Covering Ag since 1981. The faces, places, markets and issues of dairy and livestock production. Hard-hitting topics, market updates and inspirational stories from the notebook of a veteran ag journalist. Contributing reporter for Farmshine since 1987; Editor of former Livestock Reporter 1981-1998; Before that I milked cows. @Agmoos on Twitter, @AgmoosInsight on FB #MilkMarketMoos
EAST EARL, Pa. — Year-to-date Whole Milk sales for the first two months of 2024 are up a whopping 5% year-over-year (YOY) at 2.57 million pounds. Even when adjusted for Leap Year, the average daily increase is a substantial 3% surge, compared with the past several years of steady 1% increases YOY.
Flavored whole milk sales, year-to-date (YTD) are up a whopping18.6% YOY. Adjusted for Leap Year, the increase is a substantial 14%.
As the number one volume category representing more than one-third of the fluid milk category since 2020, the recent surge in whole milk sales has been enough to reverse the decline in total packaged fluid milk sales in four of the past five months.
USDA tallied 2023’s total packaged fluid milk sales down by a smaller margin of 1.5% for the year compared with previous years of decline; however, October and November sales were up 1% and 0.3% YOY for the first time since the months of the Covid shutdown when families ate at home. December’s total packaged fluid milk sales trailed year-earlier, but January and February 2024 have come back strong.
USDA estimates total fluid milk sales were up 2.4% and 2.5% YOY for January and February, respectively. When adjusted for Leap Year, the February increase is a respectable 0.8%. Similarly, when we adjust the YTD total of 7.325 million pounds in total fluid milk sales to reflect the extra consumption day in February, this is also 0.8% higher on an average daily basis vs. year ago.
This is good news! Let’s keep this upward trend MOOVING in fluid milk sales, led by surging whole milk sales — thanks to volunteers spreading the good word.
Now, if we could just get the United States Senate off the sidelines and into cosponsoring S. 1957 Whole Milk for Healthy Kids, we could really gain some ground — and America’s kids would be free to choose milk they love at school where they receive 2 meals a day, 5 days a week, 3/4 of the year.
Thanks to the U.S. House of Representatives and the leadership of Congressman G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act (H.R. 1147) passed the House on December 13, 2023 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority 330 to 99. If the U.S. Senate doesn’t have the opportunity to vote it through by December 31, 2024, we must start all over again in the next legislative session 2025-26!
Check out the map above to see how S. 1957 remains stalled for the past 60 days at just 17 sponsors from 13 states.
Where do your state’s U.S. Senators stand? Ask them! And think about their answers when going to the polls this fall. Elections have consequences.
Also consider asking your state senators and representatives to follow Tennessee’s lead and get a whole milk bill passed in your state and signed by your Governor.
Pennsylvania and New York State tried to be first, but leaders are afraid of USDA’s monetary penalties. Maybe the No. 8 and No. 5 milk producing states can be second and third in state whole milk bill passage.
Just think what would happen if more states passed bills that ALLOWED choice and sought creative language to let their schools choose to let children choose. Tennessee will make it available in bulk dispensers separate from the school lunch line. Pennsylvania sought to do it as a wholly in-state proposition.
Meanwhile, DMI sent a press release on April 29 touting their “checkoff-led pilot in Cincinnati schools that offered lactose-free chocolate milk increased milk consumption…” Specifically, the pilot schools experienced a 16% increase in milk consumption and a 7% higher meal participation, according to DMI.
(Of course, this lactose-free pilot was also fat-free per the USDA rules for milk at school built on the Dietary Guidelines that the dairy checkoff agreed to “advance” when the memorandum of understanding was signed between the USDA, National Dairy Council, GENYOUth and the NFL in 2010).
Remember, this reporter warned several years ago that checkoff and dairy industry leaders would wait until lactose-free shelf-stable milk was firmly entrenched in schools before pushing whole milk choice through. Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow is the main blockade this time around. She hails from the No. 6 milk producing state of Michigan, where the foundation fairlife plant is located, collecting milk from large producers in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.
Wonder what consumption looks like when whole milk is offered as a choice. That’s right! A Grassroots PA Dairy Advisory Committee / 97 Milk trial in a school in northwestern Pennsylvania saw consumption grow 52% and waste decline 95%.
So, drink up Senators! Talk to your constituent Moms this Mother’s Day. Sales data and surveys both show what Moms think, and most don’t even realize the federal ban, the bait-and-switch their kids face at school where milk and dairy are concerned.
Then pour a tall cold glass of delicious, nutritious whole milk. It may just strengthen those political spines!
This week, we look at the third C: ‘Competition’: If schoolchildren are offered whole milk, will it significantly impact butterfat supplies, raise butter prices, and compete with the industry’s cheap milk cheese-focused future?
Every winter conference for the past few years has had at least one speaker telling dairy farmers that fluid milk sales are declining because Americans are eating more of their milk instead of drinking it.
