April 2, 2025 • 40 mins
What if the pet food labels you rely on to keep your furry family members safe suddenly became meaningless? What if brands could swap ingredients without telling you, slap trendy buzzwords on packaging without proof, and sidestep the very regulations designed to protect your pets? That’s exactly what’s at stake with the PURR Act—a piece of proposed legislation that promises to “unify” pet food regulations, but could actually strip away transparency, eliminate state oversight, and allow for deceptive marketing claims. Join us as we expose the hidden dangers of the PURR Act with Austin Therrell and Dr. Charles Starkey, breaking down exactly how this bill could make it easier for big pet food companies to cut corners while leaving pet parents and smaller brands in the dark.
Helpful Links
Find the full text of the Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform (PURR) Act of 2025 here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/597/text
Tune in to this previous episode to get the scoop about the expired FDA-AAFCO MOU and why it throws a wrench in new pet food ingredient approvals: https://bsmpartners.net/barking-mad-podcast/are-aafco-and-fda-ever-getting-back-together-how-their-split-will-reshape-pet-nutrition
Find your State Representative! https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Download this form letter, add your information, and send to your elected official: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ex9NKTUnP8x0JoP4_llvi0BsaVE7zyzV/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111590653972486788037&rtpof=true&sd=true
News articles:
- “As government reform efforts converge, significant FDA staff cuts are likely:” https://www.agencyiq.com/blog/as-government-reform-efforts-converge-significant-fda-staff-cuts-are-likely/
- “FDA staff handling drug safety for pets and livestock lost jobs in Trump firings:” https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5301216/federal-layoffs-fda-drug-safety-animals
Show Notes
00:00 – Welcome Back!
02:32 – Introducing Austin Therrell and Dr. Charles Starkey
05:03 – Understanding the Current Pet Food Regulatory Landscape
06:17 – Breaking Down the PURR Act
10:02 – Taking Power Away from State Regulators
13:41 – Streamlining or Undermining?
15:11 – Potential Winners and Losers Under the PURR Act
17:27 – Key Concerns About the PURR Act
23:42 – Red Flags for Pet Parents
28:06 – The Real Risk of Undeclared Ingredient Substitutions
30:09 – More Work for an Already Understaffed & Underfunded FDA
34:00 – Final Thoughts from Austin and Dr. Starkey
37:59 – Call to Action and Farewell
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jordan Tyler (00:15):
Today we're diving deep into the per act, a piece of proposed
legislation that aims to quote unquoteunify the pet food regulatory landscape.
But when examined more closelycould actually put the integrity
of your pet's food into jeopardy.
But first, let's take a step back.
It's estimated that 33 millionAmericans are allergic to at
(00:38):
least one food or ingredient.
Even if you don't have a foodallergy, you know someone who does.
And you'll also know that people withmany food allergies or those that
could have severe reactions are verycareful about how they shop for food.
People who are allergic to certainfood ingredients will also tell
you, this is not out of paranoiaor for the sake of being high
(01:00):
maintenance, but out of necessity.
Because when a mishap occurs, theconsequences can be serious and sometimes.
Life-threatening.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (01:10):
Now, imagine a world where food companies no longer
have to be completely transparentabout ingredients, where vague and
misleading claims go unchecked, and wherethere's no system in place to verify
if the exact ingredient listed on thelabel is what's actually in the box.
Jordan Tyler (01:28):
That's exactly the kind of regulatory loophole the per act
could create in the pet food industry.
Right now, state regulators play a crucialrole in ensuring that pet food labels are
truthful and that ingredient substitutionsdon't put pet's health at risk.
But if the per act passes, muchof that oversight could disappear.
(01:49):
Potentially opening the door forbad actors, misleading claims and
unverified ingredients to make theirway into your dog and cat's food.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (01:59):
So we're here today asking the big questions.
How will this impact pet food safety?
Who will hold brands accountable?
And what can pet ownersdo to protect their pets?
To help us break it all down?
We're joined by two industry expertswho know exactly what's at stake.
Let's get into it.
(02:19):
Welcome to Barking Mad, apodcast by BSM Partners.
We're your hosts, Dr. Stephanie Clark.
Jordan Tyler (02:28):
And I'm Jordan Tyler.
So at first glance, the per act mightseem like a step toward consistency
in pet food oversight, streamliningregulations, reducing some red tape,
and creating a more uniform system.
But as we start to peel back the layers,a more complicated reality emerges.
(02:48):
Dig a little deeper, and you'll findthis bill would strip regulatory
power from state agencies andconsolidate it under the FDA, raising
concerns about enforcement capacity,consumer protections, and even the
future of innovation in pet food.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (03:07):
So what would this mean for pet food companies?
Big and small.
Would it make it easier tobring new products to market?
Or would it open the door for misleadingclaims and unregulated ingredients?
And most importantly, how would thisaffect pet parents who rely on clear,
accurate labeling to make informeddecisions about their pet's nutrition?
Jordan Tyler (03:29):
All really good questions and we're gonna get into all of that
today and more with two great guests.
I'm pleased to introduce Austin Farrell,executive Director of the Association
for American Feed Control Officialsor afco, as well as Dr. Charles
Starkey, vice President of Regulatoryand Scientific Affairs for the North
American Renderers Association or nara.
(03:52):
So to get a little more context, uh,about our great guest today, Austin,
tell us a little bit more about yourself.
Austin Therrell (04:00):
Thanks for having us.
My name's Austin Darrell.
Um, I currently serve as the executivedirector for the Association of
American Feed Control Officials.
Been in that role for a little overtwo years now, and prior to that, um,
managed the Animal Feed regulatoryprogram at the South Carolina Department
of Agriculture for about eight years.
So as part of that role, um, oversawstate inspection program, sampling
(04:21):
program with our state laboratory.
And we reviewed quite a few, you know,products and labels for, uh, for marketing
claims and, and that type of thing.
Jordan Tyler (04:29):
And Dr. Starkey, let's hear a little bit more
about your background as well.
Dr. Charles Starkey (04:34):
I have a degree in, uh, animal nutrition and have been in the
industry for over 30 years, production andnutrition based and feed manufacturing.
I'm currently the vice president ofregulatory and Scientific Affairs for the
North American Renders Association andjust working on, uh, our, with our allies
at uh, A FIA and, and other associationson making sure we're manufacturing
(04:59):
safe, nutritious food for animals.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (05:02):
Very impressive.
Thank you for that.
So I think before we get too muchinto the weeds about the bill, let's
set the stage a little and talk abouthow pet food is currently regulated.
Austin, if you could walk us throughwhat that looks like now and then
we'll get into some of the concerningchanges that the per act is proposing
to make to this current process.
Austin Therrell (05:24):
Absolutely.
So pet food in the United States isregulated on the federal level by the
Food and Drug Administration, and thenadditionally by all the states in the us.
And so generally speaking, each state hasa commercial feed law and regulations that
really dive into the weeds a little bitmore than some of the federal laws do.
And so, um, they get into marketingand labeling requirements and so on.
(05:46):
And so it's really what we refer toas an integrated food safety system.
So.
It's a partnership between thosefederal and state regulators to
oversee, um, all of the animal food.
So whether that's pet food oringredients or livestock feed, all of
it's covered by state and federal laws.
Dr. Charles Starkey (06:03):
It's really nice.
It's not always that the regulatorsand industry get to work this
closely together, but in this case,the intent is the same to make the
safest, best food we can for animals.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (06:15):
Ah, got it.
Thank you both for that explanation.
Now, what exactly is the per act.
Austin Therrell (06:21):
Simply stated, the bill is seeking to preempt the state authority
over pet food and hand that to the FDAand really federalize the way pet food
is regulated and kind of take away a lotof the state authority that currently
exist under those state commercialfeed laws and pet food regulations.
A couple things I think is helpfulsince we're gonna be talking about
(06:42):
kind of harmonization and uniformity,because I think it, it's important
to point out when we talk about,you know, this patchwork, right?
That's where Afco fits in and whereas an association, I feel like
it's really beneficial for us.
We promote a model feed bill andmodel regulations that really.
In some form or fashion form thefoundation of most of the feed laws and
regulations across the us and so we kindof come in and serve in that role to
(07:07):
promote uniformity as much as possible.
Jordan Tyler (07:10):
Okay.
Just a couple pieces ofimportant context here.
The FDA has relied on Afco to be itsboots on the ground in the regulation
of pet food products across theUnited States for the last 17 years.
That is until the FDA optednot to renew a longstanding
partnership agreement last fall.
You might hear it referred to as theMOU or memorandum of understanding.
(07:34):
And if you'd like to learn more aboutthat whole saga, we have an episode for
you that we've linked in the show notes.
So be sure to check thatout if you wanna learn more.
Now Afco is made up of state levelregulators who have worked super
closely with the FDA and done a tonof hands-on regulation work on behalf
of the FDA for nearly two decades.
