Our verdict
Is Green Petfood With Red Lentil a good dog food?
We score it 42/100 (Poor). The main reasons are set out in "Why you might not" below, and every step of the calculation is shown under "How we calculated this score".
Complete extruded dry food for adult dogs, with rice, potato protein and lentils as the main ingredients.
89% 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 adult dogs
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
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.
Nutrition and feeding
Typical analysis (as fed)
No analysis recorded yet.
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
no refrigeration needed before opening
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (11)89% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 35.8%
- fibre 20.7%
- oil 12.5%
- supplement 11.2%
- veg 10.0%
- additive 9.8%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 14.3 |
| 2 | potato protein | Potato protein | carb · medium | - | 13.4 |
| 3 | dried red lentil 10 % | Lentils | veg · medium | 10 | 10.0 |
| 4 | vegetable oil | Vegetable oil | oil · medium | - | 12.5 |
| 5 | beet fibre | Beet Fibre | fibre · medium | - | 11.6 |
| 6 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 10.7 |
| 7 | hydrolysed yeast | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 9.8 |
| 8 | apple fibre | Apple Fibre | fibre · medium | - | 8.9 |
| 9 | hydrolysed vegetable protein | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 8.0 |
| 10 | yeast cell walls 0.5 % | Yeast | supplement · good | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 11 | psyllium husks 0.1 % | Psyllium | fibre · good | 0.1 | 0.1 |
- 1. rice14.3% estimated
- 2. potato protein13.4% estimated
- 3. dried red lentil 10 %10% declared10.0% estimated
- 4. vegetable oil12.5% estimated
- 5. beet fibre11.6% estimated
- 6. minerals10.7% estimated
- 7. hydrolysed yeast9.8% estimated
- 8. apple fibre8.9% estimated
- 9. hydrolysed vegetable protein8.0% estimated
- 10. yeast cell walls 0.5 %0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 11. psyllium husks 0.1 %0.1% declared0.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Green Petfood
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-08-22
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.green-petfood.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.
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
Why this score?
This recipe achieves a final score of 42 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list added +3.7 points. However, ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -9.4. Additionally, the processing format deducted -6.7 and the carbohydrate content contributed -3.2.
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 | 0.4 | 9.191 | +3.70 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 28.2% | -0.115 | -3.24 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 15.0% | -0.092 | -1.38 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.9% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 10.7% | 0.163 | +1.75 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 12.5% | -0.012 | -0.15 |
| Recipe graded poor | 8.0% | -0.065 | -0.52 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 8.0% | 0.060 | +0.48 |
| Undeclared quantities | 89.4% | -0.106 | -9.44 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -12.53 | 0.222 | -2.78 |
| 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 | 0.4 | 9.191 | +3.70 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 28.2% | -0.115 | -3.24 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 15.0% | -0.092 | -1.38 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.9% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 10.7% | 0.163 | +1.75 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 12.5% | -0.012 | -0.15 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 8.0% | -0.065 | -0.52 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 8.0% | 0.060 | +0.48 |
| Undeclared quantities | 89.4% | -0.106 | -9.44 |
| 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 | -12.53 | 0.222 | -2.78 |
| 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
- Subtotal
- 41.7
- Final score
- 42/100
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.
Score history across model versions
The score shown above is always computed with the latest published model. Earlier scores are kept for the record and are never edited or deleted; a scoring change ships as a new model version with a public write-up on the methodology page.
Nutritional: declared analysis vs reference ranges
Analytical constituents not declared
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (10.6% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 2.1/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file | 0/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| 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, Additives declared, Feeding guidance given, 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.
Claims on file; none we can check against the label
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psyllium husks and valuable prebiotics from yeast support the dog's digestion (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Red lentils provide important amino acids for every day (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Free from artificial colourings, flavourings, and preservatives (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% balanced, nutrient-rich recipe (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Vegetarian dog food with red lentils for sensitive adult dogs (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| We completely avoid animal protein sources (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to With Red Lentil
Similar on ingredients, protein, format or nutrition, using the same stored data.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.