As the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepares to develop a regulatory standard for the labeling of bioengineered food ingredients, it must ensure that consumers receive clear, accurate information about the foods they eat, NMPF told the agency last month.

In comments filed with USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service, NMPF said it supports a strict, science-based approach in determining how foods made using bioengineering should be regulated. Since bioengineered foods have repeatedly been found to be completely safe by both domestic and international science organizations, NMPF said the new standard under review by USDA should focus on providing consumers accurate information, while discouraging misleading marketing tactics or meaningless absence claims.

NMPF’s comments were among many submitted to USDA by farm and food organizations that worked together last year to help pass the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in July 2016.

There is “irrefutable scientific evidence that such foods are safe and not materially different from their conventional counterparts,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. However, he said, too many food companies utilize “fear-mongering” to vilify food biotechnology as they seek to profit from the consumer confusion surrounding its use.

In its comments, NMPF emphasized that Congress clearly recognized in the law that feeding farm animals grains developed through biotechnology has no effect on the meat and milk derived from those livestock. Thus, Mulhern noted, “dairy foods are not genetically modified products and therefore there is nothing to label.” More than 60 other nations around the world have biotech disclosure requirements, and none have labeling requirements on milk or meat from animals that may have consumed bioengineered grains.

National Milk stressed that the bioengineered food disclosure standard is really a measure to regulate food marketing, not food safety. Therefore, in determining the level of a substance needed for a product to be considered bioengineered, NMPF suggested that USDA use the same 5-percent threshold employed by the National Organic Program (NOP), another marketing program administered by the department. Under this approach, the minimum disclosure level for bioengineered ingredients would be 5 percent, below which mandatory label disclosure would not be required.

To avoid consumer confusion and the use of ambiguous labels, NMPF suggested that only two designations be used to disclose bioengineered foods: “contains bioengineered ingredients” and “may contain bioengineered ingredients.” It also insisted that any disclosure be “non-disparaging” to bioengineering technology.

USDA will review all the comments it received and use them in developing a proposed rule, to be issued in the months ahead. When issued, NMPF will review the proposed rule and submit comments on behalf of the dairy industry.  A final rule is planned for July 2018.

In the latest chapter in the debate over the proper use of dairy food terms, National Milk and its members told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month to reject a petition by a vegan organization that would undermine federal standards of identity for food and encourage misleading marketing tactics of imitation dairy products.

Earlier this spring, the Good Food Institute (GFI) filed a petition requesting that FDA permit manufacturers of plant-based products to use labels that employ standardized dairy terms such as “milk.” In response, NMPF submitted comments on Aug. 29 declaring the petition at odds with established laws and inconsistent with FDA regulations, which state that foods labeled “milk” must come from an animal. Many of NMPF’s members, along with other dairy organizations, provided similar input to FDA. The 130 comments ran 12-to-1 in favor of NMPF’s position.

“GFI’s petition flies in the face of established law and common sense,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “Nothing has happened in the last 20 years that makes it OK to combine plant or nut powders with water, sugar, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and other chemicals, and call it ‘milk.’ This request is wrong on its merits and is designed to further mislead consumers.”

In its comments, NMPF argued that plant-based beverages use standardized dairy terms “to imitate milk and other real dairy products, and to benefit unfairly from the reputation that real dairy foods have for nutritional content and quality.” However, none of these beverages has been found to contain the consistent nutrient package found in cow’s milk and therefore cannot be considered an adequate replacement.

Labeling non-dairy products with dairy terminology, the organization added, can mislead consumers into thinking the imitation contains the same nutritional benefits. GFI’s petition “would only exacerbate this misconception,” NMPF said.

Instead, truthfully labeling these foods as plant-based beverages is the “simplest and most certain way to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interests of consumers,” according to the comments.

NMPF also challenged GFI’s argument that enforcing standards of identity is “anti-competitive,” and said plant-based drinks are welcome in the marketplace so long as they are labeled appropriately.