But under the per act, thatpartnership will go away.
(07:57):
And with it we would lose thelongstanding expertise and experience
that our state regulators offer.
To the system.
This is red flag number one.
Dr. Charles Starkey (08:07):
I, I think the job and the working together
with Afco needs to continue.
I think a lot of theindustry feels that way.
We get into discussions aboutpatchwork and harmonization.
I. And, and that needs to be done andeverybody agrees that needs to be done.
The feed industry, the pet foodindustry, uh, the regulators
themselves, both FDA and afco.
(08:30):
We definitely need to, to worktogether as a coalition to try
to harmonize those standards.
And I think there's just a lot of work,you know, together going forward on that.
FDA is very shorthanded.
And so they've been contractingdata officials who know the local
feed industry and pet food industry,and they go and do the audits.
(08:54):
They're the ones on the ground, they'rethe ones taking samples most often.
They are the ones that catch thingsahead of time, you know, mislabeling
or a, a contaminant or a, a deficiencythat comes from a sample that state
people on the ground have collected.
So I, I actually have some concern withthe dissolving disagreement because
(09:20):
that cooperation between federal andstate puts more people on the ground.
It, you know, the industry's goalis to produce safe, nutritious,
uh, animal food, and we can workwith regulators to help us do that.
There's always a continuous improvementprotocol in place, and that's what
those audits just assist us in doing.
(09:41):
And so.
I believe in cooperation and collaborationwith the regulators and having more
feet on the ground and more people inthe facilities and having more of those
conversations helps us all get better.
It helps regulators learn aboutthe industry, and it helps us
get better at making sure we'redoing our job effectively.
Jordan Tyler (10:01):
Austin, you mentioned the word preempt earlier and I just wanna make
sure I'm understanding that correctly.
Essentially that means under the per act,everything would fall under the purview
of the FDA and the regulatory power thatstates currently hold when it comes to
pet food, would be taken away and replacedentirely by federal regulatory authority.
(10:22):
Is that correct?
Austin Therrell (10:24):
Correct.
Basically, their authority overpet food products for dogs and cats
specifically would be non-existent.
Um, if the the per act were to be passed.
You know, those inspections thatstate regulators do throughout the
year, at least 70% of all animal foodinspections at manufacturing locations
across the US are conducted by stateregulators under contract with FDA.
(10:47):
That doesn't really even account forthe non FDA inspections that states
conduct under their own authority.
And so I can give yousome ballpark numbers.
Um, just from last year, statesconducted at least a thousand
more inspections solely understate authority than even the FDA.
A lot of states have registrationrequirements for that pre-market review
(11:07):
of pet food labels, and so the industryhas to register those products before
they offer 'em for sale in the state.
Last year, states registeredover 171,000 pet food products.
Those state laboratories collected over6,500 samples of pet food products.
Um, again, this is asidefrom anything under FDA.
Those samples, they're, they'retesting for proximate analysis,
(11:30):
the nutritional testing.
They're looking for potential adulterantsor contaminants that might be there.
States took enforcement action onmore than 500 of those samples,
and did, you know, followed up onmore than 50 different recalls.
So that's all state only work.
Again, that would completely, um,go away if their authority over
(11:50):
pet food products, um, were todisappear, um, with a per passing.
The states are doing a ton of work inregards to consumer protection to make
sure that, you know, our pets have thesafest, most nutritious food to eat.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (12:04):
I appreciate you sharing those numbers because I think
it really puts into perspective just howbig of a role, state level regulators
have played in this process and actuallyenforcing regulations to make sure pet
food is safe and what is on the label.
I. Is what is really in the bag.
So let's take a step back.
(12:24):
Jordan, can you dive a littledeeper into the current system?
Can you help me understandthe current system?
Girl, I was
Jordan Tyler (12:31):
hoping that you could help me understand the current
system, but luckily we've got alot of experts on today's call.
And we did some research.
We did.
So yes, let's get into it.
So under the current system, wehave model regulations that are set
by Afco, and individual states canchoose whether or not they wanna.
Adopt them and codify, in other words,integrate those model regulations into
(12:53):
actual rules and systems for their state.
But when talking about the per act,these regulations would be set at the
federal level instead and then handedoff to the states and state regulators
wouldn't have any say about whetherthey would enact or enforce or codify or
not enforce that particular regulation.
Austin, is that kind of the gist?
Austin Therrell (13:16):
Yes.
Yeah, that's, that's correct.
Right now, within a lot of the statefeed laws, some of the federal laws that
exist, like the Food Safety ModernizationAct, states can adopt by reference and
include those within their state laws.
And so, you know, then theFederal Authority is the state
authority in those cases.
But they can pick and choose thatNow, um, in this instance, they,
they wouldn't have that choice.
It would be the law of the land.
Jordan Tyler (13:37):
The law of the land.
Got it.
So obviously you talk with a lot ofstate regulators as well as people that
work in the pet food industry, and soI'm curious to know what sentiments or
rumblings that you've heard from eitheryour fellow regulators or from industry
members in conversations about this bill.
Austin Therrell (13:57):
Maybe just go back to like a, a 30,000 foot view too of the
legislation from industry standpoint andwhat I've heard there are concerns from
the industry that, you know, the stateby state approach to this is cumbersome.
Um, it's difficult, you know, some ofthe states aren't as aligned and so
there's, they're, you know, having to meetrequirements in one state versus another.
And so I think, again, this is beingintroduced to try and promote a lot
(14:20):
more uniformity than even we have now.
It's important to share too that, youknow, this, this bill was put together
and, and worked on, um, by industry alone,state regulators were not consulted.
As in, you know, in any part of this.
A lot of our members wouldsupport, you know, one set of
federal pet food regulations.
It's a lot of the other piecesof it, you know, that I think
(14:42):
are detrimental to the safety.
The consumer protection pieces of this.
But, but I, I see the goal, I thinkis to really try and, and harmonize
the system and really for the pet foodindustry, or at least some of them, to
get out of a lot of the, the red tapethat honestly they feel like states
require, but really is there for, youknow, a, a good reason to make sure that
(15:03):
those products are safe and that, youknow, the claims that we see on pet food
labels are truthful and not misleading.
Dr. Charles Starkey (15:09):
Just one clarification of what Austin said.
A portion of the industry putthe perza forward, not the entire
animal food ingredient industry.
Austin Therrell (15:19):
Yeah.
And, and that's important to notebecause I think some of the industry
is supporting this, you know, or someof our, the bigger corporations that
are out there and, you know, maybe someof what is being proposed under the
par would be beneficial from them, um,as far as just making things easier.
But it's not representative of theentire industry and some of the smaller
firms that, that may not agree with it.
Jordan Tyler (15:41):
Yeah, and especially when you consider smaller companies
typically being more resourceconstrained already compared to some
of the bigger multinational brands,and I think that's really one of
the key red flags of this bill.
Because as we kind of see it, smallerpet food producers and ingredient
companies is where some really,really cool innovation comes from.
(16:01):
And it's also interesting to notethat while this bill was introduced
by two Republican and one Democraticcongressman, one of the driving forces
behind it is the Pet Food Institute,or PFI, whose membership makes up the
vast majority of US pet food and treatproducts according to their website.
We reached out to PFI to invite themon this episode, but never heard back.
(16:22):
Now their members are some of thelargest pet food and treat producers
in the country and have significantmarket shares in the industry.
So if this is the portion of the industrythat worked on the per act, it would
make sense that the new regulatorysystem would benefit these big players.
Right?
But what about the smaller guys?
How would they fare against a regulatorysystem Designed for some, but not all.
(16:47):
I guess I just worry that we couldpotentially shortchange some cutting
edge advancements in nutritionalscience and ingredient technologies that
originate with some of these smaller,more agile pet nutrition brands.
Like we all love an underdog, but I couldsee how this bill could stifle innovation
from smaller companies that don't have asmuch influence in the industry, as well as
(17:09):
creating space for bad actors to misguideconsumers on ingredients and claims.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (17:15):
It really begs the question of who loses and
who wins as a result of this bill.
Jordan Tyler (17:22):
Right, exactly.
So let's use that as a jumping off point.
I'd love to hear from you, Austin and Dr.Starkey about the key concerns you have
about the per act, either from an industryperspective or a consumer perspective.
Austin Therrell (17:36):
Yeah.
Some of the, the pieces that I thinkfrom an afco perspective that we
find, um, a little bit difficultto, within the bill, um, obviously
the preemption language, right?
To preempt the state authority.
And I, I've shared a couple othernumbers that I think are important when
we look at, you know, whether we'redoing this inspection work under a
contract with FDA or as a state, right?
(17:56):
Like I said, there's an integrated foodsafety system, so I don't wanna disparage
FDA in any way, but they're strugglingwith resources and staffing as well.
Like a lot of others.
There was a government accountabilityoffice report that came out where it
highlighted that FDA failed to meetinspection frequencies since 2018.
