Discover which dog food has the lowest environmental impact.
Summary
Groundbreaking research from the University of Edinburgh has revealed that the environmental impact of dog food varies dramatically—by up to 65 times—between different products available in the UK. The study, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production in December 2025, analysed nearly 1,000 commercial dog foods and found that ingredient production for UK dog food alone contributes approximately 0.9–1.3% of the nation’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The findings are stark: dogs fed premium, meat-rich diets can generate larger dietary carbon footprints than their owners. However, the research also offers hope for environmentally conscious pet owners, demonstrating that careful food selection can significantly reduce your dog’s ecological pawprint without compromising nutritional adequacy.
This comprehensive guide examines the environmental credentials of different dog food types—dry, wet, raw, grain-free, and plant-based—providing evidence-based guidance for those seeking the most sustainable way to feed their canine companions.
Key Takeaways
- Dry kibble is the most sustainable mainstream option: Standard dry dog food generates the lowest environmental impact among conventional formats, with median emissions significantly below wet and raw alternatives.
- Prime meat content drives environmental impact: Foods containing higher proportions of human-grade meat cuts generate substantially more emissions than those using animal by-products (nutritious carcass portions not typically consumed by humans).
- Wet and raw foods have the highest impact: These formats contain more prime meat and generate median GHG emissions 3.3 to 5.2 times higher than dry food, depending on allocation method used.
- Grain-free foods increase environmental burden: Contrary to marketing claims of “natural” feeding, grain-free diets have significantly higher environmental impacts than standard main-market equivalents.
- Plant-based diets offer the lowest impact: While more research is needed, the limited plant-based options studied showed consistently low emissions across all environmental metrics.
- Individual product variation matters: Even within food categories, there’s enormous variation—some low-impact wet foods outperform median dry foods, meaning careful product selection within any category can reduce environmental harm.
- Global scale is substantial: Producing enough food to meet the world’s dog population needs would generate emissions equivalent to 59–99% of global commercial aviation jet fuel use.
Understanding Dog Food’s Environmental Footprint
The Scale of the Problem
The environmental impact of feeding dogs is substantial and growing. Globally, there are over 700 million dogs (approximately 500 million pets and 200 million free-roaming), with dog food sales experiencing 4–5% compound annual growth. In the UK alone, 13 million dogs consume 854 million kilograms of commercial food annually, worth £1.6 billion.
The University of Edinburgh study calculated that UK commercial dog food ingredient production results in:
| Environmental Metric | Economic Allocation | Mass Allocation |
|---|---|---|
| GHG Emissions | 4.7 Mt CO₂-eq | 6.6 Mt CO₂-eq |
| Land Use | 1.0 Mha | 1.3 Mha |
| Freshwater Use | 0.75 km³ | 0.87 km³ |
These figures represent 2.3–3.7% of UK food system GHG emissions. To put this in perspective, if scaled to meet the entire UK dog population’s calorific requirements, emissions would reach 12.5–17.5 Mt CO₂-eq, or 2.5–3.5% of total UK emissions.
Why Dog Food Matters More Than You Might Think
In many households, the absolute environmental impact of feeding a single dog—especially if their diet has a high prime meat content—exceeds the owner’s own dietary footprint. This effect multiplies in multi-dog households. The research compared dog food emissions to human diets and found that feeding a 20.1 kg dog on wet or raw food generates more GHG emissions than a UK human following a vegan diet, with raw feeding exceeding even high-meat human diets.
Comparing Dog Food Types: Environmental Impact Rankings
1. Dry Kibble (Lowest Impact)
Environmental Profile: Standard dry dog food consistently demonstrates the lowest environmental footprint among conventional formats.
Why It’s More Sustainable:
- Lower moisture content means less weight to transport
- Higher proportion of animal by-products rather than prime meat
- Average composition: 2.3% prime meat, 24.8% by-products by dry mass
- Higher carbohydrate content (49.2% for main market) from plant sources
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 0.9 kg CO₂-eq (economic allocation)
Considerations: While nutritionally complete and environmentally favourable, individual products vary significantly. The lowest-impact dry foods use poultry-based by-products and sustainable grain sources.
