Hemp industry leaders have stepped up their fight with regulators over the registration of hemp-based animal nutrition products after questioning the “consistency and transparency” of the rules.
The Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance (AIHA) has written to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to “formally express concerns” over a regulatory approach which it claimed is costing its members millions of dollars.
The body said the concerns stem from 13 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents requested by the parent company of Hemp Pet, Decide Pty.
In the letter to APVMA chief executive Scott Hansen, AIHA president Charles Kovess wrote: “We believe that inconsistencies in the APVMA’s regulatory practices, as revealed by these documents, may not fully align with its legal obligations and have adversely affected the Australian hemp industry, a sector critical to Australia’s economy, environment, and agricultural innovation.”
The issue has long-angered businesses manufacturing animal hemp products, with the APVMA effectively classifying them as chemical products which must go through a time-consuming and costly registration process.
The regulator ordered a crackdown on the sector early last year, threatening enforcement action against offenders.
In the AIHA letter, Kovess cites “document 13” which, he says, details a suspension of enforcement action by the AVPMA, pending a “final determination” on hemp classification.
Yet no such correspondence had been communicated to hemp firms, who, fearing a knock on the door, faced ongoing uncertainty and disruption to business planning. Industry confidence was also hit, Kovess said.
“Further FOI-released documents reveal discrepancies in how hemp-based animal nutrition products are classified,” Kovess added. “These contradictions have undermined trust in the APVMA’s decision making.”
In one case, the uncertainty led a compliant manufacturer to abandon plans that could have generated sales of A$20 million, the regulator was told.
The absence of “clear guidelines” has also stymied research and export opportunities, the letter stated.
The alliance also suggested that the APVMA is not complying with its statutory obligations which provide registration exemption for nutritional products under the Excluded Nutritional or Digestive (END) criteria.
“We believe hemp-based products meeting these standards should be exempt from classification, yet the APVMA’s classifications appear inconsistent with this provision,” Kovess wrote.
Another section under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act mandates “appropriate product assessments”. The decision not to reassess hemp “raises questions about compliance with this requirement”, the AIHA said.
To avoid “further escalation”, the AIHA gave the regulator 30 days to carry out a number of tasks, including the issue of a formal clarification on enforcement policies, a timeline for the final determination on hemp classification and an “explanation of the criteria for classifying hemp-based products and their alignment with the END exemption”.
It also called for an “assurance of consistent treatment for all hemp businesses”.
Cannabiz has approached the APVMA for comment.