When we look at the costof doing inspections.
For FDA to go out and do an inspectionis gonna cost around $20,000 to go out.
(18:21):
And that's just a, a currentgood manufacturing inspection.
A state inspector could go out and do thesame inspection for roughly about $2,000.
And so when we look at just thedifferences on how taxpayer money is
being spent and how we can regulatethe industry and do it as efficiently
as possible with taxpayer dollars.
The best model is that sharedauthority between states and FDA,
(18:45):
where we can do that together.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (18:47):
So if the per act is passed, I'm curious, could this
potentially put some of them outta work?
I.
Austin Therrell (18:55):
Yeah, I mean, realistically
speaking, it certainly could.
Um, you know, when we look at, um, alot of the work that our state programs
do, and we talked about licensingand registration and tonnage fees,
and, you know, some of those user feeprograms are what support the, the
animal food programs at the state level.
And so when you, you know, takeaway this authority for states
(19:16):
to do that, and they're solely.
You know, operating under, uh, maybecontract, um, as a commission official
with the FDA, they're relying on thoseFDA funds and you know that that's
likely, it has the ability to, to decreasesome of the staffing at the state level
and, and cut those funding mechanisms.
You know, if states want to,you know, maintain that same
level of funding sometimes.
(19:37):
Maybe it could create a scenariowhere those, you know, uh, fees
are passed off now to the livestockside, who's still gonna, you know,
exist outside of the per act.
And so it's gonna increase fees, youknow, user fees, um, across the industry.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (19:50):
So increased fees, the potential for funds to be
reassigned to other segments of theanimal food industry that still have
some state level regulatory authority.
And then the other side of that iswhere is the FDA going to find the time?
You know, this stuff is a lot of workand the FDA is already understaffed
(20:10):
and underfunded and the per act doesn'tstipulate any kind of additional funding
for these really sweeping changes.
How is that even gonna work?
Jordan Tyler (20:20):
Right?
It's like giving the FDA more than we knowthey can handle no additional funding.
While at the same time, taking poweraway from state regulators who have
been doing this for years and havereally, really honed their expertise
and knowledge about what's importantto consumers and their state and
how to protect them and their pets.
I mean, what could go wrong?
(20:42):
And then think about the timingof this is just impeccable.
So we're recording this in early 2025, andI'm sure many of us are already aware of.
The changes to federal agenciesacross the board being driven by
the Trump administration and the newDepartment of Government efficiency.
We're talking significant budget cuts,sweeping layoffs, and hiring freezes,
(21:04):
which could very well impact how petfood is regulated through the FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine or CBM.
Especially if the Pro Act moves
Dr. Stephanie Clark (21:14):
forward.
Yeah, and according to some recentreports that I've read, the FDA could
lose thousands of employees by the end ofthe year due to a combination of budget
cuts, reforms and leadership shakeups.
And let's be honest, I. This is happeningat a time when public trust in the
FDA is already kind of on the rocks.
A 2025 survey by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation found that only 53% of
(21:40):
respondents have a great deal or a fairamount of trust in the FDA's ability
to make the right recommendations onhealth issues, which is not great.
Jordan Tyler (21:52):
It's not great and it gets worse, so we're already seeing layoffs
hitting key areas of the FDA, includingregulators responsible for ensuring that
drugs for pets and livestock are safeand effective according to one report.
One F-D-A-C-V-M employee said atleast 20 animal drug reviewers
had already lost their jobs.
(22:14):
But since this news is spreading throughword of mouth and anonymous sources rather
than through official channels, the realnumber could actually be much higher.
Dr. Stephanie Clark: That's a serious problem. (22:23):
undefined
These layoffs don't justaffect pet food safety.
They could impact the safety of foodproducts that come from livestock,
which means this could have a rippleeffect on the human food supply as well.
The Yikes.
Jordan Tyler (22:38):
So if the per act moves forward and shifts even more
regulatory responsibility to the FDAand the F-D-A-C-V-M, how exactly is
the agency expected to handle this?
I mean, as you said earlier, they'realready understaffed, underfunded,
and struggling to keep up withtheir existing responsibilities.
But adding more to their plate withoutadditional funding or personnel,
(23:02):
and even amid, you know, budget cutsand people getting laid off just
seems like a recipe for disaster.
I.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (23:09):
Exactly, Jordan, we're already seeing the consequences
of regulatory gaps, and if the peract removes state oversight while the
FDA is losing experienced staff leftand right, it raises a major question,
who's left to ensure pet food safety?
Because right now it lookslike that answer might be
(23:30):
no one.
Jordan Tyler (23:31):
So that is something, and if you wanna learn more about
all of that, we've linked somereports that we referenced in
the show notes for this episode.
But Austin, what elseconcerns you about this bill?
Any other red flags and specificallyred flags for pet parents?
Austin Therrell (23:49):
The other issue we find problematic is the ingredients, sometimes
present language that allows for thesubstitution of specifically fats or oils.
Um, there's some of the flavoringredients or some of the grain
ingredients, and we know that's,that's allowed on the human side.
That's where this comes from.
And you know, when I eat something.
I know what I'm eating and I can tell youwhether or not, you know, I, something
(24:12):
is in there that I want to be in there.
Our animals don'tnecessarily have that luxury.
It, it's our responsibility to knowexactly what we're feeding them.
When we're looking at, you know, dogs orcats that might have allergy issues, you
know, it, it's, it's really importantfor consumers to know what fats or
oils are in that product or what flavoringredients so that they can avoid
particular ingredients if they want to.
(24:34):
And so we feel like this really, again,it's not ideal from a consumer standpoint,
but from an industry standpoint too.
It creates a mechanism for.
Potential bad actors to say, Hey, we'regonna label a product with maybe a fat or
an oil, um, ingredient that has a betterconsumer perception and then substitute
it for something of lesser qualitythat maybe can increase profit margins.
(24:57):
And so, um, again, not to sayanyone would do that, um, but it
creates the opportunity for badactors to capitalize on that.
And I don't think that'sa good idea for anyone.
The last piece that I'll touch on, Ithink is the permissible marketing claims.
Um, so, you know, human grade ismentioned, natural is mentioned,
and some of those things within thecurrent afco official publication.
(25:19):
We have guidelines for makingsome of those claims now
that anyone can go and find.
If you wanna readthrough that publication.
What the problem here is that it's,it's codifying that and, but at the
same time preempting the state authorityto check for those marketing claims.
So essentially it's saying, Hey, we canput this on our package and no one's gonna
ask us a question about, or you don'thave the authority to check and make sure
it's actually truthful and not misleading.
(25:41):
I. I mentioned earlier that stateshave those pre-market label review
programs in place, and so they havethe authority when they see claims to,
um, reach back out to a firm and say,Hey, can you substantiate that this
claim is truthful, not misleading?
They can request documents tosubstantiate that claim, to prove
that it's truthful, that it's actuallyhuman grade, those type of things.
(26:01):
And they do that within that labelreview process to make sure that by
the time that product or a product ison the shelf, that claim is truthful.
So by just codifying that and thennot allowing anyone to do any kind
of pre-market review, um, to ensurethat it's, it's actually in fact
true, it just opens the door for someof those claims, those buzzwords and
(26:23):
those trendy marketing claims to justbe slapped on packages with no one
verifying that they're actually accurate.
So again, that's just from a regulatorstandpoint, that's problematic.
And those are the type of thingsthat state regulators right now
are looking at on a daily basis.
Jordan Tyler (26:39):
Yeah.
Yikes.
I am not loving that.
And coming back to your earlier point,our pets can't tell us if there's
something wrong with their food.
You know, we have to advocate for them.
So if companies can fudge their ingredientstatements and claims and swap one
ingredient for another willy nilly,well, the pet parent isn't on the wiser.
That just to me, goes against theentire industry's mission of keeping
(27:02):
pets healthy, happy, and well fed.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (27:05):
Yeah, Jordan, I like to think about it in human
food or what we may experience.
Think about people with nut allergies.
Let's say someone is allergic to peanutsbut not almonds, and they run out of
almond butter in this product and theyjust decide to replace it with peanut
butter, or say you love chocolate coveredalmonds, and they ran out of almonds
(27:28):
and they just replaced it with peanuts.
It's still a nut, and that'sthe kind of swapping that we're
talking about in pet food.
Jordan Tyler (27:34):
Yeah, it just, it gives the manufacturer the ability to make a
swap and not disclose that on the label.
I mean, nut allergies are likesome of the most common food
allergies in the United States.
So I like the way that you framed it.
Like people have to be really cognizantof this stuff and it, the same
can be said of pets that have foodallergies or special dietary needs.
(27:57):
They need to get what's exactlyon the label ex. Exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Dr. Charles Starkey (28:04):
I have a lot of questions with this.
You know, when we talk specificallyabout dogs and cats, we have two
very different mammalian species.
