The first FARM Stakeholder Forum held Sept. 4-5 in Minneapolis provided updates for all four FARM program areas and invited industry stakeholders to join the conversation on the FARM Program. National Dairy FARM Program team Representatives from pharmaceutical, nutrition, technology, extension and other support companies discussed opportunities for future partnership and collaboration with FARM to advance the goal of continuous improvement within the dairy industry.

For this month, The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy and the FARM Program are holding a customer webinar series this month targeted toward food-service and retail customers.

Each session will focus on hot topics and priorities in the dairy industry important to businesses.  The webinars in the three-part series will be led by the FARM team and other industry experts who will provide the latest information and address questions about the future of animal care, how worker experiences can be enhanced on the farm, and how the U.S. dairy industry works from the farm to the retail shelf.

For more information or to learn how to register to attend these webinars, please email dairyfarm@nmpf.org.

The Environmental Protection Agency officially repealed the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) regulation Sept. 12^th, paving the way for that agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to finalize a new rule later this year or early next year. Having filed several comments regarding the need to repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule, NMPF agrees with this long-anticipated development, which will reduce confusion and uncertainty over the Clean Water Act that has lingered for more than four years.

The WOTUS regulation that took effect in 2015 was deeply unpopular among farm groups. Citing the many ambiguities and uncertainties of EPA’s then-proposed rule, NMPF urged EPA to rethink it in 2014, before it was adopted. An NMPF analysis at the time found that the Obama Administration proposal did not meet the requirements of various Supreme Court rulings that were the catalyst for the 2015 regulation.

Repealing the 2015 rule now makes the 1986 WOTUS rule effective for the entire United States.

A twenty-cent per hundredweight increase in the price of milk from July to August, together with a 38-cent drop in the Dairy Margin Coverage feed cost calculation over the same time boosted the DMC margin for August by 58 cents a hundredweight over July’s margin of $9.27 per cwt. to $9.85, and thus “out of the money” for generating payments under the program. The maximum margin coverage level under the program is $9.50 per cwt. for up to five million pounds of covered production history. A drop in the price of corn, assisted by lower soybean meal prices as the country heads into harvest season, generated the DMC cost reduction, the largest monthly drop since June 2018. The DMC margin will almost certainly remain above $9.50 per cwt. for the remainder of 2019.

As of Sept. 26, USDA’s DMC Decision Tool, which can be accessed online, projected the margins shown in the chart on the left.

The DMC information page on NMPF’s website offers educational resources to help farmers make better use of the program.

NMPF regulatory expert and staff counsel Clay Detlefsen spoke about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the standards of identity and the unintended consequences of horizontal standards at a meeting hosted Sept. 27 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) soliciting input on the creation of horizontal standards across all categories of standards of identity.

So-called “horizontal” standards would allow the FDA to make sweeping changes to food standards of identity across categories. Proponents argue such standards would allow manufacturers to innovate and produce more nutritious versions of standardized foods. Detlefsen urged caution, noting the unintended consequences of across-the-board changes.

Of more than 280 standards of identity, 95 are for dairy products, Detlefsen said. If a change to one is a change to all, unforeseen results could be seen in any number of the other 280 foods, he said. For example: FDA has proposed allowing vegetable oils to be used where animal fats are currently used because of their so-called “healthier” nature, opening the door, for example, to olive oil substituted for animal fat – with an end result being an inferior-quality ice cream that has no cream in it.

“When dealing with 280 very different standards, and the intention is to improve one, such changes may not be transparent when applied to different foods, and stakeholders could be deprived of a proper opportunity to weigh in,” Detlefsen said. “Further, in many cases the real motivation for change could be to make the product cheaper.”

NMPF suggested that if any changes possibly could be limited to foods that are similar, such as grouping all dairy together or all cheeses.

The meeting, which took place on September 27^th, was held as part of the agency’s comprehensive, multi-year nutrition innovation strategy. FDA wants to modernize the standards of identity to:

1) protect consumers against economic adulteration;

2) maintain the basic nature, essential characteristics and nutritional integrity of food;

3) promote industry innovation and provide flexibility to encourage manufacturers to produce healthier foods.