Last month, negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) kicked off in Washington, followed shortly by a second round of talks in Mexico. NMPF has been preparing for these negotiations throughout the year by engaging with the Trump Administration and Congress, as well as through complementary efforts with several Mexican dairy organizations [see related story above] to advance dairy priorities in the United States’ most important free trade agreement (FTA).

NMPF staff attended the first round of negotiations in Washington and were in Mexico the week before the second round. The first-round engagement included meetings with U.S. and NAFTA partner negotiators, as well as discussions with agricultural industry representatives from Mexico and Canada. The visit to Mexico offered an opportunity to show U.S. and Mexican NAFTA negotiators the alignment between the two dairy industries on many of NMPF’s key goals before discussions began the following week. The administration’s NAFTA objectives, released in July, capture NMPF’s key priorities in these negotiations. NMPF’s focus now is on working with U.S. negotiators to achieve those goals.

The next stage of negotiations will take place in Canada in late September. Throughout the month, NMPF will engage with Congress and U.S. negotiators on the importance of preserving existing trade opportunities in NAFTA, which includes rejecting new barriers to trade, removing existing trade-distorting policies – such as Canada’s Class 6/7 pricing program – opening Canadian market access opportunities, and updating NAFTA rules on SPS and geographical indications to safeguard avenues for U.S. exports.

NMPF also raised concerns with U.S. trade officials during the Labor Day weekend to a rumored withdrawal by the United States from its free trade agreement with South Korea. In interactions with members of Congress, state governors and the Trump Administration, NMPF and its members said that withdrawing from the 10-year-old U.S.-South Korea FTA would devastate exports to the United States’ fourth-largest dairy export market. Following the Labor Day weekend, the White House indicated it was not planning to pursue withdrawal in the near term.

At a time when dairy exports play a growing role in boosting U.S. dairy farmers’ incomes, NMPF has been engaged on several fronts to defend access to Mexico, its largest export market, including during a high-level industry meeting last month.

Representatives from NMPF and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) met last month in Guadalajara with their counterparts from several Mexican dairy organizations to prioritize ways to solidify the already strong relationship between the countries, even as government trade negotiators began meeting in August to decide the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

“This deepening of the U.S.-Mexico dairy partnership comes at a particularly important time, given the ongoing NAFTA negotiations, Canada’s threat to dump milk proteins in global markets, and the EU-Mexico trade talks that could restrict the use of common food names,” said Jim Mulhern, who represented NMPF at the meeting of the United States-Mexico Dairy Alliance. Alliance members met for the first time in 2016 to identify mutual concerns; this year’s focus was on expanding collaboration while preserving current trade benefits.

The Alliance generated a set of nine priorities, with the protection of current trade relationships at the top of the list. That was followed by the need to address harmful European Union (EU) and Canadian trade policies. In addition, the United States included a provision that the exportation of dairy products should be based on sanitary and scientific standards.

The NAFTA renegotiation process emerged as an important topic of discussion because the trade agreement is the foundation of the industries’ mutually beneficial free-trade relationship. Enacted in 1992, NAFTA removed barriers to dairy trade, and has led to more than a six-fold increase in U.S. dairy exports to Mexico, reaching $1.2 billion in 2016.

In addition, Alliance representatives assessed the threat posed by efforts to restrict the use of common food names, as the EU seeks to impose new geographical indications that will be barriers to dairy trade. U.S. and Mexican cheesemakers are concerned this strategy would give the EU exclusive use of common cheese names like asiago, gorgonzola, parmesan and feta.

The summit also reviewed the implication of Canada’s new dairy pricing policy, which is a major concern to all parties. Canada’s new Class 6/7 pricing policy has drawn strong objections from both the United States and Mexico, and was a significant point of discussion at the meeting.

“We are very pleased that our friends in Mexico have joined us in expressing opposition to the abusive attempts of the EU to confiscate common food names, as well as the trade distorting practices of Canada, at a time when we are working to facilitate new opportunities throughout North America,” Mulhern said. “This meeting provided an opportunity to explore how we can deepen those efforts.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded to requests from NMPF to allow farmers more flexibility in the use of risk management tools by announcing on Aug. 31 that dairy farmers currently enrolled in the Margin Protection Program (MPP) can opt out of it in 2018.

