12/05/2026

The Supplement Problem No One Is Talking About  

A recent study published made me sit with that question a little harder. In the study, researchers tested 70 over-the-counter canine and feline dietary supplements purchased from a major online retailer, analyzing each for five essential minerals and 12 heavy metals. They also compared actual mineral concentrations to label claims for any product that made them.
  The headline finding is that none of the supplements exceeded the National Research Council (NRC) Maximum Tolerable Levels (MTLs) for any mineral, including the heavy metals tested. That's worth saying, because this isn't a product safety recall story. But when you read past the headline, the bigger picture is more complicated and more relevant to anyone building or scaling in this category.   What the Data Actually Shows   Across all 70 products, the researchers recorded 376 heavy-metal detections. Only one product contained no detectable heavy metals. Every other product in the study (69 out of 70) had at least one.
  The most prevalent heavy metal was nickel, found in 66 of 70 products (94.3%), followed by barium in 64 products (91.4%) and vanadium in 61 products (87.1%). Lead was detected in 16 supplements (22.9%), with concentrations of up to 3.7 mg/kg. Cadmium was detected in 10 products (14.3%), with concentrations up to 1.5 mg/kg. Arsenic was found in 19 products (27.1%).
  These aren't trace amounts you have to squint to find. They're present because heavy metals enter the supply chain through natural mineral contamination of raw ingredients, including soil, water, and plant material. Without robust ingredient specification and testing, they pass straight through into the finished product.
  One finding in particular stuck with me. A product explicitly marketed for liver support, with claims to help the animal's body avoid exposure to heavy metals, contained five detectable heavy metals: vanadium, chromium, cobalt, nickel, and barium. That's not a safety violation; it's a credibility problem. And it illustrates what can happen when formulation and quality control aren't working in sync, and why heavy metal testing needs to be a deliberate, standalone part of a brand's quality program. Guaranteed analyses and standard label claim verification don't screen for heavy metals. That requires proactive, targeted testing at the ingredient and finished-product levels, something most brands aren't doing unless they've built it explicitly into their quality protocols.     The Selenium Story Is Its Own Warning   The essential mineral findings deserve their own attention. Selenium is an essential nutrient, but it has one of the narrowest margins of safety of any mineral in companion animal nutrition. The selenium maximum for dogs set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) is 2 mg/kg dry matter, which isn't far above the minimum required amount of .35 mg/kg. The present study found selenium in 52 of 70 products (74.3%), with concentrations up to 14 mg/kg supplement, as-fed.
  What matters is that selenium was only declared as an added ingredient in 10 of those 52 products. The other 42 contained selenium that pet owners, and probably most formulators, would have no reason to expect to be there.
  The authors flag a specific scenario worth thinking through. If a small dog or cat is consuming a primary diet that meets the AAFCO selenium minimum and is also receiving a supplement containing meaningful selenium concentrations, the total daily intake can exceed the AAFCO maximum. The concern scales upward for smaller animals because supplement dosing is based on body weight, but calorie requirements, and therefore primary food intake, scale to metabolic body weight. A 4.5-kg cat consuming a selenium-containing supplement at the label dose can end up in a different risk category than a 30-kg dog consuming the same product.
  And then there's the stacking question. The authors cite a survey in which 66% of dogs receiving supplements were receiving more than one supplement simultaneously. Their analysis assumed a single supplement was being used. Add a second or third product, and the cumulative mineral picture changes meaningfully.   The Miss Rate Is Real   The label accuracy findings are worth noting, too. Of the 18 products that made quantitative claims for one or more of the minerals analyzed, eight of them (44%) failed to meet at least one label claim. Of those eight, 87.5% were multivitamin/mineral supplements.
  Of the 53 total label claims across those products, 77.4% were met or exceeded. That sounds reasonably good until you look at what 'exceeded' sometimes means: seven products had detected concentrations of at least 200% of the claimed content. One contained 331% of its claimed iron. Another contained 443% of its claimed zinc. On the other hand, three products had less than 60% of the claimed content for at least one mineral.
  Those numbers matter beyond the spreadsheet. Chronic excess zinc intake in dogs can cause hemolytic anemia, liver and pancreatic damage, and acute kidney failure. The tricky part is that supplement-sourced overexposure tends to creep up slowly. A pet owner who's diligently giving their dog a daily joint chew has no reason to suspect the product is delivering more than four times the zinc on the label. By the time clinical signs appear, the damage may already be underway. On the flip side, three products had less than 60% of their claimed content for at least one mineral, meaning some pets aren't getting anywhere near the therapeutic dose the supplement was purchased to deliver.
  This isn't a new problem. Research has documented label inaccuracies in pet supplements for years. One study found that 84% of chondroitin sulfate products deviated from their label claims, with deviations ranging from 0% to 115%. What the present study adds is current, systematic data across a broader supplement category.
  The practical takeaway is straightforward. A label claim is not a quality assurance system. It's a starting point that requires independent verification to be meaningful.   The Feline Problem Within the Problem   Something the study surfaces quietly, but that deserves louder attention in our industry, is that we don't have species-specific MTL data for cats. The NRC has established canine MTL values only for cadmium and lead. For cats, there are no NRC MTL values for any of the minerals analyzed in this study. The researchers had to apply the same MTL values to both cat and dog data, and where species-specific values didn't exist, they used MTL derived from rodents, poultry, or swine.
