Latest / Barking Mad Podcast / Barking Up the Wrong Tree: How the PURR Act Could Undermine Pet Food Transparency and Safety

Transcript

Barking Up the Wrong Tree: How the PURR Act Could Undermine Pet Food Transparency and Safety · Barking Mad Podcast

0:15
Jordan Tyler: Today we're diving deep into the per act, a piece of proposed
0:19
legislation that aims to quote unquote unify the pet food regulatory landscape.
0:24
But when examined more closely could actually put the integrity
0:29
of your pet's food into jeopardy.
0:32
But first, let's take a step back.
0:34
It's estimated that 33 million Americans are allergic to at
0:38
least one food or ingredient.
0:41
Even if you don't have a food allergy, you know someone who does.
0:44
And you'll also know that people with many food allergies or those that
0:48
could have severe reactions are very careful about how they shop for food.
0:53
People who are allergic to certain food ingredients will also tell
0:56
you, this is not out of paranoia or for the sake of being high
1:00
maintenance, but out of necessity.
1:03
Because when a mishap occurs, the consequences can be serious and sometimes.
1:09
Life-threatening.
1:10
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Now, imagine a world where food companies no longer
1:14
have to be completely transparent about ingredients, where vague and
1:18
misleading claims go unchecked, and where there's no system in place to verify
1:23
if the exact ingredient listed on the label is what's actually in the box.
1:28
Jordan Tyler: That's exactly the kind of regulatory loophole the per act
1:31
could create in the pet food industry.
1:34
Right now, state regulators play a crucial role in ensuring that pet food labels are
1:39
truthful and that ingredient substitutions don't put pet's health at risk.
1:44
But if the per act passes, much of that oversight could disappear.
1:49
Potentially opening the door for bad actors, misleading claims and
1:54
unverified ingredients to make their way into your dog and cat's food.
1:59
Dr. Stephanie Clark: So we're here today asking the big questions.
2:02
How will this impact pet food safety?
2:05
Who will hold brands accountable?
2:07
And what can pet owners do to protect their pets?
2:11
To help us break it all down?
2:12
We're joined by two industry experts who know exactly what's at stake.
2:17
Let's get into it.
2:19
Welcome to Barking Mad, a podcast by BSM Partners.
2:24
We're your hosts, Dr. Stephanie Clark.
2:28
Jordan Tyler: And I'm Jordan Tyler.
2:31
So at first glance, the per act might seem like a step toward consistency
2:35
in pet food oversight, streamlining regulations, reducing some red tape,
2:40
and creating a more uniform system.
2:43
But as we start to peel back the layers, a more complicated reality emerges.
2:48
Dig a little deeper, and you'll find this bill would strip regulatory
2:52
power from state agencies and consolidate it under the FDA, raising
2:57
concerns about enforcement capacity, consumer protections, and even the
3:02
future of innovation in pet food.
3:07
Dr. Stephanie Clark: So what would this mean for pet food companies?
3:10
Big and small.
3:11
Would it make it easier to bring new products to market?
3:14
Or would it open the door for misleading claims and unregulated ingredients?
3:19
And most importantly, how would this affect pet parents who rely on clear,
3:24
accurate labeling to make informed decisions about their pet's nutrition?
3:29
Jordan Tyler: All really good questions and we're gonna get into all of that
3:32
today and more with two great guests.
3:35
I'm pleased to introduce Austin Farrell, executive Director of the Association
3:39
for American Feed Control Officials or afco, as well as Dr. Charles
3:44
Starkey, vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs for the North
3:48
American Renderers Association or nara.
3:52
So to get a little more context, uh, about our great guest today, Austin,
3:57
tell us a little bit more about yourself.
4:00
Austin Therrell: Thanks for having us.
4:01
My name's Austin Darrell.
4:02
Um, I currently serve as the executive director for the Association of
4:05
American Feed Control Officials.
4:07
Been in that role for a little over two years now, and prior to that, um,
4:11
managed the Animal Feed regulatory program at the South Carolina Department
4:14
of Agriculture for about eight years.
4:16
So as part of that role, um, oversaw state inspection program, sampling
4:21
program with our state laboratory.
4:23
And we reviewed quite a few, you know, products and labels for, uh, for marketing
4:27
claims and, and that type of thing.
4:29
Jordan Tyler: And Dr. Starkey, let's hear a little bit more
4:32
about your background as well.
4:34
Dr. Charles Starkey: I have a degree in, uh, animal nutrition and have been in the
4:37
industry for over 30 years, production and nutrition based and feed manufacturing.
4:43
I'm currently the vice president of regulatory and Scientific Affairs for the
4:47
North American Renders Association and just working on, uh, our, with our allies
4:53
at uh, A FIA and, and other associations on making sure we're manufacturing
4:59
safe, nutritious food for animals.
5:02
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Very impressive.
5:04
Thank you for that.
5:05
So I think before we get too much into the weeds about the bill, let's
5:09
set the stage a little and talk about how pet food is currently regulated.
