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

Today we're diving deep into the per act, a piece of proposed

legislation that aims to quote unquote unify the pet food regulatory landscape.

But when examined more closely could actually put the integrity

of your pet's food into jeopardy.

But first, let's take a step back.

It's estimated that 33 million Americans are allergic to at

least one food or ingredient.

Even if you don't have a food allergy, you know someone who does.

And you'll also know that people with many food allergies or those that

could have severe reactions are very careful about how they shop for food.

People who are allergic to certain food ingredients will also tell

you, this is not out of paranoia or for the sake of being high

maintenance, but out of necessity.

Because when a mishap occurs, the consequences can be serious and sometimes.

Life-threatening.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: Now, imagine a world where food companies no longer

have to be completely transparent about ingredients, where vague and

misleading claims go unchecked, and where there's no system in place to verify

if the exact ingredient listed on the label is what's actually in the box.

That's exactly the kind of regulatory loophole the per act

could create in the pet food industry.

Right now, state regulators play a crucial role in ensuring that pet food labels are

truthful and that ingredient substitutions don't put pet's health at risk.

But if the per act passes, much of that oversight could disappear.

Potentially opening the door for bad actors, misleading claims and

unverified ingredients to make their way into your dog and cat's food.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: 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 owners do to protect their pets?

To help us break it all down?

We're joined by two industry experts who know exactly what's at stake.

Let's get into it.

Welcome to Barking Mad, a podcast by BSM Partners.

We're your hosts, Dr. Stephanie Clark.

And I'm Jordan Tyler.

So at first glance, the per act might seem like a step toward consistency

in pet food oversight, streamlining regulations, reducing some red tape,

and creating a more uniform system.

But as we start to peel back the layers, a more complicated reality emerges.

Dig a little deeper, and you'll find this bill would strip regulatory

power from state agencies and consolidate it under the FDA, raising

concerns about enforcement capacity, consumer protections, and even the

future of innovation in pet food.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: So what would this mean for pet food companies?

Big and small.

Would it make it easier to bring new products to market?

Or would it open the door for misleading claims and unregulated ingredients?

And most importantly, how would this affect pet parents who rely on clear,

accurate labeling to make informed decisions about their pet's nutrition?

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 Officials or afco, as well as Dr. Charles

Starkey, vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs for the North

American Renderers Association or nara.

So to get a little more context, uh, about our great guest today, Austin,

tell us a little bit more about yourself.

Thanks for having us.

My name's Austin Darrell.

Um, I currently serve as the executive director for the Association of

American Feed Control Officials.

Been in that role for a little over two years now, and prior to that, um,

managed the Animal Feed regulatory program at the South Carolina Department

of Agriculture for about eight years.

So as part of that role, um, oversaw state inspection program, sampling

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.

And Dr. Starkey, let's hear a little bit more

about your background as well.

Dr. Charles Starkey: I have a degree in, uh, animal nutrition and have been in the

industry for over 30 years, production and nutrition based and feed manufacturing.

I'm currently the vice president of regulatory and Scientific Affairs for the

North American Renders Association and just working on, uh, our, with our allies

at uh, A FIA and, and other associations on making sure we're manufacturing

safe, nutritious food for animals.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: Very impressive.

Thank you for that.

So I think before we get too much into the weeds about the bill, let's

set the stage a little and talk about how pet food is currently regulated.

Austin, if you could walk us through what that looks like now and then

we'll get into some of the concerning changes that the per act is proposing

to make to this current process.

Absolutely.

So pet food in the United States is regulated on the federal level by the

Food and Drug Administration, and then additionally by all the states in the us.

And so generally speaking, each state has a commercial feed law and regulations that

really dive into the weeds a little bit more than some of the federal laws do.

And so, um, they get into marketing and labeling requirements and so on.

And so it's really what we refer to as an integrated food safety system.

So.

It's a partnership between those federal and state regulators to

oversee, um, all of the animal food.

So whether that's pet food or ingredients or livestock feed, all of

it's covered by state and federal laws.

Dr. Charles Starkey: It's really nice.

It's not always that the regulators and 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: Ah, got it.

Thank you both for that explanation.

Now, what exactly is the per act.

Simply stated, the bill is seeking to preempt the state authority

over pet food and hand that to the FDA and really federalize the way pet food

is regulated and kind of take away a lot of the state authority that currently

exist under those state commercial feed laws and pet food regulations.

A couple things I think is helpful since we're gonna be talking about

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 where as an association, I feel like

it's really beneficial for us.

