Your Cart
Choose the formula built for what you want to support.
Choose Your SystemHow much can a buyer actually verify before trusting the product?
Most pet supplement brands ask pet parents to trust polished packaging, science-sounding language, or badges that do not show the underlying proof. This report looks only at what each brand makes public: doses, ingredient rationale, named experts, testing, manufacturing, evidence, and claim discipline. La Petite Labs publishes the report and is scored separately as a Publisher Benchmark, not included in the rankings.
Our Publisher Benchmark score is 83.5. The Industry Transparency Standard band begins at 90. The five public-surface commitments below would move La Petite Labs into that band — graded under the same rubric every other brand is held to.
Progress is reviewed at each annual major-update cycle.
Each ranking row earns badges for what the brand publishes well, and may carry up to three Worth Noting watchouts for limitations buyers should be aware of. The same rules apply to every brand on this page, including La Petite Labs.
La Petite Labs is a brand operated by American Valley LLC, which publishes this report and sells products in this category. LPL is scored under the same rubric but shown separately as a Publisher Benchmark, excluded from the ranking table and awards.
American Valley LLC
Publisher of this report and excluded from the ranking and from awards. Graded as a Publisher Benchmark under the same rubric and the same standards as every brand surveyed. Strong on label disclosure (per-active mg across the line), scientific rationale (Science Journal indexing proprietary editorial frameworks), evidence and clinical citation (A-D grading + PK tagging + PubMed citations at ingredient level), named veterinary network (six DVMs with framework authorship and review scope), claim discipline, and overall buyer-accessibility (six trust pages within one click of home). Remaining gaps disclosed in the brief: no published finished-formula clinical trial yet on any LPL product, no named per-formula scientific owner tied to Hollywood Elixir, Pet Gala, or the Pampered System, partial COA-lookup rollout across the line, manufacturing identity disclosed at country level only, no above-the-fold 'not a substitute for veterinary care' qualifier on bundle framing, and no consolidated 'Evidence & Trust' hub landing page.
Every number below is a public transparency score: what a buyer can verify from public materials before purchase — not effectiveness, safety, ingredient quality, or customer satisfaction. Read the full methodology.
No brands match
Try a brand name, manufacturer, or partial term — or .
ElleVet Sciences
ElleVet Sciences sits well above the category median on research and expert disclosure: it cites peer-reviewed finished-formula trials with authors and journals, names a credentialed CMO and Advisory Board from primary navigation, and runs a public lot-linked COA lookup with a named lab. The gaps are in label granularity (cannabinoids grouped as a proprietary CBD + CBDA total), COA panel scope (potency-only on the surfaced certificate), and facility-level manufacturing identity, which stays at region and corporate-HQ level.
Animal Microbiome Analytics, Inc. dba AnimalBiome
AnimalBiome is the strongest evidence system in this batch on science, named experts, and donor/batch screening, with verifiable citations to NEJM and PubMed Central for its FMT-effectiveness claims. It is weaker on manufacturing and COA disclosure, which were not found anywhere on the public site despite an exhaustive search, and on finished-product claim discipline: one product page makes an unqualified 'scientifically proven' disease-symptom claim with no citation, and the pilot study's own linked publication is sponsored trade content rather than peer-reviewed research.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
PetLabCo. (Delaware corporation)
PetLab Co presents well above the DTC median on named-expert disclosure and claim qualification: a seven-member named advisory board with per-member scope of involvement, formulation-scope credits, and footnoted clinical claims with study durations and endpoints. Label panels are structured line-wide, with proprietary-blend totals on probiotic SKUs. Its Probiotic Chew finished-formula study is published in a peer-reviewed journal and identifiable by named author, but the brand does not link it on-site, the ProBright Advanced studies are not published or identified, no laboratory is named, and no COA or lot lookup exists — so most testing and clinical claims still cannot be inspected before purchase.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
DJP Ventures LLC (operating as Front of the Pack)
Front of the Pack pairs full per-active mg labeling on both supplements with an unusually well-cited ingredient-evidence catalog and a named, credentialed Chief Science Officer. The gaps are concentrated: finished-product testing is asserted but unverifiable (no named lab, no COA, no lot lookup), the manufacturing facility is held at 'Made in the USA', and 'clinically proven' marketing is applied at the formula level while the underlying studies are ingredient-level.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Only Natural Pet names a credentialed holistic veterinarian and publishes lot-linked, Eurofins-tested Certificates of Analysis for its CBD/hemp sub-line, but that testing coverage and its formal quality-system certificat
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
FoodScience, LLC
VetriScience presents above the category median on label disclosure and manufacturing identity: full Product Facts images on every PDP reviewed, an owned SQF-certified FDA-registered Vermont operation, and founding NASC membership. Its clinical posture is distinctive — four finished-product studies described in methodological detail — but the storefront does not link them; the full write-ups (named investigators, and a companion analysis published in the Journal of Medical Science, 2008) live in a separate brand library that is not linked from the consumer surface and currently behind an expired certificate. The remaining gaps are artifact-level: no named testing laboratory, no public COA or lot lookup, and no named formulator behind the line's vet-formulated identity.
