Archive for the ‘NMPF’ Category

EU Complicates U.S.-Korea Trade Pact

July 31, 2014 — The U.S. dairy industry told the Senate Finance Committee’s trade subcommittee Tuesday that the 2010 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has further strengthened U.S. dairy exports to the Korean market, even though it is not yet fully implemented.

At the same time, Shawna Morris, vice president for trade for the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), said a new and growing type of trade barrier involving common food names has emerged that is restricting access to the Korean market for key U.S. cheeses.

“(Korea’s restrictions on the use of several common cheese names) are the direct result of their separate free trade agreement with the European Union,” Morris testified. “In a nutshell, the European Union has been leaning on countries around the world to block imports of products by confiscating common food names and reserving them exclusively for cheese producers in their member countries.”

The U.S.-Korea free trade agreement eliminated nearly all Korean tariffs on America’s dairy exports. Morris said even though the agreement has only been in place since 2012, and its full impact is still years away, U.S. dairy exports to Korea in 2013 more than doubled the average of the three previous years.

Morris said the Korea FTA’s dairy provisions could be a good model for the Pacific trade liberalization agreement now being negotiated with Japan, Canada and eight other countries. “We hope that Trans-Pacific Partnership will result in an agreement that we can support as robustly as we have supported the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,” she testified.

Despite the positives under the U.S.-Korea FTA, Morris said, a separate 2011 Korea-European Union free trade agreement is abusing geographical indications regulations to inappropriately restrict U.S. access to the Korean market for gorgonzola, feta, asiago and fontina cheese.

“Since approval of the EU-Korea FTA, the EU has expanded around the world the model it first developed in that agreement,” Morris said. “EU pressure has resulted in similar restrictions in Central America, Peru, Colombia and most recently in South Africa. Canada has also agreed to restrict cheese names. And we understand the EU is pursuing similar objectives in Singapore, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as China.”

Moreover, Morris said, it is clear the Europeans want to impose cheese name restrictions on the United States through the planned Trans-Atlantic trade agreement, which is also currently being negotiated. That is “entirely unacceptable,” she said, adding that the U.S. dairy industry, together with other food industries and many members of Congress, want already-imposed GI restrictions rolled back instead.

“Our negotiators should only come to an agreement on Geographical Indications with the EU if it simultaneously rejects restrictions in the U.S. market on common names, addresses the trade barriers erected against U.S. exports to third-country markets, and restores access to the EU for key U.S. exports such as parmesan and feta,” Morris said.

GMO’s: Farmers Are the Best Messengers

July 24, 2014 — As more states require labeling of foods made with genetically modified ingredients, Congress is being pressured to pass a law regulating the controversial

Chris Galen, NMPF

Chris Galen, NMPF

technology found in much of the U.S. food supply.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) continues to track the issue both from a policy and marketing standpoint after legislation was introduced to mandate the labeling of GMO’s, which NMPF opposes.

“We do support a contradictory bill that would establish a voluntary labeling system so that if companies did want to provide absence claims there is a process for doing so,” NMPF’s Chris Galen told DairyLine. “We support that legislation but that also looks like it won’t get through Congress yet.”

The House Agriculture Committee held a hearing to learn why farmers use GMO’s. A Vermont dairy farmer testified prompting NMPF to urge more farmers do the same because of the mounting pressure from the marketplace.

“We’re still seeing a lot of pressure being brought to bear on companies like Starbucks to disavow the use of GMO’s in the production of milk that goes into their coffee,” Galen said. “We’re seeing big dairy companies like Ben & Jerry’s make decisions to source some of their ingredients from GMO free supplies.”

Farmers are the best messengers when they communicate, not just the benefits of using GMO grains and oil seeds, but also explaining the meaning of GMO use to consumers. That’s because a lot of people assume that GMO’s only benefit Monsanto and that anyone who uses GMO’s is a factory farm.

“That’s why we need people like this Vermont farmer who testified in Congress, who is a small producer but still sees some benefits in at least having the choice of using GMO’s,” Galen said. “If we don’t get that message communicated then there is going to be fewer choices for farmers as well as consumers.”

To help farmers, NMPF and Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI) are training farmers this week to enhance their ability on social media and better communicate where food comes from, how it is produced, and who produces it. GMO’s are a front burner issue but there are other issues out there like antibiotics, growth hormones, and the argument between conventional food production and organic.

