12/01/2026
Well said Honey's Real Dog Food
Iām so disappointed in Chris Packham. You would think with him being such an advocate for animals, he would understand the importance in them having a species-appropriate diet.
I was extremely sorry to see that Chris Packham, a man who has done great work for the environment, is now promoting an ultra-processed vegan dog food.
During an interview on āGood Morning Britainā a couple of days ago, Chris made various claims that I would, with respect, challenge.
First, he claimed that recent research shows that vegetable-based diets for dogs are as good as or better than meat-based diets.
The 2022 study he referenced is deeply flawed. It was based on owner perceptions, not veterinary assessments or objective health measurements. Only 13% of the dogs were fed a plant-based diet ā a tiny sample. As the study acknowledged, it couldnāt control for many variables like veterinary care quality, exercise, genetics, etc.. The observation period was short ā many diet-related health issues (like dilated cardiomyopathy) can take years to manifest. No account was taken of the actual diets being fed.
Next, he referenced research done by Nottingham University in 2024 (published September 2025). This involved an analysis of 31 complete dry (i.e. kibble) foods ā some meat based, some veterinary some plant-based ā to see if they met the regulatory guidelines. The issue with this research is that all the foods were dry, extruded kibble i.e. no comparison was made with fresh, frozen, or minimally processed foods. Processing (high heat, extrusion) can destroy or denature nutrients, particularly B-vitamins and certain amino acids. The FEDIAF guidelines, used as reference, are minimum standards by the way, not optimal nutrition. There was no bioavailability testing ā a critical flaw. The study also measured whatās in the food, not what dogs can actually use. To offer one example, synthetic B12 vs. natural B12 from meat have different absorption rates and plant-based iron is far less bioavailable than heme iron from meat. Crucially, there were no actual feeding trials. This is laboratory analysis only ā no actual dogs were fed these diets. We donāt know if the nutrients translate to health outcomes. Indeed, the authors themselves say: āIdeally the next step is long-term feeding studies.ā No food met all the FEDIAF guidelines, by the way.
Chris then boosted a particular brand ā boasting that it was put together in a lab ā as if this was a benefit! What he failed to mention is that the brand he is promoting is, essentially, a plant-based ultra-processed kibble and (leaving aside the dubious nature of the FEDIAF guidelines ā see above) needs to be supplemented with all its related issues.
One of the main arguments made for a plant-based diet during this interview was that it is better for the environment. Another flawed study published this month in the 'Journal of Cleaner Production' (January 2026) was cited as evidence. Sadly, this study was also deeply flawed. It was based on the ingredient lists on a range of dog food brands. These ingredient lists are wildly misleading and not a true reflection of the actual contents. Almost all dog food is made using waste ingredients from human foodā¦ this includes kibble, wet and raw. Basically, they were double counting the greenhouse gases. Anyway, it is impossible to calculate the carbon footprint of 1,000 different pet food products ā which they claim to have done. I would question whether it is possible to even estimate it. It takes us and our consultants untold hours to calculate our own carbon footprint so that we can remain carbon neutral. This is not work that can be done by AI. No account was taken of the production process, either. And it is highly questionable whether a vegetarian or vegan option would be any less damaging to the environment because for it to be even close to nutritionally adequate requires all sorts of different ingredients some natural and some manmade. Finally, the study made no mention of the damage done by intensive/factory farming ā which is considerably greater than the damage done by organic/regenerative farming.
There was also sorts of other misinformation during the interview. For example, it was claimed that dogs are omnivores when, in fact, they are carnivores. Chris listed off the number of animals slaughtered every year just to feed dogsā¦ which was inaccurate because, of course, as mentioned above, almost all dog food is made from waste meat. Finally, when Chris was challenged over whether his dogs would prefer real meat to plant based ultra-processed kibble he tried to fudge the question.
As Honeyās customers will be aware I am vegan at home but vegetarian when travelling and a vegan option is not available. I was a trustee of the World Land Trust for 20 years and have been a trustee of Rainforest Trust UK for five years. I am as deeply concerned for the environment and farm animal welfare as Chris is.
I am also deeply concerned for canine welfare and I am certain that a plant-based diet can never, ever supplant a raw meat based diet in terms of what is healthiest for our dogs. The important thing is to ensure that only high welfare meat is used so as to minimise environmental impact and ensure maximum farm animal welfare/the highest possible levels of nutrition.
It is a shame that such a high profile figure as Chris is promoting an ultra-processed kibble and that he is using flawed research to defend his position.