5:14
Austin, if you could walk us through what that looks like now and then
5:18
we'll get into some of the concerning changes that the per act is proposing
5:22
to make to this current process.
5:24
Austin Therrell: Absolutely.
5:25
So pet food in the United States is regulated on the federal level by the
5:29
Food and Drug Administration, and then additionally by all the states in the us.
5:33
And so generally speaking, each state has a commercial feed law and regulations that
5:38
really dive into the weeds a little bit more than some of the federal laws do.
5:42
And so, um, they get into marketing and labeling requirements and so on.
5:46
And so it's really what we refer to as an integrated food safety system.
5:50
So.
5:51
It's a partnership between those federal and state regulators to
5:54
oversee, um, all of the animal food.
5:56
So whether that's pet food or ingredients or livestock feed, all of
6:00
it's covered by state and federal laws.
6:03
Dr. Charles Starkey: It's really nice.
6:04
It's not always that the regulators and industry get to work this
6:07
closely together, but in this case, the intent is the same to make the
6:11
safest, best food we can for animals.
6:15
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Ah, got it.
6:16
Thank you both for that explanation.
6:18
Now, what exactly is the per act.
6:21
Austin Therrell: Simply stated, the bill is seeking to preempt the state authority
6:26
over pet food and hand that to the FDA and really federalize the way pet food
6:31
is regulated and kind of take away a lot of the state authority that currently
6:35
exist under those state commercial feed laws and pet food regulations.
6:39
A couple things I think is helpful since we're gonna be talking about
6:42
kind of harmonization and uniformity, because I think it, it's important
6:46
to point out when we talk about, you know, this patchwork, right?
6:49
That's where Afco fits in and where as an association, I feel like
6:52
it's really beneficial for us.
6:54
We promote a model feed bill and model regulations that really.
6:58
In some form or fashion form the foundation of most of the feed laws and
7:02
regulations across the us and so we kind of come in and serve in that role to
7:07
promote uniformity as much as possible.
7:10
Jordan Tyler: Okay.
7:10
Just a couple pieces of important context here.
7:13
The FDA has relied on Afco to be its boots on the ground in the regulation
7:18
of pet food products across the United States for the last 17 years.
7:23
That is until the FDA opted not to renew a longstanding
7:27
partnership agreement last fall.
7:29
You might hear it referred to as the MOU or memorandum of understanding.
7:34
And if you'd like to learn more about that whole saga, we have an episode for
7:39
you that we've linked in the show notes.
7:40
So be sure to check that out if you wanna learn more.
7:42
Now Afco is made up of state level regulators who have worked super
7:47
closely with the FDA and done a ton of hands-on regulation work on behalf
7:51
of the FDA for nearly two decades.
7:54
But under the per act, that partnership will go away.
7:57
And with it we would lose the longstanding expertise and experience
8:00
that our state regulators offer.
8:02
To the system.
8:04
This is red flag number one.
8:07
Dr. Charles Starkey: I, I think the job and the working together
8:10
with Afco needs to continue.
8:11
I think a lot of the industry feels that way.
8:14
We get into discussions about patchwork and harmonization.
8:18
I. And, and that needs to be done and everybody agrees that needs to be done.
8:23
The feed industry, the pet food industry, uh, the regulators
8:27
themselves, both FDA and afco.
8:30
We definitely need to, to work together as a coalition to try
8:34
to harmonize those standards.
8:37
And I think there's just a lot of work, you know, together going forward on that.
8:41
FDA is very shorthanded.
8:44
And so they've been contracting data officials who know the local
8:48
feed industry and pet food industry, and they go and do the audits.
8:54
They're the ones on the ground, they're the ones taking samples most often.
8:59
They are the ones that catch things ahead of time, you know, mislabeling
9:04
or a, a contaminant or a, a deficiency that comes from a sample that state
9:10
people on the ground have collected.
9:13
So I, I actually have some concern with the dissolving disagreement because
9:20
that cooperation between federal and state puts more people on the ground.
9:24
It, you know, the industry's goal is to produce safe, nutritious,
9:28
uh, animal food, and we can work with regulators to help us do that.
9:33
There's always a continuous improvement protocol in place, and that's what
9:38
those audits just assist us in doing.
9:41
And so.
9:42
I believe in cooperation and collaboration with the regulators and having more
9:47
feet on the ground and more people in the facilities and having more of those
9:51
conversations helps us all get better.
9:54
It helps regulators learn about the industry, and it helps us
9:57
get better at making sure we're doing our job effectively.
10:01
Jordan Tyler: Austin, you mentioned the word preempt earlier and I just wanna make
10:05
sure I'm understanding that correctly.
10:07
Essentially that means under the per act, everything would fall under the purview
10:11
of the FDA and the regulatory power that states currently hold when it comes to
10:16
pet food, would be taken away and replaced entirely by federal regulatory authority.
10:22
Is that correct?
