- PDF Version (399K) - Print Friendly - Help

AgVetLink: Number 60, February 2007

Interim Outcome: Review of Animal Feeds

In the December 2006 issue of AgVetLink NZFSA advised that it was considering submissions on its proposals to modify the regulatory control of animal feeds. The article described the two proposals.

Proposal One

Proposal One would require manufacturers of feed containing animal material resulting from the death of the source animal to list with NZFSA by supplying information such as manufacturer’s name, address and type of feed being manufactured.

Submissions received expressed two major concerns.

1. There are hazards such as naturally occurring and chemical/biological contaminants associated with plant material that may be of equal significance as those in meat and offal. The proposed listing would not facilitate investigations involving those hazards.

2. The second concern related to the practicality and appropriateness of the proposed listing. The listing would not reflect the true composition of the feed manufacturing industry. In addition, some respondents pointed out that there may already be ways for NZFSA to obtain the information it needs to investigate adverse events involving animal feeds. It was also pointed out that there are other initiatives to gather the information that should be explored before an additional requirement to be listed is imposed.

Given these concerns, proposal one will be reconsidered. The NZFSA Science Group will develop a more comprehensive risk profile for animal feeds under New Zealand conditions to give a better picture of what hazards are significant, what risks should be managed and whether an NZFSA listing of feed manufacturers would help manage those risks.

Proposal Two

Proposal Two would require manufacturers of petfood (cat/dog food) containing animal material resulting from the death of the source animal to procure material only from regulated sources and to maintain a documented system that demonstrates such things as source of process inputs, suitability for intended purpose, sufficient labelling to enable traceback, and inventory control to identify substitution and security during transport.

There was qualified support for Proposal Two from the larger manufacturers in the petfood industry. A number of concerns were raised regarding the nature of the documented system, particularly for those manufacturers who were not already operating under NZFSA registered risk management programmes. However, there was sufficient agreement with and support to progress it to the next and more detailed stage, with the hope of introducing changes later this year.