1A) More as a rule than an exception, research in cats follows after dogs, if it follows at all. Two main causes are the fact that cats eat less than dogs (lower volumes and therefore sales potential) and that owners have historically personalised with dogs more than with cats. The past few years, however, have seen a steady increase in the number of households with cats (1) and as a result an increase in scientific and industry attention. Cats are not small dogs, therefore it has opened an obvious gap of opportunity for cat studies.

In recent years, claims in human food innovations have surged in the area of mental health. As became more apparent last year and at Vitafoods this year, the impact of gut microbiome on mood and cognitive performance is ramping up in the market (2,3). Such developments tend to flow into the pet food space as well, and we do see an increase in consumer interest.

Substantiating claims in pets, however, require methods that measure performance externally, whereas in human food studies the mental health measurement could consist of a questionnaire on mood and emotional perception. It would be hard to claim a dog’s ‘happiness’ due to ingestion of particular ingredients. It is easier to instead measure how animals behave during stress tests, but these have strong ethical connotations. Studies on cognitive performance are easier to do by measuring learning ability and recognition of patterns, for example (4).

Ethical approval of animal studies also means that immunological studies (which require measurement of blood parameters) may require more substantiation and therefore a longer trajectory than less invasive studies (e.g. digestibility). Accordingly, if an ingredient has flowed from the human food industry into pet food, a commonly found gap in knowledge concerns the impact of that ingredient on functioning of the immune system of pets.

In contrast, if an ingredient has been well researched in agriculture and looks to flow into other markets, then pet food may be more receptive to the animal data than the human food sector. Studies may take off in pet food before they do in human food. The real pull comes when it becomes relevant for humans themselves; yeast derivatives were long-since used in agriculture and pet food, but since the epidemic some of them fall under the heading of ‘postbiotics’ which encompasses a majorly popular category in the human food sector.

 1B) Legally? Absolutely not. Consumer-accepted? Up to a point.

EU Regulation 767/2009 (5) regarding placing animal feed on the market stipulates that companies must hold scientific substantiation behind claims at time of launch. The claims may be “substantiated by taking into account the totality of the available scientific data, and by weighing the evidence.” Human data or data in other animals can therefore add to the weight, but species-specific studies are required to make functional claims.

Acceptance by consumers of the strength of a claim differs because interpretation is subjective and there are many consumer opinions. A ‘healthy’ association with an ingredient for humans may evoke the same association with pets. Plenty of pet foods contain a vegetable or fruit element specifically for that reason. The presence itself serves the purpose for a content claim, without necessarily claiming functionality.

It is a frequently encountered error to think an ingredient already has substantiation in humans, “therefore animal feed or pet food will be easily covered”. On the contrary. Alongside the substantiation of functionality in the target animal, authorisation of ingredients for use in animal feed may be stricter than for human food supplements. Three key elements play a role here. Animal feed legislation also covers animals intended for human consumption, and undesirable substances in their feed can build up in the animal and travel through to human food. Pets other than horses and rabbits may not be considered for human consumption in Europe, but quality protocols for pet have a similar legislative origin. Secondly, humans combine many foods throughout the day as part of their complete daily ration, whereas for animals a large part of their diet consists of these feeds, resulting in a greater exposure. Thirdly, pet food manufacturers are acutely aware of the brand-destructive effects of a pet food recall due to unsafe constituents. Imagine baby food and you get the idea.

2C) Yes, this is something I addressed during my talk at Food Ingredients in December about 5 ingredients to look out for in pet food (6). Pet owners look for buzz words at a good price: they are looking for value for money. The financial squeeze applied to the consumer’s wallet emphasizes the cost element (7). Formulating to use fewer or single ingredients with more claims narrows the focus and targets the research budget. It also helps mitigate the risk of having multiple ingredient supply chains, stock levels and quality checks.

Add to this that pet owners value a clean label with fewer ingredients. Instead of adding one ingredient for gut health and another for a shiny coat, the less refined whole material may actually do both, but at a lower price. A higher inclusion may be required, but pet food formulations often allow room for this.

Sustainability is rated, but less so than other claims (3,8) – responsibility of the consumer can be regarded as a luxury for those with bigger wallets, although recyclability of packaging is important (7). Sustainability of ingredients is more complicated and carries greenwashing concerns (9). Local sourcing of original raw materials combines the claim benefits mentioned above together with the opportunity to be more sustainable in a more tangible manner: reduction of food miles. The trend in human food (10,11) to focus more on fibre and a reduction in protein is an opportunity for more sustainable pet ownership too. Protein levels exceeding nutritional requirements have been a trend in pet food also, increasing the environmental impact of ingredients used. Furthermore, excess protein results in more nitrogen in the environment from our pets’ excrement. Less protein and more fibre may see more sustainable pet food production, less nitrogen pollution and less obesity in the pet population.

4A) The mistrust of consumers in product claims features regularly in market reports (7,12,13). Scrutiny increasingly happens with the use of AI (14,15). Brands do well to associate with thorough substantiation through publicly available studies which feed into AI. AI search is already ranking scientific rigour in returning results. The consumer is not necessarily more savvy themselves, they are simply handling a very powerful tool. If we seize the opportunity, our commitment to objective results will be rewarded.

4B) A drastic reduction in polarisation. However attractive to the human dichotomy of superiority and insecurity, populist language attempting to defame other brands is counterproductive. In this case consumers feel superior in their choice of information channel and product selection. Equally they feel unheard, unvalued and unimportant to real-life social groups (10). Educational bodies and legislation can bring focus to social interaction within communities and information sources to move from social media to scientific research, helpfully summarised for consumers by AI.