“We need to make certain we have the right tools in the hands of the right people to help carry those messages,” Galen concluded.


NMPF Endorses Animal Outbreak Plan

July 17, 2014 – The National Milk Producers Federation earlier this week endorsed a draft plan for allowing the U.S. and Canada to cope with an outbreak of a serious foreign nmpflogoanimal contagion, such as foot-and-mouth disease, suggesting the plan is a template for similar plans involving other important dairy export markets. The plan, drafted by the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, calls for the United States and Canada to recognize each other’s efforts to control an outbreak, while regionalizing how the outbreak is handled, so as to allow continued trade with disease-free areas of the country.

In comments filed with APHIS Monday, NMPF, the voice of 32,000 dairy farmers in Washington, noted that Canada is the second-largest export market for U.S. dairy products, and that an outbreak of a highly contagious animal disease such as FMD in either country could be catastrophic for the U.S. dairy industry.

“We applaud the Agriculture Department for working with its Canadian counterparts to prepare for a foreign animal disease outbreak,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s vice president for sustainability & scientific affairs. “We fully support the draft plan and see it as an effective tool for dealing with an outbreak.”

The plan, officially termed a framework, calls for the two countries to cooperate in establishing quarantine areas that would be the focus of disease eradication efforts in an outbreak. Trade could then resume or continue in areas considered free of disease.

“The framework will facilitate continued trade between disease-free areas, while safeguarding animal health in both countries,” said Jonker. “NMPF encourages USDA to use this approach as a template for other countries that are important U.S. dairy export markets.” These countries include Mexico, China, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan.

This is in contrast to another USDA proposal earlier this year, which NMPF determined had significant flaws, because it will allow imports of fresh beef from certain parts of Brazil which have a history of foot and mouth disease.

“We are happy to have Brazil export its enthusiasm for soccer,” said Jonker, “but the last thing we need is for that country to send us its FMD problems.”

Over the last decade, U.S. dairy exports have increased more than 20 percent annually and the United States is now a global leader in exports for products including cheese, skim milk powder, whey products and lactose.

EPA’s Guidance Hits Rough Water

July 10, 2014 — The National Milk Producers Federation has asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw recent guidance concerning when farmers must seek Clean Water Act permits for a long list of normal farming activities near wetlands.

NMPF, the voice of more than 32,000 dairy farmers in Washington, D.C., said the EPA’s proposal could have the perverse effect of discouraging water conservation, by changing the long-standing relationship between farmers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NMPF said the guidance changes NRCS’s role from that of a conservation partner to an enforcer of the Clean Water Act on EPA’s behalf.

“Our concern is if this EPA guidance were to stand the way it’s been proposed, the NRCS would no longer be a place where dairy farmers and others could go for conservation

Chris Galen, NMPF

Chris Galen, NMPF

advice,” NMPF’s Chris Galen reported on a recent DairyLine Radio program. “NRCS would instead become an enforcer for the EPA and would ultimately set back conservation efforts.”

The EPA guidance, officially called an Interpretive Rule, was issued in March. It says producers are only exempt from needing Clean Water Act permits for more than 50 routine farming practices if they comply with detailed NRCS technical conservation standards. Until now, these standards have been voluntary, and the farming practices exempt from the permit process.

“Until now, NRCS has been the place producers could go for conservation advice, while EPA was charged with ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s Vice President for Sustainability & Scientific Affairs. “The cooperative relationship with NRCS made it more likely farmers would adopt water conservation practices.

“Unfortunately,” Jonker said, “the interpretive rule moves NRCS into an enforcement role and, in the process, could set back conservation efforts.”

In its comments, NMPF used harvesting hay as an example. Under the Interpretive Rule, farmers harvesting hay may be exempt from needing a CWA permit only if they follow NRCS Conservation Practice Standard No. 511:  four pages of criteria covering timing of the harvest, moisture content of the hay, length of the cut hay, stubble height and much more.

“Many dairy farmers harvest hay without any reference to NRCS standards,” said Jonker.  “Will these farmers now be forced to comply with Standard No. 511? If so, many will simply choose not to work with the NRCS. As a result, there will be less water conservation on farms, not more.”

