Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Marketers of pet food should ensure that their ads are not misleading, including comparisons with other pet food manufacturers and any environmental claims. Advertisers should also ensure they hold robust evidence for any objective claims, including clinical evidence for health claims (and licences for medicinal claims). Marketers of organic pet food are encouraged to read our entries on Organic Foods and Organic: Animal Welfare.
Comparative claims and denigration
Pet food advertisers should make sure that any comparative claims, whether against other competitors or other types of pet food products do not mislead, and that evidence is held to substantiate any objective claims made.
Where comparisons are made against identifiable competitors, ads “must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product, or the competing product” (rule 3.32), “must compare products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose” (rule 3.33), and “must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products” (rule 3.34).
The ASA upheld a complaint about social media posts published by a dog food company that included several claims about their competitors, and also kibble products more widely (Montdog Ltd t/a Wild Pack, 16 April 2025). One of the ads included references to members of the UK Pet Food trade association and included a claim that “[…] vets are said to be paid up to £30,000 to promote kibble”. The ASA considered that this suggested UK Pet Food members were financially incentivising vets to recommend certain pet food brands. As the advertiser could not provide evidence in support of this claim, the ASA upheld that point.
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must also not “discredit or denigrate another product, marketer, trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark” (rule 3.41).
In the ads in that same ruling, the advertiser characterised the UK pet food industry as “corrupt”, a “shadowy world” and “rotten to the core.” With UK Pet Food described as a “thinly veiled cartel” and “the judge, jury, and executioner”, and specific member companies named. An image of the drug cartel leader Pablo Escobar was used to emphasise this. Because the ad went beyond objective comparison, instead criticising UK Pet Food and its members in a way that suggested they were secretive, corrupt, dishonest and engaging in illegal behaviour, the ASA considered it denigrated the named organisations and therefore breached the Code (Montdog Ltd t/a Wild Pack, 16 April 2025).
See also Comparisons: General, Comparisons: Identifiable competitors, Denigration.
Ensure animal health claims are compliant
Veterinary medicines must be licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and any claims made for licensed veterinary medicines must conform to the claims in the product’s summary of product characteristics (rule 12.11).
If the product is not a licensed medicinal product, marketers must take care not to present it as one in their ads. Any direct or implied claims that a product is effective in treating an adverse health condition in animals, for example a claim about behaviour improvement in horses that refers to a nutrient deficiency, is likely to be seen as medicinal (Calinnova Ltd t/a Equifeast, 3 September 2014). Medicinal claims made for an unlicensed product break the rules, regardless of any evidence held (see also Healthcare: Medicinal Claims).
Marketers may, however, may make claims about the health benefits of their products, for example that a product repels fleas, ticks and other external parasites, provided that they hold robust clinical evidence to support them (rule 12.1) – without this such claims are likely to be considered misleading and unsubstantiated (Goldstar Internet Services LP, 22 March 2017). For further advice on substantiation generally, see here.
Take care with any environmental claims
The CAP Code requires that the basis of any environmental claims in ads is made clear. The Code also states that such claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless stated otherwise. For example, the ASA upheld complaints about an ad for dog food that made the claims “JOIN THE PACK FOR A HEALTHIER … PLANET” and “Better for the Planet” because they were broad and non-specific, and so did not make the basis of the claims clear. The evidence held by the advertiser also omitted the disposal of the products’ packaging in its analysis and therefore did not cover its entire lifecycle (THE PACK PET Limited, 2 November 2022).
CAP has published extensive guidance on environmental issues which you can see here.
See also Animals: General, Animal Testing and Cosmetics and Comparisons: Identifiable Competitors.