3A) The main difference between pet supplements marketed in the EU and in the US lies in their regulatory classification and, consequently, in the claims that may be made about them.

Indeed, the same product may be classified as a drug in one jurisdiction (either the US or the EU) while remaining a feed or food product under the other legal framework. As a result, feed business operators must exercise particular caution in how they label and present their products—especially regarding the claims used in marketing materials.

International brands must therefore adapt their branding, marketing content, and, in some cases, even the product positioning and intended use, in order to avoid triggering a “drug” classification under one of the applicable regulatory frameworks.

In both the EU and the US, pet supplements (when classified as feed/food products) are not subject to a pre-market authorization procedure. By contrast, veterinary medicinal products must undergo a rigorous authorization process before being placed on the market.

3B)  Claims made on feed products, including complementary feed, are regulated in a relatively concise manner, essentially under a single provision.

In principle, a claim that draws attention to the presence or absence of a particular substance in the feed, to a specific nutritional characteristic or process, or to a specific function related to any of these elements, may be used provided that:

• the claim is objective, verifiable by the competent authorities, and understandable to the user of the feed; and
• the claim is substantiated by scientific evidence prior to placing the product on the market and such evidence is made available to the competent authorities upon request.

In practice, the main compliance risks relate to:

• Claims that may be considered misleading from the perspective of a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant user;
• Claims that cannot be directly and adequately substantiated by scientific evidence, including overly general claims or claims that are too closely associated with human health concepts (e.g., “anti-anxiety,” “anti-stress,” references to arthrosis, or vague references to “general well-being”).

3C) We do not anticipate significant changes in the regulatory framework governing the placement of pet supplements on the EU market in the coming years. Pet supplements are not subject to a specific regime under EU feed law; rather, they are considered a category of feed to which feed additives may be added.

In practice, the main regulatory developments to monitor concern the authorization of feed additives. In the EU, the addition of vitamins and minerals in feed is regulated under the Feed Additives Regulation, which authorizes feed additives for a limited period of ten years. Authorizations must be renewed, and renewal is not automatic. Feed business operators should therefore remain vigilant: an additive permitted today may cease to be authorized in the future, even in the absence of newly identified safety concerns.

More broadly, significant amendments to EU legislative frameworks tend to follow major safety incidents, which prompt the European Commission to revise and strengthen existing rules. In the case of pet supplements, systemic safety risks appear limited, with exposure primarily linked to compliance and marketing risks. The most adverse scenario would likely involve a product failing to deliver its claimed effects; however, demonstrating such inefficacy in practice can be complex.

3D)As in human health, food supplements should not be consumed without professional guidance. The same principle applies to pets: supplementation should be recommended and supervised by a qualified professional.
Communication about the benefits of pet supplements must therefore be carefully designed. Claims should be scientifically substantiated, and robust evidence should be made available to veterinarians. Only a relationship built on trust between pet owners, veterinarians, and feed supplement manufacturers will enable feed business operators to sustainably expand the market presence of their products.
In practical terms, trust must be built and strengthened through:

• Clear and straightforward claims that avoid confusion with disease treatment or overly broad aspects of a pet’s life;
• Strong and reliable scientific evidence;
• Full transparency regarding ingredients and product quality;
• Educational materials designed for pet owners, distributed (but not exclusively) through veterinarians.

This structured, transparent, and science-based approach is essential to ensuring responsible use of pet supplements and long-term market credibility

4A)  Pet owners are increasingly humanizing their pets and tend to treat them as equal members of the family. In this context, continued growth of the pet supplements market can reasonably be expected (actually in parallel of the growth of the Food supplement ‘s market).

In my view, the key factors that will determine the long-term success and credibility of this sector will be the ability of feed business operators to scientifically substantiate the claimed benefits of their products. This is particularly important - but difficult - for claims related to general well-being, stress reduction, or anxiety management.

Without solid scientific evidence supporting such benefits, market growth may be short-lived. While a rigorous, evidence-based approach will strengthen consumer trust, enhance professional endorsement, and ensure sustainable development of the sector.

4B) As you pointed out, the market for pet supplements is relatively new and therefore not well known among pet owners. Only an educational campaign about these products directed to the pet owners and the delivery of scientific evidence supporting them to the vets, could change pet owners' behaviour.