Jonker noted that NMPF has drawn up a detailed environmental handbook based on NRCS standards but tailored specifically to dairy farmers. “Under the IR, producers who follow the handbook apparently will not qualify for a permit exemption,” Jonker said. “Having invested time and money in producing the handbook, NMPF is now forced to ask if it was worth it to try to do the right thing.”

Additional points in the NMPF comments:

• While EPA argues that meeting the NRCS standards is still voluntary, in practice it is mandatory, since failure to comply may expose farmers to legal liability.
• More than 100 farming practices covered by NRCS standards but not listed the IR are left under a “cloud of suspicion” and further expose farmer to legal liability.
• As a major policy change, the IR should have been issued as a proposed regulation, with public comments in advance of approval, rather than as guidance that is immediately applicable.

“NMPF and its members are committed to protecting U.S. waterways through voluntary efforts and regulatory compliance with the Clean Water Act,” NMPF said. “(But) the IR will have the perverse impact of harming the longstanding trust and cooperative relationship between producers and NRCS.  Consequently, water quality improvements will be adversely impacted.”

Established initially the 1930s, the NRCS provides voluntary help to farmers who want to conserve the resources on their farms.

In May, NMPF urged the Environmental Protection Agency to allow more time to examine a controversial draft regulation expanding the waterways subject to regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. That request was granted on June 10th.

Encouraging News Coming From Mainstream Media

June 26, 2014 — Many people who surf for their news on the internet realize there is a lot of misleading information out there, particularly when it comes to food production issues. But National Milk’s Chris Galen has been encouraged lately by some of the news he’s seen released from various media outlets, like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Time magazine.

“They’re sharing information and writing stories that are challenging some of the popular notions that may not have a lot of basis in fact,” he said.

One of the more recent examples is from The Washington Post, which shared five myths about organic food production, including whether it’s really better for humans or healthier for the environment.

“In some cases you can make that case, but it’s not an open and shut case for everything including dairy products,” Galen reported. “So I think that helps open some eyes.”

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the “gluten free” fad and whether or not it makes a difference in people’s diets and health. Time magazine’s cover had a picture of butter on its most recent issue, challenging the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is really bad for you.

“The issue is where do people get information from?” Galen asked “Is it sourced credibly? Is it promoted by Dr. Oz?” The television personality was recently called on the carpet by the U.S. Senate for promoting things that have no evidence behind him.

Hopefully the pendulum is swinging more towards issues that can be supported by sound science rather than fads that are going to be here today and gone tomorrow. Galen says consumers should do their research and one of the policies NMPF stands by is sharing credible information.

“You’re only as good as the evidence you have and can point to – to support your case,” Galen said. “The good news about food production now is that there is more evidence of what people assume…isn’t necessarily always the case.”

Young Dairy Farmers Lobby on Capitol Hill

June 5, 2014 — About 60 young dairy farmers from across the country met in Washington D.C. last week to lobby on several issues they say won’t go away without being resolved. The group is part of the National Young Cooperator (YC) Program organized by the National Milk Producers Federation.

Even though the Farm Bill is now in our rear view mirror, NMPF says there are plenty of issues Congress should focus on including two trade agreements and immigration reform.

“We also have the issue of GMO labeling and why we don’t want to see mandatory federal laws that require GMO labeling,” NMPF’s Chris Galen said. Instead, NMPF supports a measure that would make the labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms voluntary.

Another important issue is trade policy and getting good deals both with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans Atlantic Partnership (TTIP).

“Those deals are still pending right now and we want to convince our lawmakers that dairy farmers need to have a good outcome in both the Atlantic and Pacific deals,” Galen said.

The issue of immigration reform won’t be resolved anytime soon as there’s a very narrow window between June and the first Tuesday in November.

“Our expectations are fairly low,” Galen said. “It does not look like immigration reform will get done, unfortunately.”

Even if Congress doesn’t take up the issue until after November, Galen says it’s important to have dairy farmers visit Capitol Hill to remind lawmakers that this issue is not going to go away.

“It’s not going to get resolved unless there is federal legislation,” he said. “The same applies to the GMO issue and with the trade policy issues as well.”

