Brenda Rowe (left) recently joined NMPF as Executive Assistant to the President & CEO. As Executive Assistant, she will support NMPF by managing activities related to the President’s office.

Brenda has over 16 years of Executive Assistant experience and over four years of association experience. She worked four years at the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association as Executive Assistant, which covered a variety of roles in meeting planning, office management, accounts receivable, membership services, and assisting the Board and President.

Brenda is married and has a son in college, and currently resides in Alexandria, Virginia. She can be reached at browe@nmpf.org.

Of all the decisions any of us make professionally, the two most important are whether to take a job, and then when to leave it. Sixteen years after deciding to become President and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, I’ve chosen to retire at the end of the year…which means this is my last column for NMPF’s CEO Corner. So, all my big decisions have been made.

Rather than offer a recitation of memorable moments (there have been many cherished ones with people in this business) or a list of regrets (as that other singer from New Jersey famously said, I’ve had a few, but too few to mention), allow me to offer a few parting observations about the lessons I learned at NMPF, and how they shaped the past 16 years working for the organization’s members, and the dairy industry.

How you define consensus can give you everything or nothing. The tendency among most organizations, particularly trade associations led by a board of directors, is to define consensus as getting everyone to be in accord on a particular position. But if it’s a tough issue, waiting for 100% alignment can paralyze the organization and neutralize its effectiveness. That was the situation I found when I came to NMPF in 1997. One of the first things I said was that striving for consensus is incredibly necessary, but defining it as a situation where everyone has to be completely happy is a mistake. Hard choices never lead to complete harmony, but as long as people have input into the process and contribute their two cents, an organization then needs to move forward in order to be effective. This belief roiled the membership in my first few years at NMPF, but made my job easier in the long run.

Credibility is your credit. NMPF doesn’t sell products; rather, it offers ideas to our industry and to policymakers. Nevertheless, any marketing effort involves getting people to buy in to the ideas you’re selling. In order to gain traction in the world of ideas, they have to be credible. They must be based on sound science, and the economics have to be clearly understood. To the extent that we’ve had success in the past 16 years, it’s because we have not advocated positions that weren’t defensible and credible. The legislators and regulators we’ve worked with have appreciated that we have grounded our ideas in the facts, not in ideology or mythology. And we have gained greater traction over time, and gotten more credit, because we could back up our ideas with the facts. Making a convincing case – making the sale – the second, third, or 100th time is only possible if you have a reserve of credibility from delivering on your word the first time.

Proactivity uses less energy than reactivity. While there’s some value to the notion that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, it’s also true that it’s far easier to change things before they’re completely broken. One thing I did at NMPF is to identify areas where we needed to make changes, to learn and evolve, before we had our collective backs up against the wall. The National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program is an example of this dynamic. As consumer expectations change, we need to be out in front in developing a national industry standard for dairy cow care. We couldn’t wait until the consuming public thinks there’s a problem, and only then try to fix it. Yes, it’s been hard work, and that work continues. But one look at the challenges of other sectors of agriculture tells us that building a program like FARM will make our jobs as dairy marketers easier in the future.

Doing the right thing is harder in the short term but makes life easier in the long run. As I’ve said so many times in discussions with our members, doing the right thing is often very hard. It’s relatively easy to define the right thing, but much more difficult to push toward it. Again, with trade associations, it can be a chore in pulling the members together to work on controversial positions. But as I noted in my last column, the one discussing our position opposing the greater availability of raw milk, easier paths are usually not the right ones. And all of us, regardless of where we are in our careers, end up regretting the times when we chose the easy path over the right one.

ARLINGTON, VA – A recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the competing House and Senate farm bills shows that the Senate’s dairy program costs less than the House version, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) said today, helping fortify the case for the Senate‘s dairy title as negotiations continue in the congressional farm bill committee.

The House farm bill’s dairy title is projected to cost $418 million above the baseline, according to the CRS report released in October, while the Senate dairy program costs $302 million more over the next ten years. [These figures are in Tables 4 and 5 of the report, starting on p. 22].

Incoming NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern said Tuesday that the CRS report – the first to compare the two competing farm bill versions that conferees are attempting to reconcile – buttresses the point that NMPF has been making about the need to couple margin insurance with a market stabilization program, as the Senate bill does, to achieve cost controls.