Producers wishing to opt out should not sign up during the annual registration period that began Sept. 1 and closes Dec. 15. By opting out, a producer will not need to pay the $100 annual administrative fee, but will not receive any MPP-dairy protection if payments are triggered for 2018. This disenrollment option is for 2018 only and is not retroactive.

“The MPP in its current form has been a disappointment to many dairy farmers, which is why NMPF has been working both with USDA and Congress to make significant improvements to the program. We had earlier suggested to USDA that, given this level of dissatisfaction, one option would be to allow farmers to opt out of the MPP in the coming year,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF.

“Looking ahead, Congress must make necessary improvements to the MPP so that the program provides a more effective, affordable safety net – one that provides support when farmers need it. We are currently working with lawmakers to secure such program improvements that will restore farmers’ faith in the value of the MPP. We also will continue to work with USDA and Congress to develop additional risk management options for dairy producers,” Mulhern said.

The USDA has more information about the MPP on its website, with additional resources available also at its Future for Dairy website.

In response to requests from NMPF and other farm groups, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (pictured right) plans to introduce the Agriculture Guestworker (AG) Act in the near future, a new approach to resolve many of the labor challenges facing dairy farmers. Chairman Goodlatte has long been a strong supporter of the need to create a viable guest worker program for the agriculture community, and has worked with National Milk to ensure his new legislation will address the unique challenges that the dairy industry faces in obtaining farm workers.

The AG Act will create a new H-2C visa category for agriculture workers that will include the dairy industry – both on-farm workers and those in food processing. The proposed legislation will require a “touchback” of current workers, but these workers will be able to return to their place of employment afterward. In addition to addressing current workforce issues, this legislation will also establish a pipeline for future foreign workers. Importantly, it will include provisions that ensure dairy farmers who have employed improperly documented workers will be held harmless.

On Sept. 8, National Milk hosted an informative webinar for the organization’s board of directors and state dairy associations to discuss recent developments on immigration reform, including the latest on the AG Act. Stephanie Gadbois, senior counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, outlined the collaborative process that led to the creation of the AG Act, and expressed Chairman Goodlatte’s appreciation for NMPF’s leadership, engagement and advocacy on this important issue.

“This legislation represents our best opportunity to develop a new visa program that can be utilized by dairy farms and their workforces,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “We’ve worked extensively with Rep. Goodlatte and his staff on this bill and believe passage of an ag jobs bill is critically important to agriculture as a whole.”

When the House begins work to advance immigration reform legislation, it will be vital for dairy farmers to continue making their voices heard on this critically important issue.

The pace of life always quickens after the dog days of August, perhaps nowhere more so than in Washington, D.C., as Congress returns to town after its month-long recess.  This September is shaping up as the beginning of an eventful period on Capitol Hill in which movement is expected on issues in which NMPF and its members are heavily engaged. While the outlook is promising for several dairy-specific priorities, the fate of these matters will largely be driven by the broader political forces at play in Congress and with the Trump Administration.

Here’s a quick overview of what we need congressional leaders, and the Administration, to do as the House and Senate get down to business on Capitol Hill.

Deliver on immigration reform.  Few more vexing issues await Congress than the complex, always-controversial matter of immigration policy.  NMPF has been collaborating for the past year with Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, as he has developed a major bill creating a new agricultural visa program.  The Agricultural Guestworker Act will reflect NMPF’s input as it specifically addresses the needs and concerns of dairy farmers.  Although the final text of the bill is not quite complete, the legislation will be a major improvement over the status quo and will help address our industry’s major farm labor challenges. We will continue to work with Chairman Goodlatte to pass this measure in the House, while looking for similar opportunities in the Senate. What remains in question regarding this legislation, now, is the timing, especially in light of President Trump’s recent mandate to terminate the DACA program within six months unless Congress acts to continue it.

