A university has defended its sponsorship deal with pet food companies after a masters student's study showed some cat foods could cause serious injury, without naming which ones.
The preliminary study by the University of Sydney analysed the components of 20 supermarket-bought cat foods and found eight didn't meet voluntary standards and nine didn't meet the nutritional information advertised on their packet.
Controversially, the report did not name the offending labels and it has been suggested this casts doubt on all supermarket foods.
The university has a sponsorship deal with non-supermarket pet foods Hills and Royal Canin, which can only be bought at pet stores and vet surgeries.
A university spokeswoman provided a statement to HuffPost Australia saying the university reviewed the deals last year and was confident it didn't create a conflict of interest.
“[The review] considered the range of best practices adopted by comparable veterinary education institutions elsewhere in the world including the Association of Accredited Veterinary Medical Colleges’ guiding principles on such matters," the statement said.
“Consultation with staff is in progress prior to consideration of any new agreements.
“The university and faculty have in place procedures that enable staff to raise any concerns regarding possible conflicts of interest so suitable action can be taken and staff are expected to raise concerns through these channels.”
Report publisher the Australian Veterinary Journal defended the decision to withhold brands, saying more work was needed in a stetement, while the ABC has reportedly obtained a draft document showing the University of Sydney veterinary faculty has amended its sponsorship guidelines in the wake of the report.