Monthly Archives: May 2023

Congress passed joint resolution in March to block WOTUS, now Supreme Court sides with farmers on EPA overreach

Posted on by
Reply
The Supreme Court ruled May 25 to overturn the Obama-Biden administrations’ broad WOTUS definition. Earlier, in March, Congress approved a joint resolution to block the Biden WOTUS definition brought back after the previous administration made commonsense changes and clarifications. In March, asking members to ‘squint,’ freshman Congressman John Duarte, a farmer from California, provided some show-and-tell on the Biden EPA’s WOTUS rule. His 5-year battle (2013-2017) with the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers boiled down to small depressions being considered ‘jurisdictional wetlands’. Screen capture from C-Span live coverage has been enhanced by Sherry Bunting with a red circle showing the so-called ‘jurisdictional wetland.’  Duarte noted that all of the surrounding grassy area in this photo would also be considered ‘jurisdictional wetland’ under the Biden EPA’s WOTUS rule.

Chairman Thompson cites ‘EPA’s appetite for power’; Rep. Duarte tells of his farm’s 5-year battle 

By Sherry Bunting, original story published in Farmshine, March 16, 2023

UPDATE 2023 – On May 25, 2023, All nine justices agreed to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that endorsed the Biden administration’s broad definition of waters of the United States, or WOTUS, the term for what falls under federal enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The EPA’s WOTUS regulations redefined what land and water is subject to federal requirements under the 1972 Clean Water Act. While the law references “navigable waters,” conflicting agency guidance and confusion in the courts led to new regulations aimed at clarifying the scope of the law. During the Obama and Biden administrations, the EPA exploited that confusion to significantly expand the reach of the federal law.

“If the EPA had its way, nearly 97 percent of land in Iowa would be subject to onerous federal red tape. You’d have to get permission from Uncle Sam before moving dirt on your own land under this administration’s WOTUS regulations. Farmers could’ve faced steep fines if water pooled in a ditch after a rainstorm because of the EPA’s far-reaching rules. Thankfully, the Supreme Court saw through this federal overreach and unanimously determined that it violated the Clean Water Act.  After years of uncertainty, today’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for farmers, builders, landowners and common sense,” Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said.

See below some of the background presented in the United States House of Representatives in March.

WASHINGTON — In mid-March, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Joint Resolution — H.J. Res. 27 – expressing Congressional disapproval of the Biden EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.

This resolution of disapproval had 170 Republican cosponsors from 42 states and was passed by the House 227 to 198 under the Congressional Review Act on Thursday, March 9.  Nine Democrats voted for the resolution, including members of the House Agriculture Committee such as ranking member David Scott of Georgia.

The Senate also voted for the joint resolution, which was later vetoed by President Biden.

Prior to House passage, Republican members of the House Ag Committee called out the flawed WOTUS rule, stating that the Biden EPA undid the reasonable clarifications that were made under the previous administration.

“Make no mistake about it, this rule isn’t about clean water. It’s about the Biden EPA’s appetite for power,” said Ag Committee Chairman Glenn ‘G.T.’ Thompson of Pennsylvania prior to passage of the resolution seeking to block it. “America’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve a WOTUS definition that is fair to agriculture and maintains the historical reach of the Clean Water Act—neither of which is accomplished by the Biden Administration’s flawed rule.”

Numerous members spoke to the resolution on the House floor, including the freshman Congressman from the 13th district of California, John Duarte.

As a farmer, Duarte’s 5-year battle with the EPA over plowing through an area that ‘could’ become a puddle a rainstorm is well documented and was reported in several Farmshine articles throughout 2017. 

Duarte ultimately settled his case to save the family business after fighting the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers as long as he could under government threat seeking tens of millions of dollars in so-called ‘reparations.’

His settlement admitted no guilt and left an uncertain precedent for agriculture when WOTUS rules are unclear and subjective as in the Obama and now Biden EPA rules.

“The Supreme Court has been dealing with this for years, and if we don’t get it right here (in the legislature), and keep the agencies honest, we are going to have a real food shortage on our hands,” said Duarte.

“I am a farmer who was prosecuted under the Clean Waters Act for growing wheat in a wheat field that had been planted to wheat many times before,” he explained, asking members to squint to see the little light spot in the field on an enlarged photo poster he brought with him. “This is ‘a jurisdictional wetland’ under some definitions of the Clean Water Act — not a navigable water. There are no frogs, no fish, no storks, no egrets — and no water,” he said.

Wheat had been planted in this field many times, and it was grassland just prior to Duarte’s tillage to replant it to wheat.

“The surrounding grasslands — all the surrounding grasslands here (in the photo) — are ‘jurisdictional wetlands’ under the Biden (WOTUS) rule. They prosecuted me as a farmer for growing wheat in a wheat field that had been planted to wheat many, many times before, and they threatened me with fines of $2.8 million and reparations of up to $40 million for tilling through 22 acres of ‘wetlands’ such as this,” said Duarte of the federal case brought against him during the Obama administration.

“This is what we are talking about. This is the land grab. This is the authority. This is the threat to the American food system that we’re talking about,” Duarte declared.

On a second poster, he showed the investigative team and equipment, paid for by taxpayers through the Department of Justice, sitting in a 3-foot hole investigating his 3 to 7 inch tillage to a ‘vernal pool.’

The 10 government investigators were on his property for 10 days and issued a report that cost over $1 million. Some of the so-called ‘wetlands’, the ‘vernal pools,’ – devoid of water – were 16 square feet, the size of a card table.

“How is that a jurisdictional wetland? This (rule) is a direct attack on our farming and our food supply,” said Duarte.

