Skip to main content

FOIA Request Reveals Severe Lack Of FDA-CVM Records On HPP

Years ago, I had a back and forth with FDA where the media department refused to specific whether "raw" pet food that had been subjected to HPP (high pressure pasteurization) had been subjected to a kill step or not. The FDA stated "HPP can be a kill step when effectively done, however, it must be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product. "

I then asked FDA:

  • Please define or provide me documents on "when effectively done" means as per FDA. 
  • What does FDA deem to be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product?
  • Does FDA approve a pet food company's use as HPP as effective or non effective before they implement this in their foods?
After FDA-CVM refused to provide me further information, I filed a FOIA request with the agency for records on this matter. I eventually had to sue the agency under FOIA law, and force the agency to comply with my FOIA request. Years later, I finally have what FDA-CVM is stating is their "final" response to the FOIA request, and the records the agency has on the matter of HPP and raw pet food is shockingly small. The agency provided only 25 pages of records, yet they withheld 23 pages in full under FOIA redactions (b)(4) and (b)(5). 

The issue surrounding pet food products labeled as "raw" which have gone through HPP, is that USDA actually considers these types of products to be pasteurized. Why then is FDA-CVM allowing for such products to be labeled as "raw"? When a citizen is purchasing a product labeled as "raw" when in reality it has been subjected to a pasteurization technique, is that fraud? 

On October 12, 2021, I submitted a citizen petition to FDA-CVM asking for the agency to issue a regulation for the term "raw". The agency is suppose to respond to citizen petitions within 180 days. However on April 11, 2022, FDA-CVM stated they will "require additional time to issue a final response" on this matter. It appears as though HPP for raw pet food is yet one more area where FDA-CVM is not regularly engaged in regulating. 

Additionally, more than three citizens have requested the same HPP records that I requested from FDA-CVM. FOIA law requires agencies like FDA-CVM to publicly post records that have been requested from the agency 3+ times. Regulations.gov, the where citizens can petition FDA-CVM to take action on issues, shows that FDA-CVM has been petitioned at least three times to post their lackluster HPP "records" on the agency's public FOIA reading room. I petitioned FDA-CVM on this transparency issue on January 8, 2022. So far, the agency has not responded, stating that they will comply with FOIA law in relation to these HPP records. 

I have to wonder, is this why the agency was so against answering my questions in the first place? Did they not have the information in order to properly answer simple questions on a topic they're suppose to be regulating? Also, what is FDA-CVM going to do moving forward on this matter? Are they going to try to do everything possible to avoid the regulatory process on this matter, as they're doing in other areas? Even FDA-CVM's own science doesn't support HPP as "raw", and it will be interesting to see how hard FDA-CVM employees respond to this ongoing issue. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FDA Refuses To Speak Via Phone To Veterinarians & Consumers Regarding Ongoing Regulatory Issues With Aflatoxin

Today, FDA confirmed they would not be granting phone call requests in relation to longstanding and ongoing regulatory issues with aflatoxin in dry pet foods, mainly dry pet foods produced with the ingredient corn.  For years, Dr. Steven Solomon and other federal employees of FDA-CVM (Center for Veterinary Medicine) have continuously refused to speak to consumers, consumer groups, and members of the educational field regarding the myriad of issues surrounding various regulatory actions by FDA-CVM. Why wouldn't the FDA-CVM want to have open, honest, and continuous dialogue with the regulated consumers, or with the veterinary field?  For years, FDA-CVM has been regulating the pet food industry by what they call their "opinion", instead of a properly passed rule. It has also been discovered that employees of FDA-CVM held secret meetings with the major grain and dry pet food lobbying group AFIA, where FDA-CVM actually worked with AFIA to stifle regulations that would have bro

Questions Regarding Answers' Lawsuit Against Kure Pet Food & Independent Farmers

WHY WOULD TWO WOMEN LEAVE THEIR OWN PET FOOD COMPANY? According to court documents, Roxanne Stone and Jacqueline Hill left Lystn and its Companies because Keith Hill was self-dealing by paying himself additional fees and profits through Lystn to his own independent consulting company; Roxanne and Jacqueline would have stayed with Lystn and Companies if Keith would have stepped-down as CEO, which they had requested because of his potential misconduct.  According to court testimony, Roxanne Stone and Jacqueline Hill had multiple meetings and attempted to rectify these serious issues prior to finally disassociating from the company they pioneered .  KEITH HILL AND DERRICK HILL REMAIN SILENCE REGARDING MONETARY MOVES Keith Hill's lawyer currently appears to be trying to make people believe that "all the facts" were reviewed in this case. However, the misconduct allegations of Keith Hill, which appear to be the very heart of why Jacqueline and Roxanne left Answers Pet Food, ha

Public "Regulators" Have The Same Legal Firm As Those They "Regulate"

In emails obtained through the freedom of information act, FDA employees have had questionable meetings and conversations throughout the years with representatives of AFIA ( American Feed Industry Association ), the largest lobbying group in the pet industry. For decades, FDA has not been holding public meetings to develop pet food ingredient definition regulations. This is a very important aspect of democracy and the regulatory process, and it seems that FDA should be proudly engaged in this official process. Yet, they're not. It could even be argued that FDA is taking the opposite approach, doing everything in their power to ensure that a private organization "AAFCO" continues to hold onto the process of making "official regulations" in a private setting. FDA has long been a member of AAFCO , an association of public "regulatory" employees at state and federal levels. AAFCO is a private corporation, even though its board consists entirely of "pu