The U.S. animal feed industry is responding to concern over its heavy dependence on China for vitamins and amino acids, and pressing Washington to act to prevent a supply disruption from triggering a food security crisis.
A November 2025 report from the Institute for Feed Education and Research (IFEEDER) found that the U.S. relies on China for 78% of its vitamin imports and 62% of its amino acid supply used in animal feed, pet food and pharmaceuticals. Some vitamins, such as biotin, are produced exclusively in China.
Industry leaders from the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) and IFEEDER presented findings and policy recommendations at AFIA’s Purchasing and Ingredient Suppliers Conference (PISC) in Fort Worth, Texas, in March, warning that a disruption could ripple across livestock production, pet food formulation and infant nutrition.
Washington takes notice
AFIA President and CEO Constance Cullman said the IFEEDER data has been critical to getting policymakers’ attention in Washington.
“Without data, we can’t get the attention of the people that we need to. Data is not always enough, but it is essential,” Cullman said.
AFIA’s advocacy has yielded early results. Nearly 20 members of Congress signed a letter to the White House citing feed supply chain vulnerabilities, and the Securing American Agriculture Act — which would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to assess agricultural vulnerabilities — remains active. Feed has also been designated one of only five agricultural sectors flagged by the White House Inter-Agency Task Force on supply chain vulnerabilities, alongside fertilizer, crop protection products, rubber alternatives, and tin and aluminum.
Dan Meagher, president and CEO of Novus International and AFIA chair, said companies have taken the findings directly to the National Security Council, USDA and members of Congress.
“My callout to everybody is that we within our own companies need to make that effort — whether it’s with local representatives or going all the way up to conversations at the National Security Council,” Meagher said.
A suite of policy tools
Cullman acknowledged there is no single fix, describing the approach as “a suite of different policies working together, sequenced in the right order.”
For vitamins, where domestic production has largely disappeared, the strategy is to “build and protect,” she said. For amino acids, where some U.S. capacity remains, it is to “protect and build.”
Policy tools under consideration include domestic support programs modeled on semiconductor industry incentives, research funding for biofermentation-based domestic vitamin production, regulatory streamlining through frameworks like the FAST-41 initiative (or Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act), and investment vehicles such as USDA Rural Development grants and Export-Import Bank loans.
On trade, AFIA is exploring preferential agreements with suppliers in Europe, Thailand, Indonesia and India to diversify sourcing. Cullman was careful to frame the issue as one of supply diversity, not anti-China sentiment.
“This isn’t anything that’s negative about China or China suppliers, but it is negative about a lack of diversity in the supply chain,” she said.
Key challenges: economics, timing and mindset
Despite policy momentum, panelists identified significant obstacles.
Silvia Sonneveld, head of the animal nutrition and health vitamins unit at DSM-Firmenich, pinpointed the core problem: economics. Current global vitamin capacity is sufficient to meet demand assuming no disruption — so there is no market signal to justify new investment elsewhere.
“In absence of a supply disruption, there is no problem. There is enough for everybody,” she said. But without proactive investment, the risk remains.
Cullman identified two broader challenges: urgency and mindset. The industry has long optimized for lowest-cost formulation; shifting to a risk-management model — accepting a slightly higher price for supply security — requires a significant cultural change.
Meagher added that policy conversations need to incorporate the full downstream economic impact of a supply chain failure, including job losses, shuttered processing plants and the long timeline to rebuild animal populations.
Panelists also flagged that minerals are starting to show the same consolidation patterns that preceded the current vulnerability in vitamins and amino acids — making early action on that front a priority as well.
Risks extend to pet food and human nutrition
While the supply chain debate has focused on livestock and poultry, the same risks apply to pet food and human health.
Eric Altom, technical nutritionist and director of innovation for companion animals at Balchem, noted that AAFCO nutrient profiles require minimum vitamin and amino acid levels in every pound of pet food sold in the U.S. Any reformulation becomes a complex balancing act — reducing one ingredient forces adjustments across the entire formula. Downstream effects can include changes in stool quality, skin and coat condition, palatability and, in some cases, serious or potentially fatal health conditions.
From left: IFEEDER Executive Director Lara Moody (moderator), Sylvia Sonneveld of DSM-Firmenich and Eric Altom of Balchem.Ann Reus
Regulatory and labeling complexity compounds the issue. Reformulating pet products triggers cascading changes to packaging, ingredient declarations, product claims and patents.
“You don’t change formulas on a regular basis,” Altom said.
Sonneveld pointed to a missing stakeholder in the conversation: the human nutrition community. Vitamins such as vitamin D are required by more than 85% of the population in supplement form, and infant formula — like pet food — has a mandated nutrient list that includes the same vitamins and amino acids at risk in the feed supply chain.
“I don’t see enough urgency on the food or public health side,” Sonneveld said, calling for broader coalition building that links feed security to human nutritional outcomes.
