If a Food Fixed Allergies, It Would Be the Standard of Care

Spoiler alert, no food does. Some foods may help, but the one for your dog (or cat) is unlikely to come from a magazine article or a ‘best of’ list. 

---

There’s a lot of disingenuous marketing in the pet industry. Many brands claim their product(s) have the fix to whatever ails your pet. However, and I want you to read this: if, indeed, any one product was the antidote to a specific issue, or disease, it would be the standard of care. In fact, if it was really that good, and improved the situation so dramatically then that company would file a patent, and have invested large sums of money into clinical trials with the goal of having that product approved as a drug.

Now think about this: we don’t see pet food or supplement companies doing that, right?  No, we do not. Because we don’t see them doing this, they are also unable to make claims that their product ‘cures’, ‘treats’, ‘mitigates’, or ‘prevents’ disease. They are also not allowed to imply this, and doing so makes the folks over at the FDA and FTC cranky.

I’ve been in this industry about 15 years now, and it saddens me to report that most pet food and supplement companies spend more money on marketing than they invest into research and safety. So when a “Best Dog Food for Allergies” or a “Best Overall” food you see on social media from a ‘news’ outlet I want you to think twice.

A company could NOT say this about their own product without triggering regulatory compliance violations. So, a loophole becomes getting that product positioned in a ‘best of’ list by a journalist, in one form or another.

As a pet parent, you already do the work – much more than you would probably like to admit. You read the labels, articles, dove way deeper to a place on Reddit than you wish you knew existed. You’ve probably switched foods two or three times this year chasing an itch, or smell, or stomach that won’t settle, and we know it’s not cheap. So for some a headline or top ten list that seemingly did research feels like relief. But for pets with a longstanding issues it can just be another lap around the same block.

A rep for a pet food company (that we don’t carry) recently and rather enthusiastically emailed me a recent Forbes article asserting that this particular brand was “Best Dog Food for Allergies Overall.” Now aside from the blatant loophole of avoiding making drug claims, they further stepped in it by saying ‘this type of third-party validation can be a powerful tool for your staff when helping customers find the right food for sensitive dogs.”

Now, aside from the fact that my team or I would NEVER use a news article to help a customer pick a food, there is a lot to unpack in such a short email. It is my opinion that marketing this food as “best for allergies” even if the company did not make the claim themselves, borders on making a drug claim because they are implying that the food treats a disease (allergies). Not great. Also claiming that a newspaper article is ‘third-party validation’ is an extreme overreach. As a scientist third-party mean that the information is unbiased and scientific – and this article is neither considering the journalist is speaking from her personal experience with the food and her pet.

Inevitably I also got this forwarded to me by several friends and customers, with something to the effect of “is this legit?”. Fair question for the average pet owner. Infuriating question for someone like me, and the team at NPP.

What does the list mean?

For someone like me, I usually just roll past these headlines and roll my eyes. However, I think it’s a great example for me to highlight how these come to exist. If you scroll past the initial headline and hero imagery, Forbes tells you how they constructed this newest article. It’s a combination of staff picks, general vet commentary about limited-ingredient diets (which has no legal definition by the way), ingredient considerations, and customer feedback. As mentioned, the top pick leans on one writer feeding it to her own dog and having a great experience. I’m genuinely happy for her, however, if you know anything about me you’ll have heard me say what works for one dog will not always work for the next.

At the end of the day, this article is providing recommendations based on opinion and popularity. It’s not a scientific test. No lab work. There is no validation. No feeding trial on dogs with confirmed allergies. No laboratory tests that measure any health biomarkers. No head-to-head comparison against other foods on the market – or anything you could measure and repeat. And it certainly doesn’t tell you what worked for a dog like yours…that my friends is by design.

“Third-party validation” is a real thing. This isn’t it.

I already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating. Validation has rules. The people validating in a situation like this should be independent from the brand. The method used should not only be written down, but transparently shared so someone else can repeat the workflow and see if they get the same results. Repeating the test, and getting the same (or highly similar) results would be true validation.

In other words, product vetting should be measured against a known and meaningful standard. Then, other experts should be double checking the work again before it’s published (this is called peer review).

So to be clear, a “best of” article clears none of that. Lifestyle writers from any media outlet, personal preferences, lists without standards, or those lacking outside review shouldn’t ever be a benchmark for picking a pets food, supplement (or yours for that matter).

