From Jim Mulhern, Chief Operating Officer, NMPF:

“It is disheartening that lawmakers in America’s Dairyland are even considering legislation that would damage public health by liberalizing the sale of raw milk to consumers.

“There is no evidence that raw milk provides any health benefits different from the numerous nutritional benefits of pasteurized milk. However, there is extensive evidence that raw milk can contain deadly pathogens that otherwise would be destroyed by pasteurization. Seldom has the science behind public health policy been so clearly one-sided. It is simply irresponsible to confuse wishful thinking and the placebo effect, with clear clinical research demonstrating that illness-causing bacteria can be, and are being found in raw farm milk. And these pathogenic bacteria can be found on any dairy farm, regardless of its cleanliness or the good intentions of its owner.

“We are reiterating our concerns to lawmakers at today’s hearing in La Crosse because Wisconsin must remain a leader in providing high quality, safe dairy products for consumers. Deregulation of raw milk in Wisconsin would be bad for the nation’s dairy industry and, far worse, it would be tragic for public health.

“State legislators, and Governor Walker, need to keep in mind that if this measure passes, those most vulnerable to dangerous pathogens – children – are the ones who will suffer the most. The benefits of consuming raw milk are illusory, but the painful costs of illness and death are very real.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), 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.

Animated Figure to Promote Real Dairy Products with Fans of All Ages

Arlington, VA – As part of the ongoing effort to revitalize and build awareness of the dairy industry’s iconic REAL® Seal, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is inviting the public to help choose the name that will be given to a cartoon character modeled after the logo. The character greets those who go to www.realseal.com and will be used in other applications in the future.

“We’re excited to use this character to help kids, parents, and dairy fans of all ages learn about real dairy products and foods made with real American dairy products, when they’re browsing the grocery store aisles and eating in restaurants,” said NMPF Chief Operating Officer Jim Mulhern. “Giving people the chance to vote for the name we’ll use is democracy in action.”

Throughout the summer, NMPF used the REAL Seal website and Facebook page to gather submissions for the naming contest. More than 110 individual suggestions were entered. After a review process, the three most fitting candidates were selected. They are:

• Dairyus – Submitted by Kathryn in Clermont, IA (honorable mentions to Ed in Tipton, IA, and Joe in Washington, DC, for alternate spellings).
• Milkdrop – Submitted separately by Roger in Franklin, KY, and Cecelia in Amelia, VA.
• Roscow – Submitted by Gavin in Fairfax, VA (honorable mention to Sara in East Syracuse, NY, for an alternate spelling).

To choose among these three finalists, voters can visit www.realseal.com to select a favorite. The campaign is also being promoted at the Seal’s Facebook page, www.facebook.com/REALSealDairy. The online voting link will be open through Tuesday, Nov. 5th, which is Election Day 2013. Only one vote per computer will be allowed. The result will be announced November 13th at the NMPF annual meeting in Phoenix.

 

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), 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 30 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.

ARLINGTON, VA – For the second time in three years, organizations representing the nation’s dairy farmers and dairy companies jointly urged state lawmakers in Wisconsin to reject efforts allowing raw milk sales directly to consumers in the nation’s second-largest dairy state.

In a letter sent Tuesday to Wisconsin state senators, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) said that the risks inherent in raw dairy products are not worth any purported benefits to either consumers or producers of unpasteurized milk products. The two associations urged lawmakers to reject Wisconsin State Senate bill 236, which would allow the state‐wide direct sale of raw milk. The measure is the subject of a hearing today in Madison.

“Consumption of raw milk has been opposed by every major health organization in the United States, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The link between raw milk and foodborne illness has been well‐documented in the scientific literature, with evidence spanning nearly 100 years. Raw milk is a key vehicle in the transmission of human pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella,” the organizations wrote.

