Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Ruminant Feed) Regulations 2025

Restricted animal material is the central regulatory concept. It means any material, tissue, or blood taken from a vertebrate animal, including meal obtained from rendering animal tissues and blood. However, the definition expressly excludes four categories: gelatin; milk products and oils extracted from fish; tallow and products containing rendered fats that comply with a specification of 2% maximum moisture plus insoluble impurities as measured by a method approved in writing by the Chief Veterinary Officer; oil previously used for cooking that has been collected, filtered (or centrifuged) and packaged under a process approved by the Chief Veterinary Officer and that also meets the 2% M+I specification; and mineralised sea bird guano. These exemptions reflect practical realities of the rendering and food industries, but they also create approval dependencies on the Chief Veterinary Officer for tallow and used cooking oil, introducing administrative gatekeeping.

Manufactured stock food means stock food that has undergone a manufacturing process but expressly excludes stock food comprised entirely of, or any combination of, hay, straw, chaff, whole grains or whole seeds, milk products, or products derived from milk. This means that simple, unprocessed feeds fall outside the labelling requirement for non-RAM manufactured stock food (regulation 7), but they could still be caught by regulation 6 if they contain RAM. A farmer selling a bale of hay that contains no RAM has no labelling duty; a feed mill selling a pelleted compound feed without RAM must carry the statement “This product does not contain restricted animal material”. The distinction rewards simplicity and punishes processing with additional compliance costs.

Ruminant is defined as any animal that chews its cud. The statement on RAM-containing products specifically names “cattle, sheep, goats, deer or other ruminants”, making the prohibition broad. This is consistent with the public health goal of preventing transmission of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy) through feed, but the Regulations themselves do not mention any disease rationale; that belongs to the parent Act and policy background.

Advice note is not defined in the Regulations but is distinguished from a label. An advice note presumably covers bulk sales, invoices, delivery dockets, or similar documents that accompany the goods rather than being affixed to the package. Regulation 6(2)(c) and 7(2)(c) require advice note statements to be in letters of at least 3 millimetres but do not impose a minimum size for the document itself. This creates a lower compliance burden for bulk sales compared to packaged products, which require a label of at least 45 by 120 millimetres.

These Regulations directly affect any person or business that sells, supplies, manufactures, transports, or stores stock food or meal of animal origin in Victoria. This includes feed millers, stockfeed manufacturers, animal nutrition companies, grain merchants, renderers, abattoirs, dairy processors, and farmers who produce or on-sell feed. The labelling duties in regulations 6, 7, and 8 apply to the person who sells the stock food or meal of animal origin, presumably the seller at the point of first sale or any subsequent sale unless the wording “accompanies the sale” limits it to the first transaction after manufacture or import. The offence provisions in regulations 9 and 10 apply to any person, not just sellers: a transporter who removes a label, or a farmer who mixes RAM into feed intended for ruminants, is caught.

The Chief Veterinary Officer within the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action plays a gatekeeping role. For tallow and used cooking oil to qualify for exemption from the definition of restricted animal material, the CO must approve in writing the measurement method (for the 2% M+I specification) and, for used oil, the collection, filtering, and packaging process. This gives the CO administrative discretion that can affect market access: a business whose process is not approved cannot claim the exemption and must treat its product as RAM, triggering labelling and mixing prohibitions. There is no appeal mechanism stated in the Regulations, though judicial review under general administrative law principles would apply.

End users - farmers feeding ruminants - are indirectly affected. They must not feed RAM-containing products to cattle, sheep, goats, deer, or other ruminants, and they must not mix RAM with ruminant feed or possess RAM for that purpose. They also must not deface labels. However, they bear no positive labelling duty unless they on-sell feed. The compliance burden falls heaviest on the supply chain upstream of the farm gate.

Small businesses may face disproportionate costs. A micro-feed mill producing small batches of manufactured stock food must print and affix labels meeting the size and contrast requirements, even if the product never contains RAM. The cost of label design, printing, and application per bag is largely fixed, so per-unit cost is higher for smaller operations. Bulk sales via advice notes avoid some of these costs but still require the statement on each document.

