Could the dog’s bowl have a greater greenhouse effect than the plate of the person who feeds the dog? This is suggested by a large study on the environmental impact of dog food conducted by researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh and Exeter and published in the scientific journal Journal of Cleaner Production. Analyzing nearly 1,000 commercial dog products in the United Kingdom – including dry, wet and raw foods – the study measured the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of the ingredients. The result overturns a widely held belief: diets considered most “premium,” especially those rich in premium meats, are often also the most climate-changing.
This scenario has been arrived at through a long evolution of the pet food market that has followed a clear trajectory: more meat, more perceived quality, more price. Wet foods, raw diets, “grain-free” recipes, meats declared as premium. All designed to bring the dog’s bowl closer to the plate of the human being with whom it shares a home. Too bad this humanization of animal nutrition comes at a significant environmental cost.
The study shows that the most meat-rich feeds-especially when they use cuts that could end up directly in human consumption-are those with the highest climate footprints. In some cases, the difference between one product and another is abysmal, with up to 65 times higher emissions between the worst and best options.
What makes the difference is not just the main ingredient, but the approach with which the product is packaged. Traditional dry kibbles, especially those that include grains and animal by-products, are on average much less impactful than wet or raw foods because there is less “noble” meat behind them, more efficient supply chains, and less energy for storage and transport. In contrast, grain-free, high-protein diets-often sold as a more natural choice-end up multiplying emissions.
Moreover, the sector’s weight is by no means negligible. Researchers estimate that the production of ingredients used in dog food in the United Kingdom alone comes to account for about 1 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions. Transposed to a global scale, with similar food patterns, the impact could approach more than half of the annual emissions generated by commercial aviation fuel.
Finally, there is another observation in the study to consider: reducing the climate footprint does not mean starving or malnourishing dogs. Quite the contrary. By using parts of the slaughter cycle that are less in demand by the human market – but perfectly valid nutritionally – emissions are drastically lowered, avoiding waste and direct competition with human food.
The researchers point the finger not at the owners, but at an unclear system. Labels often tell a lot about marketing and little about actual environmental impact. Hence the call for more readable and comparable information to enable informed choices in a booming market.
