The House Education Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal school lunch program, approved legislation last month that would take steps to reverse the decline in school milk consumption.

The Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, which sets the standards for key government feeding programs, such as the school lunch and WIC programs, was approved by the Education Committee on May 19. The bill included an amendment, which was strongly supported by NMPF, that requires adjustments in feeding programs to promote better consumption of milk by the nation’s students, and permits schools to offer all varieties of milk consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The amendment, offered by Congressmen G.T. Thompson (R-PA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT), also provides for innovative approaches to meet the needs of lactose-intolerant children. Their legislation was included in the larger child nutrition package, which now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

The most recent version of the Dietary Guidelines for America, released in early January, reinforced the need for three servings of dairy foods per day – a level of consumption that most Americans don’t achieve. The guidelines provide the basis for USDA programs governed by the child nutrition act.

“By better aligning the school lunch program with the federal dietary guidelines, options including 1% flavored milk will be back on the lunch tray in school cafeterias as a result of this legislation,” said Jim Mulhern, NMPF president and CEO. 

Earlier this year, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a similar child nutrition reauthorization measure that also contains NMPF-supported provisions calling on USDA to review milk’s role in nutrition, and to take steps to rectify the decline of milk consumption in schools.  NMPF will continue to urge the House and Senate to finalize the child nutrition legislation before the end of 2016.

The Food and Drug Administration last month released its updated nutrition facts label design, which will call out the total sugar content of foods. Reflecting concerns raised by NMPF, the new label requirements will not include some forms of lactose as an added sugar—a significant victory for the dairy industry.

Last fall, NMPF advised  FDA on its proposal for including added sugars on the nutrition facts label.  National Milk cautioned that the agency’s proposed definition of added sugar would lead to confusion between the natural lactose of dairy ingredients, and other sugars such as sucrose.

In the final rule released May 20^th, the FDA adjusted its definition of added sugars so that while lactose alone is considered an added sugar, the lactose in dairy ingredients will not be. This means the naturally-occurring lactose present in dry dairy ingredients such as milk powder and whey won’t have to be labeled as an added sugar. 

The sugar added to sweeten flavored milk, whether sourced from sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, will be considered an added sugar, as will any sugar added to yogurt, ice cream, or imitation dairy beverages. Further analysis will be required to determine whether, how, and in what amount added sugars must be declared.

The new FDA label places more emphasis on overall calories, and also updates the daily values assessment to help consumers understand the relative nutrient content of certain foods.  It also adds vitamin D and potassium as nutrients that must be declared, joining calcium and iron on the label. Vitamins A and C will no longer be required but can be included on the label on a voluntary basis.

Manufacturers will need to use the new label by July 26, 2018. However, manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales will have an additional year to comply with the regulation.

More than 100 dairy farmer leaders from across the country will descend on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to urge Congress to take immediate action to establish a federal standard on the disclosure of biotechnology ingredients in food.

NMPF’s Board of Directors, and its Young Cooperators advisory council will meet with Senators and House members to push for Congressional action in advance of July 1, the date Vermont’s first in the nation GMO labeling law is slated to take effect. NMPF is ratcheting up efforts to create a national regulatory system for biotech foods that would preempt unworkable state mandates such as the one in Vermont.  As part of that effort, the Board will also be voting next Wednesday on a resolution that urges Congress to resolve this issue in a way that will avoid confusion in the food marketplace.

NMPF’s concern is that if the Vermont law goes into effect, and other states adopt similar approaches, the continued challenge to safe and sustainable agricultural biotechnology will cause disruption across the food chain, and stigmatize current and future products that have demonstrable benefits to society.

NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney told a hearing last month of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock that the failure by Congress to address this issue “threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population.” 

“Biotech plants not only are safe for consumers, they also enhance the environment, by reducing energy, water and pesticide use,” said Mooney. “Farmers have overwhelmingly adopted GMO crop technology because it increases productivity while improving agricultural sustainability.”