  The authors are candid about the limitations. For cats, they note that comparisons to omnivore livestock species are particularly weak because cats are obligate carnivores. Better reference points might be mink or other fur-bearing carnivores, for which essentially no data on tolerable levels exist.
  This matters for two reasons. First, cats metabolize many compounds differently from dogs, which means that certain compounds clear more slowly, while chronic low-level exposures can accumulate in ways that wouldn't be predicted from dog or human data. Second, the cat supplement segment is growing faster than any other pet type in the category. MarketsandMarkets projects a 9.1% CAGR for cat supplements through 2030. Increased use of feline supplements against a backdrop of inadequate feline-specific safety data is a dangerous combination that the industry should be paying attention to.   Why NASC Matters   This is the part of the conversation I want to spend more time on. And I'll be honest, quality claims in the pet supplement space can feel like shades of grey. 'Tested,' 'verified,' 'third-party certified' get applied so loosely that they've largely lost meaning. That credibility gap is real and worth naming. What separates a genuine quality infrastructure from a marketing badge is whether it creates verifiable, auditable accountability at the points where things actually go wrong: ingredient sourcing, manufacturing consistency, label accuracy, and post-market safety surveillance.
  The National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) Quality Seal is consistently misunderstood as a marketing badge rather than a quality-infrastructure requirement. However, the supplement findings in this study are exactly the failure modes the NASC process is designed to catch. It cannot be prevented entirely, because no system eliminates all risk, but it can detect, track, and correct.
  To earn the NASC Quality Seal, a company must pass a comprehensive independent third-party audit, a process that typically takes about four months from start to finish. The audit covers documented standard operating procedures for production process controls, labeling compliance against NASC guidelines, and verification that products are registered in the NASC adverse event reporting database. The audit certificate must be renewed every two years; there's no grandfathering. Companies must also pass random independent product testing to verify that what's on the label is what's in the product.
  Run the study findings through that framework. Selenium showing up undeclared in 74% of products? That's an ingredient specification and testing failure that an audit-ready quality control system would catch. A product claiming 443% of its labeled zinc? That's a batch-level manufacturing inconsistency that random independent testing would surface. A liver support product containing multiple heavy metals despite marketing language around metal avoidance? That's a formulation and claims review failure that NASC's labeling compliance process exists to prevent.
  None of this means NASC certification guarantees perfection, but it creates accountability structures that the unregulated default does not.   The Business Case for Getting This Right   Here's what I've seen work when working with supplement brands at different stages. Quality infrastructure tends to get treated as a later-stage problem. First, you build the product, establish distribution, and prove the market, then you worry about audits and SOPs. That sequencing creates real downstream risk.
  Veterinary channel access is increasingly quality-credential-dependent. Retailers are asking harder questions about third-party testing, and the conversation happening in the research community right now will reach the retail floor and the veterinary exam room faster than most brands anticipate.
  There's also a differentiation argument that isn't made often enough. This study, and the broader literature it builds on, create a genuinely useful commercial conversation for any brand that has done the work. In a market where 69 out of 70 randomly selected products contain at least one detectable heavy metal and nearly half of quantitative label claims on multivitamin products don't fully hold up, transparency is a competitive position. A brand that can point to its NASC audit certificate, its independent testing Certificates of Analysis (CoAs), and its ingredient-level heavy metal specifications is telling a fundamentally different quality story than one that can't.
  The challenge, and I hear this regularly, is that building the quality infrastructure and the product simultaneously, while managing a launch, feels overwhelming. But, it doesn't have to be. The NASC audit process is structured and learnable. Ingredient specification development and supplier qualification don't require a large internal team if you're approaching them systematically. And the investment in getting it right early is considerably smaller than the cost of fixing it later.   What I'd Be Asking If I Were You   If you're currently selling supplements: When did you last run independent testing on your current formulations? Does your CoA come from your manufacturer or from an independent lab? Do you have heavy metal specifications written into your ingredient purchasing agreements?
  If you're developing a new supplement line: Are your formulation decisions and your quality control (QC) infrastructure decisions happening in parallel, or sequentially? Have you mapped your label claims against independent verification?
  If you're thinking about the feline category specifically: Are you applying dog-centric safety assumptions to a species that metabolizes compounds meaningfully differently, with essentially no species-specific tolerable level data to lean on?
  This study doesn't say the sky is falling. It says we're building a multi-billion-dollar category on a quality foundation that hasn't been fully validated. The data to start asking harder questions is now clearly in the literature. The frameworks to start answering them, starting with NASC, already exist.
  The questions this study raises don't have easy answers, but they do provide a starting point. If you want to go deeper into the regulatory and quality aspects of supplement formulation, BSM Partners' team recently covered much of this ground in our podcast episode "Wrangling the Wild West of Pet Supplements" with Dr. Stephanie Clark and Jordan Tyler. And if your brand is actively navigating supplement quality, NASC audit readiness, or label compliance, that's exactly the kind of work our FSQAR practice was built for. We help clients build the quality infrastructure that makes those questions answerable, before they become problems. By Neeley Bowden Lewis
Source: BSM Partners

