- *
Please Read Carefully and Act Today!
Call to Action Over Regulatory Enforcement of Hemp Products by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture
To:
- All Idaho Dog, Cat and Horse Owners
- All Idaho Pet Retailers and Farm & Feed Stores
- Businesses in Idaho that will be Negatively Impacted Financially
- Members of the Media
The National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) has repeatedly tried to foster ongoing engagement with senior-level individuals within the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), as well as policy makers in the governor's office and Governor Brad Little himself, to responsibly address the issue of Idaho removing hemp/CBD products for pets from commerce beginning on November 1.
As the leading trade association in the world representing companies that manufacture and/or market products for companion animals and horses that are similar to human dietary supplements, including non-nutritional products containing hemp and CBD, the NASC is gravely concerned that those in government positions who are supposed to act in the best interests of the public have chosen not to participate in constructive dialogue with us on this matter.
Those we have spoken to include:
- Lloyd B. Knight, Administrator, Division of Plant Industries, ISDA
- Chanel Tewalt, Deputy Director, ISDA
- Andrea Thompson, Section Manager – Field Services, ISDA
- Jamie Neill, Policy Director, Office of the Governor
- Jared Larsen, Policy Advisor & Deputy Counsel, Office of the Governor
After speaking with these individuals, we sent repeated emails asking to continue the conversation, and even received acknowledgement that they would like to continue communicating. Jamie Neill and Jared Larsen committed to getting back to us last week, but did not follow through.
We Need Your Help! With the November 1 deadline looming, we feel we have reached an impasse and now need the constituents and businesses affected by ISDA's action to contact and demand answers from these elected officials who are supposed to be listening to the voices of the people, and from those in appointed positions who serve as public employees of the state of Idaho.
When you contact these individuals, please ask the following questions:
Context: Under the statutes defined for animal feed in the state of Idaho
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title25/T25CH27/
Question: What are the considerations for a product to be regulated as an animal feed under the purview of ISDA?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context: In the definitions section of Title 25, Chapter 27, Idaho Commercial Feed Law - https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title25/T25CH27/SECT25-2703/
(1) Defines the term "animal remedy means any drug, … other than for food or cosmetic purposes, which is prepared or compounded for any animal use except man, or materials other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of animals other than man. This term does not include medicated feeds.”
(3) Defines the term “commercial feed” means all materials or combination of materials which are distributed or intended for distribution for use as feed, or for mixing in feed …” further clarified in (a – h)
(10) Defines The term "drug" means any article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in animals other than man and articles other than feed intended to affect the structure or any function of the animal body.
Question: Since feed, medicated feed, and animal drugs that are not feed are specifically and separately defined in Chapter 27 of Idaho Commercial Feed Law, is it the intention of the ISDA to also take action against products which meet the definition described in (10) above that are not intended as feed, medicated feed, or marketed in any way that would make them feeds?
Part 2 of the Question: Is it the position of ISDA that the department has enforcement authority over all animal drug products? If so, what is the statutory basis for this authority?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context: Many other states allow products containing hemp to be sold either by exercising enforcement discretion where no concerns for animal safety have arisen, and some recognize hemp in their statutes. According to the database from the National Animal Supplement Council, there have been over 850 million administrations of products containing hemp in dogs, cats and horses among products that have been on the market for over 11 years. Additionally, there have been numerous safety studies conducted by prominent universities and leading companies, and the NASC also conducted a long-term safety study for three different types of CBD.
Question: Have there been repeated and serious adverse events reported to ISDA for hemp products in dogs, cats, or horses where the THC concentration is not detectable (essentially zero)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context: In various media articles, Ms. Tewalt has said that this action is being taken because hemp is an unapproved ingredient for use in animal food, and therefore products are considered adulterated.
Question: Does ISDA allow other products with ingredients that have not been approved for use in animal feed and that do not have AAFCO definitions to be sold in the state of Idaho?
Part 2 of the Question: Does ISDA allow other products with ingredients that are neither FDA approved Feed Additives nor FDA - GRAS notified, for use in animal feed and do not otherwise have AAFCO Ingredient Definitions, e.g., Chondroitin? If so, aren't these products considered adulterated?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Did ISDA consider the negative consequences of removing these products from the marketplace, which could include: pet owners purchasing hemp/CBD products online; pet owners purchasing products from out of state; or pet owners buying and giving their pets human products, which may have higher concentrations of THC and could cause harm to the animals? (It's likely these negative consequences would be among the outcomes, based on the actions of ISDA.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Context: What has been asked of ISDA and the governor’s office is to only consider feed products under the scope of ISDA. Products with structure/ function claims that are not nutritionally linked (i.e., "supports calm demeanor during occasional times of stress"; "may help alleviate discomfort from normal daily exercise or activity in older dogs"; etc.) are not intended to be targeted by ISDA.
Due to the significant economic impact to the state of Idaho, businesses conducting commerce in Idaho, consumers (pet/horse owners), and not least important the dogs, cats and horses that will be affected by this decision, we have asked ISDA to exercise enforcement discretion until the issue and consequences can be fairly considered in the 2023 legislative session.
Final Question: Are you aware that nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition to Governor Brad Little voicing their support of the approach described above? Based on the information presented here and the data available, why would these not be reasonable requests?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Action:
Below you will find contact information for the elected officials and appointed public employees we have tried to communicate with. We urge you to ask these questions of these individuals, and also pass them along to anyone interested in supporting hemp/CBD products for dogs, cats and horses.
Contact Information:
If this issue and these products are important to you, now is the time to get involved. Write, make phone calls, and pass this information along.
NASC would again offer to have a reasonable discussion regarding the topic of hemp and CBD in products for animals for non-nutritional structure/function benefits, with the goal of finding a responsible path forward without the many negative and possibly unintended consequences for all stakeholders impacted.
Sincerely,
—Bill Bookout, NASC President
