The Dragun Corporation (highlighted in this issue’s Associate Member Focus), in its 25-year history of environmental assessment and remediation, has worked with dairy producers on a variety of complex environmental issues. For example, when groups opposed the approval of permit applications for dairy farms because of concerns that manure might threaten water supplies, Dragun used sound science and site-specific data to provide reliable opinions on the subject. When a producer was going to develop a CAFO, but was uncertain about a long-term water supply, Dragun tested the groundwater yield and chemistry using state-of-the-science methods to provide reliable data to assist with the producer’s decision. Dragun uses science and engineering to be resolute when state and federal regulatory agencies suggest unreasonable monitoring or remedies. If the issue goes to court, Dragun has a long track record of providing well-reasoned litigation support on a variety of environmental issues.

Dragun has also worked with dairy cooperatives, processing plants, and NMPF to provide environmental consulting support. When a new milk processing plant was being developed, Dragun was asked by the co-op to work on their behalf to negotiate with regulators the approval of several environmental permits. When a co-op was conducting merger and acquisitions of processing plants, Dragun was asked to conduct environmental due diligence on properties to be purchased. Dragun has worked with NMPF on their environmental task force, lending particular expertise in scientific and environmental engineering disciplines. Dragun also developed the SPCC template that is found on the NMPF website.

Since the dawn of civilization, agriculture has been improved by a continuous process of breeding new plants and animals. Some of the earliest genetic modifications came when herders figured out how to breed certain of their livestock– including Aurochs, the ancient ancestors of today’s dairy cow – to improve their desirable traits.

Human understanding of how to improve all agricultural species, whether animals or plants, has come a long way since then. We have evolved from the ancient trial and error approach, to Austrian scientist Gregor Mendel’s groundbreaking 19th century discovery of how genetic traits are inherited, to today’s more precise ability to decode and transfer specific genes.

Just as Mendel’s pioneering genetic work was controversial in its day, the 21st century use of genetic modification of agricultural crops is the target of today’s anti-science crowd. And that’s causing those of us in food production a new headache, as these critics try to scare consumers by raising fears that have no basis in fact.

The dairy sector is all too familiar with complaints about the presence of GMOs. Twenty years ago, when the Food and Drug Administration first permitted the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy farming, one of the complaints was that the drug was produced by genetically-modified bacteria. That specific anti-GMO argument lost traction over time, as the main objection to rBST became the presence of hormones in the milk supply, regardless of the fact that all milk contains hormones – and there is nothing harmful about them.

Today, largely in an effort to help boost sales of organic goods, the anti-biotech bandwagon has become reenergized if not reengineered, and is focused on the presence of GMO-derived ingredients in a variety of foods. It’s a big, inviting target for those who want to cast doubt on the safety of our food supply. More than 90% of the corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cotton grown today in the U.S. sprout from seeds that have been genetically modified to offer a specific beneficial trait – often for insect or weed-killer resistance. The output of these crops –   all of which have gone through extensive evaluation for human and animal safety – is consumed, in various forms, by both humans and livestock. It’s hard to find any processed foods in the U.S. without some trace of GMO ingredients, and next to impossible to find livestock that haven’t been raised on GMO feedstuffs (excepting, of course, organic foods).

That means food marketers across the value chain are perpetually exposed to critics, however shrill and unreasonable, on this issue. As we’ve seen in states from California to Connecticut, the anti-technology crowd has gone both to state legislatures, as well as to the ballot box, to push for mandatory labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients. High-profile labeling battles on the West coast, including California’s ballot initiative, as well as the more recent one in Washington State, were lost by the GMO critics. But labeling bills were passed last year in Connecticut and Maine – though they won’t become effective unless additional states in that region pass similar measures.

For groups like NMPF that support the appropriate, science-based use of biotechnology in food, and are concerned with the demonization of products that are time-tested and safe, what are the best responses?