The meeting included a history of the standards of identity, and three breakout sessions on innovation, nutrition, and consumer expectations where participants were free to share their opinions on the topics.

NMPF is requesting dairy farmers respond to this survey to better understand how dairy farmers interpret an antibiotic with a zero-day withdrawal period of zero-day milk discard time.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration opened a docket Aug. 9 requesting information regarding transit times to slaughter, milking frequency, and how end users interpret zero-day withdrawal period or zero-day milk discard time statements found on new animal drug labeling. This request is driven by the recognition that the animal agriculture industry has drastically changed since original assumptions were determined in 1980, and FDA is requesting information to ensure their regulations are in line with what is practiced today. The full request can be found here.

Survey responses are completely anonymous and cannot be traced back to the respondent. No personally identifiable information is captured, and your responses will be combined with those of other farmers and summarized to further protect anonymity. The answers will be used to inform NMPF’s comments to the FDA to ensure they have the most accurate information from dairy farmers.

From lawmaker meetings to motorcades, NMPF continues to make the case for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement as Congress and the White House work to hash out concerns that have hindered passage of the deal, which in October turned one year old. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is in active discussions with a nine-member working group of Democratic lawmakers to come to a consensus on several issues, including enforcement of the agreement.

Many members of Congress have expressed an understanding of the benefits of USMCA for agriculture and dairy. While the working group negotiations with USTR continue and the Administration has not yet sent implementing legislation to Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a reporter that she hopes “we’re on a path to yes.” House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, leader of the working group, said that both sides have agreed to “intensify the discussions,” indicating there may be a positive path for USMCA this fall.

NMPF continues to work diligently to ensure that Congress understands the significance of USMCA for America’s dairy farmers and the urgency of getting it in place. In addition to solidifying our terms of trade with Mexico, tackling trade-distorting Canadian dairy policies such as Class 7, and paving the way for the U.S. to move on to additional trade negotiations, NMPF estimates that over the first six years of implementation, USMCA will bolster dairy farm revenue by an additional $548 million due to greater U.S. dairy exports in North America.

To secure these trade gains, Congress and the White House will need to quickly resolve any issues standing in the way of USMCA’s passage. NMPF’s campaign for USMCA’s passage has included meetings with key congressional offices on Capitol Hill, working with dairy cooperatives on opinion pieces for publication in local newspapers, creating materials laying out dairy’s case for the agreement and participating in coalition efforts such as the drive to accumulate signatures on letters of support from individual farmers and food-company employees.

Last month NMPF also participated in the “Motorcade for Trade” as it made its final stop last month in front of the U.S. Capitol for a rally to tout the trade benefits of USMCA. NMPF joined host organization Farmers for Free Trade, other agricultural groups and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle at the rally to help push for swift passage of this vital trade agreement.

“Restoring certainty to our trade relationships and bolstering the prospects for dairy exports by passing USMCA will bring important benefits to the dairy farmers and rural economies that rely on these export markets,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF, following the rally. “America’s farmers are counting on Congress and the Administration to work together to secure passage of USMCA, and soon.”

The United States and Japan reached an interim trade agreement at the end of September that will deliver welcome improvements in market access for the U.S. dairy industry. Still, further work remains to secure a sufficiently competitive landscape in Japan for dairy.

“This interim trade agreement with Japan is welcome news for farmers across the U.S. who have seen their incomes damaged by trade disputes,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “We thank America’s trade negotiators for their pursuit of a deal aimed at benefiting our dairy farmers and expanding international markets for their high-quality milk. To reap those full rewards and ensure the U.S. is best able compete in the Japanese market, the subsequent stage of negotiations must secure further inroads into Japan, building upon what our key competitors – the European Union and New Zealand – have secured there.”

