The election last month of Donald Trump as the 45^th U.S. president surprised most political watchers, who gave him low odds of winning. But examined in the light of the eight-year cycle of alternating presidential leadership between the two parties dating back 35 years (with the 1988 election of George Bush being the lone exception), it’s less surprising that President-elect Trump was this election’s opportunity for voters to make yet another change.

The transition process will produce some surprises as we move toward January, but it’s already clear that the Trump Administration will usher in a new approach in Washington to some of the issues of interest to dairy farmers.  In every respect, this is an opportunity for dairy farmers both to seek new paths to achieve our goals, and also to accelerate ongoing efforts to make needed changes.  Let me briefly highlight some front-burner issues for National Milk on which we hope to make more progress in 2017.

One of the key priorities we discussed at the recent NMPF annual meeting in Nashville is to strengthen the safety net for dairy farmers.  Our members are working to identify changes that will make the Margin Protection Program more reliable and effective. We are also discussing with key Congressional leaders our desire to adopt changes in the near term, instead of waiting for the current farm bill to expire at the end of 2018. Rural areas delivered many votes for the new president, and it’s clear that a sense of economic unease and uncertainty was a driver of that voter turnout.  Fixing the dairy margin program in order to help farmers better deal with volatility must be a priority for our industry, Congress and the new USDA.

No issue on the campaign trail this year was as hotly-contested as immigration.  We are now reaching out to the Trump team to discuss dairy’s unique labor challenges. Specifically, dairy farm employers need the certainty of access to their current workforce, as well as to a future supply of farm workers on a year-round basis.  Farm and ranch groups have collaborated in the recent past on a new visa program that could provide a legal source of foreign-born workers to those in agriculture.  Rural America can’t grow without a stable workforce. That is a message we will continue to deliver in the coming months so that our farms have access to the workers they need so agriculture can continue its contributions to our economy.

Trade policy is another issue that drew a spotlight in the campaign, and will continue to evolve under the new administration.  While momentum behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has stalled for the time being, the need for U.S. dairy access to foreign markets has not.  NMPF will continue to highlight how dairy exports are economically important to farmers and dairy processors, as well as to thousands of other workers in rural America whose jobs depend on a healthy and growing U.S. agriculture.  

Another expected early focus of the new administration is tax policy reform. Cuts in the rates paid by individuals and corporations will be sought and a paring down or eliminating the estate tax also will be under consideration.  One of NMPF’s tax priorities is for Congress to adopt the nutrient recovery and biogas tax credit measure that we worked with a bipartisan group of legislators in both the House and Senate to introduce earlier this year. All of these issues will be part of our focus.

An issue on the environmental side is the problematic Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) regulation, which the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers tried implementing despite the rule’s many flaws.  The regulation is currently being stayed by a federal appeals court ruling, and it seems very likely that it will be one of the first major regulations to get the boot from the new administration.

In the area of nutrition, NMPF will continue its efforts to reform the school lunch program so that federal regulations once again make 1% flavored milk an offering in the lunch line.  If Congress fails to address the issue during its short end-of-year lame duck session in December, NMPF, working in concert with IDFA, will press incoming members of the new Congress and the new staff at USDA on the importance of changing the short-sighted school lunch policy that has led to a decline in consumption of milk in schools.

All transitions of power in Washington produce their own surprises and unexpected developments; the arrival of the Trump Administration will be no exception.  What won’t change is NMPF’s ongoing focus on finding new opportunities to advance the policy interests of dairy farmers in the coming years.

The FARM Animal Care Program Version 3.0 online evaluator training is now available for any individual who would like to certify or re-certify to perform Version 3.0 Animal Care evaluations.

The program can be accessed at www.aglearning.com by clicking on the green tab at the top of the page labeled Public Course Offerings. Next, scroll down the page to the course labeled Second-Party Evaluator, submit a payment, and the training will then begin. After the course concludes, evaluators must take the exam and pass with at least an 80% score to be considered a Version 3.0 FARM Animal Care evaluator.

The first annual FARM Program Evaluator Conference, held after NMPF’s annual meeting earlier this month, drew strong turnout from more than 60 evaluators representing the majority of companies participating in the National Dairy FARM Program.

The event, held November 2-3 in Nashville, was sponsored by Elanco, Merck Animal Health and Zoetis. The keynote presentation was delivered by Amanda Kent, an expert in “Life Hacks,” who shared insights into how those in the audience can reach their leadership potential, especially when sharing the FARM Program message with all industry stakeholders.

Following the keynote address, two panels consisting of current FARM Program evaluators and members of the Technical Writing Group shared their insights on how to assist farms through upcoming changes, such as the elimination of tail docking and the expanded role of veterinarians in the program. The first day concluded with communications consultant David Pelzer outlining how FARM plays a critical role in crisis management in the dairy community.