The NMPF resolution to be voted on Wednesday also addresses a corresponding concern that future state mandates could mandate the labeling of meat and dairy products solely because the dairy cattle supplying the milk have consumed feed that is genetically modified. 

Mooney said that “biotech crops have no effect on the milk or meat from animals that consume them, and that’s why any biotech food disclosure efforts need to ensure the common-sense treatment of animal feed.”

Times are tough for dairy farmers as we head into the summer of 2016. That’s the message NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney delivered on May 24 before the House Agriculture Committee’s livestock subcommittee at a hearing on the “State of the Barnyard.” The hearing addressed the concerns of the nation’s dairy, beef, pork and poultry producers about a range of challenges, starting with the rural economy.

In his remarks, Randy spoke passionately about the most pressing issues for dairy farmers, including the current economic environment, trade and market access, labor availability and the need for immigration reform, and the pressing need for federal, rather than state, legislation for foods containing biotech ingredients.

Randy expressed appreciation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its work to improve the Margin Protection Program, but he noted that the program is not currently working as intended. I share the view of our Chairman that MPP is the right program for dairy’s future, but that further adjustments are needed to ensure that it provides an effective safety net for dairy producers.

Two key issues he discussed about the MPP were the program’s feed cost component and the price tag of supplemental coverage. Randy pointed to cuts that were made by Congress in the feed cost index that have distorted the margin calculation. He also noted that the cost of premiums to buy up coverage, especially at higher margin levels, discourages participation. We will continue working with the Congress and USDA on these and other issues in the coming months. Our focus is on what improvements should be made to this evolving program to help it better meet its intended objectives.

Another NMPF priority Randy discussed in his testimony was the need for fair and balanced international market access agreements to be negotiated and enforced. Randy described the growing importance of exports to the U.S. dairy industry but also noted that trade deficits with the European Union and other markets continue to increase. Agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which can have a positive effect on the U.S. dairy industry, will only work if the specifics terms of the deals are strictly enforced.

Already we’re seeing countries like Canada try to wiggle out of their commitments by imposing new regulations which undermine the very market access that was previously agreed to. Such tactics cannot be allowed to continue, a point which Randy articulated to the House members in his testimony.

Randy also addressed the current number-one policy priority in Congress for NMPF: federal legislation preempting state laws calling for labeling foods containing biotech ingredients. With the clock ticking as Congress tries to reach consensus on a bill before the Vermont GMO mandate legislation goes into effect on July 1, our Chairman stressed the importance of the Senate acting immediately on this critical issue. No one could have said it better than he did: “Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population.”

There’s no shortage of issues right now in the dairy community—which frankly made whittling down Randy’s testimony to the requisite 5 minutes a real challenge. Even with the time constraints, he provided a clear picture of the state of the dairy economy, and gave Congress a strong signal on our dairy legislative priorities for the next several months.

The text below is Randy’s brief testimony to the livestock subcommittee (his full presentation, submitted for the record, is available here).

Randy Mooney:

To be clear, times are tough on America’s dairy farms, for the second year in a row. USDA projections indicate that revenue from milk sales will drop this year to $31.5 billion dollars, the second lowest level in the last decade and a more than $20 billion plunge from 2014’s highs. As U.S. milk production has grown and we have had to rely more heavily on world markets, our fortunes are now more closely tied to the extreme volatility that are a feature of global commodity markets. 

Because of this volatility in both milk and feed prices, we must continue to reassess our risk management tools. For most of the eight years I’ve been chairman of National Milk, I’ve worked with our member cooperatives and dairy producers to build a better safety net. Our request to Congress after the economic disaster our industry suffered in 2009 was to create a risk management tool that would provide protection against the prolonged and catastrophic cost-price squeeze we had experienced.

In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress created the Margin Protection Program. Approximately 23,000 dairy producers are in the program, representing 80 percent of our milk supply. In 2015, U.S. dairy producers paid $73 million dollars in premiums and fees to USDA, while USDA only paid out $700,000 under the program. This year, dairy farmers have paid in another $23 million dollars.

