Monthly Archives: January 2025

House Ag Chair and new Ranking Member share bipartisan priorities at Farm Show listening session

Posted on by
Reply

Whole milk, new farm bill top their bipartisan to-do list

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Jan. 17, 2025

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Bipartisan priorities were evident — especially on getting whole milk back in schools and completing a new farm bill — during Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson’s annual listening session on opening day of the Pennsylvania Farm Show Jan. 4th in Harrisburg.

With a thin Republican House majority, Thompson, who represents the largely rural 15th district of north central Pennsylvania, will continue as Chairman of the Ag Committee. 

He introduced the more than 100 attendees to the Ag Committee’s new top Democrat, Ranking Member Angie Craig, who represents the mostly rural 2nd district of southeast Minnesota.

They were joined by Ag Committee and Ag Appropriations Committee member, Rep. Chellie Pingree, representing the 1st district of Maine, and by Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Russell Redding.

Whole milk

“We got really close to getting this done,” said Thompson about his Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act after Berks County dairy farmer Nelson Troutman with the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee asked: What’s next for the bill in the new 2025-26 Congress?

“We have to start over, but there is a lot more support this time,” Thompson replied. He doesn’t see any obstacles on the House side after overwhelming bipartisan support in the 2023 floor vote.

He expects the bill to move quickly through the Education and Workforce Committee under its new Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), a whole milk bill cosponsor. Then Thompson will work with House leadership to get it on the calendar for a 2025 vote.

He said the Senate side also looks “very promising” as Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark), a supporter of the bill, replaces former Ag Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) who had blocked it.

Craig gave further assurance. She and the new Ag Committee Ranking Member on the Senate side, Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), are working together on this. “We do not see what we saw last time on the Democratic side to get this done for GT,” said Craig.

Both are Democrats from Minnesota who previously cosponsored the bill – Craig on the House side, Klobuchar on the Senate side.

Thompson credited the education and leadership of the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee and 97 Milk in raising awareness and support. “The grassroots effort also helped improve the bill by suggesting language that makes sure the calories don’t count toward the fat in the school meal,” he said.

Pingree is also a big supporter of whole milk in schools. She was “amazed” to see all the Drink Whole Milk signs, banners, and painted bales while visiting her brother-in-law in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

“I don’t know too many states where you see something this interesting while you’re driving down the road. It’s pretty impressive. It has spread far and wide,” she noted.

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) was “impressed” by the Drink Whole Milk signs along roadsides when she spent time in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. That was music to the ears of Berks County dairy farmer Nelson Troutman with the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee. His original painted round bales in December 2018 motivated the launch of the 97 Milk education movement in February 2019. It is run by volunteers and donations at 97milk.com

ESL milk

Troutman asked if the bill could address extended shelf life (ESL) milk in schools. He is concerned about taste and acceptance by students, saying “schools should only be allowed to serve ESL milk if that’s the only option available to them.”

His concern arises from the volume of new plant capacity coming online across the country for ESL and aseptic shelf-stable milk packaging, along with new Federal Milk Marketing Order formulas that will price Class I milk differently based on shelf life. This creates potential competitive issues, especially in Pennsylvania, for bottlers of conventionally pasteurized milk that tends to be more local vying for school contracts with ESL milk coming from potentially more distant locations.

Farm-to-School

State lawmakers and young people in attendance voiced further concerns about the quality of school meals and the practice of schools shipping-in prepackaged meals prepared out-of-state, leaving Pennsylvania agriculture out of the loop. 

They requested incentives for local farm-to-school food programs. Frank Stoltzfus, a 9th generation farmer from Lancaster County pointed to the PA Beef to PA Schools program as a successful example.

These discussions come under the jurisdiction of the House Education and Workforce Committee and its “long overdue overhaul,” said Thompson: “The Childhood Nutrition Reauthorization is where we reform and refine to update school meals. I’ll be encouraging Chairman Walberg that we do that reauthorization, and this (ESL question) is something we can certainly take a look at.”

Pingree noted “some farm bill funding also goes to school meals, and we can put more into resupplying kitchens for on-site meal prep and local procurement.”

