Panel discussion on...
Pet Supplements
Armando Antonelli
Senior consultant, Hylobates Consulting
About the Author
Prof. Dr. Simone Peschke
Emerita Professor, Consulting and coaching food technology Main focus: Innovation and flavor technology
Professor of Food Technology, Berlin University of Applied Sciences (10 years)
Main focus: Innovation and Product Development, Flavor Technology (in cooperation with DVAI), Functional and Novel Foods, Techno-functional Ingredients
Technical Director, Business Unit Sweet & Head of Competence Center Health & Nutrition, Symrise AG (7 years)
Senior Director Research, Development & Application Ingredients Europe, Wild Flavors Berlin (17 years)
Member of AgroFOOD Industry Hi Tech's Scientific Advisory Board
In this Panel Discussion, several prominent companies within the food and nutraceutical ingredient industry have been invited to discuss about drivers and barriers of healthy lifestyle, focusing on global and regional consumer trends, scientific achievements, emerging delivery formats, use of AI technologies and the implementation of the United Nations sustainability goals.
3A) Regulatory rules for pet supplements are very different in the European Union compared to the United States, and these gaps create a complex situation for global brands which involves much more than just basic compliance. In the EU, these products are regulated under the broader animal feed framework, mostly labeled as complementary feed or dietetic feed, known as PARNUTs. This system is very rigid and plays it safe, following strict rules like Regulation 767/2009 and the feed additive standards of Regulation 1831/2003.
Every single ingredient used has to be either a recognized feed material or a specifically approved additive on a “positive list.” This means that new or creative ingredients often get stuck in a slow and expensive safety review by EFSA before they can be placed on the market. Claims in the EU have to be factual, proven, and strictly non-medical. Any claim that a product can prevent or cure a disease is forbidden, which forces brands to use a very cautious wording that stays focused only on nutrition.
In contrast, the United States provides more flexibility, though the regulatory structure is complex due to oversight being shared between the FDA and state authorities, with AAFCO model rules being the main guide. Since there isn’t a formal legal category for “pet supplements”, they usually are enclosed under animal feed definitions or sit in a bit of a legal grey area as “dosage form” health products. This lets companies sell products based on their GRAS status or by following the self-regulatory standards of the National Animal Supplement Council, which allows for certain ingredients that wouldn’t pass in traditional feed. While this allows for faster product development and more specific functional claims, it also creates a lot of uncertainty and forces brands to deal with a mix of different registration rules from state to state.
For global brands, these structural differences create significant strategic challenges for product design and management. A claim strategy often has to be built country-by-country because a sentence that works in the US might get a product labeled as an illegal medicine in the EU. This often leads to companies making multiple label versions and different marketing stories for the exact same formula. Furthermore, these disparities directly influence ingredient selection; a brand might have to choose between one global formula that follows the strict EU rules but is less appealing in the US market, or managing different formulations that increase production costs. Many companies prioritize EU standards for their primary products to guarantee safety, while introducing specialized versions in the US for faster market entry. Managing these differences requires thorough planning and scientific evidence to reduce risk and ensure consumer trust in both regions.