I firmly believe MPP is the right dairy program for the future. That said, our experience to date is that MPP is not completely fulfilling its intended objective as an effective safety net. We remain confident that improvements can be made by the Congress to this still-evolving program.   For many farmers, the current program is simply not enough to protect them in this economic environment. Since the Farm Bill was signed into law, MPP margins have fallen 52 percent, with further declines expected.

While MPP is similar to the initial proposal put forward by National Milk, the plan was altered during the farm bill process. One change reduced the feed cost component of the margin, so the current formula no longer reflects the true cost of feeding a herd. Second, while the feed cost component was changed, farmer premiums were not, when they should have been reduced to accommodate the reduced feed component. MPP has been less effective as a result.

I have heard from many dairy farmers that their financial challenges will only increase if prices do not improve before 2017. We continue to discuss ways to improve MPP with our member cooperatives, USDA and the Congress. Clearly, adjustments to the feed cost calculations and the farmer-paid premiums would improve MPP’s effectiveness as a safety net for all dairy producers. The feasibility and timing of such adjustments are issues we want to explore with the Committee.

Our industry is also impacted by numerous other policy issues that are described more fully in my submitted comments.  I want to highlight two of them today. 

First is the critical importance of Congress acting immediately to pass legislation to ensure that a single, federal standard is established on the labeling of genetically modified foods. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that the Congress resolve this matter before July 1^st, when the Vermont law takes effect. Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population. 

Trade is another area of importance to dairy farmers. Our nation has gone from exporting less than $1 billion in dairy products in 2000, to more than $5.2 billion of exports in 2015, an increase of 435 percent.  This enormous growth can be largely attributed to the market-opening free trade agreements negotiated by our government.

We support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because it can help U.S. dairy exports continue to grow in key world markets. But in order for farmers to realize any benefit, important implementation and enforcement issues must be addressed as Congress prepares to consider TPP.

Separately, any trade agreement with the European Union must first prioritize how to tackle our trade deficit with Europe, while also addressing the nontariff barriers – like Geographical indicators and sanitary barriers — that the EU uses to limit our access. The EU has not demonstrated a good-faith commitment to open agricultural trade. The U.S. must proceed cautiously by securing clear commitments from the EU to guard against the imposition of future trade barriers.

America’s dairy farm families stand ready to help this committee as you review current policies and consider new legislation that impacts our industry.

ARLINGTON, VA – The challenging economic conditions affecting America’s dairy farmers call for improvements by Congress to the federal safety net program created in the 2014 Farm Bill, according to Randy Mooney, chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation, in testimony Tuesday before the House Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture.

The hearing focused on the state of the livestock sectors in America, including dairy farming – which is facing the worst global turndown in milk prices since 2009. Mooney, a dairy farmer from Rogersville, Missouri, who also serves as chairman of Dairy Farmers of America, urged the committee to work with NMPF to reassess how the dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP) can be improved in the future.

“I’m confident that the MPP is the right dairy program for the future,” Mooney said of the program, which was developed following the recession-induced dairy price crash seven years ago. The program offers dairy farmers the ability to purchase insurance-type coverage against poor margins caused either by low milk prices or high feed costs.  “But the program is not completely fulfilling its intended objective as an effective safety net. For many farmers, the MPP is simply not enough to protect them in this economic environment.”

Mooney explained that when the Farm Bill was written, the MPP formula for calculating feed costs was altered, which understated the true cost of feeding a dairy herd.  At the same time, while the feed cost element was diminished, the farmer cost of insurance premiums was not reduced.  The MPP “has been less effective as a result,” Mooney said.

“In 2015, many farmers saw that the MPP didn’t pay out much, even at the highest levels of coverage. So in 2016 they opted for the least expensive – and minimal – level of coverage available. Had Congress not reduced the feed ration, more farmers would have seen benefits in 2015 and participated at higher levels this year,” he said.

