What the WSAVA and AVMA say about raw feeding: the positions explained

The WSAVA and the AVMA advise against raw diets: with no proven benefit and documented risks, they do not recommend them. The WSAVA federates about 113 member associations, representing more than 390,000 veterinarians; the AVMA updated its policy in January 2024. Pro-raw societies contest this reading. This guide sets out each position, the evidence behind it and the structured dissent, so the consensus can be located without hiding the disagreement.

Petipedia · Editorial team

General documentary information. For an individual animal, a veterinarian's advice takes precedence over any online content.

Last updated: 2026-06-15

On this page (What WSAVA)

• What is the WSAVA position on raw?
• What is the AVMA position, and what changed in 2024?
• Where does the FDA stand?
• Is there a structured dissenting voice?
• Why does the evidence lean towards the majority bodies?
• The positions side by side
• What four hazards does the WSAVA cite?
• What does the consensus mean in practice?

What is the WSAVA position on raw?

The WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary Association) recommends not feeding raw to dogs and cats. It federates about 113 member associations representing more than 390,000 veterinarians, and concludes that there is no documented evidence of a health benefit from raw diets while the risks are well established.

Its Global Nutrition Committee cites four families of hazard: bacterial, parasitic, nutritional and bone-related. The bacterial case is the most documented, with commercial raw foods testing about 8% Salmonella positive and 16% Listeria positive against under 0.5% in conventional foods (FDA, 2010-2012). The nutritional concern is equally concrete: an unformulated raw or homemade ration is deficient in 95% of cases (UC Davis, 2013). The committee weighs a documented risk against an unproven benefit, an asymmetry that underpins the recommendation. The position is one of caution and information, not of a categorical ban.

What is the AVMA position, and what changed in 2024?

The American Veterinary Medical Association discourages feeding raw or undercooked animal protein because of the risk to human and animal health. A notable update came in January 2024: its policy now recognises validated pathogen-reduction methods beyond cooking alone, such as high-pressure pasteurisation.

The human-health dimension is central to the AVMA reading. Handling raw exposes the household to zoonotic bacteria, and a raw-fed animal can shed Salmonella or Campylobacter in stool and saliva even with no symptom (WSAVA), shifting part of the risk from the animal to the home. The 2024 revision is significant because it acknowledges that the bacterial risk can be reduced by validated treatments, not only by cooking, while still discouraging untreated raw. The AVMA recommends discussing the choice with a vet, and if needed a doctor, before adopting raw in a household with an infant, an older adult, a pregnant woman or an immunocompromised person.

Where does the FDA stand?

The FDA does not ban raw pet food but warns against its risks and applies a zero-tolerance standard for Salmonella in pet food. Its Center for Veterinary Medicine study (2010-2012) tested 196 commercial raw samples and found about 8% Salmonella positive and 16% positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

The agency's Get the Facts campaign stresses safe handling and corrects a common misconception: freezing halts bacterial multiplication but does not kill bacteria, so a frozen raw product is not bacterially safe. The zero-tolerance standard is stricter than it may sound, because it means any detectable Salmonella in a finished pet food is grounds for action, not a quantity to be managed below a threshold. Recalls reinforce the message: in October 2025, the FDA relayed the recall of freeze-dried treats from the company Foodynamics for possible Salmonella contamination, showing that even a dried raw product can carry pathogens. The FDA position is regulatory and practical, focused on contamination and household exposure rather than on the nutritional debate, and it complements the clinical stance of the WSAVA and AVMA.

Is there a structured dissenting voice?

Yes: the debate is not unanimous. The Raw Feeding Veterinary Society (RFVS, United Kingdom) contests the WSAVA reading and defends raw within a benefits, bacteria, balance and bone framework. Presenting this divergence is a matter of neutrality, even though the weight of evidence currently leans towards the majority bodies.

The RFVS organises the pro-raw case around the gains advocates report, namely digestibility, coat appearance, reduced stool volume and palatability, and argues these can be delivered safely under a structured protocol. The disagreement is genuine, but it turns on the level of proof: the reported benefits rest largely on owner observation rather than controlled trials (Freeman et al., JAVMA 2013), while the risks are measured. A fair account records the dissent and its framework without presenting it as equivalent in evidential weight to the position of bodies representing more than 390,000 veterinarians.

Why does the evidence lean towards the majority bodies?

The majority position rests on an asymmetry: the risks of raw are quantified, the benefits are not. The FDA puts a number on contamination (about 8% Salmonella, 2010-2012) and the UC Davis study puts a number on homemade deficiency (95% of recipes short of at least one nutrient, 2013), while the claimed health benefits stay qualitative.