Fix the farm bill’s dairy safety net. Congress has held a series of hearings in 2017, both here in Washington and around the country, on what the next farm bill should contain.  Our message, even before those hearings began, was that dairy farmers need Congress to greatly improve the Margin Protection Program, and to do so as soon as possible. Thanks to recommendations suggested by NMPF’s Board of Directors earlier this year, agricultural leaders in both the House and Senate understand that the dairy program is not functioning as intended, and must be fixed. The USDA announcement at the start of the month that farmers can opt-out of the MPP for next year simply reflects the reality that the program is not currently working. But what’s really needed is for Congress to fix the program so it offers a more effective, affordable safety net – one that provides support when farmers need it. National Milk’s push on this issue has gained momentum during the summer, as Senate appropriators have proposed changes to make the MPP more affordable for all farmers through a reduction in its premium costs.  We need that legislation to receive final approval this fall.

Enforce dairy labeling terms.  We’ve made great strides in building support for a bipartisan measure, the DAIRY PRIDE Act, which would compel the FDA to take enforcement action against mislabeled imitation dairy products that improperly use terms such as milk and cheese. Passage of the DPA would mean the FDA can no longer sit idle while plant-based imitators offer inferior, copycat foods and confuse consumers into thinking such products are nutritionally equivalent to real dairy milk.  Our best opportunity to pass this measure is through the annual appropriations process and the inclusion of the DPA language in a government funding bill.

Fund the government.  The current fiscal year ends Sept. 30, and appropriations bills for government programs in Fiscal Year 2018 have yet to be approved.  Congress is planning to pass a short-term, 90-day funding extension measure, delaying until December 8^th the consideration of new spending bills for FY 2018.

As this fiscal and political drama unfolds on Capitol Hill, we’re also focused on the NAFTA renegotiation process that will continue during the fall.  National Milk has been working closely with trade negotiators in the Trump Administration to ensure that the revised agreement maintains our market access in Mexico, while confronting the damaging and outrageous new Canadian dairy pricing scheme that threatens to drag down global milk prices. We’ve also worked to counter efforts by the European Union in Mexico and elsewhere to restrict the use of common cheese names, which could rob markets from U.S. cheese producers.

All this will make for a turbulent, unpredictable autumn – but also one that holds the potential for great opportunity for the dairy community. Rest assured, NMPF will continue to stay engaged—and keep you informed—of the progress being made on dairy policy issues here in our nation’s capital.

ARLINGTON, VA – “The Margin Protection Program (MPP) in its current form has been a disappointment to many dairy farmers, which is why NMPF has been working both with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Congress to make significant improvements to the program. We had earlier suggested to USDA that, given this level of dissatisfaction, one option would be to allow farmers to opt out of the MPP in the coming calendar year.

“Today’s announcement to allow farmers to opt out of the program in 2018 is a welcome development, in that it acknowledges the widespread dissatisfaction among farmers enrolled in the program. Simply put, the way the program was enacted in the 2014 Farm Bill, it does not meet the needs of America’s dairy farmers today, and declining participation levels amply illustrate farmers’ disenchantment with the MPP. Farmers who choose to opt out of the MPP will then be able to enroll in the Livestock Gross Margin program for 2018.

“Looking ahead, Congress must make more resources available to the MPP, so that the program provides a more effective, affordable safety net – one that provides support when farmers need it. We are currently working with lawmakers to secure program improvements that will restore farmers’ faith in the value of the MPP. We also will continue to work with USDA and Congress to develop additional risk management options for dairy producers.”

###

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. The members of NMPF’s cooperatives produce the majority of the U.S. milk supply, making NMPF the voice of dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit our website at www.nmpf.org.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As food manufacturers increasingly turn to fear-based food labeling to prop up profits and consumers face more confusion in the grocery aisles, America’s dairy farmers today launched “Peel Back the Label,” a new campaign to highlight this troublesome trend and stress the need for truth and transparency in food marketing.