Mooney said that the MPP remains a work in progress, and that farmers want to work with Congress and the USDA to “improve the effectiveness of MPP for all dairy producers.”  He said recent administrative changes made by USDA to the program will enhance the MPP’s flexibility and make it more useful for farmers.

Mooney also addressed two other pressing issues of importance to dairy farmers:  the threat posed by a lack of a federal standard on the labeling of foods made with biotechnology, and the promise of new export markets as a result of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Mooney said that both chambers of Congress must establish a national law on how to define and label foods with genetically-modified ingredients prior to July 1, 2016, when Vermont’s law will take effect requiring labels on such products. In the absence of clear federal standards for food labeling, more states will pass differing versions of legislation addressing food biotechnology, leading to a confusing series of claims and mandates across the entire food marketing chain, Mooney said.

“Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability of not only my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population,” he said. Mooney said that if biotech crops are stigmatized and their usage declines, it will be harder to improve on agricultural sustainability through reductions in the use of water, pesticides and fuel.

Mooney also addressed the importance of free trade agreements that deliver new opportunities to America’s dairy sector. The U.S. dairy industry has gone from exporting less than $1 billion in dairy products in 2000, to more than $5.2 billion of exports in 2015, thanks to well-crafted trade deals.

NMPF supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mooney said, but is adamant that each participating country must be held to its commitments. He said important implementation and enforcement issues must be addressed as Congress prepares to consider TPP.

In the case of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union, Mooney expressed concerns about the EU’s lack of good-faith commitment to opening its markets to agricultural trade, and its attempt to establish new non-tariff trade barriers through the use of Geographical Indicators. Mooney urged caution in securing an agreement with the EU.

“The EU has not demonstrated a good-faith commitment to open agricultural trade,” said Mooney. “The U.S. must proceed cautiously by securing clear commitments from the EU to guard against the imposition of future trade barriers.”

###

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 Trans-Pacific Partnership is a historic pact. If properly implemented and enforced, on balance the agreement will represent a step forward for the U.S. dairy industry based on its improvements to the rules of the road governing trade among the 12 signatories. In addition, although the market access portion of the agreement fell short of the export opportunities our industry sought to secure, our economic analysis concluded that overall the TPP dairy market access provisions will be neutral to slightly positive.

“Included in the deal are groundbreaking new commitments on sanitary and phytosanitary issues, and significant improvements in how geographical indications (GIs) are handled. The geographical indications improvements have become especially important as the European Union continues to wield GIs as nontariff trade barriers and limit market access for U.S. dairy exporters.

“But the benefits of the TPP can only be realized if the United States assures that the signatories live up to their commitments under the agreement, as well as to their prior trade obligations. The TPP can only support the continued growth of our industry if the United States ensures that TPP advances U.S. dairy prospects compared to the status quo at the time of its conclusion, and that its provisions are fully implemented and aggressively enforced.”

###

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) is a non-profit, independent membership organization that represents the global trade interests of U.S. dairy producers, proprietary processors and cooperatives, ingredient suppliers and export traders. Its mission is to enhance U.S. global competitiveness and assist the U.S. industry to increase its global dairy ingredient sales and exports of U.S. dairy products. USDEC accomplishes this through programs in market development that build global demand for U.S. dairy products, resolve market access barriers and advance industry trade policy goals. USDEC is supported by staff across the United States and overseas in Mexico, South America, Asia, Middle East and Europe.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, Va., develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of U.S. dairy producers and the cooperatives they collectively 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 www.nmpf.org.

(Washington, D.C. — May 18, 2016) Dairy leaders applaud the House Education and the Workforce Committee for including key dairy provisions in the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, which was approved today by the committee. A bipartisan amendment  by Congressmen G.T. Thompson (R-PA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT), specifically targeted at addressing declining school milk consumption, was unanimously approved.

