After ready 1,333 days for FDA to answer our Citizen Petition requesting the company require feed grade ingredient disclosure on pet meals labels – the FDA refused our request. The official strategy of petitioning the FDA permits for a Petition for Reconsideration.
We filed our Petition for Reconsideration with the FDA on 4/13/26. To learn the complete Petition for Reconsideration Click Here.
In our petition for FDA to rethink, we argued a number of points from their response to our Citizen Petition. As instance, in FDA’s response the company alluded they didn’t have a full understanding of feed grade; “Based mostly in your petition, we are going to assume you imply ‘feed grade’ to be any amenable species (e.g., beef) not in conformance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) or any poultry product (e.g., rooster) not in conformance with the Poultry Merchandise Inspection Act (PPIA).”
However…we reminded the company they’re absolutely conscious of the authorized definition of feed grade, reminding them “that FDA representatives participated within the AAFCO course of to legally outline Feed Grade and Human Grade.” We additionally reminded FDA that an company consultant (Dr. Charlotte Conway) said in a public assembly “that human meals grade is a better normal than animal feed grade”.
A problem FDA repeated quite a few instances of their response to our Citizen Petition was that the company doesn’t imagine there’s a dietary distinction between (as instance) feed grade condemned rooster and USDA inspected and handed rooster. The FDA additionally repeatedly argued in opposition to pet meals label disclosure of feed grade substances by claiming we (Affiliation for Reality in Pet Meals) didn’t show customers are being misled by feed grade pet meals with photographs of roasted rooster or grilled steak on the label or by labels with claims of ‘Made with Actual Rooster’.
Our reconsideration request included the next:
“We had been unaware that it was wanted to proof to FDA one thing so blatantly apparent, customers affected by financial adulteration immediately resulting from non-disclosure of feed grade substances. We’re assured the company has seen hundreds of pet meals labels that embrace photographs of human grade meat, deceptive the client. The company has had a alternative for years to implement labeling legal guidelines that prohibit such deceptive labeling, however the company as taken no motion to guard customers.”
“We request FDA present the pet proudly owning public with proof that helps your perception that pet meals customers absolutely perceive that animal meals rooster CAN BE (allowed by way of FDA enforcement discretion) very completely different from USDA inspected and handed rooster. Ought to the company fail to supply proof that pet meals customers absolutely perceive that condemned rooster in pet meals ‘solely applies to pet meals’, (failure to supply proof) will assist our request for label transparency.”
Relating to FDA’s arguments that they imagine there may be “no distinction” between condemned meat and USDA inspected and handed meat, our reconsideration request included the next:
We quoted federal regulation (that was additionally quoted in our Citizen Petition) – particular to animal meals – that clearly evidences authorized basis for label disclosure of feed grade substances. PART 502—COMMON OR USUAL NAMES FOR NONSTANDARDIZED ANIMAL FOODS: “The widespread or traditional identify of a meals, which can be a coined time period, shall precisely determine or describe, in as easy and direct phrases as attainable, the essential nature of the meals or its characterizing properties or substances. The identify shall be uniform amongst all equivalent or comparable merchandise and might not be confusingly just like the identify of every other meals that isn’t moderately encompassed inside the identical identify. Every class or subclass of meals shall be given its personal widespread or traditional identify that states, in clear phrases, what it’s in a approach that distinguishes it from completely different meals.”
Our reconsideration request argued: “It’s illogical to imagine that USDA inspected and handed (as instance) rooster is ‘equivalent or comparable’ to condemned rooster or rooster that has died in any other case than by slaughter. By the easy reality one other federal company (USDA) has formally condemned this materials is affirmation condemned rooster is NOT moderately encompassed inside the identical identify. We argue if condemned rooster is equivalent or just like USDA inspected and handed rooster, then condemned rooster could be offered for human and animal consumption.”
“For the company to make the assertion of their response ‘we’ve no purpose to assume that there’s such a distinction’ between these two considerably completely different qualities of rooster is illogical, disrespectful of USDA authority, and utterly unfounded. We request the company present US pet house owners with scientific proof to verify ‘there isn’t a distinction’ or present US pet house owners with label transparency disclosing use of feed grade substances.”
Our reconsideration request additionally identified to FDA that their very own lack of enforcement of federal regulation contributes to the issue of deceptive pet meals labels. Federal regulation particular to animal meals: Title 21, Chapter I, Subpart E, Half 501.18: “Misbranding of animal meals. (b) Amongst representations within the labeling of a meals which render such meals misbranded is a false or deceptive illustration with respect to a different meals or a drug, gadget, or beauty.”
We argued within the reconsideration request (particular to above regulation): “As a consequence of FDA lack of enforcement of deceptive labels, pet meals producers have for years displayed photographs of grilled or roasted meats alluding by way of photographs their merchandise are of a special high quality (deceptive illustration with respect to a different meals). And as we evidenced in our Petition, many pet meals labels embrace the deceptive advertising assertion ‘Made with Actual Rooster’ or ‘Made with Actual Beef’, once more a deceptive illustration of a feed grade ingredient to a human grade ingredient.”
“Via FDA lack of enforcement, the company has allowed pet meals producers to mislead the general public. Feed grade rooster sourced from diseased poultry or poultry that has died in any other case than by slaughter is totally an inferior imitation of USDA inspected and handed rooster. With a purpose to forestall client financial adulteration the 2 substances ought to have completely different names, federal regulation requires it.”
We requested the company to answer our reconsideration request inside 45 days (in any case…we’ve already waited 1,333 days for his or her preliminary response).
Our Petition for Reconsideration is a step within the course of we’re due by way of federal regulation. After this step is full (45 days), the one different step we’ve is a lawsuit. We’ll hold pet house owners posted.
To learn the preliminary Citizen Petition Click Here.
To learn FDA’s full response to our Citizen Petition Click Here.
To learn our Petition for Reconsideration Click Here.
Susan Thixton
Pet Meals Security Advocate
Creator Purchaser Beware, Co-Creator Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Discover Wholesome Pet Meals in Your Space Click Here
The 2026 Checklist
Our trusted ‘checklist’ of pet meals. Click Here to be taught extra.
The 2025/26 Deal with Checklist
Susan’s Checklist of trusted pet deal with producers. Click Here to be taught extra.
Affiliation for Reality in Pet Meals is a stakeholder group representing pet meals customers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend conferences and voice client issues with regulatory authorities. Click Here to be taught extra.
