Our verdict
Is Lenda Tuna a good dog food?
We score it 50/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for dogs of all life stages, with tuna protein, potato starch and pea starch as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
69% 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
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken oil and fat
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists tuna protein
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
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 feedingProtein 26% · Fat 17.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 26% |
| Fat | 17.50% |
| Fibre | 2.80% |
| Ash | 6% |
| Calcium | 1.70% |
| Phosphorus | 0.89% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (25)69% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 34.4%
- veg 21.0%
- carb 12.0%
- supplement 12.0%
- oil 7.6%
- additive 6.1%
- other 3.6%
- fibre 3.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dehydrated Tuna Protein 27% | Tuna Protein | meat · medium | 27 | 27.0 |
| 2 | Potato Starch | Potato starch | carb · poor | - | 4.1 |
| 3 | Pea Starch | Pea Starch | carb · poor | - | 4.0 |
| 4 | Refined Chicken Oil | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 3.9 |
| 5 | Extract of Soya Milk | Soya | carb · poor | - | 3.8 |
| 6 | Peeled Peas | Peas | veg · good | - | 3.7 |
| 7 | Fish Oil | Fish Oil | oil · good | - | 3.7 |
| 8 | Hydrolyzed Protein | Protein Hydrolysate | other · poor | - | 3.6 |
| 9 | Krill (4%) | Krill | meat · good | 4 | 4.0 |
| 10 | Carob | Carob | fibre · medium | - | 3.5 |
| 11 | Egg | Egg | meat · good | - | 3.4 |
| 12 | Salt | Salt | additive · poor | - | 3.3 |
| 13 | Chondroitin Sulphate | Chondroitin | supplement · good | - | 3.2 |
| 14 | Glucosamine Sulphate | Glucosamine | supplement · good | - | 3.1 |
| 15 | MSM (Methylsulfonylmethane) | MSM | supplement · good | - | 3.0 |
| 16 | Extract of Seaweed | Seaweed | veg · good | - | 2.9 |
| 17 | Citric Extracts (a source of natural antioxidants) | Citric Extract | additive · medium | - | 2.8 |
| 18 | Root Chicory 0.01% | Chicory | veg · good | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| 19 | Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) | Mannanoligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 2.7 |
| 20 | Melissa officinalis | Lemon Balm | veg · good | - | 2.6 |
| 21 | Minthostachys verticillata | Minthostachys verticillata | veg · medium | - | 2.5 |
| 22 | Cinnamomum verum | Cinnamon | veg · good | - | 2.4 |
| 23 | Rosmarinus officinalis | Rosemary | veg · good | - | 2.3 |
| 24 | Gentiana | Dried Gentian Root | veg · good | - | 2.2 |
| 25 | Vaccinium macrocarpon | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 2.2 |
- 1. Dehydrated Tuna Protein 27%27% declared27.0% estimated
- 2. Potato Starch4.1% estimated
- 3. Pea Starch4.0% estimated
- 4. Refined Chicken Oil3.9% estimated
- 5. Extract of Soya Milk3.8% estimated
- 6. Peeled Peas3.7% estimated
- 7. Fish Oil3.7% estimated
- 8. Hydrolyzed Protein3.6% estimated
- 9. Krill (4%)4% declared4.0% estimated
- 10. Carob3.5% estimated
- 11. Egg3.4% estimated
- 12. Salt3.3% estimated
- 13. Chondroitin Sulphate3.2% estimated
- 14. Glucosamine Sulphate3.1% estimated
- 15. MSM (Methylsulfonylmethane)3.0% estimated
- 16. Extract of Seaweed2.9% estimated
- 17. Citric Extracts (a source of natural antioxidants)2.8% estimated
- 18. Root Chicory 0.01%0.01% declared0.01% estimated
- 19. Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS)2.7% estimated
- 20. Melissa officinalis2.6% estimated
- 21. Minthostachys verticillata2.5% estimated
- 22. Cinnamomum verum2.4% estimated
- 23. Rosmarinus officinalis2.3% estimated
- 24. Gentiana2.2% estimated
- 25. Vaccinium macrocarpon2.2% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Lenda
- Website
- https://lenda.net/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-14
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- shop.lenda.net
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 an overall rating of 50 out of 100. The meat content contributed +3.6 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +4.6 points to the total. However, the processing format reduced the score by -6.7 and ingredients without printed percentages decreased it by -7.3.
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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.60 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 37.2% | 0.096 | +3.58 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 7.3% | -0.115 | -0.84 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.8% | -0.092 | -0.99 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 12.7% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 7.9% | 0.163 | +1.28 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 15.8% | -0.012 | -0.19 |
| Other share of dry matter | 2.6% | -0.375 | -0.96 |
| Recipe graded poor | 18.8% | -0.065 | -1.22 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 4.1% | 0.060 | +0.25 |
| Undeclared quantities | 69.0% | -0.106 | -7.28 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Additive penalty | -7.37 | 0.222 | -1.64 |
| 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.60 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 37.2% | 0.096 | +3.58 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 7.3% | -0.115 | -0.84 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.8% | -0.092 | -0.99 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 12.7% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 7.9% | 0.163 | +1.28 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 15.8% | -0.012 | -0.19 |
| Other share of dry matter | 2.6% | -0.375 | -0.96 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 18.8% | -0.065 | -1.22 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 4.1% | 0.060 | +0.25 |
| Undeclared quantities | 69.0% | -0.106 | -7.28 |
| 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) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | no | -3.158 | +0.00 |
| 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 | -7.37 | 0.222 | -1.64 |
| 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
- 50.2
- Final score
- 50/100
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
How the declared analysis compares with FEDIAF reference ranges for adult dogs. The label prints as-fed values; we convert to a dry-matter basis before scoring, and the bands are dry-matter ranges. Scores rise to 100 at the band midpoint: the reference is adequacy, not maximisation. Nutrients with a published upper limit taper again above it; fat is policed through calorie density rather than a direct penalty.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 26 | 28.7 (band 18 to 40%) | 99.3 |
| Fat | 17.5 | 19.3 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2.8 | 3.1 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.7 | 1.9 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 0.89 | 1 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 99.2 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.9 | 1.9 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
Scored over 6 declared nutrients (combined weight 80); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture estimated from the food type.
This measures agreement with published reference ranges, not suitability for an individual dog. For medical conditions, follow veterinary guidance.
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 (31% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 6.2/20 |
| 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.
50/100 · limited — 2 checkable claims: 1 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Tuna monoprotein recipe, high in Krill (4%), supplemented with blue fish oil with high levels of Omega 3 and Omega" — the declared label says otherwise on single protein.
Consistent with the label
- "GRAIN FREE" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
6 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Limited: at least one claim contradicts the declared label, or a recent upheld ASA ruling applies.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete food suitable for dogs of all breeds and recommended for dogs with cereal intolerance problems, atopia (skin problems) and difficult digestion (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| GRAIN FREE (on pack) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Tuna monoprotein recipe, high in Krill (4%), supplemented with blue fish oil with high levels of Omega 3 and Omega (on pack) | Content | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rich in MSM, a natural anti-inflammatory ideal for alleviating allergic processes (itching and skin disorders) (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Tuna is an alternative protein source that does not cause food intolerance (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Healthy digestion: added vegetables and medicinal herbs improve intestinal transit, gas reduction, digestion and the immune system (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Contains nucleotides that strengthen intestinal function and improve the balance of the intestinal microbiota (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Includes functional foods: high content of chondroprotectors helps maintain joints, muscles and ligaments in optimal condition (on pack) | Functional | 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 Tuna
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.