We see them in the East and Midwest also in the spring, and by summer they are mud or dirt spots in a crop field — depending, of course, on the amount of precipitation over winter through March. Pictured here are a variety of wading ducks and gulls taking to such late March puddles on a depression in a Midwest crop field, similar to the area in question in the Duarte case in California. Is this a “navigable” waters or “jurisdictional wetlands” as the 1972 Clean Water Act of Congress specified? Is this a Waters of the United States (WOTUS)? On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court said: No. It is not. The EPA has overreached. Photo by Sherry Bunting

-30-

Understanding the factors as action on FMMO ‘modernization’ unfolds

Posted on by
Reply
Using the Northeast as an example of a multiple component pricing Federal Milk Marketing Order that still has significant Class I utilization, Dr. Chris Wolf showed how long-term trends and other factors have reduced the Class I utilization and Class I revenue from 50% in 2000 to 34% in 2021 in FMMO 1. The most dramatic part of this decline occurred after 2010 — leaving not enough money to go around with less Class I value in the pool. FMMOs were structured for Class I fluid markets not for the dairy product and export markets where growth is occurring today. Screen capture from Center for Dairy Excellence Protecting Your Profits webinar with CDE’s Zach Myers and his guest Dr. Chris Wolf, Cornell University dairy economist.

By Sherry Bunting

WASHINGTON – There are irons in two fires when it comes to federal milk pricing and dairy policy. One is to do modernization through the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing petition process. The other is to make some adjustments or seek authorizing language through the dairy title of the 2023 Farm Bill.

On the farm bill front, the May 12 CBO baseline score shows this could be the first trillion-dollar farm bill. Food assistance programs, like SNAP, are eating into the capacity to do other things, say top-level staff for the Senate Ag Committee. 

For dairy and livestock, the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) baseline now includes $1 billion in additional outlays projected over the 10-years, while livestock disaster outlays have doubled – even without making any changes in these programs that some are suggesting.

Still, farmers and organizations that represent them are seeking some expansion for the DMC, livestock disaster, and other programs and safety nets, and some are seeking language to instruct the Secretary to do hearings on the Class I ‘mover’, or to expand the flexibility of the scope of a hearing, or to require mandatory reporting germaine to things like raising make allowances. 

The jury is out on whether a farm bill gets done by September 2023 after the May 12 baseline was announced by CBO in the current political environment, but members of the House and Senate Ag Committees and their chairpersons are gathering information in earnest toward that goal.

On the FMMO hearing front, as previously reported in Farmshine, the USDA responded April 28 to the March 30 petitions from two processor organizations by asking for more information instead of granting or denying a hearing on their make allowance update request.

The two petitions from International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (WCMA) both requested a hearing focused exclusively on updating the ‘make allowances’, which are processor credits that are subtracted from the wholesale end-product prices used to derive farm level milk class and component prices.

Make allowances were last updated in 2008 using 2006 plant cost data.

Four days later on May 2, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) submitted its petition seeking an FMMO hearing on a range of national amendments.

NMPF is petitioning USDA for a hearing on these five items:

1.     Increase make allowances in the component price formulas to the following levels: Butter   $0.21 per pound, Nonfat dry milk $0.21 per pound, Cheese  $0.24 per pound, Dry Whey $0.23 per pound 

2.     Discontinue use of barrel cheese in the protein component price formula

3.     Return to the “higher-of” Class I mover

4.     Update the milk component factors for protein, other solids, and nonfat solids in the Class III and Class IV skim milk price formulas

5.     Update the Class I differential pricing surface throughout the U.S.

Not noted within this list is a point that NMPF’s board approved on the legislative front, and that is to seek language in the 2023 farm bill directing USDA to do periodic mandatory and audited plant cost surveys instead of voluntary surveys for future hearings on make allowances.

The American Farm Bureau Federation took a positive approach in their response letter to USDA, showing support for the fact that NMPF’s petition is comprehensive and includes areas of strong consensus among farmers such as returning the Class I mover to the ‘higher of.’

However, AFBF president Zippy Duvall also points out in the response letter that the Secretary of Agriculture already has the authority under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to require processors to provide information relevant to FMMO pricing. This could include mandatory surveys of plant cost data when used to determine the processor credit, or make allowance, in the pricing formulas.

It is Farm Bureau’s position that make allowances should only be updated based on mandatory and audited plant cost surveys.

This leaves a bit of a loophole in the discussion about how to acquire the data to make current or future updates. The Secretary may have the authority to require data from plants that participate in FMMOs. However, it is unclear if the Secretary has this authority to require cost data from plants that do not participate in the FMMOs.

The end-product pricing formulas are based on wholesale prices that are collected mandatorily by USDA AMS on a weekly basis through the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act on only those products that are used in FMMO formulas. This includes butter, nonfat dry milk, dry whey and 40-lb block and 500-lb barrel cheddar cheese.

The USDA AMS weekly National Dairy Product Sales Report surveys 168 plants for this price data. Therefore, if make allowances are updated as processor credits against those prices, then all 168 plants should have to report their costs, and only the costs that pertain to those specific products, whether or not they participate in FMMOs. In a recent voluntary cost survey, more than 70% of those plants did not report their cost data.

During a Center for Dairy Excellence Protect Your Profits zoom call recently, risk management educator Zach Myers had as his guest Cornell dairy economist Dr. Chris Wolf to talk about the FMMO reform process and background from an economist’s perspective.

Dr. Wolf gave some important and relevant background and statistics.

The FMMOs have been around for 85 years and were created because of disorderly milk marketing conditions. Their primary function is to make markets function “smoothly” with a second stated objective to provide price stability.

“If we were to re-do them today, I would say price adequacy should be addressed,” Wolf opined, noting that “we have times that the milk prices are very stable, but not very adequate.”

Other stated objectives of FMMOs are to assure adequate and wholesome supplies of fluid milk and equitable pricing to farmers.

“These things are still important today,” Wolf suggests, adding that the auditing, certification and a certain level of market information that is provided by the FMMOs benefits all participants and contributes to the public good.

He explained that FMMOs are changing.

“The primary sources of dissatisfaction with FMMOs in recent years arise because there is not enough money to go around, and some of this is related to the longer-term trends (in Class I sales),” Wolf explains.

He showed that while per capita dairy consumption has been increasing roughly three pounds per person per year, the decline in Class I fluid milk is the underlying factor.

“It really is startling how much of that decline (in Class I) in most areas really happened since 2010,” Wolf illustrated with graphs.

Not only did per-capita fluid milk sales decline more rapidly since 2010 than the already long-term decline charted since 1980, but population growth in the U.S. also stalled — so the total Class I sales have been hit with a double-whammy.

