The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)
annual meeting was held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, on
August 5-7, 2006. Everyone I spoke to especially enjoyed the
bull riding event at the local arena on Saturday evening. For
some reason, I had a particularly hard time with my cell phone
while in the downtown Oklahoma City area. Based on the progress
made in some of the committee sessions, I'd say my phone wasn't
the only thing having trouble connecting.
Neither the AAFCO Pet Food Committee nor the Model Bill and
Regulations Committee had petfood-related items up for
membership vote at the general session. Thus, there are no
newly enacted regulations for which manufacturers have to plan
in the immediate future.
In the committee sessions, the Pet Food Committee decided to
drop its work of seven years on drafting regulations on when
guarantees are to be declared as minimums or maximums. After at
least several unsuccessful attempts to forward recommended
amendments, it was concluded that the initiating cause (a
state's application of the general animal feed regulations to
petfood labels) had already been resolved, hence action was no
longer necessary.
Also in the Pet Food Committee session, action was tabled
after brief discussion on the American College of Veterinary
Nutrition proposal that would require mandatory calorie content
statements on all dog and cat food labels. A related item on
the agenda, the Pet Food Institute's proposal for amendment of
PF10 to address labeling requirements of "weight management"
products, was not discussed at all.
The Model Bill and Regulations Committee had anticipated
that the AAFCO membership would vote on the new model bill that
would have clarified a state's authority over noncommercial
feed at the general session, but that item was withdrawn at the
last minute. Apparently, even after eight revisions of the
draft document, there are still significant concerns, so it's
back to the drawing board for the Committee. A proposal to
amend the definition of "feed ingredient" in the Model Bill for
commercial feed to be consistent with the noncommercial feed
bill was put aside pending resolution of the noncommercial feed
bill matter.
There are no newly enacted regulations for which manufacturers have to plan in the immediate future.It was expected by some that the Feed Manufacturing
Committee's Animal Feed Safety Regulations would be moving
forward, too, but that was not the case. If eventually passed,
these new model rules would impose additional processing,
sanitation, distribution and record-keeping requirements upon
animal feed (including petfood) manufacturers. For now, there
are still significant concerns about language (e.g.,
"contamination" vs. "adulteration") and other matters, so the
Committee is going to the Board of Directors for guidance.
Finally, a working group within the Feed Labeling Committee
had developed a plan that would pave the way for
carbohydrate-related claims. However, after some discussion,
the working group chair withdrew the plan from consideration by
the Committee to work on it further. Unfortunately, the chair
is leaving his feed control official position, so it's unknown
at this time who will take over the working group.
Notwithstanding the above, I don't want to give the
impression that there was no progress made in Oklahoma City.
With publication of the National Research Council's Nutrient
Requirements of Dogs and Cats a couple of months ago, the Pet
Food Committee is moving forward with plans to convene expert
panels to review and update as necessary the AAFCO Dog and Cat
Food Nutrient Profiles and feeding trial protocols.
A new policy statement to clarify when guarantees are
required (and more importantly, when they are not required) to
support claims on petfood labels has been sent to the Board of
Directors, as were editorial changes to the petfood nutritional
adequacy affidavits. With luck, the corrected affidavits will
appear in the 2007 AAFCO Official Publication.
An amendment of the definition for taurine to allow for use
in dog foods and a change to the animal liver definition to
allow poultry (as well as mammalian sources) were voted and
passed by the AAFCO membership at the general session. At the
Ingredient Definitions Committee session, an amendment of the
definition for selenium yeast to allow for use in dog foods and
a new tentative definition for hydrolyzed yeast were accepted
by the Committee and are moving forward for Board and,
hopefully, membership consideration.
Although the Animal Feed Safety Regulations did not move
forward, the Animal Feed Safety Program document that describes
basic goals and objectives has left the Feed Manufacturing
Committee for Board consideration.