A widespread belief that does not match reality
In online discussions, many people assume that the ABCDE petfood scoring system used in France comes from a specific creator, expert, or recognized source. This belief is understandable: when a system is widely shared, formatted with letters and colors, and presented with confidence, it gives the impression of authority.
However, this assumption is incorrect. There is no identifiable individual, institution, or scientific body in France that has formally created or validated an ABCDE petfood scoring system. The model has no official origin within the country.
A concept that evolved through replication, not design
What is commonly referred to as a “petfood score” is not the result of a structured development process. Instead, it is the outcome of repeated copying, adaptation, and reinterpretation across online communities.
The original idea—assigning simple grades to pet food—emerged informally outside France and was later imported, translated, and reshaped by numerous individuals. Each version introduced slight modifications: different thresholds, alternative penalties, or new assumptions.
Over time, this process created a fragmented ecosystem of scoring systems. Hundreds of variations now exist, often using the same ABCDE format but relying on entirely different underlying logic.
The central role of carbohydrate-based assumptions
A defining feature of many of these scoring systems is their strong reliance on carbohydrate levels. In numerous cases, the final grade is heavily influenced—or even determined—by estimated carbohydrate content.
This raises several methodological concerns:
- Carbohydrates are rarely declared directly on pet food labels
- They are typically derived through indirect calculations
- These calculations are sensitive to input variability and rounding
- They do not reflect ingredient quality or biological utilization
As a result, the entire scoring framework may be built on an imprecise and incomplete metric.
No scientific validation or professional consensus
Another key issue is the absence of scientific validation. ABCDE petfood scores are not supported by peer-reviewed research, nor are they endorsed by veterinary nutrition organizations.
Animal nutrition is a specialized discipline that requires a comprehensive understanding of physiology, biochemistry, and dietary formulation. Reducing this complexity to a single letter grade does not meet the standards of scientific evaluation.
Moreover, these systems do not account for individual variability. Nutritional suitability depends on factors such as age, health status, metabolic needs, and lifestyle. A universal score cannot reflect these differences.
Why the system continues to spread
Despite its limitations, the ABCDE scoring model remains widely used. Its persistence can be explained by several factors:
- It provides immediate, easy-to-understand answers
- It fits well with visual and social media formats
- It reduces cognitive effort for decision-making
- It creates a sense of control in a complex market
These advantages contribute to its popularity, even though they do not improve its reliability.
The issue of influence without qualification
In France, as in many other countries, the growth of social media has led to the emergence of numerous voices discussing pet nutrition. Some of these individuals present themselves as references or authorities.
However, without formal education in animal nutrition, the ability to provide accurate and balanced analysis is limited. Interpreting ingredient lists, understanding nutrient interactions, and assessing dietary suitability require specialized training.
This does not mean that all non-professional content is invalid, but it does highlight the importance of distinguishing between informed analysis and simplified interpretation.
Moving from scoring to informed evaluation
Rather than relying on arbitrary grades, a more robust approach involves developing the ability to interpret pet food information directly. This includes understanding how to read labels, evaluate ingredient composition, and place nutritional data in context.
Such an approach does not offer instant answers, but it provides a more reliable foundation for decision-making. It also reduces dependence on systems that lack transparency and scientific grounding.
Conclusion
The ABCDE petfood score used in France does not originate from any single creator or recognized authority. It is the result of cumulative adaptations of an informal concept that has been modified by hundreds of individuals worldwide.
Its reliance on estimated carbohydrate values and its lack of scientific validation significantly limit its credibility. In a field as complex as animal nutrition, simplified scoring systems cannot replace informed, context-based evaluation.