ResearchPDF Available

Hypoallergenic petfoods

Authors:

Abstract

The term hypoallergenic in petfood labels relates to management of food allergy. True food allergy is uncommon in the general population of dogs and cats. In the marketplace, on the other hand, hypoallergenic foods are ubiquitous. This in itself is fine as well-formulated, complete and balanced hypoallergenic dog or cat foods provide good nutrition. Perceived rather than true food allergy is common. The abundance of hypoallergenic foods results from consumer demand and manufacturers going along. Food is often blamed for signs such as itching and diarrhea, leading to the self-diagnosis of food allergy. This conclusion may be reinforced by disappearing of signs after switching the animal to a hypoallergenic food. Understandably, the owner repurchases the brand. It is noteworthy that skin or gut problems may improve after diet change because of spontaneous recovery, shift in season or associated interventions. Hypoallergenic foods can be prescribed and sold by veterinarians. Food allergy can only be diagnosed by so-called elimination and provocation feeding tests. If the commercial, hypoallergenic, elimination food is associated with improvement, many owners choose to continue feeding the food without diagnosis. Blood testing for food allergy entails a high risk of a false-positive outcome. Prescribed hypoallergenic foods may be followed on by resembling products found in retail because of price and convenience. Thus, veterinary consultation tends to pave the way for hypoallergenic foods overall. The dictionary defines hypoallergenic as having little likelihood of causing an allergenic response. The term hypoallergenic is ambiguous as it has no legal definition and no defined measure for efficacy. EU legislation allows therapeutic petfoods with the purpose of reduction of certain ingredient and nutrient intolerances. These foods, which are often labeled hypoallergenic, must contain selected protein and/or carbohydrate source(s). Food allergy Food allergy is an individually-determined, immune-mediated reaction to a food component, which generally is a protein source. The major, non-specific clinical sign is itching (pruritus), which leads to scratching, licking and skin lesions. Diarrhea and vomiting occur less frequently. Dietary components can also elicit the symptoms by non-immune mechanisms; this is called food intolerance. In popular speech, it is joined under food allergy. Food allergy and intolerance are non-seasonal diseases commonly referred to as adverse reactions to food. Therapy consists of avoiding the offending food component(s). Published case studies in dogs indicate that about 65% of adverse reactions relate to beef, dairy products or wheat and 25% to lamb, soy, chicken or chicken egg (1). In cats, beef, dairy products and fish are associated with almost 90% of the cases (1). These figures are inflated by the common use of the incriminating protein sources as petfood ingredients. In dogs with non-seasonal pruritis entering
Creature Companion 2014; December: 54-55.
Anton C. Beynen
Hypoallergenic petfoods
The term hypoallergenic in petfood labels relates to management of food allergy. True food
allergy is uncommon in the general population of dogs and cats. In the marketplace, on the other
hand, hypoallergenic foods are ubiquitous. This in itself is fine as well-formulated, complete and
balanced hypoallergenic dog or cat foods provide good nutrition.
Perceived rather than true food allergy is common. The abundance of hypoallergenic foods results
from consumer demand and manufacturers going along. Food is often blamed for signs such as
itching and diarrhea, leading to the self-diagnosis of food allergy. This conclusion may be
reinforced by disappearing of signs after switching the animal to a hypoallergenic food.
Understandably, the owner repurchases the brand. It is noteworthy that skin or gut problems may
improve after diet change because of spontaneous recovery, shift in season or associated
interventions.
Hypoallergenic foods can be prescribed and sold by veterinarians. Food allergy can only be
diagnosed by so-called elimination and provocation feeding tests. If the commercial,
hypoallergenic, elimination food is associated with improvement, many owners choose to continue
feeding the food without diagnosis. Blood testing for food allergy entails a high risk of a false-
positive outcome. Prescribed hypoallergenic foods may be followed on by resembling products
found in retail because of price and convenience. Thus, veterinary consultation tends to pave the
way for hypoallergenic foods overall.
The dictionary defines hypoallergenic as having little likelihood of causing an allergenic response.