“While even this analysis seriously underestimates what we and other independent analysts believe would be the real cost of the badly-flawed House approach, the CRS report demonstrates that the Senate plan is the most fiscally responsible program,” Mulhern said. “Without the market stabilization program to both reduce the duration of low margin conditions, and reduce government outlays for insurance payments, the House plan would be a budget-buster – and one that we urge the conferees to reject, in favor of the Senate’s more prudent approach.”

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) made the same observation last Friday in a radio interview with Ron Hays of the Oklahoma Farm Report (a transcript of which is available here), in which he responded, when asked about the prospects for the dairy title, that “if you don’t have supply management, can you restrain the cost in the rest of the [dairy margin insurance] proposal? Probably not.”

Both the House and Senate farm bill dairy programs replace existing safety net programs with a new margin insurance program. But only the Senate version couples the margin insurance with a market stabilization component that would encourage farmers to temporarily reduce milk production when conditions warrant. NMPF has long contended that this formula makes the program more effective for farmers, and also better protects taxpayers by reducing the government’s costs.

Mulhern also said that the market stabilization element will not adversely impact consumer prices for dairy products, contrary to bogus claims made by those opposing the Senate’s Dairy Security Act.

“If the market stabilization program ever kicked in – and that’s a big if – it would only be when farm milk prices are in the tank. The Senate plan would simply put a floor under the price to keep it from falling further and would not have a noticeable impact on the cost of milk to consumers. Nor would it affect the milk bought through government food assistance programs,” he said. “The purpose of market stabilization is to keep farmers’ milk prices from staying too low, for too long a period. Any suggestion that it will spike retail prices to abnormally high levels is a deceitful and deliberate misinterpretation of the studies done on the impact of the DSA.”

Mulhern was referring to efforts to distort the analysis done by University of Missouri agricultural economist Scott Brown, who has examined the impact of the Senate’s Dairy Security Act versus the processor-backed House plan (which would retain margin insurance but eliminate market stabilization from dairy reform). In Brown’s analysis of the DSA, if it had been in effect from 2009 to 2012, the market stabilization element would have been activated for only four out of 48 months.

Also, the average difference in farm milk prices between the two approaches was only two cents per gallon over four years. “That’s one half of one cent per year, a tiny amount compared with the monthly price swings currently experienced by farmers and hardly a major impact on consumers,” Mulhern said.

 

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 more engagement members have, the more that can be achieved, Mulhern says

PHOENIX – The incoming president of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) urged dairy farmers today to become more engaged in the organization and the policymaking process.

“We need your financial commitment, yes,” Chief Operating Officer Jim Mulhern told nearly 1,000 attendees at the organization’s annual meeting. “But even more importantly, we need your time and effort and engagement. The more engagement our members have … the more our organization can achieve for our members. It’s a virtuous circle.”

Mulhern will take over as NMPF president and CEO January 1, 2014, when long-time leader Jerry Kozak retires. The organization is the voice of more than 32,000 dairy producers in Washington.

“30 years ago,” Mulhern said, “NMPF, like many organizations, could be a neatly defined hierarchy, and be successful….But not anymore.” Today, he said, both NMPF and the entire dairy industry must be more engaged in the free and rapid flow of information.

“If there’s a message I can leave with you today, it’s that the future of NMPF is not a function of what I want … or any one leader,” he said. “Rather, the successful future of NMPF will be a function of the active engagement that our board, our delegates and, yes, our grassroots members, have in the organization and the industry.”

Mulhern also stressed the need for increased transparency in the dairy industry. “Look at how food marketers have increased the flow of information about their products,” he said. “20 years ago, it was calorie and nutrition information on the back panel. 10 years ago, it was absence claims about artificial sweeteners and growth hormones. And now, it’s whether a product is locally and sustainably produced. Whether it can be traced back from the store to a field or barn.” Mulhern called that “transparency in action,” but he added it can also be misused.

“The strategy of some food companies is to try to increase sales by scaring consumers into paying more for their particular product because of how it was produced,” he said. “That’s not transparency. It’s fear-based marketing….left unchecked, it not only affects the marketplace; it also affects the policy environment. We must tell our story because if we don’t, others—who don’t have our interest at heart—are telling a very different, and harmful, story.”