This trade development followed a NMPF and USDEC-led letter to the United States Trade Representative and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture in August that encouraged the U.S. government to negotiate a trade deal with that builds upon the best market access components of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and Japan-EU agreements and includes safeguards for common cheese names. This letter was signed by 70 dairy companies, farmer-owned cooperatives, and associations.

NMPF staff have been closely engaged with U.S. negotiators throughout these latest trade discussions, advising the USTR and communicating with Congress regarding the expected outcomes for dairy, conveying the dairy industry’s priorities.

One of the chief goals of the industry remains that an agreement will address the inequalities in market access in Japan granted to U.S. competitors by the CPTPP and Japan-EU agreements and push for ways to build upon what Japan agreed to in those earlier agreements. Japan represents a rapidly growing market, and without a strong trade deal, U.S. competitors in Australia, New Zealand and Europe will continue to receive an advantage over American dairy products.

This trade agreement represents the first stage of trade talks, as the White House has announced that they plan to pursue further trade negotiations to “achieve a comprehensive trade agreement that results in more fair and reciprocal trade between the United States and Japan.”

NMPF will continue to work with U.S. officials to achieve our stated goals and ensure that the U.S. dairy industry continues to command a growing share of Japan’s market.

The popular Dairy Margin Coverage program signed up more than 22,000 dairy farmers – more than participated in the last year of the Margin Protection Program that it replaced — and paid out more than $302 million in its first year. That’s $302 million more than what farmers would have received under the MPP, which would have actually cost farmers money in 2019, according to an analysis of USDA data done by NMPF.

Monthly milk price/feed cost margins so far in 2019 have been above the $8 per hundredweight coverage cutoff that existed under MPP, but below the new $9.50 per hundredweight coverage limit under DMC, the stronger dairy safety net in the farm bill enacted last year with support from NMPF and the dairy community. Under the old MPP rules, the total paid out under the entire program so far this year would have been $75,000 — about $3 per farmer and a net loss for them after premium costs. Instead, the new DMC threshold has triggered hundreds of millions of dollars in much-needed assistance for dairy producers, showing the program’s value and helping farmers stay afloat who otherwise may not have been able to continue.

“The Dairy Margin Coverage program has proven its worth, with more than $300 million in farmers’ pockets as a result of our work on the farm bill with Congress and USDA,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “None of that assistance would have occurred under the MPP. We encourage farmers who haven’t already signed up for all five years of Dairy Margin Coverage to re-new their sign up for 2020, and for farmers who decided not to participate in the 2019 program to consider it in the future.”

According to the latest USDA data, 22,631 dairy producers signed up for DMC. Based on reported margins for the first eight months of the year, payouts so far for 2019 have been $302,906,824. More than half of all farmers who signed up chose to sign up for one year, with the rest signing up for the full five years at a 25 percent premium discount. Wisconsin signed up the largest number of farmers, while California enrolled the highest production volume of any state.

A key change to the program that boosted aid was the inclusion of dairy-quality alfalfa into the feed-cost calculation, which narrowed the difference between milk prices and feed costs and adjusted margins to better reflect dairy expenses, a change that NMPF pushed for throughout legislation and implementation.

“We thank USDA not only for prioritizing the DMC in farm-bill implementation but adjusting it in a way that provided additional benefit to producers,” Mulhern said. “The DMC’s success has truly been a partnership throughout, from a united dairy community that aided Congress as it crafted and approved the program, to USDA’s work with that community in making it reality.”

Wisconsin had the most farms sign up, while California enrolled the most production. More than half of all farmers who signed up chose to sign up for one year, with the rest signing up for the full five years at a 25 percent premium discount.

The 2020 DMC sign-up will start Oct. 7. NMPF has a resource page on its website with more information about the DMC.

ARLINGTON, VA. – The popular Dairy Margin Coverage program signed up more than 22,000 dairy farmers – more than participated in the last year of the Margin Protection Program that it replaced — and paid out more than $302 million in its first year. That’s $302 million more than what farmers would have received under the MPP, which would have actually cost farmers money in 2019, according to an analysis of USDA data done by NMPF.