Fair enough. Cheese is the future, and the industry wants to make more of it. Lots more of it. So much more cheese, in fact, that inventory is growing. Analysts at conferences put up slides with the words “Export or perish!” in large font.
Yes, U.S. Dairy wants to export more cheese, including mozzarella. U.S. Dairy wants to export more butter and cream products. U.S. Dairy wants to export more of the higher-value products. (And we want to sell more cream to the upscale coffee houses and downscale McCafe drinks we adults get to choose while junior sips a paltry half-pint of fat-free chocolate milk, sugar water, in the back seat. What’s wrong with us?)
This map shows the over $7 billion in new processing coming online between now and 2026. “There’s a lot of cheese on this map,” said IDFA CEO Michael Dykes, presenting at the Georgia Dairy Conference. This slide has also been popping up in other industry conference speaker powerpoint decks this meeting season. IDFA data
The industry also wants to take milk down to its molecular level – to turn the jug of milk into ingredients at the start — to make new function-targeted products for the beverage space outside of Class I parameters within an increasingly Class III dominated processing infrastructure.
Toward that end, new processing capacity won’t convert milk to traditional products, leaving elements to be marketed as ingredients. Instead, these new state-of-the-art cheese and ingredient plants start by taking milk apart to the ingredients-level to be used in making health beverages, bars, and other products, as well as to make cheese.
At the Georgia Dairy Conference in January, IDFA CEO Michael Dykes mentioned IDFA’s support for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, giving attendees a QR code to weigh-in with their Senators.
Later in his presentation, he noted that a shift to more fat in school milk would make a 3% impact on the butter supply.
“I’m a believer that the markets work, when you take it one place, you make a difference and change it someplace else. Those are the things we can work through,” said Dykes.
So, we reached out to Calvin Covington, a former cooperative CEO who is intimately familiar with component pricing as it became part of the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system over 20 years ago. We asked his thoughts on how increasing fat in the school milk supply would impact butter.
“Increased Cheddar cheese production has used millions and millions of pounds of butterfat. No one complains about this. Doesn’t the dairy industry want to increase demand for all milk components?” he replied and sent forth his own calculations, providing a spreadsheet showing his estimates of milk used in schools and the additional fat that would be needed for all of that milk to go completely to 3.25% (whole) milk.
Covington ran the numbers, moving methodically through assumptions on Table 1 to conclude the impact of shifting from a school milk fat percentage of 0.5% (half fat-free and half 1%) all the way to 3.25% (whole milk) would have a small impact on the butterfat supply — raising the school milk’s usage of butterfat from 0.25% of total butterfat production at the current national average fat test of 4.11% to being 1.47% of total butterfat production at the average 4.11% fat test.
Using the identified assumptions, Table 1 shows estimates on school milk volume and use of butterfat under today’s fat-free and 1% low-fat milk requirement compared with a scenario in which all school milk pounds were at 3.25% fat as standardized whole milk. Provided by Calvin Covington
He estimates public schools use 9.72% of all fluid milk, and for the purpose of the spreadsheet exercise, he assumed that half of those school milk sales are currently fat-free and half are 1%. If that is the case, then going to 3.25% (whole) milk for all pounds of school milk sales, the additional fat that would be needed is almost 114 million pounds, he reports.
“This should be a non-issue,” Covington concludes, using estimates that are based on all of those school milk pounds moving to 3.25% fat.
The more likely scenario, however, is that schools would implement a more gradual increase in fat percentage. If it mirrored the national average for fluid milk sales at 2% fat, the increase would be smaller initially. Using Covington’s chart and assumptions, the additional fat that would be needed if school milk fat content averaged 2% is closer to 84 million pounds, going from using 0.25% of total fat production to 0.9% of total fat production.
Not all schools will choose to offer all milk at 3.25%. Some may offer 2% milk, which has also been banned since 2010 and would be given regulatory relief under the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.
Even if 3.25% fat milk is universally offered, some schoolchildren will continue to choose low-fat milk, as they did in the Pennsylvania trial, where the preference was 3 to 1 for whole 3.25% over low-fat 1%.
While a potentially higher fat content in school milk is being scrutinized for its impact on butter and butterfat, the impact of aggressive increases in cheese production is ignored. This speaks a bit to industry priorities.
“As butter and cheese consumption increase, processors do not argue against the increase because utilizing more fat would increase the fat price,” Covington observes, wondering why anyone would be concerned about the impact on butterfat supply if children get to choose whole milk while not being concerned about the impact on butterfat supply in any other sector.
“An increase in fluid milk sales, in schools, or anywhere, benefits all dairy farmers. With all things being equal, it would shift milk from Class III and IV to Class I, which is a (normally) higher milk price,” Covington explains. “If Class III or IV need more milk to replace the loss to Class I, more money would need to be paid by Class III and IV milk buyers, again, helping dairy farmers.”
