Tag: dairy labeling

AI’s Influence Requires Innovative Response

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

Just a couple years after its wide-scale introduction, Artificial Intelligence, aka AI, has already changed how people create, how they interact with the Internet, and how they interact with one another.

But it’s not without pitfalls: From “hallucinations” to hate speech, the quality of AI answers generated by Large Language Models can vary widely, often illustrating a principle that’s much older than the Internet: Garbage in, garbage out.

How does this affect dairy, where overwhelming mainstream support has been tempered by decades of negative misinformation, often peddled by plant-based imitators trying to make a quick buck by convincing people that their concoctions are superior to milk? Armed with an incognito browser window and an intern (thank you for your research, Presley Wirebaugh), we set out to find out what ChatGPT and other LLMs might say about milk. And what did we find?

In many ways, it wasn’t so bad. When it comes to dairy beverage labels, it turns out that ChatGPT’s “thoughts” aren’t that much different from recent heads of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration — it identifies the problem with nutritional confusion and calls for greater transparency. Answers note that milk is nutritionally superior to plant-based beverages, it understands that consumer confusion over the nutritional benefits of milk vs. plant-based is real, and it notes the value of improved, transparent consumer labeling.

Below is one question we asked. Note that we stooped to calling plant-based beverages a “milk,” as we were mimicking queries from less-informed consumers. Also note that the boldface type in the answers is from ChatGPT’s response:

Which is more nutritious: plant milk or cow milk?

Answer: Cow milk is generally more nutritious than most plant milks, particularly when it comes to natural protein content, calcium, and bioavailable vitamins and minerals.

Here’s another:

How should plant milks be labeled?

Answer: Plant milks should be labeled clearly and accurately so consumers understand what they are buying — especially because they are not nutritionally identical to cow’s milk.

One more:

What should I know about the nutrition of cow’s milk?

Answer: Here’s what you should know about the nutrition of cow’s milk — it’s a naturally nutrient-rich beverage, especially valuable for growth, bone health, and muscle maintenance.

Thank you, ChatGPT.

This good news comes with many caveats, often from what seems to be ChatGPT’s efforts to be even-handed to the point where “fair” actually takes a side. Along with the endorsement of milk’s nutritional value is discussion of how plant-based alternatives can also be healthy. The discussion of labeling stops far from fully endorsing the view that dairy terms should never be used on plant-based beverages. ChatGPT states that:

✅ Bottom Line: Plant-based products should be allowed to use dairy-like names if labels are transparent about their origin and nutrition. This ensures both clarity and choice for consumers.

That sounds a lot like the unworkable half-solution FDA suggested three years ago. Still, after decades of demonization, half-a-loaf is encouraging. And as we’ve always stated, once you’ve accepted the reality of nutritional confusion, the need for change becomes clear. It’s a matter of time, and persistence.

So dairy comes out OK on plant-based labeling. In other areas, the limitations of the models, and the power of anti-dairy propaganda, becomes clear. Here’s an example:

What do people like more — plant milk or dairy?

Answer: Among Gen Z and Millennials, plant milk is often preferred, especially oat and almond milk.

“Often preferred” is a pretty big stretch, given that overall market share of plant-based beverages is under 10% and has been falling for years. Are the AI models scooping up old data? Breathless press releases from struggling plant-based companies? More research required.

Even more challenging is what the answers say about dairy’s sustainability.

Which is better for the environment: plant milk or cow milk?

Answer: Plant milk is significantly better for the environment than cow’s milk — across the board in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and land use.

Ouch.

So — getting out the message of dairy farming’s value as part of regenerative agricultural systems, showing dairy’s progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, optimizing water use, encouraging efficient land use … you know, all the things that go into the FARM Program — plays into winning the battle of a ChatGPT query.

It’s a good story to tell. After all:

  • The U.S. dairy industry was the first in the food agriculture sector to conduct a full Life Cycle Assessment at a national scale, in 2008.
  • According to an assessment released in May, from 2007 to 2020, the greenhouse gas footprint of farmgate milk production decreased by 13%. And …
  • U.S. dairy has set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 through developing well-targeted incentives that encourage climate-friendly investments among dairy farmers across all sizes and regions. This comes on top of dairy’s record of animal stewardship and top-level workforce management.