Pet Honesty LLC
PetHonesty scores above the DTC median on named experts, numeric label panels, and quality-system naming: six credentialed advisors are published, every reviewed product carries per-active amounts, and GMP / FDA-registered / SQF / NASC disclosures are specific. The gaps cluster on verification artifacts — no COA access or named laboratory, citations confined to joint ingredients on an unlinked Sources page, an empty Our Research page, and a comparative 'Real Results' campaign that outruns the published evidence base.
Nordic Naturals, Inc.
Nordic Naturals Pet gives buyers a public testing and quality trail centered on a lot-linked COA pathway, a named Norway manufacturing facility (Nordic Pharma), an NASC-audited facility relationship, and fish-oil sourcing certifications. A second production step (Southern California bottling/encapsulation) and an NSF-specific facility certification are disclosed but remain single-sourced without independent corroboration. Current expert roles, complete official-page text labels for the soft-chew line, pet-specific sample COAs, and named testing laboratories are not all surfaced from a buyer-verifiable hub.
Lintbells Ltd
YuMOVE discloses every active by dose across its joint line and footnotes its claims to named studies and surveys, including a finished-formula Royal Veterinary College trial that is summarized as data-on-file rather than a published, linked study. A named, credentialed veterinary and R&D team is published on the US surface, but only on a deep page that primary navigation does not link to. Remaining gaps cluster on testing and manufacturing identity: there is no named laboratory, no public COA or lot lookup, and manufacturing is disclosed only as 'made in the USA' without a facility name or quality-system certification.
Evidence Buried
The brand technically publishes meaningful science, evidence, testing, or expert disclosure, but buyers cannot reach it without dedicated effort. Evidence that exists but is hard to find counts less.
Trueleaf Petcare Inc.
A hemp brand that refuses the CBD ambiguity — no cannabinoids, THC-absence testing, Canadian VHP claim review — co-founded by a named Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, with region-level manufacturing disclosure and an ingre
Virbac Corporation
Virbac is a sourceable veterinary-channel brand with stronger dental evidence signals than many supplement brands, especially through VOHC, and a named credentialed veterinarian and quality/compliance officer in public leadership bios. The buyer still has to assemble label detail, manufacturing geography, and expert roles from several disconnected public sources, and lot-level testing evidence remains unpublished.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Bernie's Best, Inc.
Bernie's Perfect Poop discloses per-active doses across its core supplements and backs ingredients with a genuine 23-study research library and mechanism content — stronger evidence work than most Amazon-native challengers. The gaps are structural rather than in product copy: no named veterinarian, no inspectable certificate of analysis or named testing lab, and manufacturing certified (cGMP, SQF) but never named at facility level. Evidence is also split across three brand domains with no single trust hub.
Evidence Buried
The brand technically publishes meaningful science, evidence, testing, or expert disclosure, but buyers cannot reach it without dedicated effort. Evidence that exists but is hard to find counts less.
Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc.
Nutramax Laboratories discloses more about doses and manufacturing than most of the category: complete per-active panels on flagship PDPs, an owned Lancaster, SC manufacturing campus, and consistently footnoted marketing superlatives. Its gaps are verification artifacts — no public COA or lot lookup, no named third-party lab, study claims cited publicly only on the Denamarin About page, and no named formulating experts — with the deeper research record gated behind its veterinary portal.
