Uncategorized

NMPF & USDEC Members Insist that TPP Must Deliver Meaningful Access for All Dairy Products

Posted on by dcadmin
The majority of U.S. dairy farmer cooperatives and dairy processing companies, all of which are members of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) or the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), today threatened to withdraw support from the pending Trans-Pacific trade agreement if Japan and Canada refuse to follow through on pledges to provide comprehensive market access for U.S. dairy products. Their letter can be found here.
NMPF and USDEC initiated this united dairy industry message intended to underscore the need for comprehensive market access in all dairy tariff lines with both nations in order to ensure that TPP negotiations result in a high standard trade agreement that can be held up as a model for future agreements.
“USDEC has been one of the most vocal champions of the importance of including Japan and Canada in TPP since these markets offer strong opportunities for our members to expand U.S. dairy exports,” stated Tom Suber, President of USDEC. “However, it is critical that their participation in TPP be meaningful and comprehensive across all dairy products. It is entirely unacceptable to have such sizable, sophisticated economies refusing to undertake the necessary openness that they agreed to upon entering TPP.”
Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF noted that, “As we have made clear in our letter to Ambassador Froman and Secretary Vilsack, we want to see very strong outcomes on market access with Japan and Canada, and our industry remains prepared to match the level of ambition of those countries. To be successful, any eventual TPP agreement must result in more open dairy markets in Japan and Canada.”
In addition to urging U.S. negotiators to remain focused on opening up the Japanese and Canadian dairy markets, members of both organizations also stressed the importance of addressing the lingering impacts of New Zealand government dairy policies that have intentionally advantaged a single national champion at the expense of other competitors.
NMPF and USDEC members expressed strong hopes that TPP negotiations will result in a final package that can garner the endorsement of the U.S. dairy industry without requiring a re-examination of the industry’s support for Trade Promotion Authority as a critical tool in the approval of well-negotiated trade agreements.
###
TEXT OF NMPF AND USDEC LETTER TO USDA AND USTR
June 3, 2014
Ambassador Michael Froman
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20508
Secretary Thomas Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Ambassador Froman and Secretary Vilsack:
The undersigned dairy cooperatives and proprietary processors greatly appreciate the intensive efforts undertaken by Administration officials and you personally to obtain commitments from Japan and Canada on market access commensurate with the ambitious trade goals embraced by the charter members of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership (TPP).
It is clear, however, that Japan, as well as Canada, continues to strongly resist living up to the ambitious trade goals it obligated itself to undertake upon joining TPP negotiations. The U.S. dairy industry has been a leading and long‐standing advocate for comprehensive market access and the inclusion of Japan and Canada in TPP. Yet, we have held realistic expectations and recognize that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. However, as reported in the media, Japan’s recent comments on market access progress show appallingly little substantive movement, and come nowhere close to our expectations. Canada will likely try to base its decisions on dairy market access off of what Japan commits to do for its most sensitive agricultural sectors, thus heightening the importance of achieving meaningful dairy market access to Japan.
We urge you to insist that TPP must remain a high standard trade agreement that can be used as a model for future U.S. free trade agreements. All TPP countries must do their part to ensure this undertaking lives up to its founding goals of comprehensive and meaningful market access. We are prepared to match the level of ambition of those countries, and urge you to press both to provide a very strong dairy package. Our industry must not provide any new access in this agreement that has not been given by Japan and Canada.
In addition, it is vital that TPP address serious non‐tariff policies by the New Zealand government that have uniquely advantaged the largest dairy exporting company in both the TPP region and the world. Tariffs are a critical component of this agreement, but not the only element.
It remains our hope that TPP negotiations with Japan and Canada can be concluded in a manner that will allow for strong support across our industry. However, our support for TPP is not unconditional. The elements cited here, which largely remain unresolved, must be concluded in a positive manner or our industry will find it difficult to support the final agreement. Similarly, our industry has been a strong supporter of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and would expect to continue to support it in the future. However, should Japan and Canada not commit to minimum standards and basic market‐based principles as many other TPP countries have done, we would need to re‐examine our support for TPA.
We stand ready to assist in delivering an agreement with market access provisions that we can support. Thank you, again, for the continuing efforts of you and your team.
Sincerely, 
Agri-Mark
Methuen, Massachusetts
Arthur Schuman Inc.
Fairfield, New Jersey
Associated Milk Producers Inc.
New Ulm, Minnesota
BelGioioso Cheese Inc.
Denmark, Wisconsin
Bongards’ Creameries
Norwood Young America, Minnesota
Cayuga Milk Ingredients
Auburn, New York
Commercial Creamery Co.
Spokane, Washington
Continental Dairy Products, Inc.
Artesia, New Mexico
Cooperative Milk Producers Association’s
Blackstone, Virginia
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
Kansas City, Missouri
Davisco Foods International, Inc.
Le Sueur, Minnesota
Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery
Ellsworth, Wisconsin
FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative
Madison, Wisconsin
First District Association
Litchfield, Minnesota
Foremost Farms
Baraboo, Wisconsin
Glanbia Foods, Inc.
Twin Falls, Idaho
Great Lakes Cheese Company
Hiram, Ohio
High Desert Milk
Burley, Idaho
Hilmar Cheese Company Inc.
Hilmar, California
HP Hood LLC
Winchester, Virginia
Idaho Milk Products
Jerome, Idaho
International Ingredient Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
J.M. Smucker Company
Orrville, Ohio
Land O’Lakes
Arden Hills, Minnesota
Leprino Foods Company
Denver, Colorado
Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative
Reston, Virginia
MCT Dairies, Inc.
Millburn, New Jersey
Michigan Milk Producers Association
Novi, Michigan
Mid-West Dairymen’s Co.
Rockford, Illinois
Northwest Dairy Association/Darigold
Seattle, Washington
Proliant Dairy Ingredients
Melrose, Minnesota
Sartori Company
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Schreiber Foods, Inc.
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Scott Brothers Dairy / Chino Valley Dairy Products
Chino, California
Select Milk Producers 
Artesia, New Mexico
St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc.
St. Albans, Vermont
Swiss Valley Farms
Davenport, Iowa
United Dairymen of Arizona
Tempe, Arizona
Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc.
Buffalo, New York

