Jaime Castaneda, NMPF’s Executive Vice President for Policy Development & Strategy, discusses Canada’s lack of willingness to honor its dairy commitments under USMCA on RFD-TV. A dispute resolution panel under the trade agreement has found Canada’s system of allocating access to its dairy market to the U.S. in violation of the deal. NMPF is urging an aggressive U.S. response.
NMPF Senior Vice President for Trade Shawna Morris discusses the current nationwide infant formula shortage and ways to solve the immediate crisis, speaking with the National Association of Farm Broadcasters. While temporary import increases can help alleviate short-term shortages, current problems involve supply-chain shortfalls doesn’t reflect a lack of inputs, she said: “The milk, the ingredients, that the plant would need in order to produce formula, no challenge there. Instead, what we have is a problem more on the processing capacity piece.”
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) today welcomed the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) announcement to offer additional support to American agriculture exporters through the new Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP). The initiative will provide funding from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to exporters to reduce the costs of sourcing containers at the Oakland and Seattle-Tacoma ‘pop-up’ port locations.
“Dairy producers and other agriculture exporters have been clamoring for relief from these ocean shipping challenges for nearly two years,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “While we continue to seek solutions from the carriers and from Congress, these steps by USDA demonstrate their understanding of our industry’s challenges. We feel they are positive, focused investments that will offer immediate relief to our dairy exporting cooperatives.”
“We are grateful to see Secretary Vilsack and USDA taking a leadership role in addressing these port and ocean freight challenges that dairy producers are facing. I am impressed with the speed and innovative approach with which USDA has moved this pop-up concept into operation,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “We will continue working with USDA and its interagency partners in pursuing solutions to the supply chain challenges that impact the bottom line of dairy exporters and the U.S. workers and foreign consumers who rely upon American dairy exports.”
As port terminal operations have become congested and ocean carriers have prioritized shipping empty containers back to Asia from west coast ports, agriculture exporters have struggled to obtain containers from the carriers, to secure reliable vessel bookings, and to overcome obstacles to delivering goods to the ports to meet vessel departures timelines. The pop-up sites are intended to offer off-terminal locations for empty container storage, increasing access for agriculture shippers to use them and freeing up port terminal space for freight operations. At the pop-up sites, exporters can transload their commodities into the containers (both dry and reefer) and store them on property until the vessel booking earliest return dates are announced, enabling more efficient drayage delivery to the ports. The FSA’s payments will help to cover the costs of moving the containers between the ports and the pop-up yards, as well as the storage at the pop-up site.
NMPF and USDEC are working with USDA to identify key port locations, including at inland terminals, to replicate the pop-up initiative.
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) today applauded the Biden administration for its initiation of a second U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) dispute panel concerning Canada’s ongoing refusal to meet its USMCA dairy trade obligations.
The first USMCA dispute panel launched by the U.S. government determined in January that Canada was in violation of the agreement’s dairy tariff-rate quota (TRQ) provisions. On May 16, Canada published as final its revised USMCA dairy TRQ approach, which failed to fix its USMCA-violating practices. To address the additional problems Canada’s revised approach has raised and to defend the integrity of the agreement, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office has brought an additional case.
“Prime Minister Trudeau regularly pledges Canada supports a rules-based global order built on cooperation and partnership, yet Canada continues to flout these trade commitments and plays games rather than meet its signed treaty commitments,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “Dairy farmers appreciate USTR’s continued dedication to aggressively pursuing the full market access expansion into the Canadian market that USMCA was intended to deliver. At the same time, given Canada’s history of persistent violations and the high likelihood Ottawa will once again disregard its USMCA obligations, USTR and USDA must be prepared to deploy the strongest-possible retaliatory measures envisioned under the USMCA should this ‘whack-a-mole’ approach continue. Canada’s actions must have consequences.”
“USTR and USDA have shown dogged determination to uphold USMCA despite Ottawa’s clear refusal to engage in real reform to come into compliance with the agreement,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “Dairy farmers and processors appreciate the clear bipartisan commitment from both the Administration and Congress for enforcing the USMCA and insisting on getting the full export benefits the United States so painstakingly negotiated. If we allow Canada to simply ignore its clear obligations, it will set a dangerous and damaging precedent for future trade disputes that will reach far beyond the millions of jobs supported by the American dairy industry.”
