Royal Canin Dog Food Review

Royal Canin offers premium pet food for dogs and cats, for all life stages. The brand also offers breed-specific food for dogs and cats. Royal Canin has been providing pet nutrition since 1968.

We’ve compared Royal Canin dog food to the other 197 dog food brands in our database.

Wet Dog Food

Dry Dog Food

Dry Senior Dog Food

Wet Senior Dog Food

Royal Canin dog food is priced above the average market price for dog food.

Wet Dog Food

Dry Dog Food

Dry Senior Dog Food

Wet Senior Dog Food

All of Royal Canin dog food recipes meets AAFCO's minimum requirements.

The following list (if present) shows all dog food recalls related to Royal Canin Dog Food Review since 2009. If no recalls are listed, no recall events have been reported.

Since 2009 Royal Canin has never been recalled.

March 2007 - A Canadian class action lawsuit was filed against pet food maker Royal Canin Canada Co. on behalf of dog and cat owners claiming that certain products contain excessive amounts of vitamin D and have caused their pets to become sick or die. The Canadian lawsuit sought compensation for people who bought Royal Canin dog or cat food since Aug. 1, 2004.

The suit against Royal Canin, filed in the Ontario Superior Court, alleges the pet food maker, a subsidiary of a French company , either knew or should have known the levels of vitamin D were unsafe and could cause the animals to develop high levels of calcium in their blood, renal failure and other conditions.

December 2016 - The lawsuit claims that prescription pet food overcharge consumers for a product that is not a drug and that prescription pet food is a “deceptive scheme”. Four months later, lawyers representing the pet food manufacturers; Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Mars Petcare (which includes Royal Canin), Nestle Purina had requested the court dismiss the case based on FDA’s enforcement discretion to permit the sale of these products.

These companies are claiming that the FDA allows them to be ‘deceptive’, allows them to sell a pet food as a drug when it is not a drug, and to overcharge consumers as they see fit. And they are right. The court ruled that all claims argued in this lawsuit were not proven.