Is the Pet Care Industry a "House Divided"?

The ongoing issue of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), specifically nutritionally mediated DCM, has pulled back the curtain on the pet industry, exposing all of the warts, scars and trust issues that exist between those in the industry. Can we all just get along or are we headed towards a "Civil War"?

This week, Ryan Yamka, PhD, MS, MBA, FACN, PAS, DACAS presented "Ethical Advice on Dietary Recommendations in the Shadow of DCM" at the VMX in Orlando. What should have been looked at as an opportunity to hear a review of the current data and the pitfalls of oversimplifying DCM (especially when making diet recommendations), turned into something ugly. Unsubstantiated claims of biased data and charges of acting in an unethical manner were levied against Dr. Yamka...without any of the accusers having seen the presentation. The lead up was so tumultuous that there were legitimate concerns from VMX and SVME about them hosting the presentation. Just let that sink in for a minute.

Full disclosure - Ryan and I have been friends for 5 years and we co-founded Guardian Pet Food Company together in 2017.

When you look at the information presented by Ryan, I think you'll agree that it is one of the most thorough jobs of breaking down the FDA report and refuting the oversimplified (and very inaccurate) finger pointing towards so called BEG diets. The issue prior to the VMX presentation was that Ryan chose to go against the grain (figuratively and literally) and challenge certain veterinarians and veterinary group admins. Bottom line - the data thus far does not support a causal relationship between any ingredient and the rise of reported DCM cases. This part is critical: DCM is a horrible disease that has no known cause. Because a popular theory is debunked, it does not mean the disease is NOT real, it simply means that attention needs to be paid elsewhere to find a cause and solution. The popular theory that was debunked is the idea that boutique, exotic and grain free (BEG) pet foods are the problem. The two things that are very uncomfortable for any person is to NOT know an answer in their general field of expertise and, somewhat worse, to be told that their "answer" is WRONG. Both scenarios have starring roles in the "Us vs Them" situation that is now playing out.

If you don't know what dilated cardiomyopathy is, Google "DCM in dogs" and you will be inundated with results and conflicting commentary. The Cliff Notes version goes like this: The left ventricle (the main pumping chamber) becomes enlarged and weakened. The ability of the heart to properly fill with blood and pump it throughout the body is reduced. Over time, this causes the heart muscles to degenerate and thin. This can lead to congestive heart failure and death. DCM has been known and diagnosed in felines since the 1980's and in canines since the 1990's. Several canine breeds are genetically predisposed to various forms of heart ailments/diseases (e.g. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Miniature Schnauzers and Dachshunds (mitral valve disease), Boxers (arrhytmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy), Miniature/Toy Poodles and Doberman Pinschers (DCM). It was when several other breeds (Golden Retrievers, for example), started showing up with DCM in veterinary clinics that alarm bells rang. While the protocol of the UC-Davis study has been debated and the Tufts/Lisa Freeman commentary debunked, the proverbial genie was out of the bottle.

At Veterinary Clinics - Within the veterinary community (including University faculty members, veterinary cardiologists and 10,000 plus practicing clinicians and their staff), concerned pet owners come in daily with concerns that they may have been harming their beloved pets with their dietary choices. The veterinarians are the front lines and see the sick dogs; they deal with the literal heartache of the disease everyday. Traditionally, DCM was most often breed specific and genetic. Dogs would be referred to cardiologists and a specific treatment protocol followed. Now, when asked by their clients if they should switch diets or if they have anything to worry about, most veterinarians will say, "Yes, especially if you are currently feeding a grain free diet". When pressed, many don't know the specifics other than what they read or heard from a veterinary "expert". They were told through veterinary resources like VIN and various social media groups, that the culprit was BEG diets. No one wants to NOT KNOW an answer so they passed along what was considered "fact" from their peers and industry experts. To cap it off, the FDA initially ONLY asked for cases where the dogs were fed a GF diet*, immediately biasing the sample collected and giving false "credence" to the BEG theory. The denouement occurred when the FDA released a 70+ page preliminary report. The most shared part of that report...a chart of the "Top 16" brands with the most reported DCM cases.

edit *The actual statement reads, "The FDA encourages pet owners and veterinary professionals to report cases of DCM in dogs suspected of having a link to diet by using the..." My issue is that the preceding paragraphs from the FDA discuss GF diets with pulses and legumes being frequently listed as suspect ingredients. I stand corrected on the verbiage I used (they did NOT say "ONLY") but I remain steadfast in my position that their announcement caused more harm than good. It would be like saying, "We have seen an increase in people with headaches after drinking coffee and they drank Starbucks most frequently. If you have a headache that you think maybe coffee related, please tell us". Yes, you asked in a blanket statement but called out one chain. If all the media outlets (and certain experts) then said, the problem is large chain coffee shops, there is a greater likelihood that people that drank Starbucks would be the one's to report it. Yes, there would be other shops (Dunkin, Tim Horton's, etc) but everyone's focus would be unjustly on Starbucks beans and not any other possible causes.

At Retail Outlets - As you can imagine, if your brand shows up on an FDA list, sales will be negatively impacted. Some of the brands that were on that list experienced a drop off of more than 40%. What you didn't see (because it wasn't readily called out) was that the Big 4 (Mars, Purina, Del Monte and Colgate) all had reported cases of DCM. You also didn't see that almost 75% of reported cases were common protein based diets or that more than 88% of all reported cases were extruded dry kibble.

