AAFCO holds ‘Mid-Year’ Meeting, labeling topics discussed

Labeling modernization updates and the definition of ‘labeling’ were both covered, among other food-related topics, at the AAFCO Mid-Year Meeting held in January 2021.

AAFCO’s Mid-Year Meeting had a full docket of topics to cover in various committees. | (monkeybusinessimages | iStock.com)
AAFCO’s Mid-Year Meeting had a full docket of topics to cover in various committees. | (monkeybusinessimages | iStock.com)

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) held its "Mid-Year" Meeting on January 19–21, 2021. As with the Annual Meeting in August 2020, all sessions were conducted live but online. I initially had problems participating because a power outage in my neighborhood cut off my access to the internet. Fortunately, I was able to join the meeting by parking near the coffee vendor at a local shopping mall and logging on via its Wi-Fi connection. It worked great, except that balancing a tablet on the steering wheel of my truck became tiresome after the first couple of hours! Also, it necessitated a Faustian arrangement; i.e., in return for the coffee proprietor granting me permission to connect through its internet access, I had to promise the company that I would accept its promotional e-mails in perpetuity.  

Pet Food Committee: “human grade,” labeling modernization, arachidonic acid

Except for the Ingredient Definitions Committee (which will be covered in next month's column), the agendas of other pertinent committees were relatively light. Of the Pet Food Committee's few items slated for discussion, one was the report by the Human Grade Working Group. Unfortunately, it did not finish its proposed guidance as had been anticipated, but rather is still striving to "work some things out" with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA AMS). As explained in a later teleconference, a set of standards by which AMS would verify the processes of manufacturers wishing to make the “human grade” claim cannot be devised to cover all potential contingencies. A possible solution is to move the guidance forward as is, but eventually establish a group within AAFCO to review unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis. 

Also in the Pet Food Committee session, the Pet Food Labeling Modernization Working Group reported that it is almost finished with its tasks. Because the recommendations from the various teams within the working group need to move forward en masse, a concern about one aspect from one team has delayed progression to the next step a bit. However, once consensus about how carbohydrate fractions will appear within the Pet Nutrition Facts Box is reached, matters can move out of the Pet Food Committee for further consideration by others within AAFCO.

The Pet Food Committee also discussed whether arachidonic acid (ARA) is "essential" when in dog food. Although it is not a dietary essential nutrient for dogs from a scientific perspective, its reference in the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles as it pertains to the prescribed omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio has confused matters. Whether inclusion in the Profiles makes it "essential" or not impacts how and where a guarantee for ARA would appear on the label. However, the consensus of the state regulators at the session was that they had no preference; i.e., that the listing of ARA in the guarantees can include an asterisk leading to the "not recognized as essential" disclaimer or not, without objection either way.    

Other items: the definition of “labeling,” flavor ingredient declarations, livestock treats

No specifically pet food-related items were discussed in the Model Bills and Regulations Committee session, though some of its work may eventually affect pet foods. A working group is discussing a proposed change to the definition of "labeling." The resulting amended definition hypothetically would expand the authority state feed control officials have over the advertising of animal feed/pet food products. This would run contrary to the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission on this matter, where there is a clear division of responsibilities as to who has primary authority over labeling versus advertising.

The Model Bills and Regulations Committee also discussed an issue involving flavor ingredient declarations on labels. The Code of Federal Regulations allow for what is essentially a "collective term," in that a manufacturer has the option to call out substances or combinations of substances by their common or usual names, or simply as "natural flavor(s)." The latter is a very long-standing provision in the federal regulations deemed vital to the protection of proprietary formulation information. However, apparently some states do not provide for that option in their statutes. A working group has been formed to investigate and make recommendations as to if/how AAFCO should proceed.

Finally, in the AAFCO Business Session, the full AAFCO membership voted to accept new regulations relating to livestock "treats." For those in the industry who make treats for species other than dogs, cats and specialty pets (e.g., for horses or chickens), they'll be happy to know that the rules have been simplified. Rather than the litany of label guarantees normally required on livestock feed labels (which also differs depending on the species), the manufacturer must only guarantee crude protein, crude fat and crude fiber, provided that the principal display panel prominently identifies the product as a "snack" or "treat." However, additional guarantees may be required when necessary to support nutrient content claims (e.g., "with calcium").   

 

Briefly: Top 5 takeaways

  1. AAFCO’s “Mid-Year” Meeting was held online in January 2021, and the Pet Food Committee lightly covered several topics of interest.
  2. The Human Grade Working Group was unable to provide formal guidance as scheduled due to concerns that a set of standards by which AMS would verify the processes of manufacturers wishing to make the “human grade” claim cannot possibly cover all potential contingencies.
  3. The long-discussed Pet Nutrition Facts Box is almost ready to leave the Pet Food Committee for further consideration by others in AAFCO.
  4. A working group in the Model Bills and Regulations Committee is discussing a proposed change to the definition of "labeling" that would result in expanded authority for state feed control officials over the advertising of animal feed/pet food products.
  5. The full AAFCO membership voted to accept new regulations relating to livestock "treats," simplifying the rules.

More on pet food regulatory issues.

Page 1 of 59
Next Page