The term hypoallergenic is ambiguous as it has no legal definition and no defined measure for
efficacy. EU legislation allows therapeutic petfoods with the purpose of reduction of certain
ingredient and nutrient intolerances. These foods, which are often labeled hypoallergenic, must
contain selected protein and/or carbohydrate source(s).
Food allergy
Food allergy is an individually-determined, immune-mediated reaction to a food component, which
generally is a protein source. The major, non-specific clinical sign is itching (pruritus), which leads to
scratching, licking and skin lesions. Diarrhea and vomiting occur less frequently. Dietary components
can also elicit the symptoms by non-immune mechanisms; this is called food intolerance. In popular
speech, it is joined under food allergy. Food allergy and intolerance are non-seasonal diseases
commonly referred to as adverse reactions to food. Therapy consists of avoiding the offending food
component(s).
Published case studies in dogs indicate that about 65% of adverse reactions relate to beef, dairy
products or wheat and 25% to lamb, soy, chicken or chicken egg (1). In cats, beef, dairy products and
fish are associated with almost 90% of the cases (1). These figures are inflated by the common use of
the incriminating protein sources as petfood ingredients. In dogs with non-seasonal pruritis entering
veterinary practice, adverse food reactions may account for about 20% of the cases (2). A rough
calculation suggests that the prevalence of true food allergy and intolerance in the general canine
population may be only 0.05%.
Diagnosis
Diagnosis of adverse food reactions by the veterinarian is based on multiple assessments. Dietary
investigation on individual dogs, in the form of elimination diets and test meals, is the decisive
diagnostic tool. Classically, elimination diets are not nutritionally complete and contain one protein
source that is novel to the patient and one starch-rich ingredient. If food sensitivity causes the
pruritis and/or diarrhea, the elimination diet induces amelioration, provided the animal is not
sensitive to it. There is relapse after provocation with the original food. Results of challenge tests
with individual dietary items can point to an appropriate, complete, commercial food. Alternatively,
a tolerable food, either labeled as hypoallergenic or not, can be identified by trying out.
Principles and practice
The formulation of hypoallergenic foods follows three principles. The number of (protein-containing)
ingredients is limited, novel protein sources are used and/or substances known to cause allergic
reactions are avoided. It is assumed that pets have not eaten novel proteins before and thus cannot
have developed an immune response to them.
Some petfood lines are all hypoallergenic, but most lines have one or more products so labeled. The
word sensitive may be used as synonym of hypoallergenic. Novel-protein diets or treats may contain
remarkable ingredients. The phrase limited- ingredient diets is commonly used. It even is part of a
brand name.
The ingredient lists of commercial hypoallergenic diets typically document between 2 and 6 protein-
containing ingredients. The degree of novelty of protein sources in many products is debatable. The
manufacturing process of hypoallergenic foods should exclude contamination with undesired
components. However, studies show that hypoallergenic dry foods, including therapeutic diets, may
contain protein sources not declared on the label (3, 4).
Hydrolytic breakdown of proteins into sufficiently small fragments lowers the chance of immune
recognition by patients that are allergic to the intact protein. Dogs with clinical sensitivity to soy
were less severe responsive to the protein sources in hydrolysate form (5, 6). Hydrolysed proteins
are expensive and only used in veterinary products recommended as both elimination and
hypoallergenic diets. These foods may have label descriptors such as low allergen, ultra allergen-free
and anallergenic.
Efficacy
The efficacy of a given hypoallergenic food cannot be predicted. Stricter implementation of
principles will increase the beneficial effect in pets on a group-mean basis. In five studies (7-11), on
average 48 % of dogs with true food sensitivity showed a favorable response to a commercial,
hypoallergenic food containing intact proteins. A hydrolysate-based, limited-ingredient food could
produce a better group-mean effect. Trial-and-error is still required to identify an appropriate food
for a dog with food sensitivity.
Literature
1. Roudebush P, Guilford WG, Shanley KJ. Adverse reactions to food. In: Small Animal Clinical
Nutrition, 4th Edition (Hand HS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, Roudebush P, eds), Mark Morris
Institute, Topeka, Kansas, 2000, pp 431-453.