27/04/2026

Inflexible Formulations: What Vitamin & Amino Acid Supply Disruption Could Mean for Pet Food  

Recent discussions around vitamin and amino acid supply chains highlight a critical issue: these nutrients are not optional in pet food. Like the animal protein sector, they are foundational to animal health, but for pet food they are also integral to product integrity and regulatory compliance. For the pet food sector, even small disruptions can have outsized impacts.   The Nutritional and Formulation Challenge
Pet food is governed by strict nutrient requirements. In the U.S., dog and cat foods must meet defined nutrient profiles that specify minimum levels of essential vitamins and amino acids per pound of product. This means formulation is not simply about substituting ingredients; it is about maintaining precise nutritional balance. When supply disruptions occur, nutritionists are forced into complex reformulation decisions, which I describe as, 'solving a Rubik's Cube' -- adjusting one component inevitably affects multiple others. 
  Ingredient shifts can alter digestion, stability and overall product performance. When key vitamins or amino acids become scarce, manufacturers may need to modify formulations, and those changes carry real risk. Nutrient imbalances may impact gut health, skin and coat quality or long-term wellness. Changes in ingredient composition can also affect palatability and food intake, which pet owners will quickly notice. At the same time, reformulations may jeopardize label claims, certifications or even patented formulations. 
  Pets, particularly cats, have unique nutritional requirements that heighten the stakes of supply disruption. Taurine, for example, is essential for cats, and inadequate levels can lead to serious health conditions such as dilated cardiomyopathy. Nutrient interactions, such as those involving thiamine and amino acid balance, can create cascading formulation challenges. Certain dog breeds also require careful amino acid fortification to avoid health complications. These sensitivities mean that even temporary shortages can have real biological consequences if not managed carefully. 
  The risks become even more pronounced in veterinary therapeutic diets, which are designed as part of a broader health management plan; for example, renal diets for kidney support. When supply disruptions force the use of alternative or endogenous nutrient sources, unintended consequences may arise, including the introduction of unwanted co-nutrients, reduced bioavailability or conflicts with the intended therapeutic outcome. In these cases, formulation changes are not just technical, they are clinical decisions with direct implications for animal health. 
  Alternative ingredient strategies often rely on endogenous sources or complex co-products. While these can help bridge supply gaps, they introduce new uncertainties around nutrient availability, digestibility and additional nutrients that must be managed. In pet food, even small ingredient swaps can significantly alter the overall formula, increasing the risk to product design and performance.    A Supply Chain Issue with System-Wide Implications
One of the most important realities is that pet food does not operate in isolation. The same supply chains that support livestock production and human nutrition also supply companion animal diets. 
  As a result, disruptions in vitamin and amino acid production affect multiple sectors simultaneously. Increased costs or limited availability upstream in protein production ultimately translate into higher costs and tighter constraints downstream in pet food. This interconnectedness underscores a broader point: pet food is part of a larger food security system in North America. 
  While rising costs are a concern, the more fundamental challenge is maintaining supply stability. Pet food formulations are not easily or frequently changed due to regulatory requirements, labeling and packaging constraints, product claims and certifications and intellectual property considerations. Because of these constraints, the industry cannot simply adjust on the fly. Stability in ingredient supply is essential to maintaining consistent, safe and compliant products. 
  Ensuring a stable supply of vitamins and amino acids is critical to the future of the pet food industry. This will require coordinated efforts across agriculture, ingredient manufacturing and regulatory systems. Without that stability, the industry faces increasing pressure on formulation integrity, product performance and ultimately animal health. 
  The question is not just how to respond to disruption, but how to build a more resilient supply chain that supports pets, producers, and consumers alike.  Source: IFEEDER