Nutrition overhaul

The last time Congress did a Childhood Nutrition Reauthorization was in 2010, when it tied school meals more strictly to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).

“When it comes to nutrition, if kids won’t eat it, then it’s not nutritional, and we are seeing a lot of waste today,” Thompson observed.

On that score, he pointed to “good reforms” to the Dietary Guidelines process that will again be part of the markup of the farm bill to “take some of the food politics out of the process coming from the so-called ‘experts.’ We want science-based not agenda-based guidelines.”

Farm bill

Asked about a timeline for the new farm bill, Thompson was optimistic. New committees are still being populated, and new members will need some farm bill education.

“But I would love to see this farm bill go to committee markup in the first quarter of this year — that is my goal – and then see it move quickly to the floor,” he said in a Farmshine interview after the event. “We will continue to do listening sessions, but I want to move ahead. We’ve had great input from all across the country, but I do think it’s important that we keep listening and touching base.”

Both he and Craig shared concerns about nosediving grain prices and net farm income. They differed on what constitutes cuts vs. cost-control on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that makes up the bulk of the now over $1 trillion farm bill. They both want the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds pulled into the conservation title and baseline, but they differ on removing the IRA’s climate mandates for these funds.

Thompson warned about competition from conservatives who are interested in using these funds as ‘pay-fors’ on tax policy, which he said Ag Committee Republicans would oppose. “I want these IRA funds in this farm bill,” he said.

Craig said the IRA funds best practices like carbon sequestration, and Pingree said she likes the focus on resilience for healthy soils. They pointed to carbon markets that see the value and lauded Sec. Vilsack’s use of $3 billion in CCC funds for pilot projects that will “help give us better metrics.”

While there is general agreement that most practices on farms improve the planet, the question is – how do the things farmers already do get monetized?

“They are not getting enough credit for their ecosystem services — carbon sequestration, air quality, water quality, filtration of rain. Farmers improve our environment just by farming,” said former State Senator Mike Brubaker. “Is there some way for them to get paid?”

SUSTAINS Act

Thompson said the farm bill does not address this specifically, but legislation passed in 2022 includes the SUSTAINS Act, which he described as “providing a framework for private industry to be involved.”

Corporations and foundations can donate funds to USDA for conservation purposes, like improving technical assistance for more farmers to have access to popular programs like EQIP. He cited a “great return on investment” from Chesapeake Bay Foundation initiatives as an example.

But he pushed back on the Ag Secretary’s use of CCC funds for such purposes because administrations come and go, with their own changing priorities.

“Having certainty going forward is incredibly important,” he said. “Sec. Vilsack wanted to do things by regulation and his interpretation of how CCC funds could be used. He should have come to us (Congress), instead.”

Likewise, concerns were voiced about emerging land use policies at local, county, state and federal levels.

Renewable energy

Asked for their views on traditional and alternative energy, a bipartisan preference emerged for balancing affordable and renewable sources with science, technology and innovation as “pathways for solutions.”

“We need ‘all of the above’ because energy will be a mix for a very long time,” said Pingree. “But we have to stay in this (renewable) dialog.”

Thompson said the ultimate destination of the Farm Show butter sculpture — a digester on a Pennsylvania dairy farm — is a good example of renewable energy produced from cow manure and food waste.

Craig said biofuels through E15 standards are vital for corn and soybean farmers in her district of Minnesota, with new biobased aviation fuel standards an exciting opportunity that U.S. farmers should benefit from, not imported corn from Brazil.

“Our farmers have to be at the forefront of it, we have to get this right,” said Craig. “As Ranking Member, I’ve got to manage my caucus just like GT does as Chairman, to work together for the right solutions, which are probably somewhere in the middle.”

Food security

Questions were also raised about invasive species, animal health, and safeguarding the food supply — especially in regard to inspection of border crossings for invasive pests that threaten all types of agriculture and novel cross-species migration of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) in poultry and now dairy operations.

“We have to make sure we keep investing in our laboratories, inspections, and research,” said Thompson.

