Dairy producers and processors joined forces to oppose another state-level raw milk bill in April, urging Louisiana lawmakers to reject HB 247 two days before it was scheduled for a hearing. The bill would lift the state’s ban on selling unpasteurized milk to consumers. 

 

In a joint letter, NMPF and IDFA cited the government statistics on illnesses and deaths from raw milk consumption and noted that raw milk is a vehicle for transmitting pathogens including E. coli 0157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella.

 

The groups also debunked advocates’ claims that consuming raw milk has health benefits and that testing and regulation can protect consumers. “No claim related to the health benefits of consuming raw milk has been substantiated in any of the medical literature,” they said, adding that “product testing … cannot ensure the same level of safety as pasteurization.” 

 

More than three dozen raw milk bills have been introduced in state legislatures this year, but as of April, only one had passed, despite intense lobbying by a small group of advocates. The successful bill authorized a study of liability issues related to raw milk sales between Utah farmers and consumers. In January, NMPF Vice President Beth Briczinski testified against a raw milk bill in Maryland that was subsequently withdrawn. 

 

NMPF joined other farm groups in blasting a draft Food and Drug Administration livestock feed regulation, saying the agency went beyond Congress’ intent and proposed requirements that will not make animal feed safer. NMPF asked FDA to rewrite the regulation and open a new round of comments from industry and the public. 

 

Among other things, NMPF said the draft incorrectly imposes safety standards on animal feed that are similar to those for human food. “The innate hygienic standards of humans exceed the hygienic standards of livestock,” NMPF said.

 

The draft regulation was issued under the Food Safety Modernization Act, which gave the FDA broad new authority to regulate food. NMPF said it supports the 2010 law, but believes that the draft regulation goes too far, in particular because it would make it harder to use brewers’ grain as animal feed, a practice in use for hundreds of years.

 

This “will result in unnecessary increased costs to dairy producers,” NMPF said. It joined the Beer Institute and the American Malting Barley Association in asking FDA to exempt feed products made during alcoholic beverage production from the regulation.  Late last month, FDA officials indicated they will change the proposed regulation of brewers’ and distillers’ grains in light of the opposition of NMPF and other organizations.

 

In separate comments submitted with the International Dairy Foods Association, NMPF identified unnecessary requirements for dairy processing plants, which divert some food materials such as cheese trim and liquid whey to animal feed. NMPF said the proposed standards “do not reflect the inherent differences between foods for human and animal consumption.” 

 

On April 21, 2014 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published for public comment a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of several U.S. Supreme Court cases. The agencies proposed to define “waters of the United States” for all sections of the CWA to mean: traditional navigable waters; interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, the territorial seas, and tributaries, as defined, of such waters; tributaries, as defined, of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas; and adjacent waters, including adjacent wetlands.

 

In tandem with the proposed rule, the agencies have issued an interpretive rule that continues existing statutory and regulatory exemptions from CWA Section 404 permitting requirements for normal farming, silviculture and ranching practices where these activities are part of an ongoing farming, ranching or forestry operation. The interpretive rule is immediately effective and expands the list of existing agricultural exemptions to include an additional 53 activities that are exempt from permitting requirements so long as they are conducted consistent with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practice standards. 

 

April was another strong month for Cooperatives Working Together, with the program helping cooperatives sell 28 million pounds of dairy products overseas. Nearly 140 requests for export assistance were received, and of those, 86 were accepted during last month.  Of the 86 bids accepted, 36 involved cheese totaling 10.9 million pounds; 27 involved butter totaling 12.7 million pounds; and 23 involved whole milk powder totaling 4.4 million pounds.

 

April’s activity brought the year-to-date CWT export totals to 47.2 million pounds of cheese, 42.1 million pounds of butter, and 7.8 million pounds of whole milk powder. All the products will be shipped by October. It will move the equivalent of 1.4 billion pounds of milk (on a milkfat basis) to 33 countries on six continents. 

 

A new report from the Obama administration calls out as a trade barrier the European Union’s efforts to prevent the U.S. dairy industry from using common cheese names. 

 

Essentially, the Europeans claim American versions of cheeses like parmesan, feta and muenster are not authentic, and thus shouldn’t use names of products originating in specific locations in Europe (i.e. “geographic indications”). But the latest edition of the National Trade Estimate from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative agrees with the U.S. dairy industry that this approach is nothing more than thinly veiled protectionism. 

 

“The United States continues to have serious concerns with the EU’s system for the protection of [geographic indications], including with respect to its negative impact on the protection of trademarks and market access for U.S. products that use generic names,” the report said. It added that the United States will monitor the EU’s actions in this area closely in the future. 

 

The NTE also recognized as a trade barrier Canada’s actions to limit U.S. access to its cheese market through both high tariffs and customs arrangements. In addition, a separate USTR report found unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary requirements imposed on U.S. dairy products by multiple countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the European Union. 

