The FARM Animal Care Program is hosting numerous events through the summer and fall to prepare participants for Version 3.0 of the program, set to be implemented on January 1, 2017.

Three, 2-day Train-the-Trainer courses will be held in Ithaca, N.Y., August 2-3; Minneapolis, Minn., Aug. 31-Sept. 1; and Phoenix, Ariz., Nov. 8-9. Each course will go over the goals of the FARM Program and explain how to successfully complete a FARM Version 3.0 evaluation with the new program guidelines. All FARM Program trainers wishing to maintain their certification must attend one of the above in-person training courses.

Additionally, the FARM Program will offer a one-day Evaluator Training course in Minneapolis on Sept. 2. All FARM Program Evaluators must recertify on Version 3.0 of the Program either in-person or online before January 1, 2017. More information on the Train-the-Trainer and Evaluators Training courses can be found on the FARM Program website.

The FARM Program also will host a FARM Evaluator Conference in Nashville, Tenn., November 2-3, 2016. This inaugural conference will inform evaluators about emerging animal health and welfare issues allow ample time for group discussions and networking. This conference will enhance individuals' evaluation and communications skills with session topics like social media 101 and crisis management training. Registration information on that meeting will be shared later this summer.

The U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, of which NMPF is a member, is looking for its new class of standout farmers and ranchers to share on a national stage how they grow and raise food. To help put a real face on agriculture, USFRA will select a group of individuals who are proud of what they do, eager to share their stories of continuous improvement, and who already have a strong presence on social media.  The previous Faces class included dairy producer Will Gilmer of Alabama, and the current class features Carla Wardin of Michigan.

“People genuinely want more information about farming and ranching, and talking to people as a representative of the industry sharing the facts, but also addressing their feelings, is an interesting part of this role,” said Carla Wardin, a member of the Michigan Milk Producers Association. “I’d encourage everyone who is curious to apply, because not only does it help you improve as a communicator, it also allows you to make an impact on the consumers’ view of today’s agriculture as being progressive and committed to responsible practices.”

To apply, visit www.FoodDialogues.comto learn more about the program. Entries will be accepted beginning on Monday, June 6 until Sunday, July 10. Finalists will be announced by USFRA in mid-August, and each finalist will be profiled on FoodDialogues.com. Winners will receive a $15,000 stipend, professional media/speaker training and full support from USFRA through their yearlong tenure.

Cooperatives Working Together members secured 27 contracts to sell 4.890 million pounds of American-type cheese, 813,506 pounds of butter and 396,832 pounds of whole milk powder in May. These products will go to customers in Asia, Central America, the Middle East, North Africa, Oceania and South America. The products will be shipped from May through November 2016.

For the first five months of 2016, CWT assisted members in winning export sales contracts totaling 23.230 million pounds of American-type cheese, 8.530 million pounds of butter (82% milkfat) and 18.464 million pounds of whole milk powder destined for customers in 20 countries on five continents. The sales are the equivalent of 541.117 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis.

Helping CWT member cooperatives gain and maintain world market share through the export assistance program in the long-term expands the demand for U.S. milk and dairy products. This, in turn, positively impacts all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening the value of dairy products, which directly impact their milk price.

The amounts of dairy products and related milk volumes reflect current contracts for delivery, not completed export volumes. CWT will pay export assistance to the bidders only when export and delivery of the product is verified by the submission of the required documentation.

All cooperatives and dairy farmers are encouraged to add their support to this important program. Membership forms are available at http://www.cwt.coop/membership.

Canada is moving forward with a dairy policy designed to alter the market access available to the U.S. dairy industry. A pricing proposal introduced in Ontario this spring, and reportedly scheduled to be announced nationally in the very near future, is intended to harm imports of ultra-filtered milk from the United States. Already, American exports of ultra-filtered milk to Canada have dropped significantly due to procurement adjustments by Canadian processors last month.

