RFVS Position Statement 2.0

January 2026

 

Benefit, Bugs, Balance and Bones
An evidence-informed position on raw and fresh meat-based diets for dogs and cats

 

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The RFVS is an organisation established to support clinicians and owners who choose raw and fresh food feeding. This statement reflects that institutional position and should be read accordingly. The RFVS commits to grounding its positions in the peer-reviewed literature and to revising them as evidence develops.

WSAVA’s current statement on raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) identifies three principal concerns: contamination hazards, potential nutritional inadequacy, and bone-related injury risk, alongside a view that documented benefits are limited (WSAVA GNC, 2020). The RFVS accepts that these concerns are scientifically grounded and warrant appropriate management. Our position is that they do not justify blanket condemnation of all RMBDs, which conflates materially different practices and substitutes hazard identification for risk management.

The clinically and scientifically defensible question is not “raw: yes or no?” but “what is being fed, to which animal, in which household, produced and handled to what standard?”.

 

SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

All pet food is processed to some degree. This statement uses the term “ultraprocessed” to describe diets produced through industrial extrusion, retorting, or equivalent thermal processes that substantially alter the nutritional and biochemical character of the raw ingredients. It uses “raw and fresh” to describe diets in which animal tissues are fed uncooked or minimally heated. This distinction matters because the biological effects of diet format are unlikely to be explained by a single variable and the comparison is not simply “raw versus cooked” but encompasses macronutrient profile, heat-induced chemical modification, ingredient source, and matrix effects.

RMBD denotes diets in which uncooked animal tissues form the core of the ration. This includes complete commercial raw foods, complementary commercial raw products, home-prepared raw diets, and freeze-dried or air-dried products in which animal tissues have not been thermally processed to a degree that would reliably eliminate common pathogens. Risk, nutritional reliability, and handling requirements differ substantially across these categories (Freeman et al., 2013; Lyu, 2025).

 

 

 

RFVS CORE PRINCIPLES

Animal welfare and One Health

Raw and fresh feeding must be safe for the animal and manageable for the household, including children, older adults, pregnant individuals, and immunocompromised persons (Stull et al., 2015). Raw feeding is not appropriate for all animals in all circumstances. For neonates, immunosuppressed individuals, and animals recovering from gastrointestinal surgery, the risk-benefit balance may favour alternative approaches.

Risk is comparative, not categorical

Raw foods can carry pathogens. Ultraprocessed pet foods are also well-documented sources of bacterial contamination: Salmonella outbreaks linked to dry pet food have caused human illness (Behravesh et al., 2010), and microbiological non-compliance has been identified in commercial ultraprocessed products across multiple studies. A defensible clinical position requires comparative risk assessment, not the assumption that any single format is safe by default.

“Complete and balanced” is a minimum standard

“Complete and balanced” denotes that a diet meets minimum population-level nutrient targets for a standardised animal. It is a necessary regulatory threshold, not a guarantee of optimal outcomes for individual animals over extended feeding periods.

Processing affects biological outcomes

Controlled studies demonstrate that diet format and processing influence digestibility, faecal characteristics, gut microbiota composition, and circulating metabolites in dogs (Algya et al., 2018; Hiney et al., 2024; Holm et al., 2025). These are intermediate measures rather than validated clinical endpoints, and long-term disease-prevention claims require evidence that does not yet exist for any feeding format. The direction and consistency of current findings nevertheless support the biological plausibility of clinically meaningful differences between ultraprocessed and raw or fresh diets.

Dietary variety reduces real-world nutritional risk

Raw and fresh balanced diets should be varied across protein sources, organs, and ingredients. Variety is not only nutritionally sound practice; the evidence indicates that households feeding a greater number of protein sources also report lower rates of suspected pathogen transmission (Cammack et al., 2021). Dietary monotony, whether in ultraprocessed or raw feeding, is associated with greater nutritional and microbiological risk.

