WHY PET FOOD RATING SITES SHOULD BE IGNORED

The Internet is now overrun with self-appointed pet food review, advisor, ranking and rating sites. Although, understandably, everyone would like a competent and impartial source for finding the best pet food, these sites are not the answer by a long shot.

Pet food companies along with these Internet rating sites have created a long list of purported good and bad pet food features. Manufacturers, by and large, do it to create a market for their brand having all the "good" features and none of the bad ones. Internet ranking and advisor sites, although claiming independence, do it to create web traffic and profit from affiliate programs, donations, and advertising. Some apparently do it for seemingly no other reason than that they have come to believe their own guesses and notions, enjoy the web traffic they can boast, and being sought after for advice. No rater is independent from their own biases and incompetency.

Astonishingly, of the <<50+ advisor and ranking sites>>:

1. Not one is manned by people <<with the expertise>> or relevant industry and technology experience to even know what the best pet food could be or how it could be manufactured.
2. Not one uses criteria for evaluation that are <<most important>> in determining the best pet food.

Advisors, raters, and rankers use false criteria, assumptions, popular myths, and incompetency:

1. They put aesthetics above science and fact, i.e., an ingredient is rated based upon whether it sounds bad or sounds good.
2. They ignore the fact that any ingredient, natural or synthetic, is <<toxic>> at high enough dose, including oxygen and water.
3. They have no empirical or scientific evidence that their named evil ingredient has ever caused harm to any pet at levels common in pet foods.
4. They deny a <<basic principle in toxicology>> that natural substances harmful at one level may be beneficial at another.
5. They provide no proof that a food with their high ranking is any healthier than any poorly ranked food with all the site's taboos.
6. They condemn an ingredient based upon a toxicity study that has no relevance at the levels the ingredient is used in pet foods.
7. They condemn ingredients but they have done no, or can cite no, controlled scientific study proving that any of their criteria or taboos create improved health.
8. They presume that which they do not know, namely what levels various ingredients are in manufacturer's secret proprietary formulations.
9. They rate based upon the false notion that certain percentages of nutrients create a complete and balanced food.
10. They ignore the <<ethics and truthfulness>> of producers, <<false advertising>>, expertise of producers, and whether the brand even makes its own products.

The evaluation of a pet food can be no better than the relevance and truthfulness of the criteria used.

Astonishingly, none of the rating criteria used by any of the <<50+ raters>> and advisors lead consumers to the best pet food or are even truthful or competent.

<<Go here>> to see why this is so.