The pet industry generates over $150 billion annually in the United States alone, yet significant gaps persist in regulation, safety, workforce capacity, and consumer protection. Despite the surge in spending on pets, many of the systems meant to keep animals safe and healthy have not kept pace. Here’s where the industry falls short.
Pre-Market Safety Testing for Pet Food
One of the most consequential gaps in the pet industry is the lack of rigorous pre-market approval for pet food ingredients. The FDA does not require pre-market approval for many common pet food ingredients, including meat, poultry, and grains, because they are broadly “considered safe.” That stands in sharp contrast to the approval process for human food additives, where manufacturers must demonstrate safety with scientific evidence before a product hits shelves.
This hands-off approach has real consequences. A study published in the journal Chemosphere tested commercial dog and cat foods for toxic metals and found alarming results: 100% of both dog and cat foods tested exceeded the maximum tolerable limit for mercury. Lead levels exceeded safe thresholds in roughly 81% of dog foods and 32% of cat foods. Uranium was above tolerable limits in 96% of dog foods and 86% of cat foods. These contaminants enter pet food through raw ingredients, and without mandatory pre-market testing, they often go undetected until a problem surfaces.
Pet Supplements Exist in a Regulatory Gray Zone
The supplement aisle at your local pet store looks increasingly like the human supplement market, packed with joint chews, calming aids, and gut health formulas. But the oversight behind those products is far weaker than most pet owners realize.
Pet food and treats fall under AAFCO guidelines and are regulated at both federal and state levels. Pet supplements, however, occupy a different category. The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has a compliance policy stating it will “not generally object” to nutritional supplements for companion animals as long as they meet certain labeling restrictions and don’t make disease-treatment claims. But here’s the catch: a standardized monitoring system to enforce that policy is not currently in place. That means a company can sell a supplement without proving it works, and unless the product causes a visible harm that gets reported, there’s little systematic oversight.
The National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) was formed in 2001 to fill part of this gap. It awards a quality seal to manufacturers that meet its standards. But NASC membership is voluntary, and the organization does not require companies to perform efficacy studies or verify that any scientific research supports their product claims. A supplement can carry the NASC seal and still have zero clinical evidence that it does what the label suggests.
A Growing Veterinarian Shortage
The U.S. does not have enough veterinarians, and the problem is getting worse. A workforce projection from the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges estimates that the country will need 70,092 new veterinarians through 2032, but veterinary schools are projected to graduate only about 52,926, meeting just 76% of demand. That leaves a national shortfall of more than 17,000 veterinarians over the next several years.
As of 2019, there were already 2,000 more veterinarian job openings than professionals available to fill them. The gap is projected at roughly 1,827 veterinarians short of need in 2026, narrowing slightly to 1,336 by 2032 as graduating classes grow. But these are national averages, and the reality on the ground is far more uneven. Research on veterinary access in Ohio found that small metropolitan and rural areas were far less well-served than larger cities. Personal preferences, lifestyle factors, and the need to pay off veterinary school debt push new graduates toward urban and suburban practices, leaving rural communities with even fewer options.
For pet owners, this shortage translates into longer wait times for appointments, difficulty finding emergency care, and rising costs as demand outstrips supply.
Financial Barriers to Veterinary Care
Even when a veterinarian is available, cost prevents many pet owners from getting timely care. The national average for an emergency exam runs about $125 for a dog and $121 for a cat, but that’s just the door fee. If your dog needs overnight hospitalization, expect to pay $222 to $567 per night. For a cat, overnight stays range from $99 to $243.
Pet insurance exists, but it hasn’t solved the affordability problem for most owners. Most plans operate on a reimbursement model, meaning you pay the full bill upfront and file a claim afterward. That still requires having hundreds or thousands of dollars available at the moment of crisis. Pre-existing conditions are excluded from coverage under nearly all plans, which limits the value for pets adopted later in life or those with chronic issues. The industry lacks the kind of direct-billing infrastructure that’s standard in human health insurance, where the provider and insurer settle most of the cost before you leave the office.
No Licensing Standards for Pet Groomers
In most U.S. states, anyone can call themselves a pet groomer and start taking clients without a license, certification, or formal training. There is no federal standard, and only a handful of states have implemented any kind of regulatory framework. This means the person handling your dog with sharp tools, heated dryers, and restraint equipment may have no verified training in animal handling, breed-specific grooming needs, or recognizing signs of distress.
Grooming injuries, including cuts, burns, heat-related illness, and even deaths on grooming tables, have drawn media attention in recent years. But without a licensing infrastructure, there’s no consistent mechanism for tracking incidents, revoking credentials, or ensuring baseline competency. Voluntary certification programs exist through organizations like the National Dog Groomers Association of America, but participation is optional and unenforced.
Aging Pets Are Underserved
Senior pets make up a growing share of the companion animal population as veterinary care improves and pets live longer. Yet the market for geriatric pet care lags behind. Muscle atrophy, a condition affecting a large number of aging dogs, has been described by veterinary industry leaders as “a challenge that has been overlooked for too long.” Products and protocols for maintaining mobility, managing chronic pain, and supporting cognitive decline in older pets remain underdeveloped compared to the flood of products targeting puppies and younger animals.
Most pet food brands now offer “senior” formulas, but the nutritional science behind many of these products is thin, and the supplements marketed for joint health often fall into the unregulated category described above. Physical rehabilitation services for pets, similar to physical therapy in human medicine, are available in some urban areas but remain rare and expensive elsewhere.
Pet Wearables Lack Clinical Accuracy
Consumer pet wearables like activity trackers and smart collars have exploded in popularity, promising to monitor your pet’s sleep, exercise, and even vital signs. The technology is appealing, but clinical validation has not caught up with the marketing.
A study comparing data from a commercial pet collar to simultaneous behavioral observations found significant discrepancies. Differences between the collar’s readings and direct observation ranged from less than 1% to nearly 60% during the day, and up to 96% at night. The collar consistently overestimated inactivity during the day (recording 65% versus an observed 54%) and underestimated sleep at night (recording 60% versus an observed 78%). The researchers concluded that data from these collars are “precise but not necessarily accurate,” meaning the device gives consistent readings that may not reflect what your pet is actually doing.
For owners relying on wearable data to detect health changes or adjust their pet’s routine, this level of inaccuracy can be misleading. The pet tech industry currently has no requirement to validate health-related claims against gold-standard diagnostic methods before selling to consumers.