2. Dry Plant-Based (Lowest Overall Impact)
Environmental Profile: Plant-based dry foods showed the lowest environmental impact across all metrics studied.
Why It’s More Sustainable:
- Eliminates meat production entirely
- Lower land use, water consumption, and eutrophication
- GHG and composite environmental impact scores identical regardless of allocation method (as no meat co-products require allocation)
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 0.8 kg CO₂-eq
Considerations: Only 7 plant-based dry foods were included in the study, limiting statistical significance. However, findings align with broader research suggesting plant-based diets reduce environmental impact. Dogs can thrive on well-formulated plant-based diets, though this remains a topic requiring careful nutritional planning.
3. Dry Grain-Free (Moderate-High Impact)
Environmental Profile: Significantly higher environmental impact than standard dry food, despite marketing suggesting “natural” benefits.
Why It’s Less Sustainable:
- Higher prime meat content (8.7% vs 2.3% for standard dry)
- Substitution of grains with less efficient protein sources
- Often uses more resource-intensive ingredients like legumes and potatoes at higher quantities
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 2.0 kg CO₂-eq (economic allocation)
Considerations: The grain-free trend emerged partly from misguided assumptions about canine evolutionary diets. Modern dogs have evolved to digest starches efficiently, and grains provide sustainable, nutrient-dense energy sources with lower environmental impact than their grain-free replacements.
4. Wet Food (High Impact)
Environmental Profile: Substantially higher environmental footprint than dry alternatives.
Why It’s Less Sustainable:
- High moisture content (typically 75-85%) increases transport emissions per calorie
- Much higher prime meat content (35.4% by dry mass)
- Lower by-product usage (reduced from 24.8% in dry to lower levels)
- Packaging intensity (cans, pouches) adds to environmental burden
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 4.3 kg CO₂-eq (economic allocation)
Considerations: Life cycle assessments suggest wet food’s non-ingredient impacts (packaging, distribution) contribute more significantly to total emissions than for dry food. The cold chain requirements for some premium wet foods add further environmental costs not captured in ingredient-only analysis.
5. Wet Plant-Based (Lower Impact)
Environmental Profile: Lower impact than meat-based wet alternatives, though higher than dry plant-based options.
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 1.3 kg CO₂-eq
Considerations: Only 5 wet plant-based foods were studied. While showing lower emissions than conventional wet food, the format’s inherent inefficiencies (moisture content, packaging) mean it cannot match dry plant-based alternatives.
6. Wet Grain-Free (Very High Impact)
Environmental Profile: Among the highest-impact conventional options studied.
Why It’s Less Sustainable:
- Combines the inefficiencies of wet format with grain-free formulation
- Very high prime meat content (57.0% by dry mass)
- Lowest by-product usage among studied categories
- Lowest carbohydrate content (15.0%)
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 4.7 kg CO₂-eq (economic allocation)
Considerations: The combination of format and formulation creates a “worst of both worlds” scenario. Owners choosing grain-free options for perceived health benefits should consider whether the substantial environmental cost is justified.
7. Raw Food (Highest Impact)
Environmental Profile: The highest environmental impact of any format studied.
Why It’s Less Sustainable:
- Highest prime meat content (60.4% by dry mass)
- Lowest by-product usage (7.0%)
- Cold chain requirements add significant non-ingredient emissions
- Often marketed as “biologically appropriate” despite lacking evidence of superior nutrition
GHG Emissions (per 1000 kcal): Median 4.7 kg CO₂-eq (economic allocation)
Considerations: Raw feeding proponents often cite evolutionary arguments, but these don’t account for modern dogs’ dietary adaptations or the significant food safety risks associated with raw meat handling. The environmental case against raw feeding is now unambiguous.