“Fluid milk consumption in schools has declined in recent years, and in fact most Americans are drinking less milk than recommended by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA),” said J. David Carlin, senior vice president of legislative affairs and economic policy at the International Dairy Foods Association. “The fact that the school milk provisions have bipartisan support in this bill is an indication of how important it is to promote better consumption of milk by the nation’s students.”

“This bill takes an important step toward reversing the decline in school milk consumption by asking USDA to examine how to ensure that kids are getting enough milk,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. “By better aligning the school lunch program with the dietary guidelines, options including 1% flavored milk will be back on the lunch tray in school cafeterias as a result of this legislation.”

The dairy organizations voiced their support for the Thompson-Courtney amendment in a joint letter sent Tuesday to Reps. John Kline and Robert Scott – the committee chair and ranking member, respectively – of the House Education Committee.

That amendment bolsters recommendations made in the DGA, released earlier this year, which says current laws should continue to make milk integral to all the child nutrition programs. It also requires adjustments as necessary to promote better consumption of milk by the nation’s students and to permit schools to offer all varieties consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The bill also provides innovative approaches to meet the needs of lactose-intolerant children.

“Milk and other healthy dairy foods have always been integral to child nutrition programs, from school lunches and breakfasts to Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and other programs that serve our youth and vulnerable, at-risk populations,” the letter said. “As the expert advisory panel on the DGA stated, “Consumption of dairy foods provides numerous health benefits, including lower risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and obesity. Along with dairy’s long-established role in promoting bone health, reducing the risk of insidious chronic diseases and conditions demonstrates why milk is offered with every school meal and dairy foods are prominent parts of other nutrition assistance programs.”

The bill will now move to consideration by the full U.S. House of Representatives.

###

About IDFA

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Washington, D.C., represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies within a $125-billion a year industry. IDFA is composed of three constituent organizations: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the National Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream Association (IICA). IDFA’s nearly 200 dairy processing members run nearly 600 plant operations, and range from large multi-national organizations to single-plant companies. Together they represent more than 85 percent of the milk, cultured products, cheese, ice cream and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States. IDFA can be found online at www.idfa.org.

About NMPF

The National Milk Producers Federation, based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the wellbeing 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. Visit www.nmpf.org for more information.

The U.S. dairy industry today urged the White House to challenge a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal that would discourage the consumption of dairy products by young children, advice that contradicts the recommendations of respected national and global health organizations that endorse milk for its nutritional value.

In its continued effort to counter a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal that would discourage the consumption of dairy products by young children, NMPF is calling on the White House and Congress to challenge the WHO guidance.

Earlier this year, the WHO released a proposal dictating sweeping new restrictions directly discouraging the consumption of milk, as well as other new limits on various foods including dairy products, by children up to age 3.

“It is essential that the United States remain firm in highlighting the significant flaws in this document and insisting on the need for further revisions to address those concerns before this can be held up as completed international guidance,” NMPF wrote in a letter to the White House on May 9. The letter was also signed by the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the International Dairy Foods Association.  NMPF and IDFA had sent a similar letter last month to members of Congress.

Both letters explained that the WHO proposal wrongly portrays milk products as an obstacle to a healthy start in life, contradicting the science behind U.S. health policy featured in the federal dietary guidelines and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The U.S. government, it continued, should seek further review of – and changes to – the document.

“Milk is the original nutritional superfood, yet the WHO is committed to a position that would discourage the consumption of milk and milk products,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF.  “We appreciate the Administration’s recognition that it cannot support an international guideline that undermines the critical role dairy foods play in early childhood health and development.”

The WHO guidance document will be presented to the World Health Assembly (WHA) later this month, despite repeated requests from the dairy industry to alter the proposal. Two different revisions made to the original version failed to adequately address its underlying problems.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. dairy industry today urged the White House to challenge a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal that would discourage the consumption of dairy products by young children, advice that contradicts the recommendations of respected national and global health organizations that endorse milk for its nutritional value.

Dairy foods are doctor-recommended, but the bureaucrats at the WHO are about to overturn decades of sound nutrition and medical advice, charged the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association and the U.S. Dairy Export Council in a letter to the Obama Administration.

