1 Introduction

In the European Union, 90 million households (46%) are estimated to have at least one cat or a dog (FEDIAF 2022). Companion animals are universally treated as family members by pet owners, in turn creating a strong bond and leading to the occurrence of humanization of domestic animals (HABRI 2022). Pet humanization refers to a mentality where pets are viewed and treated by owners as members of the family. Such owners are reportedly receptive to products specifically marketed to be similar to the ones they purchase for themselves (Boya et al. 2012). Indeed, pet humanization has been shown to drive the pet food market, leading to an increased demand for premium feed products, such as raw meat-based pet food (Viana et al. 2020). Previous studies have demonstrated the fact that controlling and understanding ingredients in pet food is very important to the pet owners (Bulochova and Evans 2021a; Lumbis and Chan 2015; Morelli et al. 2019).

Because raw meat-based pet diets originate from a variety of animal species and/or their parts (McNamara et al. 2018; van Bree et al. 2018), and are processed under lower hygiene standards (O’Halloran et al. 2019), and do not undergo any processing to reduce or eliminate pathogens (Freeman et al. 2013), they potentially pose a risk to pet and to pet owners’ health. Raw meat and raw meat-based pet diets are most associated with foodborne pathogens such as: Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria spp., Clostridium perfringens, Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli and Yersinia (Freeman et al. 2013). Raw meat-based diets for cats and dogs are also associated with viruses and parasites such as Norovirus and Toxoplasma gondii (van Bree et al. 2018; Wales and Davies 2021). A number of studies have shown the presence of such pathogens in commercial raw meat-based pet diets (Bottari et al. 2020; Hellgren et al. 2019; Lefebvre et al. 2008; Solís et al. 2022; van Bree et al. 2018; Weese et al. 2005). For example, O’Halloran et al. (2019) reported an unusual group of cases of Mycobacterium bovis tuberculosis in domestic cats infected by commercial raw food diets made from uncontrolled ingredients. One of the most serious outbreaks of foodborne illness linked to feeding pets raw meat-based diets was reported in 2017 in the United Kingdom, where four people developed severe infection caused by Shiga toxin-producing E. coli 157:H7 after providing raw meat-based diet to pets, with one illness resulting in death (Kaindama et al. 2021).

Improper handling of raw meat-based ingredients when preparing or providing a raw meat-based diet for pets may result in pathogens entering pet-owners body through the oral route, proliferating, and causing foodborne illness (Davies et al. 2019; Public Health England and Animal and Plant Health Agency 2018). The risk of transmission is increased via malpractices such as: improper cleaning, improper washing and sanitizing, lack of separation of utensils, washing raw meat and poultry, lack of separate feeding area for the pet, improper storage of raw meat-based food, and improper defrosting – all of which may lead to cross-contamination of pet owners’ hands and the surfaces in the domestic kitchen (Bottari et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2020). Therefore, thorough personal hygiene and appropriate safe food handling and storage practices are of paramount importance when handling raw meat-based diets and raw meat ingredients.

Alternatively, transmission can occur via an infected animal, for example, after eating contaminated raw meat or raw meat-based pet food, some animals may become infected and shed pathogens, many of which may remain asymptomatic (van Bree et al. 2018). Previous studies indicate that dogs fed raw meat are more likely to shed pathogens such as Salmonella (Lefebvre et al. 2008). Consequently, pathogens may be transferred onto human hands through contact with animal faeces, and in some cases through contact with saliva and fur (Hoelzer et al. 2011; Lefebvre et al. 2008; Overgaauw et al. 2009). As a result, transmission of pathogen from saliva and fur may occur via close contact with pets such as during grooming, petting/stroking, cuddling, kissing, sharing a bed, and sharing food (Hellgren et al. 2019; Thomas and Feng 2020). Finally, cross-contamination of the environment by an infected pet through the carry-over of pathogens to the domestic surfaces may increase the risk of infection in humans (Lenz et al. 2009).

