Doberman Nurtrition Beyond the Label: Navigating the Complex Intersections of Pet Nutrition, Marketing, and Scientific Research
Recently, our attention has been drawn to a thought-provoking Facebook post by Dr. Conor Brady regarding Dr. Lisa Freeman, a veterinary nutritionist and professor at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. Dr. Freeman’s suggestions to not use pet food ingredient labels to judge which pet food to buy, has not only sparked considerable debate and criticism by Dr. Brady, but within the broader communities deeply concerned with pet nutrition. What is most important to us here at ‘A Doberman’s World’ is that her input may also have influenced Doberman guardians’ purchasing decisions impacted by the Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM) controversy of 2018, in which Dr. Freeman was also significantly involved through public-facing articles and professional commentary. Her commentary has intensified scrutiny of the prevailing recommendations for pet diets, particularly the strong tilt toward conventional pet foods, and many Doberman owners now, maybe erroneously believe that their beloved companions should eat grain-inclusive diets and simply avoid grain-free diets without additional qualifiers.
Approximately six years after the diet and DCM controversy started, Dr. Freeman faced recent legal challenges in the wake of the DCM issue. The 2024 lawsuit originally named Dr. Freeman and several other veterinarians. And while the claims against Dr. Freeman were later voluntarily dismissed by KetoNatural (the Plaintiff), the situation underscores the complexity and sensitivity surrounding pet nutrition advice, highlighting the profound influence that specific figures can have on pet owners' choices and veterinary recommendations. Given the critical nature of these issues to our companions' health and our trust in veterinary guidance, it is imperative to delve deeper into the dynamics shaping these recommendations. Dr. Freeman may only represents a single facet of a much larger conversation, but her considerable impact on the discourse around pet food warrants a thorough examination. This article aims to explore the broader implications of her stance and the need for a more balanced and scrutinized approach to feeding our canine companions.
What About Non Boutique Pet Foods?
The Beginning
The discourse around pet food ingredients is a contentious one, fueled by diverse opinions and industry influences and figures like Dr. Freeman may have further amplified this debate, which may have also contributed to the lawsuit filed agains Hill’s Pet Nutrition, but they may also have influenced consumers. While Dr. Freeman is also known for earlier writings, e.g., “Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat–based diets for dogs and cats” published in 2013, in 2018, Dr. Freeman authored three commentary pieces in the following succession: “A broken heart: Risk of heart disease in boutique or grain-free diets and exotic ingredients;” “Diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs: What do we know?” and “It’s not just grain-free: An update on diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy.” According to Dr. Freeman, the broken heart article reached “180,000 page views in the first” week alone. Given that wide distribution, her perspectives, particularly those presented in the 2018 published commentaries, in which she named the diets suspected be connected to DCM, “BEG” diets, meaning boutique companies, exotic ingredients, or grain-free diets may have influenced people’s buying decisions and only later stirred significant controversy and debate and possibly, contributed to the 2024 major lawsuit against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, in which, as aforementioned, Dr. Freeman appeared in the original complaint.
The Broader Issues Beyond the DCM Debate
While on its own, conflict of interest does not necessarily prove bias, Dr. Freeman is affiliated with the pet food industry. Freeman’s own Petfoodology disclosure states that she has received research or residency funding, given sponsored lectures, or provided professional services for companies including Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Nestlé Purina PetCare, P&G Petcare/Mars, and Royal Canin. As such, Dr. Freeman often appears to receive financial/professional support from major pet food corporations like Royal Canin, Hill’s, and Purina, which may create a conflict of interest that could potentially bias her commentary. In an ideal world, a researchers and science communicators should have no affiliation with any company, simply to avoid any conflict of interest. In a world that has to compromise, they, at the very least, should present all relevant variables that apply within an issue consistently. This underlying problem is reflected in the fact that many of these corporations sponsor the very research they then may use to validate their marketing claims. Such sponsorship can lead to biases in the research, as studies may be designed, conducted, or interpreted in ways that favor the sponsor's products. The bias concept can also extend to anyone who then presents the evidence in articles addressing the public.