When we talk about substitutingfats and oils, you're talking about
substituting potentially oil seed oilsfor animal fats, and there's very little
(28:24):
research on this, but there's somethat has a high suggestion for cardiac
health and other reasons, animal fats.
Specifically in a cat, but in a, inother mammals as well would definitely
be more nutritious sources of fatty acidsand especially saturated fatty acids.
(28:45):
The other thing is just digestive upset.
You know, many of us have changed petfood at home, and if you don't start
to do a blend and do that carefully,we all tend to have nice presence
and messy situations to clean up.
So the ability to just change that ina specific formula without consumer
(29:07):
knowledge, I, I worry a little bitabout how that may affect the pet.
The flavor ingredients thathas some impact as well.
But the grain ingredients reallyconcern me, uh, pretty highly as well.
There's di very different fiberfractions in these different grains.
I. There's a huge difference innutrient digestibility and, you know,
(29:30):
availability of the animal and thegrain like corn than there would
be in a grain like wheat or barley.
And I'm not saying any of those arebetter or worse, but they have to
be formulated extremely differently.
And so I think it's more aquestion that I'm not clear on.
You know, are we talking masssubstitution of one grain for another?
(29:52):
There, there are just some questionsthere because one ingredient is not the
same as another, whether we're talkingabout fats and oils or grains or protein,
uh, they can be very, very different.
I just, I don't know exactly what mayend up happening to the pet there.
Austin Therrell (30:08):
I think it's a big deal to point out too, within the ACT
language, they're calling for a 90day ingredient review time for new
ingredients to support the industry.
When we look at like the current,you know, the regulatory systems, the
pathways for ingredients to come tomarket, those, you know, generally
had about 180 day review time.
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 wasreviewing only about 19% of those on time.
Within that 180 day timeline, for grassnotices, they were around 29% and around
for afco ingredients, it was at 22%.
So that was pretty bad.
Now, the industry as well as Afco, um,you know, during that time period were
(30:55):
advocating and, and going to Congressfor additional support for FDA and
those folks within the division ofanimal food ingredients that they,
they really needed more staffing,um, and more people to do those.
And, and Congress granted that theygot additional funding and were
really able to build that staffing up.
Those were 2019 numbers.
If we look at last year, the FDAwas reviewing a hundred percent of
(31:20):
food additive petitions on time.
94% of grass notices on time.
And before the afco, MOU ended, theywere around 81% on afco ingredients.
So a significant change inthat bottleneck, you know,
in the ingredient space.
Um, realistically, it, itno longer exists right now.
Now we're still talking about 180day review time though, so within
(31:43):
the per act, you know, you're callingfor, to cut that in half to 90 days.
Also, there's no appropriations,um, related to this bill as well.
So we're saying, Hey, FDA, doyour work in half the time, we're
not gonna give you any more.
Funding to hire more staff andto meet those numbers either.
So I think it's setting the agency up forfailure, um, to kind of set a little bit
(32:04):
of an unrealistic goal, um, to do that.
And, you know, practically speaking, um,a lot of these, you know, products are
going to go, uh, you know, unregulatedand, and a lot more of a sense
than they, than they are right now.
And, and I don't think that's, um,setting, you know, the industry, um, or
consumers up for success in the long term.
Jordan Tyler (32:23):
The other piece of that is the 2025 version of the per act
was reintroduced in January, and thatversion of the bill stipulates additional
responsibilities for the Director ofthe Center for Veterinary Medicine or
CVM, which is essentially who wouldspearhead regulatory activities for pet
food if it was all placed under the FDA.
(32:43):
Now these added responsibilitiesinclude conducting research to support
regulatory decisions as well aseducating industry members and consumers
about pet food safety and nutrition.
And I'm taking this straight outof the 2025 version of the bill.
But Steph, like
Dr. Stephanie Clark (33:02):
this doesn't add up to me.
Don't even get me started.
It's so funny because when we were workingwith the FDA, during the DCM scandal,
the FDA told us that they don't conductresearch on behalf of the industry.
The industry has to do research.
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?
Jordan Tyler (33:25):
Mm, yeah.
Doubtful, right?
And if the agency's already constrainedfrom a resource perspective, and
now we're giving them loads moreresponsibility and requiring them to
do it in a shorter window of time.
I just, I don't see how that's gonna setanybody up for success or even set us up
for continuity from the current system.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (33:46):
So when you boil this all down, there's a lot to the
per act that deserves a second look.
And there are certainly moreserious ramifications for pet
food safety and transparency thanwhat's evident at face value.
Dr. Charles Starkey (33:59):
I think everybody, uh, industry especially,
uh, goal is to reduce recalls,to provide safe, nutritious food.
It doesn't do anyone in the industryany good to produce a bad product.
So we wanna make sure thoseanimals are as healthy as they
can be, and they mean a lot to us.
So I think everyone's working together.
(34:22):
Industry, federal and state are allworking together toward that end goal.
But what we need to alwaysremember how important.
Animal foods, whether they'relivestock or pet, are part of the
entire safe food system in ourcountry and and across the globe.
And they're really part of theoverall one health approach.
(34:43):
And so I think we haveto keep that in mind.
Austin Therrell (34:45):
Yeah, that, that was well said by Charles.
The only other thing, you know, I, Ijust want to add onto that is, I mean,
yeah, we're talking about almost twothirds of US households that own a pet.
You know, they're, they'repart of our family.
And so, again, I, I guess to, to maybeland the plan on this, you know, when
we're looking at the per act, thereare a lot of things when we talk about
uniformity and, and wanting the bestsystem in place for the industry,
(35:06):
um, we all want the same thing.
I want uniformity acrossthe US as much as anyone.
Um, as regulators.
We want a system that, you know,supports innovation for the industry.
And at the end of the day, justlike the industry, we won't
save food products for animals.
And you know, I, I think justin regards to the per that's not
maybe, um, at this point in time,the, the best option for that.
(35:28):
I think there's other ways we can workon these issues to be more efficient, um,
and, and all to accomplish the same thing.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (35:36):
Absolutely.
So the bill was reintroduced in January.
What's next for pet parents listeningand maybe also industry members?
How would you suggest they maketheir voices heard about this issue?
I.
Austin Therrell (35:50):
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, we're, we're inthe sandbox right now.
You know anyone listening within theindustry or as a consumer or a pet
owner, you know, right now just to beaware of what's going on, what your
elected officials are signing onto, keepyour eyes open for change in the spill.
Opinions and letters that comeout from Afco and from others.
So you can stay up todate on what's going on.
(36:11):
And, and certainly if you feel likeanything we've shared today resonates
with you, um, to reach out to thoseelected officials and, and just
share that, you know, you're notsupportive of the per act and would
really appreciate some more focus backon the state animal food programs.
Dr. Charles Starkey (36:25):
Yeah, I think from my viewpoint overall, if we
can continue collaborations with thepet food and the, the livestock feed
and the industry and the regulators.
I think we can come up to a lotof solutions to a lot of the
problems or the complicationsthat we're dealing with currently.
Opportunities that wouldbe the best word to use.
Jordan Tyler (36:46):
Right?
Yeah.
It's obvious that there are severalkinks to work out here and not even
to mention some of the issues that areforeseen with the generally recognized
as safe or grass statute that we talkeda little bit about earlier, which
is essentially one of the ways a newpepper ingredient can come to market.
Or that is has historically been oneof the ways, but recent leadership
(37:08):
appointments at the federal level spellan uncertain future for this pathway.
Now while that is definitely implicatedwith the per act, it's kind of a whole
other can of worms, but if you'd liketo dig deeper there, let us know and
we'll put together another episodeabout that piece of the puzzle.
Overall though, it soundslike as the bill stands today.
(37:31):
The intention might be there, butin practice there are just so many
loopholes and contingencies thatcould end up complicating pet food
safety and transparency for petparents across the United States.
So I really appreciate Austin and, and Dr.
Starkey, you sharing your thoughtson this bill and for the candid
conversation that we've had today.
(37:51):
And I look forward to staying intouch so that we can keep everybody
informed about this important issue.
The per act presents some significantchallenges for both industry
professionals and pet parents.
Although the goal of harmonizingregulations is understandable,
I'm personally not convinced thatoverburdening an already resource
(38:13):
strapped federal agency like theFDA, stripping state regulators of
their local regulatory authority andpotentially weakening oversight of
safety and marketing claims is the right
Dr. Stephanie Clark (38:25):
approach.
Our commitment at BSM Partners barkingMAD is to support pet food stakeholders
from industry professionals to loving petparents as they navigate the increasingly
convoluted regulatory landscape for our
Jordan Tyler (38:40):
fellow pet parents.
If what you heard on today's episodeconcerns you about the future of pet
food, now is the time to take action.
Contact your state representativesand write them a letter
to voice your concerns.
And if you don't know who your staterepresentative is or how to contact
them, we've even made it easy for you.
