NMPF has teamed up with Merck Animal Health, a global animal medicine company, to provide additional resources to dairy producers participating in NMPF’s six-year-old animal well-being program, Farmers Assuring Responsible ManagementTM, or FARM. 

NMPF’s partnership with Merck, announced August 5, will give producers across the country access to tools and workshops available through Merck’s own dairy animal care training program, known as Dairy C.A.R.E. It should help ensure a comprehensive approach to employee training and animal care in the dairy industry.

Dairy C.A.R.E. includes animal handling training videos, a comprehensive resource guide, and customizable templates of animal care policies that outline how to assure maximum animal health and well-being. Merck Animal Health is offering free workshops around the country to help dairy producers tailor the Dairy C.A.R.E. materials for their farms. 

Emily Meredith, NMPF’s vice president for animal care, said “Dairy C.A.R.E. helps producers meet the requirements of the FARM Animal Care Program, such as creating a cow care agreement, developing written standard operating procedures, and providing employee training. 

“Animal care is everyone’s responsibility in the dairy industry, and we all take it seriously. We’re excited about the partnership with Merck Animal Health to help advance this industry-wide effort,” Meredith added.

After the House of Representatives overwhelming approved legislation establishing a voluntary, national standard for labeling foods with genetically modified ingredients, NMPF said it will work closely with the Senate on similar legislation. NMPF said any final bill must meet the needs of America’s dairy farmers.

The House bill, known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, creates a uniform, science-based labeling standard for foods made with GM ingredients. It also creates a voluntary non-GM labeling program modeled after the National Organic Program. The bill passed the House July 23rd by a margin of 275-150.

“The strong bipartisan vote demonstrates the broad support for a national, voluntary program for labeling foods with GM ingredients,” said President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “That gives consumers the information they want while reaffirming federal authority over food labeling and preventing the development of dozens of different state food labeling laws.”

Last year, Vermont became the first state in the nation to enact a mandatory GMO labeling bill, raising the specter of similar measures in states across the country. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act would pre-empt the Vermont bill, which is scheduled to go into effect next year. 

Genetically modified food ingredients have been proven safe by nearly 2,000 studies from the leading scientific bodies worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association. Up to 80 percent of the food available in the United States contains genetically modified ingredients.

In July, members of Cooperatives Working Together received 59 contracts to sell dairy products to customers in 21 countries. The 5.4 million pounds of American-type cheeses and 11.2 million pounds of whole milk powder will be shipped from July through January 2016.

The July contracts bring the year-to-date sales totals to 43.7 million pounds of cheese, 30.4 million pounds of butter, and 33.3 million pounds of whole milk powder. In all, CWT-assisted transactions will move the equivalent of 1.33 billion pounds of milk on a milkfat basis to customers in 33 countries on five continents. These sales contracts are equivalent to more than 80 percent of the 2015 increase in U.S. milk production through June.

Developed by NMPF, CWT is a voluntary export assistance program supported by dairy farmers producing 70 percent of the nation’s milk. By helping to move U.S. dairy products into world markets, CWT helps maintain and grow U.S dairy farmers’ share of expanding export markets which, in turn, keeps dairy farmer milk prices at reasonable levels.

Echoing dairy industry concerns, leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary committees, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee last month expressed “grave disappointment” over international treaty changes that are likely to severely limit the use of generic food names in export markets. 

Among those likely to be hurt by the changes are U.S. dairy producers and processors that have relied for decades on well-established cheese names like parmesan and feta.

In a strongly worded July 16 letter to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), eight congressional leaders objected to an expansion of geographical indications protections that will limit the use of certain food names to a specific region or country without sufficient protections for other users of the names. They also objected to a WIPO decision to force those harmed by the changes to help fund them.

Those signing the letter were Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ranking Member Sandy Levin (D-MI).

The International Dairy Foods Association and U.S. Dairy Export Council joined NMPF in praising the Congressional letter for strongly objecting to WIPO’s actions. 

The World Intellectual Property Organization is a United Nations agency charged with developing a balanced international intellectual property system. It approved the treaty changes at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, in May.  

Leading up to the Hawaii negotiations, NMPF worked with Congress on three separate written appeals to increase U.S. dairy farmers’ access to foreign markets and achieve a balanced outcome in any Pacific Rim trade agreement. 

