Raising More Questions Than Answers

The Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) published an article in its November-December 2003 issue on salmonella in two cats fed a raw-meat diet.¹ If you read the article closely, you'll see that both cats were unhealthy and, from my reading, were apparently not terribly well cared for. One was an unneutered (!?!) 14 year-old male with matted hair, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates within the lamina propria (the connective tissue located just under the epithelial cells), mild pneumonia, and an ulcerated tongue. This cat had a history of weight loss, soft stools, and anorexia. Another was a recently vaccinated kitten with severe pneumonia, a severe nasal discharge, and bilateral corneal opacity. The kitten's lungs were mottled. Finally, the article notes that both cats originated in the same multiple-cat household and the affected animals may have had an altered immune status or environmental stress. The older cat also had a bordetella infection "incurring additional immunological and physiological stress with compromise to local pulmonary defense mechanisms."

 

What we don't know is: where the beef used to feed these cats came from; whether it was beef that was intended for human consumption (or one of those lower-quality, pre-packaged " BARF diets" that make me very nervous); how the caregiver prepared and served the beef; and whether the caregiver was careful about not letting the raw meat sit out for hours or even days on end. The article notes that the referring veterinarian told the client to discontinue feeding a raw beef-based diet to her cats. If I were the veterinarian, I'd certainly recommend the same thing. Something is clearly terribly wrong with the food being served in that household.

 

So, how concerned should we be about what this very interesting article says? If two healthy and otherwise well-cared for cats — that we knew were served a properly and safely prepared balanced diet consisting of fresh meat from a reputable source intended for human consumption — were stricken down by salmonella and died, then indeed we should be extremely concerned. However, a careful reading of the article suggests that the cats were neither healthy nor well-cared for. Nor do we know whether the meat came from a reputable source. Consequently, because we don't have answers to such key questions, these unfortunate incidents do not constitute a blanket indictment of all raw diets. I'm disappointed to report that this article has already been badly misused and misrepresented for just that purpose — with one veterinary site even implying it was a broad-based "study" of the issue of raw food and salmonella in cats.

 

I urge a close reading of the AAHA article — and very strongly suggest that you don't rely on second- or third-hand interpretations of what it says. Don't run away from the issue of parasites and bacteria in cat food. Understand the issue, respect it, and make informed choices on the meats you select and how you serve the food.

 

That same article notes that healthy adult cats "appear to have high immunological resistance to the development of clinical salmonellosis." In one study, the article notes, "experimental infection of healthy cats required inoculation of infectious organisms in numbers far exceeding those likely encountered in natural infection." Translated into less scientific language, this means that it's very difficult for cats to succumb to salmonella poisoning.

 

Finally, remember that the US Centers for Disease Control reports that in human cases of food-borne salmonellosis between 1973 and 1984, contaminated beef accounted for the majority of cases at 19 percent. Behind that was turkey (nine percent), pork (seven percent), and poultry (five percent). Another CDC study published in December 2004 concluded that healthy house cats are generally safe with regard to excretion of salmonella in the environment.

 

 

  1. Unfortunately, a subscription is now required to access this article.