In the show notes for this episode,we've included a link to the US
(39:02):
House of Representatives websitewhere you can input your zip code
to find your government officialsand how to get in touch with them.
We've also linked to a form letterthat you can download, add your
information to, and send to yourelected official to voice your concerns.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (39:18):
We've also provided links in the show notes below to the
full text of the per act of 2025 andother related resources to equip you with
all the knowledge you need to determinewhether this bill is truly the right
thing for you and your beloved pets.
Jordan Tyler (39:34):
We hope you'll leverage these resources and keep up with BSM
Partners, thought leadership to stayinformed about the potential challenges
and opportunities posed by the per act.
And we encourage you to become part ofthe conversation by sharing this episode
with your friends, fellow pet loversand industry members, and engaging in
dialogue to ensure pet food remainssafe, transparent, and accountable.
(39:59):
A huge thank you to Austin Farrelland Dr. Charles Starkey for sharing
their insights with us today.
We'd also like to thank our dedicatedteam, ADA at Thomas Neely Boden, Kate
Wright, Katie Wolf, and Dr. Katie Miller.
An extra thank you to LeanneHaggerty and Michael Johnson
in support of this episode.
See you next time.
Today we're diving deep into the per act, a piece of proposed
legislation that aims to quote unquoteunify the pet food regulatory landscape.
But when examined more closelycould actually put the integrity
of your pet's food into jeopardy.
But first, let's take a step back.
It's estimated that 33 millionAmericans are allergic to at
(00:38):
least one food or ingredient.
Even if you don't have a foodallergy, you know someone who does.
And you'll also know that people withmany food allergies or those that
could have severe reactions are verycareful about how they shop for food.
People who are allergic to certainfood ingredients will also tell
you, this is not out of paranoiaor for the sake of being high
(01:00):
maintenance, but out of necessity.
Because when a mishap occurs, theconsequences can be serious and sometimes.
Life-threatening.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (01:10):
Now, imagine a world where food companies no longer
have to be completely transparentabout ingredients, where vague and
misleading claims go unchecked, and wherethere's no system in place to verify
if the exact ingredient listed on thelabel is what's actually in the box.
Jordan Tyler (01:28):
That's exactly the kind of regulatory loophole the per act
could create in the pet food industry.
Right now, state regulators play a crucialrole in ensuring that pet food labels are
truthful and that ingredient substitutionsdon't put pet's health at risk.
But if the per act passes, muchof that oversight could disappear.
(01:49):
Potentially opening the door forbad actors, misleading claims and
unverified ingredients to make theirway into your dog and cat's food.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (01:59):
So we're here today asking the big questions.
How will this impact pet food safety?
Who will hold brands accountable?
And what can pet ownersdo to protect their pets?
To help us break it all down?
We're joined by two industry expertswho know exactly what's at stake.
Let's get into it.
(02:19):
Welcome to Barking Mad, apodcast by BSM Partners.
We're your hosts, Dr. Stephanie Clark.
Jordan Tyler (02:28):
And I'm Jordan Tyler.
So at first glance, the per act mightseem like a step toward consistency
in pet food oversight, streamliningregulations, reducing some red tape,
and creating a more uniform system.
But as we start to peel back the layers,a more complicated reality emerges.
(02:48):
Dig a little deeper, and you'll findthis bill would strip regulatory
power from state agencies andconsolidate it under the FDA, raising
concerns about enforcement capacity,consumer protections, and even the
future of innovation in pet food.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (03:07):
So what would this mean for pet food companies?
Big and small.
Would it make it easier tobring new products to market?
Or would it open the door for misleadingclaims and unregulated ingredients?
And most importantly, how would thisaffect pet parents who rely on clear,
accurate labeling to make informeddecisions about their pet's nutrition?
Jordan Tyler (03:29):
All really good questions and we're gonna get into all of that
today and more with two great guests.
I'm pleased to introduce Austin Farrell,executive Director of the Association
for American Feed Control Officialsor afco, as well as Dr. Charles
Starkey, vice President of Regulatoryand Scientific Affairs for the North
American Renderers Association or nara.
(03:52):
So to get a little more context, uh,about our great guest today, Austin,
tell us a little bit more about yourself.
Austin Therrell (04:00):
Thanks for having us.
My name's Austin Darrell.
Um, I currently serve as the executivedirector for the Association of
American Feed Control Officials.
Been in that role for a little overtwo years now, and prior to that, um,
managed the Animal Feed regulatoryprogram at the South Carolina Department
of Agriculture for about eight years.
So as part of that role, um, oversawstate inspection program, sampling
(04:21):
program with our state laboratory.
And we reviewed quite a few, you know,products and labels for, uh, for marketing
claims and, and that type of thing.
Jordan Tyler (04:29):
And Dr. Starkey, let's hear a little bit more
about your background as well.
Dr. Charles Starkey (04:34):
I have a degree in, uh, animal nutrition and have been in the
industry for over 30 years, production andnutrition based and feed manufacturing.
I'm currently the vice president ofregulatory and Scientific Affairs for the
North American Renders Association andjust working on, uh, our, with our allies
at uh, A FIA and, and other associationson making sure we're manufacturing
(04:59):
safe, nutritious food for animals.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (05:02):
Very impressive.
Thank you for that.
So I think before we get too muchinto the weeds about the bill, let's
set the stage a little and talk abouthow pet food is currently regulated.
Austin, if you could walk us throughwhat that looks like now and then
we'll get into some of the concerningchanges that the per act is proposing
to make to this current process.
Austin Therrell (05:24):
Absolutely.
So pet food in the United States isregulated on the federal level by the
Food and Drug Administration, and thenadditionally by all the states in the us.
And so generally speaking, each state hasa commercial feed law and regulations that
really dive into the weeds a little bitmore than some of the federal laws do.
And so, um, they get into marketingand labeling requirements and so on.
(05:46):
And so it's really what we refer toas an integrated food safety system.
So.
It's a partnership between thosefederal and state regulators to
oversee, um, all of the animal food.
So whether that's pet food oringredients or livestock feed, all of
it's covered by state and federal laws.
Dr. Charles Starkey (06:03):
It's really nice.
It's not always that the regulatorsand industry get to work this
closely together, but in this case,the intent is the same to make the
safest, best food we can for animals.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (06:15):
Ah, got it.
Thank you both for that explanation.
Now, what exactly is the per act.
Austin Therrell (06:21):
Simply stated, the bill is seeking to preempt the state authority
over pet food and hand that to the FDAand really federalize the way pet food
is regulated and kind of take away a lotof the state authority that currently
exist under those state commercialfeed laws and pet food regulations.
A couple things I think is helpfulsince we're gonna be talking about
(06:42):
kind of harmonization and uniformity,because I think it, it's important
to point out when we talk about,you know, this patchwork, right?
That's where Afco fits in and whereas an association, I feel like
it's really beneficial for us.
We promote a model feed bill andmodel regulations that really.
In some form or fashion form thefoundation of most of the feed laws and
regulations across the us and so we kindof come in and serve in that role to
(07:07):
promote uniformity as much as possible.
Jordan Tyler (07:10):
Okay.
Just a couple pieces ofimportant context here.
The FDA has relied on Afco to be itsboots on the ground in the regulation
of pet food products across theUnited States for the last 17 years.
That is until the FDA optednot to renew a longstanding
partnership agreement last fall.
You might hear it referred to as theMOU or memorandum of understanding.
(07:34):
And if you'd like to learn more aboutthat whole saga, we have an episode for
you that we've linked in the show notes.
So be sure to check thatout if you wanna learn more.
Now Afco is made up of state levelregulators who have worked super
closely with the FDA and done a tonof hands-on regulation work on behalf
of the FDA for nearly two decades.
But under the per act, thatpartnership will go away.
(07:57):
And with it we would lose thelongstanding expertise and experience
that our state regulators offer.
To the system.
This is red flag number one.
Dr. Charles Starkey (08:07):
I, I think the job and the working together
with Afco needs to continue.
I think a lot of theindustry feels that way.
We get into discussions aboutpatchwork and harmonization.
I. And, and that needs to be done andeverybody agrees that needs to be done.
The feed industry, the pet foodindustry, uh, the regulators
themselves, both FDA and afco.
(08:30):
We definitely need to, to worktogether as a coalition to try
to harmonize those standards.
And I think there's just a lot of work,you know, together going forward on that.
FDA is very shorthanded.
And so they've been contractingdata officials who know the local
feed industry and pet food industry,and they go and do the audits.
(08:54):
They're the ones on the ground, they'rethe ones taking samples most often.
They are the ones that catch thingsahead of time, you know, mislabeling
or a, a contaminant or a, a deficiencythat comes from a sample that state
people on the ground have collected.
So I, I actually have some concern withthe dissolving disagreement because
(09:20):
that cooperation between federal andstate puts more people on the ground.
