Skip to main content

Ashlee-Rose Ferguson: The Regulator Who Hides From Her Own Actions

Ashlee-Rose Ferguson, a public employee of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, has built a track record of making regulatory decisions behind closed doors, then ducking accountability when the consequences emerge.

For years, Ms. Ferguson has helped shape regulations through a private corporation, the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), while avoiding public transparency. She once gave presentations to AAFCO on “risk factors for raw and frozen pet foods” in the retail space, yet when I requested that she offer the same information to the public in an open forum, she refused. Even more troubling, she has never objected to AAFCO claiming copyright over regulatory definitions that are intended to become enforceable law, a move that blocks public access to the very rules citizens are expected to follow.

Now, in her latest move, Ms. Ferguson has openly crossed a constitutional line.

She has banned the import of out-of-state raw milk intended for use in pet food into Washington, while still allowing raw milk from in-state producers to be sold and distributed. That’s not just regulatory overreach. That’s a clear violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

Ms. Ferguson is not a lawyer. She has never been to law school, so it’s no surprise she may not grasp the constitutional implications of what she’s doing. But here’s what is troubling: when I raised these concerns and asked who, if anyone, advised her legally before she took this discriminatory action, I was told the Department of Agriculture has no legal counsel on staff. Apparently, they only consult the Attorney General’s Office after they get sued.

No lawyer. No legal review. No public process. Just one regulator making constitutional decisions alone.

When asked basic questions about the policy, Ms. Ferguson deflects, claiming she must forward my inquiries to the media office, resulting in days of delay for information that should be posted publicly online. Even worse, her department has offered vague and evasive answers. In their statement, they claimed that the “pause” was enacted due to "documented cases of illness and death in animals linked to raw pet food that tested positive for HPAI (avian influenza)." But they don’t say raw milk tested positive, just “raw pet food.” That’s not the same thing.

So, I asked again: Which raw milk products from out of state tested positive for HPAI? I still haven’t received an answer.

Ashlee-Rose Ferguson’s approach is simple: take regulatory action first, offer flimsy justification later, then hide behind bureaucracy and silence when called out. That’s not how constitutional government works.

You can call it a “pause.” You can say a “review is ongoing.” But when you single out out-of-state products while favoring in-state ones, you’ve already acted. This isn’t a suggestion or a study, it’s a discriminatory restriction on interstate commerce. It violates the U.S. Constitution. You don’t get to bypass constitutional limits just because you claim the action is temporary or because you used the word “public health” in your email.

Ashlee-Rose Ferguson may think she can continue regulating from the shadows, avoiding public meetings, denying science disclosure, and hiding behind vague agency statements. But what she fails to understand is this: there is real accountability in federal court. That is exactly where this issue is heading.

Regulators don’t get to trample over constitutional rights and then hide behind the phrase “we’re still reviewing.” Ms. Ferguson took action. She discriminated against out-of-state commerce. She failed to justify it with scientific evidence or legal analysis. And she did it without public input, transparency, or lawful process.

This is an issue I hope is brought before a federal judge asap, because when regulators ignore the Constitution, and show such a disregard for basic public transparency, something has to be done. I have seen a lot over the years, but this is one for the books. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shocked But Not Shocked By Newest FDA-CVM Admission Re: Salmonella

A recent FOIA request has forced FDA-CVM to admit facts many already suspected. In 2020, records were requested from FDA-CVM for "all records from FDA for cases where dogs or cats are confirmed to have died from salmonella after eating raw dog or raw cat food." The date range for the request for records was January 2017 through December 2019. Three years later in May 2023, FDA responded stating, "The Center For Veterinary Medicine has conducted a search and did not locate any records responsive to your request."  Shocking. FDA-CVM has conducted an outright war against the raw pet food sector over the past five years. There are several issues with FDA-CVM's approach with a "zero tolerance policy." First, FDA-CVM considers even "non pathogenic" salmonella to be an "adulterant" for pet food. This means that even if the salmonella serotype is benign or known to be a serotype that will likely never cause a health issue to humans or pets,...
Post a Comment
Read more

How To Submit Comment Re: FDA (FDA-CVM) 2023 budget

FDA-CVM is continuing their refusal to properly address various longstanding, and rectifiable issues. In their " 2023   Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees ", FDA writes glowingly about FDA-CVM regulatory actions. (FDA-CVM related material starts on page 172 https://www.fda.gov/media/157192/download).  FDA-CVM has continuously stated it can't meet its obligations under FOIA law because of "resources". FDA-CVM has also stated it doesn't have the resources to hold regular, public meetings. In its request for " $43 million in additional investments in food safety modernization, including animal food safety oversight ", FOIA is not mentioned. Public meetings are not mentioned. FDA-CVM does not make it known that there is significant interest from the public in these areas. The agency simply ignores the issues.  Part of my argument over the years is that FDA-CVM doesn't want, nor do they care to fix these issues. I believe part ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 st...
Post a Comment
Read more