We promote a model feed bill and model regulations that really.

In some form or fashion form the foundation of most of the feed laws and

regulations across the us and so we kind of come in and serve in that role to

promote uniformity as much as possible.

Okay.

Just a couple pieces of important context here.

The FDA has relied on Afco to be its boots on the ground in the regulation

of pet food products across the United States for the last 17 years.

That is until the FDA opted not to renew a longstanding

partnership agreement last fall.

You might hear it referred to as the MOU or memorandum of understanding.

And if you'd like to learn more about that whole saga, we have an episode for

you that we've linked in the show notes.

So be sure to check that out if you wanna learn more.

Now Afco is made up of state level regulators who have worked super

closely with the FDA and done a ton of hands-on regulation work on behalf

of the FDA for nearly two decades.

But under the per act, that partnership will go away.

And with it we would lose the longstanding expertise and experience

that our state regulators offer.

To the system.

This is red flag number one.

Dr. Charles Starkey: I, I think the job and the working together

with Afco needs to continue.

I think a lot of the industry feels that way.

We get into discussions about patchwork and harmonization.

I. And, and that needs to be done and everybody agrees that needs to be done.

The feed industry, the pet food industry, uh, the regulators

themselves, both FDA and afco.

We definitely need to, to work together 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 contracting data officials who know the local

feed industry and pet food industry, and they go and do the audits.

They're the ones on the ground, they're the ones taking samples most often.

They are the ones that catch things ahead of time, you know, mislabeling

or a, a contaminant or a, a deficiency that comes from a sample that state

people on the ground have collected.

So I, I actually have some concern with the dissolving disagreement because

that cooperation between federal and state puts more people on the ground.

It, you know, the industry's goal is to produce safe, nutritious,

uh, animal food, and we can work with regulators to help us do that.

There's always a continuous improvement protocol in place, and that's what

those audits just assist us in doing.

And so.

I believe in cooperation and collaboration with the regulators and having more

feet on the ground and more people in the facilities and having more of those

conversations helps us all get better.

It helps regulators learn about the industry, and it helps us

get better at making sure we're doing our job effectively.

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 that states currently hold when it comes to

pet food, would be taken away and replaced entirely by federal regulatory authority.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Basically, their authority over pet 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 that state regulators do throughout the

year, at least 70% of all animal food inspections at manufacturing locations

across the US are conducted by state regulators under contract with FDA.

That doesn't really even account for the non FDA inspections that states

conduct under their own authority.

And so I can give you some ballpark numbers.

Um, just from last year, states conducted at least a thousand

more inspections solely under state authority than even the FDA.

A lot of states have registration requirements for that pre-market review

of pet food labels, and so the industry has to register those products before

they offer 'em for sale in the state.

Last year, states registered over 171,000 pet food products.

Those state laboratories collected over 6,500 samples of pet food products.

Um, again, this is aside from anything under FDA.

Those samples, they're, they're testing for proximate analysis,

the nutritional testing.

They're looking for potential adulterants or contaminants that might be there.

States took enforcement action on more than 500 of those samples,

and did, you know, followed up on more than 50 different recalls.

So that's all state only work.

Again, that would completely, um, go away if their authority over

pet food products, um, were to disappear, um, with a per passing.

The states are doing a ton of work in regards to consumer protection to make

sure that, you know, our pets have the safest, most nutritious food to eat.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: I appreciate you sharing those numbers because I think

it really puts into perspective just how big of a role, state level regulators

have played in this process and actually enforcing 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.

Jordan, can you dive a little deeper into the current system?

Can you help me understand the current system?

Girl, I was

hoping that you could help me understand the current

system, but luckily we've got a lot 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, we have model regulations that are set

by Afco, and individual states can choose whether or not they wanna.

Adopt them and codify, in other words, integrate those model regulations into

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 handed off to the states and state regulators

wouldn't have any say about whether they would enact or enforce or codify or

not enforce that particular regulation.

Austin, is that kind of the gist?

Yes.

Yeah, that's, that's correct.

Right now, within a lot of the state feed laws, some of the federal laws that

exist, like the Food Safety Modernization Act, states can adopt by reference and

include those within their state laws.

And so, you know, then the Federal Authority is the state

authority in those cases.

But they can pick and choose that Now, um, in this instance, they,

they wouldn't have that choice.

It would be the law of the land.

The law of the land.

Got it.

So obviously you talk with a lot of state regulators as well as people that

work in the pet food industry, and so I'm curious to know what sentiments or

rumblings that you've heard from either your fellow regulators or from industry

members in conversations about this bill.

