Pet Food Laws and Regulations in India - FSSAI, BIS, AAFCO, FDA, NRC? Let's understand it.

If you have ever looked at an Indian pet food label and seen phrases like “FSSAI approved,” “FDA approved,” “AAFCO certified,” or “meets international standards,” it is understandable if you assumed that the product had been properly checked by some authority.

That is what these phrases are meant to suggest. They make the product feel official. They give the impression that someone, somewhere, has looked at the food and confirmed that it is safe, complete, balanced, and suitable for your dog or cat. But it's actually a little complicated.

Pet food regulation is not the same everywhere. In the United States, pet food is clearly treated as animal food, and the US FDA has a defined role in regulating it. In India, the situation is very different. FSSAI is primarily a human food regulator. BIS has a pet food standard, but that does not automatically mean every product in the market is certified or checked. AAFCO and NRC are useful nutritional references, but they are not approval bodies in India.

This distinction matters because many brands use regulatory-sounding words in a way that can confuse pet parents. A label can look official without actually proving much about the product’s nutritional adequacy, manufacturing quality, or suitability as a full diet.

So the question is not just whether a brand has printed a licence number or a familiar acronym on the packet. The better question is: what does that claim actually mean?

How the US FDA regulates pet food :

In the United States, pet food is regulated as animal food. The US Food and Drug Administration, through its Center for Veterinary Medicine, has authority over food made for animals, including dogs and cats.

This is an important difference between the US and India. Under US law, food includes articles used as food or drink for humans or other animals. That means pet food clearly falls within the broader animal food system.

This does not mean that every dog food or cat food is individually approved by the FDA before it is sold. That is a common misunderstanding. The FDA does not usually pre-approve ordinary pet food formulas in the way that it approves drugs. However, the FDA does regulate animal food safety, labelling, ingredients, manufacturing practices, contaminants, and certain types of claims.

If a pet food is contaminated, adulterated, misbranded, or making claims that sound like disease treatment claims, the FDA can get involved.

For example, a food can be marketed as supporting normal health, but if it starts claiming to treat kidney disease, cure arthritis, prevent cancer, or reverse a medical condition, the claim may no longer be treated as a simple food claim. It may begin to look like a drug claim. That distinction is important because food and drugs are regulated differently.

The FDA also expects animal food labels to carry basic information such as the product identity, net quantity, manufacturer or distributor details, and ingredient list. Ingredients are generally listed by their common or usual names, in descending order by weight.

In addition to federal FDA oversight, pet food in the US is also affected by state feed laws. This is where AAFCO becomes relevant.

Where AAFCO fits into the US system :

AAFCO stands for the Association of American Feed Control Officials. It is often mentioned on pet food labels, but it is very commonly misunderstood.

AAFCO is not a product approval agency. It does not approve individual pet foods, certify brands, or inspect every bag of kibble. It is an independent association that helps feed regulators by developing model regulations, ingredient definitions, labelling guidance, laboratory standards, feeding trial protocols, and nutrient profiles.

Its work matters because many US states use AAFCO’s model regulations and nutrient profiles as part of their own feed-control systems.

For dog and cat food, AAFCO nutrient profiles are used to substantiate nutritional adequacy claims. That is why many labels say something like:

“Formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for adult maintenance.”

Another possible statement is:

“Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that this product provides complete and balanced nutrition for adult maintenance.”

These statements are not random label decoration. They tell you how the company is supporting its claim that the food is complete and balanced.

A product may support such a claim by being formulated to meet the relevant AAFCO nutrient profile for the correct species and life stage, or by passing a feeding trial using AAFCO procedures.

However, even in this system, it is still not correct to say “AAFCO approved.” AAFCO does not approve products. The more accurate claim is that a product is “formulated to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles” or has passed feeding trials conducted according to AAFCO procedures.

That difference matters. “Formulated to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles” describes the nutritional basis of the claim. “AAFCO approved” suggests that an external authority has inspected and approved the product, which is not what AAFCO does.

What NRC is, and why nutritionists refer to it :

NRC stands for the National Research Council. Its nutrient requirement publications for dogs and cats are widely used as scientific references.

NRC is not a regulator. It does not approve pet food, inspect factories, certify brands, or issue licences. Its role is scientific, not regulatory.

For nutritionists and formulators, NRC is valuable because it provides detailed information on nutrient requirements, recommended allowances, safe upper limits, and nutrient interactions. It is especially useful when formulating fresh diets, home-cooked diets, clinical diets, and custom recipes where you need more detail than a simple label claim can provide.

