Pedigree DENTASTIX™ Fresh Daily Dental Chews Small Dog Treat

Treat · complementaryClear label

DENTASTIX™ Fresh Daily Dental Chews Small Dog Treat
This is sold as a treat, not as an everyday meal. The 1–100 rating applies to complete meals, so it isn't scored. Ingredient breakdown below.

Our verdict

Is Pedigree DENTASTIX™ Fresh Daily Dental Chews Small Dog Treat 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.

Complementary semi-moist dry treats for adult dogs, with cereals, vegetable by and green tea as the main ingredients.

How we score

97% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.

Why you might choose it

  • Prints ingredient percentages on the label.
  • Low in fat for its format: 2% fat on a dry-matter basis.
  • Declares energy content, which most labels omit.

Why you might not

  • A treat, not a complete diet: feed as an extra, not the whole diet.
  • 6 poor-graded ingredients make up about 80% of the recipe.
  • Low in protein: 9% protein on a dry-matter basis.

Who is this food for?

Suits

  • Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
  • Labelling or feeding guide is aimed at small 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 cereals
  • You need more protein than this: 9.0% 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 8 ingredients.
  • Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
  • Prints quantities for 3 ingredients.
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 7.50% · Fat 1.30%

Typical analysis (as fed)

NutrientAs fed
Protein7.50%
Fat1.30%
Fibre0.20%
Ash5.70%
Moisture16.50%

Energy: 299 kcal/100g

Additives & feeding info

Additives declared on the label

Nutritional additives

Vitamin E 60.0 mg/kg; Zinc (Zinc sulphate, heptahydrate) 228 mg/kg

Technological additives

Preservatives and colourants

Ingredients (8)97% of the recipe is estimated

Estimated composition

  • carb 24.3%
  • other 21.9%
  • supplement 19.5%
  • meat 17.0%
  • oil 14.6%
  • additive 2.4%
  • veg 0.2%
#As declaredMatchedLabel readingDeclared %Est. %
1CerealsCerealscarb · poor-24.3
2Derivatives of Vegetable OriginVegetable By-Productsother · poor-21.9
3Decaffeinated Green Tea Extract 0.2%Green Teaveg · good0.20.2
4MineralsVitamins and mineralssupplement · medium-19.5
5Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.4%Sodium Tripolyphosphateadditive · poor2.42.4
6Meat and Animal DerivativesMeat and Animal Derivativesmeat · poor-17.0
7Oils and FatsOils and Fatsoil · poor-14.6
8Eucalyptus Oil 0.03%Eucalyptussupplement · poor0.030.03
  1. 1. Cereals24.3% estimated
    Cereals · carb · poor
  2. 2. Derivatives of Vegetable Origin21.9% estimated
    Vegetable By-Products · other · poor
  3. 3. Decaffeinated Green Tea Extract 0.2%0.2% declared0.2% estimated
    Green Tea · veg · good
  4. 4. Minerals19.5% estimated
    Vitamins and minerals · supplement · medium
  5. 5. Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.4%2.4% declared2.4% estimated
    Sodium Tripolyphosphate · additive · poor
  6. 6. Meat and Animal Derivatives17.0% estimated
  7. 7. Oils and Fats14.6% estimated
    Oils and Fats · oil · poor
  8. 8. Eucalyptus Oil 0.03%0.03% declared0.03% estimated
    Eucalyptus · supplement · poor

Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-29

Brand and contact: Pedigree

Trust and provenance

Recall history
No recalls recorded in our database
Label data last checked
2026-08-29

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.

External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.

Trustpilot: - · 3 reviews

250 reviews on this product

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.

ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality-0.69.191-5.63
Carb share of dry matter29.9%-0.115-3.44
Oil share of dry matter20.2%-0.092-1.85
Additive share of dry matter3.0%0.163+0.49
Supplement share of dry matter25.0%-0.012-0.31
Other share of dry matter15.3%-0.375-5.72
Recipe graded poor80.3%-0.065-5.22
Poor-quality meat in recipe17.0%-0.179-3.05
Number of poor ingredients6-0.876-5.26
Largest single poor ingredient24.3%0.060+1.46
Undeclared quantities97.4%-0.106-10.28
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)yes-3.158-3.16
Additive penalty-4.240.222-0.94
Processing multiplier0.9733.786+32.77
Processing: Dry Semi Moistyes-6.174-6.17
Show all 40 components
ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality-0.69.191-5.63
Meat share of dry matter0.0%0.096+0.00
Carb share of dry matter29.9%-0.115-3.44
Oil share of dry matter20.2%-0.092-1.85
Vegetable share of dry matter0.0%-0.005-0.00
Additive share of dry matter3.0%0.163+0.49
Supplement share of dry matter25.0%-0.012-0.31
Other share of dry matter15.3%-0.375-5.72
Unrecognised share of dry matter0.0%-0.027+0.00
Recipe graded poor80.3%-0.065-5.22
Poor-quality meat in recipe17.0%-0.179-3.05
Number of poor ingredients6-0.876-5.26
Largest single poor ingredient24.3%0.060+1.46
Undeclared quantities97.4%-0.106-10.28
Prints ingredient percentagesno0.000+0.00
Complete dietno2.294+0.00
Frozen or chilled freshno0.000+0.00
High meat (30%+ of dry matter)no0.707+0.00
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)yes-3.158-3.16
High carb and low meatno-1.180+0.00
Meat share × printed percentages0.00.000+0.00
Meat share × fresh0.00.000+0.00
Fresh × high meat0.011.084+0.00
Additive penalty-4.240.222-0.94
Processing multiplier0.9733.786+32.77
Processing: Rawno-0.054+0.00
Processing: Fresh Chilledno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Frozenno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Refrigeratedno0.000+0.00
Processing: Fresh Shelfno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Dry Freeze Driedno6.629+0.00
Processing: Dry Air Driedno6.331+0.00
Processing: Dry Cold Pressedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Bakedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Extrudedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Semi Moistyes-6.174-6.17
Processing: Dry Mueslino-10.146+0.00
Processing: Wet Pateno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Wet Chunksno-0.672+0.00
Processing-type offset
-0.05
Additives declared on label
+2 transparency bonus
Subtotal
16.6
Final score
17/100

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.

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.

ModelScore
v317/100current
v220/100
v119/100
v1.920/100
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.

ItemPoints
✓ Ingredient list on the label (mandatory)10/10
✓ Printed percentages on the label (2.6% of the recipe mass) (voluntary)0.5/20
✓ Analytical constituents declared (mandatory)15/15
✓ Additives declared (mandatory)10/10
✓ Energy value declared (voluntary)5/5
✓ Complete/complementary designation (mandatory)5/5
✗ Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file0/10
✓ Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory)5/10
✓ Country of manufacture stated (voluntary)10/10
✗ Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file0/5

Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (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.

100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.

Consistent with the label

  • "Low in fat" — supported by the declared low fat data.

7 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.

Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.

ClaimTypeCheckSubstantiation
scientifically proven to clean and protect teeth (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
help remove tartar with every chew (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
scientifically proven to reduce tartar by up to 80% (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
support gum health (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
clean even hard to reach teeth (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Low in fat (on page)High/low levelconsistentManufacturer assertion
no added sugar (on page)Free-fromnot checkableManufacturer assertion
artificial colours and flavours (on page)Free-fromnot checkableManufacturer assertion

The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.

See all products from Pedigree

Community0 comments

Owners' verdict
0 votes

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.