At issue is a WHO guidance document that will be presented to the World Health Assembly (WHA) later this month, despite repeated requests from dairy organizations to fix significant problems with the proposal. The three dairy organizations urged the U.S. government to seek further scientific review of, and changes to, the WHO guidance and how it may be used in the future.

“Discouraging parents from providing milk, one of the most nutritious foods in the human diet, to their children flies in the face of common sense,” the letter said. “Increased milk and dairy product consumption in recent years has helped improve nutritional outcomes for hundreds of millions of children around the world. This very positive trend should be further encouraged, not thwarted by ill-advised guidance from WHO.”

Earlier this year, the WHO released the draft guidance document that contradicts existing U.S. and international nutritional policy.  It would dictate sweeping new restrictions, directly discouraging consumption of milk, as well as other new limits on various foods including dairy products, by children up to age three. Although the intent of the document is presumably to encourage healthy eating patterns for toddlers, the WHO proposal as now drafted would actually have the opposite effect, as such restrictions would significantly discourage children’s consumption of nutritious dairy products. Two different revisions made to the original proposal failed to adequately address that underlying problem as well as other serious short-comings with the document.

The letter went on to explain that the WHO proposal wrongly portrays milk and dairy products as an obstacle to a healthy start in life, contradicting the science behind U.S. health policy featured in the federal dietary guidelines and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The dairy industry letter noted that for American toddlers aged 12 – 24 months, dairy products provide 26.7% of total energy intake, 67.8% of calcium intake, 80.4% of vitamin D intake, 39.6% of potassium intake, and 39.5% of protein intake.

“Milk is the original nutritional superfood, yet the WHO is committed to a position that would discourage the consumption of milk and milk products,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF.  “We appreciate the Administration’s recognition that it cannot support an international guideline that undermines the critical role dairy foods play in early childhood health and development.”

“The WHO’s draft guidance is not consistent with available scientific data, including the research used for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans – or even with WHO’s own nutritional guidance,”  said Connie Tipton, IDFA’s president and CEO.  “Given its unwavering commitment to the health of our children, we encourage the Administration to take the necessary steps to press the WHO to reconsider this deeply flawed guideline.”

“This issue affects not only the health of American toddlers, but hundreds of millions of young children around the world,” said Tom Suber, president of USDEC. “Our exporters have worked with countless local processors to help kids get a better start in life through higher rates of dairy consumption. The U.S. government has to ensure the WHO doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by discouraging the benefits of dairy consumption through misdirected advice on good nutrition for children.”

# # #

About IDFA

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Washington, D.C., represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies within a $125-billion a year industry. IDFA is composed of three constituent organizations: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the National Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream Association (IICA). IDFA’s nearly 200 dairy processing members run nearly 600 plant operations, and range from large multi-national organizations to single-plant companies. Together they represent more than 85 percent of the milk, cultured products, cheese, ice cream and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States. IDFA can be found online at www.idfa.org.

About USDEC

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) is a non-profit, independent membership organization that represents the global trade interests of U.S. dairy producers, proprietary processors and cooperatives, ingredient suppliers and export traders. Its mission is to enhance U.S. global competitiveness and assist the U.S. industry to increase its global dairy ingredient sales and exports of U.S. dairy products. USDEC accomplishes this through programs in market development that build global demand for U.S. dairy products, resolve market access barriers and advance industry trade policy goals. USDEC is supported by staff across the United States and overseas in Mexico, South America, Asia, Middle East and Europe.

About NMPF

The National Milk Producers Federation, based in Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the wellbeing 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. Visit www.nmpf.org for more information.

Cultural trends wax and wane, as fads and fashions popular with consumers evolve over time.  Right now the trendy narrative about the conventional practices common across American agriculture – and why those conventions are supposedly suspect – is presenting a real challenge to dairy farmers and, frankly, all mainstream food producers.