The campaign comes as almost 70% of consumers say they look to front-of-label claims when making food purchasing decisions, and as food manufacturers increasingly utilize “free from” labels – i.e. ”no high fructose corn syrup” or “GMO free” or “hormone-free”– to play on consumers food safety fears and misconceptions.

Nowhere is this fear-based marketing more rampant than with GMOs. For example:

• Hunt’s adding a “GMO-free” label to its canned tomatoes, even though there is no such thing as a genetically modified tomato currently on the market.

• Florida’s Natural adding a Non-GMO Project certification to its orange juice labels, despite the fact there are no commercially-grown, genetically modified oranges.

• Dannon adding a line of non-GMO yogurt, citing “sustainable agriculture, naturality and transparency,” but unable to point to any nutritional, environmental, health, or other consumer benefit.

• TruMoo milk acknowledges GMOs are safe on its website, while at the same time launching an advertising campaign for its milk with the tagline, “No GMOs, No Worries.”

• Himalania Rock Pink Salt adding a Non-GMO Project certified label, despite the fact that salt – a mineral – could never be GMO in the first place because it has no genes to modify.

“America’s dairy farmers strongly support open, honest and transparent engagement with consumers. The deceptive labels and fear-based marketing increasingly used by some food manufacturers damages consumer trust and jeopardizes the safe, sustainable farming practices that have enhanced farm productivity over the last 20 years,” said Jim Mulhern, President of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). “Consumers have a right to both truth and transparency in food labeling. We launched this campaign to help consumers peel back the label on deceptive food marketing in the name of profits.”

This trend towards deceptive “free from” labels is particularly concerning for the dairy industry. Last year, NMPF and other leading farm organizations publicly raised concerns regarding Dannon’s announcement of its plans to eliminate GMOs from its products – saying the company’s decision was “the exact opposite of the sustainable agriculture that you claim to be seeking.”

Through the Peel Back the Label website, the campaign will give consumers access to the tools they need to separate hype from fact as they work to make informed food decisions for their families. It also will include ways for consumers to tell their own stories about the negative impacts of deceptive labeling, and share information with their social networks.

Concern about deceptive food labeling is widespread, with numerous voices from across the food sector calling out this troublesome marketing tactic. Examples include:

“This trend toward fear-based labeling may help prop up profits for food manufacturers, but it comes at a much greater cost for consumers who are trying to make informed choices for their families. Labels like these make consumers question their understanding of what’s really in their food and how safe it is to eat.” –Kent Messer, The Wilmington News Journal, 6/30/17

“If anything, the scaremongering around GMOs mistreats moms and their families by creating fear and mistrust of the conventional food supply in the absence of any scientific evidence. This can scare mothers on tight budgets to pay money they can’t afford for expensively labeled foods and to avoid fresh produce due to a misplaced fear of pesticides. Praying on a mother’s fears for the safety of her children is the most disingenuous use of marketing that I can imagine. “ –Alison L. Van Eenennaam, BioBeef Blog, 7/7/17

“Unfortunately, food manufacturers are being subjected to great public pressure to go ‘GMO-free,’ with brands like Dannon and Cheerios bowing to the pressure and shifting to sourcing only non-GMO ingredients. If this trend is allowed to continue, the impact on farmers, and in turn the environment, could be monumental. As champions of science continue to make their voices heard, it’s imperative to celebrate and acknowledge the promise of positive change embodied as technology being leveraged in multiple ways. If we allow science its chance at bat, we have a chance to win this.” –Tom Vilsack, The Hill, 4/27/17

“The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free shopping aren’t informing you or protecting you…They use your anxiety to justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify your anxiety. Keeping you scared is the key to their political and business strategy.” –William Saletan, Slate, 7/15/15

“What really bothers me as a shopper are the injustices that result from the proliferation of this and other similar anti-GMO marketing…The [Non-GMO Project] seal implies that there are GMO oranges available even though there are no genetically-engineered citrus fruits on the market. Tomatoes, grapes, and sea salt are among several such products that carry the seal even though there are no ‘GMO’ counterparts available.” –Kavin Senapathy, Forbes, 5/31/17

About Peel Back the Label:
Peel Back the Label is a campaign of America’s dairy farmers and their families. In the United States, 97 percent of dairy farms are family owned, and farmers are committed to producing quality milk for American families, protecting the environment and caring for their animals. Learn more about the campaign at www.PeelBackTheLabel.org. Learn more about America’s dairy farmers at www.nmpf.org.

