Pet Food Score - Petfood Advisor

Hi everyone,

I recently read the topic “Why we do not rate pet food A-B-C-D-E” and I honestly found it very interesting because many influencers on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook constantly give kibble brands simple scores or rankings.

As a pet owner, I admit that these ratings can feel reassuring at first because they make complicated nutrition topics look simple and easy to understand. But after reading several discussions here, I started wondering if things are actually much more complex than social media makes them appear.

Why does Petfood Advisor refuse to give simple A-B-C-D-E scores to pet foods while so many influencers do it confidently every day?

Is it because nutritional needs vary depending on the animal, age, activity, health condition, or feeding context? Or is it because some information on labels may be incomplete, inaccurate, or interpreted differently?

I would really like to better understand the risks of these simplified scoring systems because they seem extremely popular online. Sometimes two influencers give completely opposite ratings to the same product, which becomes very confusing for consumers.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions and learning more from experienced members here.

Emily

Hello Emily,

Thank you for your question. This is actually one of the most important discussions in modern pet nutrition.

The main reason why Petfood Advisor does not give simple A-B-C-D-E scores to kibble is because animal nutrition is far more complex than a school-style grade or a “good vs bad” label.

Many influencers simplify pet food evaluation because simple scores are easier to understand, easier to share on social media, and often generate more clicks, reactions, and engagement. A colorful “A” or “E” immediately creates an emotional reaction. Unfortunately, nutrition does not work that way.

A food that may appear “excellent” for one animal can be completely unsuitable for another. A highly active sporting dog, an indoor sterilized cat, a senior animal, or a pet with digestive sensitivities do not have the same nutritional needs. Reducing all products to a universal score can therefore become misleading.

Another important issue is data reliability.

Many online scoring systems are built only from label information. However, labels themselves may contain approximations, outdated values, marketing wording, incomplete mineral information, or analytical data that consumers interpret incorrectly. Some influencers also calculate estimated carbohydrates differently, ignore moisture content, or mix scientific information with personal beliefs.

This creates a situation where the same product may receive:

* an “A” on one website,
* a “C” on another,
* and be described as “dangerous” somewhere else.

That inconsistency alone shows the limits of simplified scoring systems.

Petfood Advisor prefers a different philosophy:

* explain the data,
* compare measurable information,
* show analytical values,
* discuss ingredients and context,
* and help consumers think critically instead of blindly trusting a final score.

The goal is not to tell people “this kibble is good” or “this kibble is bad,” but rather to provide tools that help owners understand what they are buying and feeding.

Simple ratings may look reassuring, but they can also encourage impulsive decisions, unnecessary fear, or nutritional mistakes when consumers stop looking at the bigger picture.

In reality, pet nutrition requires nuance, context, and sometimes even questioning information shared online — especially when viral content becomes more influential than scientific discussion.

Thank you again for opening this discussion.