A brand can formulate with reference to NRC recommendations, but it should not say “NRC approved.” That would be inaccurate. A better statement would be:

“Formulated with reference to NRC nutrient recommendations for adult dogs.”

Even that claim should be backed by proper formulation work or nutrient analysis. Simply mentioning NRC does not make a recipe balanced.

What FSSAI actually regulates in India :

FSSAI stands for the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. It was created under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The important point is that the Act is built around food meant for human consumption. FSSAI regulates human food. Its system is designed for products such as packaged foods, dairy products, oils, spices, meat products, bakery items, beverages, and human nutraceuticals.

Pet food does not fit neatly into that framework because it is not sold for human consumption. A dog meal, cat food, topper, chew, gravy, or dehydrated treat is not “food” in the usual FSSAI sense when it is being sold for animals.

This is why “FSSAI approved pet food” is a claim that needs to be examined carefully.

In some cases, a pet food company may have an FSSAI licence because it operates from a facility that also handles human food, or because the business has some other human-food-related activity. In some cases, the licence may apply to the facility, not specifically to the pet food product. In other cases, the brand may simply be using the term because it sounds reassuring.

An FSSAI licence number on a pet food label does not automatically mean that the dog food or cat food formula has been nutritionally assessed. It does not mean that calcium, phosphorus, zinc, iodine, vitamin D, taurine, fatty acids, amino acids, or trace minerals have been checked. It does not mean the food is complete and balanced. It does not mean that the product has been reviewed as a pet food diet.

At most, it may indicate that some part of the business or facility is connected to a human-food licensing framework. That is not useless, but it is limited.

Hygiene matters. A clean facility matters. Safe handling matters. But hygiene and nutritional completeness are not the same thing. A diet can be made in a clean kitchen and still be nutritionally incomplete.

That is the part pet parents need to understand. FSSAI-style food safety language cannot replace species-specific nutrition.

The 2026 Delhi High Court development :

A major development in this area came from the Delhi High Court in April 2026. The case involved FSSAI and animal feed.

The court quashed an FSSAI regulation and directions that attempted to regulate certain animal feed requirements and make BIS certification mandatory for commercial animal feed. The court held that FSSAI’s mandate under the Food Safety and Standards Act is confined to food meant for human consumption. It also held that FSSAI could not use its powers to make BIS certification mandatory for animal feed.

The case was about animal and cattle feed, especially feed connected to milk and meat-producing animals. It was not specifically about a fresh dog food brand or a cat food topper. However, the reasoning is still relevant because it reinforces the broader legal point: FSSAI cannot simply stretch a human-food law and become the regulator for animal feed.

For Indian pet food, this makes the situation clearer in one way and more concerning in another.

It is clearer because it confirms that FSSAI is not the Indian equivalent of the US FDA when it comes to pet food. In the US, the FDA has a recognised role in animal food. In India, FSSAI’s core law is centred on human food.

It is more concerning because many pet parents have been led to believe that an FSSAI claim on a pet food label means far more than it actually does.

So when a brand says “FSSAI approved,” the reasonable response is not immediate trust.

The reasonable response is to ask what exactly has been approved.

• Was the pet food formula approved?

• Was the facility licensed for some human-food activity?

• Was the finished product tested?

• Was the food checked against any recognised dog or cat nutrient standard?

• Is the product complete or complementary?

If the answer is vague, the claim is probably doing more marketing work than regulatory work.

Where BIS fits in India :

BIS stands for the Bureau of Indian Standards. It is India’s national standards body.

For pet food, the relevant standard is IS 11968:2019, titled “Pet Food for Dogs and Cats - Specification.”

This is currently the closest India has to a domestic pet food standard. It covers dog and cat food and includes definitions, nutritional expectations, hygiene, packing, marking, sampling, and testing.

One useful part of the BIS standard is that it recognises the difference between complete pet food and complementary pet food.

• A complete pet food is intended to meet the full daily ration of the animal, apart from water.

• A complementary pet food is meant to be fed along with other foods. It is not meant to be the entire diet by itself.

• 
  

This distinction is very important in the Indian market because many products are not clear about what role they are supposed to play. A treat, chew, topper, gravy, meal mixer, broth, or dehydrated snack should not be marketed in a way that makes pet parents think it can replace a balanced diet, unless it has actually been formulated and substantiated as a complete food.

The same applies to fresh meals. If a fresh meal subscription is complete and balanced, the company should be able to explain the formulation basis. If it is only a partial diet or topper, that should be stated clearly.