Ultra-filtered milk is concentrated liquid milk with a very high (85%) protein level. U.S. ultra-filtered milk exported to Canada is used in cheese-making and enters under a tariff line for high-protein dairy that, according to the terms of the NAFTA agreement, provides duty-free access for U.S. products to the Canadian market. For the past few years, Canada has been considering various approaches aimed at curtailing these U.S. sales.

A regulatory shift in its cheese standards also remains a possibility, but for now, Canada appears to have settled on moving forward with the new pricing policy that provides processors an incentive for using Canadian milk for specifically targeted purposes, and a disincentive for using imported ingredients.

“It is unacceptable for Canada to undermine market access, especially at a time when the U.S. is preparing to move forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. “All parties to the TPP must be held to their previous agreements. This maneuvering—aimed to make it more difficult for U.S. dairy companies to access the export markets soon to be opened through TPP—are just the type of activity that must be guarded against once the agreement is enacted. 

NMPF has made clear that the benefits of TPP hinge on the strict and vigilant enforcement of the obligations contained therein. As NMPF has testified, the U.S. should not move forward to approve TPP until it can ensure that all countries will abide by their agreements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NMPF’s forecast for MPP margins for the remainder of 2016 – based on early June milk and feed futures prices – indicates that nearby margins may dip below the $6 threshold before strengthening in the 4^th quarter of 2016 and into 2017. 

The USDA announced earlier this week that the March-April MPP margin is $7.15/cwt.  Those who chose buy-up coverage at the $8 level will receive approximately $0.85/cwt. on one-sixth of their production history, and those covered at $7.50 will receive approximately $0.35/cwt.

 

In preparation for the next round of negotiations in July, NMPF continues to engage stakeholders and challenge certain elements of the ongoing Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations.

NMPF is extremely concerned about the EU’s continued efforts to restrict commonly-used product names, known as geographical indications (GIs), despite the fact that these names have long been considered generic in the United States and elsewhere around the world. NMPF is standing firm in insisting that American producers have every right to use common names like parmesan, feta, asiago, gorgonzola and others.

The EU’s negotiating gamesmanship has been evident in their brazen attempt to pit dairy against other livestock sectors during the TTIP negotiations in an effort to secure such GI provisions.

"It will not be possible to make a generous offer [on pork, beef or poultry] unless we get GI [geographic indications] protection,” an EU source told reporters at the last TTIP negotiating round. “That's the quid pro quo."

NMPF was vehement in its response to these comments, saying: “Trade agreements are about tearing down barriers, not erecting new ones. That important point of principle is one that American agriculture has remained united on for decades. That’s why EU efforts to drive a wedge between U.S. farmer groups by urging one to push for new barriers on the other will not be successful.”

The news magazine Politico covered the issue earlier in May, when the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative expressed its commitment to push back against the EU’s efforts.

“The EU has aspirations for changing the U.S. system that are not going to be met in TTIP,” a USTR spokesman stated in the Politico article.

 “The geographical indications issue is a horrific overreach by the EU that undermines the entire EU interests in these negotiations,” said NMPF president and CEO Jim Mulhern in the same article. “It’s purely and simply a protectionist approach that flies in the face of what free trade agreements are all about.”

Mulhern traveled to the United Kingdom in May to reinforce the organization’s stance on the agreement. There, he spoke at a conference of for European farmers and dairy industry officials on the state of the U.S. dairy industry. During several interviews with European press following the conference, Mulhern discussed the issue of geographic indications, noting that they "add grave insult" to the U.S. dairy industry and that NMPF would not support an agreement with them in it.

As the next round of TTIP negotiations approaches, it’s clear that the resolution approved by NMPF’s Board of Directors this past March appropriately focused on the lack of progress to date in removing EU barriers to U.S. exports. Since then, the EU has done little but seek to impose new restrictions on U.S. market access rather than address their various nontariff trade barriers.

NMPF will continue to emphasize the importance of ensuring that TTIP negotiators take the time to get the agreement right by fully removing existing EU nontariff barriers to U.S. dairy exports and ensuring that new ones do not spring up to take their place.