Each individual search, multiplied by thousands per day, every day, adds up to the realities we will increasingly inhabit. And that becomes the new frontier for defining dairy.

This isn’t the AI moment — it’s the AI reality. And just as when the industry has faced past challenges, and just as dairy farmers do every day, innovation will be a must.

 

NMPF Helps Break Regulatory Logjams

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft
  • Amplified whole milk’s importance in student meals
  • Stood against unrealistic EPA regulations
  • Shepherded change at the 39th NCIMS
  • Fostered H5N1 and New World Screwworm collaboration.

The Regulatory Affairs team has made significant headway this year on longstanding key issues as Washington policymakers take a fresh look at topics that have languished in some cases for decades.

Whole milk is poised to return to school menus after nearly a decade of NMPF effort.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, sponsored by Reps. GT Thompson, R-PA, and Kim Schrier, D-WA, and Sens. Roger Marshall, R-KS, and Peter Welch, D-VT, has been a top NMPF priority for more than half a decade. Thanks to NMPF’s constant amplification of the latest nutrition science and the benefits of whole milk, the legislation has come farther this year than ever before, passing the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry via voice vote. With multiple avenues available for full congressional approval this year, NMPF continues its advocacy for the legislation, which will return to schools the authority to offer whole and 2% milk in federally funded school meals.

In a win for agriculture, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 7 upheld a 2019 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that exempted air emissions from animal waste at farms from select reporting requirements subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, or EPCRA. EPCRA reporting requirements are tied closely to the reporting requirements for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, which is commonly known as the Superfund statute. Both CERCLA and EPCRA include reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances to the environment that NMPF has successfully contested for years.

For the second time on the same rule, NMPF filed comments July 11 to the Department of Health and Human Services opposing FDA’s proposed Front-of-Pack labeling rule as well as two proposed plant-based labeling guidance documents. These comments responded to a request for information as part of HHS’ deregulatory initiative begun by a Trump Administration executive order, and echo comments NMPF submitted directly to FDA in January about the proposed rules and guidance.

In its comments to HHS, NMPF states that FDA’s Front-of-Pack nutrition labeling scheme is a highly flawed, unlawful approach to educating consumers about food nutritional profiles. Because the front-of-pack label would only list saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, consumers will get an incomplete picture of that food’s nutritional profile. In its separate comments to HHS on plant-based guidance, NMPF pointed to ample evidence that mislabeling has led to confusion among consumers regarding the nutritional deficiencies of plant-based alternatives and that there are negative human health consequences as result of that confusion. NMPF helped deliver favorable outcomes for nine proposals it submitted on behalf of its members, including a standard for bulk-tank cleaning that’s better aligned with milk-truck standards, at the 39th National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, which met April 11-16 in Minneapolis. The conference tackled important issues facing FDA’s National Grade “A” Milk Program, the Grade “A” Milk Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) and related documents.

Support for eliminating H5N1 in dairy herds and rapidly developing an approved H5N1 vaccine for dairy cattle has continued this year. NMPF created an H5N1 Vaccine Working Group to help inform about potential H5N1 vaccination strategies for dairy cattle which may include target populations, vaccination protocols, surveillance frameworks, and communication needs for stakeholders. NMPF has also worked closely with USDA and FDA to monitor and prepare for a potential New World Screwworm infestation. A fact sheet for farmers to know what to look for in their herds and what to do if they suspect a case of NWS on their farm is available online, and NMPF will update members as new information emerges.

NMPF Flags Bad FDA Labeling Rules to HHS

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

NMPF filed comments July 11 opposing FDA’s proposed Front-of-Pack labeling rule as well as two proposed plant-based labeling guidance documents published in response to a Department of Health and Human Services request for information.

