MENU
How do you review a feed label before printing? Explore 12 checks covering ingredients, additives, directions for use, claims and product communication.
Feed label verification should not begin with correcting punctuation in a PDF. First, establish whether the product is correctly classified, whether its ingredients can lawfully be used and whether the declarations match the actual formula.
Only then does it make sense to review wording and layout.
This is particularly important for complementary feed for dogs and cats, where nutritional products, feed additives and medicinal presentation can be easily confused.
If you are developing a brand rather than reviewing finished artwork, also read: Your own pet supplement brand: from idea to shelf.
For an overview of mandatory particulars, see our EU guide to complementary feed labelling.
The label reflects decisions made earlier in product development.
If an ingredient has been incorrectly treated as a feed material, even beautifully designed artwork will rest on a flawed assumption.
If an additive is used outside its authorisation conditions, changing a word on the front label will not solve the problem.
If a claim is unsupported by the dose and documentation, the word “supports” will not make it defensible.
A professional label review should therefore cover at least the following 12 steps.
Start with the question: what is the product in law?
For many products marketed to consumers as “dog supplements”, the actual category will be complementary feed.
Classification determines:
Without this decision, further verification has limited value.
Each component of the formula should have an established legal status.
Ask:
Pay particular attention to botanical extracts, mineral and vitamin preparations, microorganisms and branded ingredients.
Verify each material's name, manufacturing process and consistency with the documentation.
The Catalogue of feed materials is an important reference, but it is not an exhaustive list of all materials that may be marketed.
If a Catalogue name is used, the material must meet the corresponding characteristics.
For a material outside the Catalogue, assess its status and any obligations associated with the feed materials register.
“Vitamin”, “probiotic” or “flavouring” is not enough information.
Check the specific additive authorisation and the EU register, including:
Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 establishes the feed additive authorisation system. Using a substance as an additive outside that framework can fundamentally change the risk profile of the product.
A trade name can be creative, but it cannot replace the mandatory designation of the feed type.
Also assess whether the name suggests properties the product cannot lawfully claim.
Names such as “Joint Therapy”, “Anti-inflammatory Formula” or “Urinary Infection Control” may create problems regardless of the small print on the back.
The list of feed materials should reflect the formula.
Compare:
Where an ingredient is emphasised through words, images or graphics, check the requirement to declare its percentage.
This is a common issue with statements such as “with salmon”, “with turmeric” or “with collagen”.
FoodUP can review the artwork together with the formula and raw material documentation. The assessment covers both the visible wording and the regulatory basis on which the label has been built.
Contact: team@foodup.com.pl.
If you have not yet chosen a production model, read: Private label, white label or your own formula?.
Prepare this section from the additives actually used and their authorisation conditions, rather than copying a previous label.
For pet food, detailed declaration rules are set out in Annex VII to Regulation 767/2009.
Check that:
For complementary feed for dogs and cats, verify the applicable mandatory declarations in Annex VII.
For ordinary complementary feed other than mineral feed, these commonly include:
Not every product has the same requirements. Mineral feed follows different rules from a typical functional powder.
Also check whether moisture must be declared under Annex I and whether specific requirements apply to the feed category.
Make sure the declared values are supported by the analytical evidence and assessed against the tolerances in Regulation 767/2009.
This is one of the most underestimated parts of the label.
The directions must enable proper and safe use. Where additives are present at high levels, they must prevent permitted levels from being exceeded in the daily ration.
Annex II to Regulation 767/2009 sets out requirements for directions for complementary feed containing additives above the maximum content established for complete feed.
The review should therefore compare the recommended amounts against the formula mathematically, rather than assessing wording alone.
A claim is more than a sentence such as “supports joints”.
Claims may arise from:
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 permits certain claims but requires objectivity, verifiability and scientific substantiation.
At the same time, feed must not be presented as preventing, treating or curing disease, subject to the exceptions provided by law.
The key point: “supports” is not an automatic certificate of compliance.
The review should cover, among other things:
These details are sometimes overlooked because they do not sell the product. They are, however, readily checked during an inspection and are a common source of non-compliance.
Finally, compare the packaging with:
Presentation and claims rules extend beyond the physical packaging.
Removing a therapeutic claim from the label does not resolve the risk if the same statement remains next to the “Buy” button online.
Expect more than a PDF covered in red comments.
A practical report should identify:
The non-compliance: what is incorrect or unsupported.
The level of risk: whether it is a critical issue, a significant issue or a technical correction.
The basis of assessment: the relevant provision, authorisation condition or industry guidance.
The proposed action: what needs changing, verifying or obtaining from the supplier.
Outstanding information: what cannot be approved without further certificates of analysis, specifications or documentation.
This makes the audit a decision-making document rather than a copy-editing exercise.
Ideally, review it at several points in the project.
Stage 1 - formula: classification of ingredients and additives.
Stage 2 - regulatory wording: mandatory particulars and claims.
Stage 3 - artwork: confirmation that the layout has not omitted or distorted information.
Stage 4 - final proof: final approval before printing.
The later a problem is discovered, the more expensive it tends to be to correct.
A limited review of wording and formal particulars is possible, but it is not a full verification. Without the formula, it is difficult to confirm ingredient order, additive declarations, directions for use or claim accuracy.
Not always. A certificate of analysis supports particular analytical parameters, but does not replace specifications and regulatory documentation for individual ingredients.
The organisation should designate a person or function responsible for final regulatory approval. Responsibilities depend on the business model, but the person responsible for labelling under Regulation 767/2009 must ensure that the information is correct.
The core rules are EU-wide, but entering a particular market requires, among other things, the appropriate language and consideration of national oversight and practice. Artwork prepared solely for Poland should not be assumed suitable for every market without changes.
Checklists of health labels and claims — how not to waste weeks on corrections