The House Education Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal school lunch program, approved legislation last month that would take steps to reverse the decline in school milk consumption.

The Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, which sets the standards for key government feeding programs, such as the school lunch and WIC programs, was approved by the Education Committee on May 19. The bill included an amendment, which was strongly supported by NMPF, that requires adjustments in feeding programs to promote better consumption of milk by the nation’s students, and permits schools to offer all varieties of milk consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The amendment, offered by Congressmen G.T. Thompson (R-PA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT), also provides for innovative approaches to meet the needs of lactose-intolerant children. Their legislation was included in the larger child nutrition package, which now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

The most recent version of the Dietary Guidelines for America, released in early January, reinforced the need for three servings of dairy foods per day – a level of consumption that most Americans don’t achieve. The guidelines provide the basis for USDA programs governed by the child nutrition act.

“By better aligning the school lunch program with the federal dietary guidelines, options including 1% flavored milk will be back on the lunch tray in school cafeterias as a result of this legislation,” said Jim Mulhern, NMPF president and CEO. 

Earlier this year, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a similar child nutrition reauthorization measure that also contains NMPF-supported provisions calling on USDA to review milk’s role in nutrition, and to take steps to rectify the decline of milk consumption in schools.  NMPF will continue to urge the House and Senate to finalize the child nutrition legislation before the end of 2016.

The Food and Drug Administration last month released its updated nutrition facts label design, which will call out the total sugar content of foods. Reflecting concerns raised by NMPF, the new label requirements will not include some forms of lactose as an added sugar—a significant victory for the dairy industry.

Last fall, NMPF advised  FDA on its proposal for including added sugars on the nutrition facts label.  National Milk cautioned that the agency’s proposed definition of added sugar would lead to confusion between the natural lactose of dairy ingredients, and other sugars such as sucrose.

In the final rule released May 20^th, the FDA adjusted its definition of added sugars so that while lactose alone is considered an added sugar, the lactose in dairy ingredients will not be. This means the naturally-occurring lactose present in dry dairy ingredients such as milk powder and whey won’t have to be labeled as an added sugar. 

The sugar added to sweeten flavored milk, whether sourced from sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, will be considered an added sugar, as will any sugar added to yogurt, ice cream, or imitation dairy beverages. Further analysis will be required to determine whether, how, and in what amount added sugars must be declared.

The new FDA label places more emphasis on overall calories, and also updates the daily values assessment to help consumers understand the relative nutrient content of certain foods.  It also adds vitamin D and potassium as nutrients that must be declared, joining calcium and iron on the label. Vitamins A and C will no longer be required but can be included on the label on a voluntary basis.

Manufacturers will need to use the new label by July 26, 2018. However, manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales will have an additional year to comply with the regulation.

More than 100 dairy farmer leaders from across the country will descend on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to urge Congress to take immediate action to establish a federal standard on the disclosure of biotechnology ingredients in food.

NMPF’s Board of Directors, and its Young Cooperators advisory council will meet with Senators and House members to push for Congressional action in advance of July 1, the date Vermont’s first in the nation GMO labeling law is slated to take effect. NMPF is ratcheting up efforts to create a national regulatory system for biotech foods that would preempt unworkable state mandates such as the one in Vermont.  As part of that effort, the Board will also be voting next Wednesday on a resolution that urges Congress to resolve this issue in a way that will avoid confusion in the food marketplace.

NMPF’s concern is that if the Vermont law goes into effect, and other states adopt similar approaches, the continued challenge to safe and sustainable agricultural biotechnology will cause disruption across the food chain, and stigmatize current and future products that have demonstrable benefits to society.

NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney told a hearing last month of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock that the failure by Congress to address this issue “threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population.” 

“Biotech plants not only are safe for consumers, they also enhance the environment, by reducing energy, water and pesticide use,” said Mooney. “Farmers have overwhelmingly adopted GMO crop technology because it increases productivity while improving agricultural sustainability.”

