LOWELL, Ark., Dec. 2, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — A paper published in Metabolites on Oct. 17, 2025, aimed to demonstrate that The Farmer’s Dog’s “fresh, human-grade” dog food provides superior health benefits for senior dogs compared to kibble. While the study’s premise appeared promising, expert analysis by BSM Partners reveals critical scientific and methodological failures that render its conclusions unreliable.
Beneath the surface lie fundamental design flaws, significant data inaccuracies, and major omissions that call the study’s integrity into question, including:
- Confounded experimental design: The study claimed to assess the effects of food processing on canine health but compared two diets that differed in both nutrient composition and processing. The “fresh” formula contained more protein and fat, fewer carbohydrates, and added Omega-3 fatty acids, while the kibble diet contained less protein, more carbohydrates, and no added Omega-3s. Because multiple variables were changed at once, the study could not isolate the effects of processing alone.
- Methodological omissions: If the scope of the research was to understand the impact of different processing methods on metabolic health, it must provide details about each processing method, including cooking time and temperature. These explanations and other key details about the study design were omitted, including how much food each dog consumed during the study, when medications were administered, and to which dogs. Without these details, the experiment cannot be independently verified or replicated.
- Significant nutrient data errors: A closer examination of Table 1 uncovered several inaccurate nutrient values for the extruded kibble diet. Vitamin A and copper were overstated by roughly tenfold, exceeding established AAFCO safety limits, and minerals such as iron and zinc were reported at 50 to 100 times above acceptable levels. These errors fundamentally undermine the dataset and any conclusions drawn from it.
- Misuse of regulatory terminology: The treatment diet was described as “fresh” and “minimally processed” throughout the study, yet under regulatory definitions set by the FDA and AAFCO, “fresh” applies only to raw, unprocessed foods preserved through refrigeration. The test diet was heat-cooked and preserved, making the “fresh” label inaccurate. This misuse of regulatory terminology blurs the distinction between scientific language and marketing claims.
Peer-Reviewed Doesn’t Mean Proven
Peer review plays an important role in maintaining scientific standards, but it is not a guarantee of research quality or reliability. Flawed studies can and do make it into print, and when they do, their findings often ripple far beyond the scientific community. That’s why it’s essential for both pet owners and industry professionals to evaluate research critically and seek context beyond media headlines.
BSM Partners remains committed to transparent, scientifically supported research. We appreciate The Farmer’s Dog and all other pet food companies who have undertaken peer-reviewed research publications for the betterment of pets and their people. However, it’s critically important that research is accurate and methodologically sound, and the study in question does not clear that bar.
Ultimately, trust in pet nutrition depends on transparency, rigor, and reproducibility—not marketing spin. Sound science is the foundation of good nutrition, and our pets deserve nothing less.
Read more about the flaws found in the study here.
About BSM Partners
BSM Partners is the largest full-service pet care research, consulting, and strategy-to-shelf product innovation firm. BSM Partners’ research professionals collaborate with hundreds of clients ranging from the largest companies to the smallest upstart companies to formulate, review and advise on the development of thousands of new products annually. To learn more, go to www.bsmpartners.net.
SOURCE BSM Partners
