Our verdict
Is Pro Plan Obesity Management a good dog food?
We score it 26/100 (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 wet paté food for adult dogs, with meat and animal derivatives, vegetable by and cereals as the main ingredients.
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 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 cereals
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 8.70% · Fat 2.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 8.70% |
| Fat | 2.50% |
| Fibre | 4.40% |
| Ash | 2.20% |
| Moisture | 78.50% |
Energy: 57 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Weight loss guide and weight maintenance guide provided based on adult body weight in kg; daily feeding quantity (g/day) and cans/day listed. Should be fed until target weight reached; can be fed long term for dogs prone to weight gain. Recommended period for hyperlipidaemia: initially up to 2 months. It is recommended that a veterinarian's opinion be sought before use. Clean, fresh drinking water should always be available.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vit A: 830 IU/kg; Vit D3: 115 IU/kg; E1: 24.13 mg/kg; b202: 0.46 mg/kg; E4: 2.9 mg/kg; E5: 4.23 mg/kg; b605: 58.8 mg/kg
Technological additives
E499: 2500 mg/kg
Ingredients (5)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 25.0%
- other 22.5%
- carb 20.0%
- supplement 17.5%
- additive 15.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meat and animal derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 25.0 |
| 2 | Derivatives of vegetable origin | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 22.5 |
| 3 | Cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 20.0 |
| 4 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 17.5 |
| 5 | Various sugars | Sugars | additive · poor | - | 15.0 |
- 1. Meat and animal derivatives25.0% estimated
- 2. Derivatives of vegetable origin22.5% estimated
- 3. Cereals20.0% estimated
- 4. Minerals17.5% estimated
- 5. Various sugars15.0% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-12
Brand and contact: Pro Plan
- Phone
- 0800 212 161
- Contact page
- www.purina.co.uk
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-12
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.purina.co.uk
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: 1.8/5 · 628 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
Why this score?
The score is 26 out of 100. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6 points, the remaining ingredients contributed -6.4 points, the overall quality of the ingredient list contributed -5.8 points, and lower-quality ingredients contributed -5.4 points.
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 | -0.6 | 9.191 | -5.80 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.9% | -0.115 | -3.09 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 20.6% | 0.163 | +3.36 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 24.6% | -0.012 | -0.30 |
| Other share of dry matter | 17.2% | -0.375 | -6.44 |
| Recipe graded poor | 82.5% | -0.065 | -5.36 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 25.0% | -0.179 | -4.47 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 25.0% | 0.060 | +1.50 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -20.60 | 0.222 | -4.57 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.6 | 9.191 | -5.80 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.9% | -0.115 | -3.09 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 20.6% | 0.163 | +3.36 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 24.6% | -0.012 | -0.30 |
| Other share of dry matter | 17.2% | -0.375 | -6.44 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 82.5% | -0.065 | -5.36 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 25.0% | -0.179 | -4.47 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 25.0% | 0.060 | +1.50 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| 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 | -20.60 | 0.222 | -4.57 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| 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 | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | no | -6.174 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.146 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 25.8
- Final score
- 26/100
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 | 8.7 | 40.5 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 2.5 | 11.6 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 95.4 |
| Fibre | 4.4 | 20.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 0 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 57 | 265.1 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 7 nutritional additives on the label
- Vit A: 830 IU/kg
- Vit D3: 115 IU/kg
- E1: 24.13 mg/kg
- b202: 0.46 mg/kg
- E4: 2.9 mg/kg
- E5: 4.23 mg/kg
- b605: 58.8 mg/kg
Medium confidence: the full five-part analysis is on file; where moisture was not declared it was 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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| 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) | 10/10 |
| 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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| High protein to help promote loss of fat while maintaining lean muscle mass (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Low calorie to help reduce quantity of calories consumed (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps promote effective and steady weight loss (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Supported by a clinical trial on obese dogs. Clinical trial on 42 dogs, using a high protein formula, Nestle PURINA, 2000 (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps reduce caloric intake while maintaining satiety (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps reduce post-prandial fluctuation in blood glucose (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps maintain optimal body weight after weight loss (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Complete dietetic pet food for adult dogs, for the reduction of excessive body weight, with reduced metabolisable energy (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 Obesity Management
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.