Here we go again. That was my first thought when I saw announcements about the Clean Label Project’s (CLP) February 2026 report, “Extremely high levels of lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium found in dry dog food.” If you’ve been in the industry a while, at least nine years, then you may remember similar pet-food-related reports and announcements from CLP in 2017.
Back then, as now, CLP’s findings raised questions and concerns among industry experts. Of course, one could argue there’s some inherent bias in those, given these experts’ involvement in the industry; yet considering that the concerns center on lack of transparency and science (or perceived lack of science, due to the lack of transparency), the bottom line is that such reports ultimately risk consumer confusion. And that does no one any good.
Criticism and concerns over 2026 dog food report …
The latest CLP report “risks misleading pet owners because it lacks essential scientific and regulatory context that is necessary for interpreting its claims that many dog foods in the U.S. contain harmful toxins,” wrote Dana Brooks, president and CEO of the Pet Food Institute (PFI), in a press release.
“The Clean Label Project report does not disclose key information, such as sampling methods, analytical protocols or how its findings compare to established safety thresholds,” she continued. “Furthermore, it appears that the data failed to account for differences in product moisture levels, which is scientifically required to accurately compare fresh and dry pet foods. Product-specific data are also not disclosed. Without this transparency, consumers and veterinarians cannot assess whether the reported levels have any relevance to pet health.”
George Collings, Ph.D., president and founder of Nutrition Solutions, and longtime pet food nutritionist and consultant, echoed these comments in his new “Ingredient Issues” column. After listing criticisms of CLP’s methodology in compiling its findings — only one sample of each dog food from each brand was tested, no reports or data were shared with the brands, no protocol was published for review and scientific literature supporting its hypothesis and data was not robust — he reminded readers of an opposite approach.
“Good science observes and then develops working hypotheses,” Collings wrote. “Good science always starts with a thorough literature review. The hypotheses are then tested, retested and tested again. Each hypothesis goes through the scrutiny of peer-review and more testing occurs. Opinions form and protocols are challenged. Good debate follows, and society and science improve.”
In fact, CLP even states on the FAQ page of its website that it doesn’t use peer review. Rather, it relies on one lab only, Ellipse Analytics, and extols that relationship while admitting it skips the important peer review process to save time. “While peer review is a critical component of the scientific process, it can take years to complete. When we identify contaminants at levels that may pose a risk to human or animal health, we believe we have an ethical obligation to disclose that information promptly rather than delay communication.”
(Interestingly, that same section on the FAQ page claims that government agencies have “demonstrated such confidence in our findings and supporting data that they used them as a catalyst and foundation for two major recalls — one involving infant formula and another resulting in the largest pet food recall in history.” The largest pet food recall in history is the melamine-related one from 2007; was CLP really behind discovering the melamine-contaminated wheat gluten in that? First I’m hearing of it.)
Echo criticisms and concerns from 2017
Brooks and Collings both pointed out the lack of transparency on CLP’s part, despite its website exclaiming that it is “redefining safety and transparency in everyday products.”
Back in 2017, when CLP previously issued a report on toxins allegedly in pet food, David Dzanis, DVM, Ph.D., longtime pet food safety and quality expert and then the “Petfood Insights” columnist, also commented on how opaque the group’s findings were. “There are no actual analytical data provided on the site. Rather, everything is reported in relative terms; i.e., how a pet food compares to others overall. One cannot discern on what basis a particular item was ranked; e.g., whether it was the pesticide residues or heavy metal content that caused it to be low on the list, or something else entirely.
“Further, notwithstanding a few tidbits of information; e.g., that chromium can cause cancer and kidney damage, it is extremely difficult to put these facts into perspective,” he continued. “In other words, without numbers it’s impossible to tell whether the chromium concentrations among pet foods are materially different from each other, or if in fact any of those tested are anywhere close to what could potentially cause adverse effects.”
Dzanis also stressed that the group’s stated mission didn’t really match its name: “The Clean Label Project does not seem to have anything to do with the label at all.”
I thought the same thing at the time. “When I first heard about a new organization called the Clean Label Project, I thought that perhaps the organization had developed a set of criteria to somehow judge or rate whether product labels — in this case, for pet food — were indeed “clean,” maybe based on the number of ingredients listed, the types of ingredient names, the number and type of ‘free from’ claims,” I wrote. “While such criteria would likely be rather subjective and arbitrary, at least they might offer consumers a basic reference for comparing pet foods, I figured. But that’s not what the Clean Label Project is about at all.”
In other words, it was misleading consumers then, starting with its name, and continues to mislead today.
Preying on pet owners’ devotion toward their pets?
Other issues about CLP were raised in 2017, such as how it made money by linking pet food products, even ones rated low according to its criteria, to listings on Amazon and receiving a percentage of the sales, as my colleague Tim Wall reported.
But to me, the main issue with these reports, and with CLP itself, stems from its dishonest relationship with consumers: Its name seems to deliberately mislead, its methods lack transparency, and it seems to prey on very real concern about the safety of what we eat and what we feed our beloved pets.
As Brooks, Collings, Dzanis and I all wrote, of course we want consumables, for humans and animals, free of toxins and contaminants. In fact, pet foods are, due to regulations and standards from the Food and Drug Administration, Association of American Feed Control Officials and National Research Council. (Collings’ column thoroughly explains these in relation to heavy metals.)
If CLP truly wanted to protect pets and their owners, Collings offered a different approach: “If CLP wants to offer standards, then be forthright, open and clear; run proper protocols, open results and communicate fairly.”
Indeed. And, while they’re at it, quit trying to take advantage of the popularity of pets and the devotion pet owners have toward them by manufacturing crises that don’t really exist.