2. Chesney CJ. Systematic review of evidence for the prevalence of food sensitivity in dogs. Vet Rec
2001; 148: 445-448.
3. Raditic DM, Remillard RL, Tater KC. ELISA testing for common food antigens in four dry dog foods
used in elimination trials. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2011; 95: 90-97.
4. Ricci R, Granato A, Vascellari M, Boscarato M, Palagiano C, Andrighetto I, Diez M, Mutinelli F.
Identification of undeclared sources of animal origin in canine dry foods used in dietary elimination
trials. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2013; 97: 32-38.
5. Jackson HA, Jackson MW, Coblentz L, Hammerberg B. Evaluation of the clinical and allergen
specific serum immunoglobulin E responses to oral challenge with cornstarch, corn, soy and a soy
hydrolysate diet in dogs with spontaneous food allergy. Vet Dermatol 2013; 14: 181-187.
6. Puigdemont A, Brazis P, Serra M, Fondati A. Immunologic responses against hydrolyzed soy
protein in dogs with experimentally induced soy hypersensitivity. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 484-488.
7. White SD. Food hypersensitivity in 30 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1986; 188: 695-698.
8. Jeffers JG, Shanley KJ, Meyer EK. Diagnostic testing of dogs for food hypersensitivity. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 1991; 198: 245-250.
9. Rosser Jr EJ. Diagnosis of food allergy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993; 203: 259-262.
10. Vroom MW. Prospectief onderzoek van een commercieel hypoallergeen dieet bij achttien
honden met een voedselallergie. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 1994; 119: 602-604.
11. Leistra MH, Markwell PJ, Willemse T. Evaluation of selected-protein-source diets for
management of dogs with adverse reactions to foods. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 219: 1411-1414.
... True meat allergy is uncommon in dogs and cats (11). Nevertheless, protection against meat-induced allergies is an important selling point of vegetarian foods. ...
Research
Full-text available
Vegetarian petfoods Quite a few people maintain their pets on vegetarian diets. Most of these caregivers follow a vegetarian lifestyle for religious, ethical or health reasons and decided to feed their pets in a similar fashion. Vegetarian-fed dogs and cats receive homemade diets without or with supplements, table scraps, commercially prepared foods and/or combinations. The nature of these various rations can be flexitarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, lacto-vegetarian or vegan. Vegetarian canine diets must contain adequate amounts of added vitamins D and B12 as they are missing in most plant products and synthesized marginally or not, respectively, by the dog's body. Apart from the vitamins D and B12, cats also require dietary vitamin A, taurine, arachidonic acid (AA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) which all are insufficiently produced by the cat's metabolism and principally present in animal feedstuffs only. Thus, vegetarian feline diets must be supplemented with preparations containing the six nutrients. Feeding a veggie diet to dogs and cats requires special attention. The basic nutrient profile of homemade, meatless foods should be appropriate and topped up with the lacking nutrients. The adequacy of commercially prepared vegetarian foods should be verified. Pets fed on vegetarian diets should be monitored continuously for any abnormalities that might occur. This care, of course, is not reserved for vegetarian diets only. Pet owners The general founding belief of vegetarianism, as rooted in religion or ethical concern, is not killing or causing harm to other living beings. People may also go vegetarian to acquire healthy nutrition and/or to counter the eco-unfriendly meat production. By feeding their pets a diet free of animal products, owners transfer their attitudes about food and distance themselves further from animal consumption. Vegetarians giving their pets conventional food may do so because of convenience, health benefits or their animals' preference. Non-vegetarian fanciers may keep their pets on vegetarian food because of presumed meat-induced allergy or intolerance. Critical nutrients Self-prepared and commercial vegetarian diets can be designed to provide adequate nutrition, but the critical nutrients must be considered. Recommended allowances (1) for dry food (1.5 MJ/100 g) fed to adult cats are as follows: vitamin D3, 250 IU/kg; vitamin B12, 20 µg/kg; vitamin A, 3,000 IU/kg; AA, 55 mg/kg; EPA + DHA, 90 mg/kg, taurine, 360 mg/kg. Dry dog foods are recommended to contain 495 IU vitamin D3/kg and 30 µg vitamin B12/kg. For wet foods (0.5 MJ/100 g), the allowances are about one third. Vegetarian canine and feline diets may be enriched with vitamin D3 using egg yolk as carrier or a chemically synthesized preparation. Vitamin D3 may be replaced by vitamin D2, but then the allowance is about 50% higher (2). Vitamin B12 can be added as component of milk and/or some yeast products or in purified form. Cats should also ingest pre-formed vitamin A with egg yolk or as
