The Treat Standard: Nasc’s New Compliance Program Gains Traction

FOODSCIENCE, MIGHTY PAW, RILEY’S ORGANICS and Wildwhip Treats are the initial NASC Primary Suppliers participating in the National Animal Supplement Council’s (NASC) new Treat Program, with FoodScience holding the distinction of being the very first company to join. The milestone marks real traction for a program that’s barely five months old, and it’s a signal to the rest of the treat aisle that the industry’s most recognized quality mark now applies well beyond supplements.

For 25 years, NASC built its reputation setting quality standards for animal health and nutritional supplements. Earlier this year, the organization extended that same compliance infrastructure and its yellow Quality Seal to treat products for dogs, cats and horses — a category NASC pegs at an estimated $12-14 billion, and one where, the organization says, confusion about how products are actually regulated has been mounting.

The word “treat” is a legal trigger, not just a marketing choice. According to NASC’s Treat Program Guide, using “treat” — or close cousins such as snack, cookie, biscuit, jerky or peanut butter — automatically classifies a product as food. That single word decision determines which rules apply. Treats regulated as food must stick to AAFCO-approved ingredients and are meant for occasional giving tied to enjoyment, training, entertainment, or a narrow purpose like dental action — not for delivering a daily nutritional benefit, which belongs in the food-supplement category instead.

That distinction matters most in the claims makers put on packaging. NASC’s guidance draws a hard line around “functional treats,” which it calls a marketing label, not a regulatory one. Claims have to stay inside food boundaries — taste, aroma, appropriate nutritional value, technical effects like preservation, or dental benefits achieved mechanically. Anything implying a non-nutritional health benefit — think calming, joint support or anti-inflammatory claims tied to ingredients such as turmeric, chamomile, CoQ10 or milk thistle — can invite state stop-sale notices or FDA warning letters. It’s the claim tied to an ingredient, the guide notes, not the ingredient itself, that drives enforcement risk.

For suppliers looking to join the four companies already in, the path differs depending on where they’re starting. Companies already NASC-audited as supplement suppliers don’t get an automatic pass into the treats category — they’ll need updated paperwork, applicable fees, and likely a desk or on-site audit reviewing labels, marketing materials and vendor relationships. Brand-new treat-only applicants go through NASC’s standard onboarding: required training, a written quality manual, documented vendor verification and enrollment in NASC’s Adverse Event Reporting System (NAERS), which the organization is positioning as the backbone of post-market surveillance for the category.

NASC president Bill Bookout has framed the expansion as a natural extension of the group’s original mission. “This program brings structure and oversight to an emerging category while supporting responsible innovation, maintaining compliance and protecting animal health,” Bookout says. “Our role has always been to help create a responsible, transparent path forward when regulations and consumer demand don’t align.”

For independent retailers stocking treat aisles and the makers supplying them, the message from NASC is one of getting ahead of a patchwork of state-by-state enforcement before it catches up with a product line. Suppliers with questions about where their treats fall — or whether an existing supplement audit can be leveraged — can start that conversation directly at SUPERZOO with NASC’s team at booth 3003.