Canada’s updated TRQ system continues to block key stakeholders in the Canadian food and agriculture sector, including retailers, from accessing the TRQs, using an allocation method that provides inequitable advantages to Canadian dairy processors, and fails to employ good regulatory practices to encourage effective use of the TRQs allocated to a given company.
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) welcomed the announced launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) today and the opportunity it offers to strengthen ties with key trading partners across the Asia-Pacific region.
Exports are exceptionally important to the U.S. dairy industry. The United States exported $7.75 billion in dairy products worldwide in 2021, equivalent to approximately 17% of total U.S. milk production.
“Today marks an essential first step on what will surely be a complex journey,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “But to successfully compete in the Asia-Pacific region and meet their demand for dairy, we ultimately need a level playing field. That means tackling both tariff and nontariff barriers that weigh down the ability of U.S. dairy exporters to keep pace with EU and Oceania competitors that have successfully negotiated agreements across the region. We support USTR’s launch of IPEF and look forward to partnering with the Administration on it as talks proceed. As that commences, I urge the Biden Administration to set specific time frames for IPEF negotiations so that it can deliver meaningful results for American dairy farmers. We cannot afford another Trans-Pacific Partnership-type outcome in which we negotiate for six years only to walk away from the final result, leaving our exporters no further down the road than where we started.”
“IPEF offers a chance for the United States to have a positive impact on the trading environment in a vital area of the world,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “The Asia-Pacific region is an important destination for U.S. dairy exports and offers impressive prospects for continued growth and expansion thanks to growing consumer demand for the type of high-quality products the U.S. produces so well. If IPEF is crafted to include meaningful market access improvements and address non-tariff barriers, then these regional trends will help drive economic benefits for American farmers, dairy manufacturers and industry workers for decades to come.”
Dozens of members of Congress from both parties have underscored to the administration the importance of securing market access gains in IPEF. On March 30, a bipartisan group of 87 House members urged the Administration to prioritize agriculture in IPEF negotiations and outlined examples of both tariff and nontariff results that should be pursued. On May 9, two dozen Senate Republicans wrote to Ambassador Tai and Secretary Vilsack to urge the inclusion of market access and enforceable commitments in IPEF.
While supporting the use of IPEF and other targeted trade tools to advance exports, USDEC and NMPF have been unyielding in their call for once again pursuing comprehensive trade agreements around the world, and especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where competitors like the EU and Oceania have been especially active.
USDEC and NMPF filed comments on the IPEF trade agreement on April 11. The filing noted, “NMPF and USDEC’s priority and strong preference is the pursuit of comprehensive trade agreements to establish lasting trade barrier reductions on both the tariff and nontariff fronts. Recognizing that the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is not likely to be such an agreement, we nevertheless urge the Administration to seek to eliminate or reduce both tariff and nontariff barriers to U.S. dairy exports through the IPEF.”
With FDA guidance expected on the proper labeling of plant-based milk alternatives sometime this summer, it’s worth noting – even if seemingly for the millionth time – that this isn’t a tough call, no matter what plant-based lobbyists would tell you.
The FDA’s own standards define milk as an animal product. The agency charged with protecting the public health should, you know, protect the public health from well-documented consumer confusion over nutritional content. And if anyone tells you that it’s just too difficult for FDA to do that – that straw-grasping arguments about First Amendment speech protections and the proliferation of plant-based beverages are just too overwhelming for the agency to do its own job – remember this: FDA has already enforced labeling integrity. Multiple times.
For the record: Before it decided that plant-based beverages were just too numerous (or litigious, perhaps?) to do anything about, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used to stand up to its own mission. On Jan. 23, 1981, FDA warned a soy-product manufacturer that “The statement ‘soybean milk’ has not been sanctioned as an acceptable identity statement for such a mixture as water, soybean, wheat and seaweed by this agency,” adding that there is not “a clear and uniform understanding of what ‘soybean milk’ is in this country.”
