ARLINGTON, VA – Milk producers joined milk processors yesterday in supporting the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed regulations on the safe shipment of food, saying the draft rules largely write into regulations what the dairy industry is already doing.

“Dairy foods are safely transported already, and there is no need to improve on current practices,” said Beth Briczinski, vice president for dairy foods and nutrition for the National Milk Producers Federation. “As a result, we basically support what the FDA is proposing.”

NMPF, the voice of 32,000 dairy farmers in Washington, submitted comments on the draft regulations issued in February as part of efforts to implement a major update of the nation’s food safety laws enacted in 2011.

NMPF did note several areas where the proposal could be clarified or modified. In particular, it urged expanding waivers from the regulation for dairy products if a shipper is licensed under the Grade “A” milk program. NMPF urged including outbound shipments of finished products – such as yogurt, cottage cheese and sour cream – as well as inbound shipments of unpasteurized milk under the waiver.

Other areas NMPF suggested clarifying included language regarding short or intra-company food shipments and the transportation of frozen dairy desserts. On the latter, the organization said the final regulations should specify that ice cream and other frozen dairy desserts should not be included under the proposed regulations because when ice cream is temperature-abused it doesn’t present a food safety risk. Instead, it melts. 

The proposed rules were issued under the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, as well as a separate 2005 law covering safe transportation of foods.

“We supported the FSMA and have been pleased to work with the FDA to implement its provisions,” said Briczinski. “We share the desire for food transportation rules that are broad, goal-oriented, aligned with current practices, and adaptable to the many transportation activities conducted in our industry.

“For the most part, FDA’s draft regulations are just that,” Briczinski added. 

The U.S. dairy industry told the Senate Finance Committee’s trade subcommittee today that the 2010 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has further strengthened U.S. dairy exports to the Korean market, even though it is not yet fully implemented.

At the same time, Shawna Morris, vice president for trade for the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), said a new and growing type of trade barrier involving common food names has emerged that is restricting access to the Korean market for key U.S. cheeses. 

“(Korea’s restrictions on the use of several common cheese names) are the direct result of their separate free trade agreement with the European Union,” Morris, shown at right, testified. “In a nutshell, the European Union has been leaning on countries around the world to block imports of products by confiscating common food names and reserving them exclusively for cheese producers in their member countries.” 

 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI – Eduardo de Souza Ribeiro, a doctoral student in animal sciences at the University of Florida, today received the National Milk Producers Federation Richard M. Hoyt Award for dairy-related research. 

Ribeiro was recognized during the awards ceremony at the annual meeting of the American Dairy Science Association in Kansas City. NMPF Vice President for Dairy Foods and Nutrition Beth Briczinski made the scholarship presentation.

 

The National Milk Producers Federation on July 14 endorsed a draft plan for allowing the U.S. and Canada to cope with an outbreak of a serious foreign animal contagion, such as foot-and-mouth disease, suggesting the plan is a template for similar plans involving other important dairy export markets.

The plan, drafted by the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, calls for the United States and Canada to recognize each other’s efforts to control an outbreak, while regionalizing how the outbreak is handled, so as to allow continued trade with disease-free areas of the country.

In comments filed with APHIS Monday, NMPF, the voice of 32,000 dairy farmers in Washington, noted that Canada is the second-largest export market for U.S. dairy products, and that an outbreak of a highly contagious animal disease such as FMD in either country could be catastrophic for the U.S. dairy industry.

“We applaud the Agriculture Department for working with its Canadian counterparts to prepare for a foreign animal disease outbreak,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s vice president for sustainability & scientific affairs. “We fully support the draft plan and see it as an effective tool for dealing with an outbreak.”

The plan, officially termed a framework, calls for the two countries to cooperate in establishing quarantine areas that would be the focus of disease eradication efforts in an outbreak. Trade could then resume or continue in areas considered free of disease. 

“The framework will facilitate continued trade between disease-free areas, while safeguarding animal health in both countries,” said Jonker. “NMPF encourages USDA to use this approach as a template for other countries that are important U.S. dairy export markets.” These countries include Mexico, China, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan.

This is in contrast to another USDA proposal earlier this year, which NMPF determined had significant flaws, because it will allow imports of fresh beef from certain parts of Brazil which have a history of foot and mouth disease. 

