21/08/2026
Weāre about to get a bit nerdy about dog foodā¦ but this is something we think is important. š¶š¤
Many of you will have seen the recent recall involving Years dog food following reports of dogs developing serious eye problems.
Before anything else, we feel desperately sorry for the dogs and owners affected. Some of the stories are heartbreaking and we sincerely hope the cause is identified quickly and that the dogs affected make a full recovery.
You might have noticed that we havenāt posted about the recall.
That was deliberate.
Recalls in the pet food industry arenāt uncommon and, until more was known, we didnāt feel comfortable posting āYears has been recalled ā come to us for an alternative.ā
Years appeared to be a quality dog food experiencing a very difficult situation. Trying to turn somebody elseās problems into an opportunity to sell more food simply didnāt sit right with us.
We have had Years customers come into the shop looking for alternatives and weāve quietly done what we always do ā talked through their dogās needs and helped them find something suitable.
However, there have now been some revelations completely separate from the recall which have made us much more uncomfortable.
For years we followed All About Dog Food (AADF) very closely.
We trusted the work its founder, David, had done so much that we actually displayed AADF nutritional ratings on our shelves.
Then, around two or three years ago, we started questioning whether we were comfortable doing that anymore.
AADF seemed to be becoming increasingly commercial. Manufacturers could pay significant amounts for links and additional exposure through the website. Social media reviews and other promotional opportunities were becoming a much bigger part of AADF too.
Then a new brand appeared ā Years.
Years achieved an exceptionally high AADF score, originally 96%, immediately placing a brand that had only recently launched amongst the very highest-rated foods on the website.
Being the dog-food nerds that we are, naturally we had a good look at it ourselves.
We thought it looked like a good food.
But we couldnāt understand why it deserved to rank above some of the other excellent foods available.
Years also grew incredibly quickly.
It launched with a heavily marketed subscription model where customers entered details about their dog and were then given a feeding plan and price.
Weāve never been particularly keen on that way of selling dog food.
We like things to be simple and transparent:
Hereās a pack of dog food. Hereās whatās in it. Hereās how much it weighs. Hereās what it costs.
You can then compare it properly with everything else.
When you have to enter your dogās age, weight and other details before being given a personalised plan and price, we think it makes it harder for customers to work out what theyāre actually paying for the food and to compare like-for-like.
Years subsequently expanded beyond subscriptions and into major pet retailers including Pets at Home and Pets & Friends.
Thereās absolutely nothing wrong with a business being successful or wanting to grow. Weāre a business too!
But weāre naturally cautious when a pet-food brand grows extremely quickly and moves into the big national chains.
Weāve seen plenty of brands over the years start with one identity and philosophy and gradually change as investment, growth and gaining market share become increasingly important.
That doesnāt automatically make the food bad.
It just makes us look even more closely.
And Years was particularly interesting because its rapid growth was happening while it could advertise itself as having one of the highest ratings ever awarded by All About Dog Food.
Eventually we decided we werenāt comfortable putting somebody elseās percentage on our shelves and effectively presenting it as our recommendation.
So we removed the AADF ratings and developed our own traffic-light system, based on what we believe makes a good dog food.
And thatās where this story gets particularly interesting.
We now know something that we had absolutely no knowledge of when we made that decision.
The timeline looks like this:
š¾ 2022 ā Darren Beale, co-founder of Years, approached David about investing in All About Dog Food.
š¾ January 2023 ā the investment was completed and Darren became an investor and board member of AADF.
š¾ February 2023 ā Years was added to All About Dog Food and received one of the highest ratings on the entire website.
š¾ January 2024 ā AADF published a dedicated social media video review of Years as its audience and social media presence continued to grow.
š¾ 2024 ā David and Darren agreed that their arrangement should be unwound.
š¾ May 2025 ā Darrenās involvement with AADF ended.
š¾ August 2026 ā following the Years recall and questions surrounding the relationship, David publicly disclosed Darrenās previous involvement with AADF.
We think itās really important to make something clear here.
We believe David when he says Darren did not influence his nutritional ratings, and we accept his apology for not making the relationship public.
We have followed Davidās work for many years and have a huge amount of respect for what he has done for dog-food nutrition in this country.
There is no evidence that Years bought its rating or that David deliberately gave Years a higher score.
We certainly arenāt suggesting that.
But we do believe the situation created a potential conflict of interest.
The co-founder of one of the highest-rated dog foods on AADF was simultaneously an investor and board member of the organisation rating it.
That involvement may also have given Years advantages that other manufacturers didnāt have ā whether through knowledge of how AADFās system worked, contacts, understanding its direction or the increased exposure available to highly-rated foods as AADFās social media presence grew.
Would Years have achieved exactly the same rating and received exactly the same exposure without that relationship?
We donāt know.
And thatās the point.
Customers, retailers and other dog-food manufacturers should have known about the relationship so they could make up their own minds.
The strange thing for us is that none of this was behind our decision to remove the AADF ratings from our shop.
We didnāt know about it.
Weād already reached the conclusion that if weāre going to advise somebody about what to feed their dog, we trust our own knowledge rather than simply pointing at somebody elseās percentage.
And perhaps thatās the most important part of this rather long post!
Weāve been selling dog food for over 40 years.
Weāve watched an awful lot of brands come and go in that time.
Weāve watched small brands become huge brands. Weāve seen recipes change, companies get bought, marketing trends come and go and products that were once going to ārevolutionise dog foodā quietly disappear.
Thatās why weāre dog-food nerds.
Proper ones. š
We read ingredient lists.
We compare recipes.
We look at nutritional analysis.
We question claims.
We donāt automatically agree with manufacturers.
And we donāt automatically agree with rating websites either.
Sometimes weāll even recommend a food we donāt sell because we know itās the right choice for that particular dog.
Weāre not tied to a manufacturer telling us what weāre supposed to recommend.
Weāre an independent pet shop.
So when you come into Taylorās and ask us what we think you should feed your dog, the answer isnāt based on which company has the biggest marketing budget, which food has the highest score on a website or even which product makes us the most money.
Itās based on something much simpler:
What do we genuinely believe is the best option for the dog standing in front of us? š¾
Thatās what independent advice should mean