Concerns have been raised regarding the presence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in commercially prepared raw meat-based pet diets and in the pet faeces (Lenz et al. 2009; Baede et al. 2017; van Bree et al. 2018; Davies et al. 2019). Indeed, being fed raw meat has been identified as a risk factor for carriage of antibiotic resistant E. coli by dogs (Mounsey et al. 2022). Moreover, a strong association between raw meat-based diets and shedding extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria by cats has also been identified (Baede et al. 2017). In 2019, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recognized feeding raw meat to cats and dogs as a potential route of transmission of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms as an emerging public health risk (EFSA 2020). Such data suggests that feeding raw meat-based diets to pets may increase risks to pet owner along with other people they could be into contact with. A study by Zhao et al. (2022) demonstrated a correlation of antibiotic resistant genes between dogs and their owners. In addition, a report of a fatal case of foodborne illness in the UK highlighted the association between antibiotic-resistant, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and feeding raw meat to pets (PHE 2018). The ability of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens to contaminate the domestic environment and to be passed from pet-to-pet and from pet-to-human should be acknowledged by pet owners.

Whilst the risks of serious foodborne illness associated with providing raw meat-based diets to pets were highlighted in published research, it has also been shown that pet owners may be not fully aware of such risks; with data suggesting confusion regarding the risk mitigation practices, or choosing to ignore the risks all together (Anturaniemi et al. 2019; Bulochova and Evans 2021a; Lenz et al. 2009). Currently, data detailing the practices of pet owners in Slovenia are lacking, therefore, it is vital to gain more understanding regarding pet owner food safety perceptions and practices in this region when providing raw meat-based diets to pets. Previous research have demonstrated that pet owners may be overly optimistic about the risks and are reluctant to seek advice from reputable sources, such as veterinarians (Bulochova and Evans 2021b; Morgan et al. 2017; Wales and Davies 2021). Although guidance for pet owners regarding the safe handling of raw meat-based pet diets is freely provided by the European Pet Food Industry Federation, however it is currently unknown if pet owners refer to such guidance (FEDIAF 2017). Despite studies exploring the food safety perceptions and practices of pet owners who provide pets with raw meat-based diets, there is a need to establish if such perceptions and practices differ among owners who provide raw meat-based diets to owners who provide conventional diets for pets (Anturaniemi et al. 2019; Bulochova and Evans 2021a, b; Thomas and Feng 2020).

Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was firstly, to determine the prevalence of providing raw meat-based pet diets among Slovenian pet owners and, secondly, to identify their self-reported risk perception for foodborne illness and established pet food preparation practises that could lead to the spread of pathogens in the home environment. Although the risk perception and food safety practices of the pet owners who provide raw meat diets to pets were previously discussed in published scientific literature, no comparison was made between the pet owners who provide raw meat diets and the pet owners who provide conventional pet diets. The latter makes it possible to determine which of the two subgroups reports more risky practises in handling pet food in the home environment.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Questionnaire

An online questionnaire was developed by the authors of the study using an open source application for designing online surveys. By preparing the questionnaire, the authors utilised a previous study of pet owner food safety perceptions and self-reported practices in the United Kingdom (Bulochova and Evans 2021a) and adapted it to country-specific conditions. The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions in total and was piloted on pet owners (n = 12) to determine question clarity, identify additional response options, and gauge the length of time necessary to answer the survey. The questionnaire was revised accordingly.

2.2 Data collection

To recruit pet owners in Slovenia, a link to the online questionnaire was disseminated among pet owners by sharing information regarding the study in two members-only Facebook groups with 17,300 and 13,200 members, respectively. The survey link was active for four weeks (between May and June 2022). Before answering the questionnaire, participants were given information about participating in the study and the opportunity to contact the researchers for further information about the purpose of the study. By completing and submitting the questionnaire, participants gave informed consent via the statement “I am aware that my responses are confidential, and I agree to participate in this survey”. They were able to withdraw from the survey at any time without giving a reason.

2.3 Data analysis

The data were evaluated and analysed using the Statistical Programme for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 25.0, Chicago, IL, 2006). To examine relationships among and between variables, a chi-square test for independence (test) was used for categorical (nominal) variables and a t-test was used for ordinal variables (5-point Likert-type measurement scale) treated as continuous variables. Type of pet food diet was used as the main independent variable.