We can and do use the facts, such as that feeding cows GMO grain does not in any way affect the milk from those dairy cows – there is no detectable difference compared to milk from cows fed crops that aren’t genetically modified. The same applies to their meat. Most of the labeling initiatives at the state level have exempted dairy products for this obvious reason.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the activist assault, using social media in many cases, against branded companies that won’t disavow the use of GMO feeds in their milk supply. We’ve seen recent cases where prominent manufacturers of yogurt and butter have been targets of these actions. In both cases, the critics’ call to action – despite making no case for a difference in the product – was to urge consumers to buy organic. The targets shift, but the tactics remain the same.

The dairy sector has worked to develop consumer-focused information intended to put this issue into context, such as that crops produced through biotechnology are researched extensively to make sure they are safe for people, animals and the environment. Government agencies closely review the safety data and do not approve products unless they can be demonstrated safe. Today’s biotech products receive an average investment of $136 million and 13 years of research to bring to market. And one of the most important facts: after 20 years of use, and billions of servings consumed by humans and animals, there is not one single documented case of an adverse health reaction due to GMO food consumption. None. Unfortunately, facts presented without emotion suffer in comparison to falsehoods presented with feeling.

Part of our challenge on GMO grain use today is similar to what the dairy sector dealt with 20 years ago on rBST. The pushback by activists trying to generate consumer concern puts farmers in the middle, caught between their customers, and the compelling benefits of agricultural biotechnology. The reality is GMO seeds help farmers use fewer chemicals, reduce water and fuel usage, and allow more crops to be harvested without plowing over additional acres of land. Farmers will always be the best advocates for their practices. The best defense is an offense in which farmers talk about the real benefits to the environment and the public from GMO traits.

Critics of ag biotechnology assert that this battle is over who “controls” the food supply. The reality is that this is a battle for control over the choices that every participant in the food chain can make, and if we don’t participate in the discussion, there will be far fewer choices for everyone.

From Jim Mulhern, President and Chief Executive Officer, NMPF:

“As we review the details of today’s announcement on proposed food label changes, we are open to improvements that will help consumers make informed choices.

“We applaud the provision to highlight a food’s dietary contribution of potassium and vitamin D – two nutrients most Americans are not consuming enough of. Milk is a great source of those, as well as two other key nutrients, calcium and protein, that are already highlighted on the current nutrition facts panel. This change will help consumers better understand the important role that dairy plays in a healthy diet.

“There are some parts of the proposal that need greater clarification, such as the definition of ‘added sugars,’ and we look forward to working with the FDA to address these issues.”

 

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 nearly 32,000 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies.

The ongoing – and so far, inconclusive negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), must result in the free trade of dairy products between the United States, Canada and Japan, according to organizations representing America’s dairy farmers, processors and exporters. The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) also say progress on market access into those two markets has been frustratingly slow, and U.S. negotiators shouldn’t allow the process to drag on indefinitely.

The statement by the U.S. dairy groups follows ministerial-level meetings in Singapore this week on several contentious, yet-to-be resolved issues, including resistance by Canada and Japan to allow further market access for “sensitive” sectors, including dairy imports. The TPP involves a significant number of markets bordering the Pacific Ocean, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern noted, “The U.S. dairy industry is prepared to eliminate all tariffs affecting dairy trade with Canada and Japan, as long as they do the same. If Japan and Canada are not willing to make an effort and offer realistic market access to the U.S., then they are not serious about being part of TPP.”

“It is time to finish the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, including resolving the treatment of agricultural trade,” said Tom Suber, president of USDEC. “The principle of creating comprehensive market access is too important to this and future trade agreements. Therefore, if Japan and Canada are not committed to this goal, we need to move forward without them.”

Suber noted that the U.S. dairy sector, in consultation with government officials, “has been patient and flexible with our Japanese and Canadian friends, but we are running out of both patience and time. We strongly believe there is an achievable deal to which both countries can agree, but that deal must include substantial market access for our products. It cannot be any other way.”

In addition to addressing market access, both organizations noted that any comprehensive agreement also must include effective disciplines for applying sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that are science-based and enforceable, and preventing restrictions on the use of common food products.

Finally, the two U.S. dairy industry groups reiterated their concerns regarding New Zealand’s monopolistic dairy structure that creates unfair commercial advantages for a single company, and reminded US negotiators that the TPP talks must address that concern.

 

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 nearly 32,000 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies.