Federal law prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk, but allows states individual discretion to regulate raw milk sales within their borders. Several states in recent years have considered legislation expanding the sales of raw milk, even as the product has been repeatedly linked to serious illnesses from coast to coast. At a school event in Wisconsin in 2011, 16 individuals, including fourth-grade students and adults, drank raw milk donated by a parent and later suffered from diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, and vomiting from Campylobacter infections.

IDFA and NMPF wrote that “it is the responsibility of Wisconsin’s leaders to make decisions to protect the health of the public, most especially those who are minors and are unable to make fully informed decisions that could have profound consequences for the rest of their lives.”

The two dairy groups mentioned in the letter that “the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that nearly 75% of raw milk‐associated outbreaks have occurred in states where sale of raw milk was legal. Legalizing the state‐wide sale of raw milk in Wisconsin increases the risk to public health, opening up the state’s consumers to the inevitable consequence of falling victim to a foodborne illness. No matter how carefully it is produced, raw milk is inherently dangerous. Americans have become ill after consuming raw milk obtained from farms of varying sizes, from cow‐share programs, and from licensed, permitted, or certified raw milk producers.”

“Nationally, our dairy industry benefits from a very high degree of consumer confidence – confidence built in large part due to the excellent food safety record of milk and dairy products. In fact, current statistics estimate only 1‐2% of reported foodborne outbreaks are attributed to dairy products. However, of those, over 70% have been attributed to raw milk and inappropriately‐aged raw milk cheeses. A single case of illness – even one caused by a well-intentioned dairy farmer – that is attributed to raw milk or raw dairy products in Wisconsin would likely have an adverse effect on consumer confidence in and consumption of all healthful, nutrient‐rich dairy foods like milk, yogurt, and cheese.”

“While choice is an important value, it should not pre‐empt consumers’ well‐being. Legalizing the state‐wide sale of raw milk is an unnecessary risk to consumer safety. Therefore, we strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 236,” the letter said.

The two organizations made a similar plea against liberalizing raw milk sales in 2010, when former Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle was presented with a bill that he ultimately vetoed.

 

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 30 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 International Dairy Foods Association, Washington, DC, represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies representing a $125-billion a year industry. IDFA is composed of three constituent organizations: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the National Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream Association (IICA). IDFA’s 220 dairy processing members run more than 600 plant operations, and range from large multi-national organizations to single-plant companies. Together they represent more than 85% of the milk, cultured products, cheese and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States. IDFA can be found online at www.idfa.org.

In a situation reminiscent of last year, Congress returns to Washington this week with a limited amount of time to deal with the farm bill before several current programs expire.

In 2012, the election season limited the amount of time Congress could deal with a new farm bill, and ultimately, a new measure wasn’t passed. This year, in addition to farm policy, lawmakers must also deal with the expiration of the fiscal year funding authority after Sept. 30th, extend the debt ceiling, and consider authorizing military action in Syria. These contentious items are expected to dominate action on Capitol Hill in September.

For those in agriculture hoping for action on the farm bill, the focus remains on the House, which passed a flawed, farm-programs-only measure in July as part of a two-step process. House leaders have talked recently in generalities about taking up the nutrition-policy-only title soon after reconvening on Monday. If that nutrition bill passes, the House presumably would name agriculture committee conferees to meet and hash out a final farm bill with counterparts from the Senate.

But the nutrition bill the House will consider is expected to cut $40 billion from food stamps, ten times the size of the reduction contained in the Senate farm bill. The extent of that reduction will not attract much, if any, support from House Democrats, and it will be a difficult figure to reconcile with the Senate’s version, once both measures reach the House-Senate conference committee process. If the two congressional chambers fail to agree on a farm bill that can be signed by President Obama by September 30, yet another extension of current programs is one potential outcome.

Another is that those programs that expire at the end of this month – including the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program – will be left in limbo until a decision is made about whether to try for a new bill, or extend the current one – as was the case in the fall of 2012. Given where dairy prices are, no MILC payments are expected in the remaining four months of this year.