The pet industry grows at about $1 billion/year and with a huge buying shift (as was seen after the FDA chart was published) there is a shift in WHAT is purchased and WHERE it is bought. One manufacturer with a targeted 2.9% growth rate actually experienced over 4% growth in 2019. That equates to hundreds of millions of dollars in incremental sales growth! While you may be offended that money plays a role, it does. This shift moved lots of dollars from pet specialty to mainstream channels AND online. For specialty retailers, often considered the nutritional experts by consumers, they were faced with a crisis of epic proportions. In the pet specialty channel, just under 50% of all pet foods on the shelves are grain free and in 2018, almost 70% of ALL new diets launched were grain free. In addition, the space and role of the Big 4 in specialty has been greatly diminished due to mass availability and price. In retail outlets, just like at veterinary clinics, we find another "expert" group that doesn't have the answers to their consumer questions. If they prescribe to the veterinary belief, they are literally pushing customers out of their stores. Without hard and fast evidence, many pushed back, questioning the legitimacy of the BEG claims and DCM in general. This wasn't done scientifically or with reams of data to defend or attack either position. It was just an old fashioned "us vs. them" scenario.

The industry now had two distinct camps: those that believed BEG diets are to blame for DCM and those that believed the number of cases made it a non-issue (you may have heard the 0.00067% of dogs have DCM stat). On less solid footing, conspiracy theories arose saying that certain pet food companies and brands encouraged the BEG impact on DCM because they would benefit from a shift. While the statistic shared is an answer to a different question, the conspiracy theory erroneously attributes benefit to malicious intent rather than positioning and brand history. So what about pet food manufacturers? Surely they would weigh-in and provide data and answers, right?

At Pet Food Manufacturers - The most disturbing reactions (my perspective) came from manufacturers. As I stated above, some companies/brands lost massive amounts of sales. I'm not here to defend or admonish them, their processes or their products, just to show how DCM has divided the industry. Companies were given a choice: to be fully transparent or to apply bandages to a severed artery. Yeah, many chose the latter. They proudly(?) displayed that they were adding taurine to their diets. They made ingredient changes to their diets and touted "ancient grains". After all, they couldn't go BACK to regular grains because they had just spent years saying why GF was better (it is NOT and no research supports that it is). To me, this showed that they 1) didn't really understand their products and 2) that they were playing to the market fears. Neither is a good look. What was even more depressing is how many manufacturers just kept their heads down, hoping they could make it through unscathed.

Our three camps (veterinarians, retailers and manufacturers) were joined by a fourth - Regulatory. Unfortunately the FDA only made matters worse. When they, in what can only be considered an egregious and premature move, PUBLISHED the list of 16 pet food companies, they created a wave of panic that has yet to subside. Even a clarification stating that they have found no direct or causal relationship between ANY ingredient and DCM has not tempered the flames.

So lets bring this full circle and back to Dr. Yamka. He is a true scientist/practitioner. Not only does he formulate products as a Board Certified Animal Nutritionist, he oversees their production and analysis. He has spent more than a year looking at various aspects of the diets, manufacturing processes and interactions and reactions with the different ingredients at the center of DCM cases. He works with AAFCO and FDA representatives, sharing insights from his 20+ year career. After reviewing the published data and analyzing the findings, he dared to speak up and challenge the BEG claim "experts". Why? He wants to find answers and solutions. If you think Colonel Mustard did it in the library with a wrench and you stop looking for other information, or worse, you ONLY look for data to support YOUR hypothesis, you may be wasting precious time.

So without any regard for what he was actually presenting, he was attacked and painted as biased and unethical! This was BEFORE ANYONE had even heard or read his position. All that was needed to launch the smear campaign was the knowledge that he didn't agree with one group's conclusions...he wasn't one of "us," so he must be one of "them"!

How to Stop a "Civil War"

The obvious answer here is to just be civil to one another! Everyone that you will ever meet knows something that you don't. If you sit down and are present with them, you may be surprised at what you can learn. So when it comes to debating the merits of a report or research article (or belief system)...

1. We MUST assume positive intent of all industry participants. Yes, there may be some that choose profiteering and those that seek the limelight but I will argue that they are the exception and not the rule.

Structured debate and informed arguments are essential to progress. As Deming once said, "In God we trust, all others must bring data!"

Cooperation is critical and this includes having an open mind to possibilities you may not have known of or even considered. As the African proverb tells us, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

Transparency builds trust. Remember the quote from Watergate, "It's not the crime, it's the cover up."

Very few one-sided, "frontal assaults" are successful. When attacking problems in pet care, multiple perspectives, from multiple camps, will make solutions better.

"If you have to insult and disrespect someone to simply hold your own ground, all that shows is how shaky your own position actually is." Yes, challenges to our personal beliefs are hard to accept without emotion. Tone and language are important. Pay attention to what you say and how you say it.

Last but not least, if we enter the discussion solely to "win" the argument, we ALL lose, not the least of which will be our pets!

I have lots of beliefs and theories on how to better align the four camps but that is better saved for a future discussion. For now, the choice at hand is whether we can find common ground and support each other. The more individuals and companies that can be rallied together, the more likely we are to find the cause of NM-DCM. If that results in one dog and one family being saved heartache, it will have been worth it!