Evidence limits must be stated explicitly

The RFVS will not assert therapeutic benefits for RMBDs that are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature. The RFVS will also not dismiss consistent findings from independent research groups on the grounds that the evidence base is not yet complete. The RFVS supports the development of a practice-based evidence network to formalise clinical observations in raw-fed animals.

 

 

THE FOUR WSAVA CRITICISMS: RFVS RESPONSE

1. Benefit

WSAVA’s position is that documented benefits are limited (WSAVA GNC, 2020). The RFVS agrees that long-duration randomised controlled trials with hard clinical endpoints are absent across all pet nutrition, not only raw. The absence of such trials is not equivalent to the absence of evidence.

The peer-reviewed literature, including a substantial and growing body of work from the DogRisk research group at the University of Helsinki, supports the following findings.

Digestibility and metabolic markers: controlled comparisons report measurable differences in apparent digestibility and faecal characteristics and metabolites between dogs fed ultraprocessed and raw diets (Algya et al., 2018). A 2025 DogRisk study in 46 Staffordshire Bull Terriers found that dogs fed an ultraprocessed kibble diet showed increased long-term blood sugar, elevated blood lipids, and weight gain, while raw-fed dogs showed decreases in these same markers along with a lower triglyceride-glucose index, a recognised marker of insulin resistance (Holm et al., 2025).

Gut microbiota and inflammatory markers: an observational study in client-owned dogs reported differences in microbiome composition, metabolomic profiles, and selected inflammatory markers between RMBD-fed and ultraprocessed-diet-fed animals (Hiney et al., 2024). The study’s observational design and self-selected diets are acknowledged limitations; findings are hypothesis-generating and do not establish causation.

Atopy and allergic skin disease: DogRisk analysis of over 4,000 dogs found that puppies fed raw animal-based foods including tripe, organ meats, and human meal leftovers had a significantly lower risk of developing allergy and atopic skin signs in adulthood compared with puppies fed ultraprocessed diets. Diets comprising more than 20% raw food were associated with reduced risk (Hemida et al., 2021). These associations are consistent with the broader literature on early-life diet and immune programming.

Gastrointestinal health: DogRisk data indicate that puppies fed raw diets had a substantially lower risk of developing signs consistent with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as adults compared with puppies fed ultraprocessed diets. A 2023 DogRisk study confirmed that dogs with atopy have distinct gut microbiota compared with healthy dogs, and that diet is a significant modifying factor (Hemida et al., 2023).

Dental health: DogRisk data from 4,771 Finnish dogs found that feeding non-processed meat-based diets including raw bones and cartilage during weaning, puppyhood, and adolescence was significantly associated with lower risk of dental calculus, while ultraprocessed carbohydrate-based diets during the same periods were associated with higher risk (DogRisk, 2025).

The RFVS does not claim that RMBDs treat or cure any specific disease. The available evidence does however constitute a meaningful and consistent body of data suggesting associations between raw and fresh feeding and reduced risk of atopy, IBD-associated signs, dental disease, and adverse metabolic markers. These associations warrant serious clinical attention and further research.

Owner-reported outcome surveys are subject to selection and confirmation bias. This does not invalidate them, but is a methodological limitation that should inform their interpretation (Morelli et al., 2019; Freeman et al., 2013).

2. Bugs

Raw animal products can carry Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, and parasites. Household transmission risk is real and is higher in the presence of young children, elderly individuals, pregnant persons, and immunocompromised household members. The RFVS treats pathogen risk as non-negotiable and hygiene controls as a prerequisite, not an option.

Bacterial contamination is not a risk unique to raw feeding. Ultraprocessed pet foods are well-documented sources of pathogen contamination that have caused human illness (Behravesh et al., 2010). Risk communication that singles out raw feeding while implying that ultraprocessed formats are hazard-free is not supported by the evidence.