Maybe just go back to like a, a 30,000 foot view too of the

legislation from industry standpoint and what I've heard there are concerns from

the industry that, you know, the state by state approach to this is cumbersome.

Um, it's difficult, you know, some of the states aren't as aligned and so

there's, they're, you know, having to meet requirements in one state versus another.

And so I think, again, this is being introduced to try and promote a lot

more uniformity than even we have now.

It's important to share too that, you know, 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 would support, you know, one set of

federal pet food regulations.

It's a lot of the other pieces of it, you know, that I think

are detrimental to the safety.

The consumer protection pieces of this.

But, but I, I see the goal, I think is to really try and, and harmonize

the system and really for the pet food industry, or at least some of them, to

get out of a lot of the, the red tape that honestly they feel like states

require, but really is there for, you know, a, a good reason to make sure that

those products are safe and that, you know, the claims that we see on pet food

labels are truthful and not misleading.

Dr. Charles Starkey: Just one clarification of what Austin said.

A portion of the industry put the perza forward, not the entire

animal food ingredient industry.

Yeah.

And, and that's important to note because I think some of the industry

is supporting this, you know, or some of our, the bigger corporations that

are out there and, you know, maybe some of 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 the entire industry and some of the smaller

firms that, that may not agree with it.

Yeah, and especially when you consider smaller companies

typically being more resource constrained 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, smaller pet food producers and ingredient

companies is where some really, really cool innovation comes from.

And it's also interesting to note that while this bill was introduced

by two Republican and one Democratic congressman, 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 treat products according to their website.

We reached out to PFI to invite them on this episode, but never heard back.

Now their members are some of the largest pet food and treat producers

in the country and have significant market shares in the industry.

So if this is the portion of the industry that worked on the per act, it would

make sense that the new regulatory system would benefit these big players.

Right?

But what about the smaller guys?

How would they fare against a regulatory system Designed for some, but not all.

I guess I just worry that we could potentially shortchange some cutting

edge advancements in nutritional science and ingredient technologies that

originate with some of these smaller, more agile pet nutrition brands.

Like we all love an underdog, but I could see how this bill could stifle innovation

from smaller companies that don't have as much influence in the industry, as well as

creating space for bad actors to misguide consumers on ingredients and claims.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: It really begs the question of who loses and

who wins as a result of this bill.

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 industry perspective or a consumer perspective.

Yeah.

Some of the, the pieces that I think from an afco perspective that we

find, um, a little bit difficult to, within the bill, um, obviously

the preemption language, right?

To preempt the state authority.

And I, I've shared a couple other numbers that I think are important when

we look at, you know, whether we're doing this inspection work under a

contract with FDA or as a state, right?

Like I said, there's an integrated food safety system, so I don't wanna disparage

FDA in any way, but they're struggling with resources and staffing as well.

Like a lot of others.

There was a government accountability office report that came out where it

highlighted that FDA failed to meet inspection frequencies since 2018.

When we look at the cost of doing inspections.

For FDA to go out and do an inspection is gonna cost around $20,000 to go out.

And that's just a, a current good manufacturing inspection.

A state inspector could go out and do the same inspection for roughly about $2,000.

And so when we look at just the differences on how taxpayer money is

being spent and how we can regulate the industry and do it as efficiently

as possible with taxpayer dollars.

The best model is that shared authority between states and FDA,

where we can do that together.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: So if the per act is passed, I'm curious, could this

potentially put some of them outta work?

I.

Yeah, I mean, realistically

speaking, it certainly could.

Um, you know, when we look at, um, a lot of the work that our state programs

do, and we talked about licensing and registration and tonnage fees,

and, you know, some of those user fee programs are what support the, the

animal food programs at the state level.

And so when you, you know, take away this authority for states

to do that, and they're solely.

You know, operating under, uh, maybe contract, um, as a commission official

with the FDA, they're relying on those FDA funds and you know that that's

likely, it has the ability to, to decrease some 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.

Maybe it could create a scenario where those, you know, uh, fees

are passed off now to the livestock side, who's still gonna, you know,

exist outside of the per act.

And so it's gonna increase fees, you know, user fees, um, across the industry.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: So increased fees, the potential for funds to be

reassigned to other segments of the animal food industry that still have

some state level regulatory authority.

And then the other side of that is where is the FDA going to find the time?

You know, this stuff is a lot of work and the FDA is already understaffed

and underfunded and the per act doesn't stipulate any kind of additional funding

for these really sweeping changes.

