“If it isn't broke, don’t fix it,” said Rehberg a member of the House Appropriations Committee.  “Why are they messing with a system that has been working? All the FDA is doing is creating more red tape for the agriculture industry. And then to only allow four days to comment on a ruling that will have long-lasting effects on their industry is just plain goofy.”

Since 1997, the U.S. has prohibited ruminant feed from including parts of co-mingling hoofed animal feed. This is known as the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. This proactive feed ban helps protect the U.S. cattle herd from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).  While the current system has been working, the Enhanced Feed Ban Rule will prohibit certain cattle-derived risk materials from all animal feed, despite the fact that doing so provides negligible safety benefits.  Instead, it creates tremendous costs, exacerbates disposal issues, and generates environmental concerns. The FDA estimates that the new rule will cost producers $28-39 million per year. Rehberg also asked the FDA to extend the 7-day comment period on the new rule to allow livestock producers and the agriculture industry time to address the issue and voice their concerns.

LETTER:

Dear Acting Commissioner Torti:

I write to you regarding the implementation of the FDA’s final regulation, 21 CFR Part 589, “Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed,” effective April 27, 2009, which will bar the use of certain materials from cattle 30 months of age and older in all animal feed.  While I strongly support the goal of enhancing safeguards against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and commend your leadership on this issue, the rule is causing concerns among livestock producers and agriculture industries throughout the country.

I understand the purpose of the FDA’s final regulation, to strengthen safeguards against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S., but am concerned about the potential unintended consequences.  Specifically, the FDA’s final regulation does not address how cattle mortalities, now typically included in some animal feed, would be alternatively disposed of.  Because the FDA regulation will prohibit a typical use of cattle mortalities, it will become uneconomical for the rendering industry to process cattle mortalities without a sharp increase in costs associated with picking up deceased animals.  Such an increase in pickup charges likely would result in an additional 1.3 billion pounds of dead animals being informally buried or abandoned each year.  This result effectively substitutes one problem for another.

One way to address the carcass disposal issue would be for FDA to recognize standards, such as those established in Europe to address BSE, by which prohibited materials may be processed and recycled.  Another option would be to develop a carcass disposal plan designed to safeguard animal health, environmental health, and public health. 

Another concern I have is regarding the 7-day comment period just issued late last week. This is not sufficient time for livestock producers and agriculture industries to address this issue and voice their concerns. This ruling will have dramatic effects on these industries. Therefore, I am asking you to also extend this comment period to allow these agriculture groups time to get their voices heard.

I encourage you to consider these issues and suspend the implementation of this rule until a disposal plan is implemented.  A more complete analysis will allow the affected industries sufficient time to develop and implement cost effective means to comply with the final regulation.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.  I look forward to working with you on this important issue.  If you have any questions please contact Mary Heller at my office (202)225-3211.

Sincerely,