Summary on the unreliability of the ABCDE Petfood-Score and the importance of the Petfood-Advisor Petfood-Score
Are you ready to change your kibble brand following a recommendation on Facebook? Distrust! We do not follow nutrition advice shared on private Facebook groups, you risk making your animals sick.
The Petfood-Score ABCDE, billed as a rating system for pet food, has generated controversy due to its methodology and implications for animal health. First of all, it must be remembered that the Petfood-Score has never been offered to rate kibbles. On the contrary, it was a system for evaluating the information shared in Petfood. Moreover, animal nutrition professionals have clearly highlighted the dangers of an arbitrary rating system, especially when it is based on carbohydrate levels.
At the same time, the Petfood-Score from Petfood-Advisor is positioned as an educational tool aimed at combating misinformation regarding animal nutrition. It is a truly different system, less arbitrary, and without negative consequences on the health of our animals. Because far too many consumers believe all the information shared on Facebook, even when the authors are individuals without basic knowledge of animal nutrition, or even led by conspiratorial comments.
This summary examines the reviews of the Petfood-Score ABCDE which rates kibbles, with the risk of making animals sick, as well as the advantages of the Petfood-Score from Petfood-Advisor, which assesses the level of vigilance of consumers.
Reviews of the Petfood-Score ABCDE (the one who rates your kibbles)
The Petfood-Score ABCDE evaluates kibbles on a scale from A to E, based on nutritional criteria considered arbitrary and often misleading. Remember that this scorind method has existed for more than 20 years. It was imagined in the United States, by an individual who was not at all a professional in animal nutrition (and who moreover readily admitted this), then copied and modified by hundreds of people who also wanted to attribute paternity.
Here are the main points of criticism:
- Fuzzy Methodology: The score is determined by five main rules (absence of animal by-products, absence of cereals, high level of animal proteins, satisfactory level of fats, and low level of carbohydrates), each rated on 2 points. However, these criteria do not take into account the specific needs of animals or variations in the quality of ingredients, such as the very notion of animal by-products, which is clearly not understood.
- Animal By-Products: The first rule states that no animal by-products must be present. This is problematic because the by-products can be valuable nutrient sources. In reality, all animal feed contains by-products classified according to strict health standards (European Regulation No. 1069/2009). In fact, these are pieces of meat suitable for human consumption, but which we do not want to use. This meat is therefore not toxic!
- Cereals and Legumes: The stigmatization of cereals in kibble is unfounded. Grains can be a source of energy and are not inherently harmful. Additionally, systematically excluding grains in favor of legumes can increase the risk of heart problems in some dogs. This comes from the fact that Petfood “influencers” have no expertise in nutrition, and are content to copy articles or extracts from books without understanding them.
- Protein and Carbohydrates: The score requires a high level of animal protein, but this can lead to indigestibility if the kibble is too high in protein. Furthermore, the correlation between high carbohydrate levels and health problems is not clearly established. Above all, only an aminogram could confirm the protein richness, which will never be seen in a deducted carbohydrate level.
The Petfood-Score ABCDE presents a simplistic view that can mislead consumers, making them believe that a high score guarantees optimal nutritional quality. In addition, we noted that the promoters of this score declared that kibble rated “A” suddenly became classified “E”, “Toxic”, “to be prohibited”, without any change in composition. And conversely, so-called “toxic” kibbles mysteriously become “recommended”, classified “A”. Still without change of composition.
These scores actually come from numerous ranking tables of kibbles and mashes for dogs and cats, comparative tables, always based on these carbohydrate levels, which clearly shows their lack of reliability.
The Petfood-Score from Petfood-Advisor
In contrast, the Petfood-Score from Petfood-Advisor stands out for its more nuanced and informative approach. Indeed, instead of rating kibbles arbitrarily, it is a way for the consumer to “rate” themselves, from E (manipulatable consumer) to A (informed consumer).
Here’s why:
- Holistic Evaluation: This system takes into account several dimensions of the food product, including the authority of information sources, the detailed composition of the kibble, and the detection of misleading information. This allows consumers to obtain a more complete and reliable view
- Consumer Education: The primary goal is to educate pet owners about animal nutrition so they can make informed choices. This includes raising awareness of misinformation often spread on social media regarding animal nutrition. Consumers must learn to unmask Fake News, and check toxic kibble alerts shared on Facebook.
- Combating Misinformation: The Petfood-Score encourages a critical approach to unverified claims that frequently circulate in online groups. By providing information based on solid research and rigorous analysis, it helps to counter myths related to animal nutrition. Because this false information is very numerous, in particular on private Facebook groups specializing in false alerts about toxic kibbles.
Finally, while the ABCDE Petfood-Score raises concerns about its reliability and potential to mislead consumers, Petfood-Advisor’s Petfood-Score offers an educational framework that values transparency and expertise in animal nutrition. To ensure the well-being of their pets, it is vital that owners rely on reliable sources and consult with qualified professionals rather than relying on simplistic rating systems.
Because far too many people change their pet’s diet simply because a Facebook article indicates that a brand would be “rated A on the Petfood-Score”, which of course means nothing. Conversely, we have even seen people stop a brand because it had an “E” score.