30/09/2025

Precision Innovation in Pet Food

Innovation in pet food is an evolving topic driven by trends, including pet humanization, sustainability, and the pursuit of improved nutrition. Innovations in pet food production and processing aim to enhance specific nutrition, functional health, and digestive performance by using the right amount of bioactive compounds and nutrients. We will address this issue from the perspective of ingredient innovation.
  Protein is one of the most important compounds for pet parents when purchasing pet food. Innovation is not the exception to this nutrient in the formulation process. Animal proteins (chicken, lamb, fish, etc.) are the most commonly used, but there are some alternatives. Moreover, others are in the initial implementation phase or used only in a few segments: 
  Insect proteins: Cricket flour, black soldier fly larvae, etc. are highly digestible, sustainable sources, rich in proteins and with less environmental impact.
  Vegetable proteins: Different from traditional sources, such as soybean paste. Nowadays, it is not surprising to see lentils, chickpeas, peas, and/or quinoa, among others.
  Cell culture: Cultured meat for super-premium food is being studied.
  Emerging functional ingredients are another important aspect of innovation in nutrients. They are not only nutritious but also beneficial for health. Sometimes, they result in superfoods that are detailed below:
  Spirulina, chia seeds, and blueberries were widely used in the pet food industry due to their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits.  
  Prebiotics, such as FOS (fructooligosaccharides), MOS (mannan oligosaccharide), XOS (xylooligosaccharides), and beta-glucans are known as gastrointestinal microbiome enhancers that improve the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria. 
  Probiotics are microorganisms that help the digestive system and the gut microbiome. Innovation in pet food is associated with probiotic capsules or spore-forming probiotics (e.g., Bacillus coagulans, Enterococcus faecium) which support extrusion thermal processing. 
  Postbiotics are by-product metabolites from beneficial bacteria that promote gut and immune health. They also reduce inflammation without needing living organisms.
  Enzymes, such as amylase, protease, and lipase are added to enhance nutrient digestibility, especially in diets with alternative ingredients. However, you should be careful since enzymes are thermolabile and need accurate technology to withstand the thermal process, for example, the extrusion. 
  Organic minerals are more bioavailable than traditional sources (sulfate or oxides); they strengthen metabolism, bone health, dermal health, and the immune system. In this segment, there are different organic sources, depending on the metal-binding element. Beginning with the most advanced technology, these can be bisqueled with HMTBa [(hydroxymethyl)butanoic acid]; followed by chelates, essential and non-essential amino acids, complex polysaccharides, or complex propionic acids (according to the AAFCO's classification).
  Vitamins are essential nutrients for pets' health and well-being. Food and vitamin capsules are typically combined in the pet food industry because they protect from heat and oxidation during the extrusion or cooling processes, improving the final product's stability.
  Phytonutrients and/or botanical extracts, such as polyphenols, flavonoids, and essential oils (e.g., rosemary, turmeric, and oregano) are an alternative due to their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and natural preservative properties. 
  Specific fatty acids can be a good source of polyunsaturated fatty acids or omegas. The controlled incorporation of EPA/DHA (omega-3) microalgae as a more sustainable ingredient than fish oil is not surprising. Medium-chain fatty acids are widely used as immediate sources of energy.
  Bioactive peptides are hydrolyzed protein by-products, for example, hydrolyzed collagen with specific functions (immune response modulator, joint health enhancers, cartilage regeneration, and skin elasticity). 
  Functional fermented vegetable foods, such as miso or kefir (adapted for pets), are beneficial as they provide natural digestive enzymes and beneficial microorganisms.
  Adaptogens (e.g., ashwagandha, ginseng, or rhodiola) are natural ingredients that help the body manage stress. Usually, they are used in supplements to reduce anxiety, support the nervous system, and adapt to changes. 
  On the other hand, there is a trend to reduce toxic ingredients in food; in those cases, we must look for innovative alternatives.
  Reduce sodium, sugar, and synthetic additives by replacing artificial colorants with natural pigments (e.g., beta-carotenes, spirulina) or substituting artificial antioxidants with natural products. 
  Referring to precision innovation, we cannot forget about integrating technology, such as apps that recommend diets or provide nutritional follow-up or intelligent vending machines that ration food and compile consumption data. 
  Another innovative area we must follow closely is innovation in formulation and dosing. Microencapsulation technologies are still evolving to enhance the stability of sensitive compounds (vitamins, oils, and probiotics). Some lab tests allow the understanding of certain genetic predispositions and the gut health of our pets. The applied nanotechnology area is being developed, related to the use of nanoparticles that improve the absorption of minerals and antioxidants (even in the experimental or regulatory stage). Finally, data-driven formulation employs AI and nutritional algorithms that adjust the right amount of micro-ingredients according to age, breed, activity or pathologies, sleep, and pet food consumption in real time. 


