What FEDIAF guarantees, and what it does not say

FEDIAF is the European federation of pet food manufacturers. Its nutritional guidelines ↗ set the minimum, and sometimes maximum, level of each nutrient: for a growing kitten, for example, at least 28 % protein and 9 % fat on a dry-matter basis. A food sold as “complete” must meet them.

It is an essential filter, but it separates almost nothing: every kibble in our comparison passes it. Above all, FEDIAF says nothing about three things that matter:

• The quality of the protein and its digestibility. Two kibbles at 36 % protein can feed the cat very differently.
• How the figures are obtained. A recipe can be calculated from a database, or checked by analysing the finished product.
• Proof on the animal. “Formulated to meet” means the recipe reaches the right levels on paper. “Animal feeding tests” means it was fed to animals and the result was checked.

We saw it ourselves: a kibble compliant on paper gave our three cats persistent diarrhoea. The details are in our dry-food comparison.

AAFCO, the American reference

AAFCO (the Association of American Feed Control Officials) brings together the US authorities that regulate animal feed. It does not test, approve or certify any food: there is no such thing as an “AAFCO-certified” kibble. Its role is to write the rules: the nutrient profiles for cats, the American counterpart of the FEDIAF guide, the feeding-trial protocols and the ingredient definitions. US states adopt these models into law, and it is they, together with the FDA, who check the labels. A manufacturer printing “complete and balanced” on a bag sold in the United States must therefore follow these rules.

What you need to read is the nutritional adequacy statement printed on bags sold in the United States. It comes in two forms:

• “Formulated to meet… AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles”. The recipe reaches the right levels, by calculation or by analysis. It is the equivalent of a FEDIAF-compliant kibble.
• “Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures…”. The food was fed on its own to cats during a supervised trial, with veterinary follow-up. This is the proof on the animal that WSAVA asks for.

Bags sold in Europe rarely carry this statement: you find it on the American version of the product, where there is one. Here is what it says for the kitten kibbles we discuss.

• Pro Plan Kitten — AAFCO feeding tests (product page ↗).
• Hill’s Science Plan Kitten — AAFCO feeding tests on its American version, Science Diet Kitten (product page ↗).
• Royal Canin Kitten — “formulated to meet” on its American version (product page ↗).
• Farmina N&D Prime Kitten — “formulated to meet” (a US retailer’s page ↗).
• Opti Life and MultiFit — no AAFCO statement found: these brands refer to FEDIAF.

What about “natural” kibbles? Meeting AAFCO and FEDIAF says nothing about how natural a recipe is, and a so-called natural recipe is no better proven for it. Farmina N&D, the most “natural” in our comparison, is formulated to meet both profiles, without a feeding trial.

WSAVA: the questions to ask the manufacturer

WSAVA, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, brings together veterinary associations from many countries. Its Global Nutrition Committee publishes guidelines on selecting pet foods ↗. It publishes no list of “approved” brands: it gives questions to ask the manufacturer.

• Do they employ a nutritionist? Their name, qualifications (ACVN, ECVCN, or PhD in animal nutrition) and employment status.
• Who formulates the diet? An experienced formulator, a veterinarian, or a breeder?
• What quality control for ingredients and finished products? Are the values calculated, or measured by analysis?
• What studies have been carried out, and are they published in peer-reviewed journals?
• On the label: the adequacy statement (formulated to meet, or feeding trials), the calories, a contact, and who makes the food.

Our five criteria, and how we rank

From the WSAVA questions, we keep five criteria. A criterion only counts if the manufacturer documents it publicly: these are statements by the brands, which no one checks independently.

1. Who makes the food? Does the brand produce in its own factories?
2. Who formulates? Is the recipe designed by an animal nutrition specialist?
3. A board-certified veterinary nutritionist (ACVIM-Nutrition or ECVCN) on the team?
4. Feeding trials proving the food is adequate, not just “formulated to meet”?
5. Verifiable quality control of ingredients and finished product, through analyses?

Our ranking follows three steps. First FEDIAF, as a filter: the food must be complete and meet the minimums. Then the number of documented WSAVA criteria. Finally, in case of a tie, composition (share of animal protein, carbohydrates) and what we observed in our own cats.