Interestingly Dr. Freeman’s ingredient label and later “fairy dust “argument focused mainly on non-conventional pet food ingredients or companiess, but did not discuss all ingredients across the market. In her widely circulated “A broken heart: Risk of heart disease in boutique or grain-free diets and exotic ingredients”article published in 2018, for which she herself says, she received some pushback because of her recommendation (““Stop reading your pet food ingredient list!” This was the advice I gave in my June 4, 2018 post: “A broken heart: Risk of heart disease in boutique or grain-free diets and exotic ingredients.” I received some criticism for this statement…””), she used nonconventional pet food companies and then continued to highlight the ‘fairy dust’ in non-conventional ingredient pet food in the ‘"Stop reading your pet food ingredient list!” 2019 article. While Dr. Freeman suggests that consumers should avoid focusing solely on the ingredient lists of pet foods and also linked from the 2019 article to a broader 2016 article from Clinical Nutrition Team at Tufts called “Why you shouldn’t judge a pet food by its ingredient list” that was not limited to boutique pet foods, but pet food marketing of ingredients at larger scale, this stance might still be seen as oversimplifying a complex issue, especially in the earlier 2018 framing where it seems that she applied scrutiny mostly to more non-traditional companies and ingredients. In our opinion, Dr. Freeman categorically failed to address ingredients used by companies listed in her disclosure, especially in her 2018 published and widely circulated piece(s).
It is imperative to address another critical point in this discussion: the importance of scrutinizing pet food ingredients should not be dismissed outright, As mentioned, Dr. Freeman linked to a broader 2016 article from Clinical Nutrition Team at Tufts called “Why you shouldn’t judge a pet food by its ingredient list” that was addressing pet food marketing of ingredients at larger scale. In that article, Tufts’ Clinical Nutrition Team took the stance that ingredient splitting can make ingredient lists problematic, and we agree. However, unlike Dr. Freeman who seems to suggest that ingredient lists should be de-emphasized, we believe ingredients do matter, as they are the building blocks of the nutrition we provide to our pets, regardless of who produces the product. People should learn how to read an ingredient list and then use them as an equal evaluation point within all the information available about a pet food. To us, the contention arises when companies market any ingredients, non-conventional or not, to appeal to pet owners, independent of brand.
The large companies and their affiliations dynamic creates a challenging environment for pet owners seeking to make informed decisions about their pets' nutrition. While large pet food companies have the resources to produce quality foods, the potential bias introduced by their sponsorship of research or affiliations with the people educating the public about diets and nutrition can make it difficult for consumers to distinguish between marketing and genuine nutritional advice.
Conventional Pet Food Companies
In the ongoing debate over pet nutrition and the scrutiny of pet food ingredients, an essential aspect to consider is the significant influence wielded by large, conventional pet food companies. These corporations market their products extensively and sponsor most of the research supporting their marketing claims. This relationship between commercial interests and scientific research can represent a considerable conflict of interest, potentially skewing consumer information. Moreover, market research shows that a few brands appear to dominate the veterinary diet market (“Hill's Pet Nutrition (Colgate-Palmolive) and Royal Canin (Mars) collectively hold approximately 75-80% of US veterinary diet market value”). In that regard, Dr. Freeman listing the question, “Does the company conduct any research? Do they publish it in peer-reviewed journals?” in her recommendation regarding which questions “savvy owners should ask companies to select the best possible food for their pets” in a 2016 article, is quite an interesting suggestion. Given that conducting that kind of research requires very substantial amounts of money, this recommendation adds another layer that skews against smaller pet-food manufacturers that may lack the funding, including many boutique pet-food companies.
In the End
While we agree with Dr. Freeman on some issues, we disagree on limiting the conversation to BEG. Some of the points Dr. Freeman makes about companies often marketing their products by highlighting specific ingredients or claiming superior nutritional benefits and a certain lack of transparency regarding the actual nutritional value these ingredients provide in the final product, are, in our view valid. We also agree that the label is not everything to judge a pet food’s nutritional adequacy, but the conversation around pet food, apparently frequently sparked by Dr. Freeman, should apply to every pet food company, including the ingredients of the products Dr. Freeman was or is associated with professionally. Not only should we scrutinize ingredient lists independently of who produced it, but we should also consider the broader context in which pet food research and marketing occur. Consumers should be made aware of potential conflicts of interest and encouraged to seek out a diverse range of information sources. This includes independent studies, unbiased veterinary feedback, and reputable third-party reviews.
Addressing this conflict of interest, whether it is research or opinions like Dr. Freeman’s, is crucial for ensuring that pet owners, including Doberman parents, have access to reliable information. By recognizing the role of marketing and sponsored research or other engagements in shaping perceptions of pet food, consumers can better navigate the complex landscape of pet nutrition and make choices that are genuinely in the best interest of their pets' health and well-being. More prominent transparency from science communicators and pet food companies regarding their (research) sponsorship and marketing practices would be a significant step forward in building trust with consumers and fostering a more informed and objective discussion about pet food nutrition.
Lawsuit Update 2026:
District court dismissed the case in November 2024.
