing the issue listed several authors' industry relationships from the previous three years. Among them, Lisa Freeman reported research support from Purina and Royal Canin, consulting work for Purina, and sponsored talks for Purina and Hill's. John Rush reported research support from Purina and Royal Canin, plus consulting for Purina. Darcy Adin reported research support from Purina.
Follow those names to their owners:
Pet-food company | Parent company |
Purina | |
Royal Canin | |
Hill's Pet Nutrition |
These companies sell competing products. Their ties to people shaping the discussion deserve attention.
A 2022 study makes the funding even clearer: it names Nestlé Purina PetCare and the Barkley Fund as supporters. It reported improvements in heart measurements after diet changes and treatment in dogs previously eating grain-free foods or foods high in legumes or potatoes.
The findings matter. So does the funding. When a company stands to gain from research it supports, that is a potential conflict of interest. Readers should know about it, and independent researchers should be able to check the results.
As a business owner, I understand wanting to sell products. What bothers me is treating financial ties as irrelevant while asking customers to accept advice as independent. If a competitor paid people giving advice about my business, my clients would have questions. So would I.
The concern goes beyond whether someone changed a result. Money can influence which questions get studied, which experts get heard, and which findings get promoted. I want those relationships visible from the start.
The argument has also reached court.
In 2024, competing food company KetoNatural sued Hill's, accusing it of a campaign to falsely link competing diets with heart disease. Hill's contested the claims. In July 2026, an appeals court allowed part of the case to move forward, involving Hill's website and materials for veterinarians. Other parts stayed dismissed.
That was permission to continue the case, not a finding that the accusations were true. KetoNatural has its own business interests, too. I want to see what the evidence shows.
Then comes the acquisition.
In July 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Nestlé was in talks to buy a majority stake in Champion Petfoods, the company behind Acana and Orijen, for more than $2 billion. That reported interest came before the FDA's warning.
Years later, Mars bought Champion, completing the deal in February 2023.
Both Acana and Orijen had appeared on the FDA's list. Yet Mars celebrated them as trusted brands and welcomed them into its business.
If you were an owner who had come away believing those names meant dangerous food, that would make you stop and stare.
The company behind Royal Canin now owned Acana and Orijen, too. Choosing between those brands could mean sending your money to the same parent company.
Here is the theory I keep coming back to: could damaging publicity help a large competitor twice? First by drawing customers away from a rival, then by weakening that rival's position when it comes time to sell?
In its bluntest form: shit on the competition, knock down its value, then buy it.
If that were the strategy, the prize would be bigger than selling another bag of food. It would be owning the competing brands, their customers, and their place on the shelf.
How did the controversy affect Champion's business? Did it matter in the sale negotiations? Did competing companies influence the message reaching dog owners? I would like to see those questions pursued as aggressively as the original food scare.
This is why ownership matters. A brand can look like an alternative to a huge corporation while belonging to that very corporation. As a customer and a trainer, I want that information plainly available.
Where does that leave us?
In December 2022, the FDA said it would wait for meaningful new scientific information before issuing more public updates. It also stressed that reports alone cannot prove cause and effect. That did not declare every grain-free food safe or settle the question of diet-related heart disease.
For my clients, my recommendations have to remain open to new evidence. Having used a food successfully does not make me immune to being wrong. Neither does a big company name or a confident expert make a claim immune to questions.
I want to look at the actual recipe, the dog's needs, and how the manufacturer develops and checks its food. If heart disease is a concern, involve your veterinarian and an appropriate specialist.
But you do not need a degree in science to ask who paid for a study. You can ask what it actually found, whether a warning concerns one recipe or a whole brand, and whether someone recommending a replacement has a financial relationship with its maker.
Those are reasonable questions. Asking them should not make you difficult or “anti-science.”
My clients trust me with their dogs. I take that personally. I want clear evidence, honest limits, and financial ties out in the open.
If a company wants a place in that relationship, it can earn my trust.
It does not get to borrow my fear.
Comments