Mulhern said transparency requires telling stories about brands and product categories and entire industries. “The clean lines that used to exist between farmer and processor and distributor and retailer have blurred.” He said. “Transparency has created a value chain where everyone is accountable for what they do, and why they do it.”

On other subjects, Mulhern said once the 2013 farm bill is enacted NMPF should tackle reform of the federal milk marketing order system and consider addressing some changes to federal identity standards for dairy foods—but only if they benefit farmers.

Milk marketing orders set minimum prices for different categories of milk in regions across the country. For example, processors are required to pay a higher price for milk destined for fluid use compared with milk used to make yogurt, ice cream and cheese. Mulhern said NMPF considered asking Congress to address marketing order reform as part of the 2013 farm bill, but decided against that step. “But reforms delayed cannot be reforms denied,” he said. “It won’t be easy, but it will be a priority going forward.”

At the same time, Mulhern said any changes to the federal order system must benefit farmers. “Some of the dairy processors talk about reforming federal milk orders when what they really seem to mean is increasing their control of the market and their share of the dairy dollar,” he said. “That’s a non-starter for us. Our focus will be on reforms needed to ensure the orderly marketing of milk and to protect the financial interests of the nation’s dairy farmers.”

Mulhern noted that some in the processing community are also calling for changes to the federal standards that protect the content and quality of dairy foods. But, he said, “sometimes this talk is being delivered by those who either don’t fully understand the concept of standards of identity. Other times it’s from those who actually do understand, but are looking for a way to benefit financially through deviations marketed as ‘innovations.’”

“Are there some provisions of standards that could be improved? Absolutely, especially if they relate to improvements and efficiencies in plant-level processing technologies,” Mulhern said. “However, NMPF will not agree to revisions to standards designed to ‘water down’ their quality or deceive consumers, and we will continue to work diligently to preserve all aspects of standards that preserve the integrity of traditional dairy products, their names and their composition.”

 

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.

PHOENIX, AZ – Dairy farmers participating in the industry’s program to quantify animal care practices are continuing to improve the manner in which they adhere to the program’s standards, according to a new summary year in review report issued today by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF).

Available to all dairy farmers in the United States, Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) is a voluntary, national set of guidelines designed to demonstrate farmers’ commitment to outstanding animal care and a quality milk supply. Cooperatives, proprietary milk processors, and individual producers are using the program to assure consumers that the dairy foods they purchase are produced with integrity. Since enrollment began in September 2010, the FARM Animal Care Program has been implemented by suppliers accounting for 70% of the nation’s milk supply.

At this week’s NMPF annual meeting in Phoenix, a newly-released annual assessment derived from 8,000 second-party evaluations, found universal adoption of many of the best practices from the program. For example, 94% farms enrolled in the program train their employees to properly move animals that cannot walk, and 98% train employees to handle calves with a minimum of stress. Other findings included:

• 99% of farms observe animals daily to identify health issues for early treatment;
• 93% have protocols developed with veterinarians for dealing with common; diseases, calving and animals with special needs.
• 92% train workers to recognize the need for animals to be euthanized.

On the other hand, the report found some areas still in need of improvement. For example, the report indicated less than 82% of farms in the program have a valid veterinarian-client relationship, and just 67% of farm operators apply antiseptic to the navels of calves after birth as a preventative health measure.

Participants are given training materials and are evaluated by a veterinarian or another trained professional. Evaluators provide a status report and, if necessary, recommend areas for improvement.

Each year, a nationwide sample of dairy farms in the program is randomly selected for visits from third-party “verifiers” to assure (to a 95% confidence interval) that the observations recorded during the second-party evaluations are valid. Validus Certification Services, an Iowa-based certified auditing company, is used to conduct the third-party verification process.

“The thousands of data points this program collects on an ongoing basis show that dairy farmers aren’t just talking the talk about animal care – they’re performing dozens of practices on a daily basis to provide for animal well-being and produce high-quality milk,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs. “Still, we’re not yet where we want to be. The journey is continuing.”

The second annual third-party verification of the FARM program was begun in 2012 with on-farm evaluations, and completed in 2013 with statistical analysis of results. This analysis confirmed that effective implementation of the FARM program is occurring through producer education and on-farm evaluation. The third-party verification for 2013 is currently underway, Jonker said.

