Smoking may be hazardous to your pet's health.

There is a lot of talk about how dangerous smoking is for an individual doing the smoking as well as how dangerous it is for the people around the smoker, but not much has been said about our pets.  There aren't that many studies in today's journals about how breathing in second-hand smoke affects our pets, but the few that are suggest it is just as dangerous to them as it is to any person.  I am going to present some of the studies below for your information.  If you smoke in the house with your pets or know someone that does you may want to reconsider your habits, not only for your sake, but for the sake of your pets.

1. A study done in 1998 looking back at cases of nasal cancer seen at the University of Colorado concluded that long nosed dogs had a higher chance of nasal cancer and short nosed dogs had a higher rate of lung cancer if they lived in the house of a smoker.  Apparently the long muzzle and nasal passages act as a better filter preventing the second-hand smoke from reaching the lungs.  This may be the reason dogs with long noses get nasal cancer more frequently and brachycephalic (short nosed dogs) are more prone to the lung cancer. 
John S. Reif, Christa Bruns, and Kimberty S. Lower. “Cancer of the Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Pet Dogs.” American Journal of Epidemiology.  1998 Mar 1;147(5):488-92.  

2. In another study done at Colorado State University they found that there is a linear trend in the association between exposure to second-hand smoke and risk of developing lymphoma.  This means that the longer the cat is exposed to second hand smoke the more likely they are to develop cancer (specifically lymphoma).

Elizabeth R. Bertone, Laura A. Snyder, and Antony S. Moore. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Risk of Malignant Lymphoma in Pet Cats” American Journal of Epidemiology.  2002 Apr;156(5)

 

3. A study done on Yorkshire Terriers showed that dogs that lived in homes with smokers showed changes in their airway due to the exposure to second-hand smoke.  None of the dogs that lived in homes where no one smoked showed these airway changes.  The importance of this study is to show that breathing in second-hand smoke does have a physiological affect on the dogs breathing it.  This is a first step in determining what the exact effects are.

Marcello Rodrigues Roza; Carlos Alberto Assis Viegas. “The dog as a passive smoker: effects of exposure to environmental cigarette smoke on domestic dogs.”  Nicotine Tob Res. 2007 Nov;9(11):1171-6.

 

4. Chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer may be linked to second-hand smoke.  A preliminary study done in Germany showed that within 12 weeks of exposure to second-hand smoke rats showed morphologic pancreatic damage and inflammation.

Uwe A Wittel¹; Ulrich T Hopt; Surinder K Batra . "Cigarette smoke-induced pancreatic damage: experimental data." Langenbecks Arch Surg. July 2008;393(4):581-8. 62 Refs 

While there is no conclusive evidence as of yet that second-hand smoke is dangerous for your pets, there is evidence that it may be.  It is kind of like knowing that playing in the road could result in getting hit by a car.  If you don't play in the road then there is almost no chance of getting hit.  If you do play in the road then your risk increases.  You may or may not get hit and unlike smoking where the dangers are invisible, you can at least see the car coming most of the time.  Just some food for thought :)

Facts and Fictions about Raw/BARF diets in dogs and cats

My best friend just consulted me about a case where there is a family dispute on what to feed one of the dogs.  The owner believes in feeding a good quality commercial food, but her family members are a huge supporter of the BARF/Raw only diet.  In helping my friend do some research on the subject I decided to write my blog (which I have been neglecting lately) about this.  As we all know you can find just about anything you want on the internet.  I am sure if I tried I could find 50 sites telling me the world was about to be taken over by aliens and that drinking water was hazardous to my health.  I could then turn around and find 50 more sites that completely contradict these and they all will sound very legitimate.  I am endeavoring in this blog to present the scientific known facts and studies about feeding raw diets.  I will say that I am biased more towards commercial diets because I believe in the research that has been put into many of them and while the companies want to make a profit, they would not do so if their foods were the cause of death and destruction like many people claim.

