Human health food trends are heading firmly away from processed foods, and likewise pet owners have adopted this aversion to grinding, synthesizing and blending. However, research published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science suggests that applying human food definitions of processing directly to pet food may be oversimplification.
As much as nearly every food could be considered processed in some manner, since even a banana gets peeled, what consumers are concerned about are ultra-processed foods. Even that term can mean something different to individuals, but not to scientists, who use the NOVA food classification system. In that framework, ultra-processed foods refers to a formulation made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little to no intact whole-food ingredients. The NOVA, Portuguese for new, food classification system was developed in 2010 by researchers at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.
Similar processes, different standards
From a manufacturing perspective, extruded kibble and canned diets share key characteristics with human ultra-processed foods. Both rely on high-temperature processing methods, such as extrusion and sterilization, and incorporate additives to maintain stability, palatability and shelf life.
“The main difference is that commercial pet foods are generally expected to provide all essential nutrients for a given life stage (unless they are labeled for intermittent feeding or veterinary use),” study author, Jirayu Tanprasertsuk, senior scientist with cat food brand KatKin, told Petfood Industry. “Human ultra-processed foods do not have an equivalent requirement for nutritional completeness. In fact, people who consume higher amounts of UPFs tend to have lower overall dietary quality and lower intakes of certain vitamins and minerals, which could explain in part some of their negative effects.
This regulatory requirement distinguishes pet food from human ultra-processed products, which are often associated with lower overall dietary quality.
Why human frameworks do not translate
The NOVA classification system categorizes foods based on processing level and has been widely used to link ultra-processed foods with chronic disease risk in humans. However, the study concludes that this framework cannot be directly applied to pet food.
“Pets and humans have different physiologies and nutrient requirements,” Tanprasertsuk said. “As mentioned earlier, there are also important differences between animal feed and human food regulation and supply chains. Because of this, the NOVA classification and the definition of human UPFs cannot be directly applied to specific formats of pet food.”
Pet food may include feed-grade ingredients and rendered materials not used in human food, while excluding substances that are safe for humans but toxic to pets.
“For the same reason, we cannot fully rely on evidence from human nutrition and assume that the associations between higher UPF intake and negative health outcomes observed in people will translate directly to pets,” he said.
Limited evidence, complex variables
While emerging research suggests processing methods may influence pet health, including effects on digestibility, microbiome composition and metabolic outcomes, the evidence remains inconclusive.
“At this stage, there are signals in the literature that different diet formats may influence health, nutrient digestibility, and processing aid exposure in pets in different ways,” Tanprasertsuk said. “However, the amount of research on newer diet formats is still much more limited.”
What’s more, isolating processing as a single factor is difficult. Variables such as moisture content, energy density, ingredient composition and feeding practices are often intertwined with processing methods.
“The processing techniques used in each diet format are highly confounded,” Tanprasertsuk said.
Standardized classification for pet foods
To address this complexity, the study authors propose developing a processing-based classification system tailored to pet food. Current categories, dry, semi-moist and wet, no longer reflect the diversity of formats now available, including freeze-dried, air-dried and mildly cooked diets.
“The range of products on the market has grown so much that these moisture-based categories can no longer capture the full diversity and complexity of processing,” Tanprasertsuk said.
A standardized framework could improve communication across the industry, from formulation to labeling and consumer education.
“For formulators, it would create a common language for describing how products differ beyond moisture level,” Tanprasertsuk said.
The goal is not to categorize certain products as inherently better or worse, but to enable more precise research and informed decision-making.
“This is the real opportunity: not to stigmatize any one format without science, but to enable better science, clearer product descriptions, and better-informed feeding decisions,” Tanprasertsuk said.