Monthly milk price/feed cost margins so far in 2019 have been above the $8 per hundredweight coverage cutoff that existed under MPP, but below the new $9.50 per hundredweight coverage limit under DMC, the stronger dairy safety net enacted last year in the farm bill. Under the old MPP rules, the total paid out under the entire program so far this year would have been $75,000 — about $3 per farmer and a net loss for them after premium costs. Instead, the new DMC threshold has triggered hundreds of millions of dollars in much-needed assistance for dairy producers, showing the program’s value and helping farmers stay afloat who otherwise may not have been able to continue.

With 2020 signup beginning on Oct. 7, that success is worth keeping in mind as farmers weigh the program’s affordable cost versus its proven benefits.

“The Dairy Margin Coverage program has proven its worth, with more than $300 million in farmers’ pockets as a result of our work on the farm bill with Congress and USDA,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. “None of that assistance would have occurred under the MPP. We encourage farmers who haven’t already signed up for all five years of Dairy Margin Coverage to re-new their sign up for 2020, and for farmers who decided not to participate in the 2019 program to consider it in the future.”

According to the latest USDA data, 22,631 dairy producers signed up for DMC. Based on reported margins for the first eight months of the year, payouts so far for 2019 have been $302,906,824. Wisconsin signed up the largest number of farmers, while California enrolled the highest production volume of any state.

A key change to the program that boosted aid was the inclusion of dairy-quality alfalfa into the feed-cost calculation, which narrowed the difference between milk prices and feed costs and adjusted margins to better reflect dairy expenses, a change that NMPF pushed for throughout legislation and implementation.

“We thank USDA not only for prioritizing the DMC in farm-bill implementation but adjusting it in a way that provided additional benefit to producers,” Mulhern said. “The DMC’s success has truly been a partnership throughout, from a united dairy community that aided Congress as it crafted and approved the program, to USDA’s work with that community in making it reality.”

###

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. NMPF’s member cooperatives produce more than two-thirds of U.S. milk, making NMPF dairy’s voice on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more, visit www.nmpf.org.

President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister’s Shinzo Abe’s agreement last week to a limited trade deal between the two countries is an important development in expanding one of dairy’s most important trade relationships.

Still, the announcement is only an initial step – more will need to be done to ensure that a U.S.-Japan trade pact’s full benefits for U.S. producers are realized. We at the National Milk Producers Federation, along with our colleagues at the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) and producers and processors across the industry, are primed to work for further progress, helping to bolster the economic recovery we’re just beginning to see in our sector.

The agreement set to go into effect includes an important win for dairy, the phase-out of some tariffs on cheeses and whey. This is a noteworthy beginning to potentially greater gains that will be needed down the road, ones that build upon what our key competitors – the European Union, Australia and New Zealand – have secured there.

The stakes are meaningful: Japan is the fifth-biggest market for U.S. dairy, with $270 million in exports last year. It’s also a promising growth market – Japan’s milk production is declining, even as its per-capita consumption is increasing. While our exports have steadily met about one-fifth of Japan’s growing need for outside products for the past decade, the European Union has been growing as a major exporter into the country.

The U.S. is facing tougher competition due to a new trade agreement between the EU and Japan as well as the new Asian-Pacific trade agreement — the CPTPP — that both went into effect this year. A USDEC study earlier this year found that, without a level playing field for dairy, the U.S. risked losing $1.3 billion in exports over a decade, costing dairy farmers $1.7 billion in farm income. Status quo on Japan simply is not acceptable – because it is stepping backwards. We commend the administration for recognizing that and beginning the process of strengthening a long-term, mutually beneficial bilateral relationship.

We agree with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, as he noted to the House Ways and Means Committee this summer that “you cannot treat your best customer worse than you treat people from all these other countries in Europe and all the other TPP countries.” This deal appears to make headway toward that goal — but achieving it will depend on dogged determination in continued negotiations for a successful outcome.

