Hemp industry representatives have escalated their dispute with Australia's agricultural chemicals regulator, challenging what they describe as a lack of "consistency and transparency" in how hemp-based animal nutrition products are classified and registered.
The Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance (AIHA) has written to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to "formally express concerns" about a regulatory approach it says is costing its members millions of dollars.
The organisation said the concerns arise from 13 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by Decide Pty, the parent company of Hemp Pet.
In the letter addressed 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."
Companies producing animal hemp products have long been frustrated by the APVMA's effective classification of these goods as chemical products, which subjects them to a lengthy and expensive registration process.
The regulator moved to crack down on the sector early last year, warning it would take enforcement action against those found to be in breach.
In the AIHA letter, Kovess references "document 13", which he says details a suspension of enforcement action by the APVMA while a "final determination" on hemp classification remained pending.
Hemp businesses, however, were never informed of this suspension. Left in the dark and fearing regulatory action, companies faced prolonged uncertainty that disrupted their planning and damaged confidence across the industry, 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."
The regulator was informed that in one instance, this uncertainty caused a compliant manufacturer to scrap plans that could have generated A$20 million in sales.
The letter also stated that the absence of "clear guidelines" has blocked research opportunities and hindered export growth.
The alliance further argued that the APVMA is failing to meet its statutory obligations, which provide a 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.
A separate provision under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act requires "appropriate product assessments". The AIHA said the decision not to reassess hemp "raises questions about compliance with this requirement".
To prevent "further escalation", the AIHA gave the regulator 30 days to complete several actions, including issuing a formal clarification on enforcement policies, providing a timeline for the final determination on hemp classification, and delivering an "explanation of the criteria for classifying hemp-based products and their alignment with the END exemption".
The alliance also called for an "assurance of consistent treatment for all hemp businesses".
The APVMA has been approached for comment.