Evidence Buried
The brand technically publishes meaningful science, evidence, testing, or expert disclosure, but buyers cannot reach it without dedicated effort. Evidence that exists but is hard to find counts less.
Animal Biosciences, Inc.
Strong on clinical evidence and named veterinary involvement, weak on label disclosure and testing. The brand publishes one of the most credible pieces of evidence in the pet-supplement category — a peer-reviewed finished-formula RCT at NC State CVM — and surfaces a real veterinary team. But buyers cannot identify the specific NAD precursor or senolytic compound in the product, cannot retrieve a lot-specific COA, and cannot find the manufacturing facility by name, city, and state. The result is an unusually clinical-evidence-forward brand sitting on top of a conventional pet-supplement label / testing / facility disclosure layer.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Finn Wellness, LLC
Finn presents above the DTC median on label transparency: all six core soft-chew supplements publish per-active doses with no proprietary blends beyond grouped probiotic CFU totals. Manufacturing is disclosed at quality-system level (cGMP, SQF, NASC) and batch microbial testing is described organism-by-organism. The gaps cluster on verifiability — no named laboratory, no public COA, no cited studies behind 'clinically proven' language, and no named formulator — with most quality content held in the brand's help center rather than primary navigation.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Open Farm Inc.
Open Farm's transparency strength is operational and personnel-based: sourcing, ingredient origins, lot-code traceability, and a named, credentialed veterinary nutritionist are all publicly disclosed, though the nutritionist's role is described for the food line rather than the supplement line specifically. It is less transparent as a supplement clinical-evidence system because supplement-specific study citations, named testing laboratories, and facility-level manufacturing detail were not found in the pages reviewed, even though the brand discloses honestly that it has not yet published peer-reviewed recipe research.
Verified transparency record for Adored Beast Apothecary, completed 2026-07-03. All 14 cited sources were fetched and archived; every exact_quote was confirmed verbatim against its cited source; the brand's own site was actively probed for COA, facility, and named-expert pages before any score reflecting an absence was finalized. Named-expert and scientific-rationale evidence are strong and easy to find; testing/COA and manufacturing disclosure are the brand's weakest areas.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
Verified transparency record for Four Leaf Rover, current as of the 2026-07-03 hostile adversarial verification pass. All 13 cited sources were independently fetched and archived; all 8 rubric criteria carry score_status 'verified' with evidence, exact quotes, gaps, confidence levels, and source references checked against the tier ladders.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
The Missing Link has one of the better buyer-facing label paths among the remaining brands, across both powders and chews, and discloses NASC certification and FDA facility registration on its Amazon listing. Its main gaps are lot-level testing records, clinical citation transparency, and current expert review beyond the founder story.
Rebuilt research record for Super Snouts from live-fetched surfaces (2026-07-03): homepage, FAQ, the informatives COA library, product pages, and — added during adversarial verification — a second COA page (Test Results) and an education page (CBD 101) discovered via sitemap and navigation inspection. Every rubric item carries verified evidence, a verbatim quote, gap, and confidence level.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Vetoquinol USA, Inc.
Tomlyn (Vetoquinol USA) discloses NASC membership and two named, credentialed veterinarians, but only on pages outside primary navigation, and publishes no per-active dose panel, laboratory name, or COA anywhere on its f
Evidence Buried
The brand technically publishes meaningful science, evidence, testing, or expert disclosure, but buyers cannot reach it without dedicated effort. Evidence that exists but is hard to find counts less.
Verified transparency record for BIXBI as of 2026-07-03. Twenty-three public pages were fetched and archived across two verification passes, including the brand's Quality Assurance, Pet Safety Assurance, and About pages (which carry most of the brand's testing and formulation-team disclosure) plus a broader marketing-surface review (homepage, category pages, Magazine editorial hub, two representative posts). All eight rubric criteria are scored 'verified' against the tier ladder.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Verified transparency record for Dr. Harvey's. Twelve public sources were fetched and archived on 2026-07-03; every rubric item was checked against the archived HTML, and every exact_quote was confirmed to appear verbatim in its cited source. Absence claims (named experts, facility identity, COA access) were actively probed via the site's XML sitemap and direct URL checks before being confirmed or refuted.
