K9 Bytes

For many years scientists have been telling us that food and diet can have a direct relationship not only with our health but also with our immune system’s ability to cope with illness. As science marches on we are now seeing a range of diagnostic tests on the market purporting to identify specific foods that are contributing to our specific condition. We have all seen the amazing stories of Mr Grumpy and Mr Sneezy being cured within days of removing the offending foods from their diet.

However, the real science behind the science is actually unproven and great debate continues regarding the validity of this type of testing. Yes, some people do appear to recover from chronic conditions in a miraculous way, but by the same token many people do not. What has not been verified in these cases is the impact of the placebo effect, nor have their been any long term studies to assess the permanency of the improvement.

So now these tests are available for our canine companions and again the spin is very impressive with examples being quoted of almost miraculous recoveries by a number of long suffering dogs. That is until you look a little further into some of the case studies being publicised. Having gained access to a number of these specific cases, the results are quite disturbing and cast a shadow over the value of such testing as a realistic diagnostic tool.

As far as can be seen from a review of the canine press, there are no more than six specific cases that have been reported and these cover either dermatological or gastro-intestinal conditions. Two of the dogs who had showed dramatic early improvement, have now experienced a full recurrence of the original symptoms after only a few months. In addition, the presence of the offending ingredient could not be found in another of the dog’s diets and a financial inducement was allegedly necessary to get the owner of another dog to agree to tell his story.

It may well be that the remission and recurrence cycle experienced in some of these cases should not really surprise anybody given the traditional practice of dietary management in potential food allergy cases. The practice has commonly involved the changing of the dog’s current food to a hypoallergenic diet which more often than not will result in a significant improvement in the condition. However, this improvement is often followed by a recurrence of the original symptoms until the diet is changed again, which results in an improvement followed by another recurrence and so on.

It appears that in many cases the root of the problem is elsewhere and the bodies allergic reaction or intolerance to certain foodstuffs is more a symptom and not the cause. When the diet is changed, the removal or reduction of the foodstuffs to which the body had become intolerant, causes relief to the whole system and improvement occurs. However, after some time the body then develops intolerance to a specific ingredient or ingredients in the new diet and symptoms recur.

It is estimated that the number of canine dermatological conditions caused by food intolerance is only one in a thousand and for gastro-intestinal conditions about one in a hundred. It is no surprise that if these historical figures are reasonably accurate; the argument for the correlation between food allergy and intolerance with specific clinical conditions has a long way to go.

The major pet food manufacturers invest vast sums of money in research and development every year in order to produce the best possible diets for our canine companions and the growing range of hypoallergenic diets now available continue to find success in the marketplace. I am sure their research will include the issues of food allergy and intolerance to ensure any new product they introduce does not stimulate adverse reactions amongst their canine audience.

So it appears that we are left with two sound cases out of hundreds of tests that must have been carried out. With the test costing anywhere between £120 and £200 depending upon the specific Veterinary Practice’s policy, it is far and away the most expensive single veterinary diagnostic on the market. Assuming that the case studies published are truly representative and given the additional information that has come to light, whether or not the test is value for money must be a serious question for us all.

However, this is a question that may well be taken out of our hands by the Pet Insurance Companies. The test is priced at a level where many owners will be very reluctant to pay such a large amount for what appears to be a simple diagnostic and therefore the majority of tests will be carried out on insured dogs. How many claims including £120 plus for this test will be processed before the loss adjusters decide to take a closer look.