Cargando…
Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods
BACKGROUND: These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried ou...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z |
_version_ | 1784665291660197888 |
---|---|
author | Biel, Wioletta Natonek-Wiśniewska, Małgorzata Kępińska-Pacelik, Jagoda Kazimierska, Katarzyna Czerniawska-Piątkowska, Ewa Krzyścin, Piotr |
author_facet | Biel, Wioletta Natonek-Wiśniewska, Małgorzata Kępińska-Pacelik, Jagoda Kazimierska, Katarzyna Czerniawska-Piątkowska, Ewa Krzyścin, Piotr |
author_sort | Biel, Wioletta |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels. RESULTS: Eleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label—chicken protein—and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8905904 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89059042022-03-18 Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods Biel, Wioletta Natonek-Wiśniewska, Małgorzata Kępińska-Pacelik, Jagoda Kazimierska, Katarzyna Czerniawska-Piątkowska, Ewa Krzyścin, Piotr BMC Vet Res Research BACKGROUND: These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels. RESULTS: Eleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label—chicken protein—and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z. BioMed Central 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8905904/ /pubmed/35264164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Biel, Wioletta Natonek-Wiśniewska, Małgorzata Kępińska-Pacelik, Jagoda Kazimierska, Katarzyna Czerniawska-Piątkowska, Ewa Krzyścin, Piotr Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title | Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title_full | Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title_fullStr | Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title_full_unstemmed | Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title_short | Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods |
title_sort | detection of chicken dna in commercial dog foods |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03200-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bielwioletta detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods AT natonekwisniewskamałgorzata detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods AT kepinskapacelikjagoda detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods AT kazimierskakatarzyna detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods AT czerniawskapiatkowskaewa detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods AT krzyscinpiotr detectionofchickendnaincommercialdogfoods |