Dogs go whacko for Smacko’s
Dogs go whacko for Smacko’s, but should we be prioritising these over other treats?
Commercial dog treats are widely marketed as palatable and convenient options for pet owners, yet many contain highly processed ingredients of questionable nutritional value. This article evaluates the formulation of a popular commercial treat—Smacko’s—by examining its ingredient list in comparison with minimally processed, species-appropriate alternatives such as dehydrated single-ingredient treats.
Ingredient Analysis: Smacko’s
The following is an ingredient breakdown of Smacko’s, a mass-market soft chew treat:
MEAT AND MEAT BYPRODUCTS (BEEF)
This term is not clearly defined. It may include skeletal muscle, organs, connective tissues, and trimmings. While raw organ meats are nutrient-dense, the processing methods used in commercial treats often involve high-temperature extrusion or rendering, which reduces the bioavailability of heat-sensitive nutrients such as taurine, B-vitamins, and essential fatty acids. These processes also lead to the formation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), which are associated with oxidative stress and inflammation.
VEGETABLE PROTEIN
The source is unspecified. This term commonly refers to soy protein concentrate or isolate, a cost-effective plant-based protein. Soy contains phytoestrogens and anti-nutritional factors such as lectins and trypsin inhibitors unless adequately processed. The biological value of soy is lower compared to animal-derived proteins due to its amino acid profile and lower digestibility in dogs.
SUCROSE
Listed as the third ingredient by weight, sucrose is added to improve palatability. Dietary sugar offers no functional benefit to dogs and may contribute to weight gain, dental disease, and metabolic disruption over time.
CEREAL PROTEIN
An undefined term, potentially referring to wheat gluten, corn gluten meal, or other processed cereal residues. These ingredients are primarily used as low-cost protein extenders and are not species-appropriate for obligate carnivores or facultative carnivores such as dogs.
HUMERCANT
Maintains moisture and a chewy texture. Common humectants include:
Propylene glycol: A synthetic compound derived from petrochemicals. While permitted in dog foods, it is not allowed in cat food due to its association with Heinz body anemia (FDA, 2020).
Vegetable glycerine: Generally recognized as safe but must be verified as plant-derived. The source is often undisclosed.
SALT
Added for palatability and preservation. Excessive sodium intake can be problematic in dogs with renal or cardiovascular conditions, although small amounts are generally safe.
FLAVOUR
The term “natural flavour” is used, but no further specification is provided. Even natural flavours may be derived from hydrolyzed animal proteins or yeast extracts, and their nutritional contribution is negligible.
PRESERVATIVES
The specific preservatives are not listed. Common synthetic preservatives in pet treats include BHA, BHT, and ethoxyquin, all of which have been linked to potential oxidative and carcinogenic effects in laboratory animals. Without transparent labeling, it is unclear which agents are used.
ANTIOXIDANTS
While antioxidants may prevent rancidity, the type and source are not disclosed. Natural antioxidants such as tocopherols (vitamin E) are preferable to synthetic ones.
COLOUR
Artificial dyes may be added to enhance appearance. Without specific labeling, it is unknown whether these are naturally derived or include synthetic food dyes such as Red 40 or Yellow 5, which have been questioned for their long-term safety.
Comparison with Natural, Single-Ingredient Treats
Natural treats consist of single, dehydrated or freeze dried animal protein without additives or processing aids. Examples include:
Dehydrated Kangaroo Tendon – 100% kangaroo tendon
Bully Stick – 100% dehydrated bull penis
Beef Liver – 100% dehydrated beef liver
Lamb Lung Puffs – 100% dehydrated lamb lung
These treats retain most of their original micronutrient and amino acid profiles and do not contain added sugars, preservatives, synthetic chemicals, or flavour enhancers. When sourced from pasture-raised or wild animals, they also provide better omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid balance compared to grain-fed meat by-products.
Additionally, purchasing locally made dehydrated treats supports traceability, reduces transport-related environmental impacts, and aligns with feeding practices that support a minimally processed, biologically appropriate diet.
Nutritional and Practical Implications
Smacko’s and similar commercial treats offer convenience and market appeal but contain ingredients of low biological value and several compounds that are either non-essential or potentially harmful when fed frequently. These treats are best considered occasional, similar to processed human snack foods.
By contrast, single-ingredient, animal-based treats provide functional nutrition and align more closely with a species-appropriate dietary framework.
Conclusion
While commercial pet treats like Smacko’s meet regulatory requirements and are widely accepted for palatability, their vague labeling, use of sugar and cereals, and undisclosed additives raise concerns about long-term health impacts in dogs. Pet owners and veterinary professionals are encouraged to assess treat composition critically and prioritize transparently sourced, single-ingredient options where possible.
References
AAFCO. (2023). Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials.
Case, L. P., Daristotle, L., Hayek, M. G., & Raasch, M. F. (2011). Canine and Feline Nutrition: A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals. 3rd ed.
FDA. (2020). Pet Food Labels – General. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-food-feeds/pet-food-labels-general
FDA. (2011). Summary of Color Additive Petitions Under Review or Held in Abeyance. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/color-additive-status-list
Roudebush, P., et al. (2005). Macronutrient balance and obesity prevention in dogs and cats. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian.
Shukla, Y., et al. (2002). Carcinogenicity of synthetic antioxidants. Toxicology, 185(1–2), 1–10.
Uribarri, J., et al. (2010). Advanced glycation end products in foods and a practical guide to their reduction in the diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(6), 911–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2010.03.018