The NMPF resolution to be voted on Wednesday also addresses a corresponding concern that future state mandates could mandate the labeling of meat and dairy products solely because the dairy cattle supplying the milk have consumed feed that is genetically modified. 

Mooney said that “biotech crops have no effect on the milk or meat from animals that consume them, and that’s why any biotech food disclosure efforts need to ensure the common-sense treatment of animal feed.”

Times are tough for dairy farmers as we head into the summer of 2016. That’s the message NMPF Chairman Randy Mooney delivered on May 24 before the House Agriculture Committee’s livestock subcommittee at a hearing on the “State of the Barnyard.” The hearing addressed the concerns of the nation’s dairy, beef, pork and poultry producers about a range of challenges, starting with the rural economy.

In his remarks, Randy spoke passionately about the most pressing issues for dairy farmers, including the current economic environment, trade and market access, labor availability and the need for immigration reform, and the pressing need for federal, rather than state, legislation for foods containing biotech ingredients.

Randy expressed appreciation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its work to improve the Margin Protection Program, but he noted that the program is not currently working as intended. I share the view of our Chairman that MPP is the right program for dairy’s future, but that further adjustments are needed to ensure that it provides an effective safety net for dairy producers.

Two key issues he discussed about the MPP were the program’s feed cost component and the price tag of supplemental coverage. Randy pointed to cuts that were made by Congress in the feed cost index that have distorted the margin calculation. He also noted that the cost of premiums to buy up coverage, especially at higher margin levels, discourages participation. We will continue working with the Congress and USDA on these and other issues in the coming months. Our focus is on what improvements should be made to this evolving program to help it better meet its intended objectives.

Another NMPF priority Randy discussed in his testimony was the need for fair and balanced international market access agreements to be negotiated and enforced. Randy described the growing importance of exports to the U.S. dairy industry but also noted that trade deficits with the European Union and other markets continue to increase. Agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which can have a positive effect on the U.S. dairy industry, will only work if the specifics terms of the deals are strictly enforced.

Already we’re seeing countries like Canada try to wiggle out of their commitments by imposing new regulations which undermine the very market access that was previously agreed to. Such tactics cannot be allowed to continue, a point which Randy articulated to the House members in his testimony.

Randy also addressed the current number-one policy priority in Congress for NMPF: federal legislation preempting state laws calling for labeling foods containing biotech ingredients. With the clock ticking as Congress tries to reach consensus on a bill before the Vermont GMO mandate legislation goes into effect on July 1, our Chairman stressed the importance of the Senate acting immediately on this critical issue. No one could have said it better than he did: “Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population.”

There’s no shortage of issues right now in the dairy community—which frankly made whittling down Randy’s testimony to the requisite 5 minutes a real challenge. Even with the time constraints, he provided a clear picture of the state of the dairy economy, and gave Congress a strong signal on our dairy legislative priorities for the next several months.

The text below is Randy’s brief testimony to the livestock subcommittee (his full presentation, submitted for the record, is available here).

Randy Mooney:

To be clear, times are tough on America’s dairy farms, for the second year in a row. USDA projections indicate that revenue from milk sales will drop this year to $31.5 billion dollars, the second lowest level in the last decade and a more than $20 billion plunge from 2014’s highs. As U.S. milk production has grown and we have had to rely more heavily on world markets, our fortunes are now more closely tied to the extreme volatility that are a feature of global commodity markets. 

Because of this volatility in both milk and feed prices, we must continue to reassess our risk management tools. For most of the eight years I’ve been chairman of National Milk, I’ve worked with our member cooperatives and dairy producers to build a better safety net. Our request to Congress after the economic disaster our industry suffered in 2009 was to create a risk management tool that would provide protection against the prolonged and catastrophic cost-price squeeze we had experienced.

