Why ‘real meat’ pet foods still use added flavor

Version 1 — Brief

A new Truth about Pet Food piece from consumer advocate Susan Thixton takes aim at a familiar pet food label question: if a product is marketed as made with “real beef,” “real chicken,” “real pork,” or “real fish,” why does it also include added flavoring, often listed as “natural flavor”? The article argues that the extra flavor raises transparency questions for pet parents and suggests the named meat may not be doing all the sensory work the packaging implies. That concern lands in a regulatory gray zone where AAFCO naming rules allow products to emphasize meat ingredients in different ways, while flavor claims are governed separately. Under AAFCO guidance, a food can use a flavor designation if the flavor is detectable and supported by the ingredient list, and “natural flavor” may refer only to the flavoring ingredient, not the whole product. (aafco.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less about whether “natural flavor” is inherently unsafe and more about label literacy, diet selection, and client communication. FDA says animal food ingredients generally follow AAFCO-defined ingredient names, while AAFCO’s consumer guidance makes clear that terms like “beef,” “with beef,” and “beef flavor” signal very different formulation thresholds. That means a pet parent may read “real beef” as a nutritional or sourcing signal when, in practice, palatants and flavor systems may still be central to acceptance and marketing. (fda.gov)

What to watch: Expect continued scrutiny of pet food labeling language, especially around flavorings, transparency, and whether current AAFCO-style naming conventions give pet parents enough context. (aafco.org)