ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Does the definition of human ultra-processed foods apply to dog and cat foods? A review of pet food processing techniques, their impact on health, and a call for pet food processing classification.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence linking higher intake of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) with increased risk of chronic diseases in humans has grown since the establishment of the NOVA classification and its widespread adoption in nutrition research. Extruded dry and wet diets for cats and dogs (commonly known as kibble and canned/tinned foods) share many features with human UPFs. As these formats are the predominant pet diets in developed countries, similar concerns have been raised. However, progress in this field is constrained by the absence of a clear definition of UPFs in pet nutrition. This Perspective outlines the human UPF definition, with emphasis on the NOVA classification, and reviews mechanisms proposed to explain their negative health impacts in humans. We then compile the current state of knowledge on pet food processing across both traditional dry and wet diets and emerging dietary formats, illustrating the diversity of products available and their potential implications for canine and feline health. We argue that findings from human UPF research cannot be directly extrapolated to dogs and cats, but highlight the need to develop an objective, systematic classification of pet foods based on processing levels. Such a framework would enable research into health effects of processing in companion animals while incorporating the perspectives of manufacturers, regulators, and researchers. Finally, we propose a set of key factors that should inform this classification to reflect the diversity of pet food formats and facilitate its acceptance and use within the veterinary nutrition and pet food research communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.