In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress created the Margin Protection Program. Approximately 23,000 dairy producers are in the program, representing 80 percent of our milk supply. In 2015, U.S. dairy producers paid $73 million dollars in premiums and fees to USDA, while USDA only paid out $700,000 under the program. This year, dairy farmers have paid in another $23 million dollars.

I firmly believe MPP is the right dairy program for the future. That said, our experience to date is that MPP is not completely fulfilling its intended objective as an effective safety net. We remain confident that improvements can be made by the Congress to this still-evolving program.   For many farmers, the current program is simply not enough to protect them in this economic environment. Since the Farm Bill was signed into law, MPP margins have fallen 52 percent, with further declines expected.

While MPP is similar to the initial proposal put forward by National Milk, the plan was altered during the farm bill process. One change reduced the feed cost component of the margin, so the current formula no longer reflects the true cost of feeding a herd. Second, while the feed cost component was changed, farmer premiums were not, when they should have been reduced to accommodate the reduced feed component. MPP has been less effective as a result.

I have heard from many dairy farmers that their financial challenges will only increase if prices do not improve before 2017. We continue to discuss ways to improve MPP with our member cooperatives, USDA and the Congress. Clearly, adjustments to the feed cost calculations and the farmer-paid premiums would improve MPP’s effectiveness as a safety net for all dairy producers. The feasibility and timing of such adjustments are issues we want to explore with the Committee.

Our industry is also impacted by numerous other policy issues that are described more fully in my submitted comments.  I want to highlight two of them today. 

First is the critical importance of Congress acting immediately to pass legislation to ensure that a single, federal standard is established on the labeling of genetically modified foods. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that the Congress resolve this matter before July 1^st, when the Vermont law takes effect. Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability not only of my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population. 

Trade is another area of importance to dairy farmers. Our nation has gone from exporting less than $1 billion in dairy products in 2000, to more than $5.2 billion of exports in 2015, an increase of 435 percent.  This enormous growth can be largely attributed to the market-opening free trade agreements negotiated by our government.

We support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because it can help U.S. dairy exports continue to grow in key world markets. But in order for farmers to realize any benefit, important implementation and enforcement issues must be addressed as Congress prepares to consider TPP.

Separately, any trade agreement with the European Union must first prioritize how to tackle our trade deficit with Europe, while also addressing the nontariff barriers – like Geographical indicators and sanitary barriers — that the EU uses to limit our access. The EU has not demonstrated a good-faith commitment to open agricultural trade. The U.S. must proceed cautiously by securing clear commitments from the EU to guard against the imposition of future trade barriers.

America’s dairy farm families stand ready to help this committee as you review current policies and consider new legislation that impacts our industry.

ARLINGTON, VA – The challenging economic conditions affecting America’s dairy farmers call for improvements by Congress to the federal safety net program created in the 2014 Farm Bill, according to Randy Mooney, chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation, in testimony Tuesday before the House Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture.

The hearing focused on the state of the livestock sectors in America, including dairy farming – which is facing the worst global turndown in milk prices since 2009. Mooney, a dairy farmer from Rogersville, Missouri, who also serves as chairman of Dairy Farmers of America, urged the committee to work with NMPF to reassess how the dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP) can be improved in the future.

“I’m confident that the MPP is the right dairy program for the future,” Mooney said of the program, which was developed following the recession-induced dairy price crash seven years ago. The program offers dairy farmers the ability to purchase insurance-type coverage against poor margins caused either by low milk prices or high feed costs.  “But the program is not completely fulfilling its intended objective as an effective safety net. For many farmers, the MPP is simply not enough to protect them in this economic environment.”

Mooney explained that when the Farm Bill was written, the MPP formula for calculating feed costs was altered, which understated the true cost of feeding a dairy herd.  At the same time, while the feed cost element was diminished, the farmer cost of insurance premiums was not reduced.  The MPP “has been less effective as a result,” Mooney said.

“In 2015, many farmers saw that the MPP didn’t pay out much, even at the highest levels of coverage. So in 2016 they opted for the least expensive – and minimal – level of coverage available. Had Congress not reduced the feed ration, more farmers would have seen benefits in 2015 and participated at higher levels this year,” he said.