“This relates back to where the value is in the Orders, with most of the decline in the past 20 years occurring in that second half, — since 2010,” he explains.

(The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 was the precursor to USDA removing whole and 2% unflavored and flavored milk from schools and requiring flavored milk to be fat-free. Today, USDA has a proposed rule that could eliminate flavored milk until grade 9 as reported previously in Farmshine).

Because Class I has to participate in FMMOs, the FMMOs were “intentionally structured” in a way that the Class I revenue has always tended to be the highest class price because the FMMOs are in place to structure the fluid milk market, and so Class I accounted for at least 50% of the pool revenue – until 2010.

“We finished 2021 at 34% (down from 50%),” Wolf notes. “So there’s not enough money to go around with less (Class I) value in there.”

What changed? Wolf notes some of the long-term trends.

“First, exports are now 18% of U.S. milk solids production when it used to be that the U.S. exported about 5%… Milk beverage consumption is down while cheese, butter and yogurt are all up. We are still importing 4 to 5%, but as a large net-exporter now,” he says, “The U.S. is basing bulk commodity product prices off the world market. This introduces more outlet for milk but brings back the issues that come with international price-setting, overall,” he explains.

Another change, according to Wolf, is the level of consolidation at every level of the supply chain.

Wolf went over some of the make allowance data based on existing voluntary surveys as well as a prior California state order audited survey. He showed there is a wide range in costs between older and smaller plants vs. larger and newer plants. When determining where to set make allowances – as an ‘average’ or at a percentile of this wide range — there are regional impacts to consider, he suggests.

Wolf also took webinar attendees through the steps of a hearing that can take at least a year or more to complete and he dug into the make allowances from an economic perspective and some of the other pieces of potential reform. Over the next few weeks, we’ll continue to examine them in this series.

The Center for Dairy Excellence Protecting Your Profits webinar with Zach Myers and Dr. Chris Wolf can be heard as a podcast at https://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org/pyp/ or viewed on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEMDA4iWyNw

Under the DMI umbrella: Fonterra CEO to chair Global Dairy Platform, Danone sustainability strategist to join GDP operating committee

Posted on by
Reply
Global Dairy Platform launched Pathways to Dairy Net Zero Initiative in September 2021, one year after DMI’s Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy launched the Dairy Net Zero Initiative (NZI) in October 2020 (A year prior to that in 2019, the current and former Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack testified to the Senate Ag Committee as a dairy-checkoff executive, serving then as president of the U.S. Dairy Export Council, and he foretold the nuts and bolts of the not-yet launched Dairy Net Zero Initiative and asked Congress to fund pilot farms. GDP has governance in and manages the Dairy Sustainability Framework that underpins what U.S. farmers, and their cows, will have to live up to — including how livestock methane is calculated, mitigated and monitored, which may be based on inaccurate math and science in terms of CO2 equivalents.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Friday, May 5, 2023

ROSEMONT, Ill. — Fonterra CEO Miles Hurrell has been named the new board chairman of the Global Dairy Platform (GDP), a non-profit industry association representing the international dairy sector. A portion of its revenue is from membership dues, but also from the 7.5-cents per hundredweight equivalent checkoff on U.S. dairy imports as well as grants for research and program services from Dairy Management Inc (DMI).

Fonterra’s Hurrell will replace Hein Schumacher, who is leaving his position as CEO of Royal FrieslandCampina to become CEO of Unilever.

In the April 26 news release, Hurrell cites Schumacher’s leadership in “accelerating climate action via the ground-breaking Pathways to Dairy Net Zero Initiative.” 

Announced in the same release is the appointment to the GDP operational committee of French multinational Danone’s senior vice president of sustainability strategy.

According to its 501(c)6 non-profit tax filings, “GDP is a pre-competitive collaboration,” and its governance groups — the board and the operational committee — “manage a ‘Dairy Sustainability Framework’ to unify the approach being taken by dairy organizations to the broad challenges of sustainability from environmental, social, and economic perspectives.”

The Dairy Sustainability Framework is part of the Dairy Sustainability Alliance of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, another non-profit founded and funded by dairy checkoff organizations under the DMI umbrella. The Innovation Center sets U.S. Dairy Stewardship Commitments that are implemented through the FARM program and reviewed every three to five years to show U.S. dairy is, according to its website, “moving the needle toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations.”

DMI, its Innovation Center, Dairy Sustainability Alliance, Dairy Sustainability Framework, and U.S. Dairy Stewardship Commitments are all located at Suite 900, 10255 W Higgins Road, Rosemont, Illinois, and the Global Dairy Platform (GDP) address of record is Suite 820 at the same street address.

Along with New Zealand’s Fonterra, CEOs from these top-15 dairy multinationals serve on the GDP Board: Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), headquartered in Kansas; Arla Foods, headquartered in Denmark; Leprino, headquartered in Colorado; China’s Mengniu Dairy Company; Moringa Milk Industry, headquartered in Japan; Royal FrieslandCampina, headquartered in the Netherlands, and Saputo, headquartered in Canada.

Along with the board of directors, the GDP operational committee provides governance and includes sustainability executives for Arla, DFA, Fonterra, Land O’Lakes, Meiji Holdings and FrieslandCampina.

In a separate April 2023 bulletin, GDP announced the May 1, 2023 retirement of Dr. Greg Miller from his position as research lead for GDP since its inception. Known as ‘Dr. Dairy’, Miller has served as the chief science officer for the National Dairy Council for nearly 32 years and as executive vice president of research, regulatory and scientific affairs for DMI. Miller will continue as a member of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Scientific Advisory Committee.

Key paid staff for GDP is Donald Moore, the executive director since 2010. Before that, he was a Fonterra senior executive in business development and ingredients marketing for 20 years.

Moore also serves as chairman of the governance group for the Dairy Sustainability Framework since its inception in 2013.

With Fonterra’s CEO as the new board chairman of the GDP, and with a former Fonterra senior executive serving 13 years to-date as the executive director of the GDP and the chair of the governance group for the Dairy Sustainability Framework, it’s worth noting that Fonterra announced six months ago its new start-up company for alternative dairy ingredients. According to the October 2022 press release, Fonterra has partnered with Royal DSM, a Dutch company, in creating this start-up “to accelerate the development and commercialization of (animal-free) fermentation-derived proteins with dairy-like properties.” 