2.4 Ethical approval

The research protocol was approved by the chair of environmental health at University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Health Sciences (refr. nr. 17.042.022). This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

3 Results

3.1 Demographic characteristics

A total of 848 respondents participated in the survey, after removing incomplete responses, 782 complete responses were included in the subsequent analysis. All respondents reported being dog and/or cat owners. Respondents were divided into two subgroups, namely a “raw group” with respondents who reported feeding raw meat-based diet to pets, and a “conventional group” with respondents who reported not feeding raw meat-based diet to pets. Respondents who indicated feeding pets only “raw fruit and vegetables” were excluded from the raw group, a total of 750 responses were kept for further detailed analysis (Table 1). A total of 350 respondents (92%) from the raw group reported that they feed their pets raw meat in addition to raw bones and raw eggs. The rest (8%) offered their pets only raw eggs and raw bones.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents (n = 750)
Full size table

As indicated in Table 1, both raw and conventional groups were comparable in terms of gender, education level, and previous experience with foodborne illness. Although most respondents in both groups kept their pets in an apartment, respondents from the “raw group” were significantly more likely to report keeping their pets outdoors (p = 0.028). The average age of respondents in the “conventional group” was significantly (p ≤ 0.001) older (x̄ = 43.5 years; STD = 12.8) than respondents in the raw group (x̄ = 39.6 years; STD = 13.0).

3.2 Reasons for providing raw meat-based pet diets and sources of information

The vast majority of respondents in the raw group reported pet health benefits as the main reason for choosing raw meat-based diets (Table 2). In addition, 56% agreed that they noticed positive changes in animal health because of feeding raw meat. In contrast, only 8% indicated no noticeable changes in pets’ health, while the remainder (36.6%) were unsure. Among other reasons for providing raw meat-based diets, respondents also indicated the price of pet food and carnivorousness of their pet as motivators for choosing the raw meat-based diet for their pet.

Table 2 Reasons for choosing raw meat-based diet for pet feeding and sources of information among the raw meat-based feeding group
Full size table

Whilst the majority of respondents in both groups (95% raw; 94% conventional) reportedly liked having control over what their pet consumed, opinions differed significantly (p ≤ 0.001) on the matter of a raw meat-based diet being more natural and appropriate for pets (67% in raw; 12% in conventional), and in their confidence in the safety of processed pet food (52.4% in raw; 77.1% in conventional). While 22% in the raw group believed that processed pet food is bad for pets, only 8% in the control group shared this sentiment (p ≤ 0.001).

The internet was reported to be the main source of information about raw pet food (38%). Among professional profiles, “veterinarians” were most frequently mentioned as a source of information. Those responding “other” suggested they were informed by their prior formal education and/or common sense (Table 2). It is suggested that receiving information primarily from the internet may explain the fact that respondents’ education level did not significantly influence risk perception or self-reported practices.

3.3 Perceptions of risk associated with raw meat-based pet feeding

Perceptions of risk relating to foodborne illness were examined among all respondents in the raw and conventional groups as indicated in Table 3. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups in perceived risk severity (expressed as agreement that food poisoning can be fatal) and in perceived vulnerability (expressed as a probability of foodborne illness). However, it was established that respondents in the raw group perceived a lower risk of infection from consuming raw milk themselves than the conventional group (p = 0.015).

Table 3 Perceptions of risk regarding foodborne illness among the raw meat-based feeding group and the conventional feeding group
Full size table

Only a small proportion (9% in raw and conventional) reported feeling uncertain about the safety of pet food preparation, and that it does not pose a risk to their own health or the health of family members. The majority (85%) reported feeling safe or completely safe when preparing pet food. More than half of the raw group (54%) were not concerned about the potential health risk posed by their pet food. With 31% reporting to never thinking about raw pet food as being a potential health risk, and 23% not being concerned about the risks. The remainder (46%) reported awareness of the potential health risks associated with providing raw meat-based diet to pets.

Table 4 illustrates through agreement scale, the extent of risk perception specifically relating to raw meat-based pet feeding that were explored among respondents in the raw group. The majority of respondents in the raw group believed that the way they prepare raw food for pets does not pose a risk to their own health or the health of others. Just under a half (47%) believed that cleaning surfaces and utensils after contact with raw meat is sufficient to mitigate the health risks, according to their personal judgement. Over a quarter (27%) believed that the preparation of food for a pet is different from preparing food for people.

Table 4 Perceptions of risk regarding foodborne illness associated with raw meat-based pet feeding among the raw feeding group (n = 320)
Full size table

3.4 Self-reported practices when preparing pet food

As shown in Tables 5 and 74% of respondents in the raw group reported storing raw meat in a domestic freezer. A small percentage (3%) reported having a separate refrigerator/freezer or a separate compartment in their freezer specifically for storing raw meat-based pet food. Others indicated that they only feed their pet fresh raw meat-based pet food, which was stored in their domestic refrigerator.