Somebody gets paid, usually…

In most cases, but maybe not all, articles often earn the publisher a commission when you click and buy. The FTC regulates those links because they bend recommendations. No brand paid for the coverage, but this model still rewards big, easy-to-link brands, which describes every product on this particular list. In others, products may be part of ‘best of’ lists in one form or another in the form of what we like to call ‘Advertorials’. Advertorials are when brands pay journalists to write about their product in a positive light. These are really just long form ads made out to look like genuine journal articles, but are not. Take that for what you will.

For the record, we don’t take money from brands to write about products. We also don’t rank brands from this angle since there is no product that is best for every pet, and doing so would be disingenuous. We hold that line because the alternative is the exact thing this article is about.

Your dog’s allergies are a disease

Food reactions in dogs are a clinical condition, and the research on them is boring in the way good evidence usually is.

Among dogs seen by a vet for any reason, food-related skin reactions run about 1 to 2 percent. In other words: food allergies are RARE. The most common culprit are environmental allergens. Things like pollens, mites, fleas, and dander from other pets (it’s true – pets can even be allergic to human dander)!

Food can help dogs and cats that suffer from environmental allergies, however it’s not a magic bullet. These dogs usually require lifelong management, medicated shampoos, gut health consideration (probiotics, digestive enzymes), Omega 3’s (at the right dose), medicated baths (remove the allergens & kill yeast overgrowth), and a combination of prescription drugs in addition to special diet consideration. Allergic dermatitis is incredibly itchy, and can be painful when not well managed.

Most articles also ignore the fact that the only proven way to confirm a food allergy is an elimination diet. This means feeding one novel or hydrolyzed protein for eight to twelve weeks, then reintroduce the old food and watch for the signs to come back (Gaschen & Merchant, 2011). These can’t be determined or figured out by reading an ingredient panels. Even blood or saliva “allergy testing,” doesn’t reliably diagnose food allergies. And a lot of dogs that look like food-allergy dogs have environmental allergies instead. More common. Completely different plan.

How do you know if a food is good for allergies?

Peer-reviewed studies that run the elimination-then-rechallenge feeding protocol on defined groups of dogs would earn the right for a company to say their food is ‘good for allergies’. However, in today’s marketplace I don’t think that is even necessary. I would be happy with a company completing third party testing to ensure that their foods at least meet minimum nutrient requirements, are free of pathogens and contaminants and that they do not release their product into the marketplace until they receive that third party validation back… (see what I did there?) None of that built the Forbes list. That’s not a shot at the writer, it’s just the fact of the matter.

Dose of reality…

You don’t have to become a nutrition researcher to feed your dog well. That’s our job. Our team includes veterinary technicians with real clinical experience, and our guidance is grounded in research-level training and the actual studies, not the press release.

Food isn’t just food, it’s a tool you can use alongside many other tools. But it’s important to individualize the approach to the animal in front of you. Two dogs the same size (or even same litter) can need different things.

We don’t diagnose, treat, or replace veterinary care. We provide nutrition education and product guidance, and we work with your vet, especially when a true elimination trial is on the table.

---

References

1. Forbes Vetted. “Best Dog Food For Allergies 2026.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/article/best-dog-food-for-allergies/
2. Olivry T, Mueller RS. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (3): prevalence of cutaneous adverse food reactions in dogs and cats. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:51. PMID 28202060. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-0973-z
3. Mueller RS, Olivry T, Prélaud P. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (2): common food allergen sources in dogs and cats. BMC Vet Res. 2016;12:9. PMID 26753610. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0633-8
4. Mueller RS, Olivry T. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (6): prevalence of noncutaneous manifestations of adverse food reactions in dogs and cats. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14:341. PMID 30419909. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1656-0
5. Gaschen FP, Merchant SR. Adverse food reactions in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2011;41(2):361-79. PMID 21486641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.02.005
6. Freeman L, Becvarova I, Cave N, et al. WSAVA Nutritional Assessment Guidelines. J Small Anim Pract. 2011;52(7):385-96. PMID 21649660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01079.x
7. WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee. Global Nutrition Guidelines. https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-nutrition-guidelines/
8. Pet Nutrition Alliance. Manufacturer transparency resources. https://petnutritionalliance.org/
9. Federal Trade Commission. Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers