Understanding legal restrictions on marketing feed

If you’re buying feed for your animals then you at least want to know they will work. From a TMR for your dairy herd to a joint supplement for your horse, you simply need to know what it is and how it will help. So why does most marketing not seem to tell you that? Are manufacturers trying to hide something? 

Legally everything we feed comes under UK and EU Feed Law (Regulation 767/2009). That includes feed ‘supplements’ in all forms, as they too are legally classed as complementary feed. Those regulations set down clear guidance on the claims you can, or cannot, make with respect to your product. This is often a particular challenge for supplements, as they are typically fed for a targeted health reason which is difficult to fully discuss whilst staying compliant with the regulations. 

In brief, the law only allows you to maintain the status quo in a healthy animal, but not to make any difference which could be perceived as medical. This explains why we so often see ‘maintains’ and ‘supports’ used in marketing rather than ‘improves’ ‘reduces’ or ‘increases’. The regulators (VMD in the UK, DAFM in Ireland) also restrict any mention of disease conditions, pharmaceutical names, or terms considered medical such as dose, treatment or anti-microbial. 

Illegal claim example

• ‘Each daily dose of ‘FlexyChew’ is formulated to treat signs of arthritis in older dogs. In independent trials FlexyChew performs better than metacam.’

Compliant marketing

• ‘Feed ‘FlexyChew’ daily to maintain sound joints in healthy dogs. FlexyChew has been interpedently trialed.’

To be compliant the second example could not give any further details of the trial, including any results, references or links to the paper. These restrictions help to prevent unsubstantiated or misleading claims being made, and ensures that their vet remains as first call for medical issues. However, it also means that well researched, even peer-reviewed and published, trials have no legal route to feed marketing, making it difficult for owners and managers to decipher the well-formulated, well-evidenced product from the less credible. 

The legislation is complex and there are specific exceptions which allow some claims. However, generally, we can only maintain health not make changes. Legally compliant, credible companies will necessarily say little about feed and supplements. Anything which looks too good to be true, probably is! 

Written by: Kate Hore, Head Nutritionist. RNutr (Animal), NAF

Kate is a member of the BISAS Scientific Committee, a cross discipline group of animal scientists who meet regularly to discuss topical matters which may impact on our members.