How is that even gonna work?

Right?

It's like giving the FDA more than we know they can handle no additional funding.

While at the same time, taking power away from state regulators who have

been doing this for years and have really, really honed their expertise

and knowledge about what's important to consumers and their state and

how to protect them and their pets.

I mean, what could go wrong?

And then think about the timing of this is just impeccable.

So we're recording this in early 2025, and I'm sure many of us are already aware of.

The changes to federal agencies across the board being driven by

the Trump administration and the new Department of Government efficiency.

We're talking significant budget cuts, sweeping layoffs, and hiring freezes,

which could very well impact how pet food is regulated through the FDA's

Center for Veterinary Medicine or CBM.

Especially if the Pro Act moves

Dr. Stephanie Clark: forward.

Yeah, and according to some recent reports that I've read, the FDA could

lose thousands of employees by the end of the year due to a combination of budget

cuts, reforms and leadership shakeups.

And let's be honest, I. This is happening at a time when public trust in the

FDA is already kind of on the rocks.

A 2025 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 53% of

respondents have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the FDA's ability

to make the right recommendations on health issues, which is not great.

It's not great and it gets worse, so we're already seeing layoffs

hitting key areas of the FDA, including regulators responsible for ensuring that

drugs for pets and livestock are safe and effective according to one report.

One F-D-A-C-V-M employee said at least 20 animal drug reviewers

had already lost their jobs.

But since this news is spreading through word of mouth and anonymous sources rather

than through official channels, the real number could actually be much higher.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: That's a serious problem.

These layoffs don't just affect pet food safety.

They could impact the safety of food products that come from livestock,

which means this could have a ripple effect on the human food supply as well.

The Yikes.

So if the per act moves forward and shifts even more

regulatory responsibility to the FDA and the F-D-A-C-V-M, how exactly is

the agency expected to handle this?

I mean, as you said earlier, they're already understaffed, underfunded,

and struggling to keep up with their existing responsibilities.

But adding more to their plate without additional funding or personnel,

and even amid, you know, budget cuts and people getting laid off just

seems like a recipe for disaster.

I.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: Exactly, Jordan, we're already seeing the consequences

of regulatory gaps, and if the per act removes state oversight while the

FDA is losing experienced staff left and right, it raises a major question,

who's left to ensure pet food safety?

Because right now it looks like that answer might be

no one.

So that is something, and if you wanna learn more about

all of that, we've linked some reports that we referenced in

the show notes for this episode.

But Austin, what else concerns you about this bill?

Any other red flags and specifically red flags for pet parents?

The other issue we find problematic is the ingredients, sometimes

present language that allows for the substitution of specifically fats or oils.

Um, there's some of the flavor ingredients 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 you whether or not, you know, I, something

is in there that I want to be in there.

Our animals don't necessarily have that luxury.

It, it's our responsibility to know exactly what we're feeding them.

When we're looking at, you know, dogs or cats that might have allergy issues, you

know, it, it's, it's really important for consumers to know what fats or

oils are in that product or what flavor ingredients so that they can avoid

particular ingredients if they want to.

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're gonna label a product with maybe a fat or

an oil, um, ingredient that has a better consumer perception and then substitute

it for something of lesser quality that maybe can increase profit margins.

And so, um, again, not to say anyone would do that, um, but it

creates the opportunity for bad actors to capitalize on that.

And I don't think that's a good idea for anyone.

The last piece that I'll touch on, I think is the permissible marketing claims.

Um, so, you know, human grade is mentioned, natural is mentioned,

and some of those things within the current afco official publication.

We have guidelines for making some of those claims now

that anyone can go and find.

If you wanna read through that publication.

What the problem here is that it's, it's codifying that and, but at the

same time preempting the state authority to check for those marketing claims.

So essentially it's saying, Hey, we can put this on our package and no one's gonna

ask us a question about, or you don't have the authority to check and make sure

it's actually truthful and not misleading.

I. I mentioned earlier that states have those pre-market label review

programs in place, and so they have the 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 to substantiate that claim, to prove

that it's truthful, that it's actually human grade, those type of things.

And they do that within that label review process to make sure that by

the time that product or a product is on the shelf, that claim is truthful.

So by just codifying that and then not allowing anyone to do any kind

of pre-market review, um, to ensure that it's, it's actually in fact

true, it just opens the door for some of those claims, those buzzwords and

those trendy marketing claims to just be slapped on packages with no one

verifying that they're actually accurate.