The Role of Animal By-Products in Sustainable Dog Food
Understanding By-Products
Animal by-products are carcass portions not typically in demand for human consumption—including organ meats, meat meals, and animal fats. In US pet food, nearly two-thirds of animal-based ingredients are by-products. These nutritious materials would otherwise become waste, making their use in pet food an example of circular economy principles in practice.
Why By-Products Are Environmentally Preferable
The research demonstrates that the environmental impact allocation method significantly affects how we understand meat-based pet food impacts:
Economic Allocation (Recommended): Assigns environmental costs based on the economic value of different carcass portions. Prime cuts like steak receive proportionally higher impact attribution than low-value by-products. This approach reflects market reality: demand for prime meat drives livestock production, not demand for by-products.
Mass Allocation: Spreads environmental impact evenly across the carcass by weight, regardless of value.
Under economic allocation—the method recommended by life cycle assessment practitioners and the EU Product Environmental Footprint scheme—the difference between foods high in prime meat versus those using by-products becomes stark:
- Prime beef cuts: High environmental impact allocation
- Poultry by-products: 8–45 times lower impact allocation than prime meat
- Organ meats, meat meals: Substantially lower impact than muscle meat
Practical Implications
Pet food containing “chicken meal” or “meat and animal derivatives” may appear less premium than products advertising “fresh chicken breast,” but from an environmental perspective, the by-product-based foods are significantly more sustainable. The ethical choice may be the opposite of what marketing suggests.
Fish in Dog Food: Environmental Considerations
The Complex Picture of Aquatic Ingredients
Fish and fish meal are common dog food ingredients, but their environmental credentials are complicated:
Eutrophication Impact: Fish content significantly increases eutrophying emissions (nutrient pollution of waterways)
Water Stress: Fish production contributes to scarcity-weighted freshwater impacts
Fish Stock Concerns: Much fish used in pet food is suitable for human consumption, raising questions about resource allocation
The study found that fish contributes substantially to environmental impacts across all food types, aligning with broader concerns about pet food’s effect on global fish stocks.
The Global Context: Dog Food and Climate Change
Emissions in Perspective
The research extrapolated UK findings to estimate global dog food impacts:
| Scenario | GHG Emissions (Mt CO₂-eq) |
|---|---|
| Based on reported global sales | 154–260 |
| Scaled to feed global dog population | 469–792 |
| Commercial aviation jet fuel (2022) | 800 |
Producing ingredients to feed the world’s dogs would generate emissions equivalent to 59–99% of global commercial aviation jet fuel emissions. This comparison is instructive: aviation emissions attract substantial public, academic, and governmental attention, while pet food impacts receive minimal scrutiny.
Population-Level Feeding Trends Matter
The study modelled scenarios where 5% of dietary energy shifted between food types:
Shifts that INCREASE environmental impact:
- Dry → Wet food
- Dry → Raw food
- Any format → Grain-free equivalent
Shifts that DECREASE environmental impact:
- Wet → Dry food
- Any format → Plant-based equivalent
Market trends toward wet, raw, and grain-free feeding—often driven by anthropomorphisation and premium positioning—are increasing the sector’s environmental footprint. In the US, grain-free sales grew from less than 2% in 2011 to 40% in 2019.
How to Choose the Most Sustainable Dog Food
Decision Framework for Environmentally Conscious Owners
Step 1: Choose the Right Format
- Best: Dry kibble (plant-based if appropriate for your dog)
- Acceptable: Standard dry kibble with by-products
- Higher impact: Wet food, grain-free options
- Highest impact: Raw food
Step 2: Evaluate Ingredient Sources
- Prefer foods listing by-products (meal, derivatives, organ meats)
- Avoid premium products emphasising “human-grade” meat cuts
- Consider poultry over beef (beef has highest emissions per kg)
Step 3: Check for Grain-Free Marketing
- Avoid grain-free unless medically necessary
- Grains are sustainable, digestible energy sources for dogs
- The grain-free trend lacks nutritional justification for most dogs
Step 4: Consider Packaging and Transport
- Larger bags reduce packaging waste per serving
- Locally manufactured products may have lower transport emissions
- Avoid single-serve pouches where possible
Questions to Ask Manufacturers
- What proportion of animal ingredients comes from by-products versus prime cuts?