Table 5 Self-reported preparation practices of pet owners providing raw meat-based diets for pets
Full size table

When considering defrosting procedures, 42% reported the unsafe practice of defrosting meat on the kitchen counter. The correct method of defrosting meat in the refrigerator was only reported by 38% of the raw group. Of those that responded “other”, respondents indicated that they also defrosted meat at room temperature either directly in the pet bowl, kitchen sink, garage, or in a kitchen cabinet.

Concernedly, only 27% reported that they never implemented the malpractice of rinsing raw meat under running water before preparing a meal for a pet (Table 5), 35% reported to always rinse raw meal. Of those that responded “other”, comments were made stating that “there is no need to rinse meat because I buy already prepared and frozen raw meal which is used directly after thawing”, or they “use ground meat that is not suitable for rinsing”. Whereas some indicated they “only wash raw meat when it comes directly from the butcher”.

Self-reported hygiene practices when preparing pet food were compared between the raw and conventional group (Table 6). Statistically significant differences were determined in terms of washing hands and surfaces, with the reported frequency of hand washing being lower in the conventional group.

Table 6 Comparison of self-reported practices when preparing food for pets between the raw feeding group and the conventional feeding group
Full size table

Provision of commercially prepared pet food may explain why some respondents reported not preparing food for pets in the domestic kitchen or not using specific surfaces and utensils for pet food preparation. When considering cleaning procedures, 55% in the raw group and 37% in the conventional group (p ≤ 0.001) reported appropriate procedure (cleaning with a detergent, rinsing with water, and drying). Respondents (68% raw; 56% conventional) reported appropriate procedure for washing utensils (cleaning with a sponge and detergent, then rinsing with water and drying; or washing in the dishwasher) after using for pet food.

Those who reported disinfecting utensils after preparing pet food, mostly used hot water (61% raw; 67% conventional), cleaning chemicals (19% raw; 13% conventional) and disinfectant wipes (15% raw; 13% conventional).

4 Discussion

This study established pet food preparation practices among pet owners in Slovenia. The study examined the differences in self-reported practices and risk perceptions between pet owners who provide raw meat-based diet to their pets and pet owners who do not. McNamara et al. (2018) reported that on average 19% of dog owners and 16% of cat owners from five major European countries (n = 5,001) practised raw meat feeding. Thomas and Feng (2020) reported 25% of pet owners in the USA (n = 1,507), while in the current study 51% of respondents (n = 750) reported feeding their pet raw meat or other raw ingredients. In terms of respondent age, the distribution in Slovenia is similar to that seen in a UK study focusing solely on pet owners providing raw meat–based diets (Bulochova and Evans 2021a). Although all age groups in the current study reportedly practiced raw feeding of pets, results indicated that on average this trend was more prevalent among pet owners aged ≤ 45 years old. The gender-imbalanced sample, with an overwhelming majority of women responding to the questionnaire in current study, could be the result of the membership structure of the online groups in which the questionnaire was distributed, as well as the phenomena known for web surveys, where women are often found to be more likely to respond than men (Becker 2022). It is also known that women are more active seekers of health-related information than men (Renahy et al. 2010), considering that the health benefits of pets are cited as the main reason for feeding pets raw meat.

4.1 Reasons for providing raw meat-based pet diets and sources of information

Majority of pet owners in a study undertaken in the US by Morgan et al. (2017) reported finding out about raw meat-based feeding from the online veterinary resources advocating alternative pet feeding. Similarly, in the current study, over a third of pet owners reported internet as the main resource that introduced them to raw meat-based feeding. Likewise, a UK survey by Bulochova and Evans (2021a) also determined that pet owners heavily rely on the online information sources when alternative feeding is considered. Given this study has established the role of online sources in informing Slovenian consumers regarding raw meat-based feeding, there is a need for future research exploring the inclusion of food safety information in different online sources, for example, previous UK based research has indicated that online raw meat-based pet feeding communities can advocate food safety malpractices (Bulochova and Evans 2021b). Interestingly, in the present study, a small proportion of pet owners (12%) reported that the alternative raw meat-based diet had been suggested to them by a veterinarian.