So, what is the current status of butterfat production and usage?
The national butterfat average is 4.11%. A decade ago, it was 3.69. From 2011 to 2022, total butterfat pounds produced on farms in the U.S. grew by 2 billion pounds from 7.3 billion to 9.3 billion. That’s a butterfat volume response to a price signaling demand.
Where’s it all going? Around 20% goes to butter production, 8% to ice cream and frozen desserts, 10% in fluid milk sales, and close to 50% is used in cheese production. And then there is this growing market for cream used in coffee drinks.
Meanwhile, dairy producers out West report receiving a letter from a large cheese plant, putting in a new base program at 1.5% over base.
Another producer in an unregulated state in the West reported receiving a letter from his cheese plant stating they will reduce the butterfat multiple in their cheese milk payment, beginning April 1. The reason, according to the letter, is the farms are making too much butterfat, and the plant is having to buy condensed solids (skim) to pair with the additional fat or sell the extra fat as excess sweet cream at a loss.
During the FMMO hearing, fluid milk bottlers complained that the higher fat and component levels in milk today are more costly for them to deal with, that they must move the excess cream at a loss, and they have to clean the separator more often because of ‘sludge’ buildup. (I kid you not, one witness called it ‘sludge.’)
Processors have petitioned USDA with multiple proposals to get regulated minimum prices down to their definition of a ‘market clearing’ level that then allows them to add market premiums to attract new milk. Read that sentence again.
Who would be paying those premiums to grow milk supply? Not the processors. It would be revenue coming out of the regulated minimum price benchmarks for all farmers, including farmers that are not growing, to then get added back in by the processors wherever they want to direct growth.
Cheap milk is the name of the game, while at the same time, dairy farmers are being challenged to grow to meet the future ‘demand gap’ to fill $7 billion in new processing investments that will become operational over the next few years.
Dairy analysts tell how milk production expansion to meet this investment will not be as easy to do and will take longer than in the past because of the shortage in replacement heifers.
We’re at a standoff, so to speak.
Dairy producers have bred beef-on-dairy to bring margin back to their farms after 10 years of dairy margin compression. This strategy has been a good hedge against overproduction of milk in the era of sexed-semen, and it has helped protect farm balance sheets by reinforcing the value of the cattle as collateral.
So, what tool will be used now to drive consolidation and growth in dairy? Dykes told Georgia producers that, “Sustainability will be one of the biggest drivers of consolidation we’ve seen in a generation. Why? Because it’s going to take investment, and it’s going to take scale. We need to figure it out, to measure it, verify it, account for it, not double count it. We’re going to need investments to make sure we have the infrastructure.”
He said sustainability will become the gateway for exports where countries have mandates and carbon taxes for purchased ag products.
So, here we are back at the question about milk supply, butterfat supply, skim supply and school milk. Wouldn’t whole milk sales to schools offer a much-needed tug on the demand side to help shift some milk away from this runaway, market-depressing, buildup of excess cheese production that elicits the powerpoint headline: ‘Export or perish?’
Just think, if the fluid milk sales to schools increased as they did in the Pennsylvania trial by 52%, or even half that, by 25% as more kids choose milk instead of refusing it, market principles could work — gaining something in one place to affect it someplace else.
Meanwhile, the industry can do some soul-searching and adapting amid the double-speak. If more milk, fat and components are needed, then farmers need to be able to make a living milking cows and producing fat and components.
Is the problem not enough milk? Or too much milk? Not enough fat? Or too much fat? Not enough skim? Or too much skim? Or is the problem rooted in making sure milk can be bought cheap and that farmers are forced to find revenue in other ways, such as carbon monitoring?
Let’s get it straight please.
On the horizon, we see: Checkoff-funded fluid milk innovations for new beverages that identify and separate specific milk molecules for specific benefits (sleep drinks, energy drinks, immune function drinks, specific protein type drinks)? More on that in Milk Molecules Initiative Part I and Part II
EAST EARL, Pa. — The status of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, S. 1957, has 17 Senate sponsors from 13 states, including 12 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Even though both NMPF and IDFA have shown support for the measure, a bit of resignation can be sensed — riding the overwhelming House vote as enough progress for one legislative session. After taking bows for the performance of the bill in the House, representatives of both NMPF and IDFA – while speaking at winter meetings – have indicated a prevailing view that Senate opposition to S. 1957, is a big barrier.
They say they are working to get the science in front of the Dietary Guidelines Committee, which has been tried before – over and over.
The DGA committee operates under a USDA that does not want whole milk options in schools or SNAP or WIC. This same USDA is proposing to remove chocolate milk options from schools, except for senior high students, and is proposing to reduce WIC milk by 3 gallons per recipient per month. This same USDA projects 20 billion more pounds of milk will be produced in the U.S. by 2030, according to IDFA CEO Michael Dykes, presenting future trends at the Georgia Dairy Conference in Savannah.
