You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 23, 2022

New Regulations on Animal Feed in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On July 13, 2022, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2022/ND-CP amending and supplementing some articles of Decree No. 13/2020/ND-CP providing detailed guidance on the Law on Animal Husbandry (“Decree 46”). The new decree took effect on the issuance date. Among the changes introduced by Decree 46 are a number related to animal feed.

Recognition of Testing Methods of Exporting Countries

Decree 46 clarifies the steps to recognize animal feed testing methods of laboratories in exporting countries. Under the amended regulations, the Department of Livestock Production (DLP) will organize an assessment team to appraise each dossier for recognition of animal feed testing methods within 30 days of receipt of a complete dossier.

If the dossier lacks required information or authenticity, the DLP will organize a practical assessment team at the exporting country’s testing laboratory. If the dossier passes the assessment, within five working days from the completion of the assessment, the DLP will issue a decision on recognition of the testing method. The validity of this decision has been lengthened from three years to five years.

State Inspection of Animal Feed Quality

Process of State Inspection

Decree 46 specifies the process to conduct state inspection of the quality of imported animal feed by unifying the regulations stipulated in the related legal documents listed in Decree 13. The process includes the submission of a state inspection dossier, timelines to receive feedback from the inspection authority, and further steps that can be taken upon receiving acceptance or refusal decisions from the authority.

For traditional animal feed and complete compound animal feed, imported shipments are customs-cleared as soon as the importer completes the customs procedures. Within 15 days from the customs clearance date, the importer must submit the conformity assessment results. The importer has complete responsibility for the conformity assessment results, and the compliance of its products with the declared technical regulations and standards. The importer or conformity certification organization must inform the inspection authority if the imported shipments do not pass the conformity assessment.

For other animal feed, importers must complete customs clearance and choose an accredited conformity certification organization to conduct the conformity assessment for the shipment at the same time. The shipment can be customs-cleared only when it passes the conformity assessment. If the shipment fails to pass the conformity assessment, the conformity certification organization must inform the inspection authority of this failure.

A Certificate of Free Sale or equivalent document is no longer required in the registration dossier for state inspection of single-ingredient and traditional animal feed.

Exemption from State Inspection

Decree 46 revises the conditions for exemption from state inspection of imported animal feeds as follows:

  • Animal feeds of the same product type (i.e., same name, same recognition code, same ingredients, same form, and same color), produced by the same manufacturers, and imported by the same importers, after three consecutive import shipments with positive conformity assessment results certified in writing by the inspection authority, are eligible for exemption from state inspection for a period of one year. During the exemption period, the importers do not have to conduct conformity assessment and declare the conformity announcement for each imported shipment. Applications for inspection exemption must be sent to the inspection agency together with the results of three consecutive conformity assessments.
  • The exemption will be suspended if any imported shipments circulating on the market are detected or reported to not be in conformity with the declared technical specification.

Decree 46 also supplements a list of nine categories of imported animal feed that are eligible for exemption from state inspection:

  1. Animal feed temporarily imported for re-export or re-imported for recycling at the request of foreign partners;
  2. Animal feed in transit, at border gates, or transshipped;
  3. Animal feed from abroad delivered to a bonded warehouse;
  4. Animal feed for display at fairs and exhibitions, or for advertising;
  5. Animal feed used as samples for analysis in laboratories;
  6. Animal feed used as test samples for testing, assessment and certification of conformity with national technical regulations or for interlaboratory testing;
  7. Animal feed for scientific research;
  8. Animal feed of inbound persons within the duty-free quota;
  9. Imported animal feed for urgent requirements as decided by the government or the prime minister based on a proposal from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Post-Customs Clearance State Inspection

Decree 46 adds Article 18a on the procedure for state inspection of quality of imported animal feed after customs clearance, to be done in coordination with inspection at the premises of manufacturers, sellers, and importers. Accordingly, the authorities to conduct the inspection include the DLP and the Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development at provincial and central levels.

The frequency of inspection for each product having the same country of origin and/or the same importer will be no more than once per year.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More