“We are happy to have Brazil export its enthusiasm for soccer,” said Jonker, “but the last thing we need is for that country to send us its FMD problems.”

Over the last decade, U.S. dairy exports have increased more than 20 percent annually and the United States is now a global leader in exports for products including cheese, skim milk powder, whey products and lactose.

The National Milk Producers Federation on July 7th asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw recent guidance concerning when farmers must seek Clean Water Act permits for a long list of normal farming activities near wetlands.

NMPF, the voice of more than 32,000 dairy farmers in Washington, said the EPA’s proposal could have the perverse effect of discouraging water conservation, by changing the long-standing relationship between farmers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The EPA guidance, officially called an Interpretive Rule, was issued in March. It says producers are only exempt from needing Clean Water Act permits for more than 50 routine farming practices if they comply with detailed NRCS technical conservation standards. Until now, these standards have been voluntary, and the farming practices exempt from the permit process.

In comments filed Monday, NMPF said the guidance changes NRCS’s role from that of a conservation partner to an enforcer of the Clean Water Act on EPA’s behalf. 

“Until now, NRCS has been the place producers could go for conservation advice, while EPA was charged with ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s Vice President for Sustainability & Scientific Affairs. “The cooperative relationship with NRCS made it more likely farmers would adopt water conservation practices.

“Unfortunately,” Jonker said, “the interpretive rule moves NRCS into an enforcement role and, in the process, could set back conservation efforts.”

In its comments, NMPF used harvesting hay as an example. Under the Interpretive Rule, farmers harvesting hay may be exempt from needing a CWA permit only if they follow NRCS Conservation Practice Standard No. 511:  four pages of criteria covering timing of the harvest, moisture content of the hay, length of the cut hay, stubble height and much more.

“Many dairy farmers harvest hay without any reference to NRCS standards,” said Jonker.  “Will these farmers now be forced to comply with Standard No. 511? If so, many will simply choose not to work with the NRCS. As a result, there will be less water conservation on farms, not more.”

Jonker noted that NMPF has drawn up a detailed environmental handbook (shown above left) based on NRCS standards but tailored specifically to dairy farmers. “Under the IR, producers who follow the handbook apparently will not qualify for a permit exemption,” Jonker said. “Having invested time and money in producing the handbook, NMPF is now forced to ask if it was worth it to try to do the right thing.”

Additional points in the NMPF comments:

• While EPA argues that meeting the NRCS standards is still voluntary, in practice it is mandatory, since failure to comply may expose farmers to legal liability.
• More than 100 farming practices covered by NRCS standards but not listed the IR are left under a “cloud of suspicion” and further expose farmer to legal liability.
• As a major policy change, the IR should have been issued as a proposed regulation, with public comments in advance of approval, rather than as guidance that is immediately applicable.

“NMPF and its members are committed to protecting U.S. waterways through voluntary efforts and regulatory compliance with the Clean Water Act,” NMPF said. “(But) the IR will have the perverse impact of harming the longstanding trust and cooperative relationship between producers and NRCS.  Consequently, water quality improvements will be adversely impacted.”

Established initially the 1930s, the NRCS provides voluntary help to farmers who want to conserve the resources on their farms.

In May, NMPF urged the Environmental Protection Agency to allow more time to examine a controversial draft regulation expanding the waterways subject to regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. That request was granted on June 10th.
 

Ten days after NMPF requested it, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed to allow more time to examine its controversial draft regulation expanding the waterways subject to pollution controls under the federal Clean Water Act. The new deadline for submitting public comments is October 10. 

NMPF cited two reasons for requesting more time:  First, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers had not completed the report providing the scientific underpinning for the regulation; and second, many of the key concepts discussed in the draft are unclear or subject to interpretation by government regulators.

“Dairy farmers are committed to protecting U.S. waters both voluntarily and under the Clean Water Act,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern, “but the EPA needs to go about this effort in the right way. Allowing more time to consider EPA’s draft will give everyone the chance to adequately consider the issues raised in the draft and provide an opportunity for a more informed process.”

Unveiled in March, the draft regulation expands the waterways covered under the 1972 Clean Water Act to nearly all those connected to U.S. navigable waters. Concerns have been raised by many farm organizations that the proposed rule could have a devastating impact, particularly on agriculture. 