According to Redding, the Pennsylvania Diagnostic Laboratories System (PADLS) was born out of the poultry industry’s first difficult encounter with avian influenza back in the early 1980s. Today PADLS is instrumental as the state is one of the first to enter the mandatory national bulk milk testing strategy, and has established some protocols credited to the poultry industry.

He stressed the importance of cross-species engagement between Pennsylvania’s top two ag sectors of poultry and dairy, where biosecurity is essential.

“We’re at about 100% of milk representing our nearly 5000 dairy farms, and we’ve not found (H5N1) on the third cycle of testing now,” Redding reported. “The difficulty with a national strategy is finding a model that fits the diversity of all the states.”

Craig said HPAI is a big concern for her home state of Minnesota, which is No. 1 in turkey production and No. 7 in dairy.

They look forward to working with the new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on what the national strategy looks like going forward “without overburdening the farmers.”

-30-

Covington’s Southeast milk market outlook: Higher prices for 2025; higher-fat milk sales also put more money in milk checks

Posted on by
1
Calvin Covington gave his dairy market outlook during the Georgia Dairy Conference in Savannah. Photo by Sherry Bunting

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, January 24, 2025

SAVANNAH, Ga. – Flat milk production volume, but with higher components, and a more unpredictable demand are factors new to the dairy industry that make price projections more difficult for the year ahead.

Calvin Covington has spent his life in milk marketing, now retired from managing Southeast Milk Inc., and before that working with cheese processors to see (and pay) the value of higher protein and fat when he was with the American Jersey Cattle Association earlier in his career.

Covington gave his dairy outlook for 2025, with emphasis on the Southeast markets during the Georgia Dairy Conference attended by over 400 in Savannah, Jan. 20th.

“I was way low on my projections last year. 2024 ended up with prices higher than anticipated,” he said.

This year, he is projecting prices in the Southeast markets to rise by $1.20 per hundredweight as an average for 2025 vs. 2024 in the Appalachian region ($24.12), $1.40 in Florida ($25.90) and $1.13 in the Southeast Order ($24.60). Most of the increase will come from the skim side this year because the FMMO changes, which will be implemented in the second half of 2025, will pressure butterfat value.

Covington shared his price projections for Southeast milk markets for 2025.

Producers are making higher butterfat milk, averaging well over 4.0% across the three Southeast Orders at 4.06 in Appalachian, 3.92 in Florida, and 4.11 in the Southeast. This compares with 3.65% across the three Orders in 2010.

“Additionally, consumers are also drinking higher fat milk,” said Covington, calculating the average fat percentage of Class I sales in the three Southeast Orders rose from 1.95% in 2010 to 2.4% in 2024.

Covington calculated that fat percentage in milk sales showing the change in consumer preference for higher fat milk puts more money in producer milk checks.

“In 100 pounds of Class I milk in the Appalachian Order, for example, that 2.38% fat made the milk worth more money, $1.38 per cwt more,” he said, with a chart showing Southeast producers saw a $1.28 benefit; Florida $1.35.

“There has been a big change in consumer preference, and that has raised your Class I price,” he said.

He commended dairy producers for improving their components, which has also improved their milk price.

“You’ve done this through genetics and feeding and nutrition programs, and it’s not going to stop. We are moving quickly to Holsteins making milk like Holsteins and testing like Jerseys.”

Other good news heading into 2025 is dairy product inventories are in good shape, he said. Cheese stocks are down, powder is up just a small amount, dry whey inventory is way down and butter inventory is flat.

Dairy product demand is up, but Covington sees a bit of a challenge looking at demand on a total solids basis because “we are exporting more cheese and less powder.”

Looking ahead, he gave attendees a lot to think about on the changing structure and markets in the dairy industry.

Covington observed that 10% (140) of the 1408 dairy farms that were counted in the 2022 Census of Agriculture in the Southeast had 64% of the region’s milk sales.

Of that 140, there were 22 farms with 2500 cows or more, producing 32% of the region’s milk.

“This is happening all over the country,” said Covington. “We are getting more concentrated.”

This year the milk production advantage flipped back to Florida by slightly more than Georgia, but the two states together have reached 50% of Southeast milk sales. Covington thinks by 2030, “we will see 60% of the milk produced in the Southeast coming from Georgia and Florida.”