The second day of the conference focused on the future of the FARM Program. Dr. Michael Lormore with Zoetis presented on the necessity of continued judicious antibiotic stewardship within the industry. Dr. Cassandra Tucker and Dr. Nina Von Keyserlingk also provided insight on the latest animal welfare and consumer-focused research. Each of these presentations generated ideas within the evaluator attendees that were shared in a group discussion about how the FARM Program can continually improve and evolve.

At the conclusion of the conference, a group of attendees also took advantage of a Stockmanship Training workshop offered by the Beef Quality Assurance Program at Middle Tennessee State’s Research and Education Center. Flight zones, points of balance and the importance of calm animal handling were reinforced throughout the training, and gave attendees a variety of resources that can be shared with their producer members.

Beef producers from every segment of the industry – including dairy beef – are being encouraged to participate in a survey that will help establish a benchmark and course for the beef industry for 2017 and beyond. To access the survey, visit the Beef Quality Assurance website. The deadline is Nov. 18.

The Producer Survey of the checkoff-funded 2016 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) will collect information and opinions, which will help form an in-depth look at where the industry stands, as well as its successes and shortcomings.

The survey is completely anonymous and includes both information about the industry's cattle operations and the opinions of the people who run them about the strengths and weaknesses of the industry. First performed in 1991 and conducted every five years since then, the beef quality audit has provided the industry a meaningful set of guideposts and measurements about the U.S. beef supply.

Efforts by the Food and Drug Admiration to advocate a one-third reduction of the sodium content of cheese drew strong opposition last month from NMPF. 

NMPF submitted comments in October to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance recommending the estimated average U.S. sodium intake of 3,400 mg per day be reduced to 2,300 mg per day over the next 10 years. NMPF has emphasized the complex role of sodium in cheese quality, functionality, and safety, and suggested FDA drop its proposal to include cheese in its sodium reduction efforts.

The guidance, titled “Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods,” included sodium reduction targets for a number of processed foods, including cheese and other dairy foods.

NMPF was joined by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) in challenging the proposed short-term sodium reduction targets.

“Overall, after much discussion and consultation with our members and dairy foods experts, NMPF and IDFA encourage FDA in the strongest way possible to remove the entire cheese category from the sodium reduction guidance,” the comments said. “Salt plays a crucial role in the manufacture and ripening of natural and processed cheeses and impacts overall product functionality, safety, and quality.”

In a parallel effort focused on FDA sodium guidelines, NMPF suggested that FDA had overlooked two potential food categories for sodium reduction:  imitation dairy beverages (e.g., soy beverage) and imitation dairy products (e.g., soy cheese, rice yogurt).

“Unlike with milk, where sodium is naturally-occurring, sodium is added to imitation dairy beverages and imitation dairy foods for taste, and in amounts greater than what is needed for microbial safety and product stability,” according to the comments.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursued a highly-politicized approach to implementing its controversial Waters of the U.S. regulation updating the Clean Water Act, according to a congressional report issued last month. That report, coupled with the anticipated change in management of the EPA under the new Trump Administration, is likely to result in the demise of the highly-contested WOTUS rule.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 gave the federal government limited jurisdiction over certain navigable waters. What constitutes “navigable waters” has been a controversial question since the EPA began pushing the WOTUS regulation, and that uncertainty has been costly and problematic to those in agriculture, and others affected by the regulation.

NMPF advocated for retraction of the EPA proposal if necessary clarifications to make this rule work for farmers and their operations could not be implemented. The Obama Administration issued a revised Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule last year, which significantly increased the federal government’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, and failed to address NMPF’s concerns. This expansion also generated numerous lawsuits, including a nationwide stay of further enforcement that remains in effect.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has started work on the required regulations for a mandatory labeling system for foods produced using biotechnology, following legislation passed into law in July.

The new law directs USDA to create a standard for food manufacturers to disclose whether a food contains GMO material via an on-package label, a quick reader code, or by other means.  USDA has two years to develop the rule, which means it must be issued by July 30, 2018.

USDA plans to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in November on the matter, and hold public meetings around the country in the months ahead. The ANPR should give the dairy community and other stakeholders insight into the issues USDA plans to address in rulemaking. 

NMPF will continue to actively engage in the rulemaking process just as it did during the legislative process. Issues of focus include how will absence claims be regulated and by whom; what are the de minimis levels of bioengineered material that do not trigger a need for disclosure; how will cultures, enzymes and processing aids be regulated under the standard; and how will USDA prevent disparagement against foods produced using biotechnology. 

Cooperatives Working Together assisted member cooperatives in October in winning 48 contracts to export 5.44 million pounds of American-type cheeses and 2.39 million pounds of butter. The products will go to customers in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Oceania, and will be shipped from October 2016 through January 2017.

CWT assisted members in getting exports sales contracts totaling 44.19 million pounds of American-type cheese, 10.98 million pounds of butter (82% milkfat) and 19.1 million pounds of whole milk powder going to customers in 24 countries on five continents. The sales are the equivalent of 794.32 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis. Totals are adjusted for cancellations received during the month.

Assisting 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 increases demand, which positively affects all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening and maintaining the value of dairy products that directly impact their milk prices.

