The nation’s largest pet food industry group and state regulators are at odds over legislation designed to federalize pet food labeling regulation.
The Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform Act (PURR Act} was introduced in February by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to supersede state laws that prescribe what ingredients must be disclosed and whether marketing claims can be substantiated.
Pet food, the bill’s text says, is regulated similarly to livestock feed under a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state but generally are based on model bills crafted by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also has some jurisdiction, enforcing regulations requiring “proper identification of the product, net quantity statement, name, and place of business of the manufacturer or distributor, and proper listing of all the ingredients in the product from most to least, based on weight.”
The laws that make up this system of regulations, the bill’s authors argue, are “multifaceted and wildly inconsistent.”
“Replacing the patchwork of regulation of pet food with a uniform federal regulatory framework improves marketplace certainty, allows for more consistent and predictable ingredient review and market introductions, and enhances companion animal nutrition,” argues the bill, which was introduced by Reps. Jake LaTurner, R-Kan., Henry Cuellar, D-Texas
AAFCO CEO Austin Therrell, Steve Womack, R-Ark., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., and Josh Harder, D-Calif.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, but no hearing has been scheduled.
The PURR Act is endorsed by the Pet Food Institute, which calls the 50-state regulatory system “inefficient, cumbersome, and confusing." The bill would give the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine firmer guidelines for evaluating the labeling of dog or cat food. It also would bar states and their subdivisions from enacting or enforcing pet food marketing or labeling rules.
Preemption of state-level laws earned opposition from AAFCO and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).
One of AAFCO’s main concerns, said CEO Austin Therrell, is that companies would not have to submit labels for approval prior to sale as currently required in some states, but which would not be required by FDA under the PURR Act. He said this would limit checks and balances in place to determine whether claims like “human grade” or “natural” were truthful.
“When the states would no longer have that ability, those claims would be able to be used on the market without anyone checking behind them to make sure they were actually truthful and not misleading,” Therrell said. He told Agri-Pulse that states may still be able to do some food safety inspections in partnership with the FDA, but would be restricted in other areas.
Pet Food Institute CEO Dana Brooks says federal standards would make requirements clearer for both consumers and manufacturers. “This is just very important to modernize the system to reflect the needs of today’s consumers to create a 21st century system for transparency, for efficiency, for consumers, for pets, for the people and for our pet makers,” she told Agri-Pulse.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
In some instances, she said, “tens of thousands” of pet food packages need to go through a single state regulator every year, regardless of whether the product has changed. Because of differing state requirements, one product label may secure approval in one state but be denied in another. That could lead to supply chain disruptions, she said, and present pet food manufacturers the challenge of working with nationwide retail chains that may not want to stop selling in some states or sorting packages for sale in different states based on package labels.
Dana Brooks, Pet Food InstituteIn addition to the Pet Food Institute, the bill has the support of the Pet Food Association of Canada, the Pet Industry Distributors Association, the Pet Advocacy Network, the World Pet Association and the Human Animal Bond Research Institute.
The PURR Act would also allow ingredients recognized by AAFCO to be “deemed generally recognized as safe” under federal law, according to a bill summary from the Pet Food Institute.
NASDA’s board of directors last month approved a policy opposing federal preemption of state animal pet food regulations. In a press release, CEO Ted McKinney expressed concern that the bill would allow pet food companies to make human food claims including the use of "ingredient sometimes present" language on pet food labels for some contents.
“This could enable companies to either intentionally or unintentionally swap out certain ingredients, including potential pet allergens, that would not be found on the label,” McKinney said.
NASDA does support the idea of an FDA rule on pet food and specialty pet food labeling, as well as additional funding to the agency to conduct those duties, according to the policy.
Victoria Broehm, a senior director of communications for the American Feed Industry Association, told Agri-Pulse in an email that her organization’s members do not have a position.
AAFCO's Therrell said there is “room to modernize and there’s always room to harmonize state feed laws” but believes that should happen by coordination among states rather than federal preemption.
AAFCO last year approved a new set of recommended labeling regulations — essentially suggestions to states for updated regulations. Among the changes to the recommendations were information about nutrition and caloric content facts, an intended use statement, an ingredient statement, and handling and storage instructions.
For more news, go to www.agri-pulse.com.