With Danone’s senior vice president of sustainability strategy now appointed to the GDP operational committee, it’s worth noting that in October 2022, Danone announced it would use artificial intelligence to reformulate 70% of its plant-based fake-milk products. This followed the 2021 earnings call where Danone executives outlined new fake-milk and dairy product launches with plans to use “new dairy-like technology” to “win over” the 60% of U.S. consumers not in the plant-based category because of taste and texture. The Danone executives told shareholders their Renew strategy identifies the U.S. as a “key plant-based market.” In January 2023, Danone announced it is eyeing sale of Horizon Organic, saying it falls outside of their key areas of focus.

Global Dairy Platform (GDP) was formed in 2006 as an alliance, according to its website. Its tax filings confirm incorporation as a 501(c)6 non-profit in 2012 and its address of record at Suite 820 at 10255 W Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018.

According to the GDP’s most recent IRS 990s that are publicly available for 2017 through 2019, the years when former DFA CEO Rick Smith was its chairman, GDP had revenues between $3.7 and $4.2 million annually. This increased to $4.7 million in 2020, according to an available summary of the IRS 990 for that year.

The tax returns show approximately $1 million in GDP revenue came from membership dues and approximately $2.7 million annually from granted program services and research funds (checkoff). 

The GDP revenue also included approximately $500,000 in ‘import assessments.’ The 7.5-cent import checkoff, which was implemented in 2011 amid formation of the Innovation Center and its resulting alliances and frameworks.

GDP’s executive director Donald Moore is paid a salary package of nearly $600,000 annually. The top three independent contractors in 2018-19 included DMI receiving over $800,000 annually for program services and administration; Massey University in New Zealand $451,000; Emerging Ag in Calgary, Alberta, Canada $600,000 (for UN access), and Lindsey Consulting, in the UK nearly $300,000 with Brian Lindsey serving as the GDP’s sustainability lead.

According to GDP, its membership consists of more than 95 corporations, companies, associations, scientific bodies, and other partners, with operations in more than 150 countries, collectively accounting for approximately one-third of global milk supplies.

DMI manages the national nickel from the 15 cents per hundredweight checkoff deducted from U.S. milk checks for research, education, and promotion. DMI also manages the unified marketing plan many state and regional checkoff organizations contribute toward, and DMI manages the 7.5 cents per hundredweight equivalent import checkoff, handed off to the GDP.

DMI states in its 501(c)6 non-profit tax filing that it is “investing dairy producer checkoff funds in strategic, coordinated marketing programs designed to increase consumption of U.S. dairy products domestically and internationally.”

The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy was initiated in 2008, but according to its tax filings, was incorporated as a 501(c)6 non-profit in 2012 under the name: The Dairy Center for Strategic Innovation and Collaboration Inc., doing business as Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

In 2017, DMI trademarked the names ‘Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy’ and ‘Dairy Sustainability Alliance.’

Leprino CEO Mike Durkin was elected chairman of the board of the Innovation Center in January 2023.

-30-

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Why do these connections matter? Because the UN Food and Agriculture Organization is getting ready to make a decision about how livestock methane is calculated using GWP100, a 30 year old measure that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even agreed overblows the problem by 3 to 4 times, or GWP*, which includes not just the sources but also the natural sinks for methane as a short-lived greenhouse gas. Dr. Frank Mitloehner has written about this, and Farmshine readers have read my many articles about the differences between the calculations and what they mean for our cows in the future. The Global Dairy Platform put out a bulletin a few months ago and pinned it to their website exploring the differences in these calculations, saying that “GWP* is not appropriate as a benchmarking tool at less than a global level.” This is concerning because it means that global dairy multinationals have oversight through dairy checkoff non-profits and alliances into formulating and deciding what U.S. dairy farmers — and their cows — will be expected to live up to, even when the science behind the decision is highly debatable. As we now know, even scientists are becoming frustrated. It’s important to know that multinational companies investing in competing animal-free fermentation-produced DNA-altered dairy-like ingredients are in leadership positions in these collaborations.

FDA launches ‘rumor control’ hub, will this eventually include its ‘nutrition initiatives’?

Posted on by
2

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May 19, 2023

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched a new “rumor control” webpage on May 16, described as the hub to stop what the FDA calls “false, inaccurate, or misleading health information” that is “negatively impacting the public’s health.” 

How does FDA define misinformation? “It’s information, spread intentionally and unintentionally, that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time,” the announcement explains.

Who decides what is the best available evidence at the time? An info-graphic recommends checking sources and cross-referencing the information with reliable sources.

What is a reliable source? FDA describes it in one section as “the federal government and its partners” and describes it in another section as “a non-profit fact-checking source or government resource.”

A video narrator at FDA rumor-control explains the next step is to read beyond the headlines on the internet for context and to “understand the purpose of the post.” 

Scrolling to the bottom of the landing page are instructions to report misinformation.

“We face the challenge of an overabundance of information related to our public health. Some of this information may be false and potentially harmful,” the FDA rumor control webpage states. “If you see content online that you believe to be false or misleading, you can report it to the applicable platform.” 

These words are followed by icons to click for administrators at Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, and WhatsApp.

FDA has posted to this hub its ‘fact documents’ on several hot topics such as vaccines, dietary supplements, and sunscreen, stating that more topics will be added in the future.

Will nutrition become one of them, now that the Administration has placed a priority on FDA’s role as purveyors of the Dietary Guidelines as gospel?

Case in point, just three weeks prior to launching the rumor-control hub, the FDA announced it is “prioritizing nutrition initiatives to ensure people in the U.S. have greater access to healthier foods and nutrition information to identify healthier choices more easily… to improve eating patterns and, as a result, improve everyone’s health and wellness.”

These FDA initiatives came out of the “whole of government approach” pledged by President Biden and Ag Secretary Vilsack in the White House Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health.

“People need to know what they should be eating, and the FDA is already using its authority around healthy labeling, so you know what to eat,” said the President during the White House Conference where the Biden-Harris National Strategy was unveiled in September 2022. 