It, you know, the industry's goalis to produce safe, nutritious,
uh, animal food, and we can workwith regulators to help us do that.
There's always a continuous improvementprotocol in place, and that's what
those audits just assist us in doing.
(09:41):
And so.
I believe in cooperation and collaborationwith the regulators and having more
feet on the ground and more people inthe facilities and having more of those
conversations helps us all get better.
It helps regulators learn aboutthe industry, and it helps us
get better at making sure we'redoing our job effectively.
Jordan Tyler (10:01):
Austin, you mentioned the word preempt earlier and I just wanna make
sure I'm understanding that correctly.
Essentially that means under the per act,everything would fall under the purview
of the FDA and the regulatory power thatstates currently hold when it comes to
pet food, would be taken away and replacedentirely by federal regulatory authority.
(10:22):
Is that correct?
Austin Therrell (10:24):
Correct.
Basically, their authority overpet food products for dogs and cats
specifically would be non-existent.
Um, if the the per act were to be passed.
You know, those inspections thatstate regulators do throughout the
year, at least 70% of all animal foodinspections at manufacturing locations
across the US are conducted by stateregulators under contract with FDA.
(10:47):
That doesn't really even account forthe non FDA inspections that states
conduct under their own authority.
And so I can give yousome ballpark numbers.
Um, just from last year, statesconducted at least a thousand
more inspections solely understate authority than even the FDA.
A lot of states have registrationrequirements for that pre-market review
(11:07):
of pet food labels, and so the industryhas to register those products before
they offer 'em for sale in the state.
Last year, states registeredover 171,000 pet food products.
Those state laboratories collected over6,500 samples of pet food products.
Um, again, this is asidefrom anything under FDA.
Those samples, they're, they'retesting for proximate analysis,
(11:30):
the nutritional testing.
They're looking for potential adulterantsor contaminants that might be there.
States took enforcement action onmore than 500 of those samples,
and did, you know, followed up onmore than 50 different recalls.
So that's all state only work.
Again, that would completely, um,go away if their authority over
(11:50):
pet food products, um, were todisappear, um, with a per passing.
The states are doing a ton of work inregards to consumer protection to make
sure that, you know, our pets have thesafest, most nutritious food to eat.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (12:04):
I appreciate you sharing those numbers because I think
it really puts into perspective just howbig of a role, state level regulators
have played in this process and actuallyenforcing regulations to make sure pet
food is safe and what is on the label.
I. Is what is really in the bag.
So let's take a step back.
(12:24):
Jordan, can you dive a littledeeper into the current system?
Can you help me understandthe current system?
Girl, I was
Jordan Tyler (12:31):
hoping that you could help me understand the current
system, but luckily we've got alot of experts on today's call.
And we did some research.
We did.
So yes, let's get into it.
So under the current system, wehave model regulations that are set
by Afco, and individual states canchoose whether or not they wanna.
Adopt them and codify, in other words,integrate those model regulations into
(12:53):
actual rules and systems for their state.
But when talking about the per act,these regulations would be set at the
federal level instead and then handedoff to the states and state regulators
wouldn't have any say about whetherthey would enact or enforce or codify or
not enforce that particular regulation.
Austin, is that kind of the gist?
Austin Therrell (13:16):
Yes.
Yeah, that's, that's correct.
Right now, within a lot of the statefeed laws, some of the federal laws that
exist, like the Food Safety ModernizationAct, states can adopt by reference and
include those within their state laws.
And so, you know, then theFederal Authority is the state
authority in those cases.
But they can pick and choose thatNow, um, in this instance, they,
they wouldn't have that choice.
It would be the law of the land.
Jordan Tyler (13:37):
The law of the land.
Got it.
So obviously you talk with a lot ofstate regulators as well as people that
work in the pet food industry, and soI'm curious to know what sentiments or
rumblings that you've heard from eitheryour fellow regulators or from industry
members in conversations about this bill.
Austin Therrell (13:57):
Maybe just go back to like a, a 30,000 foot view too of the
legislation from industry standpoint andwhat I've heard there are concerns from
the industry that, you know, the stateby state approach to this is cumbersome.
Um, it's difficult, you know, some ofthe states aren't as aligned and so
there's, they're, you know, having to meetrequirements in one state versus another.
And so I think, again, this is beingintroduced to try and promote a lot
(14:20):
more uniformity than even we have now.
It's important to share too that, youknow, this, this bill was put together
and, and worked on, um, by industry alone,state regulators were not consulted.
As in, you know, in any part of this.
A lot of our members wouldsupport, you know, one set of
federal pet food regulations.
It's a lot of the other piecesof it, you know, that I think
(14:42):
are detrimental to the safety.
The consumer protection pieces of this.
But, but I, I see the goal, I thinkis to really try and, and harmonize
the system and really for the pet foodindustry, or at least some of them, to
get out of a lot of the, the red tapethat honestly they feel like states
require, but really is there for, youknow, a, a good reason to make sure that
(15:03):
those products are safe and that, youknow, the claims that we see on pet food
labels are truthful and not misleading.
Dr. Charles Starkey (15:09):
Just one clarification of what Austin said.
A portion of the industry putthe perza forward, not the entire
animal food ingredient industry.
Austin Therrell (15:19):
Yeah.
And, and that's important to notebecause I think some of the industry
is supporting this, you know, or someof our, the bigger corporations that
are out there and, you know, maybe someof what is being proposed under the
par would be beneficial from them, um,as far as just making things easier.
But it's not representative of theentire industry and some of the smaller
firms that, that may not agree with it.
Jordan Tyler (15:41):
Yeah, and especially when you consider smaller companies
typically being more resourceconstrained already compared to some
of the bigger multinational brands,and I think that's really one of
the key red flags of this bill.
Because as we kind of see it, smallerpet food producers and ingredient
companies is where some really,really cool innovation comes from.
(16:01):
And it's also interesting to notethat while this bill was introduced
by two Republican and one Democraticcongressman, one of the driving forces
behind it is the Pet Food Institute,or PFI, whose membership makes up the
vast majority of US pet food and treatproducts according to their website.
We reached out to PFI to invite themon this episode, but never heard back.
(16:22):
Now their members are some of thelargest pet food and treat producers
in the country and have significantmarket shares in the industry.
So if this is the portion of the industrythat worked on the per act, it would
make sense that the new regulatorysystem would benefit these big players.
Right?
But what about the smaller guys?
How would they fare against a regulatorysystem Designed for some, but not all.
(16:47):
I guess I just worry that we couldpotentially shortchange some cutting
edge advancements in nutritionalscience and ingredient technologies that
originate with some of these smaller,more agile pet nutrition brands.
Like we all love an underdog, but I couldsee how this bill could stifle innovation
from smaller companies that don't have asmuch influence in the industry, as well as
(17:09):
creating space for bad actors to misguideconsumers on ingredients and claims.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (17:15):
It really begs the question of who loses and
who wins as a result of this bill.
Jordan Tyler (17:22):
Right, exactly.
So let's use that as a jumping off point.
I'd love to hear from you, Austin and Dr.Starkey about the key concerns you have
about the per act, either from an industryperspective or a consumer perspective.
Austin Therrell (17:36):
Yeah.
Some of the, the pieces that I thinkfrom an afco perspective that we
find, um, a little bit difficultto, within the bill, um, obviously
the preemption language, right?
To preempt the state authority.
And I, I've shared a couple othernumbers that I think are important when
we look at, you know, whether we'redoing this inspection work under a
contract with FDA or as a state, right?
(17:56):
Like I said, there's an integrated foodsafety system, so I don't wanna disparage
FDA in any way, but they're strugglingwith resources and staffing as well.
Like a lot of others.
There was a government accountabilityoffice report that came out where it
highlighted that FDA failed to meetinspection frequencies since 2018.
When we look at the costof doing inspections.
For FDA to go out and do an inspectionis gonna cost around $20,000 to go out.
(18:21):
And that's just a, a currentgood manufacturing inspection.
A state inspector could go out and do thesame inspection for roughly about $2,000.
And so when we look at just thedifferences on how taxpayer money is
being spent and how we can regulatethe industry and do it as efficiently
as possible with taxpayer dollars.
The best model is that sharedauthority between states and FDA,
(18:45):
where we can do that together.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (18:47):
So if the per act is passed, I'm curious, could this
potentially put some of them outta work?
I.
Austin Therrell (18:55):
Yeah, I mean, realistically
speaking, it certainly could.
Um, you know, when we look at, um, alot of the work that our state programs
do, and we talked about licensingand registration and tonnage fees,
and, you know, some of those user feeprograms are what support the, the
animal food programs at the state level.
And so when you, you know, takeaway this authority for states
(19:16):
to do that, and they're solely.
You know, operating under, uh, maybecontract, um, as a commission official
with the FDA, they're relying on thoseFDA funds and you know that that's
likely, it has the ability to, to decreasesome of the staffing at the state level
and, and cut those funding mechanisms.