10:24
Austin Therrell: Correct.
10:24
Basically, their authority over pet food products for dogs and cats
10:28
specifically would be non-existent.
10:30
Um, if the the per act were to be passed.
10:33
You know, those inspections that state regulators do throughout the
10:36
year, at least 70% of all animal food inspections at manufacturing locations
10:42
across the US are conducted by state regulators under contract with FDA.
10:47
That doesn't really even account for the non FDA inspections that states
10:51
conduct under their own authority.
10:52
And so I can give you some ballpark numbers.
10:55
Um, just from last year, states conducted at least a thousand
10:59
more inspections solely under state authority than even the FDA.
11:03
A lot of states have registration requirements for that pre-market review
11:07
of pet food labels, and so the industry has to register those products before
11:11
they offer 'em for sale in the state.
11:13
Last year, states registered over 171,000 pet food products.
11:18
Those state laboratories collected over 6,500 samples of pet food products.
11:24
Um, again, this is aside from anything under FDA.
11:27
Those samples, they're, they're testing for proximate analysis,
11:30
the nutritional testing.
11:32
They're looking for potential adulterants or contaminants that might be there.
11:36
States took enforcement action on more than 500 of those samples,
11:41
and did, you know, followed up on more than 50 different recalls.
11:44
So that's all state only work.
11:46
Again, that would completely, um, go away if their authority over
11:50
pet food products, um, were to disappear, um, with a per passing.
11:55
The states are doing a ton of work in regards to consumer protection to make
11:59
sure that, you know, our pets have the safest, most nutritious food to eat.
12:04
Dr. Stephanie Clark: I appreciate you sharing those numbers because I think
12:07
it really puts into perspective just how big of a role, state level regulators
12:12
have played in this process and actually enforcing regulations to make sure pet
12:18
food is safe and what is on the label.
12:20
I. Is what is really in the bag.
12:23
So let's take a step back.
12:24
Jordan, can you dive a little deeper into the current system?
12:28
Can you help me understand the current system?
12:31
Girl, I was
12:31
Jordan Tyler: hoping that you could help me understand the current
12:34
system, but luckily we've got a lot of experts on today's call.
12:37
And we did some research.
12:38
We did.
12:38
So yes, let's get into it.
12:40
So under the current system, we have model regulations that are set
12:44
by Afco, and individual states can choose whether or not they wanna.
12:48
Adopt them and codify, in other words, integrate those model regulations into
12:53
actual rules and systems for their state.
12:57
But when talking about the per act, these regulations would be set at the
13:00
federal level instead and then handed off to the states and state regulators
13:05
wouldn't have any say about whether they would enact or enforce or codify or
13:10
not enforce that particular regulation.
13:13
Austin, is that kind of the gist?
13:16
Austin Therrell: Yes.
13:16
Yeah, that's, that's correct.
13:17
Right now, within a lot of the state feed laws, some of the federal laws that
13:20
exist, like the Food Safety Modernization Act, states can adopt by reference and
13:24
include those within their state laws.
13:27
And so, you know, then the Federal Authority is the state
13:29
authority in those cases.
13:30
But they can pick and choose that Now, um, in this instance, they,
13:33
they wouldn't have that choice.
13:35
It would be the law of the land.
13:37
Jordan Tyler: The law of the land.
13:39
Got it.
13:40
So obviously you talk with a lot of state regulators as well as people that
13:44
work in the pet food industry, and so I'm curious to know what sentiments or
13:49
rumblings that you've heard from either your fellow regulators or from industry
13:53
members in conversations about this bill.
13:57
Austin Therrell: Maybe just go back to like a, a 30,000 foot view too of the
14:00
legislation from industry standpoint and what I've heard there are concerns from
14:05
the industry that, you know, the state by state approach to this is cumbersome.
14:10
Um, it's difficult, you know, some of the states aren't as aligned and so
14:13
there's, they're, you know, having to meet requirements in one state versus another.
14:16
And so I think, again, this is being introduced to try and promote a lot
14:20
more uniformity than even we have now.
14:22
It's important to share too that, you know, this, this bill was put together
14:27
and, and worked on, um, by industry alone, state regulators were not consulted.
14:32
As in, you know, in any part of this.
14:34
A lot of our members would support, you know, one set of
14:37
federal pet food regulations.
14:39
It's a lot of the other pieces of it, you know, that I think
14:42
are detrimental to the safety.
14:44
The consumer protection pieces of this.
14:46
But, but I, I see the goal, I think is to really try and, and harmonize
14:50
the system and really for the pet food industry, or at least some of them, to
14:54
get out of a lot of the, the red tape that honestly they feel like states
14:59
require, but really is there for, you know, a, a good reason to make sure that
15:03
those products are safe and that, you know, the claims that we see on pet food
15:07
labels are truthful and not misleading.
15:09
Dr. Charles Starkey: Just one clarification of what Austin said.
15:12
A portion of the industry put the perza forward, not the entire
15:17
animal food ingredient industry.