On July 15, a bipartisan group of 21 House members warned Canada that it risks being left out of the massive trade pact if it does not allow more imports of U.S. dairy products. “It will be difficult for us to support Canada’s inclusion in TPP if significant new dairy access is not part of the deal,” the House members wrote in a letter to Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer. 

The letter was spearheaded by Representatives Reid Ribble (R-WI), Ron Kind (D-WI), David Valadao (R-CA) and Suzan DelBene (D-WA). Among the signers were Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mike Conaway (R-TX), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Pat Tiberi, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee.

Nine days later, the Senate Finance Committee’s leadership sent a similar letter to Doer. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and senior Democrat Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Canada’s ability to “commit to significant and commercially meaningful market access for all remaining agricultural products, including dairy, will have a significant impact on Congress’ view of the final agreement.” 

Finally, on July 24, a bipartisan group of 22 senators asked the Obama administration to increase access for U.S. dairy products into Canada and Japan as part of any final TPP agreement. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, the senators urged that the United States secure significant market access benefits across all dairy products, particularly into Japan and Canada.  

One-third of the Senate Finance Committee, including Ranking Member Wyden, was among the signers of that letter, spearheaded by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Mike Crapo (R-ID).

NMPF praised all three congressional appeals, saying they underscored the need for the TPP to deliver significant new market access for U.S. dairy exports, in order to balance any additional imports to the U.S. from New Zealand.

Reacting to the July 31 stalemate in negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, NMPF pledged to keep working to achieve a dairy package that protects the interests of U.S. farmers.

Meeting in Hawaii, negotiators for the 12 nations involved in the massive Pacific Rim trade deal made significant progress by finalizing a number of chapters, but could not reach agreement on a few issues, including dairy. Trade Ministers have indicated the talks will continue very soon.

Key to the stalemate on dairy was Canada’s refusal to significantly open its highly protected dairy markets, the limited market access offered by Japan, and New Zealand’s unrealistic demands for access to the U.S. market in light of the limited market access offers from Japan and Canada. 

“It is not yet clear how the negotiators will push past this to bring talks to a successful conclusion,” said NMPF President and CEO Mulhern, “but we will continue to work constructively to achieve a dairy package that provides comparable results between new export market opportunities to TPP’s two key markets and any new import access.” 

Mulhern, NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney, and NMPF Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Trade Policy Jaime Castaneda traveled to Hawaii for the week-long minister-level trade talks.

In meetings with U.S. negotiators, Mulhern said, “we made clear we will not support a package that asks U.S. dairy farmers to be net losers in this TPP agreement.  We are prepared to do our part, but others need to do theirs, too.  The burden of this agreement cannot be carried by the U.S.”

Mulhern said NMPF appreciated the strong support the dairy industry received from U.S. negotiators and the bipartisan support it received from Congress leading up to the talks in Hawaii. (See separate story).

Mulhern urged dairy producers to keep telling their House and Senate members they support a balanced Pacific trade pact that benefits the U.S. dairy industry.  “Central to our work will be the engagement of our member cooperatives,” he said.

 

For most of the past 20 years that genetically modified crops have been cultivated in the U.S., their use has progressed with all the excitement of watching corn grow.  In recent years, however, the verdant presence of bioengineered crops has drawn fear-mongering and undeserved scrutiny across the food chain.  The pressure has fueled efforts in some states to force GMO cultivation bans, or mandatory food labels that threaten farming practices which are demonstrably beneficial to the environment and to society.

Fortunately, the U.S. Congress has finally begun stepping in to provide some clarity on the labeling of foods that do – or do not – contain genetically-modified ingredients.  In late July, the House of Representatives passed the Safe and Affordable Food Act.  This legislation, designated H.R. 1599, would establish a national, uniform standard so consumers who want to purchase food without GM ingredients can be confident in what they are eating.  Those companies that want to assert that their ingredient supply chain is GMO-free will have a process to vouchsafe those claims, overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  This national GMO-free certification program, modeled on the National Organic Program, will give consumers who prefer to buy non-GMO foods a transparent, consistent means of doing so. 