In its comments to HHS, NMPF states that FDA’s Front-of-Pack nutrition labeling scheme is a highly flawed, unlawful approach to educating consumers about food nutritional profiles. The proposed rule violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on certain compelled commercial speech by focusing solely on saturated fat, sugar and sodium while ignoring the fact that dairy is a good or excellent source of 13 essential nutrients, NMPF states. The First Amendment requires compelled commercial speech to be factual, uncontroversial and related to a substantial government interest. NMPF has repeatedly pointed out to FDA that the proposed Front-of-Pack nutrition labeling fails to meet these legal requirements and therefore the proposed rule must be revoked.

“The proposed Nutrition Info box compels food manufacturers to carry a subjective, government-endorsed message that elevates three nutrients above all others, despite disagreement among nutrition experts and evolving science showing the importance of the complete food, especially in dairy products,” NMPF said in its comments. “We believe that compelling this messaging violates the commercial speech protections under the First Amendment.”

In its separate comments to HHS on plant-based guidance, NMPF calls attention to two proposed documents: “Labeling of Plant-based Milk Alternatives (PBMA) and Voluntary Nutrient Statements” published in the Federal Register Feb. 23, 2023, and “Labeling of Plant-Based Alternatives to Animal-Derived Foods: Draft Guidance for Industry” published in the Federal Register last Jan. 7.

Eliminating these plant-based labeling guidance documents directly aligns with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s mission of “making sure that providers and caretakers can focus on preventing and treating chronic diseases,” NMPF said in its comments. NMPF pointed to ample evidence that mislabeling has led to confusion among consumers regarding the nutritional deficiencies of plant-based alternatives.

“These documents mislead consumers, distort public understanding of healthful eating, and are both unlawfully promulgated and otherwise unlawful on numerous grounds,” NMPF said.

HHS is considering these comments as part of its broader deregulatory initiative.

FDA Proposal Eliminates 18 Dairy Standards; NMPF Seeks input

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

The Food and Drug Administration proposed July 16 to revoke 18 standards of identity (SOIs) for dairy products, concluding that these standards are no longer necessary to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. NMPF finds several of the changes problematic and is seeking member input on what to do next.

FDA in its action said it wants to get rid of three categories within the standards of identity rules: Products no longer on the market, foods covered by different regulations, and combination foods. NMPF believes FDA’s analysis is wrong in some cases about products they claim are not in the marketplace.

“If these products are still being made and FDA takes them off the Standards of Identity list, then those foods can be made any way anyone wants and they will be able to be called that food. That’s going to wind up with consumers getting things with no idea of what they’re getting,” Senior Vice President of Regulatory & Environmental Affairs Clay Detlefsen said.

NMPF is asking its members to notify Detlefsen at cdetlefsen@nmpf.org whether their co-op still produces any of the products on FDA’s list and if losing the Standard of Identity will negatively affect their business. Based on that feedback, NMPF will determine whether to request a formal administrative hearing in addition to its written comments submitted by the Sept. 15 deadline for the proposed rule.

NMPF’s Galen Outlines Complaint About Country Crock Fake “Butter”

Posted on by Chris Galen

NMPF’s senior vice president Chris Galen explains for listeners of Dairy Radio Now why the American Butter Institute, which NMPF manages, recently filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration about the labeling of Country Crock’s “dairy free butter.” Galen, who is the Executive Director of ABI, says that a plant-based seed oil spread is by law not real butter, and shouldn’t be allowed to disguise itself as such.

Lab-Based Dairy is So Boring

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

It’s strange to admit, but as more and more consumers react negatively to the lack of nutrition and marketing honesty in plant-based and lab-based beverages, news of their falling sales, struggling stock prices and consumer skepticism has become almost … boring.  

But being boring is one thing. Being Bored is another level entirely. Let’s explain. 

Two years ago, when “lab-based” milk seemed to be promising some more of the same mislabeling craziness that plant-based dairy imposters have been foisting on consumers for decades, an over-hyped beverage called “Bored Cow” entered the marketplace.  

Promising “animal-free dairy milk,” (which, per FDA standards of identity, is impossible), Bored Cow played the same trick as other purported lab-based milk imitators — it fermented one dairy protein (out of hundreds of milk’s total chemical components), added a bunch of other stuff to it, and decided to market it as milk, complete with spurious sustainability claims and promises to “fix our food system,” etc.  

