What we'll update
- Outdated ingredient lists — send the current bag's ingredient panel and we'll re-score.
- Reformulations not yet reflected in our database — include the launch date and the SKU.
- Sourcing or manufacturing changes — country of manufacture, co-packer status, single-source protein documentation.
- AAFCO statement updates — feeding-trial validation, life-stage changes.
- Recall record corrections — we pull from openFDA; if you believe a record is misattributed, point us to the source.
What we won't do
- Adjust a score because the score is low. We update on evidence, not pressure.
- Remove or unpublish a score, ever. Where corrections are warranted, we update and date them — the prior record stays archived.
- Conduct pre-publication review of scoring changes with manufacturers.
- Accept advertising, sponsorship, or any commercial relationship in exchange for score adjustments.
How to submit a challenge
Email challenges@getsniff.com with the following:
- The exact product name and SKU as listed on Sniff.
- What you believe is incorrect, with the specific data field (ingredient list, AAFCO statement, recall record, etc.).
- Documentation: the current bag panel, a manufacturer specification sheet, an AAFCO feeding trial report, or the openFDA record reference.
- A point of contact with email and phone — we may follow up with questions.
Response time: We acknowledge every challenge within 2 business days and issue a written response within 14 business days. If the challenge is substantiated, the product page is updated and the correction is dated. If the challenge is not substantiated, you'll receive a written explanation of what evidence we'd need to update.
Why this process exists
Two reasons. First, manufacturers genuinely do have data we don't — formulations change, sourcing changes, feeding-trial certifications get added. We'd rather hear it from you than miss it.
Second, an open challenge process keeps everyone honest. Sites that won't engage with the manufacturers they review are usually hiding either bad methodology or undisclosed commercial relationships. Sniff has neither — and this page is part of how we prove it.