When asked what has led to Georgia’s rapid increase in production over the past few years, Covington said “Georgia dairy farmers want to expand and they have the ability to expand. They are progressively making more milk per cow and have the land mass and support.”

His “demand and supply” summary for the Southeast region shows 1160 dairy farms at the end of 2024, producing 8 billion pounds of milk with 32 regulated milk plants. The region had 8.3 billion pounds of Class I fluid milk disposition, and 0.9 billion pounds of Class II products processed.

Against those numbers, the amount of packaged fluid milk products sold in the Southeast was 10 billion pounds. “The Southeast is still a deficit area, and there is room for growth,” he said.

As for total U.S. milk production, Covington doesn’t see it rebounding any time soon. Cow numbers are moving lower and milk per cow is simply not making the year over year gains seen in the past.

“Milk production has been pretty constant for the last three years,” he said. “We have to go way back to see where that has happened before.”

But he also wanted producers to think differently about production, to realize that in making more components, their milk is generating more products. He calculates that today’s hundredweights of milk, nationwide, yield a half pound more cheese. That adds up.

“You as dairy farmers are doing this. By getting your components up, you are also improving sustainability over time. You are making more products from the same volume of milk,” Covington explained.

“Based on average component level changes, if a plant is making one million pounds of cheese a day, they now need 177 loads instead of 185 loads a day for that same output,” he said.

-30-

The good, bad, and unknown of new FMMO pricing formulas ‘approved’ by producer referendum

Posted on by
1
Calvin Covington shared that the collective impact of all the FMMO changes on the Northeast Order farms is likely to be neutral to slightly beneficial, while farms in the three Southeast Orders will benefit the most because of bigger Class I differentials and greater Class I utilization. Butterfat and other solids prices will be lowered, and the wild card will be protein because barrel cheese prices moved higher than blocks in 2024, but the barrel price will no longer be used in the protein price formula after June 1st. Photo by Sherry Bunting

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Jan. 31, 2025

SAVANNAH, Ga. and EAST EARL, Pa. — As part of his annual outlook for Southeast milk markets, and also in his look ahead for the milk market nationally and in the Northeast, well-respected retired milk co-op executive Calvin Covington broke down the final USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) formula changes into three categories: The positive, the negative, and the unknown. (Plus, there is also the ‘unvetted.’)

Covington spoke to over 300 attendees from 10 states at the 2025 Georgia Dairy Conference in Savannah on Jan. 20th, just a few days after USDA’s announcement that producers in each of the 11 FMMOs approved the final rule. Then, on January 28th, he was in eastern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania speaking to 250 dairy farmers on this topic at R&J Dairy Consulting’s 18th Annual Dairy Seminar at Shady Maple Smorgasbord.

The FMMO changes will be implemented June 1, 2025, except for the increased milk composition factors, which will be delayed six months due to impacts on “risk management.”

Covington shared collective analysis based on USDA’s backward-looking data (2019-23), showing that all six pricing changes, combined, would have benefited producers by 26 cents per hundredweight across all FMMOs, nationwide, during those years.

“But, like the disclaimer on a financial prospectus, ‘past performance is not an indicator of future results.’ It is all relative,” he said. “The three Orders of the Southeast are by far the biggest beneficiaries, but going forward, there are a lot of things we just don’t know.”

Calvin Covington shared analysis of how the recently approved FMMO milk pricing changes could collectively impact each of the 11 Orders, but warned that analysis based on past performance, may not be an indicator of future results.

Orders with estimated negative net impact at test are: Pacific Northwest (124) -5 cents; Upper Midwest (30) -9 cents; Arizona (131) -11 cents; and California (51) -27 cents.

Orders with estimated positive impacts at test are: Appalachian (5) +$1.90; Southeast (7) +$1.80; Florida (6) +$1.43; Central (32) +52 cents; Mideast (33) +50 cents; Northeast (1) +35 cents; and Southwest (126) +7 cents.

