ATLANTA, GEORGIA, US — After a four-year period in which the Biden administration issued numerous regulations that were viewed as “burdensome” by the feed industry, it appears relief may be on the way as Donald Trump begins his second term as US president.

During his presidential campaign, Trump said he would like to see 10 regulations eliminated for every regulation issued. American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) officials told its members attending the organization’s annual Feed Education Program at the International Poultry and Processing Expo (IPPE) this week in Atlanta that while a less restrictive regulatory environment is anticipated over the next four years, details are understandably scarce only 10 days after the inauguration.

“Everything is kind of on hold right now, but it will be interesting to see how quickly it does move,” Gary Huddleston, director of feed operations and regulatory affairs for AFIA, told World Grain following the two-hour program. “We are hoping to see more common-sense regulation. His first time in office (2016-2020) we saw a scale-back in regulations.”

As part of the education program, Huddleston and other AFIA officials reviewed the status of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that have a significant impact on the US feed industry.

Christian Richter, principal of The Policy Group, noted that, according to the House Oversight Committee, the Biden administration imposed an estimated $1.7 trillion in new regulatory costs over the past four years. By contrast, new regulatory costs during Trump’s first term in office were $64 billion. Although many of Trump’s cabinet members have yet to be confirmed, Trump already has ordered a regulatory freeze of recent Biden administration regulations, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the implementation of the Department of Government Efficiency.

The feed industry is particularly interested in the EPA’s stance on formaldehyde, which is used as a feed additive to improve the quality of animal feed and the food products it produces.

“As of late December, the conclusion expected from the agency was that formaldehyde poses an unreasonable risk to human health (as an air pollutant),” Richter said. “The next phase is deciding what restrictions to impose. That stage isn’t done yet. It will be reviewed, and we’ll see whether EPA pulls back from that. There are many ways the EPA could go on this in the Trump administration.”

The FDA approved the use of formaldehyde as an antimicrobial food additive for poultry feeds in 1996.

“While the EPA probably won’t do anything with it the next four years, it is finalized and sitting there where a future administration could pick it up and go forward,” Huddleston said. “The whole process is bad and not developed on good science, and this could really wreak havoc on the feed industry.”

Also unpopular with the feed industry — as well as many other industries and small businesses in the United States — is a proposed amendment to OSHA’s Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard, Huddleston said. If enacted as currently written, when the heat index (not air temperature) reaches 80 degrees Fahrenheit, employers would be required to implement specific measures to protect employees from heat stress in their specific work areas, such as providing cool drinking water, shaded rest areas, and paid rest breaks if necessary. Further actions would be mandated when the heat index reaches a “high heat trigger” of 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Figuring out how to monitor that and keep those records would be really burdensome,” Huddleston said.

It also includes a provision in which new employees hired during the hot weather months would be limited to working just a couple of hours the first day and gradually increasing their workload over several days before beginning a full day of work.

“We were hoping it wasn’t going to be a massive one-size-fits-all approach, but that’s what it ended up being,” Huddleston said.

The good news, Huddleston said, is that “most experts feel like this one’s dead in the water now, and we probably won’t see anything happen with it over the next four years. That’s good news for the industry, but it also means it’s still there and can be picked up at any time.”

Leah Wilkinson, vice president of public policy and education at the AFIA, shed light on the latest changes with the feed ingredient review and approval processes, including the loss of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and FDA memorandum of understanding, and the introduction of the FDA’s Animal Food Ingredient Consultation process and the AAFCO and Kansas State University Olathe ingredient approval partnership.

Huddleston said the feed industry isn’t anti-regulation, but the time and money spent on complying with regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome takes a toll on companies.

“We need regulations, but we need common-sense regulations,” he said.