Dog Product Testing in Canada: Who Tested What You Bought?

You buy a harness for your dog and the package says crash tested. A chew toy is heavy duty and suitable for aggressive chewers.

That one always gets my attention.

There’s suitable for aggressive chewers, and then there’s suitable for a German Shepherd’s jaws.

After living with these dogs, you learn the difference pretty quickly. Ours have gone through toys, bones and so-called heavy-duty products with a kind of determination that’s hard to describe until you’ve watched it happen. A Kong can last, sometimes. Other things that looked indestructible didn’t survive contact.

That’s lived experience, not a market test. It does change the question I ask when I see a claim like heavy duty or suitable for aggressive chewers.

Suitable according to what?

A crate is advertised for dogs up to a certain weight. A supplement is vet recommended. A food is complete and balanced.

Then there are clinically proven, veterinarian approved, escape proof, indestructible, tested, and simply safe.

Maybe every one of those claims is legitimate. I’m not starting from the position that somebody’s lying.

I’m asking a much simpler question.

How do we know this?

Dog product testing in Canada isn’t one system, which is exactly why the words on the package need a closer look.

That question has probably cost me more time over the years than simply buying whatever was sitting on the shelf. I’m fine with that.

When something is supposed to restrain a big German Shepherd in a vehicle, hold him when something unexpected happens, survive his jaws, support his health or provide his daily nutrition, saving ten bucks isn’t my first concern.

I want to know what I’m relying on. Who tested it? How did they test it? Against what standard? And when the package says tested, does that mean the product actually passed anything?

Was the work done by the manufacturer, an outside laboratory or an independent certification organization? Does a Canadian regulator actually review or authorize this particular product before sale?

Those aren’t accusations. They’re purchasing questions, and I think pet parents have every right to ask them.

This investigation is part of the Canada Rescue Dog Resource Network, where we look at the systems, claims and decisions that affect rescued dogs and the people responsible for them.

That’s my opinion. Now let’s check the evidence.

The first thing that matters is that “pet products” is not one regulatory category in Canada.

A veterinary drug, flea treatment, bag of dog food, vehicle harness, crate, chew toy and supplement may all be intended for your dog, but they can fall under very different systems.

There is no single Canadian agency taking every ordinary pet product, independently testing it before sale and stamping it safe. That does not mean pet products are simply “unregulated.”

It means we need to know what rules actually apply to the thing we’re buying.

Dog Product Testing in Canada: What’s Actually Regulated?

For ordinary consumer products, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act gives Health Canada significant authority. It prohibits the manufacture, import, advertising or sale of consumer products that pose a danger to human health or safety, and businesses have responsibilities that include safety compliance and incident reporting. Health Canada — Consumer products

That wording matters because the CCPSA is concerned with dangers to people. It should not be mistaken for a Canadian pre-market system in which somebody independently evaluates every leash, harness, toy, crate or dog bed for the safety of the animal before the product reaches a store.

Other products used for animals face much more specific regulatory scrutiny.

Veterinary drugs

To sell a veterinary drug in Canada, a manufacturer generally has to apply to Health Canada’s Veterinary Drugs Directorate and provide evidence that the drug is safe, effective and of high quality. Approved veterinary drugs receive a Drug Identification Number, or DIN, and Health Canada continues monitoring veterinary drugs after approval. Health Canada — Veterinary drugs

A DIN therefore has a defined meaning. Health Canada says it indicates that the product has undergone and passed review for safety, efficacy and quality. Health Canada — Drug Identification Numbers and veterinary drugs

Pest-control products

Pest-control products have another system. Health Canada says registered pesticides are assessed under the Pest Control Products Act for safety and effectiveness before they’re permitted for sale and use in Canada. Health Canada — Buying pest control products

A Pest Control Product registration number identifies the product as registered, while the label sets out the authorized uses and directions, including use on pets where applicable.

Veterinary Health Products

Then there are Veterinary Health Products, or VHPs.

Health Canada describes these as low-risk drugs used to maintain or promote animal health and welfare. They can include substances such as vitamins, minerals and traditional medicines, but they aren’t supposed to claim to treat, prevent or cure disease. Health Canada — Veterinary Health Products

VHPs operate through a notification program, and a compliant product receives a Notification Number. That’s not the same process as obtaining a DIN for an approved veterinary drug. Health Canada — Veterinary health product marketing rules

We’re already dealing with several different systems, and we haven’t even got to dog food or equipment yet.

Tested isn’t the same as passed

It sounds obvious until you start reading packages.

A manufacturer can perform its own testing or hire an outside laboratory. A product might be evaluated under a voluntary certification program. A laboratory may hold accreditation for particular testing work. Some regulated products undergo formal government review before reaching the market.

Those things aren’t interchangeable.

Take laboratory accreditation. ISO/IEC 17025 is the international standard setting requirements for the competence, impartiality and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO — ISO/IEC 17025

Useful? Absolutely. But accreditation alone still doesn’t tell me what happened to the product I’m considering.