The Regulations impose four categories of duties. First, the labelling duty on sellers of stock food containing restricted animal material: the label or advice note must contain the exact warning “This product contains restricted animal material - DO NOT FEED TO CATTLE, SHEEP, GOATS, DEER OR OTHER RUMINANTS” in a prominent position, with specified type sizes and contrast, not defaced (regulation 6). Second, the labelling duty on sellers of manufactured stock food that does not contain RAM: the statement “This product does not contain restricted animal material” must appear with similar specifications (regulation 7). Third, the labelling duty on sellers of meal of animal origin: the same RAM warning must appear on the label or advice note, with the same type size and contrast requirements; however, a label or advice note complying with regulation 6 is taken to comply with regulation 8, avoiding duplication (regulation 8(4)). Fourth, prohibitions: no person may deface, damage, remove, or destroy a required label without reasonable excuse; no person may cause or permit RAM to be mixed with stock food intended for ruminant use, possess RAM for that purpose, or place RAM in such stock food.

The rights conferred are limited. A person charged with a label-offence under regulation 9 may raise a “reasonable excuse” defence, but the term is undefined. Reasonable excuse could include accidental damage, the label being replaced with an equivalent compliant label, or the stock food being repackaged with fresh labelling, but a court would need to determine this on the facts. No reasonable excuse defence is provided for the mixing offences, making them effectively strict liability: if the act is done, the offence is committed regardless of intent or knowledge. However, the phrase “cause or permit” and “possess … for the purposes of” imports a mental element: causing or permitting implies some control or authority, and possession with a purpose requires intention. A person who unknowingly has RAM in their feed mill without intent to mix it would not be caught by regulation 10(2).

There is also a right for sellers of meal of animal origin to rely on a label that already complies with regulation 6 (the RAM warning) rather than duplicating it under regulation 8. This is a sensible technical cross-reference that reduces paperwork burden.

The Regulations prescribe two tiers of pecuniary penalties, both expressed in penalty units. Offences under regulation 9 (deface, damage, remove, or destroy a label) carry a maximum of 20 penalty units. Offences under regulation 10 (mixing, possession for mixing, or placing RAM in ruminant feed) carry 50 penalty units. For the financial year commencing 1 July 2025, the Explanatory details state the value of a penalty unit is $203.51. This gives a maximum penalty for label offences of $4,070.20 (rounded to the nearest dollar) and a maximum penalty for mixing offences of $10,175.50. The value adjusts annually and is fixed by the Treasurer under section 5 of the Monetary Units Act 2004.

The penalty differential reflects the relative gravity of the conduct. Label tampering hinders traceability and warning but does not directly cause prohibited feeding. Mixing RAM into ruminant feed directly risks the disease pathway and is accordingly treated more severely. However, the maximum 50 penalty units is modest in absolute terms for a business; a large feed mill may treat $10,000 as a cost of doing business if the chance of detection is low. Enforcement relies on inspection by authorised officers under the parent Act, who can enter premises, inspect records, and seize samples. The Regulations do not create any new enforcement powers; they operate within the existing framework of the Act.

Notably, there is no offence for selling stock food without a label that meets the prescribed requirements - the duty arises from the Act itself (sections 18 and 20) and the Regulations specify the content and form. The offences created by the Regulations are ancillary: damaging the label or mixing feed. The primary obligation to affix a compliant label is likely enforceable through the Act’s existing penalty provisions, which the Regulations do not replicate. This means a seller who fails to label at all may face a higher penalty under the Act than the 20 penalty units for label tampering.

The Regulations do not specify who enforces them. Typically, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action or local councils would have inspection and prosecution roles. The absence of a specified enforcement body means businesses must look to the parent Act and any agency guidance.

These Regulations are made under section 76 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. They do not stand alone; they give effect to sections 18(1)(b) and 20(1) of that Act, which empower the Governor in Council to prescribe classes of stock food and requirements for labels and advice notes. The Act itself contains the primary obligations to label, and the Regulations fill in the details. A breach of the Regulations is a breach of the Act.

The Regulations revoke the 2015 Regulations (S.R. No. 146/2015) in their entirety. No transitional provisions are included, meaning any stock food that was labelled under the 2015 Regulations before 7 December 2025 may not comply with the 2025 requirements if sold after commencement. Businesses should not assume that old labels remain valid; the new Regulations specify updated wording (for example, the inclusion of “DEER” in the warning statement, which was likely in the 2015 version but the source does not allow comparison). Because the 2015 Regulations are not reproduced, there is no grandfathering.