Judge Kathryn Vratil dismissed the claims in November 2024, finding that KetoNatural had not plausibly alleged that the challenged statements constituted commercial advertising or promotion under the Lanham Act, and also had not plausibly alleged falsity.
KetoNatural appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The appeal is KetoNatural Pet Foods v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, No. 24-3185, filed December 4, 2024.
Oral argument happened November 20, 2025.
Courthouse News covered the argument and noted KetoNatural asked the Tenth Circuit to revive the false-advertising suit.
As of April 11, 2026, no Tenth Circuit opinion had been issued.
A Corporate and Business Law Journal article reported on the Tenth Circuit’s November 20, 2025 oral argument and stated that the court had, “to date,” “not authored an opinion yet.”
Additional Arguments about Ingredient List Reading:
LEARN HOW TO READ INGREDIENT LABELS (Dr. Judy Morgan)
INGREDIENT LABELS Part 1 (Dr. Karen Becker)
INGREDIENT LABELS Part 2 (Dr. Karen Becker)
INGREDIENT LABELS Part 3 (Dr. Karen Becker)
Note: We are neither affiliated, nor endorse Dr. Judy Morgan or Dr. Karen Becker. We simply aim to offer additional arguments about ingredient label reading.
Article last updated: May 3, 2026
In-Text Linked References
Brady, C. (2024, March 17). Stop reading the ingredients!!! Said no human food consumer ever ...Have you heard this one yet from your favourite Purina [Facebook post]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/DogsFirstIreland/posts/pfbid03698zns2pFX5AmQAC1ZM2FtJPfYahHRDoTwzgco6vFtPw4DpBKhshasMzviduTB4el
Clinical Nutrition Team. (2016, June 21). Why you shouldn’t judge a pet food by its ingredient list. Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2016/06/21/why-you-shouldnt-judge-a-pet-food-by-its-ingredient-list/
Expert Market Research. (2026). United States pet veterinary diet market size and share. MarketResearch.com. https://www.marketresearch.com/Expert-Market-Research-v4220/United-States-Pet-Veterinary-Diet-44619725/
Freeman, L. M. (2016, December 19). Questions you should be asking about your pet’s food. Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2016/12/19/questions-you-should-be-asking-about-your-pets-food/
Freeman, L. M. (2018, June 4). A broken heart: Risk of heart disease in boutique or grain-free diets and exotic ingredients. Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2018/06/04/a-broken-heart-risk-of-heart-disease-in-boutique-or-grain-free-diets-and-exotic-ingredients/
Freeman, L. M. (2018, November 29). It’s not just grain-free: An update on diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy. Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2018/11/29/dcm-update/
Freeman, L. M. (2019, March 1). Stop reading your pet food ingredient list! Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2019/03/01/stop-reading-your-pet-food-ingredient-list/
Freeman, L. M., Chandler, M. L., Hamper, B. A., & Weeth, L. P. (2013). Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat–based diets for dogs and cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(11), 1549–1558. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.11.1549
Freeman, L. M., Stern, J. A., Fries, R., Adin, D. B., & Rush, J. E. (2018). Diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs: What do we know? Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 253(11), 1390–1394. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.253.11.1390
Freeman, L.M. (2026, March 6 ). Who we are. Petfoodology. https://sites.tufts.edu/petfoodology/2026/03/06/who-we-are/
KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (D. Kan. 2024). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02046
KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (D. Kan. 2024). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02046/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02046-1.pdf
KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 24-3185 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 4, 2024). Justia Dockets & Filings. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/24-3185
McClung, M. (2026, April 11). When the dog food fights back: A false advertising feud between two dog food companies. Corporate and Business Law Journal. https://cablj.org/when-the-dog-food-fights-back-a-false-advertising-feud-between-two-dog-food-companies/
Pampuro, A. (2025, November 20). 10th Circuit asked to bite into natural dog food feud. Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/10th-circuit-asked-to-bite-into-natural-dog-food-feud/
Thixton, S. (2024, February 9). Lawsuit claims Hill’s Pet Food and veterinarians fabricated grain-free diet scare. Truth about Pet Food. https://truthaboutpetfood.com/lawsuit-claims-hills-pet-food-and-veterinarians-fabricated-grain-free-diet-scare/
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for advice from your veterinarian or other healthcare professional. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease or prescribe any medication or other treatment. Always consult with your veterinarian or other qualified healthcare provider before making any changes to your pet's healthcare regimen, especially if they have or suspect they may have a health problem. The author and publisher of this article are not responsible for any adverse effects or consequences resulting from the use of any suggestions, products, or procedures mentioned in this article. The use of this information is at the reader's discretion and risk.