Brand by brand, the evidence

Each screenshot shows the passage cited, on the manufacturer’s page. Click it to open the page.

Royal Canin — 5 criteria out of 5

Two factories in France, in Aimargues and Cambrai, out of sixteen worldwide. Formulas designed by board-certified veterinary nutritionists, PhD nutritionists and master’s graduates. Recipes validated against AAFCO and FEDIAF profiles or through feeding trials, with two test centres for palatability and digestibility. Analyses on every ingredient and every finished product.

Purina (Pro Plan) — 5 criteria out of 5

Its own factories and eight research centres, with more than 500 scientists: nutritionists, veterinarians, chemists, biologists. About 300 checks a day on raw materials and 1,100 during production and on finished products; production is only released once the results have been analysed.

Purina also employs board-certified veterinary nutritionists, such as Dr Martha Cline, DACVIM (nutrition) ↗. For Pro Plan Kitten, the statement “Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures” appears on the bag and on the product page ↗. Purina’s website blocks automated screenshots: these two pages are cited as links.

Hill’s — 5 criteria out of 5

Factories audited every year. More than 220 veterinarians, PhD nutritionists and food scientists, including board-certified specialists in nutrition and internal medicine. Every finished product inspected and tested for key nutrients before release. And for Science Diet Kitten, the American version of its kitten kibble, the product page ↗ states “Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures”.

Virbac (Veterinary HPM) — 3 criteria out of 5

Its own factory in Vauvert, in the south of France, ISO 9001 certified, with checks at every step and about 25,000 external analyses a year. Recipes designed by a team of veterinarians and nutritionists, with no specialist qualification stated. Palatability tests in owners’ homes, but no feeding trials in the AAFCO sense.

Advance (Affinity Petcare) — 2 criteria out of 5

Production in its own factories, in four countries. Recipes designed with a team of veterinary nutritionists, ethologists and food technologists, and research results published in scientific journals. The nutritionists’ qualifications, feeding trials and details of finished-product checks are not published.

Farmina — 2 criteria out of 5

Its own factories, and formulation by an in-house scientific team led by a veterinarian with a PhD in nutrition, linked with the University of Naples Federico II. No full-time board-certified veterinary nutritionist. The Prime Kitten carries the statement “formulated to meet”: the recipe is validated on paper, not through a feeding trial. Finished-product checks are internal and unpublished.

Opti Life (Versele-Laga) — 2 criteria out of 5

Its own factory and full traceability. Recipes developed by its nutritionists and veterinarians, with no specialist qualification stated. Nothing is published on feeding trials or finished-product analyses.

MultiFit (Maxi Zoo) — no criterion documented

It is a retailer’s own brand: we found no published information on its manufacturing, formulation, trials or checks.

Dr Pierre Bessière, veterinarian (DVM, PhD) at the Toulouse National Veterinary School, names Hill’s, Pro Plan, Royal Canin, Advance, Virbac and Specific among the brands able to prove what they claim. Advance and Virbac publish less than the three big brands: our scores measure what is published, not the quality of their foods.

The resulting ranking

The six kibbles in our comparison all meet the FEDIAF minimums. They are therefore separated first on the WSAVA criteria, then on composition and our observations.

1. Pro Plan Kitten — meets FEDIAF, 5 WSAVA criteria out of 5, AAFCO feeding tests on the product itself; ahead of Royal Canin on composition.
2. Royal Canin Kitten — meets FEDIAF, 5 WSAVA criteria out of 5; its American version is only “formulated to meet” AAFCO.
3. Opti Life Kitten — meets FEDIAF, 2 WSAVA criteria out of 5.
4. Farmina N&D Prime Kitten — meets FEDIAF, 2 WSAVA criteria out of 5; behind Opti Life because of the persistent diarrhoea in our cats.
5. MultiFit Care Junior — meets FEDIAF, no WSAVA criterion documented.
6. MultiFit Junior — meets FEDIAF, no WSAVA criterion documented; behind the Care version on composition.

The details of each kibble are in our dry-food comparison.