The FDA proposed rule on ‘healthy labeling’ came out on the same day. Comments ended months ago but the final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

The FDA nutrition initiatives are being pursued “to help accelerate efforts to empower consumers with information and create a healthier food supply.”

According to the FDA news release, the federal government currently believes obesity and chronic diet-related diseases are on the rise because American eating patterns are not aligning with the federal Dietary Guidelines. The press release states that most people consume too much saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, and the FDA nutrition initiatives aim to correct this.

FDA’s nutrition priorities in progress, include:

1)    Developing an updated definition and a voluntary symbol for the ‘healthy’ nutrient content claim, front-of-package labeling, dietary guidance statements and e-commerce labeling, and

2)    Supporting innovation by changing standards of identity such as labeling requirements for plant-based foods.

In addition to issuing its controversial plant-based milk labeling rule earlier this year, which would allow the pattern of fake milk proliferation to simply continue, the FDA in the first four months of 2023 sent letters of ‘no objection’ to three companies in their respective requests for GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status for cellular lab-created meat. 

Several ferrmentation-vat dairy protein analog makers — including Perfect Day with its genetically-altered yeast excrement posing as dairy protein — received their ‘no objection’ to GRAS letters from FDA in 2020.

As reported in Farmshine over the past several years, the FDA has been on its “multi-year nutrition innovation strategy” since 2018. However, the pace has accelerated since September 12, 2022, when Executive Order 14081 was signed by President Biden just 10 days before the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health.

Entitled Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy, the Presidential EO 14081 states: “For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in… and develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.”

(AUTHOR’S NOTE: All roads lead back to the umbrella of the Dietary Guidelines. The current DGA Committee began meeting recently in the process of formulating the 2025-30 DGAs. Entrenched in four decades of low-fat dogma, the USDA and HHS, along with the 2010, 2015 and 2020 DGA Committees, repeatedly left out of the discussion dozens of scientific papers, even research by the National Institutes of Health, that showed the neutral to beneficial impact of saturated fats on human health and the positive role of nutrient dense foods that are high in protein and essential nutrients but also contain saturated fat such as whole milk, full-fat dairy, and unprocessed red meat. Given the fact that childhood obesity and chronic diet-related disease incidence are rising rapidly, an objective fact-checker could easily determine that the Dietary Guidelines, themselves, are health misinformation. Clearly, children are the sector of the population whose eating patterns closely align with the Dietary Guidelines since 2010. They don’t have a choice. Most children today eat two meals a day, five days a week, three quarters of the year at school where the Dietary Guidelines rule with an iron hand. Let’s not forget the 2020 DGA Committee admitted that all of the DGA eating patterns came up short in essential nutrients found in animal foods, but when a committee member warned of this on final public reading, the saturated fat subcommittee chair mentioned taking vitamin pills and noted ‘new designer foods are coming.’)

Coca-Cola gives New York the nod for new fairlife milk plant

Posted on by
Reply

Officials say it will be Northeast’s largest milk plant, using 5 million pounds of ‘locally sourced’ milk per day

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, May 12, 2023

WEBSTER, N.Y. – New York got the nod this week as the “preferred location” where The Coca-Cola Company will build its new fairlife ultrafiltered milk processing plant in the Northeast.

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul made the announcement Tuesday (May 9) that the company selected a site in Webster, Monroe County, New York for the $650 million project, expected to break ground this fall and be operational by the fourth quarter of 2025, pending final due diligence and appropriate approvals.

The 745,000 square-foot facility is expected to create up to 250 new jobs and “utilize an estimated 5 million pounds of locally sourced milk per day, making it the largest dairy plant in the Northeast,” the NYS Governor’s announcement stated.

Founded in 2012 through a “strategic partnership” between Select Milk Producers cooperative and Coca-Cola, with early grants from Dairy Management Inc (checkoff), fairlife is now wholly-owned by Coca-Cola since 2020.

Calling the fairlife project a “major opportunity for New York,” Gov. Hochul said it will “drive economic impact, particularly in the Finger Lakes,” and it will “position New York to regain its spot as the 3rd largest producer of milk in the U.S.”

“The Town of Webster is well situated between high-quality dairy cooperatives in the Rochester and Niagara regions, with a surrounding workforce that has the relevant manufacturing and food and beverage experience, making it the ideal location for fairlife’s expansion,” said fairlife CEO Tim Doelman in a statement at the company’s website.

He noted the new facility will allow the company to “significantly increase capacity and deliver fairlife to more households.”

Empire State Development (ESD) is providing up to $21 million in assistance for the fairlife project through the performance-based Excelsior Jobs Tax Credit Program in exchange for the job creation commitments.

Monroe County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is expected to apply to the ESD for a separate $20 million Capital Grant, to provide adequate power and infrastructure services to the site. Also collaborating on the project are the Town of Webster, Rochester Gas and Electric and Greater Rochester Enterprise, and NYS Ag and Markets.

ESD Commissioner Hope Knight highlighted Upstate New York’s farm and dairy infrastructure, and Assemblyman Brian Manktelow observed the increased demand for local dairy production and transportation would be additional economic benefits on top of the creation of in-facility jobs.

NYS Ag Commissioner Richard Ball said the decision “highlights the excellence of our dairy community whose farmers will be supplying the milk.”

New York Farm Bureau president David Fisher, a dairy farmer, said the news “is needed for the long-term success of our dairy farms.” He noted the state has 3500 dairy farms, milking 620,000 cows and producing over 15 billion pounds of milk annually with “abundant resources, good land, access to water, and innovative farmers.”

“We were in tough competition with other states,” said New York Gov. Hochul, noting her own heritage coming from a family of dairy farmers in Ireland.

One of the states competing for selection was Pennsylvania.

“While the outcome of this selection is not what we hoped, the Shapiro Administration remains strongly committed to supporting Pennsylvania’s dairy industry and attracting processors to grow here,” said Pennsylvania Ag Secretary Russell Redding in an email response to Farmshine questions Wednesday (May 10).

