Pet supplement transparency starts with verifiable ingredient claims

As pet supplement choices multiply, pet owners are asking harder questions about what goes into the products they buy, and they increasingly expect companies to back up the answers.

That shift mirrors what has already happened in human supplements, said Petra Erlandson, vice president of sales at Alkemist Labs.

“After all, it’s people making purchasing decisions for their pets, and those pets are increasingly viewed as members of the family,” Erlandson said. “Consumers want at least the same confidence in the quality, safety and integrity of their pets’ supplements that they expect for their own.”

Consumers also have more tools to research products than ever before, she added. “They’re looking beyond marketing claims and asking questions about sourcing, testing and manufacturing quality,” she said. “This creates an opportunity for responsible brands to distinguish themselves by showing consumers the science and quality practices behind their products.”

Spencer Macintyre, North America sales director at Orivo, pointed to the same family-member dynamic, along with a broader consumer push for informed choices. As the category expands, he said, products carry increasingly specific claims around specifics like species and geographic origin.

“It is relatively easy to make an origin or ingredient claim on a label, for example,” Macintyre said. “The more important question is whether that claim can be verified.”

Ingredient identity and sourcing

For Erlandson, meaningful transparency starts with proving an ingredient is what it claims to be.

“Ingredient suppliers should be ready to show that their materials have been tested for identity and strength, and screened for relevant contaminants,” she said. “At the finished product brand level, consumers want assurance that appropriate testing and quality processes have been followed.”

That philosophy underpins the company’s Alkemist Assured program, which focuses on botanical and fungal ingredients and products and uses independent analytical testing to promote quality and supply chain transparency. “We believe transparency should be supported by credible scientific evidence, not simply marketing claims,” Erlandson said.

Macintyre agreed that more information is not automatically better. “Meaningful transparency is not necessarily about sharing as much information as possible,” he said. “It is about being clear about the things that matter and being able to substantiate what you communicate.”

If a product claims an oil comes from a particular species or geographic origin, for example, he said companies should understand their supply chains, keep appropriate documentation and, where possible, use analytical testing and independent verification to confirm the claim.

Orivo’s own market screening shows why that matters. “In our latest market screening of pet supplements marketed as 100% wild Alaskan salmon oil, 64% of the tested products showed deviations from the expected oil profile,” Macintyre said. Deviations can indicate blending with other fish oils or lower-cost oils, though they don’t necessarily mean a product is unsafe.

“This highlights an important point,” added Macintyre. "Documentation and traceability are valuable, but they don’t always tell the complete story of what is actually in the product. For us, that distinction between a claim and a verified claim is important. Transparency becomes much more valuable when there is objective evidence behind it.”

Labels and layered information

The label itself carries baseline federal requirements. Under FDA regulations in 21 CFR part 501, animal food labels must properly identify the product and include a net quantity statement, the name and place of the manufacturer or distributor, and all ingredients listed by their common or usual name in descending order of predominance by weight. Products are also subject to state laws, many of which draw on the Model Regulations in the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Official Publication.

FDA’s definition of labeling also reaches beyond the package. Section 201(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act covers written, printed or graphic matter accompanying a product, including promotional brochures, testimonials and product information sheets.

Within those limits, both sources said the label does not have to tell the whole story.

“Product labels should provide the essentials, but they don’t have to tell the entire quality story on their own,” Erlandson said. “Brands can use websites, social media, QR codes and other digital channels to offer transparency in layers, allowing consumers to explore ingredient sourcing, quality testing and manufacturing practices at whatever level of detail interests them.”

She also flagged an emerging channel. “As more consumers turn to AI platforms like ChatGPT and Claude to research products, brands should also consider how accessible and understandable their quality information is through these emerging search channels,” she said. Programs such as the National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) Quality Seal can also help communicate a company’s commitment to established quality standards, she added.

Orivo uses a similar layered approach. “The Orivo verification mark on the product provides a simple indication that a specific claim has been independently verified, while consumers can use the unique product code on the label to look up the product online and access further verification information,” Macintyre said.

Websites can explain sourcing, testing and verification in more depth, QR codes can link the physical product to that information, and social media can explain the topics more simply, he said.

“The important thing is to keep the information understandable,” Macintyre said. “Transparency should make it easier for consumers to make informed choices, not give them more technical information to interpret.”

Manufacturing and testing

“Good quality practices often happen behind the scenes, but they shouldn’t be a secret,” Erlandson said. “Sharing how products are tested and how quality is ensured gives consumers greater confidence in the products they choose.”

That openness has boundaries. “Transparency doesn’t mean giving away proprietary formulations or manufacturing processes, but it does mean being willing to explain the quality systems behind your products and provide credible evidence that those systems are working,” she said.

Macintyre said vague testing language does little for consumers. “When it comes to testing, simply saying that a product is ‘tested’ does not necessarily tell the consumer very much,” he said. “What was tested? What was the purpose of the test? Who performed it? And what does the result demonstrate?”

The same principle applies to manufacturing, he said. Companies can share the practices relevant to how a product is made and controlled without overwhelming consumers with technical detail.

He also cautioned against overreach. “Companies should be careful not to imply that a particular test or manufacturing practice demonstrates something outside its actual scope,” Macintyre said. “Transparency also means being clear about the limits of what the information proves.”

Avoiding confusion and unsupported claims

The biggest risk, Macintyre said, is that transparency becomes a marketing exercise rather than something that genuinely helps consumers understand the product. “There can be a temptation to communicate very broad claims based on relatively narrow evidence,” he said.

Macintyre’s advice: “Start with the evidence and communicate from there. Be very clear about what you know, what has been tested or verified, and exactly what that evidence allows you to say.”

“Specific, substantiated information is often more credible than broad statements,” he said. Independent, third-party verification adds credibility because it gives consumers something beyond the brand’s own assurance, he added. “It can help turn transparency from something a brand says into something it can demonstrate.”

Transparency as earned trust

Both sources framed transparency as a matter of trust that must be demonstrated, not assumed.

“Transparency ultimately comes down to trust, but trust should not depend on consumers simply taking a company’s word for it,” Macintyre said.

Independent verification can make complex supply chains and technical testing easier for consumers to understand, he said, and “gives them confidence that the claim they see on the product has evidence behind it.”

“Pet owners deserve confidence in the products they choose for their animals, and we have the scientific tools to help deliver that confidence,” Erlandson said. “Transparency is an opportunity for our industry to demonstrate that the trust consumers place in our products is earned and well deserved.”