Dog food carbon pawprint worse than human diet

Athletic large brown dog pictured indoors and side-on, stood on a white leather sofa, looking out of a corner window, plants and flowers on the sill.

Dogs fed on premium, meat-rich pet food can have a bigger dietary carbon pawprint than their owners, according to the largest study undertaken into the climate impact of commercially available menu options.

In particular, wet, raw and meat-rich products are associated with substantially higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than dry dog food. Overall, the research reveals that the production of ingredients used in UK dog food is estimated to contribute around 1% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

These findings highlight the need for greater transparency and better labelling of dog food ingredients to help consumers make informed choices, as pet ownership continues to rise, experts say.

Differences in impact between foods

For the purposes of this extensive study, scientists from the Universities of Edinburgh and Exeter used ingredient and nutrient labelling information to calculate the carbon footprint of almost 1,000 commercially available dog foods, based on emissions generated during the production of ingredients.

Their sample included a selection of dry, wet and raw foods, including plant-based and grain-free options.

It is estimated that producing enough food of the types fed in the UK for all dogs worldwide could generate emissions equivalent to over half of those made burning jet fuel in commercial flights each year.

The analysis also reveals striking differences in the environmental impact of commercial dog foods, with the highest-impact foods responsible for up to 65 times more emissions than the lowest-rating options.

Prime meat cuts push up emissions

Using large amounts of prime meat, which could otherwise be eaten by humans, pushes up emissions. By contrast, use of nutritious carcass parts that are in low demand helps limit environmental impact. The impact of dry food, not marketed as grain-free, tends to be lower than that of wet, raw or grain-free options.

Dog owners who want to reduce environmental impacts but not change food type are therefore advised to check the label description of meat cuts used in the food, aiming for a lower content of prime meat.

An increase in the use of plant-based dog foods is also likely to reduce emissions. However, the research team caution that only a small number of plant-based foods were available to test for this study.

Call for clear labelling by industry

Funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the findings of this most definitive piece of academic research are officially published today in the Journal of Cleaner Production.

They show just how large and variable climate impacts can be for dog food, explains the study’s principal investigator from the University of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, John Harvey:

“As a veterinary surgeon working on environmental sustainability, I regularly see owners torn between ideals of dogs as meat‑eating ‘wolves’ and their wish to reduce environmental harm. So, it’s important for them to know that choosing grain-free, wet or raw foods can result in higher impacts compared to standard dry kibble.”

“The pet food industry should make sure meat cuts used are of the types not typically eaten by humans, and that labelling is clear. These steps can help us have healthy, well-fed dogs with a smaller pawprint on the planet.”

Sometimes abbreviated to the ‘Dick Vet’, the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies was first established back in 1823 by Scottish vet William Dick, and now forms part of the University of Edinburgh.

Further Reading: