Australian hemp group seeks clarity on animal nutrition rules, enforcement delays

Australian hemp stakeholders have launched a formal complaint against the country’s agricultural and veterinary regulator, accusing it of inconsistent classification practices and regulatory opacity that have cost the sector millions and chilled business development.

In a letter to Scott Hansen, chief executive of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), the Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance (AIHA) urged the agency to clarify its position on hemp-based nutritional products for animals, which are currently treated as veterinary chemical products requiring full registration. That classification, the AIHA argues, is not only burdensome but potentially unlawful.

At the heart of the dispute are 13 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by Queensland-based Decide Pty, parent company of HempPet, a maker of natural health aids for pets. The documents, according to the AIHA, reveal “inconsistencies in regulatory practices” and a lack of transparency from the APVMA, which the alliance contends has negatively impacted the broader hemp sector.

Millions lost?

According to the letter, the APVMA’s current regulatory stance has triggered enforcement crackdowns, forced business decisions under threat of compliance actions, and created an environment where operators face continual uncertainty.

“The current situation stifles innovation, disrupts planning, and erodes trust,” said AIHA President Charles Kovess.

The AIHA also said the absence of clear guidelines has stymied investment, limited research and development, and undermined potential export growth. “Hemp farming offers significant export potential, yet regulatory challenges have constrained farmers, leading to economic stagnation in rural areas,” the letter stated.

Contradictions, exemptions

Among the FOI revelations cited by the AIHA is a previously undisclosed decision by the APVMA to suspend enforcement actions as of Nov. 28, 2024, pending a “final determination” on hemp classification. However, that suspension was never communicated to businesses, leaving operators to assume they remained under threat.

The letter also points to what AIHA calls “discrepancies” in how similar hemp-based products have been treated, raising concerns about whether the agency is complying with its obligations under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. Under Section 5 of that law, nutritional products may be eligible for exemption from registration under the Excluded Nutritional or Digestive (END) criteria.

“We believe hemp-based products meeting these standards should be exempt from registration,” Kovess wrote, noting that APVMA’s classifications appear to conflict with the statutory END provisions.

Industry ultimatum

The AIHA has requested a formal response from the APVMA within 30 days. The group is calling on the agency to:

• Clarify its enforcement policy.
• Provide a timeline for the final determination on hemp product classification.
• Explain how classification decisions align with the END exemption.
• Commit to consistent treatment for all businesses in the hemp sector.

The AIHA emphasized its willingness to collaborate with the APVMA to develop a “clear, evidence-based framework” that supports innovation while ensuring regulatory compliance.

“Trust in the APVMA’s decision-making is eroding,” the alliance said. “The sector needs clear, science-based policies—not shifting goalposts.”