Getting it right on Spent Grains

By: Michael R. Taylor 

Since the March 31 close of the comment period on FDA’s proposed animal feed rule, we’ve received a lot of questions and comments about so-called spent grains. Spent grains are by-products of alcoholic beverage brewing and distilling that are very commonly used as animal feed. 

To add to the picture, spent brewer and distiller grains are just a subset of the much broader practice of human food manufacturers sending their peels, trimmings, and other edible by-products to local farmers or feed manufacturers for animal feed uses rather than to landfills. One industry estimate is that 70 percent of human food by-product becomes food for animals.

We’ve heard from trade groups and members of Congress, as well as individual breweries raising concerns that FDA might disrupt or even eliminate this practice by making brewers, distillers, and food manufacturers comply not only with human food safety requirements but also additional, redundant animal feed standards that would impose costs without adding value for food or feed safety. 

That, of course, would not make common sense, and we’re not going to do it. 

In fact, we agree with those in industry and the sustainability community that the recycling of human food by-products to animal feed contributes substantially to the efficiency and sustainability of our food system and is thus a good thing. We have no intention to discourage or disrupt it. 

We also believe the potential for any animal safety hazard to result from this practice is minimal, provided the food manufacturer takes common sense steps to minimize the possibility of glass, motor oil or other similar hazards being inadvertently introduced, such as if scraps for animal feed were held in the same dumpster used for floor sweepings and industrial waste. 

We understand how the language we used in our proposed rule could lead to the misperception that we are proposing to require human food manufacturers to establish separate animal feed safety plans and controls to cover their by-products, but it was never our intent to do so. In fact, we invited comment on practical ways to address by-products in keeping with their minimal potential risk. 

We will take the necessary steps to clarify our intent in the rules themselves so there can be no confusion. As we previously announced, this summer we plan to issue revised proposals for comment on several key FSMA issues and we will include changes consistent with the points I’ve outlined in this blog. 

Our door at FDA has been wide open to stakeholders at every step of the FSMA process. We have learned a lot through active, two-way dialogue with those who have concerns about what we propose or ideas about how we can achieve our food safety goals in the most practical way. We hope and fully expect that dialogue to continue.