Tired of false promises? Here's how to spot non-transparent feed supplements

Why you should take a closer look at the information you trust

More and more dog owners want to actively support their pet's health – be it for digestive problems, joint problems, or general strengthening. Nowadays, the search for the right product for your pet usually doesn't start at the vet or in specialized literature, but on Google, Instagram, TikTok, or "advice pages." There, the range of supplementary feed for dogs seems limitless: colorful cans, strong claims, promised "miracle effects," "test winners." But what looks trustworthy at first glance is often problematic upon closer inspection.

Because: Not only are many products opaque – so are the sources of information behind them.

More and more often, sites appear like independent health portals, "vet test sites," or "dog guides." In reality, they are usually part of expensive marketing designed to specifically lead you to certain products. Only when you get home does the disillusionment set in: the dog doesn't tolerate the product, the effect is absent – or worse still: additives and fillers can burden the microbiome in the long term.

Especially frustrating: The biggest players usually benefit from this. The larger the companies, the more budget goes into colorful marketing, ranking articles, paid "test winner" seals, and influencers – instead of raw material quality, laboratory analyses, and scientifically sound dosages. This often means that products with the loudest advertising machinery win out – not necessarily those with the best formulation.

Fake health sites: How the deception works

A big problem in the market: Many "info portals" are not info portals. They are designed to first build trust (or attention) – and then specifically lead you to certain products.

Typical pattern:

• For example, you search for "diarrhea dog supplement," "joint supplement test winner," or directly a brand name.
• You land on a page that looks like a neutral advice portal, e.g., with names like "Dog Alliance," "Vet Network," "Vets Test," or "Dog Info Portal." Or an article with strong, sometimes even fear-mongering headlines like: "Beware of these brands," "5 out of 6 dog products useless," "Best joint remedies in test."
• Then a ranking follows: "Top 5," "Test Winner," "Vet Recommendation," "Customer Favorite."
• One product is conspicuously favored – often with a "Buy Now" button that leads you directly to the product.
• The "review" appears serious and medical – but is often advertising copy in a test format.

Why is this dangerous?

• Because you are making decisions about your dog's health based on content that is primarily intended to sell, not to inform.
• Because you end up buying a product that is not suitable for your dog – and in the worst case, it leads to intolerances or the hoped-for effect does not materialize.
• Because the information that really matters is often missing: mg dosages, additives, raw material quality, laboratory tests.
• Because terms like "clinically tested," "test winner," or "customer favorite" are often not clearly verifiable – and as a layperson, you can hardly check this.
• And because, in case of doubt, you are supporting companies that exploit your trust with marketing – and thereby displace smaller providers who prefer to invest their budget in quality, transparency, and scientifically sound formulations.

How to recognize whether an "info article" or "advice page" is truly independent

Here's your quick check that really helps.

A. Imprint & Operator: Who is behind it?

• Is there a real, verifiable company/address?
• Or is it an LLC / agency / foreign company that has nothing to do with animal health?
• Are there contact persons, an editorial team, a responsible person?

If the imprint is vague or "far away," that's not proof of fraud – but a strong warning sign that it could primarily be about marketing.

B. Author: Are there real names + qualifications?

• Is there really an author?
• Is the qualification verifiable (vet, nutritionist, scientist)?
• Or is it just "editorial staff," "team," "expert advice"?

C. Sources: Are studies properly cited – or just claims?

• Serious content cites specific sources (not just "studies show...").
• If no sources are available, it's usually opinion/marketing.

D. Ranking Logic: How was it tested?

• How were products selected?
• Based on what criteria?
• Is there a methodology – or just stars/badges?

If an article claims "test winner" but nowhere explains how it was tested, it's most likely marketing in a test guise.

E. Affiliate Structure: Buttons, discounts, "today only" everywhere

If you are constantly redirected to shops, this is often an indication: the site earns per sale. This doesn't automatically make it wrong – but it explains why a "winner" is often already determined beforehand.

Why big brands are often louder – and push out small quality providers

This is the part many don't see:

Large companies often produce in bulk and for scale. Bulk needs marketing pressure to move goods.

Marketing pressure is created by:

• Influencer campaigns
• "Guide" advertorials
• Comparison sites & rankings
• Aggressive search engine placements
• Colorful claims & seals

What often suffers as a result:

• Raw material quality (buying cheaper)
• Transparency (more leeway in labeling)
• mg-sensible dosages (if "decorative ingredients" are enough to advertise)
• Laboratory/quality proofs (cost money, bring less "advertising glamour")

Small providers who prefer to invest their budget in:

• high-quality raw materials
• clean processing
• verifiable quality
• sensible dosages
• professional development

then have a harder time because they are not as loud. This is precisely why your critical eye is so important: you decide whether marketing wins – or quality.

Warning signs of opaque products

If you land on the product after checking the information source, pay attention to these signals:

• No mg information: Active ingredients only mentioned, but without dosage → not assessable.
• "Mixtures" without details: "Herbal mix," "extract complex" → sounds good, says little.
• Star ingredient heavily advertised, but probably minimally dosed (often not verifiable without mg information).
• Additives / excipients unclear or hidden behind collective terms.
• "Heals," "works immediately," "replaces vet" are risky.

What manufacturers often conceal – and why that's problematic

Many manufacturers exploit loopholes in labeling requirements. In the EU, for example, processing aids (such as maltodextrin) are not necessarily required to be listed as ingredients on the packaging. This means that a supplement appears "pure" on the outside, but has actually been processed with substances that can trigger allergies or worsen tolerability.

Another problem is mini-dosages. Often, a "star ingredient" like turmeric, glucosamine, or probiotics is heavily advertised on the packaging. But the amounts are far below the dosages used in studies – so low that no real effect can be expected. For the layperson, this is difficult to recognize, as the packaging usually only lists active ingredients, but no quantities.

In addition: technical aids such as magnesium stearate or inferior raw material qualities (e.g., non-organic certified mushrooms from conventional farming) are obscured. All of this saves costs but comes at the expense of effectiveness and safety.

Hidden additives using maltodextrin as an example

Maltodextrin is a good example of the transparency problem. It is frequently used as a carrier in raw material production. According to EU legislation, it does not necessarily have to be declared on the packaging – even if it is still present in the final substance. This means that many supposedly "pure" raw materials actually contain maltodextrin, without owners being aware of it. For dogs with sensitive digestion, this can lead to intolerances, bloating, or diarrhea.

Practical Checklist: Your safe decision in 2 minutes

Before buying:

• Source checked? (Imprint, author, sources, ranking logic)
• mg information available? (for all relevant active ingredients)
• Additives clear? (Carriers/excipients transparent)
• Quality verifiable? (Laboratory, specifications, residue/purity information)
• Does it suit your dog? (sensitive, allergies, problem area)

If you stumble at 1): Better look for a better source.

How PAWSAN implements transparency & quality

PAWSAN sets new standards in animal health through the consistent combination of evidence-based active ingredient dosages, uncompromising premium quality, and maximum transparency.

• Focus on functional effectiveness & tolerability
• Active ingredient quantities 1:1 based on current studies
• Proven to be developed with nutrition experts
• Exclusively highest quality raw materials
• Open declaration down to the milligram level
• No unnecessary excipients, no "production tricks," no hidden additives
• No misleading marketing
• Honest advice: We answer questions about ingredients transparently

We deliberately invest in what really matters: the highest raw material quality, scientifically sound formulations, and honest values.

Because we are convinced: True quality doesn't need loud marketing – but heart, knowledge, and transparency.