Loving Pets Fresh Mint Dental Sticks
Treat · complementary
Our verdict
Is Loving Pets Fresh Mint Dental Sticks a good dog food?
This is a treat, not a complete diet, so it is not scored on our 1-100 scale. The ingredient breakdown below shows what is in it; a treat should be fed alongside, not instead of, a complete diet.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
100% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You need more protein than this: 17.9% on a dry-matter basis is in the low band
These points are derived from declared ingredients and analysis, not a substitute for veterinary advice. If your dog has a diagnosed condition, food choice is a medical nutrition decision: speak to your vet. Find foods that fit your dog.
What the label tells us
- The label lists 18 ingredients.
- Uses generic terms (Chicken): the specific animal source is not stated.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints no ingredient quantities.
Why is this treat not scored?
Our 1 to 100 rating applies to complete diets, so treats and complementary foods are presented as what the label tells us rather than a number that would invite comparison with complete meals.
What should I look for on a treat label?
A short ingredient list, named animal sources instead of generic terms, and no artificial colours or preservatives. Printed quantities are a good transparency signal, though few treat labels provide them.
These points are derived from the published ingredient list, not a rating.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 14% · Fat 3%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 14% |
| Fat | 3% |
| Fibre | 2% |
| Moisture | 22% |
Energy: 274 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Use these treats up to 5 days a week to help maintain your dog's dental health.
Additives declared on the label
Technological additives
Citric Acid; Potassium Sorbate; Mixed Tocopherols
Ingredients (18)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- additive 28.5%
- supplement 17.4%
- veg 15.2%
- carb 14.1%
- other 13.7%
- meat 6.5%
- fibre 4.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Potato Flour | Potato Flour | carb · medium | - | 7.3 |
| 2 | Vegetable Glycerin | Glycerine | other · medium | - | 7.1 |
| 3 | Potato Starch | Potato starch | carb · poor | - | 6.9 |
| 4 | Water for Processing | Water | other | - | 6.7 |
| 5 | Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 6.5 |
| 6 | Gelatin | Gelatin | supplement · medium | - | 6.3 |
| 7 | Lecithin | Lecithin | supplement · good | - | 6.1 |
| 8 | Gum Arabic | Acacia Gum | additive · medium | - | 5.9 |
| 9 | Natural Smoke Flavor | Smoked Flavour | additive · poor | - | 5.7 |
| 10 | Mint Extract | Mint | veg · good | - | 5.5 |
| 11 | Parsley | Parsley | veg · good | - | 5.3 |
| 12 | Calcium Carbonate | Calcium Carbonate | supplement · medium | - | 5.1 |
| 13 | Sodium Tri-Polyphosphate | Sodium Tripolyphosphate | additive · poor | - | 4.8 |
| 14 | Cellulose Powder | Powdered Cellulose | fibre · poor | - | 4.6 |
| 15 | Alfalfa | Alfalfa | veg · good | - | 4.4 |
| 16 | Preserved with Citric Acid | Citric Acid | additive · medium | - | 4.2 |
| 17 | Potassium Sorbate | Potassium Sorbate | additive · medium | - | 4.0 |
| 18 | Mixed Tocopherols. | Tocopherols | additive · good | - | 3.8 |
- 1. Potato Flour7.3% estimated
- 2. Vegetable Glycerin7.1% estimated
- 3. Potato Starch6.9% estimated
- 4. Water for Processing6.7% estimated
- 5. Chicken6.5% estimated
- 6. Gelatin6.3% estimated
- 7. Lecithin6.1% estimated
- 8. Gum Arabic5.9% estimated
- 9. Natural Smoke Flavor5.7% estimated
- 10. Mint Extract5.5% estimated
- 11. Parsley5.3% estimated
- 12. Calcium Carbonate5.1% estimated
- 13. Sodium Tri-Polyphosphate4.8% estimated
- 14. Cellulose Powder4.6% estimated
- 15. Alfalfa4.4% estimated
- 16. Preserved with Citric Acid4.2% estimated
- 17. Potassium Sorbate4.0% estimated
- 18. Mixed Tocopherols.3.8% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-13
Brand and contact: Loving Pets
- [email protected]
- Phone
- (609) 655-3700
- Address
- 110 Melrich Rd, Cranbury, NJ 08512
- Contact page
- lovingpetsproducts.com
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-13
- Product page
- lovingpetsproducts.com
Recall history is presentation-only and never affects the score. Dates are when we recorded the data, not when the manufacturer last changed the recipe.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: 0.0/5 · 0 reviews
Spotted a mistake in this listing? Report it here and we'll take a look.
Score details and methodologyCalculations, history and evidence
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Scored with model v3 on 2026-10-25. Each component is the feature value for this product multiplied by the model's published coefficient.
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.60 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 13.4% | -0.115 | -1.54 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 41.6% | 0.163 | +6.77 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 25.9% | -0.012 | -0.32 |
| Other share of dry matter | 5.7% | -0.375 | -2.15 |
| Recipe graded poor | 22.0% | -0.065 | -1.43 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.9% | 0.060 | +0.41 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -34.18 | 0.222 | -7.59 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.60 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 13.4% | -0.115 | -1.54 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 41.6% | 0.163 | +6.77 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 25.9% | -0.012 | -0.32 |
| Other share of dry matter | 5.7% | -0.375 | -2.15 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 22.0% | -0.065 | -1.43 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.9% | 0.060 | +0.41 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | no | 2.294 | +0.00 |
| Frozen or chilled fresh | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | no | 0.707 | +0.00 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| High carb and low meat | no | -1.180 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × printed percentages | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × fresh | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Fresh × high meat | 0.0 | 11.084 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | -34.18 | 0.222 | -7.59 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Refrigerated | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Freeze Dried | no | 6.629 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Air Dried | no | 6.331 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Cold Pressed | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | no | -6.174 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.146 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- +0.02
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 37.8
- Final score
- 38/100
Contributions are rounded to two decimals, so they may not sum exactly to the subtotal. The full coefficient table is published on the methodology page.
This is not a complete diet, so the 1-100 rating does not apply to it. Read the recipe breakdown above as ingredient-quality context only.
Nutritional: declared analysis vs reference ranges
Not applicable to complementary food. FEDIAF reference ranges apply to complete diets.
Transparency: what the label discloses
How much the manufacturer discloses, measured against the FEDIAF Code of Good Labelling Practice and Regulation 767/2009. Mandatory items dominate the weighting.
| Item | Points |
|---|---|
| Ingredient list on the label (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Printed percentages on the label (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Country of manufacture stated (voluntary) | 10/10 |
| Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file | 0/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (Analytical constituents declared, Batch and date labelling).
Safety: recall history
Recall and safety-notice history, time-decayed. This dimension is shown alongside the score and never feeds the headline number.
No recalls recorded in our database.
See all current recalls we track.
Evidence: what the brand claims, and what supports it
The claims made on the pack and product page, checked against the declared label. We record claims as stated; "consistent" means our stored label data supports the claim, "contradicted" means it conflicts with it. Functional claims are recorded but never scored.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Grain, Wheat, Gluten & Corn Free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
4 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| unique pinwheel shape helps mechanically clean teeth, remove tartar and massage gums (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Freshens your pet's breath as he chews (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No artificial colors or flavors (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made in the USA (on pack) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain, Wheat, Gluten & Corn Free (on pack) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.