The National Dairy FARM Program hosted the third annual FARM Evaluator Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, last month, where more than 80 evaluators learned about the latest developments in the nation’s leading dairy animal care program. A total of 81 evaluators from 30 participating FARM Animal Care organizations, industry trade associations and private companies attended the conference.

Session topics included an environmental stewardship and dairy customers panel with Brent Basel of Dean Foods and Joe McMahan with the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy; a stockmanship and worker safety presentation by Dr. Robert Hagevoort of New Mexico State University; and “Handling an Animal Care Crisis,” presented by Jim Sleper with Southeast Milk, Inc. and Todd Davis with Weber Shandwick. In addition to program sessions, the conference hosted a brainstorming discussion for evaluators to provide input and programmatic feedback for FARM Animal Care Version 4.0, which is in the early stages of development.

A conference highlight was a behind-the-scenes tour of the Kansas City Zoo. Attendees discussed animal care protocols and employee training with zoo veterinarians and curators, and reviewed how zoo employees discuss sensitive animal care topics with the public.

NMPF staff recently met with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discuss the agency’s renewed effort to finish the farm-related air quality research that began more than a decade ago under the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). The EPA said it will issue draft Emissions Estimating Methodologies (EEMs) for ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter in July 2020, and an EEM for volatile organic compounds in November 2020.

The NAEMS study was launched in 2006 to obtain modern, accurate data about the volume of manure-related emissions coming from animal agriculture operations across the nation. NMPF was one of the livestock organizations that provided input to EPA on how to develop a scientific survey that would generate useful data both for the government and dairy industry. Dairy industry funding for the research was provided in part through Dairy Management Inc. and the national dairy checkoff program.

When the NAEMS study was initiated, dairy farms were facing potential reporting obligations under three separate federal statutes: the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA).  Despite an appellate court decision that eliminated a 2008 agriculture limitation on reporting, NMPF and several agriculture groups were successful in removing the reporting requirement under CERCLA and EPCRA, subject to additional legal challenges. The reporting obligations under the CAA are still unknown and won’t be understood until the NAEMS study is further along.

NMPF will monitor the progress and continue to share input with the EPA as it proceeds with the analysis of the data it has collected and the subsequent development of models for helping farmers assess their own air emissions.

Late in July, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler approved a final rule to ensure that the legislative clarifications made by Congress earlier this year in manure-related air emissions regulations exempt dairy farmers and other livestock producers.

EPA’s move codifies the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act passed by Congress earlier this year, after NMPF and other farm groups asked lawmakers to specify that ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from animal feeding operations should not be regulated under the CERCLA.

The rule corresponds with the CERCLA/EPCRA reporting exemption handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On December 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule that had exempted many farms from reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste. On April 11, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated this final rule – exposing farms to potential new data reporting obligations.

Farms, however, remained exempt because of NMPF-backed legislative changes featured in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act, which was passed into law by Congress last March. The final rule makes regulatory revisions to reflect changes to CERCLA enacted in the FARM Act. EPA also removed the 2008 definitions of “farm” and “animal waste” from its regulations and added revised definitions of these terms to CERCLA regulations that correspond with the FARM Act.

“EPA is taking action to reflect Congress’s direction in the FARM Act that removed an undue reporting burden on American agriculture,” said Wheeler. “EPA is committed to providing regulatory clarity and certainty to farmers and ranchers — hardworking Americans invested in conserving the land and environment.”

NMPF told the U.S. Department of Agriculture last month that the agency’s still-pending regulatory standard for the labeling of bioengineered food ingredients must ensure that consumers receive clear, accurate information about the foods they eat, and not stigmatize bioengineering when scientific evidence demonstrates the safety of the process.

As a member of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF), NMPF joined comments the coalition submitted in early July providing detailed input on USDA’s proposed rule to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The coalition comprises a variety of farm and food organizations that worked together to help pass the labeling law.