 

“We appreciate USTR’s recognition of all these actions as limiting U.S. dairy exports around the globe,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “We will continue to work with the Obama administration in the future to lessen these trade barriers.”  

 

Confirming what the dairy industry has said for years, a Cornell University study found that banning flavored milk from school cafeterias can trigger unintended consequences that outweigh any potential benefits from reduced sugar consumption. 

 

With funding from the Agriculture Department, the Cornell researchers looked at milk consumption in 11 Oregon elementary schools before and after chocolate milk was taken out of cafeterias. With chocolate milk gone, researchers found a 10 percent decline in milk sales and a 29 percent increase in milk waste, with a corresponding decrease in protein and calcium consumption, and an increase in other fats in student lunches. In addition, eliminating chocolate milk was associated with 6.8 percent fewer students eating school lunches. 

 

“Removing chocolate milk from  school cafeterias may reduce  calorie and sugar consumption,” the study concluded, “but it may also lead students to take less milk overall, drink less of the white milk they do take, and no longer purchase school lunch. Food service managers need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of eliminating chocolate milk and should consider alterative options that make white milk more convenient, attractive and normal to choose.” 

 

Co-author Brian Wansink is a former head of USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion and an expert on eating behavior and behavioral economics. 

 

Genetically modified food ingredients and opportunities and challenges in the Middle Eastern and North African markets were among the topics discussed at the 15th joint conference of the American Butter Institute and the American Dairy Products Institute. Held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago in late April, the 2 ½-day meeting attracted more than 900 attendees. 

 

Otis Wilson from the 1985 Championship Chicago Bears and former Chicago Bear and Green Bay Packer Anthony Morgan were keynote speakers at the conference, which opened with a discussion of the growth, production, pricing and weather issues impacting the dairy industry.  

 

A separate panel on genetically modified food ingredients included farmer, manufacturer and distributor perspectives. Other topics included mandates created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, the Food Safety Modernization Act, the infant nutrition market, and dairy ingredient plant technology and practices. 

 

Former NMPF President and CEO and ABI Executive Director Jerry Kozak received ADPI’s Award of Merit, which annually recognizes those individuals who have made a difference in the processed dairy products industry. Kozak retired from NMPF in December after 16 years.  He served as ABI’s executive director for 22 years. 

 

Two new members – Brian Caspary from Foremost Farms USA and Brian Linney from MD & VA Milk Producers Cooperative Association – were elected to the ABI board at the conference, which also included three receptions featuring world championship cheeses. The next conference will be held April 26 – 28, 2015, also at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.

 

 

 

 

The use, misuse, and growing ineffectiveness of antibiotics is one of the leading public health challenges of the 21st century.  At the end of April, the World Health Organization issued a report warning that society is about to enter into the “post-antibiotic” era, meaning that the successes of the past 75 years, of modern medicine using drugs to quickly cure bacterial illnesses and save lives, may not be repeated in the 21st century, due to the rise in bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

While a great deal of the media’s focus on the antibiotic problem relates to farm use, the reality is that the overwhelming rise in antibiotic resistant pathogens are in bacteria that have nothing to do with food animals – the real problem is with pathogens such as those responsible for tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, staph infections. It is human misuse, and especially infections acquired in the hospital setting, that are largely responsible for the growing antibiotic resistance problem.

But this is not to say that antibiotic use in agriculture should be ignored. As an industry, we in dairy have a long history of commitment to the proper use of antibiotics. Our long-standing partnership with the public health community – both federal and state – is in part responsible for the safety of the milk supply. Every drop of farm milk is tested for antibiotics, and in the rare instance where any antibiotic residue is found, that milk is dumped so that it never reaches the consumer.

That public health partnership, and our industry’s commitment to judicious antibiotic use, continues as we prepare for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s release – perhaps as soon as next month – of the results of a survey that looks at antibiotic use in the dairy sector.   We don’t yet know the specific results, but NMPF and other stakeholders in the dairy industry are prepared to help explain the implications of the survey:  what it demonstrates and, just as importantly, what it doesn’t. Since we are in an era where some clever marketers promote their milk as being “antibiotic-free” when, in reality, all milk is required to be free of antibiotics, this issue takes on added importance.  Our hope is that the FDA report may actually help us tell a positive story about the proper role of antibiotics in dairy production.

More than five years ago, the FDA became concerned that a very small percentage of dairy operations may not have been using antibiotics prudently on their farms, based on residues identified by the USDA – not in milk, but in the meat and tissues of dairy cows headed for slaughter.  The FDA theorized that farms with a tissue residue violation may also have farm management practices that could produce milk residues at the same time.

This thesis led the FDA to create a milk sampling survey comparing raw milk samples from roughly 900 dairy producers who had tissue residue violations, with a random group of 900 other farms.  Each of those samples has been screened for the presence of 30 different drugs, including many drugs that are already routinely tested for by the government and by the dairy industry.