Due to the significant public health risks associated with the consumption of raw milk, the two organizations representing the nation’s dairy farmers and dairy companies jointly urged state lawmakers in South Dakota to reject efforts easing regulations surrounding raw milk sales directly to consumers.

In a letter sent Wednesday to South Dakota state senators, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation 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 Senate Bill No. 126, legislation designed to further ease the sale of unpasteurized milk in South Dakota. The measure is the subject of a hearing in Pierre, S.D. on Friday.

“Consumption of raw milk is a demonstrated public health risk. 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.

The two dairy groups mentioned in the letter that “the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that nearly 75 percent 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 South Dakota 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. Current statistics estimate only 1‐2 percent of reported foodborne outbreaks are attributed to dairy products. However, of those, over 70 percent have been attributed to raw milk and inappropriately‐aged raw milk cheeses. In a 2007 report, the CDC concluded that “State milk regulations and methods for their enforcement should be reviewed and strengthened to minimize the hazards of raw milk”. Loosening the regulations surrounding raw milk through SB 126 would be a step in the wrong direction.”

“While choice is an important value, it should not pre‐empt consumers’ well‐being. To further ease the regulations surrounding the state-wide sale of raw milk is an unnecessary risk to consumer safety. Therefore, we strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 126,” the letter said.

 

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Washington, D.C., represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies within 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 nearly 200 dairy processing members run nearly 600 plant operations, and range from large multi-national organizations to single-plant companies. Together they represent more than 85 percent of the milk, cultured products, cheese, ice cream and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States. IDFA can be found online at www.idfa.org.

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.

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) are calling on Russian authorities to end its country’s three-year embargo of U.S. dairy products. The groups’ call for action follows Russia’s refusal to accept a New York company’s Greek yogurt for consumption by U.S. athletes at the winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. “This is yet another example of how Russia’s blockade of U.S. dairy products is harming U.S. companies,” says Tom Suber, USDEC president.

Media reports have indicated that a large shipment of yogurt from Chobani was refused entry into Russia, even though the company is a major sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team. “Russia has turned a cold shoulder to many U.S. businesses trying to ship dairy products to Russia, despite our ample efforts during the past three years to prove their safety and quality. Reopening this market on a permanent basis would be a great benefit for U.S. companies and Russian consumers,” says Suber.

Jim Mulhern, NMPF president & CEO, concurs: “With Russia’s membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), it’s incumbent on them to live up to WTO trading obligations on fundamental food safety requirements. There is no rational reason why safe, wholesome dairy products consumed by millions of Americans on a regular basis would not be equally healthful for Russians. It’s a shame they want cultural exchanges like the Olympics, but fear cultured dairy products. They’ll welcome our Olympians but not their food.”

In September 2010, Russia closed its market to U.S. dairy products due to changes in what it demanded on a health certificate, the official U.S. government-issued statements that have long accompanied product shipments in international trade and provide assurances regarding product safety. Russia and its Customs Union partners, Kazakhstan and Belarus, have not sufficiently engaged with the United States in laying out a reasonable path that would lead to a long-term solution.

USDEC and NMPF declare that it is time for Russia and its Custom Union partners to finally provide opportunity for U.S. athletes in the Olympics, as well as Russian consumers, to enjoy safe and nutritious U.S. dairy products. Both organizations urged Russian officials to work with the U.S. government to negotiate a breakthrough.

 

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 nearly 32,000 dairy producers on Capitol Hill and with government agencies.

When two years of Congressional wrangling over the farm bill and the federal dairy program finally ended this week with Senate approval of the measure, no one, including milk producers, got exactly what they wanted. But the $956 billion, 950-page bill does feature the most significant rewrite of dairy policy in more than a generation, through the creation of a new margin insurance program.

“Despite its limitations, we believe the program will help address the volatility in farmers’ milk prices, as well as feed costs, and provide appropriate signals to help address supply and demand,” said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of NMPF.  In the end, the bill, given up for dead more than once, passed both the House and Senate with sizable margins, and is expected to be signed by President Obama on Friday.

Once it became apparent that House Speaker John Boehner would not allow the consideration of a farm bill containing a market stabilization component, NMPF worked intensively in the past three weeks to come up with an alternative system to discourage excessive milk production.