Redding noted that Gov. Shapiro and teams across agencies were engaged in this project “allowing us to meet fairlife’s criteria for tax climate, resources, utilities, permitting, and incentives.” He reported that Pennsylvania currently makes $15 million in tax credits available annually for dairy manufacturing companies to expand processing in the Commonwealth.

“Just as we were nationally competitive for this project, we plan to be in the running for other selections of this type,” Redding added, thanking all industry and government entities who work on these coordinated efforts to welcome businesses and support agriculture.

When asked specifically about the whether or not Pennsylvania’s state-mandated Class I fluid milk over-order premium (OOP) played any role in the outcome, Redding stated: “The OOP was not a factor.”

The fairlife line includes Class I fluid milk products as well as dairy beverages that fall outside of the Class I criteria into manufacturing milk classes. The company offers a range of products including fairlife ultrafiltered milk, Core Power protein shakes, and fairlife Nutrition Plan  meal replacement shakes.

The fairlife products are made through an ultrafiltration process that removes lactose and condenses other solids to raise the protein content while lowering the natural sugar (lactose) content. For flavored beverages, this means more sugar and other sweeteners can be added because the natural sugar content is lower.

According to the New York Governor’s press announcement, this ultrafiltration process “gives milk a longer shelf life.” 

All fairlife products carry the UHT mark for ultra high temperature pasteurization, which also increases shelf-life. Some of the flavored fairlife products, such as YUP and CorePower are already offered as shelf-stable beverages in supermarkets and online, so it is unclear whether aseptic packaging will extend to all fairlife milk and beverage products in the future.

Other leaders from the collaborating New York State agencies and organizations highlighted the project expands their goal of positioning New York as a hub for attracting technology and innovation in food and beverage manufacturing.

In fact, the Governor’s press announcement stated that, “The research for fairlife’s branded milk process (ultrafiltration) originated at Cornell University over a decade ago.”

However, the story told by fairlife co-founders Mike and Sue McCloskey, as recently as the 2020 Pennsylvania Dairy Summit, and in earlier meetings, presentations, and published interviews, is that they discovered the reverse osmosis and membrane filtration process when dealing with a well issue on their former dairy in New Mexico.

After seeing what this filtration did for separating minerals in the water to make it more palatable to the cows, they started tinkering with filtration for milk, the story goes.

Select Milk Producers (SMP), also founded by the McCloskeys, then began using reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration as early as 1995 to reduce the water when moving loads of milk to cheese plants. At the same time, they began their high protein, low sugar milk proposition by partnering first with H-E-B supermarkets across the Southwest under the Mootopia brand in 1996 – a precursor to what is fairlife today.

Sue McCloskey explained to Pennsylvania producers at the 2020 Summit that they saw other protein drinks in the market they could compete with by concentrating the protein in the milk. 

She said this means that the raw milk going into the ultrafiltration process must be very low in somatic cell counts because the process separates some solids, like lactose, while concentrating other solids.

Products in the fairlife line are currently made at the original SMP ultrafiltration plants in Dexter, New Mexico and Coopersville, Michigan. Newer plants opened in Goodyear, Arizona in 2021 and Petersborough, Ontatio, Canada in late 2020. The latter sources all of its milk from Canadian farms for the Canadian consumer market.

Ultrafiltration is employed by other dairy companies, such as Cayuga Milk Ingredients (CMI) using proprietary European technology to produce unique liquid and dry milk and dairy ingredients for sale in the U.S. and internationally. 

Also located in the Finger Lakes Region of New York in the town of Auburn, CMI announced its own expansion last year to break ground this spring on a second facility that will have aseptic packaging capabilities for manufacturing a range of shelf-stable fluid milk, filtered milk, and dairy-based beverage products.

-30-

My thoughts on the ABC’s of PA’s state-mandated OOP

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, May 5, 2023

The purpose of Pennsylvania’s 1930s Milk Marketing Law was to regulate and support the Commonwealth’s dairy industry. Today, it continues to set a retail minimum price for milk through the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) while most other states have zero protection against supermarkets using milk as a loss-leader to attract shoppers. 

To me, that’s the real problem. Nationwide, consumers don’t know or appreciate the true value of milk after years of rampant and extreme loss-leading. I’m not talking about random sales to clear inventory, I’m talking about day-in-day-out well-below-cost prices as a retail business model.

Supermarkets chains have gotten into doing their own milk bottling or refuse to pay for services or quality as a way to avoid eating all of the cost of their own decisions to knock the price of milk back several dollars per gallon. They know milk is in 95% of shopping baskets. It’s a staple. If their store brand is the cheapest around, they’ll get your business and sell other high margin items at the same time.

Dairy farmers and milk bottlers, quite frankly, should not be on the hook for that. Period. But indirectly they are.

At the federal level, no one wants to address this because USDA also benefits when it comes to buying cheap (skimmed) milk for food programs like school lunch, where they also reimburse Impossible not-burger, nacho chips and pop-tarts — but not whole milk, only skimmed.

Is it any wonder consumers balk at spending $5 for a gallon of milk in Pennsylvania but will pay $1.50 for a cup of water, even more for a cup of water with artificial additives? 

Is it any wonder consumers don’t think of milk’s nutritional value next to other protein and vitamin drinks? Intrinsically, the higher margin drinks are perceived as more valuable because the price is higher. Milk is perceived as worth less than water!

This makes Pennsylvania a sitting duck in a national, no, a global market. Why? Because Pennsylvania sets a minimum retail and wholesale milk price each month.

Pennsylvania’s Milk Marketing Law prevents supermarkets from selling milk under the monthly announced state-minimum price. The over-order premium (OOP) portion of this price was intended to help Pennsylvania farmers. The Milk Marketing Law already gives the retailers and bottlers a 2.5 to 3.5% profit margin over average industry costs within that set minimum-price buildup.

The OOP is currently set by the PMMB at $1.00 per hundred pounds of milk plus a 44-cent per hundredweight fuel adjuster. This come out to 13 cents per gallon paid within the state minimum retail price that is meant to be the farmer’s over-order premium (OOP).