Seeds of doubt about the whole milk bill are being sown among farmers. Some asked me recently if their co-ops will lose money on the deal.
This week we look at the second C: ‘Consternation’ — a fancy word for fear.
“What will they do with all of our skim?” farmers asked me at a recent event. Is this something they are hearing from a milk buyer or inspector?
Here are some facts: Whole milk sales move the skim with the fat — leaving some of the fat through standardization, but not leaving any skim. Therefore, an increase in whole milk sales does not burden the skim milk market.
Surely, the practice of holding schoolchildren hostage to drinking the byproduct skim of butter and cream product manufacturing is a poor business model if we care about childhood nutrition, health, and future milk sales.
Furthermore, the market for skim milk powder and nonfat dry milk is running strong as inventories are at multi-year lows in the U.S. and globally.
Cheese production, on the other hand, is what is cranking up, and it has been the market dog for 18 months. Like whole milk sales, cheesemaking uses both fat and skim. But cheesemaking leaves byproduct lactose and whey, and it can leave some residual fat depending on the ratios per cheese type.
Things are pretty bad for farmers right now in cheesemilk country. Some tough discussions are being had around kitchen tables. The 2022 Ag Census released last week showed the dire straits for farmers nationwide over the last five years as the number of U.S. dairy farms declined below 25,000, down a whopping 40% since 2017.
Wouldn’t an increase in whole milk sales through the school milk channels help pull some milk away from rampant excess cheese production that is currently depressing the Class III milk price, leading to price divergence and market dysfunction?
While there is no one data source to specifically document the percentage of the milk supply that is sold to schools, the estimates run from 6 to 7% of total fluid milk sales (Jim Mulhern, NMPF, 2019), to 8% of the U.S. milk supply (Michael Dykes, IDFA, 2023), to 9.75% of total fluid milk sales (Calvin Covington, independent analysis, 2024).
If even half of these sales became whole milk sales, it could modestly positively impact the amount of excess cheese being made even as processors say they plan to make more cheese because people eat more of their milk than are drinking it. (Fig. 1)
Meanwhile, the cheese price is under so much downward price pressure that there is a $2 to $4 divergence of Class IV over Class III causing farmers to lose money under the ‘averaging’ formula for Class I milk. In many parts of the country, farmers lose additional money when the milk that is used in Classes II and IV is depooled out of FMMOs.
Without the ‘higher of’ pricing mechanism that was in place from the year 2000 until May 2019, Class I can fall below the higher manufacturing price, removing incentive to pool, which leaves pooled producers with smaller payments for their milk and leaves the decision about what to pay depooled farmers up to the processors after they’ve succeeded in reducing the benchmark minimum by depooling.
Ultrafiltered (UF) milk represents 2.4% of fluid milk market share, having grown by more than 10% per year for four years with sales up 7.7% in 2023 vs. 2022, according to Circana-tracked market data shared by Dykes.
UF milk is also cheese-vat-ready-milk with capability to remove not just the lactose but also the whey as permeate at the front end for use in distilleries that are now funneling lactose into ethanol production in Michigan and whey into alcoholic beverages in Michigan and Minnesota.
Processors want farmers to do “a tradeoff” to decide how much revenue comes to their milk checks and how much goes to processing investments for the future. The future is being dictated by where we are in fluid milk consumption relative to cheese production.
This is one reason IDFA and Wisconsin Cheesemakers, as well as NMPF, had proposals asking USDA to increase the processor credits (make allowances) that are embedded in the dairy product price formulas. IDFA and Milk Innovation Group also put forward other proposals to further reduce regulated minimum prices.
We wonder with these new processing investments, how is it that the make allowances are too small? Only bulk butter, nonfat dry milk, dry whey, 40-lb block Cheddar and 500-lb barrel cheese (yellow not white) are surveyed for the circular class and component price formulas. Everything else that doesn’t meet CME spec for these specific product exchanges is excluded.
This means the costs to make innovative new products and even many bulk commodity-style products, such as bulk mozzarella, unsalted butter, whey protein concentrate and skim milk powder, can be passed on to consumers without being factored back into the FMMO regulated minimum prices paid to farmers.
If market principles are applied, processors wanting to encourage more milk production, to make more cheese, would pay more for the milk – not less. But when the margin can be assured with a make allowance that yields a return on investment, all bets are off. Cheese gets made for the ‘make’ not the market.
We saw processors petition USDA in the recent Federal Milk Marketing Order hearing to reduce the minimum prices in multiple ways so they can have the ability to pay market premiums to attract new milk. This would be value coming out of the regulated FMMO minimum price benchmark for all farmers to get added back in by the processors wherever they want to direct it.