NMPF complained to the FDA, and, as has been customary with FDA for the past several decades when it comes to dairy terms, very little happened. But another place where little seems to be happening is … Bored Cow’s sales. Once the hype died down, did Bored Cow just … wander away? 

A look at the company website, tryboredcow.com, returns a message saying “Sorry, this store is unavailable.” Same thing happens to the website of one of its two corporate parents, the venture-capital-established Tomorrow Farms. Bored Cow’s Instagram page was last updated last August.  

Perfect Day, the other entity from which Bored Cow was spawned, at least still has an active web presence. The company is active enough, in fact, to get sued by the Organic Consumers Association for peddling Bored Cow as milk when it’s actually, as alleged in the lawsuit, about 87% fungus, among other things. (You can see why they’d prefer to associate with dairy, with limited fungus demand among American beverage consumers.) According to an article detailing the suit, Bored Cow has become a bit of a distraction for Perfect Day, which in 2023 pivoted to building business-to-business relationships with large consumer products companies and didn’t want to focus on brands. 

Multiple requests for comment from Perfect Day were not returned. Bored Cow doesn’t seem to have any contact information.  

To be sure, Bored Cow still seems to exist. Target and Walmart are selling it, and UberEats says it can deliver you some in an hour if you’d like. But if this is the lab-based revolution, it’s a bit underwhelming. Sales of real milk are up, dairy investment is booming, and the return to milk (and the turning away from alternatives) is genuine. Proving yet again that reports of the death of dairy a few years ago were greatly exaggerated. Now it seems like it’s the one-time wave of the future that’s on life support.  

An interesting thought. But it’s also one that’s become so obvious that’s it’s getting a little … you know.   

NMPF’s Bjerga Reviews Milk Consumption Trends

Posted on by Chris Galen

NMPF’s executive vice president Alan Bjerga explains for listeners of Dairy Radio Now how real milk is fighting back against plant-based imitators, with the latest government data demonstrating that milk demand is rising, while fake “milks” are losing market share. Meanwhile, whole milk in particular is in greater demand, as NMPF fights to return it to the school lunch program.

NMPF Fights Back on Flawed Labeling Regulations, Prepares for Regulatory Freeze

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

NMPF filed comments with the Food and Drug Administration Jan. 17 opposing its proposed rule that would require saturated fat, sodium and added sugar to be displayed prominently on the front of packaged foods.

The proposed nutrition label, referred to as the Nutrition Info box, would complement the existing Nutrition Facts label required on most food packages. However, because the front-of-pack label would only list saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, consumers will get an incomplete picture of that food’s nutritional profile. NMPF’s comments assert that FDA should withdraw the proposal because it is unlawful and unable to withstand a First Amendment challenge.

FDA also issued its second guidance document on the labeling of plant-based foods in January. This new document deals with plant-based food alternatives to animal products, including many foods in the dairy category, as well as eggs, seafood, poultry and meat.

The guidance excludes milk, which was covered in a 2023 guidance. The new recommendations suggest manufacturers prominently display more details about the ingredients used in a product, beyond just saying they are “plant-based.” NMPF submitted comments to FDA on Jan. 15 stating that the agency should be enforcing its own standards of identity as written and follow the lawful process of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Meanwhile, President Trump on Jan. 20 issued a memorandum directing all federal agencies to freeze all new or pending federal rules until the new administration has had an opportunity to review them. Similar freezes were issued in prior administrations. The 60-day regulatory freeze will affect the two proposed rules FDA issued in January, as well as FDA’s flawed “Healthy” final rule issued in December. NMPF continues to monitor these and other regulations, preparing for multiple outcomes when the freeze lifts.

Dairy Champions Prod FDA to Enforce Dairy Terms at Legislative Hearing

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

NMPF helped several dairy champions in both parties shine a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s decades-long refusal to enforce dairy product standards of identity Sept. 10 when Jim Jones, the agency’s Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, appeared at a congressional hearing on FDA’s human foods program.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee hearing examined numerous bipartisan bills, including the NMPF-backed DAIRY PRIDE Act (H.R. 1462) to compel FDA to enforce dairy standards of identity in the interest of public health and truth in labeling. The bill is sponsored by Representatives John Joyce, R-PA, Ann Kuster, D-NH, Mike Simpson, R-ID, Joe Courtney, D-CT, Derrick Van Orden, R-WI, and Angie Craig, D-MN. Senators Tammy Baldwin, D-WI, Jim Risch, R-ID, Peter Welch, D-VT, and Susan Collins, R-ME, are leading the bill in the Senate.