You know, if states want to,you know, maintain that same
level of funding sometimes.
(19:37):
Maybe it could create a scenariowhere those, you know, uh, fees
are passed off now to the livestockside, who's still gonna, you know,
exist outside of the per act.
And so it's gonna increase fees, youknow, user fees, um, across the industry.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (19:50):
So increased fees, the potential for funds to be
reassigned to other segments of theanimal food industry that still have
some state level regulatory authority.
And then the other side of that iswhere is the FDA going to find the time?
You know, this stuff is a lot of workand the FDA is already understaffed
(20:10):
and underfunded and the per act doesn'tstipulate any kind of additional funding
for these really sweeping changes.
How is that even gonna work?
Jordan Tyler (20:20):
Right?
It's like giving the FDA more than we knowthey can handle no additional funding.
While at the same time, taking poweraway from state regulators who have
been doing this for years and havereally, really honed their expertise
and knowledge about what's importantto consumers and their state and
how to protect them and their pets.
I mean, what could go wrong?
(20:42):
And then think about the timingof this is just impeccable.
So we're recording this in early 2025, andI'm sure many of us are already aware of.
The changes to federal agenciesacross the board being driven by
the Trump administration and the newDepartment of Government efficiency.
We're talking significant budget cuts,sweeping layoffs, and hiring freezes,
(21:04):
which could very well impact how petfood is regulated through the FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine or CBM.
Especially if the Pro Act moves
Dr. Stephanie Clark (21:14):
forward.
Yeah, and according to some recentreports that I've read, the FDA could
lose thousands of employees by the end ofthe year due to a combination of budget
cuts, reforms and leadership shakeups.
And let's be honest, I. This is happeningat a time when public trust in the
FDA is already kind of on the rocks.
A 2025 survey by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation found that only 53% of
(21:40):
respondents have a great deal or a fairamount of trust in the FDA's ability
to make the right recommendations onhealth issues, which is not great.
Jordan Tyler (21:52):
It's not great and it gets worse, so we're already seeing layoffs
hitting key areas of the FDA, includingregulators responsible for ensuring that
drugs for pets and livestock are safeand effective according to one report.
One F-D-A-C-V-M employee said atleast 20 animal drug reviewers
had already lost their jobs.
(22:14):
But since this news is spreading throughword of mouth and anonymous sources rather
than through official channels, the realnumber could actually be much higher.
Dr. Stephanie Clark: That's a serious problem. (22:23):
undefined
These layoffs don't justaffect pet food safety.
They could impact the safety of foodproducts that come from livestock,
which means this could have a rippleeffect on the human food supply as well.
The Yikes.
Jordan Tyler (22:38):
So if the per act moves forward and shifts even more
regulatory responsibility to the FDAand the F-D-A-C-V-M, how exactly is
the agency expected to handle this?
I mean, as you said earlier, they'realready understaffed, underfunded,
and struggling to keep up withtheir existing responsibilities.
But adding more to their plate withoutadditional funding or personnel,
(23:02):
and even amid, you know, budget cutsand people getting laid off just
seems like a recipe for disaster.
I.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (23:09):
Exactly, Jordan, we're already seeing the consequences
of regulatory gaps, and if the peract removes state oversight while the
FDA is losing experienced staff leftand right, it raises a major question,
who's left to ensure pet food safety?
Because right now it lookslike that answer might be
(23:30):
no one.
Jordan Tyler (23:31):
So that is something, and if you wanna learn more about
all of that, we've linked somereports that we referenced in
the show notes for this episode.
But Austin, what elseconcerns you about this bill?
Any other red flags and specificallyred flags for pet parents?
Austin Therrell (23:49):
The other issue we find problematic is the ingredients, sometimes
present language that allows for thesubstitution of specifically fats or oils.
Um, there's some of the flavoringredients or some of the grain
ingredients, and we know that's,that's allowed on the human side.
That's where this comes from.
And you know, when I eat something.
I know what I'm eating and I can tell youwhether or not, you know, I, something
(24:12):
is in there that I want to be in there.
Our animals don'tnecessarily have that luxury.
It, it's our responsibility to knowexactly what we're feeding them.
When we're looking at, you know, dogs orcats that might have allergy issues, you
know, it, it's, it's really importantfor consumers to know what fats or
oils are in that product or what flavoringredients so that they can avoid
particular ingredients if they want to.
(24:34):
And so we feel like this really, again,it's not ideal from a consumer standpoint,
but from an industry standpoint too.
It creates a mechanism for.
Potential bad actors to say, Hey, we'regonna label a product with maybe a fat or
an oil, um, ingredient that has a betterconsumer perception and then substitute
it for something of lesser qualitythat maybe can increase profit margins.
(24:57):
And so, um, again, not to sayanyone would do that, um, but it
creates the opportunity for badactors to capitalize on that.
And I don't think that'sa good idea for anyone.
The last piece that I'll touch on, Ithink is the permissible marketing claims.
Um, so, you know, human grade ismentioned, natural is mentioned,
and some of those things within thecurrent afco official publication.
(25:19):
We have guidelines for makingsome of those claims now
that anyone can go and find.
If you wanna readthrough that publication.
What the problem here is that it's,it's codifying that and, but at the
same time preempting the state authorityto check for those marketing claims.
So essentially it's saying, Hey, we canput this on our package and no one's gonna
ask us a question about, or you don'thave the authority to check and make sure
it's actually truthful and not misleading.
(25:41):
I. I mentioned earlier that stateshave those pre-market label review
programs in place, and so they havethe authority when they see claims to,
um, reach back out to a firm and say,Hey, can you substantiate that this
claim is truthful, not misleading?
They can request documents tosubstantiate that claim, to prove
that it's truthful, that it's actuallyhuman grade, those type of things.
(26:01):
And they do that within that labelreview process to make sure that by
the time that product or a product ison the shelf, that claim is truthful.
So by just codifying that and thennot allowing anyone to do any kind
of pre-market review, um, to ensurethat it's, it's actually in fact
true, it just opens the door for someof those claims, those buzzwords and
(26:23):
those trendy marketing claims to justbe slapped on packages with no one
verifying that they're actually accurate.
So again, that's just from a regulatorstandpoint, that's problematic.
And those are the type of thingsthat state regulators right now
are looking at on a daily basis.
Jordan Tyler (26:39):
Yeah.
Yikes.
I am not loving that.
And coming back to your earlier point,our pets can't tell us if there's
something wrong with their food.
You know, we have to advocate for them.
So if companies can fudge their ingredientstatements and claims and swap one
ingredient for another willy nilly,well, the pet parent isn't on the wiser.
That just to me, goes against theentire industry's mission of keeping
(27:02):
pets healthy, happy, and well fed.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (27:05):
Yeah, Jordan, I like to think about it in human
food or what we may experience.
Think about people with nut allergies.
Let's say someone is allergic to peanutsbut not almonds, and they run out of
almond butter in this product and theyjust decide to replace it with peanut
butter, or say you love chocolate coveredalmonds, and they ran out of almonds
(27:28):
and they just replaced it with peanuts.
It's still a nut, and that'sthe kind of swapping that we're
talking about in pet food.
Jordan Tyler (27:34):
Yeah, it just, it gives the manufacturer the ability to make a
swap and not disclose that on the label.
I mean, nut allergies are likesome of the most common food
allergies in the United States.
So I like the way that you framed it.
Like people have to be really cognizantof this stuff and it, the same
can be said of pets that have foodallergies or special dietary needs.
(27:57):
They need to get what's exactlyon the label ex. Exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Dr. Charles Starkey (28:04):
I have a lot of questions with this.
You know, when we talk specificallyabout dogs and cats, we have two
very different mammalian species.
When we talk about substitutingfats and oils, you're talking about
substituting potentially oil seed oilsfor animal fats, and there's very little
(28:24):
research on this, but there's somethat has a high suggestion for cardiac
health and other reasons, animal fats.
Specifically in a cat, but in a, inother mammals as well would definitely
be more nutritious sources of fatty acidsand especially saturated fatty acids.
(28:45):
The other thing is just digestive upset.
You know, many of us have changed petfood at home, and if you don't start
to do a blend and do that carefully,we all tend to have nice presence
and messy situations to clean up.
So the ability to just change that ina specific formula without consumer
(29:07):
knowledge, I, I worry a little bitabout how that may affect the pet.
The flavor ingredients thathas some impact as well.
But the grain ingredients reallyconcern me, uh, pretty highly as well.
There's di very different fiberfractions in these different grains.
I. There's a huge difference innutrient digestibility and, you know,
(29:30):
availability of the animal and thegrain like corn than there would
be in a grain like wheat or barley.
And I'm not saying any of those arebetter or worse, but they have to
be formulated extremely differently.
And so I think it's more aquestion that I'm not clear on.
You know, are we talking masssubstitution of one grain for another?
