Comments on: Do the food safety bills apply to pet foods?

By: Mary Haight

Mary Haight — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:32:54 +0000

I am afraid this confusion is ever present in legislation, installed with the purpose of obscuring and obstructing. Can you imagine wading through a thousand pages of doublespeak, hundreds of loopholes, etc., trying with little success to protect the public good? My head explodes! I look forward to seeing how this will be implemented.

By: Janet Camp

Janet Camp — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:35:03 +0000

I thought it was pretty clear that pet food is included and is differentiated from animal feed. No?

I’m relieved to know that my chickens’ food is included!

By: Sophie

Sophie — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:55:11 +0000

Oh! I forgot to add that I had also contacted my senators office for clarification and they also stated pet food was not included in this bill. So perhaps a definition of what the House is classifying “animal feed” to be and does that include pet food is needed? I was able to find no definitions in relation to this bill. And I guess the clause I posted above where it gives FDA wiggle-room to take into account differences on food intended for humans as compared to food intended for animals when it comes to implementation of this bill has me a bit worried and yes I admit…skeptical.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:12:20 +0000

Marion, Im glad you noticed my comment and I guess I am getting conflicting info. I think it shows the confusing way the bill is written but I did ask Bill Marler as well as Consumers Union and was told by both parties that pet food was not included. So I guess Im even more confused than I already was. In addition, there are some clauses written in that make it very questionable such as this one: (C) AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO CER2
TAIN FACILITIES.—The Secretary may, by regu3
lation, exempt or modify the requirements for
4 compliance under this section and the amend5
ments made by this section with respect to fa6
cilities that are solely engaged in—
7 (i) the production of food for animals
8 other than man or the storage of packaged
9 foods that are not exposed to the environ10
ment;

and this: (5) CONSIDERATION.—When implementing sec12
tions 418 and 418A of the Federal Food, Drug, and
13 Cosmetic Act, as added by paragraph (2), the Sec14
retary may take into account differences between
15 food intended for human consumption and food in16
tended for consumption by animals other than man.

And like the poster above, Im afraid that animal feed is being considered separate from pet food in this bill. I really hope Im wrong and most definately, would be jumping for joy if its clarified that pet food manufacturers are included in this food safety bill.

By: concern4pets

concern4pets — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:31:01 +0000

On this point of H.R. 2749 including “pet food” in its food safety
provisions, I think it’s going to take a legal expert, Ms. Nestle, based
on these comments indicating AFIA separated pet food from human
food definition in the passed bill. I have seen other opinions expressed that pet food, wrongly I think, is classed as animal feed,
and the same provisions of 2749 that apply to human “food,” thanks
to food industry groups like AFIA, will not apply to “animal feed,” in
other words, “feed or pet food.” Perhaps more of the politics of food that prevent safer food supplies (?):

http://www.grainnet.com/info/articles_email.html?ID=79914
In the House bill, AFIA had succeeded in creating a series of “firewalls” between food and feed requirements, so that any requirements specific and appropriate to human food regulation would not inadvertently impede the manufacture of livestock feed and pet food.

http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewNews.aspx?id=25524#Scene_1
The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) issued a comment saying it had created “firewalls” in the House bill to distinguish between food and feed requirements, as the term “food” in federal food law means “food for humans and animals.”