NMPF organized the YC Program in 1950 to educate and build leadership ability in young dairy farmers, designed for dairy producers 40 years of age and younger. A YC fly-in was held last week in conjunction with NMPF’s June Board of Directors meeting.

See more at:

NMPF Seeks More Time to Examine Regulation of U.S. Waters

June 2, 2014 — s President and CEO, Jim Mulhern, wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army. “It would be a disservice to farmers to rush this proposal through the review process without sufficient scientific support or time to better understand the complexities of the issue.”

NMPF, which represents dairy farmers producing most of the nation’s milk supply, asked that the public comment period on the draft regulation be extended at least 90 days.    Unveiled in March, the draft regulation expands the waterways covered under the 1972 Clean Water Act to nearly all those connected to U.S. navigable waters. Opponents, many of whom have urged EPA to withdraw the regulation, argue it would have a devastating impact, particularly on agriculture.

NMPF cited two reasons for requesting more time to consider the regulation:  First, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have not completed the report providing the scientific underpinning for the regulation; and second, many of the key concepts discussed in the draft are unclear or subject to interpretation by government regulators.

“In order for dairy farmers to understand, assess and adequately comment on the proposed changes, the science behind the WOTUS proposal must be clear and conclusive,” NMPF wrote.  But the proposal relies on the scientific conclusions of a draft EPA report still under review by the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB).

Where the matter of key concepts is concerned, the proposal uses terms such as “neighboring,’’ ‘‘riparian area,’’ ‘‘floodplain,’’ ‘‘tributary,’’ and ‘‘significant nexus.”

“These terms are as clear as muddy water, and, therefore, will create confusion for dairy producers,” Mulhern said.  Additionally, the proposed rule heavily relies on “best professional judgment” in application of these and other terms, potentially creating a great deal of uncertainty both for regulators and those regulated.

“Dairy farmers are committed to protecting U.S. waters both voluntarily and under the Clean Water Act,” said Mulhern in the letter sent Friday.

“Given the scope and complexities of the proposed rule and its supporting documents, NMPF requests an extension of the comment period, either to 90 days beyond the current deadline, or 90 days beyond EPA’s release of the final connectivity report” providing scientific basis for the regulation, the organization said.

Rising Food Prices Affect Consumers and Producers

May 29, 2014 — Food prices are on the rise due to a combination of factors. National Milk’s Chris Galen joins us this week to elaborate on how this may affect dairy producers.


CWT Helps U.S. Compete Globally

May 22, 2014 — One of the big stories in the last couple of years is the ability to export. National Milk’s Chris Galen says one of the big factors in increasing exports is the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program. He tells us more in NMPF’s weekly DairyLine segment.


What’s in a Name?

May 15, 2014 — More than 175 House members signed a letter  to U.S. trade negotiators urging them to warn Europeans that America won’t accept naming restrictions of the cheese nmpfthey make. A similar letter from more than 50 senators was sent in March.

“We’re making certain that they are aware of how important it is to get dairy negotiated favorably for America’s dairy industry as part of this massive U.S. – European Union trade agreement,” NMPF’s Chris Galen reported on DairyLine.

The formal name for it is the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but Galen says there are issues that have to be negotiated for it to be a full partnership between the U.S. and EU, at least when it comes to dairy policy. The U.S. faces significant tariffs on dairy product exports to Europe. Europe’s tariffs average about three times the level of U.S. tariffs, which has contributed to a $1.3 billion trade deficit in terms of trade in dairy products between the U.S. and EU.

Europeans also want to restrict the use of common food names including many cheeses, which prompted the letter by Congress. EU’s attempts are designed to carve out exclusive market access for its own producers. If U.S. negotiators agree to the EU’s demands, U.S. manufacturers would have to change targeted product names not only for export but for sale in the U.S.

“They are actually contemplating using this trade agreement as a way to restrict the names of cheeses that are sold in our country,” Galen said. “Even if it’s by cheese companies that are using names they’ve used in the country for many, many years.”

The dairy farmer caucus led by Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) admits this is a concern that U.S. trade negotiators need to resolve as they discuss this trans-Atlantic trade deal.

“It’s extremely dangerous,” Welch said. “The point of our letter is that there would be a significant uproar in Congress if the final trade (agreement) included a provision that would harm our agriculture sector.”

The letter will be sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, who has been negotiating the TTIP with the European Union.