What the words on the bag actually mean.

The one claim that legally means something. Look for it.

Backed by the AAFCO adequacy statement on the back of the bag - either formulated to a nutrient profile or validated by a feeding trial, for a stated life stage. It is the single most important claim on a label and the only one PetScored treats as a baseline requirement.

AAFCO-defined, but a low bar - it mostly means "no synthetic additives."

AAFCO defines "natural" as derived from plant, animal, or mined sources with no chemically synthetic processing - except added vitamins and minerals, which are nearly always synthetic and require a "with added vitamins and minerals" caveat. It says nothing about ingredient quality, sourcing, or nutrition.

A real standard, rarely truly met. Verify it, don't assume it.

For a product to legally claim "human-grade," every ingredient AND the manufacturing facility must be human-edible-certified. Most products using the phrase qualify only some ingredients. The claim is meaningful when substantiated and meaningless when slapped on the front of a bag without the facility certification behind it.

Positioning, not nutrition. No proven benefit, and an open FDA question.

Grain-free tells you what's excluded, not what replaced it - usually legumes and potatoes. There is no evidence grain-free is better for typical dogs, and the FDA has an open investigation into a possible link between grain-free/legume-heavy diets and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). PetScored does not credit grain-free as a benefit and does not penalize grains.

No legal or regulatory meaning whatsoever.

"Holistic" is not defined by AAFCO, the FDA, or any regulatory body for pet food. Any product can use it. It carries zero information about formulation, sourcing, or quality.

Undefined. A price-positioning word, not a quality standard.

Neither "premium" nor "super-premium" has any regulatory definition or required ingredient standard. A budget food and a boutique food can both legally use the word. Judge the panel, not the adjective.

Usually traces to a paid survey with a narrow denominator.

"Vet recommended" most often comes from a manufacturer-commissioned survey asking a small number of vets which brand they recommend - not an endorsement of that specific recipe. "Veterinarian-formulated" usually means one vet was involved, rarely a board-certified veterinary nutritionist. Neither is a substantiated nutritional claim.

A fear-marketing claim. By-products aren't inherently low quality.

Named organ meats (liver, heart, kidney) are nutritious and are technically "by-products." The term covers a wide quality range, but "no by-products" is positioning against a fear, not a nutrition standard. PetScored does not penalize named by-products or meat meals by default.

"Filler" has no definition. The claim is empty by construction.

There is no regulatory or nutritional definition of a "filler." Ingredients labeled fillers by marketers (corn, beet pulp, rice bran) often serve real nutritional or functional purposes. The claim signals nothing verifiable.

Useful for elimination diets - only if it's genuinely limited and novel.

A limited-ingredient diet is a real tool for identifying food sensitivities, but only when it has a single, novel protein and a short, controlled ingredient list. Many "limited ingredient" products still stack multiple proteins or common triggers. The claim is meaningful only when the panel backs it.

Manufacturing location ≠ ingredient sourcing.

"Made in USA" describes where the food was produced, not where the ingredients came from - those can be globally sourced. It's a meaningful data point for manufacturing oversight, but it is not a statement about ingredient origin or quality.

An evocative marketing frame, not a nutritional standard.

"Biologically appropriate" and "ancestral diet" are marketing concepts built on the idea that dogs should eat like wolves. Dogs are not wolves - they've evolved to digest starch. The framing has no regulatory definition and no required nutrient standard behind it.