“Given the scope and complexities of the proposed rule and its supporting documents, it was essential that EPA allow more time to consider the issues it raises,” Mulhern said.

NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern reacted sharply to the apparent demise of immigration reform legislation in Congress this year. But Mulhern added that NMPF remains committed to the cause of reform, which, he said, will happen eventually.

“It is very frustrating for America’s dairy farmers that our elected officials could not set aside partisan politics this year to finally address the dysfunctional policy of our immigration system,” Mulhern said in a statement. “The irony is that virtually everyone on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue admits the status quo is unacceptable; yet we seem destined to continue suffering from it, because common-sense reforms remain beyond our reach.”

In addition to the headaches the immigration dilemma causes dairy farmers, Mulhern said, the lack of an immigration fix is bad news for America’s consumers, who depend on a domestic food production system that itself is dependent on immigrant workers.

“The reality is that most major public policy controversies take multiple efforts, by a variety of stakeholders working together in common cause, to finally make things happen,” Mulhern added. “Immigration reform will happen. It is only a matter of time. We remain committed to that effort.” 

NMPF has made a series of recommendations to the Agriculture Department on how to implement the new dairy safety net included in the 2014 farm bill. The recommendations cover issues that are either unclear in the legislation or were left up to USDA to decide. The issues include such things as the timing of enrollment, the timing and structure of premium payments, and the treatment of farms with changing ownership structures.

The new safety net, called the Margin Protection Program (MPP), is required to be established by September 1. It replaces price supports, MILC payments and other, less effective federal programs. It will help protect against the type of catastrophic equity loss that many dairy farmers experienced in 2009 and again in 2012.  NMPF is pleased with its discussions with the Agriculture Department on MPP to date.

In order to help dairy farmers understand the new Margin Protection Program, NMPF is providing a set of data examining how the MPP margin has varied over time, dating back to 2007, up until the current month for which data is available.

This set of tables listing feed and milk prices is available below to download in Excel as well as PDF.  It will be updated by NMPF every two months going forward, using the same calculations that the USDA is expected to use as the program is implemented later in 2014.

The latest skirmish in the battle over chocolate milk in schools ended June 12 when Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (left, drinking milk) vetoed legislation that would have effectively banned chocolate milk from state schools. The bill, passed on the final day of the legislature’s 2014 session, would have prohibited the sale of chocolate milk by setting a tight limit on the sodium allowed in drinks offered in Connecticut schools.

“I love chocolate milk, I love chocolate shakes, I like chocolate,” said Malloy. “I’m also a big milk person so looking at this … this was the right decision to make.”

“It’s encouraging to see reason and common sense returning to the debate over chocolate milk in schools,” NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern said in a statement.

“Schools that remove chocolate milk from the cafeteria are simply throwing the nutritional baby out with the bathwater. They deprive kids of calcium, protein and other needed nutrients while they increase waste and boost costs. Governor Malloy is to be congratulated for thinking this through, and not opting for the quick, easy but wrong solution.” NMPF had urged Malloy to veto the bill.  

The Consortium for Common Food Names, which NMPF supports, is urging the European Union to make the right decision on a controversial proposal granting Denmark exclusive use of the generic cheese name “havarti” in the EU. CCFN filed comments objecting to the proposal as part of the EU’s review of “geographical indications,” or names associated with specialized foods from a particular region.

“We expect the European Commission to do the right thing, and respect the common name havarti, which is used around the world,” said Jaime Castaneda, CCFN executive director. Castaneda noted that not only is havarti widely used in non-European countries, but there is an international havarti product standard that is recognized by Europe and others.

“There are ways to protect the names of geographical specialty foods and beverages without impeding the rights to use generic food names,” he said. “If the EU ultimately registers this GI, it would be one of the most egregious examples of Europe’s GI policy gone wrong.”

In recent years the EU has moved past the concept of protected geographical names such as “Parmigiano Reggiano” to seek exclusive use of the common term related to the name, such as “parmesan” or simply to claim ownership of a common name, as in “feta.”

The Consortium for Common Food Names is an independent non-profit favoring high GI standards and the adoption of worldwide model geographical indication guidelines.