They called it “Butterine,” and it was the “innovation” of its times.

But it was an imposter. Dairy fought its labeling chicanery, with outcomes that have benefited consumers ever since.

That’s why everyone should remember – and be thankful for — the Butter Act.

Sunday, Aug. 2, is the anniversary of what was officially named the Oleomargarine Act, signed by President Grover Cleveland in 1886. The product of heated Congressional debate, what became remembered as the Butter Act of 1886 created what to this day remains the only standard of identity for a food product set by Congress rather than regulators.

It was also a precursor to the food-safety system that protects U.S. consumers to this day.

Context: In 1886, the United States was living in the Wild West, literally – the Gunfight at the OK Corral had happened only five years earlier. The food arena’s Wild West was marked by an utter absence of consumer protections from sometimes-deadly food swindles. Honest dairy farmers struggled to protect their reputations from unscrupulous makers of products like “swill milk” – concoctions heavily adulterated to boost profits – and pathogen-bearing raw milk that sickened families in the days before pasteurization.

Enter margarine. Invented in France in 1869, mass production in the U.S. was quickly dominated by Chicago meatpackers (soon to be immortalized in a famous novel about their manufacturing practices — “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair) who saw a profitable use for previously wasted  animal fat. Made cheaply and sold widely, margarine was promoted as a suitable butter substitute, even though its main similarity came from the yellow dye added to make consumers think it was a dairy equivalent.

With no restrictions on marketing claims and no legal definition of what butter was and wasn’t, animal-fat purveyors intentionally blurred the line between butter and “butterine,” sometimes attempting to pass off what dairy advocates called “bogus butter” as real. Dairy farmers worried that, over time, a lack of clear distinction would erode consumer and create a less transparent marketplace. States began passing patchworks of laws regulating, taxing and identifying oleomargarine – sometimes by requiring it to be dyed pink. But as the patchwork proliferated, a national solution was clearly needed.

Congress debated. The list of dairy’s opponents was long, including the meatpackers; industries that didn’t think the government should regulate private economic activity, interstate commerce, agriculture or public health; and newspaper naysayers who wondered why dairy didn’t simply accept “innovation” and found butter disputes faintly ridiculous. In the end, passage was overwhelming and bipartisan, with opposition mostly confined to lawmakers from southern states who argued that defining butter violated “states’ rights.”

Dairy won. And by establishing a role for the federal government in regulating food, consumers won as well — in ways that would turn out to be much more profound than the simple differences between two products.

Twenty years later, spurred on by “The Jungle” – which exposed deplorable conditions among the same meatpackers who opposed the Butter Act – Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, the foundation of today’s food-safety regulation. Standards of identity that define what foods are and aren’t became accepted necessities for a fair marketplace. Product formulations became more transparent. And marketing claims that try to peddle one product by inappropriately implying it has the qualities of another were stifled by a federal government now empowered to protect consumers.

At least, when that government chooses to act. While swill milk is gone and the Wild West has been at least somewhat tamed, today’s self-styled “innovators” still try to gain an unfair marketing edge by misleading labeling implying they’re something they’re not. Think plant-based “butters” that are really nothing more than margarines at best. Think artificially concocted liquid mixtures labeled as “milks” that are nutritionally more like a high-school chemistry project than a natural, wholesome food.

With fewer dairy farmers to speak up and a better-funded opposition, the fight for integrity is tougher now than in 1886. But history teaches us the battle’s worth fighting, and the marketplace works better when there is truthful and non-misleading labeling. Are consumers better off today knowing that butter is butter and margarine is margarine? Absolutely. Did margarine find an appropriate place in the market, even though it was no longer called “butterine?” Yes, it did, despite their protestations. And did the federal government, after decades of prodding, do the right thing in protecting product integrity and requiring clear labeling? Obviously, yes again. But none of it happened without sustained, sincere effort and appropriate and effective government action.

Progress often comes via fits, false starts and setbacks. But it happens. On August 2, look in your refrigerator and remember how butter helped change the world. Be thankful for the nineteenth-century crusaders who helped ensure it’s there for you. And remember how our responses to today’s challenges will shape tomorrow’s world. Let’s celebrate the Butter Act and insist the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enforce it against today’s equivalent of yesteryear’s butter imposters.