The good

“The Southeast will see the majority of benefit, with the updated Class I differentials,” Covington reported, illustrating how they vary by location for an average increase of $1.42 per cwt across the country – but only for Class I milk. The three Orders of the Southeast will see more of this benefit because they have the largest Class I differential increases and their blend prices are predominantly Class I.

A University of Wisconsin-Madison study had previously looked at where the plants are and where the milk is, in order to think about moving milk from where it more is produced to where it is needed.

The highest differential increase is along the route 85 corridor, beginning near Atlanta, up into West Virginia, where there are plants but no milk. Interestingly, his chart showed that the smallest increases for the region are in Florida locations as well as Valdosta, Georgia, where the new Walmart milk plant is being built.

In the Northeast, Covington said dairy farmers will have to get used to what this looks like on their milk check, and they will also see more incentive to move milk South under these new differentials.

“Each county has a differential assigned to it,” he said, pointing to the area of the R&J Meeting, near New Holland seeing a $1.40 per cwt. increase in Class I differential, but this is a smaller increase compared to the much larger increase put on at Boston, Mass.

“That big increase in Boston is because there’s not any milk around there, and it’s raised to get the milk to move to the people there,” he said. This means that even though the new Class I differential will raise the Class I price in New Holland, “farmers will have to get used to seeing their location differential as a bigger negative on the milk check,” because the increased differential in Boston is so much bigger.

The milk composition factor updates are straightforward, he said, yielding about a 35 cents per cwt benefit to the Class I milk price in all FMMOs, and will raise the standardized skim value of the other classes in the three southeastern Orders that are still priced as fat/skim instead of by multiple component pricing.

The bad

The make allowance increases will lower the price for butterfat and other solids value, he said, “but we don’t know what will happen with the protein price because of the elimination of the barrel cheese prices from the formula.”

This will manifest as lower butterfat and other solids component prices for the Northeast, he said. “We would expect the protein price to be higher, based on history, but that depends upon the block to barrel price spread and its relationship to the butterfat price.

The unknown

Historically, the 500-pound barrel cheese price was lower than 40-pound block price.

“Last year, however, barrels have been higher, so we don’t know,” said Covington.

Also in the unknown category is the return to the ‘higher-of’ as USDA’s method for setting the base Class I skim price.

“In the past five years, the average-of method cost dairy farmers millions of dollars, but we don’t know going forward if the skim factors (Class III vs. Class IV) will get back to being closer together, which would lower prices. If the spread stays wide, this change to the higher-of will increase prices,” he explained.

When asked if the Covid pandemic created the loss in Class I value under the average-of vs. higher-of, Covington said the Covid period — while most obvious — only accounts for one year out of five years in which the spreads between Class III and Class IV and between block and barrel cheese were detrimental.

“The thing going forward is, we just don’t know,” he said.

The unvetted

The sixth change is not listed separately in the Jan, 16th USDA notice to trade, and it was not part of any hearing proposal. Covington said he views the extended shelf life (ESL) adjuster as “a new class of milk.”

“The ESL adjuster is only on Class I. You’ll have a Class I mover skim price that will be calculated for conventional milk based on the higher-of III or IV,” he said. “Then you need a big spreadsheet to show what’s going to happen next. They’ll look 36 months previous to 12 months previous at the difference between the higher-of and the average-of, and that will be the adjuster to use for ESL milk that month.”

He estimates the ESL adjuster would have averaged -30 cents in 2024, but for some months it would have been a plus.

“My initial analysis is that it will not make a whole lot of difference in the short term, but we just don’t know going forward if some will try to manipulate this,” he said. “My concern is that it was not proposed at the hearing at all, and there’s no definition for extended shelf life. I know being in this business all these years, if there is a way to work around it for a benefit, they will find a way to do it.”

When asked about the competitive issues between conventional and ESL fluid milk and between out-of-area packaged ESL milk competing with in-area fresh milk, Covington observed potential competitive issues between conventional and ESL milk in the same area.

“You’ll have two different costs at the same location. What has always been the beauty of the Federal Order system is having the same raw product costs at the same location,” he said, adding that new ESL plants are being built and others are expanding.

“As ESL grows… there could be some months with a price advantage,” Covington suggested, pegging that difference historically to be as much as $1.00 per cwt in some months. “That kind of difference can create disparity between conventional and ESL milk.