A large proportion of pet owners in the current study (77%) reported pet health benefits of raw meat-based diet as the main reason for choosing a raw meat-based pet diet. Taking in consideration the fact that pet owners form a bond with the pets and treat them as family members, this finding is not surprising and indicates pet owners’ willingness to provide the best for their pet companions. Similar results were demonstrated in the previous study with UK pet owners (Bulochova and Evans 2021a) which indicated the desire to ensure pet wellbeing may be universal and not country-specific. This fact has also been confirmed by Human Animal Bond Research Institute and Zoetis (2022). Ensuring pet wellbeing may also explain the fact that pet owners in the current study reported the need to know the content of pets’ diet and to control ingredients. Thus, the choice of alternative pet feeding for the pet owners in this study may be motivated by the fact that such diet is not processed, and its ingredients are better understood by the pet owners. However, the high percentage of the owners who chose raw meat-based pet diet because of the pet health benefits, while reporting that they had noticed positive changes in their pet’s health status as a result of this feeding practise, could also be the consequence of confirmation bias (Nickerson 1998). Pet owners may interpret their pet’s health status in a way that confirms their beliefs and expectations, while ignoring any information that does not conform to the preconceived idea.

4.2 Perceptions of risk associated with pet feeding

It should be noted that if not properly handled at a production facility or at home, conventional processed pet foods may also pose risk of foodborne illness to both the pet owner and the animal (Lambertini et al. 2016; van Bree et al. 2018; Morelli et al. 2019). Therefore, pet owners should be aware of the potential risks of illness associated with handling of pet food, regardless of the chosen pet diet.

In the current study, keeping pets indoors was common among both the raw feeding group and the conventional feeding group. Living in close proximity with pets, especially if they are fed raw meat-based diet, may increase the potential for pathogen transmission through direct interactions between the pet and the owner or through environmental cross-contamination (Lenz et al. 2009; Thomas and Feng 2020). But as reported by others (Anturaniemi et al. 2019; Cammack et al. 2021) confirmed pathogen transmission appears to be rare and depends on the household hygiene and food safety measures, which were examined in the current study.

When considering pet owner perceived severity of foodborne illness and perceived vulnerability, the respondents of the current study did not differ significantly from the general Slovenian consumers (Jevšnik et al. 2022). The findings are similar to Ma et al. (2020), who also reported that risks associated with unsafe food handling were not perceived differently by pet owners. Because the proportion of female respondents was very high in the current study, it was not possible to examine differences in pet owner risk perception according to gender to allow comparison with a US study in which women had lower risk perceptions than men in some areas of pet food safety (Thomas and Feng 2020).

Respondents’ perceptions regarding health risks in the current study were assessed directly (concern about health risks associated with raw meat-based diet to pets) and indirectly (concern about health risks associated with consumption of raw milk). Pet owners that provided raw meat to pets were similarly concerned about the health risks in both study groups. In addition, owners providing conventional pet food were more aware of the risks associated with raw milk consumption themselves, compared to pet owners providing raw pet food. The results demonstrated that pet owners providing raw meat to their pets did not differ significantly in their perception of health risk from pet owners who did not; and that only half of them perceived a high level of risk to health from raw meat-based pet food. As in other studies, most pet owners from this study were unaware of the risks to human and animal health associated with raw meat-based diets (Bulochova and Evans 2021a; Morelli et al. 2019).

Analysis of specific risk perceptions among the raw group in the current study, revealed high levels of self-efficacy, as the majority reported being confident that they have sufficient knowledge/skills to prepare raw pet food in a manner that does not endanger their own health or that of other family members. Their perceived self-efficacy when handling raw pet food may be because no health problems related to raw pet food have occurred in their household in the past. In a previous study, pet owners reported little experience with pathogen transmission and foodborne illness during the period of providing pets with raw food, which may also be true for pet owners in this study (Anturaniemi et al. 2019).

4.3 Self-reported practices when preparing pet food

It was of concern that most of the raw group reported rinsing raw meat under running water before preparing a meal for pets and defrosting raw meat on the kitchen counter. The latter is consistent with a recent survey of Slovenian consumers, that also reported similar malpractices (Jevšnik et al. 2022). The type of pet diet did not influence the self-reported practice of separating utensils for pet food preparation, or for preparing pet food in a separate area from human food. In comparison with previous findings, a lower percentage (29% raw and conventional) reported a lack of separation of utensils for raw pet food preparation, compared to 63% in a study by Cammack et al. (2021). It is important to note that the implications of such practices may increase the risk of cross-contamination in the kitchen if kitchen surfaces and utensils are not adequately cleaned after raw meat food preparation.