So again, that's just from a regulator standpoint, that's problematic.

And those are the type of things that state regulators right now

are looking at on a daily basis.

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 ingredient statements 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 the entire industry's mission of keeping

pets healthy, happy, and well fed.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: 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 peanuts but not almonds, and they run out of

almond butter in this product and they just decide to replace it with peanut

butter, or say you love chocolate covered almonds, and they ran out of almonds

and they just replaced it with peanuts.

It's still a nut, and that's the kind of swapping that we're

talking about in pet food.

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 like some 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 cognizant of this stuff and it, the same

can be said of pets that have food allergies or special dietary needs.

They need to get what's exactly on the label ex. Exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Dr. Charles Starkey: I have a lot of questions with this.

You know, when we talk specifically about dogs and cats, we have two

very different mammalian species.

When we talk about substituting fats and oils, you're talking about

substituting potentially oil seed oils for animal fats, and there's very little

research on this, but there's some that has a high suggestion for cardiac

health and other reasons, animal fats.

Specifically in a cat, but in a, in other mammals as well would definitely

be more nutritious sources of fatty acids and especially saturated fatty acids.

The other thing is just digestive upset.

You know, many of us have changed pet food 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 in a specific formula without consumer

knowledge, I, I worry a little bit about how that may affect the pet.

The flavor ingredients that has some impact as well.

But the grain ingredients really concern me, uh, pretty highly as well.

There's di very different fiber fractions in these different grains.

I. There's a huge difference in nutrient digestibility and, you know,

availability of the animal and the grain like corn than there would

be in a grain like wheat or barley.

And I'm not saying any of those are better or worse, but they have to

be formulated extremely differently.

And so I think it's more a question that I'm not clear on.

You know, are we talking mass substitution of one grain for another?

There, there are just some questions there because one ingredient is not the

same as another, whether we're talking about fats and oils or grains or protein,

uh, they can be very, very different.

I just, I don't know exactly what may end up happening to the pet there.

I think it's a big deal to point out too, within the ACT

language, they're calling for a 90 day 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 to market, 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.

I. For food additive petitions, FDA was reviewing only about 19% of those on time.

Within that 180 day timeline, for grass notices, 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

advocating and, and going to Congress for additional support for FDA and

those folks within the division of animal food ingredients that they,

they really needed more staffing, um, and more people to do those.

And, and Congress granted that they got additional funding and were

really able to build that staffing up.

Those were 2019 numbers.

If we look at last year, the FDA was reviewing a hundred percent of

food additive petitions on time.

94% of grass notices on time.

And before the afco, MOU ended, they were around 81% on afco ingredients.

So a significant change in that bottleneck, you know,

in the ingredient space.

Um, realistically, it, it no longer exists right now.

Now we're still talking about 180 day review time though, so within

the per act, you know, you're calling for, 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, do your work in half the time, we're

not gonna give you any more.

Funding to hire more staff and to meet those numbers either.

So I think it's setting the agency up for failure, um, to kind of set a little bit

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, unregulated and, 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.

The other piece of that is the 2025 version of the per act

was reintroduced in January, and that version of the bill stipulates additional

responsibilities for the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine or

CVM, which is essentially who would spearhead regulatory activities for pet

food if it was all placed under the FDA.

Now these added responsibilities include conducting research to support

regulatory decisions as well as educating industry members and consumers

about pet food safety and nutrition.

And I'm taking this straight out of the 2025 version of the bill.

But Steph, like

Dr. Stephanie Clark: this doesn't add up to me.

Don't even get me started.

It's so funny because when we were working with the FDA, during the DCM scandal,

the FDA told us that they don't conduct research 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

hold up that part of the bargain?

Mm, yeah.

Doubtful, right?

And if the agency's already constrained from a resource perspective, and

now we're giving them loads more responsibility and requiring them to

do it in a shorter window of time.

I just, I don't see how that's gonna set anybody up for success or even set us up

for continuity from the current system.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: So when you boil this all down, there's a lot to the

per act that deserves a second look.

And there are certainly more serious ramifications for pet

food safety and transparency than what's evident at face value.

Dr. Charles Starkey: I think everybody, uh, industry especially,

uh, goal is to reduce recalls, to provide safe, nutritious food.

It doesn't do anyone in the industry any good to produce a bad product.

So we wanna make sure those animals are as healthy as they

can be, and they mean a lot to us.

So I think everyone's working together.

Industry, federal and state are all working together toward that end goal.

But what we need to always remember how important.