Also today, NMPF released its 2014 safe use manual for antibiotics and other animal drugs. The Milk and Dairy Beef Drug Residue Prevention Manual permits producers to quickly review those antibiotics approved for use with dairy animals. It can also be used to educate farm managers in how to avoid drug residues in milk and meat.

New in the 2014 edition is a section on multiple drug screening tests, as well as an updated drug and test kit list. The 2014 manual also includes a certificate that can be signed by both a producer and veterinarian to demonstrate commitment to proper antibiotic use.

“With each year, the use of antibiotics and other drugs in livestock is more intently scrutinized,” said Jonker. “To maintain consumer confidence, we must show we are using these medicines properly. This manual shows dairy farmers’ commitment to using antibiotics responsibly.”

The residue prevention manual was sponsored by Charm Sciences, Elanco Animal Health, IDEXX, and Zoetis. No government funds were used in its development. For more information on the FARM program, contact Betsy Flores at (703) 243-6111 or visit www.nationaldairyfarm.com.

 

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.

Name for Animated Dairy REAL® Seal Character Picked in Nationwide Vote

PHOENIX, AZ – After a nationwide vote, a new cartoon character helping to build awareness of the advantages of real dairy foods has a name: DairyUS, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) announced today here at its annual meeting.

The animated character, modeled after the iconic REAL® Seal logo, will help a new generation of consumers distinguish between genuine U.S. dairy products and a growing list of list of imitations. A video announcing the name is on the REAL® Seal website homepage.

NMPF, which represents cooperatives that produce the majority of the U.S. milk supply, designed the cartoon character after assuming management of the REAL® Seal last year. The new animated icon is part of an effort to revitalize the seal, which was created in the 1970s and is already used on more than 10,000 food products.

NMPF asked the public to suggest names for the character last summer, using the REAL® Seal website and new REAL® Seal Facebook page. Three finalists were selected from among more than 100 names submitted. An online vote was held from mid-September through Election Day, November 5.

In all, nearly 800 votes were cast. DairyUS, suggested by Kathryn in Clermont, Iowa, received 379 votes. The runner-up, Milkdrop, received 343 votes, while the third finalist, Roscow, received 74 votes. The results of the vote were announced today at the NMPF annual meeting, being held in Phoenix, Arizona.

“DairyUS will help both kids and adults learn about foods made with real dairy products,” said NMPF Chief Operating Officer Jim Mulhern. “The REAL® Seal not only means a product is a real dairy product, but that it is made with milk from cows on U.S. dairy farms and without imported, imitation or substitute ingredients.”

The cartoon character is just one of a number of innovations NMPF has made to promote the REAL® Seal on the internet and through social media. Until recently, for example, the REAL® Seal website was targeted mostly to companies interested in using the seal on their products. Today, it is focused on consumers.

NMPF also offered a preview at today’s annual meeting of the REAL® Seal buyer’s guide, a web-based search engine that will make it easier for consumers to patronize brands and stores that offer real dairy products. The buyer’s guide website will soon be online.

 

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 Farm Bill conference formally began last week on Capitol Hill, as the 41 House and Senate members of the joint conference committee outlined their priorities and pledged to finalize a compromise bill this fall. NMPF issued a statement urging the lawmakers to include the Senate’s Dairy Security Act in the measure, and reject the House dairy language because it lacks the market stabilization component supported by NMPF.

The principal leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees are now working informally to resolve the key points of contention between the two chambers’ respective versions. In addition to dairy policy, the lawmakers must reconcile differences including country of origin labeling for meat, the national implications of California’s egg production requirements, whether to require conservation compliance as part of crop insurance, and most prominently, the level of funding reduction for food stamps.

These issues will have to be addressed relatively quickly, given that holiday schedules will limit the amount of time for the House and Senate to pass a final bill prior to the end of the year.

NMPF is continuing its efforts to educate lawmakers about the importance of having a voluntary margin insurance program coupled with the market stabilization program, in order to make the overall dairy safety net as effective and affordable as possible. Dairy farmers can contact their members of Congress to urge that the Dairy Security Act be included in the Farm Bill by using NMPF’s Dairy GREAT system.

In October, Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) accepted 77 bids from 11 member cooperatives. Sales totaled 12.6 million pounds of cheese and 11.3 million pounds of butter, equivalent to 80.1 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis. That is equal to more than 50% of the year-over-year increase in September’s milk production.

