PFI is working with Representative Jake LaTurner of Kansas to propose the PURR Act since February 2024. (https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7380/BILLS-118hr7380ih.pdf)
Over the last six months, we’ve had a myriad of discussions about the Act. We have spoken to our members. State regulators. Federal regulators. And policy makers.
It’s definitely a mixed bag of benefits and disadvantages. These issues basically boil down to centralization versus over-control.
The biggest advantage from a manufacturer’s perspective is to only deal with one regulatory authority when applying for product label reviews. That is absolutely tremendous! Currently, companies waste incredible amounts of time and money dealing with state regulators and their individual interpretations of the law. Having to stop sales and make label changes because one state regulator has a different interpretation of the law and the AAFCO Model Bill is not good for business.
Due to the frustration many pet food manufacturers have experienced with individual state policy makers, our members are not particularly saddened by the potential of state department agriculture no longer having funding, therefore no longer having existence. However, the state departments of agriculture perform more tasks than simply review of pet food labels. The biggest responsibilities beyond those of label review are inspections and nutrient testing at the state level. So if states are no longer able to receive funding from pet food labeling and registration, not only does labeling and registration centralize to the FDA, but, inspection and nutrient testing must also move to the federal level as labeling pays for these state processes currently.Some state inspections are truly helpful. Our members have not found federal inspections to contain many warm, fuzzy events.
However, there are a multitude of other considerations regarding the PURR Act:
First, let’s discuss cost. How are the feds going to fund their label reviewing process? Will they need to replace every single label reviewer from 50 states, requiring the FDA to hire 200 regulators? Maybe not that many, but the new label authorities are going to be inundated with new labels! But again, if labeling funds inspection at the state level, now the federal authorities will also be taking over all inspection authority thus meeting, again, more funding.
Second, as it’s written into the PURR Act, 18 months after inception of the Act, the updated, new, modernized pet food labels will be mandated to be in place. Currently, we are in the first year of a six-year grandfather period to slowly incorporate new pet food labels. Is the FDA ready for this? This means all those companies who want to wait until the last day, will no longer have six years. Eighteen months goes by fast. And the FDA has to approve every. Single. Modernized. Pet food label.
Still looking at money, if one company wants to submit labels for one product in every single one of the 50 states, that’s a $23,000 process today. If one company wants to submit five products nationally it’s $80,000 in today’s system. This includes registration, licensing, label review, tonnage fees, and “other“ fees (we will discuss other fees below).
Is the FDA going to have a “one size fits all” charge? If a company has five products to register, it’s $80,000? One product – $23,000? Or will there be consideration for the size of the manufacturer ?
There is zero mention in the Act about funding, which is concerning. No mention at all about funds. Congress is going to have to decide how to handle that. Congress will have to decide if taxpayers are going to pay for these changes and increased responsibility to the FDA or if pet food manufacturers are going to fund the federal agency, just like the pharmaceutical industry does currently. (Are we, as a nation, sure we want to go down that path?)
Our trade association has members who do business in one state only! These companies can’t afford $23,000 fees to register one product! For some companies, that fee is more than the company’s annual revenues!
Consequently, the PURR Act is going to decrease the number of companies available for consumers to select between. This Act will destroy small business, and thereby block innovation. (I propose it’s the small and minuscule companies who innovate.)
Third, discussion about “other“ fees. As manufacturers operating on a national basis, our members are aware that certain states (Maine, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, New Mexico) require a spay neuter fee. Not everybody realizes that pet food manufacturers are supporting state spay neuter programs in these states. How are the states going to recoup these monies? If all labeling moves to a central location at the FDA, the states are going to have to change their laws and change how they are going to recoup these monies or risk loss of these very important spay neuter programs.
One final concern our members have voiced regards having the FDA be the sole authority to review website information is this: Being a federal agency whose job is public safety, the agency can be quite conservative. It’s the nature of the beast. Which means any company who lists the health benefits of (say) ginger or turmeric on their website is going to be accused of making a drug claim. Websites are going to become so bland and sanitized that no consumer will know what it is they’re reading and why in the world are they looking at a product that contains specific ingredients like ginger or turmeric. (These are simply examples of very common ingredients. That are literally dozens of pet food ingredients who have documented health benefits. But this health information cannot be listed on a label or website.)
A centralized method to have one authority to review labels is great. Destruction of state Departments of Agriculture is not. One size fits all fees is not. There is zero consideration in the PURR Act for the size of a manufacturer. It is logical considering the authors of the act represent the two multinational companies represent 75% the marketplace. We represent all the little ones. All of the “others”.