The reference review by Freeman and colleagues (JAVMA, 2013) examined the available data and found raw's benefits not demonstrated by controlled clinical trials. Favourable publications rely on owner observation, prone to confirmation bias, rather than randomised long-term protocols. The absence of evidence has a methodological cause, since long-term nutritional trials are costly and rare in veterinary medicine, but that gap is not itself proof of an advantage. The WSAVA and Tufts Petfoodology (2025) call for separating scientific uncertainty from an assumed, settled superiority, which is why the bodies recommend caution while leaving the door open to better evidence.

The reasoning the bodies apply is precautionary rather than dismissive. Where a benefit is reported but unmeasured and a risk is both measured and serious, the standard of care leans towards the documented risk. The figures make the imbalance concrete: contamination is counted in percentages of positive samples and deficiency in percentages of failing recipes, while coat shine, smaller stools and palatability remain qualitative reports that a well-formulated cooked ration can match (Tufts Petfoodology, 2025). The majority position is therefore not a claim that raw can never be fed safely, but a judgement that, on current evidence, it carries a quantified downside without a quantified upside. That distinction matters for a household weighing the choice, because it frames raw as a decision to manage with formulation and hygiene, not a settled improvement to adopt by default.

The positions side by side

The bodies differ in wording and emphasis but converge on caution. The table sets their stance and main argument against the structured dissent.

What four hazards does the WSAVA cite?

The WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee groups the case against raw into four hazard families: bacterial, parasitic, nutritional and bone-related. Each is documented rather than asserted, and together they explain a recommendation built on measured risk against an unproven benefit, with commercial raw foods testing about 8% Salmonella positive (FDA, 2010-2012).

The bacterial hazard is the best established, with raw foods also testing 16% Listeria positive against under 0.5% in conventional foods, and a raw-fed animal able to shed bacteria in stool and saliva even with no symptom. The parasitic hazard covers Toxoplasma, Echinococcus and Trichinella in meat that has not been frozen correctly, with a public-health extension shown by antibiotic-resistant Enterobacteriaceae found in raw foods (PMC, 2019). The nutritional hazard is the deficiency of unformulated rations, deficient in 95% of cases (UC Davis, 2013). The bone-related hazard, for the raw meaty bone usually held near 10% of the ration, records dental fractures, perforations, constipation and obstruction. The four families are why the recommendation is comprehensive rather than narrow.

What does the consensus mean in practice?

The practical reading is consistent across the majority bodies: raw is not recommended as a default, because the risks are documented and the benefit is unproven. This is a reinforced warning, not a prohibition. For a household that still chooses raw, the responsible path runs through a veterinary formulation, a traced source ideally treated by high-pressure pasteurisation, strict hygiene and clinical monitoring, measures that reduce the risk without removing it.

The 2024 AVMA update matters here: it recognises that validated pathogen-reduction methods can lower the bacterial risk, which gives owners a safer route than untreated raw if they pursue this feeding mode. In homes with vulnerable people, the decision is best discussed with a vet and, if needed, a doctor.

Reading the positions together also clarifies what they do not say. None of the bodies claims that every raw-fed animal will fall ill, that kibble is the only acceptable food, or that the pro-raw community has no point about palatability and digestibility. What they share is narrower and firmer: on the evidence available in 2026, a raw diet offers no demonstrated health advantage over a complete cooked food, while it carries a measured microbiological and nutritional risk. That shared conclusion, reached independently by a federation of about 113 associations and more than 390,000 veterinarians (WSAVA), by a national professional body (AVMA) and by a regulator (FDA), is what gives the consensus its weight. Petipedia reports the position of the veterinary bodies alongside the structured dissenting voice, locating the majority consensus without hiding the disagreement, and prescribes no diet.

Related reading (What WSAVA)

• What do the WSAVA and the AVMA say about raw diets?
• What are the documented health risks of raw feeding for dogs and cats?
• Is there any scientific study proving raw is healthier than kibble?
• Glossary: WSAVA, FDA CVM
• Hub: Raw, BARF and home-cooked diets

Sources: WSAVA, Global Nutrition Committee, raw diets statement; AVMA, policy on raw animal protein, updated January 2024; FDA, CVM study 2010-2012, Get the Facts and Foodynamics recall (October 2025); RFVS, Position Statement 2021; Freeman et al., JAVMA 2013; Stockman and Larsen, UC Davis 2013; Tufts Petfoodology 2025.