Closed Science
The brand publishes strong testing or COA evidence but does not surface ingredient rationale, named experts, or finished-formula evidence. Testing alone is not enough to make the science verifiable.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
Animal Essentials names a Veterinary Advisory Board member and discloses FDA-registered, GMP-compliant, NASC-certified manufacturing on its FAQ page, but its dose disclosure and testing-COA transparency are held down by
Closed Science
The brand publishes strong testing or COA evidence but does not surface ingredient rationale, named experts, or finished-formula evidence. Testing alone is not enough to make the science verifiable.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
Rx Vitamins
Rx Vitamins for Pets is a professional-channel supplement brand with real, PDF-based dose and quality-program disclosures once a buyer clicks through from the product page, but its public evidence stops short of the two hardest tests: no named individual stands behind any formula, and no buyer can look up a lab report for a specific bottle. NASC certification and per-active dose panels are the strongest disclosures; testing/COA access and named-expert identity are the largest gaps.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Zesty Paws LLC
Zesty Paws is a high-distribution, mass-market pet supplement brand with a real, named quality-system baseline (NASC membership with a described independent audit, GMP certification) but an evidence layer that thins quickly past that baseline. Across the eight rubric criteria, the brand's modal pattern is anonymous-collective expert language despite repeated vet-invoking branding, proprietary-blend or undisclosed dose labeling on 4 of 5 sampled flagship products, country-level (not facility-level) manufacturing disclosure, scattered branded-ingredient mechanism mentions that do not generalize catalog-wide, and CBD-only testing transparency for an active line that has moved past CBD SKUs. The Native Canine Probiotic landing is a markedly more disciplined evidence page — honest about its pending RCT — that does not yet generalize to the broader catalog.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Nature's Farmacy
Dogzymes has one of the better label-access paths among small supplement brands, especially for probiotics and its multinutrient flagship, with per-active guaranteed analysis on most SKUs reviewed. Its public footprint still lacks named veterinary or formulation experts, third-party lab testing records, a disclosed manufacturing facility, and study citations, and one product in the line uses an undosed proprietary blend.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Rebuilt research record for Pet Wellbeing from the archived 13-surface evidence set (2026-07-03). Every rubric item carries verified evidence, a verbatim quote, gap, and confidence level.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Line Inconsistency
Disclosure varies materially across the brand line — one product is well-disclosed, others are not. Buyers may not know which product they are comparing.
Verified transparency record for Grizzly Pet Products following a hostile adversarial verification pass on 2026-07-03. All 14 archived sources were re-fetched, all 8 exact quotes confirmed verbatim, and every criterion re-scored against the tier-ladder anchors. The brand's label and manufacturing-quality-system disclosures verified stronger than the original preliminary pass found, while testing/COA and named-expert disclosure verified weaker — both scored against directly probed evidence rather than assumed from generic marketing language.
Closed Science
The brand publishes strong testing or COA evidence but does not surface ingredient rationale, named experts, or finished-formula evidence. Testing alone is not enough to make the science verifiable.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
FoodScience, LLC
Pet Naturals publishes per-active dose panels on every PDP reviewed, including low-priced problem-solver SKUs, and discloses Vermont manufacture under SQF, cGMP, and NASC founding-member standards. Claim language stays in the support/help register with qualifier discipline. The disclosure gaps cluster around people and proof: no named expert appears anywhere on the brand surface, no laboratory is named, no COA is accessible, and no study citation supports the ingredient glossary's one-line role descriptions.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Verified transparency record for kin+kind following a hostile adversarial pass completed 2026-07-03. All 15 sources were fetched and archived; every rubric criterion's exact_quote was checked verbatim against the archived HTML, with 2 of 8 quotes replaced after the originals were found to be non-evidentiary UI-chrome text. Every absence claim (named veterinarian, facility-level quality certification, COA lookup) was actively probed via sitemap enumeration and direct URL testing before being confirmed. All 8 criteria are marked verified with score_status locked and anchor language cited in the evidence text.