NMPF said it supports a science-based approach in determining how foods made using bioengineering should be regulated. Bioengineered foods have repeatedly been found to be completely safe by numerous prestigious domestic and international science and research organizations. Because of their clear and unequivocal safety record, NMPF has said that a bioengineered labeling standard should focus on providing consumers accurate information while discouraging misleading marketing tactics or meaningless absence claims.

In addition to supporting the coalition’s comments, NMPF filed its own set of comments on July 3 to highlight several elements of the rule, including how it should address the labeling of milk and meat from animals that consume bioengineered feed. Congress recognized when it passed the underlying biotech food labeling law that feeding grains developed through biotechnology has no effect on the animals or products derived from them and the labeling standard must reflect this.

Also at issue is USDA’s oversight in failing to exempt bioengineered enzymes in the proposed rule, such as those used in cheesemaking, from triggering a disclosure requirement. More than 60 countries with a bioengineered food disclosure requirement exempt such enzymes. NMPF said USDA should ensure the United States is consistent with other countries.

The comments also touched on NMPF’s concerns with voluntary label disclosures and their potential to be false and misleading. A qualifying statement, NMPF said, would properly educate the consumer and thus alleviate this concern. Finally, 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 bioengineered substance needed for a product to be considered a bioengineered food, NMPF endorsed the coalition’s suggestion that USDA use a 5 percent threshold for inadvertently bioengineered ingredients and 0.9 percent threshold for intentionally bioengineered ingredients.

Cooperatives Working Together last month helped member co-ops secure 43 contracts to sell 5.35 million pounds of American-type cheeses, 855,394 pounds of butter and 18.73 million pounds of whole milk powder to customers in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Oceania. The product will be shipped to customers in 12 countries in four regions of the world from July through December 2018.

These contracts bring the 2018 total of CWT-assisted product sales to 45.45 million pounds of cheese, 12.09 million pounds of butter and 27.11 million pounds of whole milk powder. These transactions will move overseas the equivalent of 889.25 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis. The amounts of dairy products and related milk volumes reflect current contracts for delivery, not completed export volumes. CWT will pay export assistance to the bidders only when export and delivery of the product is verified by the submission of the required documentation.

Helping CWT member cooperatives gain and maintain world market share through the Export Assistance program in the long-term expands the demand for U.S. dairy products and the U.S. farm milk that produces them. This, in turn, positively impacts all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening and maintaining the value of dairy products that directly impact their milk price.

All cooperatives and dairy farmers are encouraged to add their support to this important program. Membership forms are available on the CWT website.

The monthly margin under the Margin Protection Program (MPP) for June 2018 was $7.37/cwt., $0.58/cwt. higher than the May margin. The June all-milk price was $16.30/cwt., $0.10 higher than a month before, and the June MPP feed cost formula was $0.48/cwt. lower than in May. More than half the drop in the monthly feed cost was due to lower soybean meal prices.

Dairy farmers who signed up for $8.00 margin coverage at the lower, Tier 1 premium cost would receive a net return of $0.46/cwt. – after payment of premiums and sequestration reduction of payments – on their covered milk production for all of 2018, based on USDA’s MPP Decision Tool forecast calculated using the August 6 CME dairy and grain futures settlement prices, shown in the graphic.

USDA’s MPP margin forecasts can be accessed online. NMPF’s Future for Dairy website offers a variety of educational resources to help farmers make better use of the program.

With support from NMPF, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) led an effort last month in the House of Representatives to use the annual federal appropriations process to create more options for dairy farmers to obtain year-round labor.

Newhouse’s amendment, approved as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, would allow farm employers to use the H-2A visa program to hire foreign workers, regardless of whether those employees are engaged in temporary or seasonal work. NMPF and members of its Immigration Task Force worked with Rep. Newhouse (picutred right) and other congressional leaders, including Reps. David Valadao (R-CA) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), to advance the proposal so that dairy farmers can more readily use the H-2A visa program, even while NMPF continues to work in Congress on a long-term, more comprehensive solution to the immigration challenges facing agriculture.