The House of Representatives-approved appropriations bill funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration for the next fiscal year includes key advances for dairy which the National Milk Producers Federation applauds. The bill, which passed with bipartisan support today, includes provisions that were top priorities for NMPF as it works to assist dairy producers nationwide.

“Today’s House appropriations bill represents key gains for dairy and all of agriculture,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF, the largest organization of U.S. dairy farmers. “We especially thank the lawmakers who took extra steps to assist producers, and we look forward to working with senators as legislation advances through Congress.”

Among dairy’s gains, the bill:

• Urges FDA in multiple ways to enforce dairy product standards of identity. Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT), with bipartisan support from 18 of his colleagues, added an amendment on the House floor directing FDA to allocate $5 million to enforce federal rules that reserve dairy-product terms for real dairy products. The committee report also directs FDA to finally start enforcing dairy product standards of identity pursuant to a review process it began two years ago following pressure from NMPF and Congress.
• Allocates $10 million for the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network, a USDA program aimed at connecting those working in agriculture to stress assistance and support programs.
• Provides $990 million, a 78 percent boost from the current fiscal year, for ReConnect, the USDA Rural Development program working to provide broadband service to eligible rural areas.
• Sets aside $6 million for the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives program, which provides direct technical assistance and grants to dairy businesses to further the development, production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products. While the House Appropriations Committee initially provided $1 million for the program, Congressmen Peter Welch and Bryan Steil (R-WI) secured an additional $5 million with an amendment passed by the entire House of Representatives.
• Allocates $1 million to the Healthy Fluid Milk Incentives Projects, a program created in the 2018 Farm Bill to create pilot programs to boost milk consumption among SNAP households.

The Senate has yet to begin work on its own appropriations measures.

Well–targeted incentives that encourage climate-friendly investments among dairy producers of all sizes would greatly aid the entire dairy industry in its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, potentially making earlier achievement possible, Indiana dairy farmer Mike McCloskey said in a hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit.

“We have committed in the dairy industry that we are going to go to net zero,” said McCloskey, chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation’s Environmental Issues Committee. “We can get there with your support.”

The dairy industry has adopted an ambitious goal of becoming a carbon-neutral sector of the economy by 2050 through its Net-Zero Initiative, a partnership among farmers and the entire production chain. But with policies that encourage dairy farmers to widely adopt emissions-reduction technologies such as anaerobic digesters, spur private investment and alleviate market uncertainty, the goal could likely be reached even sooner, McCloskey said.

McCloskey added that dairy’s progress toward net-zero goals could create “thousands and thousands of jobs” and revitalize rural economies as industries spring up around clean technologies.

As the largest organization representing U.S. dairy farmers, NMPF is committed to industrywide net-zero goals, which will be greatly aided by public-policy solutions.

Note: Video of McCloskey’s testimony and the entire hearing can be viewed here and written testimony can be accessed here.

Sharing how his own farm is evolving to carbon neutrality and how the dairy sector is aggressively moving to become carbon-neutral by 2050, Indiana dairy farmer Mike McCloskey highlighted ways federal incentives can further help dairy toward its net-zero emissions future.

“For some reason, repurposing cow manure does not have the same shine as an array of solar panels or the grandeur of a wind farm on the horizon,” said McCloskey, chairman of NMPF’s Environmental Issues Committee and a pioneer in carbon-friendly dairy-farming practices, in written testimony prepared for a hearing today of the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit.

But aligning the incentives needed for dairy to widely adopt anaerobic digesters and other emissions-mitigation technologies deserves greater attention, as it will only enhance the energy transition already encouraged by federal support for better-known clean-energy sources, he said.

“Anaerobic digestion provides clean energy and several other environmental benefits – such as avoided methane emissions, mitigated odor and air pollution, and minimized nutrient loading,” McCloskey said.

