Raw chicken is roughly 70% water and supplies a complete amino acid profile. That water content is the key "before processing" number to know: after cooking and moisture loss during extrusion or canning, a food listing "chicken" first may end up with less actual chicken protein by weight than one listing "chicken meal" (already water-removed) third. The cooking itself denatures the protein — which improves digestibility over raw muscle tissue — while degrading some heat-sensitive vitamins like thiamine and folate, which is why finished foods need a synthetic vitamin premix added back regardless of meat quality. Named, whole, real food. No penalty. Score: 8/10.

Refined and allergenic. Stripped of the nutritional components of whole wheat. A cheap binder and filler. Score: 2/10.

Hydrolysis means the tissue is dissolved with chemicals or enzymes into a liquid or powder. The source animal is completely unspecified — the same 4D concerns apply. It is primarily used as a flavor enhancer sprayed onto kibble after manufacturing. When you see a dog going crazy for a cheap food, this is often why.

Highly processed and concentrated from the waste parts of chicken processing. While from a named species, the source material is the lowest grade. A major step down from chicken meal. Score: 2/10.

Not yet in the glossary.

Nutritionally the same story as plain dried yeast — B vitamins, protein, and a savory flavor that boosts palatability — just sourced specifically from brewing rather than yeast grown for the purpose. The same caveat applies: legitimate for dogs without yeast sensitivities, but often included as much for taste as for nutrition. Score: 5/10.

Glycerin is a moisture-retaining agent that is generally safe for dogs. However, its source (vegetable or animal-derived) is unspecified, and it adds no nutritional value—it is purely functional for treat texture.

Raw tuna is a dense, complete-amino-acid protein with moderate omega-3 content. Its main concern isn't processing — it's that tuna is a larger, longer-lived predatory fish that can accumulate methylmercury over its lifespan, a risk carried over from the raw fish itself rather than created by cooking. Fine in rotation; not ideal as the sole daily protein. Score: 8/10.

Processed but still nutrient-dense. The vague "product" label means it may be any fraction of egg. Less ideal than "whole dried egg" but still nutritious. Score: 5.5/10.

The most basic ingredient there is — used to achieve the right texture and moisture content in wet food, fresh rolls, and soft treats. Not a red flag on its own; the only thing worth checking is how much of it there is relative to actual named protein, since a food padded mostly with water and cheap filler can look more substantial than it is.

This one stacks two separate red flags: the species is unnamed, carrying the same 4D-animal traceability problem as any unspecified animal fat, and it's preserved with BHA, which the National Toxicology Program lists as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." Either issue alone would be a real deduction; together they land this at the bottom of the fat category.

Raw fish supplies complete amino acids and omega-3s; this process strips out not just water (as with a standard meal) but the oil too, leaving an even more concentrated protein powder — at the cost of most of the omega-3 content that made the source fish valuable in the first place. Functional as a protein booster, but nutritionally hollowed out compared to a named fish meal that retains its natural oil.

Stacks the same species-accountability gap as any unspecified fish meal with a preservative the FDA pressured manufacturers to voluntarily reduce use of in 1997 after adverse event reports including liver damage and cancer. Ethoxyquin-preserved fish meal is also notorious for not always appearing on a finished food's own label — if a manufacturer buys fish meal already treated with it, disclosure isn't required.

Used as an acidifier and mild preservative. In human nutrition research, high phosphoric acid intake (notably from cola) has been studied for a possible association with reduced bone density; the amounts used in pet treats are far smaller and not established as a comparable risk, but it's a synthetic acid added for function, not nutrition. Score: 4/10.

Unlike artificial cheese flavor, this is at least derived from real cheese — but "product" (rather than "cheese" alone) signals it's a processed fraction, not whole dried cheese, and it still carries the lactose and fat concerns of any dairy ingredient. Used for palatability more than nutrition. Score: 4/10.

Dogs and cats do need some dietary sodium for nerve and fluid balance — this isn't optional in a raw ingredient sense. The concern is dose and purpose: pet food often contains more salt than the nutritional minimum requires, because it also makes food taste better to the animal. Not dangerous at normal pet food levels for a healthy animal, but worth watching for pets with heart or kidney conditions where sodium intake matters more. Score: 5/10.

A standard, well-tolerated way to supply potassium, which supports nerve and muscle function. Safe and common across nearly every commercial pet food.

The direct-acid form of the same mold inhibitor used in potassium sorbate, generally regarded as safe at typical food-preservation levels. Still a synthetic preservative used in place of natural alternatives like mixed tocopherols or rosemary extract, which is the main reason it doesn't score higher. Score: 4/10.

An unspecified blend of plant oils — often soy, canola, or palm oil. No omega-3 contribution and unknown composition. Score: 2/10.

White pigment banned from food in the EU due to DNA damage concerns. Still permitted in some pet food markets. Zero nutritional purpose. Score: 1/10.

When caramel color is made using ammonia or sulfites (Class III and IV), it produces 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) — a compound the National Toxicology Program found to cause cancer in animal studies. California lists it as a carcinogen. Your pet does not need its food to be a certain color. Caramel color exists purely for human marketing appeal.

No nutritional purpose — dogs and cats are partially colorblind and don't need or benefit from a specific food color. Red 40 has been linked to hypersensitivity reactions and requires a warning label in the EU, the same as the other synthetic dyes on this list.

A mild, well-tolerated acidifier — the same compound produced naturally during fermentation of foods like yogurt. Functions as a gentle preservative by lowering pH enough to slow bacterial growth. One of the more benign synthetic-sounding additives on a label. Score: 6/10.

Listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" by the National Toxicology Program. The EU restricts its use. California lists it as a known carcinogen under Proposition 65. It's cheap and it works — which is why budget brands use it instead of safer alternatives like mixed tocopherols. There is no reason to feed your pet a food containing BHA.

Dogs and cats are partially colorblind and don't perceive food color the way people shopping for them do — this dye exists purely for the human buyer's benefit. Yellow 5 has been linked to hypersensitivity reactions and is required to carry a warning label in the EU. No nutritional purpose.

Same story as the other artificial dyes: no nutritional role, added purely so the food looks a certain way to the person buying it. Yellow 6 has shown tumor associations in some animal studies and, like the other synthetic dyes, requires a warning label in the EU.

28.0★ Grade F

9/6/2026