I need to know what was tested, how it was tested, what result it achieved and whether the work being cited actually falls within the laboratory’s relevant competence.

So when I see tested, my question isn’t whether somebody somewhere performed a test.

It’s this:

What exactly does “tested” mean here?

Bishop taught me that one

This part isn’t research. It’s our dog.

When we needed a proper automotive harness for Bishop, we weren’t comfortable relying on crash tested printed on a package. Bishop was a big dog, and if I was going to strap him into a vehicle and tell myself he was protected, I wanted more than two reassuring words.

That search took us into the small specialist world of canine vehicle-restraint testing and eventually to the U.S.-based nonprofit Center for Pet Safety.

Its early work shows why the distinction matters.

In its 2011 pilot work, CPS took four canine automotive restraints from a larger group it had reviewed through full dynamic crash testing. Those four were tested by independent laboratory MGA Research under conditions based on the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 used for child-restraint testing. CPS used a specially developed crash-test dog model. Center for Pet Safety — 2011 pilot study

All four failed. CPS reported a 100 percent failure rate among that crash-tested group. Center for Pet Safety — 2011 pilot study

One of CPS’s published test descriptions is particularly relevant here. CPS said the manufacturer of one failed restraint claimed that it tested its products. The connection point failed during impact anyway. Center for Pet Safety — 2011 pilot study

It shows that we tested it doesn’t tell me how the product performed. That doesn’t make manufacturer testing worthless.

CPS now runs a voluntary certification program in which participating manufacturers agree to meet independently developed safety standards and other program requirements. CPS describes certified products as independently and scientifically tested. Center for Pet Safety — CPS Certified

Our experience with Bishop didn’t establish anything about the whole pet-product market. It changed the questions I ask.

What does “supports dogs up to 100 pounds” mean?

Weight ratings are another good example.

You may see a stated limit on a harness, crate, ramp, lead, tie-out or bed. Maybe that number comes from excellent engineering work.

How would I know?

It could involve static loading, repeated use, dynamic loading, a safety factor, the strength of a particular component or testing of the assembled product. There may be a recognized test method behind it.

I don’t automatically know which one applies unless somebody tells me.

Canadian consumers do have protection against unsupported performance claims. The Competition Bureau says a claim about a product’s performance, effectiveness or length of life must be based on an adequate and proper test, and that test has to exist before the claim is made. Competition Bureau Canada — Performance claims

The Bureau says it considers factors such as controlled conditions and whether the testing supports the general impression created by the advertising. Competition Bureau Canada — Performance claims

That’s real protection. It also doesn’t mean every performance claim has to come from a government laboratory or an independent testing organization.

If a company tells me its product supports a 100-pound dog, I’m not automatically suspicious.

I just want to know what established the number.

“Vet recommended” isn’t one thing either

A veterinarian may use a product personally, help formulate it or work for the company selling it. A recommendation might come from a survey of veterinarians, while a clinical study may involve veterinary researchers.

All of those can be legitimate. They don’t tell us the same thing.

AAFCO’s U.S. pet-food guidance provides a useful example of how precise this language can become.

AAFCO says a veterinarian recommended claim should be backed by a statistically sound survey of veterinarians. It separately says veterinarian formulated or veterinarian developed can be supported by the involvement of a veterinarian. AAFCO also does not allow veterinarian approved under its model. State regulators, not individual veterinarians, are the ones with an approval role in pet-food regulation. AAFCO — Labeling requirements

That’s American guidance, not Canadian law. But it demonstrates the larger problem nicely.

Words that sound almost interchangeable to a shopper can represent very different things.

When I see vet recommended, I’d like to know who made the recommendation, what it’s based on and what relationship exists between the person recommending the product and the company selling it.

Maybe I’m perfectly satisfied with the answer.

I still want the answer.

“Clinically proven”

That phrase raises the bar again.

If something is being sold to me as clinically proven, I’d like to be able to find the clinical evidence and see whether it actually supports what the advertising says.

The Competition Bureau’s performance-claim standard matters here too: evidence has to support the actual general impression being created by the claim, not some vaguely related proposition. Competition Bureau Canada — Performance claims

We don’t need to turn every dog-product purchase into a graduate research project.

But clinically proven should mean more than somebody liked the result.

Pet food is its own Canadian problem

Pet food deserves separate treatment because the Canadian system is easy to misunderstand.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says:

“Pet food is not a comprehensively regulated commodity in Canada compared to food for human consumption or livestock feeds.”

CFIA says its own oversight is limited to regulatory requirements concerning the import and export of animal products and by-products. It also points out that other federal departments may regulate particular ingredients or products depending on their intended purpose. Canadian Food Inspection Agency — Pet food, treats and chews

So “pet food isn’t regulated in Canada” is too broad. There are laws and regulatory authorities involved.