We seem to have stumbled down a rabbit hole into an alternate world where prudent, progressive practices are viewed – at least by some – as problematic, even malicious.

As an example, consider the idea that productive, healthy dairy cows, are somehow abnormal.  This was the gist of recent stories in National Public Radio and the Washington Post: that increases in per-cow milk production are not a healthy signal, but rather omens that cows are being exploited in ways that compromise their health.

Never mind the fact that rising milk output per cow is hardly a 21^st century trend.  Looking back 70 years to the end of World War II, there’s been a straight, steady line continuing to this day, charting the growth every decade in how much milk the average dairy cow produces. That consistent increase doesn’t indicate that we’ve suddenly decided to push cows past some arbitrary limit. Rather, it’s a sign that proactive improvements in breeding, feeding, housing, and veterinary care have a positive compounding effect over time.  Nature has helped improve bovine genetics, but nurture matters more. The evidence is clear from improvements in milk quality that farmers are actually taking better care of their cows today, leading to better and greater milk production.

Another emerging theme leading to both policy and marketing battles is the role of genetically-modified foods in American’s diets.  Bioengineered crops have been used for 20 years, but it’s obvious of late that the food supply chain is facing an unprecedented backlash –  not from a majority of consumers, but by a very vocal subset – against GMO grains and oilseeds.  Companies such as Whole Foods, Chipotle, and most recently, Dannon, have publicly stated their intentions to move away from the use of GMO grains and ingredients in their food supply.  And many other food processors and retailers face a daily barrage of requests (often sounding more like threats) to expunge GMOs from their supply chains.

What’s frustrating is the traction that this anti-GMO effort has garnered, in spite of the science supporting the value of bioengineered plant traits. The evidence is clear that not only are GM crops safe, they also provide broad environmental benefits by reducing soil loss, as well as reducing farmers’ use of water, pesticides and fuel.

Today’s trendy narrative, however, is the mistaken notion that without Roundup Ready plant traits, there would be less use of pesticides – when in fact there would be much more. The great benefit to the environment of GMO crops is that they require far less use of pesticides and other chemicals. Farmers have overwhelmingly adopted GM crop technology because it increases productivity while improving agricultural sustainability.

Another development very apparent in the meat and poultry business is the push for products raised without any antibiotics.  This effort builds on the notion that drugs important to humans should not be used in animals, despite the fact that the overwhelming number of antibiotic resistant infections occur in hospitals, and are related to pathogens that have absolutely nothing to do with food animals.  But the prohibition being advocated is that no antibiotics should ever be used in the raising of a farm animal, even though we know that prudent stewardship of antimicrobial products can help treat infections and restore to health an animal that otherwise could get even sicker, or die.  Again, as is the case with GMO use in crops, the marketing assertion runs counter to the very essence of sustainability.

Even the important role that farmer-owned cooperatives play in dairy marketing has been challenged recently, despite the reality that cooperatives represent a larger percentage of farmers than 50 years ago.  While some corporate P.R. marketers are trying to exploit the trendy notion that selling milk directly to consumers is cool, the reality is that it’s hard enough harvesting milk (as well as crops, in most cases) on an ongoing basis to also insist dairy farmers be milk marketers as well.  That’s why farmers belong to cooperatives in the first place: to help bridge the distance, figurative and literal, between them and the marketplace.

All of these marketing trends center on the notion that conventional agriculture – the mainstream business of producing food for America and the world – is bad. And if it’s not bad, at least it’s not hip. Technology is hip if it comes from Apple. It’s bad if it comes from agriculture.  But food marketing trendiness does not equate to truth.

Assumptions about what is good farming, or good food, are regularly twisted into declarations that don’t really stand up to greater scrutiny.  The frustration for farmers is that their hard work and striving to do the right thing – even when backed by research that demonstrates tangible benefits – gets swept away by a marketer’s puffery.

The effort to change this narrative, led by NMPF and other organizations that are devoted to sharing the facts on agriculture, will be one of the major challenges we face in the years ahead.