LOWELL, ARK. — Full-service pet care research, consulting and product innovation firm BSM Partners is questioning recent research done on The Farmer’s Dog fresh, human-grade dog food. According to the company, its expert analysis on the paper published in Metabolites in October found “critical scientific and methodological failures.”
The research in question examined the metabolic impact on dogs fed The Farmer’s Dog, finding the food to support healthier aging in dogs, among other health benefits.
BSM Partners is calling the study into question, citing several issues, from design flaws and significant data inaccuracies to major omissions.
“Flawed studies can and do make it into print, and when they do, their findings often ripple far beyond the scientific community,” the company shared. “That’s why it’s essential for both pet owners and industry professionals to evaluate research critically and seek context beyond media headlines.”
According to the firm, the study’s comparison of The Farmer’s Dog food with a kibble formula was confounded, as the kibble formula did not match The Farmer’s Dog. The Farmer’s Dog formula contained more protein and fat, less carbohydrates and additional Omega 3 fatty acids, while the kibble diet contained less protein, more carbohydrates and no additional Omega 3s. All these multiple variables mean the study could not isolate the effects of processing alone.
Additionally, the study failed to provide details on each processing method (cooking time and temperature) of each formula, how much food the dog’s consumed, when medications were administered and more. This, according to BSM Partners, means the study cannot be independently verified or replicated.
The firm also highlighted significant inaccurate nutrient values in the kibble diet that was used in the study. Vitamin A and copper levels were reported tenfold higher than limits established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials, and iron and zinc levels were reported 50 to 100 times higher than accepted levels.
It also noted the misuse of regulatory terminology in the study, claiming that The Farmer’s Dog’s food used in the study is not fresh, as regulatory definitions for fresh only apply to raw, unprocessed foods preserved through refrigeration.
“BSM Partners remains committed to transparent, scientifically supported research,” the company shared. “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.”
Following this, a spokesperson from The Farmer’s Dog released the below official statement, expressing concerns with the critique:
The Farmer’s Dog stands behind our study done in partnership with Cornell University and published in an unbiased peer-reviewed journal. BSM’s criticisms are not only materially false and misleading, but a biased attempt at discrediting a sound and credible study in order to protect the revenues they generate from kibble manufacturers. Their unorthodox approach of going straight to a press release rather than writing directly to the journal’s editor, or publishing their own peer-reviewed rebuttal, points to troubling signs of ill intent. Each critique is a blatant mischaracterization that could only be described as manufacturing controversy:
Confounded experimental design
The study’s design was transparently acknowledged — not hidden. BSM frames the differing macronutrient profiles as a fatal flaw the researchers concealed. In reality, the study explicitly addresses this limitation. Extruded kibble cannot be manufactured with the same macronutrient profile as The Farmer’s Dog recipe used in the study — this is a fundamental constraint of the kibble format given the requirement of added carbohydrates. There are also no minimally processed versions of rendered ingredients (chicken meal, by-product meal) found in kibble. These limitations were not only explicitly stated, they in no way negate the study’s findings which are validated by Cornell University researchers as well as the journal’s reviewers and editors.
The press release also overlooks a key finding regarding Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs). There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that support increased dietary AGEs in ultra-processed foods. Our research clearly demonstrated reductions in multiple AGE formations between minimally and ultra processed foods, highlighting meaningful differences that are relevant to long-term canine health. These exist regardless of macro and micronutrient differences. The specifics of the manufacturing process (i.e. temperatures) are not necessary to conclude that these differences exist.
As the authors explicitly state in the study: “The control food and fresh food diets had differing essential nutrient and macronutrient profiles, which makes some direct comparisons of the metabolic changes directly attributable to the processing method rather than the food format more challenging; however, processing issues related to AGE formation and exposure were quite evident.” Citing a limitation that the authors themselves disclosed is not a critique — it’s misdirection.
Methodological omissions
The “replicability” concern is a red herring. BSM claims the study cannot be independently verified because it omits proprietary manufacturing details. This is a disingenuous standard. As BSM knows well, peer-reviewed research on commercial products does not include exact recipes or processing specifications — nor should it. Both diets in this study are commercially available. Any researcher can purchase them and replicate the methodology, including BSM.
Misuse of regulatory terminology
The “fresh” terminology critique misrepresents regulatory guidance. BSM claims the term “fresh” violates regulatory definitions. This is incorrect. The regulatory language they reference applies to ingredients, not finished products — and the study authors were referencing finished products. “Fresh” is a widely accepted industry term for products that are non-shelf-stable and non-raw, a definition used by government agencies like the CDC in consumer guidance on pet food safety.
Significant nutrient data errors
The nutrient values were provided to the journal during the peer review process solely to provide a more complete nutritional profile, but they were not the focus of the research. The study’s conclusions are based on macronutrient impacts and AGE formation, not on micronutrients. Those values in no way impact any of the insights derived from the study. This study was conducted in partnership with Cornell University, all data analysis including statistics was conducted by a third-party lab and peer-reviewed by Metabolites.
Genuine scientific disputes belong in journals
This study is the first of its kind and is meant to serve as a foundation for future research. The methodology is public, was done in partnership with one of the country’s preeminent universities, and published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. If BSM believes high-heat extrusion and rendered ingredients have no impact on canine metabolic health, we welcome them to design and publish their own research. Scientific disagreements belong in journals — not press releases.