The 1980s were a feisty time for fighting food fakes. On Sept. 29, 1983, FDA wrote a research institute in Singapore to say “we have not recognized the term ‘soy milk’ as a common or usual name or appropriately descriptive term for statements of identity or ingredient designations of any food. As a result, we would object to any soy product entering this country that was labeled as ‘soy milk.’” A similar letter to South Korea in 1985 stated, “The names ‘soymilk’ and ‘vegetable milk’ are not acceptable identity statements for these products. The product may be called ‘soy drink’ or ‘soy beverage.’”
Chalk up dairy-label integrity as another reason to be nostalgic for Ronald Reagan. But before you dismiss seemingly ancient agency actions as part of a now-unrelatable era of high inflation, disputes over what’s taught in schools, and tensions with Russia (um, wait a second), note FDA’s letter of June 29, 2011. In that one, the agency told a sports-drink manufacturer that its “Muscle Milk” product line was misleading because its products “do not conform to the standard of identity for milk.”
Fake-milk enforcement isn’t merely a relic of Reagan’s FDA. It was part of President Barack Obama’s as well. But of course, consumers all know that “Muscle Milk” isn’t really made of muscles – right? According to FDA’s own actions, that’s not enough. Milk ain’t muscles, even though it builds them. It also ain’t almonds, or oats, or soy, or …
You get the picture. So why doesn’t FDA? Given the agency’s recent track record, it’s fair to say its years of inaction creates nervousness over what it might do next. Any attempt to justify previous non-enforcement by saying “but we haven’t been enforcing it” is flat-out wrong – the record shows it. And any argument that says “time has established a new usage while we’ve done nothing” isn’t just untrue, it insults the FDA officials who did stand up for integrity.
FDA could use some of that these days. Consumers could use some too. While we’re at it, the whole world could use a big dose of integrity (along with copious quantities of high-nutrition, true dairy products). And it’s not impossible. We’ve seen it before. Maybe someday — maybe soon – we can see it again.
NMPF Senior Vice President of Communications Alan Bjerga discusses the planned White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health later this year, the first major White House conference on nutrition in more than 50 years. Bjerga discusses the changes in U.S. nutrition and nutrition policy during that time, and how keeping dairy’s place in diets prominent is critical toward ensuring a healthy, hunger-free future for the United States, on WEKZ radio.
It’s easy to become numb to the over-polished signaling that often passes as discourse in Washington, but sometimes reading things closely reveals interesting nuggets that show how an official is weighing a decision or perceiving an issue.
Example: an exchange between FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin at a recent Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. Baldwin chairs the Senate subcommittee that sets spending levels at FDA — the sort of thing that would make an FDA commissioner pay attention. And when she asked him for his thoughts on how plant-based beverages that masquerade as dairy products should be labeled, he noted that when people think about dairy vs. plant-based beverages, they “are not very equipped to deal with what’s the nutritional value” of the products.
In other words, confusion over the nutritional values of dairy versus plant-based beverages is real.
This isn’t the first time an FDA commissioner has acknowledged the problem of nutritional confusion, which has gained attention well beyond the dairy farmers who create high-quality nutrition every day. From the American Academy of Pediatrics to the School Nutrition Association and others, concerns over the public-health impacts of consumers substituting dairy with nutritionally inferior plant-based products are widespread and well-known.
That’s why Califf’s predecessor, Dr. Stephen Hahn, said in his confirmation hearing that “clear, transparent, and understandable labeling for the American people” was necessary “so that they can make the appropriate decisions for their health and for their nutrition.” That’s why Hahn’s predecessor, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, expressed concern that consumers were being “misled” by plant-based beverages and asked whether consumers “who are using plant-based milk products by seeing the word ‘milk’ imputing a certain nutritional value into that beverage that they’re not deriving?”
And that’s why Gottlieb’s predecessor, who was … wait. Gottlieb’s predecessor was Califf. But you get the picture.
The problem of nutritional confusion, also borne out by consumer surveys, isn’t even controversial at FDA, at least not among its political leadership. The only thing that’s been controversial, apparently, is FDA staff doing something to address the problem. But hope springs eternal, as well as opportunities for action. With long-promised guidance on dairy terms and plant-based beverages due this summer, federal policy has a chance to align with the words of its top officials, by finally creating the labeling integrity consumers deserve.