The dairy industry has adopted an ambitious goal of becoming a carbon-neutral sector of the economy by 2050 through its Net-Zero Initiative, a partnership among farmers and the entire production chain. As the national organization representing U.S. dairy farmers, NMPF is committed to these sustainability goals, which will be greatly aided by public-policy solutions.

“The Net Zero Initiative is about each dairy farm – regardless of size, region, or production style – contributing what it can, where it can,” McCloskey said. “No individual farm will be held to the Net Zero target, yet all will play a part. I, and my fellow dairy farmers, look forward to working with Congress.”

Note: Today’s hearing begins at 10 a.m. EDT and can be viewed here.

The Dairy Margin Coverage Program and other federal risk management programs have served farmers well during the coronavirus crisis and will continue to offer effective aid, as long as farmers participate, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said in an NMPF podcast.

“Dairy now has, I think, the best safety net of any part of agriculture, especially for small dairy farmers,” said Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, in the podcast released today. “They, no doubt, have the best safety net that there is right now, if they utilize it.”

Peterson also said that emergency aid provided by Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been necessary to keep farmers afloat – but financial risks to farms haven’t ended. He also reflected on how politics has evolved during his time in Washington and his own place in it as one of its most conservative Democrats.

To listen to the full discussion, click here. You can also find this and other NMPF podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,  SoundCloud and Google Play. Broadcast outlets may use the MP3 file below. Please attribute information to NMPF.

Dairy farmers nationwide are taking the initiative to protect their workforce, with producers adjusting their operations and refining protocols to mitigate risk while also preventing and controlling the spread of coronavirus. The farm workforce is not immune to this public health crisis, and managers must remain vigilant so as not to jeopardize the health of their workforce, their families and the community at large, as well as business continuity of the farm.

New and updated guidance for the prevention and management of coronavirus on dairy farms is listed below, along with a compilation of federal assistance offerings for which many producers are eligible. Visit www.nmpf.org/coronavirus for additional resources and the latest updates.

 

WORKFORCE CORONAVIRUS PREVENTION & MANAGEMENT

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have issued new and updated guidance to minimize the risk of coronavirus to dairy farmers, family, employees and essential professional and service providers.

• Interim Guidance for Agriculture Workers and Employers, CDC and U.S. Department of Labor
• Agricultural Employer Checklist for Creating a COVID-19 Assessment and Control Plan, CDC
• Dairy Farmer Handbook on Coronavirus Prevention and Management, NMPF
• Recommended Protocols for Dairy Farms When an Employee Tests Positive for COVID-19, NMPF
• Staying Proactive on the Farm: COVID-19, Adapted from Dairy Farmers of America materials
• Poster: What You Need to Know Now About Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Your Dairy, Alltech

 

Resources in Spanish

• Interim Guidance for Agriculture Workers and Employers, CDC and U.S. Department of Labor
• Dairy Farmer Handbook on Coronavirus Prevention and Management, NMPF
• Staying Proactive on the Farm: COVID-19, Adapted from Dairy Farmers of America materials
• Poster: What You Need to Know Now About Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Your Dairy, Alltech
• Video: What is a Virus and How Can We Protect Our Loved Ones? Alltech

 

AVAILABLE FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

The federal government has responded to NMPF’s assessment of dairy’s needs amid the coronavirus crisis, offering payments to producers and purchases of dairy products, along with replenished loan programs to assist small businesses. Eligible farmers are encouraged to apply for assistance to mitigate losses they have incurred over the past several months.

Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is accepting CFAP applications through August 28, 2020. Submit an application online or call and set up an appointment with the local USDA Farm Service Agency to apply. To date, 20,000 dairy farmers have received more than $1.2 billion in payments through this program.

• USDA Coronavirus Food Assistance Program Webpage
• USDA’s Coronavirus Food Assistance Program: Frequently Asked Questions by Dairy Farmers
• What Dairy Farmers Need to Know About the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program

 

COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program

The Small Business Administration is accepting EIDL and EIDL Advance applications. Funds are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.

• COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan Webpage
• COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan Application
• What Dairy Farmers Need to Know About COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans

 

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)

The Small Business Administration’s PPP provides forgivable loans for businesses that meet certain criteria.