Mulhern noted that by placing a limit on how much future milk production growth can be insured, “the measure creates a disincentive to produce excess milk. The mechanism used is not what we would have preferred, but it will be better than just a stand-alone margin insurance program that lacks any means to disincentivize more milk production during periods of over-supply.”

He said that an important change from the MILC program is that the new margin protection plan “doesn’t discriminate against farms of differing sizes, or preferentially treat those in differing regions.”

The dairy title also requires the Agriculture Department, when margins shrink dramatically, to purchase finished dairy products, stimulating demand when dairy farmers need it most. To avoid displacing commercial sales, these products would be donated to food banks or other low-income food programs.

The bill also continues three additional dairy programs through 2018: the dairy check-off program, forward pricing and the Dairy Indemnity Program. A detailed explanation of all the dairy provisions in the farm bill is posted on the NMPF website.

The overall farm bill also contained:

• A major rewrite of commodity programs, with an end to direct payments, but no new caps on how much government help individual farms can receive;
• An $8 billion cut in food stamps and $23 billion in savings over all, but not enough cuts to satisfy many conservative lawmakers; and,
• Desperately needed disaster assistance for livestock farmers, but no relaxation of country-of-origin labeling rules or protection from restrictive state animal welfare laws.

The final dairy package represents a sea change in how the federal government buffers producers in hard economic times. It eliminates three ineffective programs—price supports, the Dairy Export Incentive Program and the Milk Income Loss Contract program—and replaces them with the voluntary, new margin insurance plan. Margin insurance was one of two pillars of the Dairy Security Act, conceived by NMPF after a more than a year of consultation with farmers in the wake of the disastrous 2008-09 recession.

The farm bill requires the margin protection program to be established no later than September 1. NMPF will spend the coming months working closely with the Agriculture Department to ensure the new program is implemented in a farmer-friendly way.

In a major step towards finding a political pathway to address the controversy surrounding immigration reform, the House Republican leadership issued last week a set of immigration reform standards. The reform standards include a provision for which NMPF has advocated strongly: the granting of legal status to undocumented workers in agriculture.

The standards call for the creation of a legalization program that does not include a special path to citizenship for agriculture workers, as is provided in the Senate legislation adopted last year. However, the standards do not bar these individuals from adjusting their status to “Lawful Permanent Resident” (i.e. a Green Card holder) through family or employment, once they have gained legal status under this program. The standards also call for enforcement and border security with verifiable triggers to be reached before any legalization can begin.

While the standards outlined by the House Republican leadership specifically cite the importance of ensuring agriculture’s access to a temporary workforce, the document does not address specific measures that would ensure that farmers could maintain the current workforce.

“It is imperative that any legislation provide incentives to help farm workers stay at the farm rather than leave the farm to pursue employment opportunities that may be available to them with their newly granted legal status,” said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of NMPF.

“NMPF views this announcement as an important step in the effort to improve and revamp our immigration system. Importantly, the standards released last week allow for the potential of achieving the primary goals of legalizing the undocumented in our current workforce and creating a future flow of agriculture workers,” Mulhern said.

In related news, NMPF, through the Agriculture Workforce Coalition (AWC), is working with the Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition that brings together more than 500 Republican, Democratic, and Independent mayors and business leaders who support immigration reform as a way of creating jobs for Americans today. Through this joint effort, NMPF and the AWC will expand their outreach efforts on Capitol Hill and in the public to advance needed reforms in immigration with regards to agriculture.

Dairy marketers that make, sell, or distribute foods composed of real American milk can tout their offerings in the new Buyer’s Guide on the new, consumer-oriented REAL® Seal website.

The guide, the latest REAL® Seal innovation, is designed to make it easy for consumers to find stores, restaurants and brands that feature products made from cows on U.S. dairy farms. There are categories for manufacturers, distributors, retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, and more. Listings include a company’s name, address, and telephone number, along with an email contact.

To be included, email REAL® Seal Administrator Carol O’Connell at info@realseal.com. She will validate those who meet the guidelines for using the REAL® Seal and add them to the Buyers Guide.