15:19
Austin Therrell: Yeah.
15:20
And, and that's important to note because I think some of the industry
15:22
is supporting this, you know, or some of our, the bigger corporations that
15:26
are out there and, you know, maybe some of what is being proposed under the
15:30
par would be beneficial from them, um, as far as just making things easier.
15:35
But it's not representative of the entire industry and some of the smaller
15:38
firms that, that may not agree with it.
15:41
Jordan Tyler: Yeah, and especially when you consider smaller companies
15:44
typically being more resource constrained already compared to some
15:48
of the bigger multinational brands, and I think that's really one of
15:51
the key red flags of this bill.
15:53
Because as we kind of see it, smaller pet food producers and ingredient
15:57
companies is where some really, really cool innovation comes from.
16:01
And it's also interesting to note that while this bill was introduced
16:04
by two Republican and one Democratic congressman, one of the driving forces
16:08
behind it is the Pet Food Institute, or PFI, whose membership makes up the
16:13
vast majority of US pet food and treat products according to their website.
16:18
We reached out to PFI to invite them on this episode, but never heard back.
16:22
Now their members are some of the largest pet food and treat producers
16:26
in the country and have significant market shares in the industry.
16:29
So if this is the portion of the industry that worked on the per act, it would
16:34
make sense that the new regulatory system would benefit these big players.
16:39
Right?
16:39
But what about the smaller guys?
16:41
How would they fare against a regulatory system Designed for some, but not all.
16:47
I guess I just worry that we could potentially shortchange some cutting
16:50
edge advancements in nutritional science and ingredient technologies that
16:55
originate with some of these smaller, more agile pet nutrition brands.
17:00
Like we all love an underdog, but I could see how this bill could stifle innovation
17:04
from smaller companies that don't have as much influence in the industry, as well as
17:09
creating space for bad actors to misguide consumers on ingredients and claims.
17:15
Dr. Stephanie Clark: It really begs the question of who loses and
17:19
who wins as a result of this bill.
17:22
Jordan Tyler: Right, exactly.
17:23
So let's use that as a jumping off point.
17:25
I'd love to hear from you, Austin and Dr. Starkey about the key concerns you have
17:31
about the per act, either from an industry perspective or a consumer perspective.
17:36
Austin Therrell: Yeah.
17:36
Some of the, the pieces that I think from an afco perspective that we
17:40
find, um, a little bit difficult to, within the bill, um, obviously
17:44
the preemption language, right?
17:45
To preempt the state authority.
17:47
And I, I've shared a couple other numbers that I think are important when
17:50
we look at, you know, whether we're doing this inspection work under a
17:53
contract with FDA or as a state, right?
17:56
Like I said, there's an integrated food safety system, so I don't wanna disparage
17:59
FDA in any way, but they're struggling with resources and staffing as well.
18:04
Like a lot of others.
18:05
There was a government accountability office report that came out where it
18:08
highlighted that FDA failed to meet inspection frequencies since 2018.
18:13
When we look at the cost of doing inspections.
18:16
For FDA to go out and do an inspection is gonna cost around $20,000 to go out.
18:21
And that's just a, a current good manufacturing inspection.
18:25
A state inspector could go out and do the same inspection for roughly about $2,000.
18:30
And so when we look at just the differences on how taxpayer money is
18:34
being spent and how we can regulate the industry and do it as efficiently
18:39
as possible with taxpayer dollars.
18:41
The best model is that shared authority between states and FDA,
18:45
where we can do that together.
18:47
Dr. Stephanie Clark: So if the per act is passed, I'm curious, could this
18:51
potentially put some of them outta work?
18:54
I.
18:55
Austin Therrell: Yeah, I mean, realistically
18:56
speaking, it certainly could.
18:58
Um, you know, when we look at, um, a lot of the work that our state programs
19:03
do, and we talked about licensing and registration and tonnage fees,
19:06
and, you know, some of those user fee programs are what support the, the
19:10
animal food programs at the state level.
19:12
And so when you, you know, take away this authority for states
19:16
to do that, and they're solely.
19:17
You know, operating under, uh, maybe contract, um, as a commission official
19:21
with the FDA, they're relying on those FDA funds and you know that that's
19:25
likely, it has the ability to, to decrease some of the staffing at the state level
19:29
and, and cut those funding mechanisms.
19:32
You know, if states want to, you know, maintain that same
19:35
level of funding sometimes.
19:37
Maybe it could create a scenario where those, you know, uh, fees
19:40
are passed off now to the livestock side, who's still gonna, you know,
19:44
exist outside of the per act.
19:45
And so it's gonna increase fees, you know, user fees, um, across the industry.
19:50
Dr. Stephanie Clark: So increased fees, the potential for funds to be
19:53
reassigned to other segments of the animal food industry that still have
19:57
some state level regulatory authority.
20:00
And then the other side of that is where is the FDA going to find the time?