Cheese is in demand globally, and the U.S. dairy industry is investing to meet this. Dykes told Georgia producers that processors want to grow and producers want to grow. He wasn’t wondering what to do with all of the skim when he asked: “Where will the milk come from for the over $7 billion in new processing investments that will be coming online in the next two to three years?”
This is happening, said Dykes, “due to market changes from fluid milk to more cheese production (Fig. 1). There’s a lot of cheese in those plans. With over $7 billion in investment… These are going to be efficient plants. You’re going to see consolidation. If you are part of a co-op, you’re going to decide how much (revenue) comes in through your milk check and how much goes into investment in processing for the long-run, for the future. That’s the debate your boards of directors will have.”
Even the planned new fluid milk processing capacity is largely ultra-filtered, aseptic and extended shelf life, according to Dykes.
“That’s the direction we are moving,” he said. “We are seeing that move because as we think about schools, are we still going to be able to send that truck driver 20 miles in any direction with 3 or 4 cases of milk 5 days a week? Or do we do that with aseptic so they can store it and put it in the refrigerator one night before, and get some economies of scale out of that, and maybe bring some margin back to the business?”
As the Class III milk price continues to be the market dog, we don’t see milk moving from Class III manufacturing to Class IV, perhaps because of the dairy processing shifts that have been led by reduced fluid milk consumption.
Allowing schoolchildren to have the choice of whole milk at school is about nutrition, healthy choices, future milk consumers, and the relevance of fresh fluid milk produced by local family farms in communities across the country. Having a home for skim does not appear to be the primary factor affecting milk prices where Class III is dragging things down.
Bottomline, dairy farmers should have no consternation (fear) over what processors are going to do with “all of that skim” once they are (hopefully) allowed to offer schoolchildren milk with more fat.
Next time, we’ll address the third ‘C’ – Competition – If kids are offered whole milk in schools, will it reduce the butterfat supply and impact the industry’s cheese-centered future?
A final note, just in case the question about ‘what to do with all that skim’ still bothers anyone… What’s wrong with animal feed markets for skim milk powder? Protein is valuable in animal health, there are livestock to feed, and people spend major bucks on their pets too. Did you know dog treats made with nonfat dry milk powder, flour and grated cheese are a thing?
That idea got a good laugh from those farmers when I suggested it.
However, Cornell dairy economist Dr. Chris Wolf noted recently how China’s purchases are what drive global skim milk powder and whey protein prices, and that much of that market for both is to feed… you guessed it… Pigs.
EAST EARL, Pa. — While decades of scientific debate in terms of childhood health and nutrition is the curtain opponents hide behind, the anti-animal agenda is the top hurdle for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in the Senate.
Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) is the prime sponsor of the Senate bill, and he is a medical doctor in obstetrics and is taking a beating from billboards sponsored by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) in his home state of Kansas. PCRM is a known arm of PETA. This tells us quite a bit, doesn’t it?
Meanwhile, the top 3 C’s facing the bill within the dairy industry, itself, need to be addressed.
1) Confusion… Will it really improve milk prices? Addressed in this article
2) Consternation (fear)… What will processors do with “all of that skim”? Addressed in Part II here
3) Competition… Will it reduce the butterfat supply and affect the ramp up in cheese manufacturing or other dairy products? Addressed in Part III here
Plus…. the Checkoff Commitments… Will it interfere with checkoff-funded Milk Molecules Initiative for new beverages that identify and separate specific milk molecules for specific benefits (sleep drinks, energy drinks, immune function drinks, specific protein type drinks)?
All of these questions are quietly floating around and sowing seeds of doubt, leading to analysis-paralysis, while the industry focus is on innovation and exports, not on fresh milk, or a healthy next generation of U.S. milk consumers.
All of these questions will be answered one at a time over the next several weeks, starting with the first “C”: Confusion.
“Will this bill really improve our milk prices?” was the question I was asked by a few farmers at a recent farm show. My response was to ask them if they are concerned about kids having healthy milk options they enjoy and if they are concerned about seeing further erosion of fluid milk sales, and losing another generation of milk drinkers?
I reached out to Calvin Covington, former milk cooperative CEO in the fluid milk markets of the Southeast and a primary architect of pricing milk by component yield even before Order Reform during his years with American Jersey Cattle Breeders.
Covington ran the numbers using 2023 average prices, and calculating pounds of milk, fat, and skim, utilization, and values, which yield a gross value of a hundredweight of milk being used for fluid processing at different fat levels.
“At a $3.00 Class I differential, a hundredweight of milk going for 3.25 fluid milk (whole milk as standardized), returns an additional 25 cents per hundredweight over skim milk,” Covington writes, noting that the difference will change based on different Class I differentials.
Even in the counties with small or zero location differentials on the map, the base differential of $1.60 per hundredweight is still included, which means at least a 13 cents per hundredweight difference.