The real-world frequency of pathogen transmission from raw-fed pets to humans appears low. Two large independent surveys provide the best available data. Anturaniemi et al. (2019) surveyed 16,475 households across 81 countries: 0.2% reported a confirmed or suspected pathogen transmission from raw pet food to a human family member over the entire period of raw feeding, with laboratory-matched confirmed cases in only 0.02% of households. Cammack et al. (2021) surveyed 5,611 households across 62 countries: 99.45% reported no suspected pathogen transmission, with no laboratory-confirmed cases. Both studies identified dietary variety as protective: households feeding a wider range of protein sources reported fewer transmission events.

These surveys are self-reported and draw from populations already engaged in raw feeding; they should not be interpreted as definitive safety data. They do represent the best available real-world evidence on household transmission frequency and do not support the characterisation of well-managed raw feeding as a substantial zoonotic risk to healthy households.

RFVS minimum hygiene requirements:

– Handle raw pet food as raw meat for human consumption: dedicated utensils, handwashing, surface disinfection.
– Defrost under refrigeration, not at ambient temperature.
– Prevent pet contact with children’s play areas and facial licking after feeding.
– Clean bowls daily; dispose of packaging promptly.
– In households with immunocompromised individuals, young children, or pregnant persons, additional precautions apply; a gently cooked fresh diet is an appropriate alternative where risk reduction is required.
– Therapy animals visiting clinical or care settings should not be fed raw diets. BVA (2024) and BSAVA (2024) advise against this on avoidable-risk grounds.

UK manufacturing guidance for raw pet food, developed with Defra, APHA, Public Health England, and the FSA, sets baseline expectations for hygiene and microbiological controls. Third-party certification (Kiwa, via UK Pet Food) provides a quality management framework; it does not guarantee pathogen-free individual batches. Routine batch testing and transparent reporting are expected of responsible manufacturers.

3. Balance

Nutritional adequacy is a material concern with home-prepared RMBDs and is not confined to raw feeding. Home-prepared diets, raw or cooked, are frequently imbalanced when formulated without appropriate expertise (Freeman et al., 2013; Lyu, 2025). The most clinically significant problems are calcium-to-phosphorus ratio errors (especially in growing animals), iodine insufficiency, and over-reliance on a narrow ingredient set.

The practical solution to most nutritional risk in raw feeding is variety. A diet rotated regularly across different protein sources, organ types, and whole-food ingredients is substantially less likely to develop chronic nutrient deficiencies or excesses than a diet based on one or two ingredients fed repeatedly over months. This principle underpins best-practice commercial complete raw formulations and home preparation alike.

Commercial pet foods are not immune to nutritional failure. Analysis of UK complete dog and cat foods found non-compliance with European micronutrient guidelines in a substantial proportion of products (Davies et al., 2017).

FEDIAF nutrient guidelines, the primary reference for complete pet food formulation in Europe, were developed predominantly from data on animals fed ultraprocessed diets. Nutrient bioavailability in raw food matrices may differ materially from the values underpinning those guidelines. Manufacturers should incorporate bioavailability data specific to their ingredient set and processing approach where available.

RFVS position on nutritional governance:

For commercial complete raw diets: formulation to FEDIAF guidelines with laboratory verification and robust quality assurance is required. Departure from guideline ranges requires explicit data-based justification. Where feasible, feeding trial data or validated biomarker monitoring to confirm nutrient status in the living animal should supplement formulation-based substantiation.

For home-prepared raw: recipes should be formulated by a qualified nutritionist for the individual animal’s life stage and health status, reviewed when circumstances change, and built on varied ingredients. For growing puppies, particularly large and giant breeds, calcium and phosphorus balance requires professional oversight; formal nutritionist input before commencement and ongoing monitoring throughout growth are strongly recommended.

On supplementation: the RFVS takes no position against targeted supplementation in raw diets where it is nutritionally indicated. A blanket “no supplements” approach is not defensible across all animals and all feeding contexts.

4. Bones

The clinical question is not “bones: yes or no?” but “which bones, for which animal, fed how, and supervised how?”.

The RFVS advises that cooked bones must never be given to dogs or cats. Cooked bones become brittle and splinter in ways that raw bones do not; this is a distinct and avoidable risk category.

