Groups Urge Revisions in South Dakota Feed Rules

May 8, 2001

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), South Dakota Grain and Feed Association (SDGFA) and the Pet Food Institute (PFI) are urging the South Dakota Department of Agriculture to revamp its proposed new regulations concerning efforts to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

Rules to implement a new state law require that all ruminant livestock feed manufactured or distributed within the state be labeled as to whether it was produced in a facility that handles or stores certain mammalian proteins that FDA prohibits for use in ruminant feeds. The NGFA, SDGFA and PFI said that while the new state law exceeds FDA's labeling requirement, the proposed rules go even farther and would impose disruptive, costly and confusing new requirements on manufacturers and distributors of feed, feed ingredients and pet food within the state, without substantively improving human or animal safety.

"It is important to emphasize that there has not been a single case of BSE in the United States," the three organizations said in joint testimony presented here today at a hearing conducted by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture on its proposed rules. "To our knowledge, South Dakota is the first and only state thus far to adopt additional BSE-related laws and regulations that differ from - and in some cases contradict - FDA's regulations.

"We are very concerned that differing state feed laws and requirements concerning BSE, while well intentioned, will have unintended and negative consequences that will create confusion among the regulated industries, as well as inefficiencies and additional costs that will be borne by feed manufacturers, feeders and consumers - without providing additional substantive food or feed safety protections," the groups said.

The three organizations recommended that the law's requirement that ruminant feed be labeled with an advisory statement be limited only to ruminant feeds manufactured in plants where prohibited mammalian protein actually is used as an ingredient in feed for non-ruminant species, rather than applying this requirement to all facilities.

"We believe this would fulfill the statute's intent that ruminant feeders be informed if they are purchasing ruminant feed from facilities that are utilizing prohibited mammalian protein as a feed ingredient*while alleviating the operational and cost impacts associated with changing labels for those companies that do not receive or handle such proteins," the groups said.

The organizations also urged the South Dakota Department of Agriculture to specifically exempt from the labeling requirement ruminant feed manufactured at facilities where the only product that may contain mammalian protein banned from use in ruminants may be pet food that is being stored - but not manufactured - at the facility.

They also urged the South Dakota Department of Agriculture to delete several sections of the proposed rule that they termed "unnecessary, disruptive, impractical and unworkable," and which exceed the mandate of the new state law. Specifically, the organizations strongly opposed proposals that would prohibit facilities that manufacture ruminant feeds for distribution or for their own use from receiving, storing or handling mammalian proteins that can be used legally as a feed ingredient for non-ruminant species.

The NGFA, SDGFA and PFI noted this requirement would conflict with FDA's regulations, which permit facilities that manufacture ruminant feed to receive and use mammalian protein not allowed in ruminant feed - but legally permitted in non-ruminant feed - so long as they develop and implement written procedures to prevent commingling or cross contamination and label the resulting feed with a caution statement that it is not to be fed to cattle or other ruminants.

Further, the groups noted that the proposal would have the effect of prohibiting retail feed stores that distribute feed for multiple species and/or pet food from storing such products in the same building as ruminant feed. In addition, the wording of the proposed rule implies that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture would enforce the provision on out-of-state feed manufacturing facilities that distribute feed within the state, as well as at on-farm ruminant feeding operations.

South Dakota also would prohibit persons who transport or store ruminant livestock feeds for further distribution or for their own use from handling prohibited mammalian proteins in any distribution equipment or from storing such proteins in the same building with ruminant feed.

The NGFA, SDGFA and PFI said the practical effect of this proposal would be to require the use of dedicated transportation conveyances to haul bulk or bagged ruminant feed. Such a requirement would conflict with the FDA BSE-prevention rule, which requires that the same transportation vehicles can be used so long as they are properly cleaned to prevent commingling or cross contamination.

And its extreme effects are illustrated by a draft compliance policy guide prepared by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, which states that bagged pet food or non-ruminant feed could not be hauled with ruminant feed in the same truck (including the farmer's pickup truck) unless it was stored separately. In situations in which the farmer picks up both ruminant feed and pet food at the same time, the South Dakota draft guidance manual states, "it may be necessary to put the dog food in the tool box or pickup cab, or pick it up at a different time," the groups noted.

The state also would prohibit wholesale or retail distributors of packaged feed products from reclaiming accidental spills of feed that contain prohibited mammalian protein. Instead, the three organizations recommended that this proposal be revised to stipulate that such spills be picked up promptly and returned to the same kind of feed and labeled with the BSE caution statement ("Do Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants") if it contains or may contain restricted-use mammalian proteins.