Other farm programs, including the dairy product price support program, are authorized through December 31. If either a new farm bill isn’t in place by then, or current programs aren’t extended yet again, the provisions of the Agricultural Acts of 1938 and 1949 will take effect, potentially resulting in much higher price support levels for a variety of commodities, including milk.

Dairy farmers should continue to urge lawmakers to pass a farm bill, including the dairy policy reforms endorsed by the Senate in June. The House gutted those reforms in July by approving margin insurance without a stabilization program to keep supplies from building up and prices from plummeting. Farmers can use NMPF’s Dairy GREAT system to send an email.

The month of August was another solid month for the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) Export Assistance program. Assistance was provided to member cooperatives on cheese totaling 10.820 million pounds and on butter (82% fat content) totaling 5.932 million pounds.

These sales bring the year-to-date total sales to 86.5 million pounds of cheese and 67.2 million pounds of butter. On a milkfat basis, that is the equivalent of 2.312 billion pounds of milk.

Exports of U.S. dairy products are up significantly this year and CWT has been a major contributor to the increase. Through June, CWT-assisted product shipments are 51% of total butter exports, 72% of total American cheese, and 18% of total cheese.

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) said last month that with the start of a new fiscal year on October 1, it will resume the quarterly milk production producer surveys it suspended earlier this year due to budget cuts.

Back in April, NASS suspended its monthly milk production report because of the federal budget sequester. After NMPF protested the lack of government data, NASS agreed to continue providing a monthly production estimate, albeit produced without the use of farmer surveys to help verify milk output trends. Since April, the USDA has used data from federal milk marketing orders, dairy checkoff data, state departments of agriculture, and other administrative sources.

The producer survey program will resume with a late September mailing to dairy producers, and the release of resulting data on October 21. With the quarterly surveys, the dairy cow and milk per cow statistics will once again be available.

NMPF continues to create awareness of dairy products – and the REAL Seal itself – through its new social media campaign connecting a new generation of consumers with products that use the Seal.

To date, NMPF has made a significant initial investment to underwrite a variety of promotional activities, including a new website, a new Facebook page, blogger outreach, and a new animated character. This brief video highlights activities already underway, and those planned for the future.

Until last fall, the REAL® Seal website – www.realseal.com – was targeted only at companies using the REAL® Seal to help them learn what they needed to do to qualify for the program. Today, the website is focused on consumers of dairy products and foods with dairy as a significant ingredient. The REAL® Difference for Consumers section tells consumers how to differentiate REAL® dairy products and foods made with REAL® dairy ingredients from imitators. Another subsection provides nutrition information comparing the natural goodness of REAL® dairy products, to the fabricated nutrition of imitators.

In addition, a buyer’s guide will soon be added to the website. All companies using the REAL® Seal will receive a free basic listing, and the opportunity to expand their presence in the Buying Guide. Consumers interested in buying REAL® dairy products, or foods made with REAL® dairy ingredients, will be able to do so by using this Guide.

The REAL® Seal Facebook page — www.facebook.com/REALSealDairy — is reaching consumers, and more importantly, engaging them in why they should buy REAL® dairy products, and foods made with REAL® dairy ingredients. Since the Facebook page was launched in June, it has received nearly 60,000 “Likes.” This is the result, in part, of a paid advertising campaign initially funded by NMPF. The Facebook campaign has also benefited from the strong click-through rate, meaning consumers are continuing on to the REAL® Seal Facebook page rather than simply clicking “Like” on the REAL® Seal ad in their news feeds.

The program user fees being collected will go toward continuing these and other campaign elements, strengthening the connection between consumers and REAL® Seal users’ products. Future program elements will include a national blogger network, a Pinterest presence, email-driven direct marketing, and mobile apps.

NMPF has joined with the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) and several other cooperatives, proprietary companies, and organizations to send a strong message to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding the need for an improved approach to tackling the problem of escalating efforts by the European Union (EU) to monopolize the use of many common food names. For instance, in several U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) partners, the EU is on the brink of successfully restricting use of cheeses widely made in the U.S. such as parmesan, gorgonzola, and several others. NMPF and the letter’s other signatories stressed the importance of tackling this issue not solely as an Intellectual Property topic, but also as a de facto barrier to market access.