Raw meaty bones fed under supervision can contribute to dental calculus reduction and provide behavioural enrichment (Marx et al., 2016), consistent with the broader DogRisk findings on raw diet and dental health.

Oesophageal foreign body obstruction from bones and chews is documented in the veterinary literature (Leib and Sartor, 2008; Rousseau et al., 2007). It is important to note that neither of these studies defined or distinguished between raw and cooked bones as the implicated items; the risk cannot be attributed to raw bones specifically. The RFVS’s unequivocal advice against cooked bones addresses the primary avoidable risk in this category.

RFVS minimum standards for bone feeding:

– Cooked bones must never be given.
– Weight-bearing and very hard bones are inappropriate as routine chew items due to dental fracture risk.
– Bone size must be appropriate to the individual animal.
– Supervision is required throughout; remove items when reduced to swallowable size.
– Bones are contraindicated in animals with a history of obstruction, severe dental disease, GI motility disorders, or gulping behaviour, and where supervision cannot be maintained.
– Owners of brachycephalic and small-breed dogs require explicit counselling on obstruction risk.

 

 

BEST-PRACTICE BENCHMARK

The RFVS supports the following standard as applicable to all companion animal feeding formats.

A best-practice diet should: be biologically appropriate in macronutrient profile and food matrix for the species and life stage; be varied in its ingredient composition to reduce the risk of chronic nutritional imbalance; be demonstrably nutritionally adequate with transparent formulation, laboratory verification, and where feasible feeding trial or biomarker data confirming nutrient status in the living animal; be produced and handled under robust safety systems including HACCP-equivalent controls, traceability, and clear consumer handling instructions; and make no claims that outrun the available evidence.

 

 

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

– Long-duration controlled trials comparing ultraprocessed and raw or fresh diet formats with validated clinical endpoints including lifespan, disease incidence, and quality of life.
– Comparative quantification of household zoonotic risk across feeding formats under normal real-world conditions.
– Nutrient bioavailability studies in raw food matrices to inform FEDIAF-based formulation.
– Life-stage-specific nutritional standards and validation for large-breed puppies, reproductive animals, and animals with chronic disease.
– Further investigation of the associations identified by DogRisk between early-life diet and atopy, IBD, dental disease, and metabolic markers, using controlled prospective designs where feasible.
– A practice-based evidence network or structured case registry to capture and evaluate clinical outcomes in raw-fed animals under veterinary supervision.

 

 

SUMMARY POSITION

The RFVS does not claim that raw and fresh feeding is risk-free, universally appropriate, or proven to prevent or treat disease. The RFVS asserts that the available evidence, including a substantial and growing body of independent peer-reviewed research, does not support blanket condemnation of RMBDs, and that the real-world risks of well-managed raw and fresh feeding have been consistently overstated relative to the evidence.

A varied, balanced raw or fresh diet, handled hygienically and appropriate to the individual animal, represents a practical and evidence-supported feeding approach for the majority of healthy dogs and cats in households without significant vulnerability factors.

Raw and ultraprocessed diets should be evaluated on the same evidentiary standards. Where ultraprocessed diets are subject to scrutiny regarding nutritional adequacy, microbiological safety, and long-term health outcomes, raw and fresh diets deserve the same rigorous and open-minded evaluation, not a higher burden of proof applied selectively.

 

 

A CALL TO THE PROFESSION

The RFVS invites veterinarians, veterinary nurses, nutritionists, researchers, manufacturers, and owners to join us in building the evidence base that this field needs.

The associations between diet and canine health documented by DogRisk and others are scientifically credible, clinically significant, and insufficiently explored. Resolving the open questions requires collaboration: controlled trials, case registries, shared clinical data, and professional engagement with the full range of feeding approaches that owners actually use.

Raw feeding is not a fringe practice. It is widespread, it has a growing scientific basis, and it deserves professional engagement on equal terms with any other area of veterinary nutrition. The absence of perfect evidence is not a reason to withhold practical guidance from owners seeking it, nor to dismiss the consistent signals emerging from independent research.