Canis Lupis

Myth: Dogs are Wolves:   Many proponents for the raw diet latch onto the belief that because dogs are descendant from wolves that they are better off eating like a wild wolf would.  In doing so they are throwing out over 100,000 years of evolution where man has selectively bred and adapted the domestic dog to live with us.  The modern dog has been thriving on our left-over, cooked food for all this time and has hence adapted to it.  The dogs that couldn't survive on this diet did not reproduce and died our many millennium ago.  It should also be noted that wild wolves that are kept in zoos live on average at least 50% longer than their wild counterparts and ....drum roll please.....they are fed a commercial dog food!  The AZA Nutrition Advisory Group recommends "to provide a portion of the nutrients through a pelleted, extruded, canned, etc. feed. These products oftentimes are referred to as "nutritionally complete" as they have been formulated by the manufacturer to be nutritionally complete for a particular species. The products are designed to provide all of the required nutrients to the target species and the addition of other foods/feeds can either dilute or complement these products."

Fact: Raw diets can be dangerous to human health:  Human infection with salmonella through the dog is a much higher risk when fed raw diet. According to Weese et al.(1), 

"This preliminary study found that 30% of stool samples from dogs fed homemade BARF diets contained various Salmonella serovars, whereas none of the samples from dogs fed commercial dry diets contained Salmonella spp. ...and 80% of BARF food samples cultured positive for Salmonella spp." 

According to Joffe et. al (2)

Abstract: "Twenty-five commercial raw diets for dogs and cats were evaluated bacteriologically. Coliforms were present in all diets, ranging from 3.5 × 10³ to 9.4 × 10⁶ CFU/g (mean 8.9 × 10⁵; standard deviation 1.9 × 10⁶). Escherichia coli was identified in 15/25 (64%) diets; however, E. coli O157 was not detected. Salmonella spp. were detected in 5/25 (20%) diets; 1 each of beef-, lamb-, quail-, chicken-, and ostrich-based diets. Sporeforming bacteria were identified from 4/25 (16%) samples on direct culture and 25/25 (100%) samples using enrichment culture. Clostridium perfringens was identified in 5/25 (20%) samples. A toxigenic strain of C. difficile was isolated from one turkeybased food. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 1/25 (4%) diets. Campylobacter spp. were not isolated from any of the diets."

This means that even though you are careful to wash you hands after preparing the dog's dinner, the dog could infect you, your child, or your aged parents with Salmonella.  I've had Salmonella once (got it from saving a soft shelled turtle from the middle of the road) and I can tell you I wanted to die, I didn't but if I had not been young and healthy I very well could have. 

Dipping the meat in boiling water for 3-5 minutes will at least kill off many of the surface bacteria and may help to decrease the chance of infection, but that requires cooking at least part of the food.

Myth: Raw diets are better for a dog or cat's teeth than commercial diets: There have been several studies done looking at skulls of wild dogs and cats and comparing the dental health with our commercially fed companion animals.   One thing raw diets have in favor is that they seem to decrease the amount of calculus present on the teeth, they do not however prevent the development of periodontal disease.  In fact, seeing a mouth filled with clean looking teeth may prevent the animal from receiving adequate dental care and predispose them to the loss of more teeth than would be necessary. 

According to Applied Veterinary Clinical Nutrition a study done on wild dog skulls in Africa showed 

"Signs of teeth wearing was seen in 83% of teeth, and 48% of skulls had fractured teeth....evidence of periodontitis in 41%.","..., the wild dog on a "natural" diet is affected by dental disease at similar rates to domesticated dogs, and surprisingly, the "natural" diet does not protect against dental disease. This is despite the efficacy of preventing the formation of calculus."

Another study showed(4) in a study of feral cats on Marion Island, the skulls of 301 cats that had been trapped and killed were examined. Evidence of periodontitis was found in 61.8% of cats and 14.8% of teeth which is similar to what we see in our pet felines.

The act or regular chewing is more effective in prevention of gingivitis and calculus so adding good chew toys such as Greenies, raw hide, etc. are the most effective method (second only to regular daily teeth brushing) of preventing dental disease.  Also note that dogs fed raw diets with bones, or dogs given bones to chew on are more likely to break their teeth which will then require dental care.