Closed Science
The brand publishes strong testing or COA evidence but does not surface ingredient rationale, named experts, or finished-formula evidence. Testing alone is not enough to make the science verifiable.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Hostile-verified research record for Wholistic Pet Organics from 14 independently live-fetched surfaces (2026-07-03): home, About, FAQ, and 11 product/support pages spanning the brand's roughly 27-SKU catalog. Every rubric item carries verified evidence, a verbatim re-confirmed quote, gap, and confidence level. An adjudication re-check on 2026-07-03 corrected two scores (testing-coa-transparency, manufacturing-quality-system-transparency) after already-archived evidence of NASC membership and an FDA-registered facility, missed by the first pass, was surfaced, verified against the source byte-for-byte, and independently corroborated on NASC's own member directory.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Evidence Buried
The brand technically publishes meaningful science, evidence, testing, or expert disclosure, but buyers cannot reach it without dedicated effort. Evidence that exists but is hard to find counts less.
Compana Pet Brands LLC (the site's own UGC Policy separately identifies the operating entity as "Vet's Best, LLC d/b/a Compana Pet Brands" — the two legal pages use different primary-entity framing; both name the same parent).
Rebuilt and adversarially verified research record for Vet's Best from sixteen live-fetched surfaces (2026-07-03): homepage, About, FAQs, Education, Contact, Privacy Policy, UGC Policy, satisfaction-guarantee policy, and seven product pages. Every rubric item carries verified evidence, a verbatim quote checked against archived raw HTML, gap, and confidence level; absence claims were actively probed against the brand's own sitemap rather than assumed.
Solid Gold is strongest where its flagship SeaMeal supplements are concerned: buyers can verify quantified dosing, NASC membership, and country-level manufacturing with a named parent company. That strength does not extend evenly across the rest of the supplement line, where checked SKUs show no quantified dosing, and named experts, public lab reports, and facility-level manufacturing detail remain unconfirmed anywhere in the brand's public footprint.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
The Honest Kitchen
The Honest Kitchen's most substantive evidence -- a cGMP/21 CFR 117 sourcing citation and a named veterinarian testimonial -- lives on pages (Why Human Grade, Vet Resources) reachable only through an embedded promotional panel or sitemap discovery, not primary site navigation. Its supplement-specific evidence is weaker still: Perfect Form and comparable SKUs group or omit per-active amounts, no clinical study is cited for the supplement line, and the brand's actual formulators remain unnamed even where a testimonial from a named outside veterinarian is surfaced.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Vetoquinol USA, Inc.
Vetoquinol USA's strongest disclosure is structural: an audited NASC membership with cGMP manufacturing and, on the Flexadin joint chews, active milligram amounts plus a cited ingredient study. Disclosure thins across the rest of the supplement line, where Triglyceride OMEGA and Zylkene report blend totals or capsule strengths rather than active-by-active amounts, the Zylkene 'clinically proven' claim shows no on-page citation, no veterinarian or formulator is named, and there is no public COA lookup or named testing laboratory.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Verified transparency record for Ark Naturals, current as of the 2026-07-03 research pass. All 8 rubric criteria were re-scored against verbatim quotes from freshly archived source pages, including a sitemap-based check for pages the brand does not link from its own navigation.
Active Identity Withheld
The brand uses proprietary blends, grouped amounts, or other label conventions that prevent a buyer from reading the per-active dose on at least one product in the line. Distinct from Line Inconsistency — captures the case where actives are hidden, not where products differ.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company
Purina Pro Plan Veterinary Supplements discloses per-active doses well across most of its line — full mg panels on soft chews, per-strain CFU on probiotic powders — and keeps its own marketing comparatively measured. The brand-direct site is built for purchasing rather than verification: it names the NASC Seal on two SKUs and U.S. company-owned manufacturing in aggregate, but publishes no named experts, no study citations behind its efficacy claims, and no product testing or lot-linked COA. Substance gaps cluster on citation, expert identity, and testing rather than on labels.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Dinovite, Inc.
Dinovite publishes consistent guaranteed-analysis panels and full ingredient lists across its line, with exact omega doses available in its FAQ and per-active milligrams on the dental sub-line. Disclosure stops at the label: the brand names no laboratory, publishes no COAs, discloses no quality system beyond made-in-USA badges, and its dental line's clinical claims cite no readable studies. One named R&D nutritionist appears on the dental PDPs; the core line's experts remain unnamed.