Through its membership in CCFN, NMPF has been actively supporting efforts to oppose these naming restrictions not only in our export markets, but also here at home. The launch of U.S.-EU FTA talks threatens to impose these name product limitations on our own domestic market, a concern of even greater proportion than the sizable export challenges we currently face.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade ministers met at the outset of the latest round of TPP trade negotiations in late August. The meeting was intended to help spur progress in the talks and move discussions closer to a goal of concluding by the end of this year.

The U.S. in particular has been increasingly vocal about the need for greater focus and progress to advance challenging issues at this stage. On two items in particular – market access talks with Canada & Japan – are at very early stages: August represented Japan’s first full TPP round of negotiations and Canada has to date continued to resist opening up its dairy market to any meaningful degree. NMPF remains closely involved in discussions with U.S. negotiators on all topics of interest to the dairy industry and has made the U.S. government well aware of the key deliverables needed in order to secure the industry’s support.

In a little more than two months, dairy farmers from around the country will gather at the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix, AZ for the 2013 annual meeting that NMPF hosts jointly with the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDB) and the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). The meeting will be held November 11 – 13.

The joint annual meeting offers attendees several days of informative programming, in addition to opportunities to interact and network with dairy producers and industry leaders from across the country. Dairy producers, cooperative staff, Young Cooperators (YCs), industry suppliers, trade press, and others from within the dairy sector are all invited to attend.

Individual and group meeting registration, along with hotel reservations, can be made online at www.dairyevents.com. Although online registration is preferred, a registration form may also be filled out and submitted via mail or fax. Online, mail, and fax registration must be submitted with payment by Thursday, October 17. Visit www.nmpf.org/nmpf-joint-annual-meeting for more information.

In Mary Shelley’s classic 19th-century horror novel Frankenstein, all manner of troubles result after a scientist brings a dead human back to life. Today, the term “Frankenfood” is often used by activists to demonize genetically-modified plants. Attacks on the use of biotechnology in the 21st century are themselves coming back to life, after having been mostly dormant the past decade. Just as in the fictional account of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, the real-life reinvigoration of the anti-GMO food movement is creating all sorts of new troubles for food producers. It’s as if the past 200 years of scientific progress and enlightenment are being cast aside by forces that focus on fear and demagoguery, not the facts.

It’s a bit puzzling why this issue is resurfacing, given that the production of genetically-modified corn, soybeans, cottonseed, and canola on millions of acres has been growing for more than 15 years, without a single food safety issue – not one – arising during this period of widespread use. There was an initial surge of criticism of biotech seeds in the late 1990s, and then the issue seemed to fade…until lately. The expensive and testy ballot initiative in California two years ago, over whether to require the labeling of foods using GMO ingredients, certainly gave new life to the issue. Similar recent state labeling proposals and popular referenda, along with efforts at the federal level to establish biotech food labeling, are adding fuel to the fire.

What’s new this time around is that anti-GMO groups are now attempting to target specific brands in the value chain, from processors to retailers to foodservice companies, urging them to repudiate the use of any GMO ingredients in their food supply. There’s no clear reason articulated as to why these products should be eliminated or targeted for labeling, other than vague insinuations about the fear of the unknown. This, despite the fact that biotech seeds and plants have been subject to rigorous scientific testing, review, and approval by government authorities worldwide.

So far, these efforts, led by groups such as GMO Insider, haven’t harvested any changes in behavior. But the consequences for livestock producers, including dairy farmers, would be severe if the question about how to produce food becomes focused on eliminating GMO seeds from the process.

Anti-GMO activists are seeking to drive a wedge between the decision-makers across the food production chain, since our complex system necessarily involves the unique choices of many individual suppliers. Food processors and marketers have little or no means of controlling or verifying the choices that go into the production of livestock at the start of the value chain. And for farmers, they have little to no ability to provide the types of often technical details that justify their decision to use GMO seeds as they raise cows and other meat, milk, and egg-producing animals.