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.

The Margin Protection Program (MPP) margin for the July-August period rebounded to $8.43 per hundredweight from the $5.76 per cwt. rate announced for the May-June period.  The May-June level was the lowest bimonthly MPP margin since the program began two years ago. USDA’s MPP decision tool is projecting no probability that the margin will be less than $8 per hundredweight during the remainder of 2016, and a 10 percent probability that this will happen during calendar year 2017. USDA’s MPP margin forecasts are updated daily online.

Dairy farmers have from now until Dec. 16 to enroll in MPP for coverage in 2017 or to change their coverage level if they are already participating in MPP. NMPF’s Future for Dairy website offers a variety of educational resources to help farmers select the desired coverage level.

A new economic study commissioned by the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) – of which NMPF is a member – has determined that a decline in U.S. cheese consumption due to the seizure of common food names by the European Union could amount to $5.2 billion in 10 years and drive a resulting cumulative farm losses of $59 billion in revenue.

The analysis, conducted by Informa Economic IEG, found that imposing geographical indications restrictions on a wide range of generic terms which originated many year ago in the EU would cost the U.S. dairy industry billions of dollars, slash domestic cheese consumption and increase prices for consumers. NMPF has strongly supported CCFN’s battle to safeguard the use of common food names out of concern that restrictions on those types of terms could have severe consequences for America’s dairy farmers through reduced demand for U.S. cheeses and thereby for U.S. milk.

“The damage Europe’s GI agenda could do to the U.S. dairy industry is severe,” stated Jim Mulhern. “By 2025, our dairy farmers would lose up to 15 percent of their income and the U.S. dairy herd would shrink by up to 9 percent, or 850,000 cows. Thousands of dairy farmers would be forced out of business.”

Jaime Castaneda, NMPF’s Sr. Vice President of Strategic Initiatives and Trade Policy and CCFN’s Executive Director, noted that: “The United States must aggressively oppose the carving up of markets and refuse to bestow monopolies on a few privileged European suppliers. The use of common names by the U.S. dairy industry—and indeed all other sectors relying on typical food terms—should be aggressively preserved, both for domestic and international use.”

Canada’s intention to change its milk pricing policies to discourage U.S. exports continues to draw sharp opposition from NMPF, as well as other U.S. leaders concerned with looming policy changes in Canada affecting both imports and exports.

In addition to Canada’s latest proposal to restrict a range of dairy product imports from the U.S., the country has also moved forward with plans to dump skim milk powder onto global markets in excess of Canada’s international obligations under the World Trade Organization. NMPF’s objections to these behaviors have also been echoed by leaders in Congress, and more recently, by governors and state agriculture department executives.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in a letter last month to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, wrote: “I urge you to ensure that any new Canadian program does not follow the flawed approach of seeking to solve the challenges of Canada's dairy industry by creating barriers that hamper the exports of products from New York's dairy industry.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also publicly condemned Canada’s actions: “We know these policies violate current trade agreements and put our U.S. producers at an unfair disadvantage. Canadian friends must understand that our current and future trade relationships depend on their compliance with the agreements they've signed.”

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also challenged Canada’s dairy actions at the recent Tri-National Accord meeting between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, noting in its release: “These developments raise serious questions about Canada’s compliance with international trade obligations under both the WTO and NAFTA, and threaten the principles negotiated under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).”

Canada’s actions were also mentioned in NMPF’s annual joint submission (along with the U.S. Dairy Export Council) of various nontariff trade concerns to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office last month. The filing – at almost two dozen pages – extensively details trade issues in various key export markets with the primary focus on those issues that hold the near-term potential for resolution such as unjustified nontariff barriers to trade.

In a strongly-worded letter sent last month to Dannon's U.S. office, NMPF and five other national farming organizations challenged the yogurt company’s misleading marketing claims about the sustainability of modern farming practices. NMPF chairman Randy Mooney signed a letter sent October 17 to Dannon CEO Mariano Lozano, rejecting Dannon’s assertion that the company’s yogurt will be more sustainably produced by eliminating the use of crop biotechnology.

The letter – also signed by leaders from the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American SugarBeet Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, and US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance – said that consumers are being misled by these specious marketing claims. The groups said there is overwhelming evidence that crop biotechnology improves sustainability by greatly reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. 

The letter is the beginning of efforts by agriculture group to communicate across the food industry, including to consumers, on the value and importance of GMOs, and the need to hold food marketers accountable for a lack of truthfulness and transparency in how some companies position their ingredient sourcing practices. A week after sending the letter to Dannon, the coalition of farm groups announced plans for a “Straight Talk” initiative to engage the food sector in a dialogue on sustainable agriculture production, the marketing practices used to reach consumers, and the intersection of both trends.

In a discussion last month with reporters, NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney said that “if Dannon wants to give consumers what they describe as ‘more natural and sustainable eating options,’ then they should be cheering agriculture biotechnology, not demonizing it. Dannon should be standing on the side of science, and communicating honestly with consumers about modern food production.”