Easing restrictions on the use of animal proteins in feed for food-producing animals ("feed ban")

Published

25.08.2025

The TSE regulation and requirements for animal material in feed

There are strict rules on which processed animal proteins (PAP) may be used in feed for different food-producing animals.

Proteins from ruminants are prohibited in feed for all food-producing animals, including fish. Likewise, proteins from other species may not be used in feed for ruminants. This is because such proteins can transmit fatal diseases affecting brain tissue, known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).

To prevent this, the TSE regulation is highly stringent and requires the separation of materials from different animal species throughout the supply chain – from the slaughterhouse to their incorporation into compound feed. This ensures that feed for ruminants is not contaminated with prohibited animal proteins and that ruminant proteins do not enter feed for other food-producing animals.

However, the use of fishmeal is permitted in feed for fish, poultry, and pigs. It is also allowed to feed poultry with PAP from pigs and pigs with PAP from poultry. At the same time, the ban on ‘cannibalism’ remains in effect, meaning food-producing animals must not be fed proteins derived from their own species.

It is also important to note that only animal by-products in the lowest risk category (Category 3) may be used in feed for food-producing animals. For accuracy, this is regulated under the EU Animal By-Products (ABP) regulations, rather than the TSE regulation. All assessments and considerations presented here are based on this framework, which we consider a sound basis for safe feed.

The TSE regulation: origins in the mad cow crisis

The strict TSE regulation introduced in the early 2000s was a response to the mad cow crisis in the United Kingdom during the 1990s, caused by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), a form of TSE affecting cattle. The outbreak occurred because proteins from BSE-infected cattle were used in feed for ruminants without sufficient processing to eliminate the infectious agent.
Since then, the epidemiological situation of BSE in the EU and worldwide has changed dramatically, and EEA countries are now generally classified as posing negligible BSE risk.
For up-to-date information on the global BSE situation, see the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) website Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (woah.org)

Our assessment of possible changes to the TSE regulation

We assess that there is a valid basis for discussing relaxations of the feed ban within safe regulatory frameworks. The aim is to achieve a more balanced, knowledge-based approach to risk management while promoting the use of sustainable Norwegian feed resources for food-producing animals. This assessment is based on the reduced risk of infection, advancements in analytical methods, improved control systems, and accumulated knowledge in this field.

As Norway follows EEA rules on this matter, any regulatory changes are expected to be a long-term process.

In March 2025, we submitted a letter to the European Commission containing six specific proposals to ease the feed ban. These proposals request permission to allow

• the use of marine raw materials (fishmeal) in feed for ruminants, and permit compound feed for poultry and pigs containing marine raw materials to be produced on the same production line as feed for ruminants
• the production of pig feed containing poultry-PAP and poultry feed containing pig-PAP on the same production line
• the use of ruminant-PAP in feed for pigs, poultry, and fish
• the use of gelatine and collagen derived from ruminants
• the use of PAP from pigs and poultry as a substrate for farmed insects
• the use of mixed PAP from pigs, poultry, and ruminants as a substrate for farmed insects

Many compound feed plants produce feed for ruminants, pigs, and poultry on the same production line, which often excludes marine raw materials from feed for terrestrial animals. We believe marine raw materials should be permitted, as modern analytical methods allow effective monitoring, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has assessed the associated risk as negligible or non-existent.

To improve the use of animal proteins in feed for pigs, poultry, and fish, there is also a need to consider easing the rules on separating animal materials from different species across the entire production chain (slaughterhouse, PAP processing, and feed plants). Any change would require a new quantifiable control method and acceptance of a less sensitive analytical approach. In this context, EFSA would need to carry out a new risk assessment on the likelihood of TSE in fish, pigs, and poultry in cases of minor cross-contamination.

We recognise that the greatest benefit for the industry would be permission to use mixed PAP (Category 3) from different animal categories (pigs, poultry, and ruminants). Implementing this within the EEA regulatory framework will be challenging. In addition, the ban on ‘cannibalism’ would restrict some major potential uses of such a mixed product. One relevant application is its use as a substrate for farmed insects (see the list of proposed changes above).

For more details, see the full letter to the European Commission:

Letter from Norway to the Commission on future discussion on lifting the feed ban

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority’s contribution to feed ban relaxations

Our objectives are to

• work over the long term to achieve feed ban relaxations within safe regulatory frameworks
• maintain dialogue with industry and organizations such as the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) and the European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC). We have shared our assessments with these organisations, who have also prepared a strategy paper with similar proposals: EU Feed Circularity Catalogue (fefac.eu)
• engage with the research community to highlight the need for evidence to ensure any relaxations can be implemented safely
• advocate for a new EFSA risk assessment of TSE in fish, pigs, and poultry in cases of minor cross-contamination