 

New Dairy Safety Net Woven with Key Principles

Posted on by dcadmin
In the aftermath of the economic bloodbath created by the Great Recession of 2008-2009, a period during which dairy farmers collectively lost $20 billion in equity, it became painfully obvious that a complete reform of farm policy was needed.  The National Milk Producers Federation spent the next two years developing an innovative means of protecting farmers against low milk prices and, just as importantly, high feed costs – because rapidly rising feed costs had become the more urgent issue in the past decade.
After years of struggle on Capitol Hill to get a new dairy program enacted by Congress, what has emerged from this challenging process is an unprecedented opportunity for dairy producers to work with the federal government to gain protection from the unpredictable, catastrophic price shocks that unfortunately have become common in recent years.  While important questions about the new Margin Protection Program (MPP) still need to be answered by the Agriculture Department, it’s already clear that this new safety net will provide much improved economic security for the domestic dairy sector in the 21st century.  Here are some reasons why:
Flexibility: Farmers can choose their own level of margin protection each year.  The USDA is expected to create an open enrollment window in the preceding year, during which farmers can decide their coverage options for the following year. Each year, a producer’s historic base can be insured from 25% to 90%, from the premium-free $4/cwt. coverage level, up to $8/cwt.  NMPF has suggested to USDA ways that the program can be made farmer-friendly, while at the same time helping keep costs of the MPP at reasonable levels.
Affordability: NMPF worked with Congress to ensure that the MPP’s premium levels are affordable to farms of all sizes, including those that may not have previous experience with private-sector risk management tools.  Beyond the nominal annual sign-up fee of $100, basic coverage at $4/cwt. is free, at all levels of milk production.  Prices for coverage rise in proportion to the degree of risk covered. But, particularly for the first four million pounds of coverage, a valuable safety net can be obtained for mere pennies per hundredweight each year. And risk coverage on production over four million pounds is very reasonable at lower and mid-levels of margin protection.
Equitability: The MILC program formally ends on Sept. 1st.  The practical value of this program eroded over the past decade, as its annual coverage cap is now exceeded by the average-size dairy, which produces closer to four million pounds annually.  With the majority of our milk supply coming from farms not adequately covered by the MILC program, the new MPP provides better protection because it has no insurance coverage limitations.  This is a far more equitable way to protect our milk production – and dairy farm – infrastructure than the previous size-denominated efforts. We need modern risk management going forward, not a program designed for the past.
Adaptability: One of the arguments against the previous safety net employed by USDA is that the dairy product price support program – even at a ridiculously inadequate price level around $10/cwt. – made it harder for domestic markets to clear during periods of oversupply, and at the same time, harder for the U.S. to compete internationally.  It was easier to sell surplus cheese, butter and skim milk powder to the government than to commercial markets.  That problem was solved by terminating the price support program.  The USDA is no longer a customer for surplus dairy commodity production, at any price. This means processors will adjust their product mix to what domestic and international customers want, not what USDA CCC purchasing standards dictate.  The MPP will help the industry further adapt to the ebb and flow of global markets.
These four principles were the ones NMPF pursued in its efforts to create a new dairy program.  Enshrining these principles in the new MPP is a tribute to the work of dairy farmers who, despite significant opposition, persevered in pushing for something new and better. Yes, this program is not the whole loaf that we sought. But it will be far, far better than what it replaces.
USDA still has important decisions to make, from the timing of first-year enrollment, to the schedule of premiums to be paid by enrollees, to how farms with different ownership structures will be treated. It also has to flesh out how the complementary dairy product donation program will operate if and when margins become extremely low. Those issues will be resolved in the coming months.
But the bottom line is this is a once-in-a-generation revolution in risk management in America’s dairy sector, allowing our 50,000 farmers the opportunity to preserve equity in a way that their fathers and grandfathers never could.  Those who enroll will have skin in the game in the form of their premium payments, so this is not a government handout.  Most of all, the new MPP is an illustration that cooperation and hard work have their rewards.

