Australia’s hemp regulation push stalls amid industry uncertainty

Efforts to regulate Australia’s hemp industry are gaining momentum in the national parliament, but uncertainty remains as the sector awaits formal direction from the country’s veterinary and agricultural regulator.

The Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance (AIHA) is trying to persuade the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to issue consistent guidelines on the use of industrial hemp as a nutritious ingredient for companion animal feed, similar to flaxseed, which is recognized under Excluded Nutritional or Digestive (END) exemptions.

The AIHA expressed its “profound disappointment” in a recent statement after the APVMA failed to meet a formal deadline to provide clear and consistent regulatory guidance on the use of industrial hemp in pet nutrition products.

According to the body, this comes as a parliamentary inquiry is underway into opportunities for the development of Australia’s industrial hemp industry.

“Despite the APVMA’s public clarification in May that was initially welcomed by the industry, AIHA says months of contradictory communication from the regulator have undermined confidence.”

A $20 million setback

In addition, the association warned that APVMA’s previous regulatory stance had “several unintended consequences” for the hemp industry.

It is estimated that if compliant manufacturers shelving plans would have been included, it could have generated around AUD 20 million ($1.6M/€1.3M) in revenue from FY2022 to FY2025.

The group notes that hemp offers omega fatty acids and proteins for pets’ vitality, backed by global research and no reported adverse events in Australia.

“If guidance drags on, risks include financial ruin from mounting compliance costs (e.g., legal fees and halted production), lost competitive edge as global markets advance and potential business closures,” Arthur Wajs, AIHA Treasurer, tells GlobalPETS.

“For instance, uncertainty has deterred investors, limiting our ability to scale operations and create jobs in rural areas. Further delays could cost the sector tens of millions in AUD and see Australia fall behind countries like Canada and the US in ethical pet nutrition,” Wajs adds.

Regulatory inconsistencies

While the AIHA describes hemp as globally recognized as a valuable food source, the APVMA has classified hemp and its by-products as “veterinary chemical products” (VCPs) under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Agvet Code) when used in pet and animal feeds.

The body argues that this classification is inconsistent with the Agvet Code, which provides exemptions for Excluded Nutritional or Digestive (END) products that are used for nutrition without making therapeutic claims.

Furthermore, the AIHA said that on 1 May, following its complaint from April, the APVMA amended its website to acknowledge hemp in the context of END products and on 11 August, during a formal meeting, it stated that “all END products are VCPs.”

On 21 August, AIHA said that “the APVMA’s legal counsel confirmed in writing that END products are not VCPs where criteria are met (which again conflicts with the verbal statement from 11 August).”

“We were hopeful that the APVMA’s website update in May would signal a clear pathway forward, but the reality has been a series of confusing and contradictory statements from senior officials,” says Wajs.

On the other hand, the APVMA tells GlobalPETS that it “does not conduct or commission safety or nutritional studies” and “do not take a position on matters outside our legislative remit, such as the value or otherwise of hemp in pet products.”

“Stakeholders are welcome to submit an application to have hemp (or hemp extracts) assessed as END products. No legislative changes are required for this process. The APVMA has outlined this pathway to the AIHA,” the association concludes.

Industry confidence

The AIHA warns that without urgent clarification, Australia risks falling behind global markets in ethical pet nutrition and missing the opportunity to scale hemp cultivation to one million hectares by 2030, potentially adding AU$500 million ($329M/€278.7M) annually to rural economies.

To restore industry confidence, the association says that the APVMA must provide immediate formal clarification confirming that END products are exempt from VCP classification when used solely for nutritional purposes.

In addition, it is urging the APVMA to endorse a streamlined pathway for hemp, using flaxseed as a model to affirm its safety and strengthen internal communication protocols to prevent inconsistent interpretations and to support evidence-based regulation.

“What matters now is ensuring the frameworks are applied consistently so businesses and livelihoods are not put at risk,” says Wajs.