BSM Partners has challenged the validity of a metabolomic study published in Metabolites on October 17, 2025, that examined the health effects of fresh, human-grade dog food versus extruded kibble in senior dogs.
The year-long study, led by Dr. Heather Huson, associate professor of animal sciences at Cornell University, determined that feeding dogs fresh, human-grade food can impact metabolic health and support healthier aging. The research, conducted with board-certified veterinary nutritionists employed by The Farmer's Dog, analyzed the effects of "fresh, minimally processed" recipes versus kibble in 22 senior dogs.
However, BSM Partners identified what it calls major errors, missing details, design limitations and oversights that it said make the study's conclusions misleading and largely invalid.
Confounded study design
According to BSM Partners, the study compared two foods that differed in both processing method and nutrient content. The company said the fresh food had more protein, more fat, significantly less carbohydrate, and added Omega-3 fatty acids compared to the kibble.
BSM said the variables were confounded, making it impossible to determine whether results came from processing differences or nutritional differences. The company also noted the study used an experimental kibble diet not available commercially and not representative of extruded kibble diets currently on the market.
Calculation errors in nutrient data
BSM identified what it described as systematic math errors in the study's nutrient table. The company said vitamin A was listed at 79,027 IU per 1,000 calories, but the actual formulation technical sheet indicates it should provide only about 7,903 IU. Copper was listed at 39.51 mg per 1,000 calories.
According to BSM, both vitamin A and copper were reported at levels that would exceed safety limits set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and potentially be toxic to dogs. Multiple minerals, including iron, zinc and manganese, were reported at levels 50 to 100 times higher than AAFCO nutritional minimums, according to the company.
Missing methodological details
BSM said the research lacked transparency in several areas. The company noted the study never explained how the fresh and highly processed diets were actually made, including cooking methods, duration and temperatures.
The company also said the research failed to disclose how much food the dogs were offered or consumed. It questioned whether nutrient levels for both diets were actually tested or merely calculated.
According to BSM, some dogs received medications including antibiotics, thyroid medication and pain relievers during the study, but the research did not clearly state when some dogs were given medication, at what doses, or which diet they were being fed. The company said these medications could have interfered with the dogs' blood chemistry.
Fresh food definition disputed
BSM challenged the study's description of the test food as "fresh" and "minimally processed." According to the company, the FDA and AAFCO define fresh as food in its raw state that hasn't been frozen, cooked or otherwise preserved except through simple refrigeration. BSM said the test diet was heat-cooked and packaged to ensure safety and shelf stability, which would not qualify as fresh under those standards.
Peer-review process questioned
BSM also raised concerns about the peer-review process, stating that studies with significant flaws can get published, especially in newer or less selective journals. The company said this study made it through peer review despite systematic math errors in the nutrient table, a confounded design and missing methodological details.
To read the entire analysis from BSM, click here.