“On behalf of America’s dairy producers, we greatly appreciate Rep. Newhouse’s work to expand the H-2A farm worker visa program to include year-round employees on farms,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “We believe that creating an additional legal pathway for workers to connect with farm employers deserves bipartisan support.”

The full Homeland Security Appropriations bill will likely be considered later this year as Congress works to fund the government for the 2019 fiscal year, and NMPF will be encouraging the adoption of the H-2A provision in the final, overall funding measure.

At the same time, NMPF continues to seek enactment of broader legislation that would create an agricultural guest worker program and provide permanent legal status for current workers.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the AG and Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 6417), cosponsored by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX), Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Newhouse, and other members. The bill would create a new H-2C guest worker program for agricultural workers – including dairy – and allows current workers to participate in the program as well.  NMPF will work with members to pass this bill in the House as an initial step, with the goal of improving the measure further as it moves through Congress. The House may vote on this bill following the summer recess, but no plans have been finalized.

After a years-long effort by NMPF to halt the misleading labeling practices of imitation dairy foods, the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month acknowledged that “almonds don’t lactate” and said his agency intends to enforce dairy standards following a period of public comment.

Prior to the start of a July 26 FDA hearing on government nutrition and labeling standards, Commissioner Scott Gottlieb released a lengthy statement explaining that the agency plans to address the deceptive marketing tactics utilized by makers of plant- and seed-based imitation products. Gottlieb recognized that the issue needs greater clarity, acknowledging that plant-based copycats are not the foods that have been standardized under the name “milk” and often vary widely in their nutrition.

“Because these dairy alternative products are often popularly referred to as ‘milk,’ we intend to look at whether parents may erroneously assume that plant-based beverages’ nutritional contents are similar to those of cow’s milk, despite the fact that some of these products contain only a fraction of the protein or other nutrients found in cow’s milk,” Gottlieb said.

“Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement that the agency is intending to act on this issue is very encouraging,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “This issue is not just an arcane dispute but has significant public health implications because dairy imitators lack any consistent nutritional profile.”

During the FDA’s hearing last month, NMPF reiterated its insistence that any modernization of food standards should start with enforcing ones that already exist for products like milk, cheese and yogurt. Consumers use these standards to make informed purchasing decisions and “expect a certain level of product performance in return,” said Tom Balmer, NMPF’s executive vice president.

“[Alternative] products not only lack ingredients specified by the standards, they frequently fall short in expected characteristics like mouthfeel, taste and texture, and are nearly always less nutritious,” he testified.

NMPF also worked last week with a bipartisan coalition of senators to fend off an amendment that would have impeded the ability of FDA to enforce standards of identity.  Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jim Risch (R-ID) garnered an overwhelming amount of support to defeat, by a vote of 14-84, a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2019 FDA appropriations bill that would have instructed the agency to severely limit any action against misleading dairy labeling practices.

“We fought this amendment because it would have undermined the decades-long policy, established by Congress, that FDA should regulate food names to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers,” said Mulhern.  “This vote should send a very strong message to food marketers who have long been ignoring FDA’s food labeling standards that those days are numbered. FDA now knows it has strong, bipartisan support in Congress in its efforts to assure a fair marketplace.”

From Jim Mulhern, President and CEO, National Milk Producers Federation:

Aug. 1, 2018 – “We are very pleased with the Senate’s overwhelming rejection of Sen. Lee’s blatant attempt to interfere with the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to enforce standards of identity for dairy products and other foods.  We fought this amendment because it would have undermined the decades-long policy, established by Congress, that the FDA should regulate food names in order to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.

Standards of identity for milk and other products guarantee that consumers’ expectations are met both in terms of minimum levels of key ingredients and consistency of key sensory and quality attributes. As FDA Commissioner Gottlieb stated last week, consumers are being misled by the nutritional content of plant-based beverages that use the term “milk” on their labels.