Even before the specific findings are known, it’s important to clarify that this report is not a comprehensive assessment of milk from across the U.S. dairy sector.  Those 1,800 farms represent less than two percent of the dairy operations in America, and at just a single point in time – a tiny “snapshot” of the entire picture of the dairy industry.

Second, and even more importantly, the FDA’s survey is not an assessment of antibiotic traces in the retail dairy supply.  All of the samples were collected pre-processing, meaning that the normal testing that each tanker load is subjected to when it reaches a processing plant hadn’t been performed on these samples.  When tested at the plant, if there were commonly-used drugs present, the milk in these samples would subsequently have been rejected and dumped.

In fact, the FDA routinely tests Grade A, processed dairy products for penicillin and other classes of drugs.  The good news is that in the past three years, not a single one of the nearly 130,000 retail-ready samples tested contained antibiotics.  That’s a powerful and much broader set of data than what the FDA will be reporting through this special sampling survey.

What’s more, the trend line of residues in the farm milk supply has been heading down for many years, which is also confirmed by the FDA’s latest annual report on the nearly 3.2 million tests ran on tanker loads of milk prior to processing.  Only 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) of all truckloads of raw milk (445 out of the 3.19 million) tested positive for antibiotics in 2013, down from 0.017% in 2012.  This is the seventh year in a row that the figures have improved.  And, again, the tanker loads of milk that tested positive were rejected and didn’t go into any products for consumers.

As we await the release of this latest report from FDA, we are confident that the federal government will reassert as part of its findings that the underlying safety and wholesomeness of the dairy supply is not in question.  FDA has previously stated that it believes that the nation’s milk supply is safe. The findings of this report should not change that assessment.

The use of antibiotics in livestock is routinely criticized in some quarters.  Those critics may try to use this new report as ammunition against farmers’ use of antibiotics – despite the fact that dairy farmers only use antibiotics for disease treatment.  At the same time, the advent of this report, after two years of data collection and review, will lead to many teachable moments across the dairy sector, for farmers, and also for veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies.

In particular, we can and will use this as an opportunity to reinforce the need for the 2014 Residue Avoidance Manual, produced by NMPF and available free of charge. Ultimately, we are confident that the results will also serve to remind consumers that farmers work hard every day to produce a safe product.

ARLINGTON, VA –The National Milk Producers Federation today applauded introduction of legislation establishing federal standards for the safety and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients (GMOs).

Under the bill, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the Food and Drug Administration will set standards for companies that wish to label their products as containing or not containing GMOs. In addition, FDA is required to conduct a safety review of all new genetically modified traits and could mandate labeling if there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with a particular ingredient.  The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

“Rather than create a patchwork of state policies, what this legislation would do is deal with this important issue at the national level,” said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of NMPF.  “And since there is no reason for Congress and the FDA to require mandatory labels on foods produced through GMOs, we need this approach instead:  clarifying how companies can voluntarily label their products in a way that reduces confusion at the consumer level.”

Mulhern added that “genetically modified ingredients have been used in foods in this country for two decades. They add desirable traits so that crops are more plentiful and require less water and fewer pesticides.  If companies want to highlight their presence, they should be able to do so in a way that enhances trust in the food supply.”

The GMO labeling legislation also addresses another problem by ordering the FDA to define the term “natural” when used on food labels. Right now, there is no uniform definition of natural when applied to foods.

Up to 80 percent of the food available in the United States contains genetically modified ingredients. Agencies including the FDA, the U.S. Agriculture Department, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization have found no negative health effects from consuming GMOs.

The National Milk Producers Federation, 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 more than 32,000 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies.

“The National Milk Producers Federation supports the legislation introduced this week by four House members to stop the Food and Drug Administration from making it harder to use beer by-products in animal feed. We need to keep the brew in the moo on our farms, and this legislation is a signal that the FDA needs to rethink the regulation that it is pursuing.

As our comments to the FDA last month pointed out, there is no public health risk associated with the long-standing practice of using brewers’ grains as animal feed. The proposed FDA regulations would unnecessarily increase costs to dairy farmers. Farmers have been using high-protein brewers’ grains in livestock feed for hundreds of years.

Last fall, the FDA suggested imposing stricter requirements for handling spent grains sold or donated to farmers as part of new feed regulations proposed under the 2010 Food Safety Modernization Act. The changes would require spent grains to be dried and packaged, before being passed on to farmers. Typically, farmers now receive wet grains, which help hydrate livestock.

Both the beer industry and agricultural groups, including NMPF, object to the planned changes, and we are encouraged that the FDA has said recently it will review its draft language. In the meantime, we support the legislative approach offered by Reps. Steve Womack (R-AR), Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) to highlight the importance of this issue.”