Previously, Covington has noted in presentations that milk prices improve as the average fat level of total fluid milk sales increases. The current average of all sales, nationwide, stands at 2%. A few years ago, it was below 2%. A fractional change in either direction influences Federal Milk Marketing Order blend prices.
Fluid milk demand also plays a role in manufacturing class prices, affecting farmers in regions where prices are based almost exclusively on cheese.
That’s especially true right now as cheese production has been exploding, and the Class III milk price has been imploding, creating a wide spread below Class IV and pushing FMMO blend prices lower as milk is not moving out of Class III to the higher value Class IV. But the Federal Milk Marketing Law gives Class I dibs to attract milk. So Class I demand is relevant for cheese milk pricing too.
As whole milk sales have increased year-over-year, whole milk became the largest category of fluid milk sales in 2021. It is a bright spot in the fluid milk category.
In 2023, gains in whole milk sales and in lactose-free milk sales are credited with boosting the entire fluid milk category for year-over-year gains in back-to-back months of October and November. This helped flatten the year-to-date loss-curve on total fluid milk sales that had been running 2 to 4% lower year-over-year to be just 1.5% lower cumulatively at year end compared with 2022, according to USDA’s December estimated packaged fluid milk sales report, released in mid-February.
Still, there is ground to make up, as fluid milk sales volume in 2023 is 7.8% lower than pre-Covid 2019, when volume totaled 46.24 billion pounds, down 1.8% from 2018. Then, during pandemic lockdowns, milk sales stabilized, putting the total at 46.2 billion pounds for 2020, virtually unchanged from 2019. In 2021, fluid milk sales volume declined 4.1% to 44.3 billion pounds, followed by a 2.4% decrease in 2022 to 43.3 billion pounds, and now a 1.5% decline in 2023 at 42.6 billion pounds.
NMPF chart, Circana Inc. full-year 2023 data
Meanwhile, the big news reported recently is that plant-based fake-milk beverages saw sales decline by 6.6% in 2023, the second straight year of declines and the smallest sales since 2019, according to data from Circana Inc reported recently.
Real dairy milk sales volume of 42.6 billion pounds in 2023 is not only a much larger category than the lookalikes at 337.7 million pounds, real dairy milk outperformed lookalikes on a trend basis in 2023 — down just 1.5% vs. plant-based being down 6.6%.
By comparison, plant-based beverage sales volume in 2023 was a fraction of 1% (0.8%) the size of real milk sales volume.
Whole milk education and awareness have helped drive this result. Consumers are paying attention to food science, even if the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, USDA (and FDA on labeling) continue to ignore it. Still, more education and freedom for children to enjoy milk is needed. The concern is that even though it is a smaller percentage loss, the 1.5% sales volume loss in the real milk category in 2023 represented 644 million pounds; whereas a 6.6% sales volume loss in plant-based beverages in 2023 represented 24 million pounds.
Speaking with a local milk bottler and ice cream maker recently – a producer handler – I learned he focuses on how his cows are fed to maintain their rolling average 5% butterfat during the summertime to make ice cream and satisfy consumer demand for whole milk. Their whole milk sales have skyrocketed, and this in turn, to the delight of the grocery store they are in, has helped boost sales of all fluid milk as a category in that store.
This has him thinking of doing a 5% butterfat, non-standardized, maybe even cream top, full-fat milk in glass bottles for the store. The store displays a 97 Milk banner at the entrance and 97milk.com website stickers at the dairy case.
Speaking with a manager at a different grocery store chain with stores in Pennsylvania and surrounding states, I learned their sales of whole milk have also increased by leaps and bounds in the past several years, boosting the entire fluid milk category by 14% at their stores throughout the region. They include the 97milk.com website and information in their sales circulars to their shoppers.
As for the schools — If even half of the schools offered a mix of milkfat choices as the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act would allow them to do, the amount of butterfat sold as Class I would increase. This would improve the fat side of the fat/skim pricing in the three Southeast Orders and Arizona. It would also help the Federal Order pool dollars reach after actual components are paid first in Multiple Component Pricing Orders everywhere else.
Total Class I fluid milk sales have dropped like a rock since Congress passed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act in 2010, which removed whole and 2% milk options from school meals, followed by USDA in 2012 further banning whole and 2% milk as a la carte or vending machine ‘competing beverage’ options in the Department’s Smart Snacks regulations.
Look at the graph above. It was shared as part of Dr. Mark Stephenson’s testimony in the recent USDA FMMO milk pricing hearing.
Improved total sales of school milk hold potential to increase total Class I fluid milk sales. A Pennsylvania school trial in 2019 showed a 52% increase in milk sales when whole and 2% milk options were offered. Students showed a 3 to 1 preference for whole milk over the 1% milk option.
When their options were expanded, more students chose milk instead of refusing it. Students were able to choose, and some of them continued to choose low-fat, and that’s okay! The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is about choice.