Borrowed Evidence
The brand uses "clinically tested," "clinically proven," "study-backed," or trial-adjacent language without surfacing finished-formula or properly qualified ingredient-level evidence.
Unnamed Experts
The brand uses "veterinarian formulated," "expert designed," or similar language without any publicly named individual, credentials, or role.
Every brand was scored against the same eight buyer-facing questions — doses, ingredient rationale, clinical evidence, named experts, testing & COAs, manufacturing, claim discipline, and findability. Only public, buyer-verifiable evidence was counted. Information available only via support email, retailer-only listings, or unsupported third-party language was not counted.
Brands cannot win on testing alone. A clean COA program does not substitute for ingredient rationale, named experts, or honest finished-formula evidence. Brands that lead on testing alone are flagged with the Closed Science watchout.
La Petite Labs publishes this report and sells products in this category. Our score is shown above the rankings as a Publisher Benchmark, excluded from the ranking table and from awards. LPL's own gaps (partial COA rollout, no published finished-formula trial yet, no named per-formula scientific owner, manufacturing identity at country level only) are documented under the same evidence rules every other brand is held to.
This report is reviewed annually with limited correction windows for material brand updates. Originally published May 22, 2026; evidence reviewed through Jul 3, 2026; rubric v2026.2 applied Jul 3, 2026; report updated Jul 3, 2026. Next scheduled full review: Q2 2027.
Scores reflect the brand's public surface at the time of review. If a brand has materially updated label disclosure, science pages, named people, testing program, manufacturing facility, COA lookup, or claim-discipline language, it may submit those updates for correction-window review. Updates must be on public brand pages — private materials, correspondence, and retailer-only language are not counted.
Every brand-rubric criterion cites at least one dated, public evidence source with a verbatim quote captured at the time of review; archived page snapshots are being attached to each source as backfill completes. Brands may update their public surface; the score reflects the capture date. Correction requests trigger fresh capture against the current public surface.
The public dataset includes the scoring rubric, criterion definitions, brand-level evidence, source quotes, named experts, testing programs, manufacturing programs, and reasoning used for this report. Published for public review.
pet-supplement-brand-transparency-dataset-2026.jsonLa Petite Labs Editorial. Pet Supplement Brand Transparency Report 2026, v2026.2. Originally published May 22, 2026; evidence reviewed through Jul 3, 2026; rubric applied and report updated Jul 3, 2026. https://lapetitelabs.com/pages/pet-supplement-brand-transparency-report
Journalists, researchers, and AI tools are welcome to cite this report and the public dataset with attribution. Scores are version-stamped (v2026.2); each annual edition is archived. Brands may dispute a score through the correction policy above. Methodology: Pet Supplement Brand Transparency Rubric.
It is the flagship trust badge in this report. A brand earns it when it publishes buyer-verifiable evidence across the main pillars — label disclosure, ingredient rationale, clinical evidence, named experts — at a level a buyer can independently check before purchase. The gate is deterministic and the same rule applies to every brand.
La Petite Labs publishes this report and sells products in this category. We show our score separately as a Publisher Benchmark, excluded from the ranking table and competitive awards. The same rubric is used, and our own gaps are listed for readers to inspect.
The survey targets the pet supplement brands US buyers most often search for and encounter — large mass-market and veterinary-channel brands, the major direct-to-consumer brands, and category-relevant premium brands — plus the publisher, graded separately. Selection favors market presence, not closeness to any La Petite Labs product line. Each dossier records the brand's selection rationale, and brands are added at each annual review cycle. A brand that believes it belongs in the survey can request inclusion through the correction policy.
Watchouts surface honest limitations in a brand's public evidence. Scores are deterministic — the same weighted formula applies to every brand. Watchouts are applied through editorial review against fixed public definitions: Closed Science is flagged when testing is strong but ingredient rationale and named experts are weak; Borrowed Evidence is flagged when a brand uses "clinically tested" language without a finished-formula study; Unnamed Experts is flagged when a brand says "vet-formulated" without naming the vet.
Yes. Scores reflect the brand's public surface at the time of review. If a brand has materially updated label disclosure, science pages, named people, testing program, manufacturing facility, COA lookup, or claim-discipline language, it may submit those updates for correction-window review. Updates must be on public brand pages — private materials, correspondence, and retailer-only language are not counted.