Just as importantly, a new federal standard for GMO absence claims will prevent the sprouting of state labeling mandates, similar to what happened last year in Vermont.  H.R. 1599 ensures one national standard for food labeling, keeping consumers informed rather than misled.  It’s similar to what the dairy industry has done for the past 20 years in following federal guidance on which label claims are allowed regarding milk from farms that do not use recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). 

The vocal critics of GMO – and they are nothing if not loud and organized – assert that GMO use should require mandatory labeling.  But decades of scientific research and hundreds of studies have found no difference in the products containing GMO processes or ingredients.  Food labels are intended to quantify nutritional information, and qualify the safety of the product.  Because there are no nutritional differences in GM ingredients, and absolutely no food safety issues, mandating labeling of genetically modified foods is not relevant to these key criteria.

The Safe and Affordable Food Act does need further modification as the Senate begins consideration of a similar measure.  The House version would not allow livestock products to display a “GMO-free” claim if the cattle, pigs or poultry were fed GMO grains.  Where the science is clear that there is nothing genetically modified in foods like milk or meat, there is no reason to use a new federal labeling law to create potentially stigmatizing discrepancies between foods.

The anti-biotech bandwagon has subtly shifted its criticisms in the past year.  Initially, their strategy was to raise questions about the safety of the crops, and the resulting grains and oilseeds. While this tact successfully created groundless fears among some consumers, the science has been unequivocally clear that food safety is not an issue with GMOs.  Now, the critics are scrambling for a new message. Apparently the latest strategy is to criticize the role of the herbicide glyphosate in controlling weeds in fields planted with GMO seeds.  This is also a disingenuous line of attack, since glyphosate (Roundup) – a product found in millions of suburban garages and tool sheds across America – is far more benign than many other weed killers that were in use long before the adoption of GMO seeds, and are still being used today.  

The reality is GMO seeds help farmers use fewer chemicals, water and fuel, and allow more crops to be harvested without plowing over additional acres of land. Those who don’t see or appreciate these benefits are entitled to remain opposed to GMO crops, but they are not entitled to subvert longstanding food policy to mandate labeling of what amounts to a distinction without a difference. The creation of a new voluntary labeling standard for GMO claims is the appropriate compromise approach to this issue.  Hopefully, the Senate will finally make it a reality.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) today praised the Senate Finance Committee’s bipartisan leadership for urging Canada to allow more trade in agricultural products, including dairy, as an outcome of the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If Canada is not willing to allow more dairy trade as a result of the TPP, it risks being left out of the agreement, according to the Senate members.

In a letter to Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and senior Democrat Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Canada’s ability to “commit to significant and commercially meaningful market access for all remaining agricultural products, including dairy, will have a significant impact on Congress’ view of the final agreement. In fact, our support for a final TPP agreement that includes Canada is contingent on Canada’s ability to meet the TPP’s high standards.”

The letter from Hatch and Wyden echoed a similar appeal last week by 21 members of the House of Representatives led by Representatives Reid Ribble (R-WI) and Ron Kind (D-WI), as well as Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX). That letter also went to Canada’s ambassador to the U.S.

The letter comes at a pivotal time, as negotiators from across the Pacific are currently meeting in Hawaii to finalize key issues in the TPP talks, including agricultural trade.

NMPF and USDEC said the Senate letter reinforces the message that a vital element to achieving a balanced outcome in the TPP negotiations is increased access to that country’s dairy market. The two groups want significant increases in access to the Canadian and Japanese dairy markets, as well as ultimately a balance between these sizable new export gains and any new access to our market granted for New Zealand dairy farmers.

“Senators Hatch and Wyden are to be commended for adding their strong voices to the demand that Canada get serious about meeting this agreement’s market access obligations,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “Canada’s highly protected dairy market is one of the final issues in the TPP, and so far its negotiators have refused to live up to their commitment to satisfactorily address it.”

“We fully agree with this clear Congressional message that if Canada is looking for a pass on the type of tough decisions that all other TPP countries are being asked to make, it is better to move TPP ahead without them,” added USDEC President Tom Suber. “Our dairy industry is willing to do its part, but Canada needs to do the same if it wants to be part of this agreement.” 

###

 

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 nearly 32,000 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit www.nmpf.org.

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 U.S. Dairy Export Council prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, disability, national origin, race, color, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, marital status, military status, and arrest or conviction record.