Animal foods, whether they're livestock or pet, are part of the

entire safe food system in our country and and across the globe.

And they're really part of the overall one health approach.

And so I think we have to keep that in mind.

Yeah, that, that was well said by Charles.

The only other thing, you know, I, I just want to add onto that is, I mean,

yeah, we're talking about almost two thirds of US households that own a pet.

You know, they're, they're part of our family.

And so, again, I, I guess to, to maybe land the plan on this, you know, when

we're looking at the per act, there are a lot of things when we talk about

uniformity and, and wanting the best system in place for the industry,

um, we all want the same thing.

I want uniformity across the 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, just like the industry, we won't

save food products for animals.

And you know, I, I think just in regards to the per that's not

maybe, um, at this point in time, the, the best option for that.

I think there's other ways we can work on these issues to be more efficient, um,

and, and all to accomplish the same thing.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: Absolutely.

So the bill was reintroduced in January.

What's next for pet parents listening and maybe also industry members?

How would you suggest they make their voices heard about this issue?

I.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we're, we're in the sandbox right now.

You know anyone listening within the industry or as a consumer or a pet

owner, you know, right now just to be aware of what's going on, what your

elected officials are signing onto, keep your eyes open for change in the spill.

Opinions and letters that come out from Afco and from others.

So you can stay up to date on what's going on.

And, and certainly if you feel like anything we've shared today resonates

with you, um, to reach out to those elected officials and, and just

share that, you know, you're not supportive of the per act and would

really appreciate some more focus back on the state animal food programs.

Dr. Charles Starkey: Yeah, I think from my viewpoint overall, if we

can continue collaborations with the pet food and the, the livestock feed

and the industry and the regulators.

I think we can come up to a lot of solutions to a lot of the

problems or the complications that we're dealing with currently.

Opportunities that would be the best word to use.

Right?

Yeah.

It's obvious that there are several kinks to work out here and not even

to mention some of the issues that are foreseen with the generally recognized

as safe or grass statute that we talked a little bit about earlier, which

is essentially one of the ways a new pepper ingredient can come to market.

Or that is has historically been one of the ways, but recent leadership

appointments at the federal level spell an uncertain future for this pathway.

Now while that is definitely implicated with the per act, it's kind of a whole

other can of worms, but if you'd like to dig deeper there, let us know and

we'll put together another episode about that piece of the puzzle.

Overall though, it sounds like as the bill stands today.

The intention might be there, but in practice there are just so many

loopholes and contingencies that could end up complicating pet food

safety and transparency for pet parents across the United States.

So I really appreciate Austin and, and Dr.

Starkey, you sharing your thoughts on this bill and for the candid

conversation that we've had today.

And I look forward to staying in touch so that we can keep everybody

informed about this important issue.

The per act presents some significant challenges for both industry

professionals and pet parents.

Although the goal of harmonizing regulations is understandable,

I'm personally not convinced that overburdening an already resource

strapped federal agency like the FDA, stripping state regulators of

their local regulatory authority and potentially weakening oversight of

safety and marketing claims is the right

Dr. Stephanie Clark: approach.

Our commitment at BSM Partners barking MAD is to support pet food stakeholders

from industry professionals to loving pet parents as they navigate the increasingly

convoluted regulatory landscape for our

fellow pet parents.

If what you heard on today's episode concerns you about the future of pet

food, now is the time to take action.

Contact your state representatives and write them a letter

to voice your concerns.

And if you don't know who your state representative 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

House of Representatives website where you can input your zip code

to find your government officials and how to get in touch with them.

We've also linked to a form letter that you can download, add your

information to, and send to your elected official to voice your concerns.

Dr. Stephanie Clark: We've also provided links in the show notes below to the

full text of the per act of 2025 and other related resources to equip you with

all the knowledge you need to determine whether this bill is truly the right

thing for you and your beloved pets.

We hope you'll leverage these resources and keep up with BSM

Partners, thought leadership to stay informed about the potential challenges

and opportunities posed by the per act.

And we encourage you to become part of the conversation by sharing this episode

with your friends, fellow pet lovers and industry members, and engaging in

dialogue to ensure pet food remains safe, transparent, and accountable.

A huge thank you to Austin Farrell and Dr. Charles Starkey for sharing

their insights with us today.

We'd also like to thank our dedicated team, ADA at Thomas Neely Boden, Kate

Wright, Katie Wolf, and Dr. Katie Miller.

An extra thank you to Leanne Haggerty and Michael Johnson

in support of this episode.

See you next time.