• Paycheck Protection Program Webpage
• Paycheck Protection Program Details and Guidance
• What Dairy Farmers Need to Know About the Paycheck Protection Program
• Paycheck Protection Program Eligible Lenders

The National Milk Producers Federation said it was pleased that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s final report reaffirms dairy’s crucial role in a nutritious diet but expressed concern that the committee failed to recognize newer, broader science that shows the benefits of dairy foods at all fat levels.

“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee today restated what consumers already know – that regular dairy consumption offers essential nutrition that nourishes people throughout their lives,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF, the largest organization of U.S. dairy farmers and the cooperatives they own. “Across different types of diets and throughout all stages of life, dairy products provide the nutrients people need to be healthy.”

But Mulhern said it was disappointing that the committee largely reflected long-held assumptions on saturated fat, despite numerous studies that have called traditional anti-fat guidance into question.

“We repeatedly called on the committee to take a fresh look at multiple studies that show beneficial or neutral effects of dairy on chronic disease risk at all fat levels,” Mulhern said. “Unfortunately, the DGAC report does not reflect this newer science.”

The DGAC’s final scientific advisory report, submitted to the secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services and released today, notes that Americans overall need more dairy in their diets, with 88 percent of them falling short of recommendations. That figure includes 79 percent of 9-13-year-olds, who rely heavily on the school-lunch program to meet nutritional needs. The report also highlights dairy’s unique place as a provider of key nutrients that otherwise would be under-consumed in American diets.

• Dairy is recommended for consumption within all three healthy eating patterns featured in the report, with three servings per day recommended in the Healthy U.S. style eating pattern and Healthy Vegetarian Style patterns and two servings per day in the Healthy-Mediterranean pattern;
• The committee recognized milk as a nutrient-rich beverage that contributes positively to under-consumed nutrients, including potassium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamins A and D, and others;
• Low-fat and nonfat dairy foods are recommended as nutrient-dense building blocks of a healthy diet; and
• In the committee’s first-ever recommendations for birth through 24 months, yogurt and cheese are recognized as complementary feeding options for infants ages 6-12 months, and dairy foods (milk, cheese and yogurt) are included in healthy eating patterns for toddlers 12-24 months.

In a world of “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” plant-based marketing combines all three.

A pro tip: When reading about the alleged competition between dairy products and plant-based beverages, carefully note whether the statistics being used are based on value – the amount of money people spend on something — or volume, the amount of a product people actually drink. Both have their use — but they are often used by vegan advocates to paint an inaccurate picture of what consumers prefer.

Plant-based activists  like to measure by value, with its built-in bias toward more expensive products. But slick marketing campaigns cost a lot of money. Thus, plant-based beverages cost more than dairy: $6.95 per gallon on average this year, versus $4.12 per gallon for milk. So far this year (through June 14), milk sales are $6.96 billion, while consumers spent $1.16 billion on overpriced plant-based beverages – that’s 86 percent of the pie compared to 14 percent. Put this way, milk outsells plant-based by a 6 to 1 margin when calculated by value.

But that’s not a measure of what people are drinking. Milk isn’t consumed by dollars, it’s consumed by people. To understand consumer preferences, volume is the clear determinator. Through mid-June, consumers have bought 1.7 billion gallons of milk, a figure that’s outpacing last year because of rising retail demand. Plant based alternatives? 0.17 billion gallons year-to-date. Measuring by volume, the percentages are 91 percent and 9 percent — more than 10 to 1 in favor of milk.

Inappropriate use of value-versus-volume measurements is one trick plant-based marketers use to make their products appear more popular than they are. It would seem harmless, except that  it is designed to confuse perceptions of what’s actually happening in the marketplace. Of course, when the entire plant-based sector is based on confusing consumers, using dairy terms used for non-dairy products, then exploiting dairy’s “health halo” by using those terms, we in dairy are not surprised.

But we still need to confront it, because a fair marketplace is a transparent marketplace.  And p.r. hype using disingenuous numbers isn’t transparent – until you explain it for what it is, and show how the statistics are used to support all the damned lies.