(29:52):
There, there are just some questionsthere because one ingredient is not the
same as another, whether we're talkingabout fats and oils or grains or protein,
uh, they can be very, very different.
I just, I don't know exactly what mayend up happening to the pet there.
Austin Therrell (30:08):
I think it's a big deal to point out too, within the ACT
language, they're calling for a 90day ingredient review time for new
ingredients to support the industry.
When we look at like the current,you know, the regulatory systems, the
pathways for ingredients to come tomarket, those, you know, generally
had about 180 day review time.
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 wasreviewing only about 19% of those on time.
Within that 180 day timeline, for grassnotices, they were around 29% and around
for afco ingredients, it was at 22%.
So that was pretty bad.
Now, the industry as well as Afco, um,you know, during that time period were
(30:55):
advocating and, and going to Congressfor additional support for FDA and
those folks within the division ofanimal food ingredients that they,
they really needed more staffing,um, and more people to do those.
And, and Congress granted that theygot additional funding and were
really able to build that staffing up.
Those were 2019 numbers.
If we look at last year, the FDAwas reviewing a hundred percent of
(31:20):
food additive petitions on time.
94% of grass notices on time.
And before the afco, MOU ended, theywere around 81% on afco ingredients.
So a significant change inthat bottleneck, you know,
in the ingredient space.
Um, realistically, it, itno longer exists right now.
Now we're still talking about 180day review time though, so within
(31:43):
the per act, you know, you're callingfor, to cut that in half to 90 days.
Also, there's no appropriations,um, related to this bill as well.
So we're saying, Hey, FDA, doyour work in half the time, we're
not gonna give you any more.
Funding to hire more staff andto meet those numbers either.
So I think it's setting the agency up forfailure, um, to kind of set a little bit
(32:04):
of an unrealistic goal, um, to do that.
And, you know, practically speaking, um,a lot of these, you know, products are
going to go, uh, you know, unregulatedand, and a lot more of a sense
than they, than they are right now.
And, and I don't think that's, um,setting, you know, the industry, um, or
consumers up for success in the long term.
Jordan Tyler (32:23):
The other piece of that is the 2025 version of the per act
was reintroduced in January, and thatversion of the bill stipulates additional
responsibilities for the Director ofthe Center for Veterinary Medicine or
CVM, which is essentially who wouldspearhead regulatory activities for pet
food if it was all placed under the FDA.
(32:43):
Now these added responsibilitiesinclude conducting research to support
regulatory decisions as well aseducating industry members and consumers
about pet food safety and nutrition.
And I'm taking this straight outof the 2025 version of the bill.
But Steph, like
Dr. Stephanie Clark (33:02):
this doesn't add up to me.
Don't even get me started.
It's so funny because when we were workingwith the FDA, during the DCM scandal,
the FDA told us that they don't conductresearch on behalf of the industry.
The industry has to do research.
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?
Jordan Tyler (33:25):
Mm, yeah.
Doubtful, right?
And if the agency's already constrainedfrom a resource perspective, and
now we're giving them loads moreresponsibility and requiring them to
do it in a shorter window of time.
I just, I don't see how that's gonna setanybody up for success or even set us up
for continuity from the current system.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (33:46):
So when you boil this all down, there's a lot to the
per act that deserves a second look.
And there are certainly moreserious ramifications for pet
food safety and transparency thanwhat's evident at face value.
Dr. Charles Starkey (33:59):
I think everybody, uh, industry especially,
uh, goal is to reduce recalls,to provide safe, nutritious food.
It doesn't do anyone in the industryany good to produce a bad product.
So we wanna make sure thoseanimals are as healthy as they
can be, and they mean a lot to us.
So I think everyone's working together.
(34:22):
Industry, federal and state are allworking together toward that end goal.
But what we need to alwaysremember how important.
Animal foods, whether they'relivestock or pet, are part of the
entire safe food system in ourcountry and and across the globe.
And they're really part of theoverall one health approach.
(34:43):
And so I think we haveto keep that in mind.
Austin Therrell (34:45):
Yeah, that, that was well said by Charles.
The only other thing, you know, I, Ijust want to add onto that is, I mean,
yeah, we're talking about almost twothirds of US households that own a pet.
You know, they're, they'repart of our family.
And so, again, I, I guess to, to maybeland the plan on this, you know, when
we're looking at the per act, thereare a lot of things when we talk about
uniformity and, and wanting the bestsystem in place for the industry,
(35:06):
um, we all want the same thing.
I want uniformity acrossthe US as much as anyone.
Um, as regulators.
We want a system that, you know,supports innovation for the industry.
And at the end of the day, justlike the industry, we won't
save food products for animals.
And you know, I, I think justin regards to the per that's not
maybe, um, at this point in time,the, the best option for that.
(35:28):
I think there's other ways we can workon these issues to be more efficient, um,
and, and all to accomplish the same thing.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (35:36):
Absolutely.
So the bill was reintroduced in January.
What's next for pet parents listeningand maybe also industry members?
How would you suggest they maketheir voices heard about this issue?
I.
Austin Therrell (35:50):
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, we're, we're inthe sandbox right now.
You know anyone listening within theindustry or as a consumer or a pet
owner, you know, right now just to beaware of what's going on, what your
elected officials are signing onto, keepyour eyes open for change in the spill.
Opinions and letters that comeout from Afco and from others.
So you can stay up todate on what's going on.
(36:11):
And, and certainly if you feel likeanything we've shared today resonates
with you, um, to reach out to thoseelected officials and, and just
share that, you know, you're notsupportive of the per act and would
really appreciate some more focus backon the state animal food programs.
Dr. Charles Starkey (36:25):
Yeah, I think from my viewpoint overall, if we
can continue collaborations with thepet food and the, the livestock feed
and the industry and the regulators.
I think we can come up to a lotof solutions to a lot of the
problems or the complicationsthat we're dealing with currently.
Opportunities that wouldbe the best word to use.
Jordan Tyler (36:46):
Right?
Yeah.
It's obvious that there are severalkinks to work out here and not even
to mention some of the issues that areforeseen with the generally recognized
as safe or grass statute that we talkeda little bit about earlier, which
is essentially one of the ways a newpepper ingredient can come to market.
Or that is has historically been oneof the ways, but recent leadership
(37:08):
appointments at the federal level spellan uncertain future for this pathway.
Now while that is definitely implicatedwith the per act, it's kind of a whole
other can of worms, but if you'd liketo dig deeper there, let us know and
we'll put together another episodeabout that piece of the puzzle.
Overall though, it soundslike as the bill stands today.
(37:31):
The intention might be there, butin practice there are just so many
loopholes and contingencies thatcould end up complicating pet food
safety and transparency for petparents across the United States.
So I really appreciate Austin and, and Dr.
Starkey, you sharing your thoughtson this bill and for the candid
conversation that we've had today.
(37:51):
And I look forward to staying intouch so that we can keep everybody
informed about this important issue.
The per act presents some significantchallenges for both industry
professionals and pet parents.
Although the goal of harmonizingregulations is understandable,
I'm personally not convinced thatoverburdening an already resource
(38:13):
strapped federal agency like theFDA, stripping state regulators of
their local regulatory authority andpotentially weakening oversight of
safety and marketing claims is the right
Dr. Stephanie Clark (38:25):
approach.
Our commitment at BSM Partners barkingMAD is to support pet food stakeholders
from industry professionals to loving petparents as they navigate the increasingly
convoluted regulatory landscape for our
Jordan Tyler (38:40):
fellow pet parents.
If what you heard on today's episodeconcerns you about the future of pet
food, now is the time to take action.
Contact your state representativesand write them a letter
to voice your concerns.
And if you don't know who your staterepresentative is or how to contact
them, we've even made it easy for you.
In the show notes for this episode,we've included a link to the US
(39:02):
House of Representatives websitewhere you can input your zip code
to find your government officialsand how to get in touch with them.
We've also linked to a form letterthat you can download, add your
information to, and send to yourelected official to voice your concerns.
Dr. Stephanie Clark (39:18):
We've also provided links in the show notes below to the
full text of the per act of 2025 andother related resources to equip you with
all the knowledge you need to determinewhether this bill is truly the right
thing for you and your beloved pets.
Jordan Tyler (39:34):
We hope you'll leverage these resources and keep up with BSM
Partners, thought leadership to stayinformed about the potential challenges
and opportunities posed by the per act.
And we encourage you to become part ofthe conversation by sharing this episode
with your friends, fellow pet loversand industry members, and engaging in
dialogue to ensure pet food remainssafe, transparent, and accountable.
(39:59):
A huge thank you to Austin Farrelland Dr. Charles Starkey for sharing
their insights with us today.
We'd also like to thank our dedicatedteam, ADA at Thomas Neely Boden, Kate
Wright, Katie Wolf, and Dr. Katie Miller.
An extra thank you to LeanneHaggerty and Michael Johnson
in support of this episode.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.