Article
Thirteen food-allergic dogs were studied to evaluate the efficacy of feeding a commercially available egg and rice diet, intradermal skin testing, and serologic testing by elisa for diagnosing and/or characterizing food hypersensitivity. Feeding of a home-cooked whole lamb meat and rice diet for 3 weeks, followed by challenge with each dog's regular diet, served as the standard for diagnosing food hypersensitivity. Each dog underwent provocative testing with 6 individual ingredients to determine as many of its dietary allergens as possible. Prior to skin testing and serologic testing by elisa , most dogs had been recently exposed to the offending diet and subsequently manifested clinical signs of allergy. All dogs that tolerated the aforementioned commercial diet were exposed to it for at least 7 weeks; 84.6% of food-hypersensitive dogs ate the commercial diet with impunity. Of the 2 reactors to the commercial diet, only 1 became pruritic in response to provocation testing with chicken eggs. Low sensitivity and high specificity were found for skin testing and the elisa , indicating a lack of true- and false-positive reactions. Neither the positive nor negative predictive values adequately predicted positive and negative reactions, respectively, for either test. On the basis of these results, the commercial diet, skin testing, and anti-IgE elisa cannot replace an owner-prepared food elimination diet for food hypersensitivity testing in dogs.
Article
Failure to respond to commercial limited antigen diets can occur in dogs kept on a dietary trial for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR). The aim of this study was to assess twelve canine dry limited antigen diets (eleven novel protein diets and one hydrolysed diet) for potential contamination by ingredients of animal origin not mentioned on the label. The validity of the two methods adopted for the detection of such food antigens was also evaluated. Each dietary product was analysed by microscopy analysis using the official method described in Commission Regulation EC 152/2009 with the aim of identifying bone fragments of different zoological classes (mammalian, avian and fish) and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the identification of DNA of animal origin. Discrepancies between the results obtained by PCR and/or microscopy analysis and the ingredients listed on pet food packages were found. Only in two pet foods did the results of both analyses match the ingredients listed on the label. In the remaining ten samples, microscopy detected bone fragments from one or two unpredicted zoological classes, revealing avian fragments in six of ten samples followed by those of fish in five of ten and mammalian fragments in four of ten. In two samples, microscopy analysis identified a contamination that would have otherwise passed unobserved if only PCR had been used. However, PCR confirmed the presence of all the zoological classes detected by microscopy and also identified the DNA of an additional unexpected zoological class in two samples. Dogs might fail to respond to commercial limited antigen diets because such diets are contaminated with potential allergens. Both PCR and microscopy analysis are required to guarantee the absence of undeclared animal sources in pet foods. Before ruling out AFR, a novel protein home-made diet should be considered if the dog is unresponsive to a commercial regimen.
Article
This study evaluated four over the counter venison dry dog foods available from one on-line retail vendor for potential contamination with common known food allergens: soy, poultry or beef. An amplified, double sandwich type enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test of soy, poultry and beef proteins were performed by an independent accredited food laboratory. The ELISA test for poultry protein was found to be unreliable when testing in dry dog foods because false negatives occurred. ELISA testing of control diets for both soy and beef proteins performed as expected and could be useful in antigen testing in dry dog foods. Three of the four over the counter (OTC) venison canine dry foods with no soy products named in the ingredient list were ELISA positive for soy; additionally one OTC diet tested positive for beef protein with no beef products listed as an ingredient list. One OTC venison diet was not found to be positive for soy, poultry or beef proteins. However, none of the four OTC venison diets could be considered suitable for a diagnostic elimination trial as they all contained common pet food proteins, some of which were readily identifiable on the label and some that were only detected by ELISA. Therefore, if the four OTC venison products selected in this study are representative of OTC products in general, then the use of OTC venison dry dog foods should not be used during elimination trials in suspected food allergy patients.