A variety of loopholes have diminished how much of the state-mandated OOP gets back to Pennsylvania dairy farmers as intended by the law. It has encouraged interesting business models that involve more out-of-state milk coming in to displace Pennsylvania milk in some Pennsylvania stores (and some creative accounting for sure).

Whether in tankers or packages, more out-of-state milk is competing with an unfair advantage when the built-in OOP is either collected and not paid to farmers or remains completely undocumented — floating around and up for grabs by the supply chain.

Senate Ag Minority Chair Judy Schwank had an interesting exchange with Chuck Turner of Turner Dairy near Pittsburgh during the recent Senate Ag hearing on the matter. She asked whether or not the aseptically processed, shelf-stable milk, which she buys, has the OOP built into its price.

Good question.

Turner explained that for the members of the Pennsylvania Association of Milk Dealers, the OOP is factored in as a cost that they incur when they procure milk within the state and then return this OOP to their Pennsylvania farmers based on their sales of Class I fluid milk products within the state.

On the other hand, when a Nestle or some other company, like fairlife, makes a shelf-stable flavored milk that ends up in a retail dairy case in Pennsylvania, the OOP doesn’t enter into their thought process on these products coming most likely from Indiana (and New York), he said. To his mind, that means it does not “collect” OOP.

In reality, such out-of-state packaged fluid milk products that fall into the Class I fluid milk category are ‘collecting’ the OOP — even ultrafiltered and aseptically packaged milk. These products compete for Pennsylvania consumer dollars. Whether out-of-state fluid milk products are unflavored or flavored, fresh or shelf-stable, they are part of the unknown number Schwank said the Senate Ag Committee needs to know.

It doesn’t matter if the milk is sold above state-minimum price, the OOP is in there.

Take for example the fresh fluid milk brands that are bottled in Pennsylvania — that are not shelf-stable – but are priced on supermarket shelves above the state minimum retail price.

This happens when stores like Walmart and Costco want to differentiate their private label store brands as the lowest-price. What do they do? They put other brands higher.

Since supermarkets in Pennsylvania cannot go below the state’s minimum price to “loss-lead” with their in-house private label, they bump-up the price on competing name brands instead.

In some cases, this pressures sales volume even lower for name brands that are produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania, reducing the OOP that goes back to the Pennsylvania farms. At the same time, some of the private-label store brands sold at state-minimum fall into the category of breaking the chain of produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania, which affords them the ability to keep the farmer’s OOP.

Here’s my bottom line from the recent Pennsylvania Senate Ag hearing on the OOP:

For 15 years grassroots dairy producer groups have been grappling with the concerns shared at the hearing, and how the OOP may be affecting the use of Pennsylvania-produced milk in Pennsylvania consumer markets. The embarrassment of not knowing definitively how much fluid milk is sold in the state and how much premium is stranded off-record or on-record has been the subject of meetings, hearings, estimates, emotion, stonewalling and bickering for over 15 years!

Attempts have been made by lawmakers like former State Senator Mike Brubaker and current State Representative John Lawrence repeatedly putting forward bills that would have penetrated the armor surrounding this issue.

Now, in the past 12 to 18 months, we have the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau on high-alert, the Department of Agriculture now is involved and has come up with a plan. 

The CDE and PDMP are studying the issues around the premium and the obstacles to processing investment with the help of a Cornell economist. 

And the Senate Ag Chairman and Minority Chair offered their data-driven bills last session and will offer them again, because, of course, they are paralyzed by still needing that data they’ve been needing for 15 years!

Now, as the fluid milk market is in steep decline over the past 15 years (ironically the same 15 years in which whole milk and 2% milk have been federally prohibited as choices in schools and daycares)…

Now as most of the milk bottling assets, nationally, are owned by cooperatives and most of the rest by retailers…

Now as fluid milk plants are closing to the south and the west, while Pennsylvania has managed to hold on to a core of independent bottlers…

Now as the state courts the favor of Coca-Cola / fairlife or other new processors to invest in Pennsylvania … (Coca-Cola announced May 9 that New York will get the new plant).

Now as everyone is sitting up noticing that the tens of millions of Pennsylvania-paid ‘stranded’ OOP annually over the past 15-plus years may have been fueling growth beyond Pennsylvania’s borders while Pennsylvania’s own farms have been stagnated by more stringent supply management programs due to lack of processing capacity…

Here we are, back to the question of needing the data. Senators were interested in doing something, but Chairman Elder Vogel, said threading the needle will be difficult, and Minority Chair Schwank said “we have to have the data.”

Pennsylvania is enduring erosion on one hand in part because of the OOP and/or the minimum pricing, while on the other hand, these structures are believed by some to provide a stabilizing effect for the Class I bottlers that remain.

And so, the cats keep chasing their tails around the milk bowl!

Meanwhile, more producers have strived to get some of their milk outside of this game by selling it raw – an entirely separate market. The PMMB reached out to a number of them last year telling them they had to be licensed and do monthly reports, then backed off a bit for the time being. They are not the problem. Their milk is not pasteurized, and it is not part of the system in Federal Milk Marketing Orders either.

My biggest questions after the recent hearing, after 15 years of following this and for a time helping farmers who were involved in seeking changes more than a decade ago: Where would we be today if in any of the prior legislative bills, meetings, hearings, plans, would have moved forward in some fashion? 

And yes, this too is related: Where would we be today if whole milk had not been removed from schools?

One thing is clear on the first question, we would by now have solved the math equation of A + B = C instead of estimating, stonewalling, bickering…

On the second question? We might be selling more milk.

Read Part One and Part Two of the PA Senate Ag Hearing about the ABC’s of the OOP here and here

-30-

Part Two: Digging into the PA Senate Ag hearing on the PMMB over-order premium

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May 5, 2023

HARRISBURG, Pa. — As reported in Part One, published in Farmshine’s April 28th edition, the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture Committee held a three-hour hearing on April 25 about the state’s mandated Class I milk over-order premium (OOP), which is part of the state’s minimum milk price per gallon set by the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB).

Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding offered this equation to describe what is known and unknown about the estimated $30 million or more in annual OOP paid by Pennsylvania consumers: A+B=C.

