U.S. state legislatures have been busy this spring on issues of interest to the pet food industry, but remarkably, no bills have been introduced proposing to tax pet food to pay for animal welfare programs or subsidize low cost spay-and-neuter programs. While there are several bills requesting inspection fee increases, these seem to be warranted in the face of increased operating costs for state regulatory agencies.
Between 2024 and 2025, state legislatures saw a very slight swing to the right as the total number of Republican lawmakers increased by a small margin in statehouses across the country. Perhaps this subtle shift has slowed the momentum for the inappropriate use of fees collected from the industry.
Below is a summary of some of the bills and regulations that we are following at the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) on behalf of our pet food members.
Proposals banning ingredients
Several states are proposing labeling laws for cultivated meat products to assure truth in product marketing. For example, Colorado HB 25-1064 and Illinois HB 15 propose to ban the sale, manufacture or distribution of cultivated meat produced from animal cells that are grown in laboratory settings. Other state bills, such as Utah HB 138, propose truth in labeling bills for cultivated meat products and insect- or plant-based protein products intended to simulate meat. We are monitoring these bills and if necessary will take action to ensure our members have full access to developing these products for use in pet foods.
Bills changing fees
A few states are proposing changes to animal food registration fees. AFIA recognizes that states must raise sufficient funds to carry out appropriate regulatory measures, and if the increases are justified, we are generally supportive of the changes. It was refreshing when North Dakota HB 1526 was introduced, which proposes to reduce the cost of initial pet food product registration from US$120 to US$100 — the current cost for pet food product renewals. AFIA supports this bill because having a single (and lower!) cost for registration and renewals will eliminate confusion for companies registering products in the state.
The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry is proposing a change to the fee structure for commercial feed label fees, including pet food, to a flat rate of US$10 per label. Currently, the department has a sliding fee scale based on label numbers. The total fee increase across all companies and all types of feed is expected to be approximately US$32,000 per year and will be used to cover an operating shortfall in the feed program’s operating costs. The cost for an application to register commercial animal food labels will remain US$40.
New Mexico SB 214 proposes to change the tonnage fee for commercial feed from a maximum of US$0.15 per ton to a maximum of US$0.50 per ton. By statute, the fee cannot exceed the cost of running the inspection program. For each brand of commercial feed distributed in packages of 10 pounds or less, the annual inspection fee is set at US$50 rather than a tonnage fee. We have confirmed that the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau supports New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s independence from the General Fund and is in favor of the proposed fee increase. Given that the last fee adjustment was in 1976, this update seems reasonable and necessary.
Ohio HB 96 proposes to change the registration process for a manufacturer of commercial feeds with the Ohio Department of Agriculture from a permanent registration to an annual registration accompanied by a US$50 annual fee. The change provides a mechanism for the department to conduct annual monitoring as needed of registered businesses. The inspection fee remains the same at US$0.25 per ton. An exemption of the inspection fee on the first 200 tons of feed produced per year offsets the US$50 annual registration fee and negates an economic impact of the change. The Ohio Agribusiness Association supports this change.
Bills that deal with a bit of everything else
Every year, there are a few bills that make changes to various sections of state commercial feed statutes.
Missouri HB 422 proposes to modify the definition of “commercial feed” as part of the Missouri Commercial Feed Law to include industrial hemp. Despite the ongoing objection of several trade associations, including AFIA, over the last six years for states to allow hemp in feed before being reviewed for safety and following the regulatory process, states continue to adopt the use of hemp products as food for various classes of animals in many differing formats.
West Virginia is conducting some legislative housekeeping through WV HB 3000. This bill aims to amend sections of the West Virginia Commercial Feed Law, including the removal of the sunset date from the spay-and-neuter program funding and aligning the definition of “adulteration” with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
AFIA will continue tracking these and other bills as legislators move forward in the months ahead and will engage as necessary to be sure the position of pet food manufacturers are made known to lawmakers across the country.
Briefly: Top 5 takeaways
- U.S. state legislatures have been busy this spring on issues of interest to the pet food industry, but no bills have been introduced proposing to tax pet food to pay for animal welfare programs or subsidize low cost spay-and-neuter programs.
- Several states are proposing labeling laws for cultivated meat products to assure truth in product marketing.
- A few states are proposing changes to animal food registration fees.
- Every year, there are a few bills that make changes to various sections of state commercial feed statutes.
- AFIA will continue tracking these and other bills as legislators move forward in the months ahead and will engage as necessary.