NMPF Sends USDA Recommendations on New Safety Net Program

Posted on by dcadmin
NMPF has sent a series of recommendations to the Agriculture Department on how to implement the new dairy safety net included the 2014 farm bill. The Margin Protection Program, or MPP, is a voluntary risk management plan that will address fluctuations in margins caused by high feed costs as well as low milk prices. NMPF was instrumental in the program’s enactment.  
 
NMPF’s recommendations, forwarded in mid-April, cover 17 issues that are either unclear in the legislation or were left up to USDA to decide. Included are the timing for first-year and subsequent registrations; the timing and structure of premium payments from farmers enrolled in the program; and how farms with different ownership structures will be treated. Several recommendations involve the operation of the dairy product donation program that will be triggered when margins are extremely low. 
 
NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern said he is pleased with discussions with the Agriculture Department over the new program so far. “While USDA has not yet made final determinations on any specific program provisions,” he said, “we are pleased with the positive dialogue and level of understanding we’ve seen.” 
 
Mulhern said NMPF’s goal is to achieve a Margin Protection Program that is both producer-friendly and maintains fiscal integrity in future years.  The program is scheduled to be rolled out on or before September 1st.
 

NMPF, IDFA Jointly Oppose Louisiana Raw Milk Bill

Posted on by dcadmin
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. 
 

FDA Agrees to Rewrite Draft Animal Feed Regulation after NMPF Raises Concerns

Posted on by dcadmin
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.” 
 

Waters of the United States Definition Proposed by EPA

Posted on by dcadmin
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. 
 

CWT Helps Members Export 28 Million Pounds of Dairy Products

Posted on by dcadmin
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. 
 

Obama Administration: EU Cheese Maneuver is a Trade Barrier

Posted on by dcadmin
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.”  
 

Chocolate Milk Ban in Schools Backfires

Posted on by dcadmin
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. 
 

Joint ABI-ADPI Meeting Features GMO Discussion, Attracts Record Attendance

Posted on by dcadmin
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.

Iowa Farm Group Honors Former YC Chairman

Posted on by dcadmin

The Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers presented its April Good Farm Neighbor award to former NMPF Young Cooperator Chairman Marty Burken, and his brother Michael. The Burkens run Blue Hyll Dairy in Clinton County. They were cited for leadership in conservation and sustainability and also for their community activities. The award was presented April 23 by Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey.

The Burken family (Lisa, at left, and Marty at right) milks 810 cows, raises 170 beef steers, has a compost business and also raises row crops. Blue Hyll Dairy has received awards for both water recycling and composting and was the inaugural recipient of Iowa Farm Environmental Leader Award, presented at the 2012 Iowa State Fair. Marty Burken chaired NMPF’s Young Cooperator program in 2010. 

 
 
 
 

 

Passing the Test

Posted on by dcadmin
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.