Today’s vote should send a very strong message to food marketers who have long been ignoring FDA’s food labeling standards by inappropriately using dairy terms on products that do not contain any dairy. Those days are numbered.  FDA now knows it has strong, bipartisan support in Congress in its efforts to assure a fair marketplace. We thank Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jim Risch (R-ID) for their bipartisan work to defeat this amendment.

We also commend Sen. Baldwin for her successful work on a separate amendment that will create additional dairy innovation grants to help companies expand initiatives that will add more value to the milk farmers produce.”

“An almond doesn’t lactate, I will confess.”

Sometimes, the simplest, most obvious declarations here in Washington are also the most impactful.  With this statement, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced at a policy conference on July 17 that his agency is finally moving toward enforcing its standard of identity for “milk.” This has set off panic among the deep-pocketed marketers of the many plant-based products exploiting that term – including nut beverages – that aren’t (spoiler alert) actually made of milk.

Dr. Gottlieb’s acknowledgment that FDA has for years largely ignored enforcement of its own standards was a welcome development to us, and to all companies dedicated to manufacturing and marketing real dairy products. Even more important than Dr. Gottlieb’s recognition that fake food marketers are abusing his agency’s regulations, is the commissioner’s indication the FDA is finally going to take a prescribed course of action to regulate the use of dairy terms on decidedly non-dairy products.

This comes after an intensive effort by NMPF over the past two years to force this issue to the fore within FDA. In the absence of a strong hand – or really, much of any regulation at all – we’ve witnessed a proliferation of plant powders and nut slurries mimicking real milk in a transparent attempt to bask in milk’s healthy halo.

Decades ago, when the primary offender was products marketed as soy “milk,” NMPF warned FDA that if it didn’t circumscribe the use of that term as defined by its existing standards, we’d see a mushrooming of other products also co-opting the word – along with other popular and legally defined dairy terms such as yogurt, cheese, ice cream and butter.  And sure enough, as regulators looked the other way, the field has expanded past soy (which is actually decreasing in sales) to things like almonds, quinoa, hemp, potatoes and bananas.

Indeed, this is much more than just a concern regarding fluid milk, as the fake food crowd is increasingly trying to peddle products mimicking cheese and yogurt made from the same substrates as the fluid milk imitators, but again containing no real dairy ingredients.

If you thought butter was off limits because there is a clear standard of identity for butter (one actually codified in federal law, not just regulation) and another standard of identity for plant-based substitutes – known as margarine – think again. With sales of real butter increasing and margarine sales tanking, it doesn’t take a marketing genius to figure out where this is headed. Yep, butter substitutes that meet the existing standard of identity of margarine (or even the lesser standard of a product called “vegetable oil spread”) are starting to be re-branded as “vegan butter.”  This development alone demonstrates the crass commercialism at play here by the fake food marketers. Their fight to keep stealing dairy’s good name is about nothing more than building market share, in any way possible.

As encouraged as we are about Dr. Gottlieb’s proclamations that “we do have a standard of identity [for milk]” and “I do intend to enforce that,” we also have to be prepared that the regulatory course will take time and require a committed dairy community of farmers, processors and others to achieve a satisfactory outcome.  We know that an army of vegans and animal rights activists, working in concert with the marketers of these imitation products, oppose any effort by FDA to enforce the clear and unequivocal dairy standards. The agency will likely solicit public comments to build a legal case for why the existing dairy label standards should finally be consistently applied.  It’s sad that regulators should need additional data to support an action that seems obvious and necessary, but that is the reality of the process.

Toward that end, NMPF will work with our members and other like-minded defenders of dairy’s good name to urge FDA to change course. We all need to impress upon the agency how important it is that the current dairy standards of identity are enforced and followed in the future. On July 26, we testified as part of FDA’s effort to modernize food standards, but more voices are needed.