The Regulations interact with the Monetary Units Act 2004 and the Sentencing Act 1991 for penalty calculation and enforcement of fines. The Explanatory details note that penalty amounts are calculated by multiplying penalty units by the value fixed under the Monetary Units Act, and that the value for 2025-26 is $203.51. Future adjustments are automatic.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 applies: these Regulations will sunset on 25 November 2035, ten years after making, unless remade. This sunset clause forces periodic review of the regulatory framework.

There is no mention of interaction with Commonwealth laws such as the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth) or the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). However, restrictions on feeding animal protein to ruminants are a longstanding policy across Australian jurisdictions, and state regulations typically mirror each other. A business operating across state borders must comply with each state’s regulations separately. The Victorian Regulations do not purport to cover interstate or international trade; they apply to sale within Victoria.

The Table of Amendments in the Regulations confirms that there are no amendments to date. This is a new instrument made on 25 November 2025 and commenced on 7 December 2025. It replaces the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Ruminant Feed) Regulations 2015, which are revoked by regulation 4. The 2015 Regulations were themselves a remake of earlier instruments; the Victorian ruminant feed labelling regime has existed in some form since the 1990s. The Explanatory details note that the 2015 Regulations were S.R. No. 146/2015.

Because the Regulations are new, there is no amendment history to analyse. The lack of amendments may reflect either careful drafting or the fact that no time has passed for adjustments. Over the ten-year life until sunset in 2035, amendments are likely as industry practices change, new processing technologies emerge, or the Chief Veterinary Officer approves different methods for tallow and used cooking oil. Any amendment would be made by statutory rule under the Act.

The Endnotes confirm that style changes authorised by the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (section 54A) have been applied. Headings, examples, diagrams, notes, punctuation, and provision numbers form part of the statutory rule as per sections 36 and 36B of the ILA. This is standard drafting practice.

Practitioners should monitor the Victorian legislation website for any amending regulations, particularly those that might adjust the definition of restricted animal material (for example, adding or removing exemptions) or alter the prescribed statement wording. The statement is fixed in the Regulations, so any change to the wording of the warning or the “does not contain” statement would require an amendment.

The Regulations themselves, being less than a month old at the time of analysis, have no litigation history. No cases are cited in the instrument. However, the underlying prohibition on feeding restricted animal material to ruminants has a long history in Australian and international law, primarily driven by outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. There have been prosecutions under previous versions of these Regulations and under equivalent interstate laws, but those are not referenced in the source and therefore cannot be discussed in a grounded deep dive.

Potential future litigation might arise on the meaning of “reasonable excuse” under regulation 9. The term is not defined, so its interpretation will depend on judicial construction. Argument could centre on whether accidental damage, or removal of a label to replace it with a compliant one, constitutes reasonable excuse. The mixing offences under regulation 10 could also be litigated over what constitutes “cause or permit” and “possess … for the purposes of mixing”. For example, if a person owns a feed mill and an employee secretly mixes RAM into a ruminant feed batch, has the owner “caused or permitted” the act? The absence of a defence for due diligence may make a strict interpretation harsh on employers.

Another potential source of litigation is the requirement for measurement methods for tallow M+I to be “approved in writing by the Chief Veterinary Officer”. A dispute over whether a particular method meets the specification could lead to judicial review of the CO’s decision. Similarly, the approval process for used cooking oil collection and filtering could be challenged if a business’s process is not approved without clear reasons.

The Regulations have not yet been tested in Victorian courts as of the commencement date. The first prosecutions or judicial review applications will clarify the scope of the defences and the administrative discretion.

Several provisions may catch out the unwary. First, the definition of “manufactured stock food” excludes stock food comprised entirely of, or any combination of, hay, straw, chaff, whole grains or whole seeds, milk products, or products derived from milk. This means that a simple mix of oats and barley does not require a “does not contain restricted animal material” label under regulation 7. But if that mix contains any restricted animal material (e.g., a small amount of meat meal blended in), it is not a manufactured stock food? Actually regulation 6 applies to any stock food containing RAM, whether manufactured or not. So a simple non-manufactured feed that contains RAM must still carry the RAM warning under regulation 6. The exclusion only relieves from the duty to label as “does not contain RAM” under regulation 7; the RAM warning obligation stands independently.

