Skip to main content

FDA-CVM's Misleading Attempt to Conflate Listening Sessions with Public Rulemaking Meetings

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is no stranger to public scrutiny, particularly when it comes to the transparency and inclusiveness of its regulatory processes. Recently, the FDA responded to calls for regular public rulemaking meetings by pointing to its "listening sessions" as evidence of public engagement. However, this response is deeply flawed and raises concerns about whether the FDA-CVM truly understands—or values—the distinction between listening sessions and public rulemaking meetings.

What’s the Difference?

Let’s be clear: listening sessions and public rulemaking meetings are fundamentally different in purpose, structure, and impact.

  1. Listening Sessions:
    • Designed to collect public feedback on specific issues.
    • Informal by nature, often involving pre-determined topics and limited discussion opportunities.
    • Do not include deliberation, decision-making, or procedural steps leading directly to new rules or regulations.
    • Provide no ongoing platform for public oversight or engagement.
  2. Public Rulemaking Meetings:
    • Integral to the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    • Governed by strict transparency requirements, including advance notice, agendas, and opportunities for meaningful public participation.
    • Include direct deliberation of regulatory issues, often culminating in concrete actions or rule changes.
    • Provide a platform for accountability, allowing the public to witness and influence the FDA’s decision-making process.

By equating the two, the FDA-CVM not only misrepresents its actions but also sidesteps legitimate public requests for real accountability.

FDA’s Attempt to Mislead

In their response, the FDA-CVM highlighted listening sessions such as:

  • The FDA Virtual Listening Session on the Oversight of Pet Food (September 2021),
  • The FDA Virtual Listening Session on the Regulation of Animal Foods with Certain Types of Claims (October 2022), and
  • The CVM Virtual Public Meeting: FDA and the AAFCO Animal Feed Ingredient Definition Process(February 2023).

While these events may sound impressive on paper, they fail to address the public's request for structured, recurring public rulemaking meetings. Listening sessions are not part of the formal rulemaking process. They allow the FDA to collect comments but provide no guarantee of action, deliberation, or even acknowledgment of those comments. In contrast, public rulemaking meetings create binding obligations for transparency, deliberation, and public input at every stage of the regulatory process.

Why This Matters

The distinction is not trivial. Public rulemaking meetings would force the FDA-CVM to:

  1. Prioritize transparency: By opening its deliberative process to public scrutiny.
  2. Ensure accountability: By creating a record of how public input shapes regulatory decisions.
  3. Reduce reliance on AAFCO: A private organization with limited public oversight, yet heavily involved in shaping regulatory definitions for animal feed.

Instead, the FDA-CVM appears content to maintain the status quo, relying on listening sessions to claim public engagement while keeping actual regulatory deliberations behind closed doors. This approach undermines public trust and perpetuates the lack of transparency that has long plagued the pet food and animal feed industries.

The Public’s Demand: Real Public Rulemaking Meetings

The public isn't asking for more listening sessions or one-off events. They’re asking for regular, structured, and formal public meetings where stakeholders can actively participate in the rulemaking process. These meetings should:

  • Be governed by the APA’s requirements for notice, public input, and transparency.
  • Focus on regulatory issues like ingredient approvals, labeling standards, and enforcement policies.
  • Provide the public with a meaningful voice in decisions that affect the safety and quality of pet food and animal feed.

By conflating listening sessions with public rulemaking meetings, the FDA-CVM dismisses these legitimate concerns and evades its responsibility to the public.

Call to Action

It’s time for the FDA-CVM to stop hiding behind listening sessions and start holding itself to a higher standard of transparency. The agency must commit to hosting regular public rulemaking meetings, where stakeholders can engage in real-time discussions, hold the FDA accountable, and help shape the regulations that impact millions of pet owners and farmers.

The public deserves better than a thinly veiled attempt to equate superficial engagement with meaningful participation. Let’s hold the FDA-CVM accountable and push for the transparency and inclusiveness that true public rulemaking meetings provide.

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
8 comments
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

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