Respondents in the raw group reported to wash surfaces and utensils after pet food preparation significantly more often than the conventional group, which could reduce the risk of cross-contamination if done appropriately. The high levels of self-efficacy reported by respondents in the raw group regarding cleaning procedures for work surfaces and utensils was not confirmed by their self-reported practices, with 32% reporting inadequate cleaning practices. However, this is still significantly higher compared to respondents in in the conventional group, where 44% reported insufficient cleaning. Such reports could be explained in part by differences in pet food preparation. Raw pet food preparation involves steps that are more complex, such as defrosting, cutting, and storing, whereas conventional pet feeding involves simpler steps, such as opening a pouch and pouring the sterilized pet food straight into the bowl.

Respondents from both groups of the current study reported washing their hands more frequently after preparing pet food than before, with the frequency being significantly higher for respondents in the raw group each time. Ma et al. (2020) reported that pet ownership has a positive effect on food safety practises, especially in the areas of hand washing and kitchen cleaning. Although the current study did not examine self-reported hand washing techniques, the previous studies among general Slovenian consumers determined that a significant proportion of respondents did not practise effective hand washing techniques when preparing food for themselves (Jevšnik et al. 2008, 2022). Only 57% in 2008 and 60% in 2022 reported consistently washing their hands with warm water and soap before preparing food. Although in the current study, the majority of respondents in the raw group reported always washing their hands and cleaning surfaces and utensils after preparing raw food, the adequacy of those practices is unknown and requires further exploration through observational research. Pet owners who do not perform appropriate food safety practices consistently may be at an increased risk foodborne illness resulting from cross-contamination.

4.4 Future considerations

Previous research has shown that pet owners in the UK, who perceived low severity of foodborne illness, also had high confidence in their ability to handle raw meat-based diets safely (Bulochova and Evans 2021a). It is unclear whether Slovenian pet owners follow the same pattern, as this could not be definitively confirmed in this study. Nevertheless, the findings of this study indicate that it is crucial to raise awareness of the potential for foodborne illness to be associated with handling raw meat and raw meat-based diets among Slovenian pet owners. Emphasising the benefits of appropriate food safety actions to safeguard pet owners and the members of their household may serve as an effective strategy to motivate food safety behaviour, but only once the pet owners are aware of the risks. This should be considered when developing targeted approaches to provide pet owners with comprehensive instructions regarding safe raw meat-based pet food handling.

4.5 Research limitations

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. A questionnaire was chosen to be an appropriate tool for exploring perceptions and practices among pet owners, which produced a large sample of responses being obtained, although sampling approach itself resulted in a strong gender bias. Any self-reported data obtained is subject to potential social desirability bias, whereby respondents tend to give the response they believe they should give rather than a true account, this is often seen with the over-reporting of desirable practices and under-reporting of less-desirable practices and should therefore be interpreted with caution (Grimm 2010; van de Mortel 2008). Consequently, it may be suggested that there is a need to undertake observational studies to understand the actual food safety behaviours of pet owners when preparing raw meat-based pet diets in the domestic environment.

The method of recruitment must also be considered. Due to online recruitment in specific pet owner groups on social media, the composition of the sample in terms of respondents who feed raw meat to their pets and those who do not, may not be representative of the whole Slovenian population.

5 Conclusion

In the current study, the first among Slovenian pet owners, it was found that pet owners who practise raw meat diets are most often motivated by the perceived health benefits to pets. However, the study also revealed that respondents relied heavily on the online information about raw meat-based diet.

Respondents in the current study did not differ significantly from general Slovenian consumers in their perception of health risk. In addition, regarding risk perception and self-efficacy, those who provided raw meat to their pets also did not differ significantly from pet owners who did not. High levels of self-efficacy, regardless the type of pet diet, were later not confirmed in self-reported behaviour, which highlighted key food safety malpractices, such as rinsing raw meat and thawing frozen raw meat at room temperature.

Although food safety behaviour in both subgroups studied is far from ideal, we found that respondents in the raw group reported significantly higher levels of appropriate practises in terms of washing hands before and after preparing pet food, as well as cleaning surfaces and utensils that had contact with pet food. The latter indirectly shows that respondents in the raw group have a higher hygiene awareness than respondents in the conventional group, albeit limited only to certain activities. This could be due to their general understanding of hygiene and not necessarily related to the perception of a health risk from raw pet food.

The current study provides further evidence of the need to design tailored educational campaigns on appropriate food safety practices when handling raw pet products for pet owners to prevent serious foodborne illness and reduce the spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in the domestic environment. Given the popular use of online sources by the pet owners, online distribution methods should be considered for such targeted approaches.