The rationale for using modified seeds is clear: these plants help reduce soil erosion, increase the crop yield, reduce the amount and number of pesticides needed, and cut the carbon footprint of agriculture because less tillage requires less fuel. In a world where the population is growing, but arable land and fresh water are not, GMO seeds have a critically-important role to play in both the developed and developing world.

In America, these benefits have resulted in widespread adoption of GMO products. Today, 90+% of corn, soy, cottonseed, and sugar beets are genetically modified, meaning there are few remaining acres devoted to producing “traditional” feed crops. At the farm gate, the demand for GMO seeds is emphatic and undeniable. But at the grocery store, efforts to sow misunderstanding and harvest mistrust of GMO products are likewise undeniable. Witness the fact that retailer Whole Foods will spend the next five years verifying whether all of the foods it sells, including livestock products, were fed or produced with GMO ingredients.

This type of activism ensures that the issue will not quickly disappear. The use of social media to generate vocal opposition to certain food production tools, including GMOs, is likely to fan the flames in the future. But there’s good news as well as bad news here.

The fact that there’s a great deal of misinformation about food biotechnology is indeed a cause for concern, but it’s also an opportunity for those who understand and support the technology. The National Milk Producers Federation is working with other farm groups to share information about how genetically-modified food plants help increase crop yields and decrease chemical inputs including fertilizer and pesticides. Coalitions like the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (through its FoodSource online tool) have devoted considerable resources to providing clear, fact-based resources that help dispel the misconceptions surrounding the use of GMO feeds.

As is always the case, the best proponents for a particular product are its practitioners – in this case, the farmers who grow and harvest the crops. Sixteen million farmers around the world use biotech crops, and not just in the U.S. The social media tools that farmers need to explain their choices will, in the future, be just as important as the technology itself that creates GMO seeds. That’s a great opportunity, and also an obligation we can’t hesitate to pursue.

Congress left Washington August 1st for a five-week recess, with the fate of the 2013 farm bill still very much up in the air. Prior to leaving town, House Republican leaders negotiated a farm bill nutrition title that raises to $40 billion the level of cuts to food stamp programs. This food stamp-only measure is likely to be voted on once the House returns Sept. 9.

The House has already passed a farm programs-only version of the farm bill, while the Senate’s farm bill contains both farm and nutrition programs. Prior to leaving on recess, the Senate named 12 conferees from the Agriculture Committee to meet with their counterparts in the House, once the House leadership names its set of conferees.

The August recess offers another chance for dairy farmers to tell lawmakers how important it is to pass a farm bill that includes the dairy policy reforms endorsed by the Senate in June. This message can be delivered in the coming weeks at August town hall and Congress-on-your-corner meetings, Labor Day parades, individual office meetings, and so forth.

Once Congress returns to Capitol Hill after Labor Day, the time frame in which to pass a compromise bill is limited. Many farm programs, including the MILC program, expire September 30th. Further complicating things, the current agriculture appropriations measure expires the same day.

The price support program is authorized through December 31st, after which permanent law likely would be activated, potentially resulting in much higher support levels for a variety of farm commodities, including milk.

3 Key Messages for Legislators in August

Here are three key reasons why Congress must enact the Senate dairy reform provisions over those in the House bill:

• The Senate provides an effective dairy safety net at low cost, while the House does not. The House bill encourages milk supplies to build up and prices to plummet. Without a market stabilization program, the House margin insurance plan will threaten the viability of dairy farming.
• The Senate dairy title is fiscally responsible, while the House version is not. The House bill creates a new, open-ended dairy subsidy. Taxpayer costs would have been $1 billion higher under the House bill, had it been in effect over the last four years.
• Contrary to misleading statements from dairy processors, the Senate dairy provisions will not hurt consumers. Had it been in effect between 2009 and 2012 the Senate bill would cost the average American family only 25 cents extra per year for dairy products.