Article
Food hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 30 dogs. Clinical signs varied, with pruritus (97%), erythema (50%), and papules (37%) being the most common. Diagnosis was based on resolution of clinical signs when the dogs were fed a restricted ("hypoallergenic") diet, and recurrence of signs when fed their original diet or other foods. No age, breed, or sex predilection was noticed. None of the owners could relate the onset of clinical signs with a recent change in diet. Seven dogs had concurrent fleabite, inhalant, intestinal parasite, or insulin hypersensitivity.
Article
The diagnosis of food allergy was confirmed in 51 dogs while the responsiveness to a 60-day home-cooked restricted dietary trial (elimination-diet trial) was evaluated. The primary clinical sign of allergy detected and evaluated in all dogs was persistent and nonseasonally pruritic skin disease. The duration of time between starting the elimination-diet trial and remission of clinical signs was recorded. Dogs were then reexposed to diets that had been fed before testing, and the duration of time before pruritus recurred was recorded. The elapsed time during which dogs were being fed an elimination diet before remission of clinical signs was 1 to 3 weeks in 13 dogs, 4 to 6 weeks in 25 dogs, 7 to 8 weeks in 10 dogs, and 9 to 10 weeks in 3 dogs. Findings indicated that the recommendation of a 3-week elimination-diet trial for diagnosis of food allergy was adequate for only 25% of the dogs. It is recommended that test diets be fed for at least 10 weeks before a food allergy is ruled out.
Article
Article
Twelve papers giving original data on canine food sensitivity in an acceptable form were reviewed, and the disorder was confirmed in 390 dogs. Most of the papers did not give either the criteria by which dogs were included in a trial, or information about dogs which had undergone a trial with a restricted diet but in which food sensitivity had not been observed. Only one author indicated how the degree of pruritus of the dogs in the study was assessed. The question of owner compliance in conducting a diet trial was not considered in any of the papers. The best available evidence comes from three of the studies covering 534 dogs in total, of which 93 (17 per cent) suffered food sensitivity.
Article
To evaluate 3 commercially available selected-protein-source diets as maintenance diets in dogs with pruritus caused by adverse food reactions. Randomized crossover trial. 40 dogs > 6 months of age with pruritus caused by adverse reactions to foods. Diagnosis was confirmed by use of diet elimination and provocation studies. Subsequently, dogs were fed 3 commercial diets for 3 weeks each in a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Dogs were evaluated for pruritus, vomiting, diarrhea, and flatulence. Pruritus recurred in 52.5% of dogs fed a chicken-rice diet, 47.5% of dogs fed a catfish-rice diet, and 85% of dogs fed a venison-rice diet. Overall 95% of the dogs could be managed successfully with at least 1 of the 3 diets. Results indicated that commercially available limited-allergen diets with selected protein sources may be appropriate for long-term management of pruritus caused by adverse food reactions. Testing of various protein sources is usually required.
Article
Fourteen dogs with known clinical hypersensitivity to soy and corn were maintained on a limited antigen duck and rice diet until cutaneous manifestations of pruritus were minimal (78 days). Sequential oral challenges with cornstarch, corn and soy were then performed. Subsequently, the dogs were fed a diet containing hydrolysed soy protein and cornstarch. Throughout the study period the dogs were examined for cutaneous manifestations of pruritus and, additionally, serum was collected for measurement of allergen-specific and total immunoglobulin (Ig)E concentrations. Intradermal testing with food antigens was performed prior to entry into the study and after 83 days. A statistically significant clinical improvement was measured between days 0 and 83. Significant pruritus was induced after oral challenge with cornstarch, corn and soy (P = 0.04, 0.002, 0.01, respectively) but not with the hydrolysed diet (P = 0.5). The positive predictive value of the skin test for soy and corn allergy was reduced after feeding a soy and corn free diet. Although increases in soy and corn-specific serum IgE concentrations were measured in individual dogs post challenge they were not statistically significant and could not be used to predict clinical hypersensitivity.