A conservative estimate of a 25% increase in school milk sales can be anticipated if Whole Milk for Healthy Kids gets over the finish line in the Senate after its overwhelming passage in December in the House. That is half of the increase seen in the Pennsylvania school trial. If realized, a 25% increase in school milk sales equates to a little over one billion pounds of additional annual milk sales, which could raise the entire Class I fluid milk category by a little more than 2%.
This is based on the fact that kids aren’t just throwing away milk at school. Some are refusing to take the milk they are offered with school meals. This means sales are being lost.
Fluid milk sales declines will only get worse if USDA implements one of two draft proposals the Department announced a year ago. One would eliminate flavored milk from elementary and middle schools altogether. The other would require added sugar levels to be reduced dramatically in flavored milk at school. It’s widely known that when milkfat is retained in making chocolate milk, less added sugar is needed!
Demand for whole milk is beneficial on both the milk fat and skim sides of the equation because whole milk sales move the nearly-complete product – the skim with the fat — leaving some of the fat through standardization, but not leaving any skim.
The result of these options in schools could be even better depending on how many schools choose to exercise these options.
If the industry doesn’t supply what consumers demand, sales are lost. Schoolchildren are already the dairy industry’s consumers, and they will hold the purse strings in the future.
Just as the Dietary Guidelines Committee and USDA continue to ignore science on milkfat, we are all ignoring our nation’s schoolchildren and what they are telling us about why they are turning away from nutrient-dense milk at a time when the nutrients milk delivers – that we may think they are receiving — have never been more important.
When the Pennsylvania school trial ended after one school year, a 95% reduction in the average daily volume of discarded milk was recorded. The school Student Council did an environmental project to measure this by measuring the volume of milk thrown away in unopened and partly consumed half-pint containers.
Shouldn’t we be listening to what the young people are telling us? They are our future, after all.
In the meantime, consider this: Fresh fluid milk is the most notably locally-produced dairy product maintaining dairy farm relevance in regions and communities across America. What will the dairy industry look like five years from now, even one year from now? Maybe we should be asking the schoolchildren to answer that question.
As of Feb. 14, 2024, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, S. 1957, has 15 sponsors from 12 states as illustrated on this map. Graphic by Sherry Bunting
The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act has moooved to the Senate. S. 1957 is identical to H.R. 1147. As of Feb. 21, 2024, the Senate bill has 15 sponsors from 12 states. This map shows what states have both Senators or one Senator signed on and which states have none. We need more cosponsors to get this bill out of the Ag Committee and onto the Senate floor for a successful vote. Will YOU call or write TWO? Map by Sherry Bunting
By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, January 26, 2024 (Cosponsor data updated Feb. 21, 2024)
WASHINGTON — The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is now up to the Senate, where more cosponsors are definitely needed to push it past some barriers and get it to the floor for a successful vote.
Senate bill S. 1957 is not a mandate for whole milk. This bill ends a mandate against whole milk, which is federally banned from schools (2% reduced fat milk is also prohibited. Only fat-free and 1% low-fat milk are allowed to be offered with meals or a la carte or in vending machines).
In December, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) blocked the unanimous consent motion by Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Marshall was seeking an immediate Senate vote on H.R. 1147 – Congressman G.T. Thompson’s bill – on Dec. 14, 2023, just one day after it was overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan 330-99 vote. It was previously passed in the House Education Committee in a bipartisan 26 to 13 vote.
Marshall chugged a glass of whole milk and gave an inspiring speech about getting the bill to the President’s desk for Christmas. Sen. Marshall is a medical doctor, an obstetrician, and a member of the Senate Ag Committee.
“This is a slam-dunk for American families,” he said.
Sen. Stabenow played the role of the Grinch stealing the opportunity for immediate whole milk passage in the Senate on the heels of the overwhelming House vote as she objected to the unanimous consent request on Dec. 14.
But that’s not the end of this story, just the beginning.
An identical Senate bill, S. 1957, The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act was introduced in June 2023. It was read twice on the Senate floor and referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by — you guessed it — Sen. Stabenow of Michigan. This means she is in a ‘gate-keeper’ position for this bill. If it doesn’t come before her committee, it will have trouble getting to the floor.
This is where we can help by raising the number of Senate cosponsors! There are 15 sponsors as of Feb. 21 (updated). We need to get to one-third or one-half of the Senate. That’s 35 to 50.
While news reports indicate Sen. Stabenow will retire after this term and is not seeking re-election, her legacy in caring about childhood nutrition and agriculture may be important to her. She stated on the Senate floor that these decisions about milk in school should be made by the scientific committees. She wants to “keep having these conversations.”
Let’s take her up on that by having conversations with our Senators to cosponsor S. 1957. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has for three cycles and over 15 years refused to consider the preponderance of sound evidence about the benefits of milkfat that the USDA keeps screening out of their deliberations process.