By MVZ Armando Enriquez de la Fuente Blanquet
Source: All Pet Food Magazine

By Armando Enriquez de la Fuente Blanquet

14/08/2025

From Claim to Credibility: The Case for Research-Backed Pet Food Ingredients

The pet food industry is unique in that of all the 602 standard pet food ingredients used today, 44% of them are upcycled, which means that they are derived from animal and plant sources that would not be used in human food. This makes pet food a great source to utilize ingredients that otherwise would be wasted, and reduces the competition between human food and pet food for ingredients that span both categories.
  This becomes increasingly important as currently 9% of the world's population is considered hungry, according to a recent report by the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, these upcycled ingredients may not be viewed as premium ingredients by consumers who have decided that descriptions such as 'by-product' are not good for their pets. Many times, these decisions are not based on nutritional research but on messaging from pet food companies. Starches, flours, and functional dietary fibers have been described by many pet food brands as 'fillers,' when there actually is no definitive or regulatory definition for that term. In most cases, these ingredients not only provide nutritional value for pets but also deliver functional benefits that make the pet food easier to actually manufacture.   
  New pet food ingredients and categories have become more popular. The pet food protein category has seen many new entries and continues to see new types of proteins entering the market. Examples of these proteins include cultured meat, insect-based, bacteria- and yeast-based cultures, and upcycled food ingredients. All these new and novel pet food proteins collectively have the potential to help decrease the competition of using animal-based proteins in pet food that could be used in the human food supply. Each one has valid reasons for use, including sustainability, low carbon footprint, as well as delivering needed alternative protein sources for pet food in a competitive landscape. 
  Beyond protein, it is well accepted that Omega-3 fatty acids can help deliver benefits such as skin and coat support, joint health, cognitive health, as well as immune benefits to pets. Most of the Omega-3 fatty acids in pet food, such as EPA and DHA, come from fish oil. As with animal protein ingredients, there is higher competition for fish oil products in human goods when compared to pet food and pet supplement use. Microalgae products have become more prevalent in the pet food world, being described as more sustainable alternatives to fish oil and helping to decrease the reliance on fish oil to deliver the health benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids. 
  Another new trend in the past few years is the promotion of postbiotics. These are inactivated microorganisms, such as yeast or bacteria, and their components that are released after probiotics are no longer alive, which have many health benefits, including digestive health, immune support, and even oral health benefits for pets. Another claimed benefit is that they do not require live bacteria like probiotics do, which may make them more user-friendly in pet food manufacturing.
  These are all examples of new pet food ingredients and categories. Many of these novel pet food ingredients have the potential to help deliver functional benefits to our pets, as well as contribute to the sustainability of the pet food industry as a whole. However, when it comes to the business of the pet food industry, there is a lot of competition in the ingredient space. Many of these newer ingredients come at a premium price when compared to their traditional ingredient counterparts. This means that even though pet food brands may want to use them in products because of the benefits and claims they provide, they have to be affordable and must deliver value that the pet food company and consumer understand. 
  A good way to determine the value of an ingredient is by looking at the extent of research that has been done by the ingredient company to substantiate the claims they promote. Pet food ingredient companies should be conducting feeding study research to validate the claims they make. In vitro (laboratory) studies are helpful for screening tests. However, to actually demonstrate ingredient value, the pet food ingredient industry should be conducting feeding studies to show health benefits in pets. Long-term feeding studies using new ingredients and measuring health parameters are sorely needed to gain credibility for ingredient companies. 
  Ingredient companies should be working with experts in nutrition, physiology, and veterinary medicine, such as those at BSM Partners, to design, implement, and interpret clinical research to help substantiate claims and deliver the value that pet food brands and consumers deserve. After all, if ingredient suppliers and pet food brands don't do feeding studies with their products before they hit the market, pet parents' companions become the defacto study subjects and nobody wants that.


By Bradley Ques
Source: BSM Partners

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