But Canada also doesn’t have one comprehensive pet-food regime equivalent to the systems governing human food, livestock feeds or approved veterinary drugs.

And then there’s AAFCO

Canadian dog owners see AAFCO language everywhere.

AAFCO develops model regulations and nutritional standards widely used in the United States and referenced throughout the pet-food industry.

But AAFCO says something consumers should probably see more often: it does not regulate, test, approve or certify pet foods. AAFCO — Starting a pet food business

A pet food can be formulated to meet an AAFCO nutrient profile or establish nutritional adequacy using an AAFCO feeding-trial protocol. That has meaning; it just isn’t the same as AAFCO approving the food, and AAFCO itself says it doesn’t do that.

Canada does have real protections

None of this leaves Canadian consumers stranded. We’re not standing in some regulatory wasteland.

False and misleading advertising is prohibited, and performance claims have to be supported by adequate and proper testing. Competition Bureau Canada — Performance claims

Health Canada can act on consumer products that pose dangers to human health or safety. Veterinary drugs face substantial pre-market review. Pest-control products generally require pre-market assessment and registration, while Veterinary Health Products operate under a defined notification system.

Manufacturer testing can be perfectly legitimate too. What matters is what the evidence actually establishes, not who produced it.

That’s where I see the transparency gap

Two products can sit side by side and both say tested, but the evidence behind that word can be very different.

Maybe one company did an internal durability check. Another may have hired an outside accredited laboratory. Elsewhere you may be looking at voluntary certification or an actual government authorization process.

The consumer-facing language can make those things look much more alike than they really are.

When a safety or performance claim matters, I want enough information to understand what I’m being asked to rely on.

Because eventually I’m the one clipping the thing onto the dog.

There is a fair counterargument

You can’t apply the same evidentiary burden to every pet product, nor should you.

A squeaky toy and an automotive restraint don’t carry the same consequences if they fail. That alone is enough to make the point.

Risk matters, and so does cost. Independent testing can be expensive, particularly for smaller manufacturers without multinational-company resources.

Companies also aren’t required to publish every engineering drawing, confidential process or proprietary piece of technical information they possess.

I don’t want government crash-testing tennis balls. That pretty much covers my position on universal pre-market testing.

The sensible transparency burden should rise with the importance of the claim and the consequences if the product doesn’t do what we’re being told it does.

If you’re telling me a restraint will protect my dog in a collision, I’m going to want considerably more evidence than I would for something that doesn’t carry much consequence if it fails.

The same goes for meaningful health claims, something sold as clinically proven or a weight limit I’m expected to rely on when my dog hits the end of the lead.

It’s me deciding how much evidence I need before I put my dog behind the claim.

Pet parents still own their decision

This can’t all be dumped on the company selling the product.

Manufacturers are responsible for the claims they make. I still have to decide what I’m going to rely on.

Somebody else may walk into a store, talk to a knowledgeable salesperson and buy the product. Fair enough. Someone may trust their veterinarian’s recommendation and never look any farther.

Also fair enough.

Who am I to tell them they have to shop the way I do?

I investigate farther because that’s how I make decisions when one of our animals is involved.

Part of that comes from experience. We’ve bought dog harnesses carrying reassuring safety or performance-type language that failed very early in ordinary use.

That’s lived experience. It doesn’t tell us what percentage of harnesses fail and it doesn’t prove anything about the industry.

It does tell me I’ve had enough reason personally not to assume the words on the package settle the question.

If the thing costs seventy dollars and it’s supposed to keep one of our dogs safe, I’ll spend more time investigating it than worrying about saving ten bucks.

I’m the one putting it on him.

That makes the final decision mine.

What I want to know before I buy

I don’t need every manufacturer to hand me a technical dossier. Usually I’m trying to answer a few fairly basic questions:

What exactly is being claimed?
Who tested it?
What was the test, and what happened?
Does that evidence apply to this exact product and the way I’m going to use it?
Am I looking at manufacturer testing, outside testing, certification or actual regulatory approval?
Can the company explain enough of the evidence for me to understand what I’m relying on?

Sometimes you get a real answer. Sometimes you get the marketing copy read back to you.

That’s information too.

And question Fluffy Shepherds

Absolutely.

Don’t take our word for this because the article happens to be on Fluffy Shepherds.

Follow the citations. Read what Health Canada, the Competition Bureau, CFIA, AAFCO and the testing organizations actually say.

If we’ve stretched a source farther than the evidence takes us, that’s our problem and we need to fix it.

We’re not asking you to replace blind trust in packaging with blind trust in us. We don’t get that privilege.

I’m also not telling you what harness to buy, what food to feed or whose recommendation to accept. Those decisions belong to you.

When it matters to your dog’s health or safety, I want to know what sits behind the claim. That’s how I do it, and you may decide differently.

How do we know this?

Because Love Doesn’t Quit.