In an exchange with Jones, Rep. Joyce, the bill’s lead House sponsor, said the agency’s 2023 draft guidance regarding the labeling of plant-based milk alternatives is woefully inadequate. That draft guidance suggested that plant-based product manufacturers disclose on their packaging the nutritional deficiencies of their products relative to real milk, but it made no attempt to discourage manufacturers from using the term ‘milk’ in the name of the product.

“The nutritional value of dairy products is superior to these imitators” and should not be sold in dairy cases, said Joyce. “Simply urging companies to spell out the nutritional deficiency will not solve the problem of consumer confusion, which stems from assumptions based on the use of the term ‘milk’. And ‘milk’, I am concluding with you today, comes from a lactating mammal, and the imitators – the fakes – are simply not milk.”

Backed by numerous public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, NMPF has long argued that consumers do not fully understand the nutritional differences between real dairy and its plant-based imitators. Rep. Kuster put emphasis on this point, stating that “so many public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have urged FDA to remove the term ‘milk’ from plant-based beverages.”

Finally, Rep. Kat Cammack, R-FL, a DAIRY PRIDE cosponsor, pressed Jones for a timeline on when FDA would make last year’s draft guidance final. FDA said after the hearing its expectation was that the guidance should be published by the end of 2025.

Dairy Diversity Ready to Grow

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

It might sound crazy to think that a product that’s already in 94 percent of U.S. households has room to grow, but the numbers indicate it’s true. Here’s what we’re talking about:

This comes from a study done by the International Food Information Council, supported by NMPF and the International Dairy Foods Association, on consumption habits among diverse U.S. populations. What’s striking is that, even though self-reported lactose intolerance among non-White populations runs at roughly 30 percent (according to the same study), clear majorities among Black, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander populations haven’t even tried milk that addresses that intolerance, forgoing an option that provides 13 essential nutrients. And presumably, some of those non-milk drinkers are in that 6 percent who don’t have it in their refrigerators.

(And conversely, some of that 94 percent must include lactose-intolerant consumers. Are they taking lactase pills to aid in digestion? Are other household members the milk drinkers? There’s still much to know.)

The point is this: At a time when the committee drafting recommendations for the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans is looking at nutrition science and contemplating recommendations that are appropriate to the lived experiences of a wide range of Americans, it’s important to meet people where they are. For the overwhelming majority of them, that means a place where they have milk in the fridge. Those who aren’t there are in a place where awareness of the numerous ways to benefit from dairy nutrition, regardless of lactose tolerance, isn’t what it needs to be.

That suggests a need to double down on offering dairy’s benefits in a way that’s tailored to the needs of individual communities. It means listening to communities that value dairy and wish it could be offered more readily, in more accessible forms. It means serving that 94 percent of households with milk — and using the tools available to raise that percentage. It emphatically does not mean de-emphasizing dairy as a critical nutritional option for all Americans — or even worse, suggesting it be replaced by sources that aren’t nutritionally equivalent.

NMPF has a call to action that dairy advocates can use to help get this message across. Public health, and the best public health guidance, is important to all Americans. And dairy is ready to provide high-quality nutrition that’s affordable and accessible to all.

 

Dairy Radio Now Listeners Learn of House Hearing Examining FDA Labeling Failure

Posted on by Chris Galen

NMPF’s Executive Vice President Paul Bleiberg explains for Dairy Radio Now listeners why the House of Representatives held a hearing this week to examine how the Food and Drug Administration is focusing its resources. Bleiberg said Deputy FDA Commissioner Jim Jones faced scrutiny from lawmakers about the agency’s failure to enforce standards of identity for the labeling of plant-based dairy imitators, a point NMPF has been raising for years.