Doing the wrong thing – essentially preserving the Wild West status quo of plant-based peddlers flouting the FDA’s own rules – will mean little, as federal courts have ruled that guidance policy pronouncements can’t replace regulation, and at the root of current regulation is FDA’s own standard of identity, which clearly identifies milk (the building block of all dairy products) as an animal product.
But doing the right thing – advocating for consumers, promoting transparency in labeling and reinforcing the nutritional importance of those standards – would help restore FDA’s credibility as a consumer advocate and its reputation for public health leadership. And let’s face it, FDA isn’t having the easiest time these days.
The path is clear. The door is open. All FDA needs to do is walk through it and fix what its leaders already know is a problem. And we know they know it. Because they’ve said it themselves.
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) today called on the U.S. government to levy retaliatory tariffs on Canada after Ottawa made clear that it refuses to meet its signed treaty obligations under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) concerning dairy market access.
In January, a USMCA dispute resolution panel initiated by the U.S. found that Canada’s dairy tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) system violates the terms of USMCA. Canada issued a new TRQ proposal in March which included only inconsequential changes. Today’s announcement shows no indication that Canada intends to comply with its USMCA commitments on dairy TRQs.
“Canada made a clear choice to thumb its nose at both the United States government and its international treaty obligations. It has completely disregarded the USMCA agreement signed just a few short years ago,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “Ottawa’s decision today is clearly designed to test our resolve by doubling down on its longstanding dairy trade violations, ignoring both the spirit and the letter of its trade agreements. That decision demands retaliatory action by the U.S. government. Otherwise, our trade agreements will be seen as toothless before the ink is dry.”
“USTR, USDA and scores of members of Congress from both side of the aisle have worked diligently to ensure American dairy farmers and manufacturers benefit from USMCA. They deserve our deepest thanks for bringing us this far,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “Unfortunately, Canada simply refuses to institute real reform, and such actions must have consequences. Retaliatory tariffs are both fair and necessary in this circumstance, as clearly provided for by USMCA.”
As an April 5 bipartisan letter on the matter sent to Ambassador Tai and Secretary Vilsack from several leading members of the U.S. House of Representatives stated, “A deal’s a deal; it’s not too much to ask that our trading partners live up to their end of the bargain.”
On April 19, USDEC and NMPF filed public comments on the matter with Global Affairs Canada. The filing noted, “Canada’s proposed allocation and administration policy changes in response to the CUSMA report continue to fall woefully short of full compliance with Canada’s CUSMA obligations. This has consequences not only for the agreed-upon CUSMA benefits denied U.S. and Canadian stakeholders, but also for the credibility of CUSMA enforcement procedures undergoing their first test in this dispute and for the success of CUSMA itself. We urge Canada to consider its larger interest in the success of the CUSMA and modify its dairy TRQ allocation and administration policies to give effect, in good faith, to Canada’s CUSMA commitments.”
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) today praised the nomination of Alexis Taylor to serve as USDA’s Under Secretary of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
“This position is essential to the health and well-being of American agriculture, and especially the nation’s dairy farmers, who last year exported over 17% of the milk they produced,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “We are extremely pleased that the Biden Administration has selected such a well-qualified nominee as Ms. Taylor. She has done an excellent job in her prior government service roles and we know will be a strong advocate for U.S. dairy and agriculture as Under Secretary of Trade. We look forward to supporting her throughout the nomination process and working closely with her in her new role once confirmed by the Senate.”
“Consumers around the world seek out American dairy products when making their food decisions,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “Unfortunately, ensuring our products reach international store shelves is an unending struggle, working to overcome barriers to trade while also striving to create new market access opportunities. With her wealth of leadership experience at both USDA and at the state level, Ms. Taylor is perfectly positioned to serve American farmers, the broader agricultural industry, and American workers throughout the agricultural supply chain in this indispensable role. The Senate should act quickly to confirm this outstanding nominee.”
William Loux, vice president of global economic affairs for the U.S. Dairy Export Council, discusses the short-term challenges of high input costs and lower milk production for U.S. dairy exports. He also details the bright longer-term future for dairy sales overseas on the Agriculture of America podcast.
