NMPF submitted comments last week on the Food and Drug Administration’s Multicriteria-based Ranking Model for Risk Management of Animal Drug Residues in Milk and Milk Products. The comments will help influence the extent to which the FDA alters the current testing system it administers, along with state regulatory agencies, to prevent antibiotic residues in the dairy supply.

The risk-ranking model was developed in response to a 2008 request from the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) to conduct a risk analysis of drug residues in the milk supply. It represents a science-based analytical approach to collate and incorporate relevant public data and information to assist with evaluating milk residue testing programs.  

NMPF offered feedback on the model’s design, assumptions and data, and the clarity and transparency of the model, as well as its potential implications for residue testing requirements of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).  The model is one of the many tools the NCIMS Appendix N Committee will use to develop a pilot program to expand testing for non-beta-lactam drugs through the PMO.  A proposal directing the Appendix N Committee to develop the pilot program was passed at the 2015 NCIMS in April.  

FDA recently extended the comment period on the risk-ranking model to October 27th.

In January, the FARM Animal Care Program embarked on a partnership with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to explore opportunities and synergies around improving the quality of dairy beef. NMPF worked with NCBA staff managing the Beef Quality Assurance Program to devise educational materials and other resources for producers to use as part of the FARM Animal Care Program. 

To ensure the FARM Program is both beneficial to producers and increases consumer confidence, farmers are now being asked for their input through the Dairy Producer Education Programs Survey. The 15-minute survey will help NMPF understand how FARM can better serve producers, and will help NMPF and NCBA identify what additional tools are necessary to improve dairy beef quality. Producers are encouraged to complete the survey and to share the survey link with others.

The FARM Program Technical Writing Group — made up of veterinarians, academics, animal scientists, co-op staff and dairy producers — began meeting in June to determine if updates are needed to the program’s Animal Care Manual, FARM Evaluation checklist, and other resources. 

The program’s guidelines are updated every three years. Once the Technical Writing Group concludes its work, a new draft of the FARM Program guidelines will be reviewed by NMPF’s Animal Health and Wellbeing Committee. After that, comments will be sought from all FARM Animal Care Program co-op and processor participants, and other outside experts. 

All comments will be synthesized and a final draft of the version 3.0 guidelines made available in January. Consistent with the last program revision, evaluations based on the new guidelines will not begin until January of 2017, allowing time for FARM Animal Care Program staff to educate participants on the key changes.

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.