Mooney said that the MPP remains a work in progress, and that farmers want to work with Congress and the USDA to “improve the effectiveness of MPP for all dairy producers.”  He said recent administrative changes made by USDA to the program will enhance the MPP’s flexibility and make it more useful for farmers.

Mooney also addressed two other pressing issues of importance to dairy farmers:  the threat posed by a lack of a federal standard on the labeling of foods made with biotechnology, and the promise of new export markets as a result of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Mooney said that both chambers of Congress must establish a national law on how to define and label foods with genetically-modified ingredients prior to July 1, 2016, when Vermont’s law will take effect requiring labels on such products. In the absence of clear federal standards for food labeling, more states will pass differing versions of legislation addressing food biotechnology, leading to a confusing series of claims and mandates across the entire food marketing chain, Mooney said.

“Failure by Congress to address this issue threatens the viability of not only my farm, but also the 30,000 farmers I represent. It also threatens our ability to feed the world’s growing population,” he said. Mooney said that if biotech crops are stigmatized and their usage declines, it will be harder to improve on agricultural sustainability through reductions in the use of water, pesticides and fuel.

Mooney also addressed the importance of free trade agreements that deliver new opportunities to America’s dairy sector. The U.S. dairy industry has gone from exporting less than $1 billion in dairy products in 2000, to more than $5.2 billion of exports in 2015, thanks to well-crafted trade deals.

NMPF supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mooney said, but is adamant that each participating country must be held to its commitments. He said important implementation and enforcement issues must be addressed as Congress prepares to consider TPP.

In the case of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union, Mooney expressed concerns about the EU’s lack of good-faith commitment to opening its markets to agricultural trade, and its attempt to establish new non-tariff trade barriers through the use of Geographical Indicators. Mooney urged caution in securing an agreement with the EU.

“The EU has not demonstrated a good-faith commitment to open agricultural trade,” said Mooney. “The U.S. must proceed cautiously by securing clear commitments from the EU to guard against the imposition of future trade barriers.”

###

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 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit our website at www.nmpf.org.

ARLINGTON, VA – “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a historic pact. If properly implemented and enforced, on balance the agreement will represent a step forward for the U.S. dairy industry based on its improvements to the rules of the road governing trade among the 12 signatories. In addition, although the market access portion of the agreement fell short of the export opportunities our industry sought to secure, our economic analysis concluded that overall the TPP dairy market access provisions will be neutral to slightly positive.

“Included in the deal are groundbreaking new commitments on sanitary and phytosanitary issues, and significant improvements in how geographical indications (GIs) are handled. The geographical indications improvements have become especially important as the European Union continues to wield GIs as nontariff trade barriers and limit market access for U.S. dairy exporters.

“But the benefits of the TPP can only be realized if the United States assures that the signatories live up to their commitments under the agreement, as well as to their prior trade obligations. The TPP can only support the continued growth of our industry if the United States ensures that TPP advances U.S. dairy prospects compared to the status quo at the time of its conclusion, and that its provisions are fully implemented and aggressively enforced.”

###

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) is a non-profit, independent membership organization that represents the global trade interests of U.S. dairy producers, proprietary processors and cooperatives, ingredient suppliers and export traders. Its mission is to enhance U.S. global competitiveness and assist the U.S. industry to increase its global dairy ingredient sales and exports of U.S. dairy products. USDEC accomplishes this through programs in market development that build global demand for U.S. dairy products, resolve market access barriers and advance industry trade policy goals. USDEC is supported by staff across the United States and overseas in Mexico, South America, Asia, Middle East and Europe.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in Arlington, Va., develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of U.S. dairy producers and the cooperatives they collectively own. The members of NMPF’s cooperatives produce the majority of the U.S, milk supply, making NMPF the voice of dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies. For more on NMPF’s activities, visit www.nmpf.org.