BIS gives brands a useful structure. It provides a way to think about categories, labelling, nutritional adequacy, hygiene, and quality control.

The limitation is that BIS standards are generally voluntary unless a specific law or government order makes certification mandatory for that product category. The existence of IS 11968:2019 does not automatically mean that every pet food sold in India is certified under it, checked against it, or legally forced to comply with it.

This is why BIS is useful, but not enough by itself.

A serious brand may use BIS as a reference. A better brand may pursue certification if applicable. But pet parents should not assume that the Indian pet food market is being actively policed just because a BIS standard exists.

A standard can guide good companies. It does not automatically stop careless ones.

Why the Indian system is still unreliable for pet parents :

The main issue in India is not that there are no references at all. There are references. BIS exists. AAFCO exists. NRC exists. FEDIAF exists. Food safety systems such as GMP, HACCP, and ISO-style manufacturing controls exist.

The problem is that these systems do not come together into one clear, mandatory, consistently enforced pet food regulatory framework.

• FSSAI is primarily a human food regulator.

• BIS has a pet food standard, but certification is not automatically mandatory for every pet food product.

• AAFCO is a US-based framework and is not Indian law.

• NRC is a scientific reference and not a regulator.

• State FDA claims in India can mean different things depending on the context.

  
  

Imported pet food may be subject to import controls, animal quarantine requirements, veterinary health certificates, customs rules, and sanitary conditions, especially when animal-origin ingredients are involved.

For Indian-made pet food, especially fresh food, cooked meals, dehydrated treats, toppers, chews, and small-batch products, the level of real oversight can vary widely.

This does not mean every Indian pet food brand is unreliable. That would be unfair and inaccurate. Some brands may be doing serious formulation work, batch tracking, microbial testing, nutritional analysis, safe sourcing, and proper labelling.

But the burden on the pet parent is higher because the label may not tell the full story.

A brand can sound regulated without being nutritionally strong. It can have a clean-looking label without having a complete formulation. It can use words like “approved,” “certified,” “premium,” and “balanced” without giving enough evidence for those words.

That is why the practical question is not, “Does the label sound official?”

The practical question is, “Can the company explain and substantiate what it is selling?”

FDA in India: why the term creates confusion :

The word “FDA” creates a separate layer of confusion because it means different things in different contexts.

In the United States, FDA usually means the US Food and Drug Administration. It is a federal authority with a role in human food, animal food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and other regulated products.

In India, “FDA” usually refers to a state Food and Drug Administration, such as FDA Maharashtra. This is not the same as the US FDA.

A state FDA in India may be involved in implementing food, drug, and cosmetic laws at the state level. It may deal with FSSAI-linked food enforcement, drug licensing, cosmetics, inspections, and related regulatory work.

So if an Indian pet food brand says it has an “FDA licence” or is “FDA approved,” that statement needs clarification.

• Which FDA?

• Is it the US FDA or an Indian state FDA?

• Is the licence for food, drugs, cosmetics, or something else?

• Does it apply to the pet food product, the facility, the company, or some unrelated business activity?

• Does it say anything about the nutritional adequacy of the dog or cat food?

Without those details, “FDA approved” is too vague to be meaningful.

For pet food, this kind of claim can easily mislead pet parents because it borrows trust from a term people associate with safety and regulation, while giving very little specific information.

What pet parents should ask instead :

Instead of asking only whether a food is FSSAI approved, FDA approved, or AAFCO certified, pet parents should ask more specific questions.

• The first question is whether the product is complete or complementary. This matters more than most marketing claims. A complete food should be able to function as the full diet for the correct species and life stage. A complementary food is only meant to be used along with something else.

• The second question is who the food is formulated for. A product for adult maintenance is not the same as a product for puppies, kittens, pregnant animals, senior animals, weight loss, or clinical conditions.

• The third question is which nutritional standard the company has used. A responsible answer may mention NRC, AAFCO, FEDIAF, BIS, or a combination of these. The exact standard matters less than whether the company can explain how the formulation was built and checked.

• The fourth question is whether the company has a calculated nutrient analysis or laboratory analysis. A guaranteed analysis with only protein, fat, fibre, and moisture is useful, but it is not enough to prove that a diet is complete. Minerals, vitamins, fatty acids, amino acids, calcium-phosphorus ratio, and energy density also matter.

• The fifth question is whether the product has batch traceability and basic quality control. This is especially important for fresh, frozen, raw, dehydrated, or animal-origin products.