###

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. The members of NMPF’s cooperatives produce the majority of the U.S. milk supply, making NMPF the voice of dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit our website at www.nmpf.org.

ARLINGTON, VA – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should reject a petition filed by the Good Food Institute (GFI) that would undermine federal standards of identity for food and sanction existing misleading marketing tactics of imitation dairy products, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) said in comments filed today.

In the latest salvo over the proper use of long-standing dairy food terms, the vegan advocacy organization GFI submitted a petition earlier this spring requesting that FDA permit manufacturers of plant-based products to use labels that employ standardized dairy terms such as “milk.” In response, NMPF said the petition is at odds with established laws and inconsistent with FDA regulations, which state that foods labeled “milk” must come from an animal.

“GFI’s petition flies in the face of established law and common sense,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “Nothing has happened in the last 20 years that makes it OK to combine plant or nut powders with water, sugar, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and other chemicals, and call it ‘milk.’ This request is wrong on its merits and is designed to further mislead consumers.”

In its comments, NMPF argued that when plant-based beverages use standardized dairy terms, “they typically do so to imitate milk and other real dairy products, and to benefit unfairly from the reputation that real dairy foods have for nutritional content and quality.” The organization argues that imitation dairy products seek to “bask in the halo” of milk’s healthy reputation in order to attract consumers seeking the attributes offered by real dairy.

NMPF said GFI’s proposed changes to FDA rules would undermine the agency’s standards of identity and create more confusion in the marketplace. Labeling non-dairy products with dairy terminology, the organization added, can mislead consumers into thinking the imitation contains the same nutritional benefits as the real thing. Data from a 2015 Mintel survey found that 49 percent of respondents said they consumed plant “milks” because they thought the products are nutritious. However, according to an NMPF survey of nearly 250 plant-based imitation dairy beverages, none of the products was nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk.

“Consumers do not understand that plant-based imitation ‘milks’ are not suitable replacements for the natural, nutrient-packed goodness of real milk,” said Dr. Beth Briczinski, NMPF’s vice president for dairy foods and nutrition. “GFI’s request would only exacerbate this misconception.”

NMPF argued that calling these foods what they really are – plant-based beverages – is the “simplest and most certain way to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interests of consumers.” NMPF cited examples of other “beverages” or “drinks” that both comply with federal labeling regulations and clearly state their composition.

NMPF dismissed GFI’s contention that enforcing standards of identity is “anti-competitive,” and said plant-based drinks are welcome in the marketplace so long as they are labeled appropriately.  The group also rejected as specious GFI’s argument that there is a First Amendment conflict in placing limitations on how food products can describe themselves.

“Congress mandated standards of identity for milk and other dairy products more than 80 years ago.  GFI’s argument that it is now suddenly unconstitutional for FDA to enforce laws that have been on the books for eight decades makes no sense,” Mulhern said.  “In fact, the Supreme Court specifically affirmed in the Central Hudson case that the government may regulate commercial speech in a way that protects the public interest. Congress long ago determined that there is an important government interest in avoiding mislabeling of food products and misleading the public.”

Other nations have taken a more proactive stance on this issue, NMPF wrote, pointing out that brands marketing themselves as “almondmilk” in the United States do not use that term on their products sold in Canada or Europe.

“We have the same standard as the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada when it comes to labeling plant-based dairy imitators,” Mulhern said.  “The only difference is that the FDA does not enforce that standard, while regulators in other nations do.”

###

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. The members of NMPF’s cooperatives produce the majority of the U.S. milk supply, making NMPF the voice of dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit our website at www.nmpf.org.