‘A’ was confirmed by PMMB auditor supervisor Gary Golsovich to be $23.6 million collected by processors in 2022. But, he said, only $14.5 million of this collected OOP was documented as paid to Pennsylvania farms for milk that could demonstrate all three criteria: produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania.

Golsovich gave an example: A processor sourcing 50% of its milk from Pennsylvania farms with 50% of its sales being consummated in Pennsylvania only has the obligation to pay 25% of the OOP to the Pennsylvania farms. This was something the PMMB tried to change 10 years ago, seeking to require processors to pay up to the percentage of in-state sales that matched in-state sources, but a constitutional interstate commerce challenge in the courts caused the state to back down.

‘B’, said Redding, is the additional $5 to $10 million in OOP that is paid by Pennsylvania consumers but is presently unaccounted for. Examples are packaged milk from out-of-state and other cross-border transactions. Legislation such as Senate Bills 840 and 841 from last session would capture this information, and Senate Ag Chairman Elder Vogel Jr. and Minority Chair Judy Schwank said they intend to re-introduce these bills in the current legislative session.

He estimates the total ‘C’ would be around $30 million, or more, but last year less than half that amount was paid to the intended beneficiaries: Pennsylvania farms.

The only way to fix the leakage, said the Secretary, is to “break the chain,” to remove the OOP from the minimum price and make it a fee collected at retail and remitted to the Department of Revenue into a designated fund. This would also require legislation.

“Pennsylvania has a system that is like no other,” said PMMB Chairman Rob Barley, a farmer in Lancaster and York counties. “The system worked well when people were drinking a lot of milk produced by Pennsylvania dairy producers. That’s changing. The system needs an adjustment.”

When the Senate Ag Chairman pressed the PMMB Chairman for specific ideas, Barley said the Secretary’s proposal, “while not ideal, is probably the only way to do it.”

He mentioned the potential for a tiered or scaled system where smaller farms could receive more and larger farms less, much like the federal Dairy Margin Coverage has a tiered program based on annual milk production history. 

“We want to work with the legislature on this — to benefit everyone,” said Barley.

The consumer member of the PMMB board, Kristi Kassimer Harper from Fayette County, noted examples in her area of western Pennsylvania, where the OOP works among a variety of independent bottlers that buy Pennsylvania milk, process it in Pennsylvania and sell most of it in Pennsylvania.

She cited studies by St. Joseph’s University indicating consumers don’t give much thought to where their milk comes from, but a survey of Pennsylvania consumers showed that two-thirds would pay a 10-cent premium if the premium gets back to the farmers. (They are already paying a 13-cent OOP plus fuel adjuster embedded in the milk price, but less than half of it is getting back Pennsylvania farms.)

In his back-and-forth discussion with Vogel, Barley said a formula could be developed that would prioritize producers that are currently serving the Class I fluid milk market, using a graduated scale. This idea turned Chairman Vogel’s head. He said it’s the first time he’s heard this approach mentioned.

Something like this would address the concerns of milk dealers who are currently upholding the spirit of the law and the testimony from the State Grange, urging caution about diluting the meaningful amount of OOP 15 to 20% of Pennsylvania farms currently receive.

“Consumers are already paying this, it’s not a tax, but if we collected it from Pennsylvania retailers as a fee and put it in a restricted fund, we can avoid the constitutional issues with interstate commerce,” said Senator Gene Yaw. “We do this all the time, collect funds and put it toward programs we want to support. In this case, the people are already paying it, and if the money is in one place, we can audit it.”

The “mechanics” of how to distribute it, he said, can be worked out with the Board and the industry. But at the same time, Yaw and other Senators said they want to help more of the state’s farmers access what was intended for them, without harming those already receiving some.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture’s plan mentions ‘uniform distribution,’ as do the policy points endorsed by Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.

PMMB board member Jim Van Blarcom, a farmer from Bradford County, stated that in his nine years on the Board, he has heard the concerns of producers across the state. He noted the geographic and generational diversity of the PMMB Board, and their ability to understand how different parts of the state have different experiences with the OOP. 

“The OOP was put in place to help dairymen recoup some costs,” said Van Blarcom, explaining to lawmakers that the Milk Marketing Law already has built into it a 2.5 to 3.5% profit margin for bottlers and retailers. “Since then, the industry has changed, making it outdated and less effective. As a board member, it is getting more difficult to weigh the benefits for the farmers who receive a useful OOP vs. farmers who receive very little to none. When consumers pay a mandated 8 to 12 cents on every gallon of milk sold, this becomes a large sum of money, of which some is unaccounted for.

“During my time on the Board, I have heard over and over about the tanker loads of New York milk coming in and displacing Pennsylvania farmers’ milk. The primary reason these companies do this is they can take advantage of the OOP… We are essentially encouraging this to happen,” he explained.

Recounting testimony at a Board hearing from a dairy farmer milking 90 cows, he said the amount of OOP that farm received wass equivalent to one bag of milk replacer a month.

“I don’t believe one bag of calf feed keeps that farmer in business, but rather his tenacity and commitment to the family farm,” said Van Blarcom.

He also recounted testimony at a Board hearing from Pennsylvania Representative John Lawrence, who cited the accurate accounting on mandated fees for alcohol and fuel.

“This is not happening with the mandated milk OOP. It will continue to become more difficult to defend as a program with funds that are not accurately accounted for and not fairly distributed,” Van Blarcom asserted, adding that consumers will also “become more aware of the unfairness to themselves.”

Meanwhile, when laying out the Department of Agriculture’s plan, the Secretary talked about “a collective investment in PA Dairy,” such as using some of these funds to invest in processing.

Andy Bollinger, a Lancaster County dairy farmer testifying for PDMP said the organization has not taken a position on reforming the OOP because they want to see the facts and the results of a study they are working on with a third-party economist.

Zach Myers from the Center for Dairy Excellence also mentioned a study CDE is involved in to understand the obstacles to processing investment within the state. He cited the impact on farms from supply management programs placed on them based on processing capacity.

“We come to you and ask for investments,” Secretary Redding told lawmakers. “Here’s one that’s already done in the marketplace, and we’re failing to bring those dollars back specifically to reinvest in PA Dairy.”

-30-