More than 20 years ago, one of the first “pet food review” websites introduced the idea of rating dog and cat food using a simplified scoring system, often based on letters such as A, B, C, D or E. This initiative did not come from a recognized authority in animal nutrition, but from an individual without formal training or structured expertise in the field.
At the time, the concept may have seemed innovative. It offered a quick way to compare products and gave the impression of clarity in a market that can be difficult to understand. However, the methodology behind these early ratings was often incomplete, based on approximations, and sometimes built on incorrect assumptions about pet nutrition.
Over the years, instead of being challenged and improved, these models have been widely copied, adapted and republished across countless websites, blogs and platforms. Many of today’s “petfood scores” or “pet food ratings” are not original analyses, but variations of these early systems, often reproducing the same structural flaws and inaccuracies.
This repetition has created a form of informational inertia. Errors present in the original models—such as incorrect interpretations of ingredients, misleading calculations of nutrients or oversimplified conclusions—have been carried forward and amplified. In some cases, these inaccuracies can lead to recommendations that are not only unreliable but potentially inappropriate for certain animals.
The problem is not just theoretical. When decisions about pet nutrition are based on flawed evaluations, the consequences can affect the health and well-being of dogs and cats. An unsuitable diet, chosen on the basis of an inaccurate score, may contribute to digestive issues, nutritional imbalances or other long-term concerns.
It is important to recognize that not all information presented as a “review” or a “score” is grounded in a rigorous or validated approach. The appearance of structure—letters, rankings, or numerical values—can create a false sense of precision, even when the underlying analysis is weak.
This is why a different approach is necessary. Rather than relying on inherited scoring systems, it becomes essential to question the methodology, verify the data and understand the limitations of the information presented.
Providing clear, structured and reliable explanations is a key step toward improving how pet food is evaluated and understood. Moving beyond simplified ratings allows for a more accurate interpretation of products and helps prevent decisions based on outdated or misleading models.
Understanding where these scoring systems come from is the first step in recognizing their limits—and in building a more reliable way to approach pet nutrition.