Dog Vitamins, A $3 Billion Industry Built on Guilt

I have a cat.

I don't have kids.

I have a cat, a mortgage, and a Woolworths loyalty card.

Classic DINK energy.

Last month I'm in the pet aisle grabbing the usual overpriced wet food and I see it. A jar of "8-in-1 Multivitamin Bites" for dogs.

$33 for 90 chews.

Glucosamine, probiotics, fish oil, vitamins B and E.

I flip it over.

Then I walk across the store to the human supplement aisle.

Same glucosamine.

Same probiotics.

Same fish oil.

$12 for 60 capsules.

Same ingredients.

Same Chinese shellfish shells.

Different animal on the label.

3x the price.

What the fuck is this?

The $610 Million Soft Chew

In 2015, a guy named AJ Patel started a pet supplement brand called Zesty Paws. Soft chews for dogs. Gut health, joint support, skin and coat. Sold primarily on Amazon.

Revenue in year one: about $3 million.

In 2018, a private equity firm called Maxim Partners bought the brand. Three years later, they sold it to H&H Group (a Hong Kong nutrition conglomerate) for $610 million.

Let that land for a second.

$610 million. For soft chews you buy on Amazon.

At the time of sale, Zesty Paws was doing roughly $100 million in revenue. In 2020, the numbers looked something like:

$73 million revenue, $17 million EBITDA, $13 million net profit.

That's a 23% EBITDA margin on dog vitamins.

For context, that's better than most SaaS companies at that revenue level. Better yet, Zesty Paws doesn't have to build software and worry about code. They have to put glucosamine in a chicken-flavoured chew and sell it next to a 4.5 star rating with 55,000 reviews.

The multiple H&H paid? About 6x revenue. 35x EBITDA.

For dog vitamins.

What's in the Box?

Let's break down what you're buying when you grab a jar of premium dog multivitamins off the shelf.

The star ingredient: Glucosamine HCl

Wholesale price is about $7.50 per kilogram. From China (where most of it comes from): $5.40/kg. It's made by hydrolysing shrimp and crab shells, this is also called water cremation, biocremation, or a whole bunch of of other fancy names, but without getting into it, its the the same process, same ingredient, same supply chain as the glucosamine in your nan's knee supplement.

A typical dog chew contains 250-500mg of glucosamine. At $7.50/kg, that's $0.002 to $0.004 per chew.

Less than half a cent.

Per chew.

The tag team of buddies come in all bunch of fancy, high hitting names that are 'so in right now', probiotics, fish oil, vitamins.

All commodity ingredients.

Probiotics cost cents per billion CFU at manufacturing scale. Cod liver oil, B vitamins, vitamin E, CoQ10. None of this is exotic. None of it is proprietary. You can buy all of it in bulk from the same suppliers that sell to human supplement brands.

The format: soft chew

Here's where the cost actually sits. Soft chews (gummies, chewables) are the most expensive supplement format to manufacture. They require more processing steps than capsules or powders. Contract manufacturers quote $0.50 to $2.50 per unit for specialty soft chews, depending on batch size and complexity.

The packaging

Label printing: $0.03 to $0.15 per unit. Bottles: $0.20 to $1.00 per unit. Nothing fancy.

All-in unit cost estimate: $1.50 to $3.00

For a premium, branded, multi-ingredient soft chew. Including packaging.

Retail price: $33 to $45 for 90 count.

That's $0.37 to $0.50 per chew at the register. On maybe $0.02 to $0.03 of active ingredients per chew.

The margin isn't in the glucosamine. The margin is in the guilt.

Keeping It Local

Nutreats Vitals sells ‘Hip & Joint Adult Soft Chews’, but the adult is your dog.

$54.99 on PetDirect. 270g tub. Roughly 135 chews at 2g each.

That's $0.41 per chew.

Flip the tub over. Active ingredients per chew:

Green-lipped mussel powder: 150mg. MSM: 50mg. Glucosamine HCl: 50mg. Kelp powder: 25mg. Vitamin C: 25mg.

Total active ingredients: 300mg. Out of a 2g chew.

The other 1.7 grams? Glycerin. Chickpea flour. Canola oil. Tapioca. Soy lecithin. Liver powder for flavour.

You're paying $0.41 for a chickpea-and-canola-oil treat with 300mg of active ingredients on board.

Now, before anyone at Nutreats sends me an angry email: this isn't a hit piece. They're actually one of the better operators in the NZ market. Family-owned. 60 years in. They use GlycOmega green-lipped mussel, which is a legit NZ-sourced ingredient with actual research behind it.

Green-lipped mussel is one of the few joint ingredients where there's a real conversation happening in veterinary science.

Nutreats isn't the problem.

The economics are the problem. Or the opportunity, depending on which side of the jar you're on.

