Pet Food Recall Safety Group

AAFCO Midyear Meeting Update

On January 29th and January 30th, DefendOurPets.org attended the midyear meeting of AAFCO in San Antonio.

As the sole consumer representative to this group, we attended several committee meetings and made one major proposal. We were pleased to have Susan Taylor, executive director of Actors and Others for Animals attend with us as a board member of DefendOurPets.org. Susan�s contributions throughout this process have been critical. Remember that DefendOurPets.org is only an advisory member of these panels, and as such, has no vote in the final outcome. The same is true for the pet food industry representatives.

The following is a report on the events that took place. It will have two parts, namely:

1. A report of meetings and activities
2. A summary of our own opinions on what we observed

I. Activities

A. THE PROPOSAL

With the passage of the FDA Amendments Act and the subsequent signing of this into LAW on September 27th , the Secretary of HHS and the FDA were tasked, among other things, with:

Creating new regulations, within 24 months, dealing with:
a. Pet food manufacturing
b. Pet food labeling
c. Pet food ingredients

In accomplishing this, HHS and the FDA are mandated to consult with advisory groups such as AAFCO, and other interested stakeholder groups.

This is why DefendOurPets.org got involved with AAFCO in the first place.

Since AAFCO only has two annual and official meetings, one in late Jan. and one in August, we felt that it was absolutely necessary that AAFCO begin the process, AT ONCE. When we initially enquired privately about progress in this effort, we were told that as of these mid-year meetings, that HHS and the FDA had not even approached AAFCO to request feedback as mandated by the new law. We were very concerned that AAFCO might wait until next August to even begin this task.

Therefore, we made a specific proposal, which was presented to the Board of AAFCO by outgoing president, Eric Nelson, that AAFCO IMMEDIATELY establish a Taskforce to begin addressing the new regulations mandated by the new law, and not wait for HHS and the FDA to request formal action.

SUCCESS!

The Board of AAFCO enacted our proposal on January 28th on the very first day of the AAFCO meeting. A FDAAA taskforce has been established, including DefendOurPets.org as an advisory member to begin the work on new regulations as mandated. I will publish the entire makeup of this taskforce in a later posting.

B. Committee Meetings

Susan and I also attended the following 4 Committee Meetings over the course of the 2 days.

1. Feed Manufacturing Committee
2. Feed Labeling Committee
3. Model Bill Committee
4. Pet Food Committee

The main thrust of the Feed Manufacturing Committee was twofold:

1. The reviewed and reworked an initial draft proposal of modifications to regulations designed to increase safety in manufacturing.
2. They also were presented with a draft proposal on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) model regulations. HACCP is very similar to ISO standards that were enacted many years ago, initially in Europe, by many other manufacturing groups. The primary difference is that HACCP pertains to animal and pet food.

At the Feed Labeling Committee, a new chairman was appointed, and much of the time was spent bringing this committee back up to date after the unforeseen resignation of the prior chairperson.

The Model Bill Committee perhaps needs some explanation. AAFCO�s procedures task ALL of the other committees to review and draft potential new language for potential regulations, and then submit ALL of these to the Model Bill Committee for final review and analysis before being submitted to the Board for a final vote on inclusion. The �Model Bill� is then formulated in order to make recommendations to State and Federal authorities requesting AAFCO�s assistance. REMEMBER, AAFCO is an advisory group only. It has no regulatory or enforcement powers.

The Model Bill Committee spent most of its meeting reviewing the draft proposal of the Feed Manufacturing Committee in reference to GMP (Good Manufacturing Process) regulations. This draft proposal was sent back to the committee for reworking. ONE IMPORTANT ITEM. Dr. William Burkholder of the FDA made the observation that many segments of the actual language in the draft was so vague and ill-defined as to make enforcement almost impossible. This is the primary point at which the draft was sent back to committee.

The meeting of the Pet Food Committee was one of our primary focal points. The primary issues being addressed were twofold:

1. Lynn Sheridan of Washington state, introduced a proposal to regulate small (mom and pop) pet food companies that have surfaced on the Internet. Many of these are currently virtually unregulated federally and by the individual states. Her proposal was to draft instructions that these companies be subject to the same standards as those imposed on the large pet food companies. This proposal was submitted to the entire committee for review.
2. A brief discussion then ensued on a Calorie Working Group proposal for a calorie label for pet food.

II. General Observations and Comments

At each of these meetings, we were introduced to the entire Committee and the AAFCO membership in attendance. We made the following statement (paraphrased);

�On September 27th, 2007 President Bush signed into Law the FDA Amendments Act which mandates new regulations to deal with pet food manufacturing, labeling, and ingredients. The melamine crisis last year was one of the primary motivation factors behind this new law that passed Congress by a huge majority. The purpose of ALL regulations discussed and recommended by AAFCO should be to protect and inform the consumer. The passage of this new law clearly demonstrated that the consumer is not satisfied with the status quo. The law doesn�t make polite requests, it mandates action. This is not a request, it is a demand by consumers all across the nation. After all, many AAFCO members depend on the support of consumers and taxpayers for their very livelihood, so let�s get to work.�

We agree with Dr. Burkholder�s remarks that many of AAFCO�s proposed inclusions in their Model Bill contain language that makes enforcement extremely difficult, if not impossible. This will not be tolerated.

Many representatives of the pet food industry were in attendance. Their comments during these meetings seem to be directed toward accomplishing some unspoken goals;

1. In general, they seem to be opposed to ANY new regulation, as one might suspect. In this regard, they were reminded by DefendOurPets.org of two facts:

a. A move toward increased product safety is also in the best interest of the industry. Contrary to fears that increased safety demands would hurt sales and profits, we called their attention to the fact that higher safety standards would probably increase the price of pet food and lead to higher sales. Therefore, the pet food industry might actually benefit from this move.
b. The overall sentiment coming from the reps in opposition to meaningful regulation seems to reflect an attitude that they �don�t want to open the gates to new regulation.� We reminded them that the people trying to �storm these gates� were their customers.

2. They try to get any new wording to be substantially vague and unenforceable. One example of this stood out. In drafting the new proposal for manufacturing standards, they proposed removing the word �contaminants� and substituting the word �adulterants�. This softens the intent and makes it less damning and binding. Other words like �minimizing�, and �of a kind�, and �to the degree possible� pop up all over the new proposals.

3. They object to firm standards that will hold them legally accountable for their products. One example of this is their objection to firm standards for calorie labeling.

4. They still believe that �price� is a more important consumer parameter than �safety�.

5. They want FDA appropriations to fund increased inspections instead of �user fees� as proposed by Rep. Dingell. This is very serious. We believe that they support appropriations as a method of funding because they know it�s not likely to happen. Also, increased appropriations can be re-directed to other FDA areas of responsibility, such as pharmaceuticals. We believe that they are afraid that �user fees�, as recommended by Rep. Dingell, might be passed on to them instead of importers. Also, since these �user fees� would generate revenue that would be absolutely be spent on new inspections, they oppose it.

Further reports will be forthcoming.

Mike Floyd
Executive Director
mike@defendourpets.org