Myth: Raw diets are more natural and therefore better. This is a point that in my opinion is mixed.  A good, nutritionally balanced, home-cooked diet made with organic human-grade food is probably better and more nutritious than commercial foods.  Just like eating fresh fruit is better than eating canned for us.  This being said, it is very difficult to feed a truly balanced diet.  To properly feed a home-prepared diet you should consult a veterinary nutritionist.  It will be a lot more involved than just going to the grocery store and getting a package of chicken thighs and a liver and heart or two.  It will require careful measuring of numerous ingredients and strict adherence to the recipe to prevent your pet from malnutrition.  The next difficult part is to get your pet to eat every component of his diet.  Like a kid they will pick out the parts they like and leave the less delicious pieces in their bowl.  Blending it all together isn't an option because part of the benefit of a raw diet is feeding it in it's natural state.

Malnutrition may take years to become apparent so don't assume after a few months since nothing bad has happened, nothing will.  In today's day and age, many vet's are not used to seeing dietary induced diseases anymore and getting an accurate diagnosis on your pet may be difficult if that is what is wrong with it.  Why would a modern vet expect to see diseases related to zinc, vitamin a, or taurine deficiency when they are almost non-existent because of today's well-balanced commercial foods.

As an aside it is also very expensive to feed a balanced home-cooked diet.

Myth: Cooking destroys all the best nutrients:   

Raw diet supporters like to claim that cooking destroys nutrients, so processed foods must be nutrient deficient. It is true that some nutrients are destroyed by cooking, but the relationship between temperature and cooking time and the final level of these nutrients in the food is well established, and commercial foods are supplemented to account for this and extensively tested in vitro and in vivo to ensure adequate nutrient levels. Other nutrients, particularly carbohydrates, are made more available by cooking.^22,23 And cooking destroys many parasites and bacterial organisms responsible for serious foodborne illness.(5)

Challenge: As will all alternative medicine there is a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting how effective it is and you get many people that are staunch supporters of the theory.  Its like saying that lighting a candle every morning prevents you from getting the measles.  Just because you have never been exposed to them you think lighting the candle is the effective therapy.  You can't prove it until you actually do a scientific experiment to prove it.

If a therapy is truly effective it will become mainstream.  Contrary to popular belief, the majority of doctors and  veterinarians are in the profession to heal and 99.9% of us are not the "the pockets" of the major food and drug companies.  Popular alternative treatments that have become common are the use of Fish oils, glucosamine, acupuncture, SAMe, etc.  These treatments are becoming common and in 20 years, if they truly do what they are purported to do, will be considered modern medicine because they are commonly used, have been studied, and they work.  Commercial pet foods are successful because they work and are affordable.  I believe they have significantly aided in increasing our pet's lifespans by eliminating nutritional deficiencies and many infectious and parasitic diseases our pets faced only 50 years ago.  Are they perfect...of course not!  That is why companies like Purina, Walthem, Hill's, etc. spend millions every year doing research to improve their diets.  

My challenge is this.  For those out there that are strong believers in the raw or BARF diet.  Do a study and prove it.  Get a colony of 300+ dogs and cats and feed them your raw diet.  Make sure you do regular fecal, urine, and blood testing to check for good health.  Don't forget you have to do this for several generations.  Then you can at least say that the diet is healthy.  If you want to say it is better than commercial diets you need another couple of hundred animals that you feed a commercial food to, kept in the same environment and show that your diet provides better overall health and longevity to that one particular diet.  Once you have proved that you can do it for all the other commercial diets that are out there.  Prove your theory that it is better and I will gladly start recommending feeding a raw diet. Until then I will have to stick with the proven science behind the commercial fed pet foods since I know they are safe and effective.

1. Daniel J. Joffe and Daniel P. Schlesinger "Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets" , Can Vet J. 2002 June; 43(6): 441–442.   
2. J. Scott Weese, Joyce Rousseau, and L. Arroyo, "Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets."  Can Vet J. 2005 June; 46(6): 513–516. 
3. Andrea J. Fascetti, Sean J. Delaney. Applied Veterinary Clinical Nutrition: West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 
4. Verstraete, F.J.M.et al. "The Dental Pathology of Feral Cats on Marion Island, Part II: Periodontitis, External Odontoclastic Resorption Lesions and Mandibular Thickening." J. Comp, Path. 1996 Vol. 115, 283-297.
5. Science Based Medicine: Brennen McKenzie MA, VMD. Raw Meat and Bone Diets for Dogs: It’s Enough to Make You BARF.  June 11, 2010