20:05
You know, this stuff is a lot of work and the FDA is already understaffed
20:10
and underfunded and the per act doesn't stipulate any kind of additional funding
20:14
for these really sweeping changes.
20:17
How is that even gonna work?
20:20
Jordan Tyler: Right?
20:21
It's like giving the FDA more than we know they can handle no additional funding.
20:26
While at the same time, taking power away from state regulators who have
20:29
been doing this for years and have really, really honed their expertise
20:33
and knowledge about what's important to consumers and their state and
20:37
how to protect them and their pets.
20:40
I mean, what could go wrong?
20:42
And then think about the timing of this is just impeccable.
20:46
So we're recording this in early 2025, and I'm sure many of us are already aware of.
20:51
The changes to federal agencies across the board being driven by
20:55
the Trump administration and the new Department of Government efficiency.
20:59
We're talking significant budget cuts, sweeping layoffs, and hiring freezes,
21:04
which could very well impact how pet food is regulated through the FDA's
21:10
Center for Veterinary Medicine or CBM.
21:12
Especially if the Pro Act moves
21:14
Dr. Stephanie Clark: forward.
21:15
Yeah, and according to some recent reports that I've read, the FDA could
21:19
lose thousands of employees by the end of the year due to a combination of budget
21:24
cuts, reforms and leadership shakeups.
21:27
And let's be honest, I. This is happening at a time when public trust in the
21:31
FDA is already kind of on the rocks.
21:34
A 2025 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 53% of
21:40
respondents have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the FDA's ability
21:45
to make the right recommendations on health issues, which is not great.
21:52
Jordan Tyler: It's not great and it gets worse, so we're already seeing layoffs
21:56
hitting key areas of the FDA, including regulators responsible for ensuring that
22:01
drugs for pets and livestock are safe and effective according to one report.
22:07
One F-D-A-C-V-M employee said at least 20 animal drug reviewers
22:12
had already lost their jobs.
22:14
But since this news is spreading through word of mouth and anonymous sources rather
22:18
than through official channels, the real number could actually be much higher.
22:23
Dr. Stephanie Clark: That's a serious problem.
22:25
These layoffs don't just affect pet food safety.
22:28
They could impact the safety of food products that come from livestock,
22:32
which means this could have a ripple effect on the human food supply as well.
22:36
The Yikes.
22:38
Jordan Tyler: So if the per act moves forward and shifts even more
22:42
regulatory responsibility to the FDA and the F-D-A-C-V-M, how exactly is
22:47
the agency expected to handle this?
22:50
I mean, as you said earlier, they're already understaffed, underfunded,
22:54
and struggling to keep up with their existing responsibilities.
22:57
But adding more to their plate without additional funding or personnel,
23:02
and even amid, you know, budget cuts and people getting laid off just
23:07
seems like a recipe for disaster.
23:08
I.
23:09
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Exactly, Jordan, we're already seeing the consequences
23:13
of regulatory gaps, and if the per act removes state oversight while the
23:17
FDA is losing experienced staff left and right, it raises a major question,
23:22
who's left to ensure pet food safety?
23:25
Because right now it looks like that answer might be
23:30
no one.
23:31
Jordan Tyler: So that is something, and if you wanna learn more about
23:35
all of that, we've linked some reports that we referenced in
23:39
the show notes for this episode.
23:41
But Austin, what else concerns you about this bill?
23:45
Any other red flags and specifically red flags for pet parents?
23:49
Austin Therrell: The other issue we find problematic is the ingredients, sometimes
23:53
present language that allows for the substitution of specifically fats or oils.
23:59
Um, there's some of the flavor ingredients or some of the grain
24:02
ingredients, and we know that's, that's allowed on the human side.
24:05
That's where this comes from.
24:07
And you know, when I eat something.
24:09
I know what I'm eating and I can tell you whether or not, you know, I, something
24:12
is in there that I want to be in there.
24:14
Our animals don't necessarily have that luxury.
24:16
It, it's our responsibility to know exactly what we're feeding them.
24:20
When we're looking at, you know, dogs or cats that might have allergy issues, you
24:25
know, it, it's, it's really important for consumers to know what fats or
24:28
oils are in that product or what flavor ingredients so that they can avoid
24:32
particular ingredients if they want to.
24:34
And so we feel like this really, again, it's not ideal from a consumer standpoint,
24:39
but from an industry standpoint too.
24:41
It creates a mechanism for.
24:44
Potential bad actors to say, Hey, we're gonna label a product with maybe a fat or
24:49
an oil, um, ingredient that has a better consumer perception and then substitute
24:53
it for something of lesser quality that maybe can increase profit margins.
24:57
And so, um, again, not to say anyone would do that, um, but it
25:01
creates the opportunity for bad actors to capitalize on that.
25:04
And I don't think that's a good idea for anyone.
25:07
The last piece that I'll touch on, I think is the permissible marketing claims.