These sales brings CWT-assisted total export sales in 2013 to 106 million pounds of cheese and 81 million pounds of butter, the equivalent of 2.93 billion pounds of milk on a milkfat basis, or nearly five times the year-over-year increase in year to date U.S. milk production through September 2013.

News reports about the just-completed European Union (EU)-Canada Free Trade Agreement indicated that Canada has agreed to protect a list of 145 Geographical Indications (GIs) of importance to the EU. This development is particularly concerning with respect to the treatment of five cheese names that have long been generic in the Canadian market: asiago, feta, fontina, gorgonzola, and muenster.

This is deeply troubling given the fact that these terms have been used generically in the Canadian market for many years, so any new restrictions on these terms’ usage would appear to impose a very disturbing new barrier to competition and trade. The details have yet to be confirmed, but indications at this stage suggest that Canada has agreed to the following:

• Those already selling these five cheeses in Canada will be able to continue to do so, but they will need to clearly display the country of origin on the label. They will also be prohibited from including on the label the relevant flag corresponding to the EU country that owns the GI or other symbols that may evoke that country.
• All other non-established producers would need to call the product “feta-like” or “asiago-style,” and also comply with the previously mentioned new labeling requirements.
• “Parmiggiano Reggiano” will become a protected term, but “parmesan” can still be used as a generic name, according to one press report.

Visit the Consortium for Common Food Names for additional information on GIs.

In comments submitted last week to the USDA, NMPF urged the agency to make adjustments in a proposed rule affecting how dairy products are made available to school students beyond the lunch line. The NMPF comments single out as a point of concern the “favorable treatment afforded to competing beverages – which, in contrast to milk and juice, do not supply significant amounts of nutrients essential to students’ diets,” and points out that the proposed regulation confers an unfair and inappropriate advantage to these products.

The comments are in response to USDA’s interim final rule establishing nutrition standards for foods sold outside of school meal programs. Because dairy products in those settings are competing against other foods and beverages, NMPF urged USDA to limit the time and place that non-dairy, non-juice lower-calorie and calorie-free beverages are available.

In addition, NMPF also asked USDA to include low-fat flavored milk as an allowable beverage, extend the saturated fat exemption for reduced-fat cheese to combination foods, and clarify the final rule’s saturated fat standard.

Those changes – particularly allowing the reintroduction of low-fat flavored milk, which was removed from federal school nutrition regulations three years ago – will “further enhance dairy consumption in order to close the gap between current dietary recommendations, and consumption of milk and dairy products.” NMPF pointed out that actual average consumption of milk is “barely barely half the USDA’s recommended amount and, after early childhood, all age groups continue to fall further short of recommended amounts.”

Need to know the nation’s top 10 milk-producing states? How about Class III milk prices by month going back eight years? Or perhaps you need the top 10 export markets for U.S. dairy products in 2012.

All that and more is available in the latest edition of Dairy Data Highlights from NMPF. The handy, pocket-size booklet includes 53 tables and 19 graphs filled with national and state milk and dairy production data from the mid-1970s through 2012.

Dairy Data Highlights has been published annually by NMPF for more than 60 years. A must for anyone involved in milk production, it is available to NMPF member cooperatives and associate members for $7.50 a copy, or $5 for orders of more than 10 copies. For nonmembers, the cost is $10 for single copies or $7.50 for bulk orders.

All aspects of milk and dairy products production are covered, as well as producer, wholesale and retail milk and dairy product prices; federal milk marketing orders; sales and consumption data for milk and dairy products, and comparative information for U.S. dairy imports and exports. Specific tables include:

• National milk production data going back to 1925;
• Cow numbers, farms and herd size data going back to 1950;
• Milk production and prices, production-per-cow, cow numbers and dairy farms by state, with comparative data from the 1980s and 1990s;
• Class III, manufacturing grade and all-milk wholesale prices by year from 1965;
• Annual wholesale prices for butter, cheddar cheese, and nonfat dry milk;
• The ratio of feed prices to milk prices by month;
• The share of commercial sales by product—including milk, butter, cheese, frozen products and nonfat dry milk;
• Annual production and per-capital consumption of key cheese, butter and frozen products from 1975;
• Annual exports of milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, yogurt, and nonfat dry milk by region and country;
• A short glossary of dairy industry terms and useful conversions factors for milk and dairy products.

Visit the NMPF website for ordering information.