Panelists
Katrin Hedvall
Head of Food Sweden AFRY
Dr. Banu Sezer
Global Market Development Manager
Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria
Dr. Adam M. Adamek , PhD
CEO, Editor-in-Chief, Food Edge, Belgium
Elizabeth Koumpan
Distinguished Engineer and CTO
for IBM iOps organization
Kirt Phipps
Principal Scientific Consultant –
Toxicology & Regulatory Affairs, Intertek
Dayna Lozon
Scientific Consultant 1 – Toxicology and Regulatory Affairs, Intertek
Karen E. Todd, RD
VP, Global Brand Marketing
Kyowa Hakko USA
René Floris
Chief Innovation Officer, CIO,
NIZO Food Research
Veronika Pipan
Head of Scientific Support at PharmaLinea
Dr. Mariette Abrahams MBA
CEO & Founder of Qina
References and notes
- Kovalkovičová, N et al. 2009. Some food toxic for pets. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2(3):169–176. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0012-4
- Beleć, K et al. 2025. The Effect of the Type and Concentration of Garlic (Allium sativum) on Heinz Body Concentrations in Canine Erythrocytes—An In Vitro Study. Animals, 15, 3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15213188
- Benyacoub, J. et al. 2003. Supplementation of Food with Enterococcus faecium (SF68) Stimulates Immune Functions in Young Dogs. J. Nutr. 133: 1158-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.4.1158
- Bednorz, C. et al. 2013. Feeding the Probiotic Enterococcus faecium Strain NCIMB 10415 to Piglets Specifically Reduces the Number of Escherichia coli Pathotypes That Adhere to the Gut Mucosa. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79(24):7896-7904. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03138-13
- Benvenuti, L. et al. 2023. Dietary Supplementation with the Probiotic SF68 Reinforces Intestinal Epithelial Barrier in Obese Mice by Improving Butyrate Bioavailability. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 67(13): 2200442. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.202200442
- Beirão, B. C. B. et al. 2018. Effect of an Enterococcus faecium probiotic on specific IgA following live Salmonella Enteritidis vaccination of layer chickens. Avian Pathology, 47(3), pp. 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2018.1450487
- Bybee, S. N. et al. 2011. Effect of the Probiotic Enterococcus faecium SF68 on Presence of Diarrhea in Cats and Dogs Housed in an Animal Shelter. J Vet Intern Med. Jul-Aug;25(4):856-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.0738.x
- Regulation - 1831/2003 - EN - EUR-Lex
Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ingredients companies - clinical data
A) What are the main scientific gaps that still exist in PET supplement development compared to human dietary supplements?
B) How important is species-specific research when selecting and developing active ingredients for pets? Can human data ever be sufficient?
C) Is the humanization of pets helping consumers make better-informed choices, or does it risk creating unrealistic expectations about supplement performance?
D) From an ingredient supplier’s perspective, which quality parameters (standardization, bioavailability, purity) are most critical for PET applications?
E) How are trends such as “clean label,” sustainability, and transparency influencing pet owners’ purchasing decisions in the PET supplement space?
F) What type of clinical evidence should realistically be expected to support PET supplement claims today?
G) Which types of claims are most likely to be misunderstood by consumers, and how can this risk be reduced through clearer substantiation and labeling?
H) What are the main methodological challenges in conducting clinical trials for companion animals, and how can they be addressed?
I) How reliable are owner-reported outcomes compared to veterinary assessments, and how should they be integrated into study design?
L) Have you noticed an increasing trend in the use of one (or more) ingredients for pet supplements formulated to promote healthy ageing?
Formulation
A) What are the biggest formulation challenges in PET supplements, particularly regarding palatability, stability, and dosing accuracy?
B) How do formulation choices (e.g., chews, powders, liquids) influence compliance and consistent use from a consumer perspective?
C) Do you see a shift toward simpler, single-ingredient formulations, or are multi-active blends still the dominant approach? Why?
D) How do species differences (dogs vs cats, size, age) influence formulation strategies?
E) Omega 3 alternatives for pet nutrition and sustainability: how do the innovative omega-3s for pet food stack up against their traditional fishy counterparts?
Regulation
A) How do regulatory frameworks for PET supplements differ between the EU and the US, and what challenges do these differences create for global brands?
B) Which types of claims represent the highest regulatory risk today, and which are more likely to be acceptable if properly substantiated?
C) Do you expect regulatory oversight of PET supplements to become stricter in the coming years? Why or why not?
D) What role should veterinarians play in guiding pet owners’ choices regarding PET supplements, and how can trust between brands, vets, and consumers be strengthened?
Open questions
A) Looking ahead 5–10 years, what will be the key factors determining the credibility and long-term success of the PET supplements sector?
B) In your view, what single change—scientific, regulatory, or educational—would most improve consumer trust in PET supplements over the next decade?
References and notes