Bad news first…
On June 26, 2024 “the Supreme Court held 6-3 that a federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), does not criminalize after-the-fact ‘gratuities’ paid to state or local government officials in recognition for official acts, where there was no quid pro quo agreement to take those acts.”
This means that state government officials CAN receive gratuities – including financial gratuities – as a thank you for an official act.
Consider AAFCO.
The State government officials of AAFCO make significant decisions that affect pet food. This decision by the Supreme Court means that the pet food industry is legally allowed to send a financial thank you, gift a vacation, or gift anything to an AAFCO representative for a vote or action that favors the pet food company.
Or perhaps an ingredient supplier has a new waste ingredient they need an AAFCO approval on. Now, it will be legal for that ingredient supplier to financially ‘thank’ the AAFCO official that pushes the new ingredient definition through the process for approval.
But it could get worse…
This Supreme Court ruling also means that when a state feed official inspects a pet food manufacturing plant, the inspector could receive a significant gratuity for a clean inspection. Look the other way at violations…receive a legally allowed financial thank you.
Now, any of these things are legal according to the Supreme Court.
The good news…
A 1984 Supreme Court ruling was overturned recently by the 2024 court. This ruling – known as Chevron deference – allowed government agencies such as the FDA to interpret law in their own manner, allowed the government agency the opportunity to (sort of) make up their own rules (ignoring the federal laws if they felt the need). Now, individual courts can enforce law instead of deferring to the governing federal agency.
An example the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) utilized is allowing the use of diseased animals and animals that died other than by slaughter in pet food with no disclosure to the consumer. Federal law clearly classifies diseased animals and animals that died other than by slaughter as “adulterated” (not allowed in human or animal food)…but…the FDA CVM interpreted the law differently.
In a FDA Compliance Policy the agency stated “the Center for Veterinary Medicine does not believe that Congress intended the Act to preclude application of different standards to human and animal foods”.
The FDA CVM took a different position (a different standard) with animal food. The agency’s policy was: “No regulatory action will be considered for animal feed ingredients resulting from the ordinary rendering process of industry, including those using animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, provided they are not otherwise in violation of the law.”
The 1984 Supreme Court ruling (Chevron deference) allowed the agency to interpret law as they saw fit. With Chevron deference, a pet owner could have filed a lawsuit against a pet food manufacturer for illegal ingredients (sourced from diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter) and the court would have probably ruled that the FDA allows this type of material in pet food, and the lawsuit would have probably been dismissed. The courts deferred to the federal agency opinion because the Supreme Court ruled they should.
But now, with Chevron deference overturned, the same lawsuit could be filed and the judge would have the authority to agree with the pet owner, agree with federal laws that clearly define this material as adulterated.
This Supreme Court decision should make pet food manufacturers that utilize illegal, adulterated ingredients very nervous.
Buckle your seatbelt, things could get bumpy in pet food soon.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2024 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
The 2023 Treat List
Susan’s List of trusted pet treat manufacturers. Click Here to learn more.
Dianne & pets
July 8, 2024 at 3:46 pm
People should use it as soon as they can. If project 2025 goes ahead, it may not be possible to sue corporations at all, for anything. I have finally taken the plunge and will never buy commercial pet feed or food again.
Sarah
July 8, 2024 at 8:13 pm
I think there’s still to be concern for the overturning of chevron deference, but more of the concerns are likely to come out of other industries rather than the pet food industry – one example is that the EPA would lose a lot of control over the fossil fuel industry which *could* be bad for the planet if the oil companies end up with an upper hand on influence compared to renewable energy ones. Yeah, I know that agencies could already be bought and sold anyways, I’m only trying to say that it might not be good for all aspects of our lives even if it may benefit our ability to demand better for our pets.
CB
July 8, 2024 at 10:42 pm
Of course the people accepting “gratuities” make it legal for all government officials to receive “gratuities”. The fallout from this decision will be pervasive and destructive. Luxury vacations for everyone!