Because the same structural math applies everywhere. Head to Petbarn across the ditch and it's identical. Blackmores PAW Osteocare Joint Health Chews. $69.95 AUD. Same ingredient profile. Fancier box. Different country. Same margins.

The format is the product. The active ingredients are the story you tell about the product.

The Regulation Gap

I'm going to simplify three countries' worth of regulatory frameworks into a few paragraphs here.

Lawyers, forgive me.

Everyone else, you're welcome.

Let's start at home.

In New Zealand, pet supplements fall under the ACVM Act 1997. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) classifies them as "oral nutritional compounds." They're exempt from registration, but not exempt from regulation. There's a difference, and it matters.

There are actual rules. You need a documented manufacturing system. Your label has to list specific information. And here's the key one: Regulation 13 says you can't make therapeutic or pharmacological claims. You can't put "treats arthritis" on a jar of dog chews in New Zealand. MPI will come for you.

It's not perfect. No regulatory framework is. But someone is watching, there's a clear line drawn, and if you cross it, there are consequences. That's more than you can say for some places.

Australia runs a broadly similar setup through the APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority). I'm simplifying here, but the gist: if your pet supplement makes health claims, it gets classified as a veterinary medicine and needs registration. If you're selling a straightforward nutritional supplement without therapeutic claims? Lighter touch, but the line still exists.

Neither country is bulletproof. Both have gaps. But the principle is the same: you can sell supplements, you just can't pretend they're medicine.

Now cross the Pacific. This is where it gets fun.

In 1994, the US passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). It created a regulatory framework for human supplements. Not a great one. But at least it exists.

In 1996, the FDA looked at DSHEA and said: this does not apply to animals.

That's not a summary.

That's the actual ruling.

Pet supplements do not fall under DSHEA. At least one court case has backed the FDA's position.

So what does regulate pet supplements in the US?

Technically, the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine classifies them as either "animal food" or, in some cases, "unapproved new animal drugs of low regulatory priority."

Read that again….

That's the FDA saying: we know these aren't technically legal, but we have bigger problems.

Then there's AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials). They set guidelines for pet food labelling and ingredient definitions. But AAFCO is a voluntary organisation. They don't regulate, test, approve, or certify pet food. Their own website says so. They publish model legislation that states can choose to adopt.

Or not.

The actual enforcement? The NASC (National Animal Supplement Council). An industry body. Funded by the companies it oversees. They buy products off the shelf every two years and test them for adulteration. Voluntary membership.

Now, in fairness, the NASC has done work to clean up the category. They're not the villain here. They stepped into a gap that nobody else was filling and they've made the market meaningfully better.

But the structural reality is still this: you can legally sell a pet supplement in the US with ingredients that have never been proven to work, as long as you don't claim it cures anything.

The term "dietary supplement" can't even be used on a pet product label. Because DSHEA doesn't apply. You literally can't call it what it is.

New Zealand and Australia at least draw the therapeutic claims line clearly. In the US, the line is more of a suggestion. And suggestions don't tend to hold up well against $3 billion in annual revenue.

Does Any of This Actually Work?

This is where I have to be fair.

Some of it does. Omega-3 fatty acids have evidence for skin and coat health in dogs. Certain probiotic strains show real benefit for digestive issues. These aren't nothing.

But the headline ingredient in most dog joint supplements? Glucosamine?

In 2010, the British Medical Journal published a meta-analysis on glucosamine in humans. Their conclusion: "the question of the benefit of glucosamine treatment remains largely unanswered."

In humans. Where we have way more data.

In dogs, a 2023 study tested glucosamine and chondroitin against placebo in dogs with hip osteoarthritis. They measured it properly. Force plates. Objective gait analysis.

Not "does the owner think Buddy is walking better."

The result: glucosamine and chondroitin showed no significant improvement over placebo.

The dog that got sunflower oil (the placebo) did about as well as the dog that got the $40 joint supplement.

Vets still recommend glucosamine.

Not because the evidence is overwhelming. Because it's cheap, it's low risk, and owners want to do something. That's a direct quote from multiple veterinary sources. "Low and rare adverse effects" makes it "a viable option." Not "a proven treatment." A viable option.

The $33 jar of 8-in-1 Multivitamin Bites isn't selling a clinically validated outcome. It's selling the feeling of being a good pet parent.

And that feeling? That's worth $3 billion a year.

The Structural Reality: Pet Humanisation as a Business Model

Here's what's actually driving this market. And it starts closer to home than you'd think.

73% of Australian households now have a pet. That's up from 61% in 2019. Australians spent $21.3 billion on their pets in 2025. That's a 35% increase since 2022.

In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

Dog owners in Australia spend $2,520 per year. Cat owners: $1,656. And 86% of pet owners say their pets have positively impacted their lives.

Gen Z has the highest pet ownership rate of any generation down under: 70%.

New Zealand tracks the same pattern. High pet ownership. Rising spend. The humanisation trend isn't an American import. We're right in it.

