Are Certain Claims Becoming Risky for Pet Food Companies?

Written by Bradley Quest , DVM

Marketing claims have surrounded pet food and nutritional products since their inception. However, companies need to be careful about making broad health claims. Even if certain claims are acceptable to regulatory authorities, there may be legal ramifications that aren’t always obvious.?

Pet food claims such as “natural,” “healthy,” “high quality,” “improved vitality,” “supports well-being,” and others are vague when it comes to actually proving that the pet food can substantiate them.?The term “natural” does have the advantage of a definition in the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) 2024 Official Publication (OP), and while this definition is generally accepted by regulatory authorities that use the AAFCO OP as guidance, it does not mean the claim would hold up in a court of law.?

This is because regulatory definitions do not necessarily influence each court (or specific judge) similarly. Extenuating circumstances, such as testing that demonstrates a pet food contains ingredients that do not fit the definition of “natural,” and the lack of precedence for similar cases also present challenges.? Pet food companies have historically faced both individual and class-action lawsuits due to allegations that their claims were unsubstantiated. This lack of support comes from either insufficient testing or efficacy studies conducted by the accused companies or through third-party testing of the products in question by those who filed the suit. In other words, these class actions challenge the “natural” status of these pet foods.???

When considering other claims, such as “healthy” or “improved vitality,” the slope can get even more slippery as these claims are all but impossible to substantiate from a regulatory standpoint, much less a legal one.? A perfect example is Mars Petcare, a company that follows the AAFCO recommendation for the definition of "natural." They have faced a consumer class-action filing because their products claim to be “Natural with added vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients,” which is considered allowed under the AAFCO definition, but many consumers believe it is misleading.?

The best thing pet food companies can do is to follow all regulatory guidance as closely as possible and always be able to substantiate any claims made, even “natural.”? From a consumer perspective, pet parents must be vigilant when evaluating pet food products that make outlandish claims that seem too good to be true.? Ask yourself: Could this product really do what the label claims? And has the company substantiated this claim? If it is unclear on the packaging or the company’s website, give the pet food company a call to ask how they substantiate their claims.???

In the end, pet food companies must be careful when making claims on packaging or websites. What may seem very simple, such as calling a product “natural,” can land you in a legal mess.? Consulting with experts in both claims substantiation testing and efficacy studies, as well as regulatory affairs, is more than worth it when considering the alternative of regulatory and legal problems that could potentially ruin a brand. The experts at BSM Partners can help companies decide on proper claims, their substantiation, and regulatory oversight, so brands can build trust and consumers can feel confidence in what they feed their furry companions.?

About the Author

Dr. Bradley Quest , DVM is the Principal Veterinarian at BSM Partners. He has practiced veterinary medicine, developed and tested hundreds of pet health products and helps navigate pet food ingredient approval for clients.?

?