The evidence
The case for reform is built on Australia’s own food safety regulator’s assessment, decades of international practice, and the reality that half of all Australian households own a dog.
Pet ownership in Australia
of Australian households own a pet
of households own at least one dog
dogs across Australia
spent annually on pet care
Dog ownership has risen from 40% to 49% of households in six years (2019 to 2025), representing the addition of approximately 1.5 million dogs to the national population. A higher proportion of Australians live in households with a dog or cat than with a child.
Source: Animal Medicines Australia, “Pets in Australia: A national survey of pets and people,” September 2025.
Food safety
The most rigorous assessment of the food safety risk posed by dogs in dining settings was conducted by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in 2012 as part of Proposal P1018. FSANZ assessed ten zoonotic pathogens across three transmission pathways:
Direct contact with food
Risk rated negligible. Dogs would not ordinarily access food preparation areas.
Indirect via staff contact
Risk rated very low. Requires a chain of multiple low-probability events.
Indirect via pests
Risk rated very low. Dependent on existing pest management, already regulated.
FSANZ overall conclusion:
“The potential risk of foodborne transmission of zoonotic agents from companion dogs in outdoor dining settings to humans is considered to be very low to negligible.”
FSANZ further noted that no reported cases of foodborne illness caused by food contaminated by pathogens from dogs had been identified in the published literature.
In August 2025, FSANZ went further: Application A1314 amended the Food Standards Code to permit food service in aircraft cabins when pet dogs and cats are present in approved containers. An aircraft cabin is a fully enclosed space with food service. The principle that dogs and food service can coexist in enclosed spaces has been formally accepted by Australia’s food safety regulator.
Sources: FSANZ, Proposal P1018 Supporting Document 1, 2012; Application A1314, gazetted 13 August 2025.
International practice: hospitality
United Kingdom
No law bans dogs from pubs, cafes, or restaurants. Whether to allow dogs is entirely at the venue’s discretion. The only requirement is that dogs must not enter food preparation, handling, or storage areas. The UK Food Standards Agency does not treat dogs in dining venues as a food safety risk category. No foodborne illness outbreaks have been attributed to dogs in dining venues.
France and Germany
No law bans dogs from cafes, bars, or restaurants in either country. Dogs are culturally accepted in dining settings across Paris and Berlin. Venues commonly provide water bowls and welcome dogs at the proprietor’s discretion.
United States
California and New York permit dogs in outdoor dining areas at venue discretion. Indoor dining with dogs remains prohibited. Even relatively progressive US jurisdictions have not moved to the UK/European model for indoor dining.
Singapore
From January 2025, private food establishments no longer require a separate licence to allow pets in outdoor dining areas. Indoor dining remains prohibited. Singapore moved in a deregulatory direction, countering the argument that the international trend is toward greater restriction.
Key finding:
No foodborne illness outbreaks have been attributed to dogs in dining venues in any jurisdiction assessed. The UK, France, and Germany have operated dog-friendly dining policies for decades across hundreds of thousands of venues without food safety concerns.
International practice: public transport
| City | Policy | Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| London | All services including the Tube | Leashed, not on seats, no muzzle, no peak restriction |
| Berlin | All services (U-Bahn, S-Bahn, trams, buses) | Leashed (max 1m), dangerous breeds muzzled, reduced fare |
| Vienna | All Wiener Linien services | Leashed and muzzled on metro, reduced fare |
| Paris | Metro and RER (not buses/trams) | Large dogs leashed and muzzled, small dogs in carriers free |
| Sydney | Banned from trains/Metro; container-only on others | Most restrictive of all cities assessed |
| Tokyo | Container only (under 10kg) | Sydney’s closest comparator |
A note on evidence quality
We believe in transparency about the strengths and limitations of this evidence base.
Strengths
The FSANZ P1018 risk assessment is rigorous, peer-referenced, and directly relevant to the Australian regulatory context. The international policy comparisons are well documented and drawn from authoritative government sources.
Limitations
There are no formal studies measuring food safety or transport safety outcomes in jurisdictions that permit dogs. The evidence is inferential: these jurisdictions have operated dog-friendly policies for extended periods without identifying problems, but no one has conducted a controlled evaluation. This is common in regulatory settings where the absence of a problem means it is never formally studied.