 

The dairy industry today praised leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary committees, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee for expressing “grave disappointment” over recently approved treaty changes that are likely to severely limit the use of many generic food names in export markets. 

Among those hurt by the changes are U.S. dairy producers and processors that have relied for decades on well-established cheese names like parmesan and feta.  

In a strongly worded letter to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the eight congressional leaders objected to an expansion of geographical indications protections that will limit the use of certain food names to a specific region or country without sufficient protections for other users of the names. They also objected to a WIPO decision to force those harmed by the changes to help fund them.

“We urge you to take appropriate steps to rectify the funding situation and to implement the agreement in a fair and balanced way that adequately protects the interests of trademark owners and users of generic names,” the committee leaders wrote. “We will continue to monitor closely these developments and other areas of WIPO’s work to ensure that WIPO effectively functions as a global forum for the protection of intellectual property rights.” 

 

he letter also questioned whether the treaty provisions violated other international trade agreements. “We are very concerned that parties to this agreement will implement it in a manner inconsistent with existing international trade obligations, including under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights,” it said.  

Those signing the letter were Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI),

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ranking Member Sandy Levin (D-MI).

Leaders of the National Milk Producers Federation, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, and the International Dairy Foods Association all praised the Congressional letter for strongly objecting to WIPO’s actions. 

“The deep concern expressed by the United States and many other WIPO members must be taken seriously not only by WIPO but by the World Trade Organization,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “These eight congressional leaders are to be commended for objecting to an agreement that hamstrings many users of common or generic food names around the world.” 

Tom Suber, president of the U.S. Dairy Export Council, said, “The letter correctly notes that WIPO missed an opportunity to develop a consensus agreement and instead approved a one-sided document that ignores the concerns of the United States and many other WIPO members. If this is WIPO’s model for the future, the United States will need to reassess the benefits of belonging to the organization.” 

Added Connie Tipton, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association: “WIPO needed to be called out for pushing through an agreement that includes new geographical indications for a wide range of agricultural and non-agricultural products. The congressional letter does that. We hope WIPO sits up and takes notice.” 

The World Intellectual Property Organization is a United Nations agency charged with developing a balanced international intellectual property system. It approved the treaty changes at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, in May.  

 

July 13 –  The National Milk Producers Federation has updated its online tools for dairy farmers considering their enrollment options in the second year of the Margin Protection Program, the new federal dairy safety net included in the 2014 farm bill.

A three-month sign-up period for the program, also known as MPP, opened July 1st. Producers have until Sept. 30th to enroll for coverage in calendar year 2016.  Producers currently covered by MPP in 2015 can elect now to make coverage changes in 2016.

To help producers make decisions, NMPF’s dedicated website, www.futurefordairy.com, offers the following materials:
• A six-page brochure explaining the program and its benefits to dairy farmers;
• A PowerPoint slide deck explaining the program in more detail;
• Four pages of Frequently Asked Questions;
• A Excel spreadsheet with milk and feed prices, and margins, dating back to 2007;
• An interactive calculator allowing farmers to estimate future margins based on their forecasts of feed and milk prices.

The Margin Protection Program was designed to insure against the kind of catastrophic losses that many dairy farmers experienced in 2009 and again in 2012. Instead of tying government support to milk prices, MPP allows farmers to protect against the difference between milk prices and feed costs. Dairy farmers insure their farms on a sliding scale, deciding both how much of their production to cover, and the level of margin to protect. The program offers more extensive coverage for low-margin conditions than the previous programs it replaced.

According to the Agriculture Department, more than half of the nation’s 45,000 dairy producers enrolled in the Margin Protection Program during the inaugural sign-up period last fall.  The USDA also reported that approximately 80% of the nation’s milk supply enrolled in the program.  Of the farms in the program, approximately 55 percent elected to pay a premium for coverage above the basic, $4 per hundredweight coverage level.

NMPF was instrumental MPP’s development and strongly encourages producers to use the program.

”The Margin Protection Program is more flexible, more comprehensive and more equitable than any previous federal dairy safety net,” said Jim Mulhern, NMPF’s president and CEO. “It is risk management for the 21st century, and we strongly encourage farmers to choose a coverage plan that fits their circumstances. The updated materials available on our websites can help them do that.”