HPP vs Raw: is HPP-treated food still “raw”?
The debate is partly science, partly definitions, and partly values. Here’s a clear comparison.
People use the word raw to mean different things. Some mean “not cooked.” Others mean “minimally processed.” And many raw feeders mean something closer to: raw, biologically intact, and minimally intervened.
The key difference: risk strategy
The big philosophical split is how a company manages pathogen risk:
- Intervention-first: add a validated kill step (like HPP) to reduce risk after packaging.[1][2]
- Prevention-first: focus on sourcing, hygiene controls, small-batch accountability, rapid freezing, and cold-chain discipline (without a kill step).
What HPP changes
- Microbial ecology: HPP is designed to inactivate pressure-sensitive vegetative organisms.[1][3] That includes organisms you don’t want—and potentially organisms you do.
- Protein structure (sometimes): pressure can denature certain proteins (different from heat denaturation), which can affect functional properties and enzyme activity depending on conditions.[1][3]
- Marketing semantics: products can still be called “raw” because they aren’t heated like cooked kibble—but the intervention changes the “living” character many raw feeders value.
What HPP often does not change much
- Look/texture in many foods (one reason it’s popular in human food).[1]
- Many nutrients relative to cooking, since it’s non-thermal.[1]
Bottom line: HPP can be a legitimate safety control. The debate isn’t “science vs anti-science.” It’s often a values question: is your goal maximum risk reduction via intervention, or preserving raw biological character via prevention?
Next: HPP & enzyme impact