Second, the type size requirements vary by bag weight. A bag weighing 20 kilograms exactly requires 10 millimetre letters; a 19.5 kilogram bag requires only 3 millimetre letters. This creates an incentive to package in slightly smaller bags to reduce labelling costs. However, the size threshold is absolute and may encourage avoidance behaviour.

Third, the cross-reference in regulation 8(4) - that a label or advice note complying with regulation 6 is taken to comply with regulation 8 - is helpful but only applies to meal of animal origin. If meal of animal origin does not contain RAM (which is improbable, as meal of animal origin by definition is animal material), the cross-reference would not apply. In practice, any meal of animal origin will contain RAM, so the cross-reference will usually avoid duplication.

Fourth, the “reasonable excuse” defence in regulation 9 is not defined. A person who removes a label to repackage the feed into smaller bags might argue reasonable excuse, but if they fail to affix a compliant label to the new packages, they may still offend. The label removal itself is an offence regardless of intent; only a reasonable excuse can exempt.

Fifth, the mixing offences in regulation 10 do not require that the mixing actually occur. Possessing RAM for the purpose of mixing with ruminant feed is an offence even if no mixing takes place. This means a farmer who stores meat meal in a shed where ruminant feed is also stored may be at risk if an inspector can infer purpose. There is no de minimis exception; even a small amount of RAM possessed with intent to mix triggers the penalty.

Sixth, the penalty unit value changes annually. The amount stated for 2025-26 ($203.51) will increase in future years, so a prosecution brought in 2027 will use a higher value. Businesses cannot assume a fixed cost for non-compliance.

Compliance requires a systematic approach to feed manufacturing, handling, and sale. The first step is to determine whether any product contains restricted animal material. For products that do contain RAM, the seller must affix a label or provide an advice note with the prescribed warning statement. The warning must be in dark print on a light background or light print on a dark background, displayed prominently, and not defaced. For bags under 20 kilograms, use lettering at least 3 millimetres; for bags of 20 kilograms or more, use 10 millimetres. For labels attached to the outside of a package, the label itself must measure at least 45 by 120 millimetres and be firmly attached. Where the product is supplied in bulk and an advice note is used (e.g., a delivery docket), the statement must appear in 3 millimetre letters.

For manufactured stock food that does not contain RAM, the statement must be “This product does not contain restricted animal material”, with the same size and contrast requirements. Only manufactured stock food is covered; non-manufactured feed (hay, straw, chaff, whole grains, whole seeds, milk products) that is RAM-free needs no such label. But a company that mixes two exempt ingredients (e.g., oats and milk powder) into a blend may inadvertently create a manufactured stock food if the mixing constitutes a manufacturing process. The line between simple mixing and manufacturing is fact-dependent; businesses should seek legal advice if uncertain.

For meal of animal origin (e.g., meat meal, bone meal), use the RAM warning as per regulation 8. If the same product already carries a label complying with regulation 6, no separate regulation 8 label is needed.

Internal controls are essential. Segregate RAM-containing products from ruminant feed. Ensure all staff are trained not to mix RAM with ruminant feed, not to possess RAM with the intention to mix, and not to place RAM in ruminant feed. Document all processes, including approval for used cooking oil and tallow from the Chief Veterinary Officer if those exemptions are claimed. Keep records of approved measurement methods and processes.

Audit labelling at point of sale. Check that labels are not damaged, defaced, or removed. For bulk sales, ensure advice notes carry the required statement. Maintain a system for reporting and replacing damaged labels. If a label is accidentally removed, immediately replace it with a compliant label to avoid the “defacing, damaging, removing or destroying” offence; the reasonable excuse defence may protect the person who replaces promptly, but it is safer to replace before sale.

Monitor penalty unit values each financial year when setting aside funds for potential fines. Use the published Government Gazette value. Consider joining industry associations that provide template labels and compliance checklists. Finally, review the Regulations for any amendments before each feed season; the 2025 Regulations may be updated during their ten-year life.