Hi Aimee,
Through my own negligence (for not making myself clear), I’m surely not opposed to making quality control testing a criterion. As a matter of fact, routine quality control testing is, of course, a must.
However, by “expensive testing”, I’m referring to field testing (feeding trials). This is cost prohibitive and would prevent many well-designed products from ever reaching the market.
One criterion I’m most interested in (as you suggested) is the need for a real nutrient analysis — a laboratory analysis made available either on a company website or by request.
The label-based Guaranteed Analysis can be very misleading. We use it because it is both regulated and readily available on ALL products.
However, stating a fat “minimum” can be notably deceptive — and especially common with canned or raw foods. High fat content can be a tip off that a company is using fatty trimmings, connective tissue and other low quality by-products in their finished formulations.
For example, a stated GA for fat of 16% (a “guaranteed minimum”) could in actuality be 25% or more.
In summary, I believe in creating a list of “favorites”, we may wish to obtain a real and current batch nutrient analysis. Thanks for making this excellent suggestion.
