Before I dive into this Food and Drug Administration news update, I would be remiss if I didn’t somehow address the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for the animal food industry. FDA is so grateful for the industry’s cooperation with us during this trying time. We have really relied on animal food trade associations, like the American Feed Industry Association, to help gather information on supply chains and to share critical information with industry. I’m impressed by how well you’ve managed to maintain supply while still protecting your employees. Rest assured, FDA is working with our state partners and agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency, on an all-of-government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The only way we are going to get through this is if we work together. 

Cell-cultured muscle is not a new phenomenon. In 1885, Wilhelm Roux was able to culture cells from the neural plate of a chicken embryo for a few days. Those early experiments eventually expanded to a variety of cell types, including muscle.

What is this this “new normal” we keep hearing so much about? We’re all still trying to figure out what  “the new normal” means for each of us, but I know that I’m tired of saying it and I think we can all agree that we are tired of hearing it. However, looking through the lens of the advocacy world, the closer I look, the more it seems that not much has actually changed.

Early input from a broad swath of food activists and professional groups encouraged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand the size of its 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and introduce greater transparency into the process by livestreaming its meetings. But, despite the increased opportunity for public input and a thorough review of current research, there is little evidence that federal dietary guidelines have done much for the public’s health since major changes to the recommended daily allowances were implemented 40 years ago. So, is the problem the dietary guidelines or individual eating patterns?

Last week, the American Feed Industry Association’s Board of Directors met to gavel in the new chair, induct new Board members as well as set the association’s legislative and regulatory (L&R) policy agenda for the next AFIA fiscal year, which runs from May 1, 2020-April 30, 2021. These policy priorities dictate how the eight-person L&R team will spend their time for the next year representing the animal feed and pet food industry before Capitol Hill, the White House and domestic and international regulatory bodies. The association is always nimble to adjust to the immediate policy need, like with the response to COVID-19, but these key priorities guide the association’s strategic activities to benefit the industry.

I clearly remember one of my early classes as an animal science student at the University of Vermont, ASCI 141 - Feeds and Feeding. Throughout the semester, Dr. Jim Welch walked us through the formation of diets for every stage of growth, pregnancy and lactation for a number of livestock species. As earnest students, we agonized over the correct combination of forages, grains and mineral mixes to meet the exact nutrient requirements for a lactating sow or a weaned dairy calf. We carefully balanced the availability of an ingredient with its cost and benefit to the intended animal. In our homework exercises, ounces and pennies would impact our decisions and the validity of our answers. We rigorously defended our answers and challenged anyone, including Dr. Welch, to question our findings.

While much of the fuss in the government affairs world is made about the federal government, state government decisions have significant impacts on the animal food industry as well. Most states have a state feed law that gives state regulators the primary authority over all animal food and ingredients.

Last week in Washington proved to be a busy one as the American Feed Industry Association saw success on two major policy priorities, the signing of a phase one trade agreement with China and the Senate’s passage of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Both agreements are critically important tools of foreign market access for the U.S. animal food industry, but equally important is the momentum they bring toward finally getting things done in a Congress that has been frustratingly gridlocked.