A long-running one-person editorial site with no visible pay-for-placement or affiliate links, but the absence of any disclosure page and the lack of a published methodology leave the independence claim unverifiable.
What it's really for Ingredient-quality ratings for pet owners seeking alternatives to mainstream commercial pet food, informed by a carnivore-first nutritional philosophy
What our grade covers The grade on this page is about Dog and cat food brands and recipes rated by ingredient quality, not everything the site does.
Medium Scoring Confidence Mostly sourced, but a detail or two still needs a primary source, so the grade could shift slightly.
- Operating since
- 2007 (19 years) · source
- What it costs you
- Free to read The reviews are free to read.
- How they make money
- No visible monetization identified — no affiliate links to retailers, no ads apparent on rating pages. The site appears to operate as an independent passion project, though the absence of a disclosure page means the revenue model cannot be confirmed as zero.
- What they do
- Single-author site by David D'Angelo, a self-described CPD-accredited pet nutritionist, rating dog and cat food brands on a 1-5 star scale based on ingredient quality and species-appropriate nutrition criteria. Covers dry, raw, freeze-dried, and wet formats with alphabetical brand listings and a side-by-side comparison tool.
- What to watch for
- No published scoring rubric or weighting system; no lab testing or feeding trials; no third-party verification of methodology. A single author's judgment drives all ratings, and no disclosure page exists to document commercial relationships — making it impossible for a reader to rule out undisclosed affiliate or sponsorship income.
- Composite score
- 2.40 / 5.00 → grade C
How the grade was reached
Does the site take money from the very entities it ranks? Pay-for-placement, vendor-funded data, and affiliate commissions all pull this down. The less the ranking can be bought, the higher the score.
What is the ranking actually built on? Hands-on testing scores highest, then verified first-hand reviews, then opinion or popularity surveys and self-reported figures, then pay-to-rank, which scores lowest.
Is the methodology published, specific, and reproducible? Can a reader see how a given rank was reached, or is it a black box?
Are commercial relationships, sponsorships, and affiliate arrangements disclosed clearly and near the rankings themselves, rather than buried?
How hard is it to game? Controls against fake reviews, solicited reviews, and vendor gaming raise this; an open box anyone can stuff lowers it.
Evidence
- The site's homepage and about page identify David D'Angelo as the sole reviewer, credentialed as a 'CPD accredited pet nutritionist and veterinary support assistant,' with research activity dating to 2007. Source: Pet Food Ratings – About page →
- The dog food listing page uses a 1-5 star scale with no published scoring rubric; brands are listed alphabetically with no ranking hierarchy, and no affiliate links to retailers are visible. Source: Pet Food Ratings – Dog food listing →
- A request to https://www.petfoodratings.org/disclosure/ returned HTTP 404; no advertiser disclosure or 'how we make money' page exists on the site. Source: Pet Food Ratings – Disclosure URL (404) →
- The homepage describes the reviewer's philosophy as advocating 'healthier, more animal-based' diets and positions the site as an independent educational resource, with no sponsorship notices or paid-placement labels visible. Source: Pet Food Ratings – Homepage →