What the New “Toxins in Dog Food” Report Really Means for Your Dog

If you saw the recent headlines about “toxins in dog food” and felt your stomach drop, you’re not alone. The coverage is designed to sound urgent. But like most things in media, it’s also missing critical context.

Here’s what we know, what we don’t, and what we recommend at NorthPoint Pets, without panic, without tribalism, and without pretending one report rewrites everything.

What this report did

The nonprofit Clean Label Project (CLP) purchased 79 top-selling dog foods across formats (dry kibble, air-/freeze-dried, fresh/frozen). Foods were subjected to a total of 11,376 tests through a lab they identify in their report as an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory operated by Ellipse Analytics.

Testing screened foods for several contaminant categories, including heavy metals (lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury), acrylamide (a heat-formed process contaminant), and certain packaging/industrial chemicals like bisphenols and phthalates, along with other categories such as pesticides.

The headline-level findings in both the coverage and CLP’s summary are consistent:

• Dry kibble tested highest across many contaminants.
• Fresh/frozen tested lowest on average.
• Air-/freeze-dried often fell in between.  

The group also compared dog food results to a database of human-consumable products they’ve tested and reported higher heavy metal levels in dog foods (especially dry) using their comparison approach.

Two important points for accuracy (because details matter):

1. “No brand results were released” is only half true.
   CLP did publish a list of the products tested and also published a “Clean 16” list. What’s still missing is the piece that would allow true independent interpretation: the full product-by-product contaminant data (the actual numbers for each product).

2. The coverage cites a 2021 Scientific Reports paper about heavy metals in pet foods, but some summaries appear to have misstated the percentages. In that paper’s dataset, the authors reported that all dog food samples exceeded the mercury maximum tolerable level used in that study, and ~80.55% exceeded the lead maximum tolerable level (in their sampled market).

That’s not “proof of harm.” It is, however, a reminder that contaminant exposure in pet food is a real topic—not a conspiracy theory.

What the report does not prove

Detecting a chemical is not the same thing as demonstrating a health outcome. Toxicology is dose + time + the individual dog. A screening report can tell us what’s present and how it varies, but it cannot, on its own, prove that a given food is “poisoning” dogs or causing cancer. This is where influencers and fear mongers will have you feeling uneasy.

Even the Cornell research often referenced in this news cycle found that dogs can have higher heavy metal intake per calorie than humans, while also concluding that chronic toxic exposure levels were “highly unlikely” in their sample set. Although it is important to note that they expressed concern about occasional outliers and the lack of long-term dog-specific data.

We should take contaminants seriously. But “serious” does not mean we need to “panic.”

Why kibble tends to look worse in testing

CLP and the media coverage emphasize that kibble tested highest and fresh/frozen tested lowest. Why? Said simply: water.

Fresh and frozen diets are high-moisture, while kibble is highly concentrated and low-moisture. A veterinary nutrition researcher quoted in coverage cautioned that you cannot interpret raw concentration numbers correctly without considering caloric density and how much food a dog actually eats to meet energy needs.

That said, even when reports attempt adjustments (per serving size or energy), the pattern does demonstrate higher values in dry foods, particularly for acrylamide, which is a heat-processing byproduct strongly tied to high-heat processing.

Acrylamide: what it is, and what we know about it

Acrylamide is a chemical that can form when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures (typically above ~120°C / 248°F) under low moisture conditions. Think baking/roasting/frying and industrial high-heat processing.

In rodent models, acrylamide exposure has been associated with increased cancer risk, while human dietary studies have been mixed and not definitive. It’s also recognized for neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity at sufficient exposures.

What does that mean for dogs?

We have far less long-term outcome data than we should. That’s exactly why we advocate for better research and better transparency.

Processing is not “good” or “bad”—but it does change food

This part gets oversimplified online.

High-heat processing can create Maillard reaction products (including advanced glycation end-products, or AGEs), alter amino acid bioavailability (notably reactive lysine), and contribute to other chemical changes in food that impact nutrient availability. (This is one reason we see most pet foods supplemented with synthetic nutrients.) In fact, there is a solid body of pet food processing research showing that these reactions occur and can change nutrient characteristics.