Pet parents should also ask where the food is manufactured, how ingredients are sourced, whether microbial testing is done, how the food should be stored, how long it is safe after opening or thawing, and whether the product is intended as the sole diet.

These questions may sound boring, but they are the questions that actually matter.

What a responsible Indian pet food label should ideally include

A responsible pet food label should make the product’s role clear.

• It should say whether the product is for dogs or cats.

• It should mention the intended life stage, such as adult maintenance, puppy, kitten, growth, reproduction, all life stages, or another specific category.

• It should clearly state whether the product is complete or complementary.

• It should list ingredients clearly.

• It should provide a guaranteed analysis, including at least protein, fat, fibre, moisture, and ideally ash.

• It should provide metabolizable energy, preferably in kcal per kg and kcal per pack or serving.

• It should include a feeding guide, net quantity, batch number, manufacturing date, best-before date, storage instructions, manufacturer or marketer details, and customer care information.

• For fresh or frozen meals, the label should also explain refrigeration or freezing requirements, thawing instructions, use-by timelines after thawing, transition guidance, and safe handling instructions.

If the product claims to be complete and balanced, the company should be able to explain the nutritional basis for that claim. It should not rely only on phrases like “fresh,” “natural,” “premium,” “vet recommended,” or “made with love.”

Those phrases may be pleasant, but they do not tell you whether the food meets a dog’s or cat’s nutrient requirements.

Common claims that should be read carefully

• “FSSAI approved pet food” should be read carefully because FSSAI is primarily a human food regulator, and pet food does not usually fall into the same category as human food.

• “FDA approved” should be clarified because the Indian use of FDA is not the same as the US FDA, and the claim may refer to a facility, licence, or unrelated regulatory category rather than the pet food itself.

• “AAFCO approved” is inaccurate because AAFCO does not approve pet food products.

• “NRC approved” is also inaccurate because NRC publishes scientific nutrient recommendations and does not certify diets.

• “Human grade” needs careful explanation, especially in India, because it can imply a lot about ingredient sourcing, processing, facility standards, and legal classification.

• “Complete and balanced” should only be used when the company can support the claim with proper formulation or analysis.

• “Vet recommended” should also be treated as a marketing claim unless the company can explain what it means and who is making the recommendation.

• Words such as “natural,” “holistic,” “premium,” and “superfood” do not mean much on their own. They may describe the brand’s positioning, but they do not prove safety or nutritional adequacy.

• 
  

How an honest Indian pet food brand should communicate

A serious brand does not need to overstate its regulatory position.

• It can say that a food is formulated with reference to NRC recommendations, if that is true.

• It can say that a food is formulated to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles for a specific species and life stage, if that is true.

• It can say that a product is a complete food for adult dogs, if it has the formulation and analysis to support that.

• It can say that a topper or treat is a complementary pet food and is not intended as the sole diet.

• It can say that the food is made under hygienic controls, with batch traceability and appropriate storage instructions.

These statements are not as flashy as “approved” or “certified,” but they are more honest. They also show that the company understands the difference between food safety, regulation, formulation, and nutrition.

Tl;Dr

The US and India do not regulate pet food in the same way.

In the US, the FDA has a recognised role in animal food, including pet food. AAFCO supports that system through model regulations, nutrient profiles, ingredient definitions, and feeding trial protocols, but AAFCO itself does not approve pet food products.

In India, FSSAI is primarily a human food regulator. The Food Safety and Standards Act is centred on food for human consumption, and the 2026 Delhi High Court decision reinforced that FSSAI cannot use that law to regulate animal feed or make BIS certification mandatory through its own directions.

BIS IS 11968:2019 is the main Indian standard for dog and cat food. It is a useful domestic reference, especially for understanding complete versus complementary pet food, labelling expectations, hygiene, packing, and testing. However, the existence of the standard does not mean that every pet food product in India is automatically certified, checked, or nutritionally adequate.

AAFCO and NRC are useful nutritional references. They can help a brand formulate responsibly. They are not Indian approval bodies.

So when a pet food label says “FSSAI approved,” “FDA approved,” “AAFCO approved,” or something similar, the claim should not be accepted at face value.

The real test is not the logo, the licence number, or whatever regulatory-sounding phrase is printed on the front of the pack. The real test is whether the brand can clearly explain what the product is, who it is meant for, whether it is complete or complementary, what nutritional standard it follows, how it is manufactured, how it is tested, and how it should be fed.

That is what pet parents should be looking for.