Study links some dog foods to higher climate impact than pet parents’ diets

A new UK study suggests some dogs’ diets may have a bigger climate impact than the diets of their pet parents, underscoring how pet nutrition is becoming part of the wider sustainability conversation in animal health. Researchers from the Universities of Edinburgh and Exeter analyzed nearly 1,000 commercially available dog foods and found that wet, raw, and meat-rich products were associated with substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than dry dog food. They also reported a 65-fold spread between the highest- and lowest-impact products in the sample. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

The work builds on earlier research showing that companion animal diets can be a meaningful part of food-system emissions. A 2022 Scientific Reports paper found wet pet food had a markedly higher environmental impact than dry food, and prior analyses have estimated that pet food production occupies substantial land and contributes materially to agricultural emissions. The new study pushes that discussion further by looking across a much larger commercial dog food sample and comparing the climate impact of different product types and ingredient profiles in a UK market context. (nature.com)

According to the University of Exeter’s January 8, 2026 announcement, the researchers used ingredient and nutrient labeling data to estimate emissions generated during ingredient production. Their sample included dry, wet, and raw foods, as well as plant-based and grain-free options. Overall, the team estimated that production of ingredients used in UK dog food contributes around 1% of the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Extrapolated globally, producing enough food of the types fed in the UK for all dogs could generate emissions equivalent to more than half of those from burning jet fuel in commercial flights each year. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

One of the study’s key findings is that ingredient choice matters as much as format. Foods using larger amounts of prime meat, which could otherwise be consumed by people, carried higher emissions, while formulations using nutritious carcass parts and other lower-demand animal by-products had lower impact. Dry foods not marketed as grain-free tended to rank better on climate impact than wet, raw, or grain-free products. The study was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

The clearest expert reaction came from principal investigator John Harvey, a veterinary surgeon affiliated with the University of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the University of Exeter. In the university release, he said he regularly sees pet parents “torn” between beliefs about dogs as meat-eating animals and a desire to reduce environmental harm, adding that grain-free, wet, and raw foods can carry higher impacts than standard dry kibble. Broader industry commentary has been moving in the same direction: recent coverage and sustainability reviews have highlighted growing pressure for clearer labeling, better sourcing transparency, and more evidence-based discussion of lower-impact formulations. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, this is less about telling clients to choose a single “best” diet and more about preparing for a more complex nutrition discussion. Pet parents are increasingly asking about sustainability, ingredient sourcing, grain-free marketing, raw feeding, and plant-based options, often all at once. This study suggests there may be meaningful climate differences between commercially available diets, but it also reinforces the need for careful counseling on nutritional completeness, life stage, comorbidities, and evidence quality before any diet change is made. The plant-based signal in this dataset is directionally important, but the authors note that only a small number of plant-based foods were available for analysis, which limits broad conclusions. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

For practices, the practical takeaway may be communication rather than immediate protocol change. Veterinarians may increasingly need to explain that “premium” and “human-grade” cues can imply higher use of prime meat and therefore higher emissions, without necessarily translating into better outcomes for every patient. That could reshape how clinics discuss therapeutic diets, routine maintenance feeding, and client questions about environmental stewardship. It also places more attention on whether manufacturers provide enough detail on ingredient sourcing and carcass-part use to support informed recommendations. This is an inference based on the study findings and related industry commentary. (news.exeter.ac.uk)

What to watch: The next phase will likely center on labeling, replication, and market response. Watch for follow-up studies validating the emissions estimates in other regions, more scrutiny of raw and grain-free products’ sustainability claims, and possible moves by manufacturers to emphasize by-products, reformulation, or clearer sourcing disclosures as climate-conscious pet parents ask harder questions. (news.exeter.ac.uk)