More recently, controlled work in dogs has linked diet processing differences with measurable changes in AGE-related markers in the body. While this is indeed useful mechanistic information, it is still not the same as “this food causes disease.” It is just NOT that simple.

Bottom line: processing level is a legitimate variable to care about, but we need not turn it into a moral verdict.

Regulation and safety context

This is context consumers deserve to understand: In the U.S., pet food is regulated (federal + state), and the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) monitors contaminants in animal food, including chemical contaminants such as heavy metals.

At the same time, it’s also true that there is not a single, simple “dog/cat lifetime contaminant standard” that covers every chemical discussed in viral headlines. Reference points often involve a mix of FDA action levels/guidance, NRC maximum tolerable levels, and AAFCO model guidance. Much of this information is built from broader animal feed frameworks, not decades-long feeding trials in pet dogs/cats. In other words, we have a substantial gap in dog/cat nutrition where we don’t know enough about contaminants (and even in some cases specific nutrients) to make broad sweeping claims.

That gap is exactly why better dog & cat-specific research and better manufacturer transparency matter.

What NorthPoint Pets is concluding

Here’s our stance:

We agree with the core signal: contaminants exist in pet food and levels vary by format and manufacturer. That aligns with multiple lines of evidence, including academic research showing measurable heavy metals in commercial diets and variability by ingredient category.

We do not agree with the social-media leap to:

• “All kibble is poison,”
• “Fresh is toxin-free,” or
• “This proves your dog’s food is causing cancer.”

That’s not what this type of screening can legitimately prove.

Instead, we are choosing to focus on practical guidance you can use today.

For most healthy dogs, this is not an emergency. But it can be taken as a prompt to feed more intentionally.

If you want to reduce long-term risk without chaos, do this:

1. Don’t abruptly switch diets out of fear.

   Take a breath and look at the dog/cat in front of you. Are they doing well on their current diet? Coat thick and shiny? Overweight? GI issues? Are they generally healthy? Asking these questions can help you assess how your individual pet is managing their current diet. If any concerns are noted, then a diet change or adjustment could be explored.

2. Reduce “single-food lifetime exposure.”

   This is one of my favorite pieces of advice in any situation. Rotating between transparent brands, different proteins, and feeding different formats is a reasonable risk-management strategy when done carefully and appropriately for your dog.

3. If budget/logistics allow, include some less intensively processed options.

   Similar to the last suggestion, rotating in fresh, frozen, gently cooked, or thoughtfully selected toppers provides benefits through various fresh nutrients, antioxidants, essential fatty acids, and lean proteins. However, the type and quality of these formats can carry their own risks when sourced or handled inappropriately. Ensure you always follow good food safety handling practices, microbial controls, and proper storage.

4. For dogs with kidney disease, liver disease, cancer, or complex medical needs, simply stop guessing or trying to find a product or diet to ‘cure’ the disease.

   Use your veterinarian or contact us to schedule an appointment with a board-certified veterinary nutritionist to make targeted changes.

5. Ask brands better questions than “Is it safe?”
   
   Ask what matters:
   

   • Do you test for heavy metals and key process contaminants?
   • How often, what methods, what benchmarks?
   • Will you share summary results or a COA-style overview?

We’re happy to help NorthPoint customers think through options based on your dog, your constraints, and what you’re trying to optimize.

What we want to see next (and what we’re doing)

This report should push the industry and the research community toward:

• More transparency; this means brands include meaningful product-level data, not just marketing lists on their website.
• Dog-specific chronic exposure research that links measured contaminants and processing byproducts to real health outcomes, not just one-time screens.
• Better consumer education around risk vs. detection.

At NorthPoint Pets, we will:

• Continue pressing partner brands for real quality-system answers (e.g., testing, sourcing controls, traceability).
• Keep educating on processing, ingredients, and nutrient adequacy without fear marketing.
• Update guidance as higher-quality data emerges.