NMPF took over management of the REAL® Seal in 2012 and has been promoting the seal heavily on the internet and in social media. In February, these efforts will focus on Valentine’s Day and the winter Olympic Games. A new YouTube video reminds the public that foods made with real dairy products are a good complement to winter sports.

Through its membership in the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN), NMPF strongly supports efforts designed to shine a spotlight on European attempts to monopolize use of many common food names. Two particularly egregious actions took place in the past couple weeks that drew fire from CCFN.

The most recent was a United Kingdom (UK) appeal court’s ruling declaring that only yogurt made in Greece could be labeled as “Greek Yogurt.” The ruling was issued in response to a court case brought against a U.S.-based company over its sale in that market of “Greek Yogurt.” The European Union (EU) maintains a list of protected terms known as geographical indications (GIs), but “Greek Yogurt” does not appear on that list of GIs, nor is it currently even under consideration by the EU authorities for registration as a GI. Despite that, the court still found that the U.S. company was not permitted to sell “Greek Yogurt” in the UK market. This is yet another example of the European crusade to limit the use of many common food names that can trace their roots back to a regional linkage. This also builds on a statement last fall by the Greek authorities that they intend to use the U.S.-EU FTA negotiations to impose similar restrictions on U.S. usage of the term “Greek Yogurt.”

The other major development was the EU’s decision two weeks ago to allow Denmark to move forward with an application for a GI that would grant it exclusive use of the name “Havarti” in the EU. The decision is noteworthy because the term not only is used widely around the world, but also because there is a Codex Alimentarius international product standard for Havarti. In the United States alone, Havarti cheese is produced by more than 40 companies in a dozen states.

The month of January is when many state legislatures convene their new sessions and, as has been the case in recent years, that means a rash of state-level bills to legalize the sales of raw milk. NMPF has offered scientific counsel to several states where such legislation is pending, including recently in the state of Maryland.

At a January hearing in Annapolis, Vice President for Dairy Foods & Nutrition Beth Briczinski reminded the health and government operations committee of the Maryland House that every major health organization in the country discourages consuming raw milk, including the Food and Drug Administration.

“We pasteurize milk for a reason,” Briczinski told the legislators. “Raw milk is a key vehicle in the transmission of human pathogens including E. coli, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella. The state should not create new opportunities for these bacteria to make people sick.”

Briczinski also discounted the supposed health benefits of raw milk often touted by advocates and the media. “No claim related to the purported health benefits of raw milk has been substantiated in any of the medical literature,” she said. “The only scientific consensus is that raw milk can cause serious illnesses and hospitalizations, and can result in life-long negative health complications and death.”

Currently, 30 states allow distribution of unpasteurized milk, which is also where nearly 75 percent of raw milk-associated outbreaks have occurred. Americans have become ill after consuming raw milk from numerous sources, including cow-share programs and raw milk producers who are licensed, permitted, or certified.

The federal government has begun a year-long process of updating its guidelines for what Americans should eat. NMPF urged the advisory panel working on the next edition of the government’s basic nutrition advice to continue recommending three servings of dairy products a day for most Americans.

“Dairy foods are uniquely nutrient-rich and virtually irreplaceable in the diet if we want to meet nutrient recommendations,” Beth Briczinski, Vice President for Dairy Foods & Nutrition, said. “We strongly urge the (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) to maintain the current recommendation of three daily servings of dairy, and to focus on the serious public health problem of under-consumption of milk and dairy products.”

Briczinski reminded the group that milk, cheese, and yogurt contribute more than half the calcium and vitamin D in the American diet, and are the number-one source of seven other essential nutrients in children’s diets: phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, vitamins A, B12, D, and riboflavin.

“Even if calcium levels can be maintained with alternative foods, the levels of other nutrients such as protein, potassium, and vitamin D are adversely affected,” she said.

Briczinski told the panel research published since 2010 has strengthened the case that dairy helps reduce the risk of several chronic diseases, “The good news is that if people who under-consume dairy would add even one serving a day, that would bring average daily intakes of Americans much closer to meeting Dietary Guideline recommendations,” she said.

Briczinski spoke at the second of two days of hearings on the 2015 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The guidelines are issued jointly by the departments of Agriculture, and Health and Human Services every five years.