“The thing is, we just don’t know, going forward, what it’s going to look like.”

Covington urged farmers to pay attention and be involved. Federal Order reforms are a slow process involving a lot of time and compromise. Changes this big only happen about every 25 years, he said.

He noted that Farmshine has kept dairy farmers “well-informed” with effective reporting on the markets and the FMMO process.

He said that as more manufactured products are sold and less fluid milk, compared with 25 years ago, the future could look different if future administrations and lawmakers feel differently about the pricing of milk. If manufacturers perhaps choose not to participate, FMMOs could some day be looked to primarily for handling the payments and test weights.

However the future plays out, Covington urged: “Stay informed and be involved because it is your milk check.”

-30-

Good news may trump bad nutrition policies

Posted on by
2

Editorial Analysis: Tumultuous 2024 spills over into 2025 – Part One

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, January 3, 2025

EAST EARL, Pa. – Year 2024 was tumultuous, and 2025 is shaping up to be equally, if not more so. Spilling over from 2024 into 2025 are these three areas of potential for good news to trump bad nutrition policies that are having negative impacts on dairy farmers and consumers.

Farm bill and whole milk bill

Both the farm bill and the whole milk bill showed promise at the start of 2024. No one championed the two pieces of legislation more than House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (R-15th-Pa.). He even found a way to tie them together — on the House side.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act made it farther than it ever has in the four legislative sessions in which Thompson introduced it over the past 8 to 10 years. It reached the U.S. House floor for the first time! But even the overwhelming bipartisan House vote to approve it 330 to 99 at the end of 2023 was not enough to seal the deal in 2024.

That’s because over in the U.S. Senate, then Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) blocked it from consideration — despite over half her committee signing on as cosponsors.

GT Thompson, found a workaround to include it in the House farm bill, which passed his Ag Committee on a bipartisan vote in May. The language was also part of the Senate Republicans’ draft farm bill under Ranking Member John Boozman (R-Ark.)

It too fell victim to Stabenow dragging her feet in the Senate. By the time the Ag Chairwoman released a full-text version of the Senate Democrats’ farm bill, little more than 30 days remained in the 2023-24 legislative session.

Key sticking points were the House focus on dollars for the farm side of the five-year package. It put the extra USDA-approved Thrifty Food Plan funding into the overall baseline for SNAP dollars and brought Inflation Reduction Act climate-smart funds under the farm bill umbrella while removing the methane mandates to allow states and regions to prioritize other conservation goals, like the popular and oversubscribed EQIP program.

Attempts to broker a farm bill deal failed, and on Dec. 20, another one-year extension of the current 2018 farm bill was passed in the continuing resolution that keeps the government funded into the first part of 2025, without amendments for things like whole milk in schools. However, Congress did manage to provide $110 billion of disaster relief for 2022-24 hurricanes, wildfires, and other events. Of this, roughly $25 billion will go to affected farmers and ranchers, plus another $10 billion in economic disaster relief for agriculture.

Looking ahead, there is good news for the farm bill and whole milk bill in the new 2025-26 legislative session. The House Ag Committee will continue under Rep. GT Thompson’s leadership as Chairman. On the Senate side, whole milk friendly Boozman will chair the Ag Committee. With Stabenow retiring, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) will serve as Ranking Member, and she previously signed on as a Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act cosponsor in March 2024.

The whole milk bill will have to start over again in the Education and Workforce Committee with another vote on the House floor. It was enthusiastically supported by prior Education Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-5th-N.C.). Her years of chairing this committee have expired, but the good news is Rep. Tim Walberg (R-5th-Mich.) will step in, and he was an early cosponsor of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in the 2021-22 and 2023-24 legislative sessions.

New Dietary Guidelines

The 2025-30 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) submitted its ‘Scientific Report’ to the outgoing USDA and HHS Secretaries on Dec. 19, 2024 — just 40 days before they head out the door to be replaced by incoming Trump appointees.

The Report is the guidance of the so-called ‘expert committee’ that reviews evidence and makes recommendations for the Secretaries of USDA and HHS to formalize into the 2025-30 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). This process occurs every five years.