25:12
Um, so, you know, human grade is mentioned, natural is mentioned,
25:16
and some of those things within the current afco official publication.
25:19
We have guidelines for making some of those claims now
25:22
that anyone can go and find.
25:23
If you wanna read through that publication.
25:25
What the problem here is that it's, it's codifying that and, but at the
25:29
same time preempting the state authority to check for those marketing claims.
25:32
So essentially it's saying, Hey, we can put this on our package and no one's gonna
25:36
ask us a question about, or you don't have the authority to check and make sure
25:39
it's actually truthful and not misleading.
25:41
I. I mentioned earlier that states have those pre-market label review
25:44
programs in place, and so they have the authority when they see claims to,
25:49
um, reach back out to a firm and say, Hey, can you substantiate that this
25:52
claim is truthful, not misleading?
25:54
They can request documents to substantiate that claim, to prove
25:58
that it's truthful, that it's actually human grade, those type of things.
26:01
And they do that within that label review process to make sure that by
26:05
the time that product or a product is on the shelf, that claim is truthful.
26:10
So by just codifying that and then not allowing anyone to do any kind
26:15
of pre-market review, um, to ensure that it's, it's actually in fact
26:19
true, it just opens the door for some of those claims, those buzzwords and
26:23
those trendy marketing claims to just be slapped on packages with no one
26:27
verifying that they're actually accurate.
26:29
So again, that's just from a regulator standpoint, that's problematic.
26:33
And those are the type of things that state regulators right now
26:36
are looking at on a daily basis.
26:39
Jordan Tyler: Yeah.
26:40
Yikes.
26:40
I am not loving that.
26:42
And coming back to your earlier point, our pets can't tell us if there's
26:46
something wrong with their food.
26:47
You know, we have to advocate for them.
26:49
So if companies can fudge their ingredient statements and claims and swap one
26:55
ingredient for another willy nilly, well, the pet parent isn't on the wiser.
26:59
That just to me, goes against the entire industry's mission of keeping
27:02
pets healthy, happy, and well fed.
27:05
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Yeah, Jordan, I like to think about it in human
27:08
food or what we may experience.
27:10
Think about people with nut allergies.
27:12
Let's say someone is allergic to peanuts but not almonds, and they run out of
27:17
almond butter in this product and they just decide to replace it with peanut
27:22
butter, or say you love chocolate covered almonds, and they ran out of almonds
27:28
and they just replaced it with peanuts.
27:29
It's still a nut, and that's the kind of swapping that we're
27:32
talking about in pet food.
27:34
Jordan Tyler: Yeah, it just, it gives the manufacturer the ability to make a
27:38
swap and not disclose that on the label.
27:41
I mean, nut allergies are like some of the most common food
27:44
allergies in the United States.
27:46
So I like the way that you framed it.
27:48
Like people have to be really cognizant of this stuff and it, the same
27:52
can be said of pets that have food allergies or special dietary needs.
27:57
They need to get what's exactly on the label ex. Exactly.
28:02
Yeah.
28:03
Yeah.
28:04
Dr. Charles Starkey: I have a lot of questions with this.
28:07
You know, when we talk specifically about dogs and cats, we have two
28:11
very different mammalian species.
28:13
When we talk about substituting fats and oils, you're talking about
28:17
substituting potentially oil seed oils for animal fats, and there's very little
28:24
research on this, but there's some that has a high suggestion for cardiac
28:30
health and other reasons, animal fats.
28:33
Specifically in a cat, but in a, in other mammals as well would definitely
28:39
be more nutritious sources of fatty acids and especially saturated fatty acids.
28:45
The other thing is just digestive upset.
28:48
You know, many of us have changed pet food at home, and if you don't start
28:53
to do a blend and do that carefully, we all tend to have nice presence
28:58
and messy situations to clean up.
29:01
So the ability to just change that in a specific formula without consumer
29:07
knowledge, I, I worry a little bit about how that may affect the pet.
29:11
The flavor ingredients that has some impact as well.
29:15
But the grain ingredients really concern me, uh, pretty highly as well.
29:20
There's di very different fiber fractions in these different grains.
29:25
I. There's a huge difference in nutrient digestibility and, you know,
29:30
availability of the animal and the grain like corn than there would
29:33
be in a grain like wheat or barley.
29:36
And I'm not saying any of those are better or worse, but they have to
29:39
be formulated extremely differently.
29:42
And so I think it's more a question that I'm not clear on.
29:47
You know, are we talking mass substitution of one grain for another?
29:52
There, there are just some questions there because one ingredient is not the
29:55
same as another, whether we're talking about fats and oils or grains or protein,
30:00
uh, they can be very, very different.
30:02
I just, I don't know exactly what may end up happening to the pet there.
30:08
Austin Therrell: I think it's a big deal to point out too, within the ACT
30:11
language, they're calling for a 90 day ingredient review time for new
30:16
ingredients to support the industry.
30:18
When we look at like the current, you know, the regulatory systems, the
30:21
pathways for ingredients to come to market, those, you know, generally
30:25
had about 180 day review time.