What does the end game look like? It certainly won’t result in a major hardship for the marketers of the plant-based copycats, as the required labeling changes will be similar to what’s required elsewhere in the world.  Many of the most popular brands of plant-based beverages are also sold in Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union, in packages that are very similar to those sold here.  The only difference is that these brands actually follow the rules against using “milk” as a product term.  The United States – although it has the same standards – hasn’t enforced them, which created this Wild West environment of products displaying food names they don’t actually contain.

As we’ve repeatedly told FDA, the reason that this issue matters is that nutrition matters.  The term “milk,” regardless of the product using it, conveys that the substance inside the carton is healthy and nutritious.

Real milk always has the same nutritional content, with the only variation being the fat content a consumer decides to choose. Milk is the No. 1 source of nine essential vitamins and minerals in children’s diets, but the imitators lack any consistent profile. Their nutritional content is all over the map, and none deliver the same beneficial nutrients as real milk in each and every glass.  That’s why resolving this dispute is a consumer health imperative requiring FDA’s engagement, and not just a squabble between the dairy community and the upstarts wanting to ride on our coattails. FDA has even acknowledged this, announcing on July 26 that it intends to review its standards of identity in relation to potential public health consequences.

While these fake foods have every right to be in the marketplace, they don’t have the right to call themselves something they are not – especially not a food with an existing standard of identity. At the very least, removing the dairy-specific terms from their labels will hopefully help consumers realize that not all “milks” are created equal.

ARLINGTON, VA – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must enforce standards of identity for dairy products because these federal definitions are critical to safeguarding consumers from making purchases of products whose labels are false and misleading, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) said today.

ARLINGTON, VA – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must enforce standards of identity for dairy products because these federal definitions are critical to safeguarding consumers from making purchases of products whose labels are false and misleading, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) said today.

At an FDA hearing Thursday focused on modernizing food standards of identity, NMPF argued that the agency should first start enforcing the existing standards for dairy foods like milk, cheese and yogurt. Consumers use these standards to make informed purchasing decisions and expect a certain level of product performance in return, said Tom Balmer, NMPF’s executive vice president.

“It seems inconsistent to talk about modernizing standards to improve nutrition and assure accurate information to consumers when FDA has been allowing nutritionally inferior products to use standardized terms like ‘milk’ for so long,” Balmer testified. “Instead of continuing to look the other way, let’s start by enforcing current standards of identity and then talk about potential improvements.”

Food standards help guarantee that consumer expectations are met both in terms of levels of key ingredients and consistency sensory attributes like taste and mouthfeel, said Balmer. While standards weren’t initially developed for nutritional reasons, there is a direct link between the ingredients found in a standardized food and the nutrient package that results from their consumption.

Such is the case with dairy imitation foods like “almond milk,” “soy cheese” and “rice yogurt.” For too long, these products have used dairy terms to associate themselves with the positive traits of milk-based foods, including the significant levels of nine essentials nutrients found in real milk. Because of this marketing tactic, consumers don’t realize they’re being tricked into thinking these products are suitable replacements for the real thing.

“This is a marketing gimmick, and a clever one,” Balmer said. “Such products not only lack ingredients specified by the standards, they frequently fall short in expected characteristics like mouthfeel, taste and texture, and are nearly always less nutritious.”

FDA acknowledged the public health consequences when it released a statement before the hearing announcing it would prioritize taking a closer look at the standards of identity for dairy products (NMPF published its response to this earlier today).

Over the last 20 years, NMPF and its members have made repeated requests for FDA to take enforcement action on misbranded imitation dairy products, with FDA continually claiming the issue is not an agency priority. The public, however, feels differently. A recent independent poll found that American consumers, by a 2-to-1 margin, oppose the use of “milk” as a designation for non-dairy beverages.

Balmer insisted that FDA start enforcing the labeling laws already on the books and rein in the “marketplace chaos,” adding that that the process “doesn’t need to take a year or more.” NMPF also plans to file written comments as part of the FDA’s review of this issue.

###

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.