The DGAs are used in all USDA feeding programs, including school lunch, childhood daycare, and eldercare institutional feeding, as well as military mess halls. They also inform food offerings in many other controlled settings. 

The bad news is the Report has gone from being increasingly pro-plants over the past nine cycles to being outright anti-animal in this 10th cycle.

The good news is that dairy keeps its special spot on the so-called ‘My Plate.’ The bad news is that despite acknowledging evidence about the benefits of milkfat in nutrient dense milk and dairy foods, the DGAC rated the evidence as ‘limited’ – largely because USDA screened much of it out of the review process.

In the section on under-consumed nutrients of public health concern, especially for children and elders, the DGAC noted that whole and 2% milk were top sources of three of the four: Vit. D, calcium and potassium. Even this was not enough to persuade them to loosen the anti-fat grip that governs milk in schools, daycares and eldercare.

The DGAC states in its Report that their ‘limited access’ to research showing positive relationships between higher fat dairy and health outcomes was “too limited to change the Guidelines.”

They even doubled-down on the beverage category by recommending against flavor-sweetened fat-free and low-fat milk and that water be pushed as the primary beverage. 

In the Report, the DGAC also doubled-down on saturated fat with recommendations to “reduce butter, processed and unprocessed red meat, and dairy for replacement with a wide range of plant-based food sources, including plant-based protein foods, whole grains, vegetables, vegetable (seed) oils and spreads.”

This opens the door for more non-dairy substitutes beyond soy-milk, which is already allowed in the dairy category. In fact, the Report looks ahead to future cycles changing the name of the dairy category to broaden what qualifies as makers of new dairy alternatives improve their nutrition profiles via ultra-processing. At the same time, the DGAC punted the ball on the question they were given about “ultraprocessed” foods and beverages, stating they didn’t have access to enough evidence on health outcomes to answer that question. (The next HHS Secretary might have something to say about that.)

Other animal-based foods such as meat and eggs took a big hit this cycle. The 2025-30 Report uses stronger methods for discouraging consumption. They recommend moving peas, beans and lentils out of the vegetable category and into the protein category and listing them FIRST, followed by nuts and seeds, followed by seafood, then eggs, and lastly meat.

Once again ‘red meat’ is mentioned throughout the report as being lumped in with ‘processed meat’ even though not one stitch of research about negative health relationships with processed meats included any unprocessed red meat in the studies! Clearly, consumption of whole, healthy foods from cattle is in the crosshairs. This 10th edition of the Scientific Report just continues the trend. 

As in past cycles, a whole core of research on the neutral to beneficial relationships between consumption of saturated fat in high-protein, nutrient-dense foods was screened out of the DGAC’s review process by current Ag Secretary Vilsack’s USDA.

This Report essentially sets the stage for ultra-processed plant-based and bioengineered alternative proteins to play a larger role in the institutional meal preps of American schools, daycares, eldercare, and military.

But here’s the good news! The DGAC was late in finishing its 2025-30 Scientific Report!

The law requires a 60-day public comment period before USDA and HHS formulate the actual Guidelines for 2025-30. This mandatory comment period ends Feb. 10, 2025. Comments can be made at the Federal Register link at https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OASH-2024-0017-0001

By the time the comment period ends, Vilsack and company will have left town. Let’s hope Senators confirm Trump appointees before the public comment period ends on Feb. 10 so their eyes are on this before the bureaucracy finishes the job.

This is a golden opportunity for the dairy and livestock sectors, along with health and nutrition professionals and health-conscious citizens to weigh-in. (Look for ways to participate in a future Farmshine.)

Meanwhile, commenters can remind the incoming Secretaries of how flawed the DGA process has become; how Americans, especially children, have become increasingly obese with increasing rates of chronic illness and underconsumption of key fat-soluble nutrients during the decades of the DGA’s increasingly restrictive anti-fat, anti-animal dogma.

Commenters should point out the fact that the Committee was not provided with all of the evidence on saturated fat. This is a message that is likely to land well with USDA Secretary designate Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In fact, RFK Jr. is on record opposing the low-fat dictates and has said nutrition will be among his first priorities, if he is confirmed by the Senate for the HHS post.