30:28
You know, if we look back to around 2019, um, I've got some numbers I can share.
30:33
I. For food additive petitions, FDA was reviewing only about 19% of those on time.
30:40
Within that 180 day timeline, for grass notices, they were around 29% and around
30:46
for afco ingredients, it was at 22%.
30:49
So that was pretty bad.
30:51
Now, the industry as well as Afco, um, you know, during that time period were
30:55
advocating and, and going to Congress for additional support for FDA and
31:00
those folks within the division of animal food ingredients that they,
31:04
they really needed more staffing, um, and more people to do those.
31:08
And, and Congress granted that they got additional funding and were
31:11
really able to build that staffing up.
31:13
Those were 2019 numbers.
31:15
If we look at last year, the FDA was reviewing a hundred percent of
31:20
food additive petitions on time.
31:23
94% of grass notices on time.
31:26
And before the afco, MOU ended, they were around 81% on afco ingredients.
31:31
So a significant change in that bottleneck, you know,
31:34
in the ingredient space.
31:35
Um, realistically, it, it no longer exists right now.
31:39
Now we're still talking about 180 day review time though, so within
31:43
the per act, you know, you're calling for, to cut that in half to 90 days.
31:48
Also, there's no appropriations, um, related to this bill as well.
31:51
So we're saying, Hey, FDA, do your work in half the time, we're
31:55
not gonna give you any more.
31:56
Funding to hire more staff and to meet those numbers either.
32:00
So I think it's setting the agency up for failure, um, to kind of set a little bit
32:04
of an unrealistic goal, um, to do that.
32:07
And, you know, practically speaking, um, a lot of these, you know, products are
32:10
going to go, uh, you know, unregulated and, and a lot more of a sense
32:14
than they, than they are right now.
32:16
And, and I don't think that's, um, setting, you know, the industry, um, or
32:20
consumers up for success in the long term.
32:23
Jordan Tyler: The other piece of that is the 2025 version of the per act
32:27
was reintroduced in January, and that version of the bill stipulates additional
32:32
responsibilities for the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine or
32:35
CVM, which is essentially who would spearhead regulatory activities for pet
32:40
food if it was all placed under the FDA.
32:43
Now these added responsibilities include conducting research to support
32:48
regulatory decisions as well as educating industry members and consumers
32:53
about pet food safety and nutrition.
32:55
And I'm taking this straight out of the 2025 version of the bill.
33:00
But Steph, like
33:02
Dr. Stephanie Clark: this doesn't add up to me.
33:04
Don't even get me started.
33:05
It's so funny because when we were working with the FDA, during the DCM scandal,
33:11
the FDA told us that they don't conduct research on behalf of the industry.
33:15
The industry has to do research.
33:18
So even if the per act was enacted, would the F-D-A-C-V-M really
33:22
hold up that part of the bargain?
33:25
Jordan Tyler: Mm, yeah.
33:26
Doubtful, right?
33:28
And if the agency's already constrained from a resource perspective, and
33:31
now we're giving them loads more responsibility and requiring them to
33:35
do it in a shorter window of time.
33:38
I just, I don't see how that's gonna set anybody up for success or even set us up
33:43
for continuity from the current system.
33:46
Dr. Stephanie Clark: So when you boil this all down, there's a lot to the
33:49
per act that deserves a second look.
33:51
And there are certainly more serious ramifications for pet
33:55
food safety and transparency than what's evident at face value.
33:59
Dr. Charles Starkey: I think everybody, uh, industry especially,
34:03
uh, goal is to reduce recalls, to provide safe, nutritious food.
34:09
It doesn't do anyone in the industry any good to produce a bad product.
34:13
So we wanna make sure those animals are as healthy as they
34:17
can be, and they mean a lot to us.
34:19
So I think everyone's working together.
34:22
Industry, federal and state are all working together toward that end goal.
34:27
But what we need to always remember how important.
34:31
Animal foods, whether they're livestock or pet, are part of the
34:35
entire safe food system in our country and and across the globe.
34:40
And they're really part of the overall one health approach.
34:43
And so I think we have to keep that in mind.
34:45
Austin Therrell: Yeah, that, that was well said by Charles.
34:47
The only other thing, you know, I, I just want to add onto that is, I mean,
34:50
yeah, we're talking about almost two thirds of US households that own a pet.
34:54
You know, they're, they're part of our family.
34:56
And so, again, I, I guess to, to maybe land the plan on this, you know, when
34:59
we're looking at the per act, there are a lot of things when we talk about
35:02
uniformity and, and wanting the best system in place for the industry,
35:06
um, we all want the same thing.
35:08
I want uniformity across the US as much as anyone.
35:11
Um, as regulators.
35:12
We want a system that, you know, supports innovation for the industry.
35:16
And at the end of the day, just like the industry, we won't
35:19
save food products for animals.