As outlined in a letter coordinated by NMPF and USDEC and signed by 70 dairy companies, farmer-owned cooperatives, and associations to USTR and USDA, we need the U.S. government to move swiftly to finalize a strong comprehensive trade agreement with Japan that secures critical market access for the U.S. dairy industry. The agreement represents a valuable down-payment toward that goal. We will continue to advocate for a deal that builds upon the best dairy components of the Japan-EU agreement and the CPTPP, and affirmatively safeguards the use of common cheese names.

We can’t let this issue lose urgency, even after Prime Minister Abe and President Trump have gone home and the devilish details have been left to the negotiators. In addition to the deepened trade relationship we urge the U.S. to continue to pursue on dairy with Japan, more trade policy advancements are needed to advance dairy’s long-term sustainability, such as additional treaties with other agricultural-importing trading partners and quick congressional approval USMCA. We are ready to do all we can to turn this early portion of the U.S.-Japan trade agreement – this important “down payment” on expanded access — into a fuller and broader agreement that will help U.S. dairy exporters keep pace and make gains in this great and growing dairy market.

(Note: NMPF’s Dairy Defined explores today’s dairy farms and industry using high-quality data and podcast-style interviews to explain current dairy issues and dispel myths.)

 ARLINGTON, Va. – One important lesson we’re taught in high school science class is the adage that “correlation is not causation.”

One example is the commonly reported, “milk is losing market share to plant-based beverages,” which implies that nut-flavored water is winning a one-on-one-battle with milk. It’s true that per-capita fluid milk consumption has declined. It’s also true that beverages made of almonds, oats, and other crops have entered the dairy case. But is the market share relationship as directly A-to-B as a plant-based industry lobbyist would like you to think? To consider:

First, let’s look at market share. Today, milk still outsells plant-based imitators by a margin of more than 11 to 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, remember that as new beverages enter the market, the marketplace segments. Consumption of established beverages tends to decline as competitors take up shelf space. It’s easier to grow from a smaller base than a larger one. Despite that dynamic, milk is holding up better against new entrants than some other established beverages. For example, here’s the trendline for milk compared to orange juice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, if plant-based beverages aren’t the main factor affecting fluid milk’s market share, what is? The truth is it’s one of the food industry’s biggest “innovations” of the 21^st century – convincing consumers it’s better to buy water in a bottle than to drink it for free from a tap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where milk-drinkers have gone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to a 2017 study by IRI, about 82 percent of lost sales volume for white milk came from consumer switching, with most of the rest from lower overall beverage consumption. Of the volume lost to switching, 53 percent of milk went to bottled water (unfortunate, in light of the recent study showing that milk is better than water for hydration). More than a quarter of the rest went to coffee, tea and fruit juices. Plant-based beverages were in a lowly fifth place, accounting for 6.6 percent, with another 4.3 percent going to other dairy beverages, such as flavored milk or yogurt. That’s enough to alert an industry already passionate about nutrition and labeling integrity, but far from the breathless hype some in food marketing and food media would have you believe.

The decline in fluid milk consumption remains a dairy-industry concern, even as total dairy-product use reaches its highest per capita levels since 1962. With leading medical and nutrition organizations recommending only milk or water for children under 5, and with a natural product tailor-made to prevent numerous common vitamin deficiencies, milk remains essential for many diets. The sad truth is consumers lose out when they make an inferior choice (especially when they don’t realize it), and we’re working hard to protect milk’s strong consumer reputation and make its merits clear when compared to the competition.

But any argument that ties milk-consumption trends to an imaginary mass switching to plant-based beverages misses most of the story. One might even suspect the only reason this narrative exists at all is because plant-based imitators have gotten away with calling their products “milk,” contrary to federal regulatory definitions. The imitations are sincerely flattering, in a way. But when it comes to comparing market share, don’t let them flatter themselves.

###

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. NMPF’s member cooperatives produce more than two-thirds of U.S. milk, making NMPF dairy’s voice on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more, visit www.nmpf.org.