FDA’s final rule on ‘healthy’ labeling

In the mad rush at the end of 2024, the FDA released its final rule about using the term “healthy” on the label of foods and beverages.

This process was outlined in the White House National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health. FDA’s preliminary ‘healthy’ labeling rule was released on Sept. 28, 2022, on the first day of the first White House Nutrition Conference since the 1980s.

At that Conference, Ag Secretary Vilsack said: “The National Strategy’s approach is a whole of government approach that involves the entire federal family.” And President Biden said: “We have to give families a tool to keep them healthy. People need to know what they should be eating, and the FDA is using its authority around healthy labeling so you know what to eat.”

In short, the FDA’s role here is to restrict healthy label claims to foods and beverages that meet its criteria and allow them to also use a new FDA ‘healthy’ symbol that is still under development.

“Nutrient-dense foods that are encouraged by the Dietary Guidelines – vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy, lean game meat, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, lentils, nuts, and seeds – with no added ingredients except for water, automatically qualify for the ‘healthy’ claim because of their nutrient profile and positive contribution to an overall healthy diet,” the FDA final rule states.

No surprise that whole milk (3.25% fat) will not qualify, nor will real full fat cheeses, yogurts, and other dairy foods that are not fat-free or low-fat (1%). Natural, unprocessed beef, pork and poultry are off the ‘healthy’ list too.

Specifically, the FDA’s final rule states: “To meet the updated criteria for the ‘healthy’ claim, a food product must: 1) contain a certain amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (such as fruit, vegetables, grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy and protein foods) as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and 2) meet specific limits for added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. 

The fat and sodium criteria are a double-whammy against most real dairy cheeses. A single 1-oz slice of American, Swiss, or Cheddar won’t make the cut on saturated fat or sodium; even part-skim Mozzarella is slightly over the limit. Furthermore, low-fat, high-protein cottage cheese barely makes the cut on saturated fat, but far exceeds the new limit on sodium. Likewise, a typical yogurt cup only qualifies if it is low-fat or non-fat, and fruited yogurts must steer clear of added sugars.

Dairy can’t win in this labeling scheme unless products are made with virtually no saturated fat and far less sodium. To sell flavorless cardboard and chalk water that fails to deliver key fat-soluble nutrients, products will undergo more ultra-processing, and Americans will consume more artificial sweeteners.

Under dairy products, FDA’s final rule for ‘healthy’ label claims states: 1) Must contain a minimum of 2/3 cup food group equivalent of dairy, which includes soy; and 2) Each serving must have under 2.5 g of added sugar, under 230 mg sodium, and under 2 g saturated fat.

This means even a serving size of exactly 2/3 cup (6 oz) of 2% milk might barely squeak by, and a full cup (8 oz) of 1% or fat-free milk would be – you guessed it – ‘healthy’. Flavoring the fat-free and low-fat milk will not qualify, except by using artificial sweeteners to stay within added sugar limits.

Under protein foods, the FDA is even more restrictive. The only protein foods listed in the ‘healthy’ labeling final rule are: game meat, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, lentils, seeds, nuts, and soy products. Furthermore, these options must meet the criteria of less than 1 g added sugars, less than 230 mg sodium and less than 1 to 2 g saturated fat.

But here’s the good news! This FDA final rule (21 CFR Part 101, RIN 0910-AI13) falls under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It’s not likely to sit well with HHS Secretary designate RFK Jr. The rule becomes effective Feb. 25, 2025. The compliance date is three years later, so there is hope of requesting HHS initiate a new rulemaking process under new HHS leadership.

Bottom line is all three of these bad nutrition policies impact consumer health and dairy farm economic health and are rooted in the flawed Dietary Guidelines process.

There is good news on that front in Congress as well. House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson included DGA reform and oversight in the farm bill that had passed his Committee in the 2023-24 legislative session. It is critical that this issue be part of the new farm bill that moves forward in the 2025-26 legislative session.

Part II in a future Farmshine will look at the tumultuous 2024 dairy markets and margins spilling over into 2025.

-30-