35:21
And you know, I, I think just in regards to the per that's not
35:25
maybe, um, at this point in time, the, the best option for that.
35:28
I think there's other ways we can work on these issues to be more efficient, um,
35:33
and, and all to accomplish the same thing.
35:36
Dr. Stephanie Clark: Absolutely.
35:37
So the bill was reintroduced in January.
35:40
What's next for pet parents listening and maybe also industry members?
35:45
How would you suggest they make their voices heard about this issue?
35:49
I.
35:50
Austin Therrell: Yeah.
35:51
Yeah.
35:51
I mean, we're, we're in the sandbox right now.
35:53
You know anyone listening within the industry or as a consumer or a pet
35:56
owner, you know, right now just to be aware of what's going on, what your
36:00
elected officials are signing onto, keep your eyes open for change in the spill.
36:06
Opinions and letters that come out from Afco and from others.
36:09
So you can stay up to date on what's going on.
36:11
And, and certainly if you feel like anything we've shared today resonates
36:14
with you, um, to reach out to those elected officials and, and just
36:17
share that, you know, you're not supportive of the per act and would
36:20
really appreciate some more focus back on the state animal food programs.
36:25
Dr. Charles Starkey: Yeah, I think from my viewpoint overall, if we
36:28
can continue collaborations with the pet food and the, the livestock feed
36:33
and the industry and the regulators.
36:35
I think we can come up to a lot of solutions to a lot of the
36:38
problems or the complications that we're dealing with currently.
36:43
Opportunities that would be the best word to use.
36:46
Jordan Tyler: Right?
36:46
Yeah.
36:47
It's obvious that there are several kinks to work out here and not even
36:51
to mention some of the issues that are foreseen with the generally recognized
36:55
as safe or grass statute that we talked a little bit about earlier, which
36:59
is essentially one of the ways a new pepper ingredient can come to market.
37:03
Or that is has historically been one of the ways, but recent leadership
37:08
appointments at the federal level spell an uncertain future for this pathway.
37:14
Now while that is definitely implicated with the per act, it's kind of a whole
37:19
other can of worms, but if you'd like to dig deeper there, let us know and
37:23
we'll put together another episode about that piece of the puzzle.
37:27
Overall though, it sounds like as the bill stands today.
37:31
The intention might be there, but in practice there are just so many
37:35
loopholes and contingencies that could end up complicating pet food
37:39
safety and transparency for pet parents across the United States.
37:44
So I really appreciate Austin and, and Dr.
37:46
Starkey, you sharing your thoughts on this bill and for the candid
37:49
conversation that we've had today.
37:51
And I look forward to staying in touch so that we can keep everybody
37:55
informed about this important issue.
37:58
The per act presents some significant challenges for both industry
38:02
professionals and pet parents.
38:04
Although the goal of harmonizing regulations is understandable,
38:09
I'm personally not convinced that overburdening an already resource
38:13
strapped federal agency like the FDA, stripping state regulators of
38:18
their local regulatory authority and potentially weakening oversight of
38:22
safety and marketing claims is the right
38:25
Dr. Stephanie Clark: approach.
38:27
Our commitment at BSM Partners barking MAD is to support pet food stakeholders
38:32
from industry professionals to loving pet parents as they navigate the increasingly
38:37
convoluted regulatory landscape for our
38:40
Jordan Tyler: fellow pet parents.
38:42
If what you heard on today's episode concerns you about the future of pet
38:45
food, now is the time to take action.
38:49
Contact your state representatives and write them a letter
38:51
to voice your concerns.
38:53
And if you don't know who your state representative is or how to contact
38:57
them, we've even made it easy for you.
38:59
In the show notes for this episode, we've included a link to the US
39:02
House of Representatives website where you can input your zip code
39:06
to find your government officials and how to get in touch with them.
39:10
We've also linked to a form letter that you can download, add your
39:14
information to, and send to your elected official to voice your concerns.
39:18
Dr. Stephanie Clark: We've also provided links in the show notes below to the
39:21
full text of the per act of 2025 and other related resources to equip you with
39:27
all the knowledge you need to determine whether this bill is truly the right
39:31
thing for you and your beloved pets.
39:34
Jordan Tyler: We hope you'll leverage these resources and keep up with BSM
39:37
Partners, thought leadership to stay informed about the potential challenges
39:41
and opportunities posed by the per act.
39:44
And we encourage you to become part of the conversation by sharing this episode
39:48
with your friends, fellow pet lovers and industry members, and engaging in
39:53
dialogue to ensure pet food remains safe, transparent, and accountable.
39:59
A huge thank you to Austin Farrell and Dr. Charles Starkey for sharing
40:02
their insights with us today.
40:04
We'd also like to thank our dedicated team, ADA at Thomas Neely Boden, Kate
40:10
Wright, Katie Wolf, and Dr. Katie Miller.
40:13
An extra thank you to Leanne Haggerty and Michael Johnson
40:16
in support of this episode.
40:18
See you next time.