The RFVS provides a community of practice for veterinarians, nutritionists, researchers, and owners who wish to contribute to this work, share clinical experience, and develop and disseminate the evidence that will move the field forward. We encourage all those with a professional or personal interest in companion animal nutrition to engage with us at rfvs.info.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Algya, K.M., Cross, T.W.L., Leuck, K.N., et al. (2018). Apparent total-tract macronutrient digestibility, serum chemistry, urinalysis, faecal characteristics, metabolites and microbiota of adult dogs fed extruded, mildly cooked, and raw diets. Journal of Animal Science.

Anturaniemi, J., Barrouin-Melo, S.M., Zaldivar-Lopez, S., Sinkko, H., Hielm-Bjorkman, A. (2019). Owners’ perception of acquiring infections through raw pet food: a comprehensive internet-based survey. Veterinary Record.

Behravesh, C.B., Ferraro, A., Deasy, M., et al. (2010). Human Salmonella infections linked to contaminated dry dog and cat food, 2006-2008. Pediatrics.

BSAVA (2024). BSAVA Position Statement on Companion Animal Nutrition.

BVA (2024). BVA Policy Position: Raw feeding.

Cammack, N.R., Yamka, R.M., and Adams, V.J. (2021). Low number of owner-reported suspected transmission of foodborne pathogens from raw meat-based diets fed to dogs and/or cats. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Davies, M., Alborough, R., Jones, L., et al. (2017). Mineral analysis of complete dog and cat foods in the UK and compliance with European guidelines. Scientific Reports.

FEDIAF (2024). Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food for Cats and Dogs.

Freeman, L.M., Chandler, M.L., Hamper, B.A., and Weeth, L.P. (2013). Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat-based diets for dogs and cats. JAVMA.

FSA (updated 2025). Raw pet food hygiene advice and handling guidance. food.gov.uk

Hemida, M., Vuori, K.A., Salin, S., Moore, R., Anturaniemi, J., Hielm-Bjorkman, A. (2021). Puppyhood diet as a factor in the development of owner-reported allergy/atopy skin signs in adult dogs in Finland. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.

Hemida, M., Vuori, K.A., Moore, R., Anturaniemi, J., Rosendahl, S., Hielm-Bjorkman, A. (2023). Distinct healthy and atopic canine gut microbiota is influenced by diet and antibiotics. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Hiney, K.M., et al. (2024). Comparing a raw meat-based diet and an extruded diet in healthy dogs: gut microbiota, metabolomic profiles, and inflammatory markers. Frontiers in Animal Science.

Holm, S., Baarman, E., Anturaniemi, J., Hemida, M., Salin, S., Vuori, K.A., Moore, R., Hielm-Bjorkman, A. (2025). The effect of a kibble diet versus a raw meat-based diet on energy metabolism biomarkers in dogs. Veterinary Journal.

Leib, M.S., and Sartor, L.L. (2008). Esophageal foreign body obstruction caused by a dental chew treat in 31 dogs (2000-2006). JAVMA.

Lyu, Y., et al. (2025). Current evidence on raw meat diets in pets. PMC.

Marx, F.R., Machado, G.S., Pezzali, J.G., et al. (2016). Raw beef bones as chewing items to reduce dental calculus in Beagle dogs. Australian Veterinary Journal.

Morelli, G., et al. (2019). Survey of dog owners on raw meat-based diet feeding practices.

Morris, Z.S., Wooding, S., and Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Rousseau, A., Prittie, J., Broussard, J.D., et al. (2007). Incidence and characterization of esophagitis following esophageal foreign body removal in dogs: 60 cases (1999-2003). Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care.

Stull, J.W., Brophy, J., and Weese, J.S. (2015). Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections. CMAJ.

UK Pet Food (accessed January 2026). Raw pet food standard / Kiwa certification. ukpetfood.org

WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee (2020). Statement on Risks of Raw Meat-Based Diets.

WSAVA (2020). Nutrition Toolkit: raw meat-based diets.