And look. I'm part of the problem. I know this.

I treat my cats like children and I would genuinely commit crimes for them.

I buy the nice wet food.

I've stood in the supplement aisle at PetDirect and hovered over the "add to cart" button on a $35 jar of cat probiotics.

I am the target demographic and I am fully aware of it.

Now scale that emotional attachment to the US.

43% of Americans say they prefer pets over children. A Harris Poll. 2024.

54% of Americans aged 18-34 treat their pet like a child.

Americans spent $150.6 billion on pets in 2024. Gen Z leads the pack at $6,100 per year on their pets. Millennials: $5,150. Boomers: $2,454.

The demographic math is straightforward. Fewer kids. More pets. More disposable income per pet. More emotional attachment per pet.

And here's the operator insight that matters: the wellness anxiety that built the $60 billion human supplement market? It now has a second customer.

Your dog.

The difference is, your dog can't tell you the supplement isn't working. Your dog can't comparison shop. Your dog can't read the label and google "does glucosamine actually work." Your dog just eats the chicken-flavoured chew and looks happy about it.

From an operator's perspective, this is the dream customer profile:

High emotional attachment to the product outcome. Zero ability to evaluate the product independently. Subscription-friendly (Chewy auto-ship, Amazon Subscribe & Save, PetDirect Autodeliver). Low regulatory burden. Commodity inputs at premium pricing.

Zesty Paws didn't sell for $610 million because they invented a new molecule. They sold for $610 million because they understood that pet parents will pay $0.37 per chew for peace of mind.

The whole category is built on a simple insight: people who treat dogs like children will spend on dogs like they spend on children.

And children's vitamins are already questionable. So dog vitamins are a question mark on top of a question mark. Turtles all the way down.

The Lesson

None of this is to say pet supplement companies are evil. They're not. Most of them genuinely care about animals. Nutreats clearly does. Even Zesty Paws built a real brand with real products that people love.

But the economics are the economics.

If you're building a pet supplement brand, the numbers are extraordinary. $1.50 to $3.00 COGS. $30 to $45 retail. Subscription model. Low regulation. High repeat purchase. The customer literally cannot leave a bad review based on efficacy because the customer is a golden retriever.

Zesty Paws proved you can build a $100M revenue business in six years selling soft chews on Amazon. The playbook is public. The ingredients are commodity. The barrier to entry is brand, not formulation.

If you're buying pet supplements, you're not being scammed. But you should probably know: the $40 jar and the $15 jar almost certainly contain the same stuff from the same suppliers. The difference is the branding, the Amazon SEO, the Instagram presence, and the "vet-recommended" badge.

Buy the cheap one. Your dog won't know the difference. Your cat will judge you either way.

White Space?

Here's the bit nobody's talking about.

Dogs hold 77% of the pet supplement market. Cats: 21%.

But the cat segment is growing faster than any other. 9.5% CAGR through 2031 according to Mordor Intelligence. Dogs are growing at maybe 7%.

Why? Cat owners are underserved. And I say this as a cat owner who has looked at the supplement aisle and thought: there's nothing here for me.

The entire supplement category was built around dogs first. Most formulations, formats, and flavour profiles are designed for dogs and then half-heartedly repackaged for cats. Smaller jar, different label, same chew. Cats don't work like that.

Cats are obligate carnivores.

They can't tolerate the same plant-based fillers dogs can.

They're so fussy about taste and texture, I get the wrong wet food and I don’t stop hearing about it until the issue is resolved, how dare I attempt to switch to a cheaper brand.

They won't eat a soft chew just because you called it "salmon flavour." Anyone who's owned a cat knows: they'll sniff it, look at you with contempt, and walk away. That's their review process.

This makes cat supplement formulation genuinely harder than dog formulation. Which is exactly why there's margin in it.

Less competition. Growing demand. A real formulation barrier that keeps out the operators who just want to repackage commodity ingredients and slap a paw print on it.

And the cat DINK demographic is arguably even more emotionally invested than the dog crowd. We just show it differently. Less Instagram. More quiet desperation at the vet.

If someone's reading this thinking about launching a pet supplement brand, I'd consider skipping fido.

That market is saturated with Zesty Paws clones fighting for the same Amazon keywords. Go build the Zesty Paws of cats.

The glucosamine doesn't care what animal is on the label. But your wallet does.

Shoutout to the legends I've ripped this info from:

ChemAnalyst | Fortune Business Insights | Grand View Research | Mordor Intelligence | Maxim Partners / PRNewswire | Just Food | GlobalPETS | FDA | MPI NZ | AAFCO | Nutraceuticals World | NutraIngredients | Frontiers in Veterinary Science (PMC) | PMC / Canadian Veterinary Journal | Harris Poll via PetfoodIndustry | Animal Medicines Australia | Packaged Facts via PetfoodIndustry | Sourcify | PetDirect NZ | Nutreats NZ