- Where are ingredients sourced?
- What is the product’s carbon footprint per serving?
- Do you have environmental certifications or sustainability commitments?
Addressing Common Concerns
“Won’t my dog’s nutrition suffer with more sustainable options?”
No. The study found that mean protein, fat, and carbohydrate contents for all food types exceed recommended minimums. Standard dry foods meet all nutritional requirements while having the lowest environmental impact. Dogs have evolved alongside humans for thousands of years and efficiently digest carbohydrates—they are not wolves requiring meat-heavy diets.
“Is plant-based feeding safe for dogs?”
Dogs can thrive on well-formulated plant-based diets, unlike cats (who are obligate carnivores). However, plant-based feeding requires careful attention to essential nutrients including taurine, L-carnitine, vitamin D3, and certain amino acids. If considering plant-based feeding, consult a veterinary nutritionist and choose FEDIAF-compliant complete foods.
“Are premium foods better for the environment?”
Often the opposite. Premium positioning typically involves emphasising prime meat content, “human-grade” ingredients, and grain-free formulations—all factors associated with higher environmental impact. “Premium” marketing frequently works against sustainability.
“What about insect-based foods?”
The study included one insect-based food, which showed low emissions (0.98 kg CO₂-eq/1000 kcal). Insect protein offers promising environmental credentials, though more research is needed. Early indications suggest insect-based foods could provide a sustainable middle ground between plant-based and conventional options.
The Industry Response and Future Directions
What Manufacturers Should Do
The research authors recommend that the pet food industry:
- Prioritise by-products: Ensure meat cuts used are types not typically eaten by humans
- Improve labelling transparency: Clear communication about ingredient sources and environmental impact
- Reduce prime meat dependency: Reformulate premium products to reduce reliance on high-impact ingredients
- Support research: Fund independent studies on novel proteins and sustainable formulations
Emerging Opportunities
- Upcycled ingredients: Using retail, commercial, or residential food waste in pet food formulation
- Cultured proteins: Lab-grown meat could dramatically reduce livestock dependencies
- Algae and fungi: Novel protein sources with minimal environmental footprints
- Improved by-product utilisation: Better processing of currently wasted animal parts
Conclusion
The University of Edinburgh research provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the environmental impact of dog food in the UK market. The findings are clear: our choices about how we feed our dogs have significant environmental consequences, with up to 65-fold variation in GHG emissions between products.
For environmentally conscious dog owners, the path forward involves:
- Choosing dry kibble over wet, raw, or grain-free alternatives
- Selecting products that utilise animal by-products rather than prime meat cuts
- Considering plant-based options where nutritionally appropriate
- Rejecting grain-free marketing unless medically necessary
- Demanding transparency from manufacturers about ingredient sourcing and environmental impact
The scale of the challenge is substantial—global dog food production could generate emissions equivalent to most of commercial aviation. But unlike aviation, where individual choices are constrained by available infrastructure, every dog owner can make more sustainable feeding choices immediately.
As the researchers conclude: “There is fundamental interconnectedness between humans and their companion animals… Reducing the worst extremes of climate change also means reducing suffering caused to pets as, alongside their human companions, they experience predicted climate change related consequences.”
The most sustainable dog food is one that meets your dog’s nutritional needs while minimising environmental harm. For most dogs, this means high-quality dry kibble that prioritises by-products over prime meat, includes grains, and comes from manufacturers committed to environmental responsibility.
References
Harvey, J.D., Crowley, S.L., Eory, V., & Alexander, P. (2025). Estimating the environmental impact of dog foods marketed in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.147277
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29853680/
FEDIAF. (2024). Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) Prepared Pet Food for Cats and Dogs. The European Pet Food Industry Federation. https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/PEFCR_PetFood_update.pdf
Alexander, P., Berri, A., Moran, D., Reay, D., & Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2020). The global environmental paw print of pet food. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102153. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307366