The DGA Committee is meeting right now for 2025-30 DGAs that seek to refine the current dietary patterns, not re-evaluate them. Even the DGA Committee in 2020 admitted their recommended dietary patterns are deficient in key nutrients that milk delivers.
Here’s the bottom line: S. 1957 was introduced in June 2023 by Sen. Marshall (R-Kan.), along with Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), James Risch and Mike Crapo (both R-Idaho), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Angus King (I-Maine).
Four more cosponsors have been gained, they are Senators J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.)
As of January 24, 2024, S. 1957 has 14 sponsors from 11 states in the U.S. Senate. Of these 15, seven are on the Senate Ag Committee (Marshall, Hyde-Smith, Gillibrand, Fetterman, Welch, Grassley, Braun).
We need the rest of the Ag Committee, including Ranking Member John Boozman (R-Ark.). If you live in Arkansas, contact him. If you live in Minnesota, contact Ag Committee Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith; in Illinois, Sen. Richard Durbin; in Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown; in Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell; in Iowa, Chuck Grassley has already signed on, but Joni Ernst has not; in North Dakota, talk with Sen. John Hoeven; in South Dakota, Sen. John Thune; in Nebraska, Sen. Deb Fischer; in Georgia, Sen. Raphael Warnack; in New Mexico, Sen. Ben Ray Lujan; in Alabama, Sen. Tommy Tuberville; in Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet; and in New Jersey, Sen. Cory Booker.
No matter where you live, contact your state’s two U.S. Senators. We need as many Senate cosponsors as possible, and we need Senators motivated to speak with Chairwoman Stabenow, to ask her to please stop putting the ego and agenda of Washington bureaucrats above the health and welfare of America’s children and the economic stability of America’s dairy farmers.
This bill is about choice. It is not a mandate. It simply allows schools to offer whole and 2% flavored and unflavored milk at school lunch and breakfast without financial penalties for exceeding outdated milkfat limits that are unnecessary or even harmful to children.
If we want children to benefit from the nutrition milk delivers, then we need to deliver the permission for our children to be able to choose milk they will love at school where they have two meals a day, five days a week, three-quarters of the year. That’s how they actually benefit from the complete protein and 13 essential nutrients milk delivers.
Let’s stay positive. We can’t afford to lose ANOTHER generation of milk drinkers and think we will still have a dairy industry in many parts of the U.S. The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is an opportunity for dairy farmers to revitalize and renew fluid milk demand, but more importantly, it’s an opportunity for schoolchildren to choose milk they will love for life and health. It’s also an opportunity to drastically cut the amount of wasted milk in school cafeterias, a win for stewardship of resources and the environment.
A 2021 survey by IDFA showed that 78% of American parents who described themselves as voters, choose 2% or Whole Milk for their families as the most delicious and nutritious option, but their children can choose neither 2% nor Whole milk at school where they have two meals a day, five days a week, three-quarters of the year.
This survey is consistent with what a Pennsylvania school trial in 2019 showed. The students preferred Whole Milk 3 to 1 over the 1% low-fat milk. When 2% and Whole Milk were offered in the coolers, students consumed 52% more total milk and the average daily volume of discarded milk was reduced by 95%. This means more students took the offered milk instead of refusing it, and fewer students threw away the milk they took with their meals.
The Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee, under chairman Bernie Morrissey’s leadership, has launched a letter-writing and phone-calling campaign seeking cosponsors for S. 1957. They have put together the tools, but grassroots farmers and citizens must be the ones to carry it out and send the letters and make the calls.
We need to help Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow understand this issue is about lifting the federal school lunch and breakfast ban that was placed on delicious nutritious whole milk in 2012 so that school districts, parents and students can make healthy milk choices that are enjoyed and not discarded.
This bill is not a mandate for whole milk. This bill ends a mandate against whole milk.
This is about options, choice, and a future for kids and dairy farms. Will YOU call or write your TWO?
Find the Washington addresses and phone numbers for your state’s Senators at https://www.senate.gov/ – Click the icon in the top left corner, select your state from drop-down menu to see how to contact them. Or look for your state in this printable directory.
For a more detailed letter, like the one sent by the Grassroots PA Dairy Advisory Committee to Senator Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania, click here.
For a simple phone message guide for contacting Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (and if in PA Senator Robert Casey) click here.
To email your Senators: Go to https://democracy.io/ – type in your address, city and zip code, click submit. Your two Senators and one Rep. will show up with red check marks. Click ‘Write to them.’ Then, on the next screen, write the body of your letter. If you want, you can start with who you are, where you live, what you do. You can also mention if you have school-aged children or grandchildren. Then copy and paste from the text below or write your own message simply asking your Senators to cosponsor S. 1957The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act
**************
RE: Whole Milk for Healthy Kids, S.1957 by Senators Roger Marshall and Peter Welch
I write to ask you to cosponsor S. 1957, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, to bring back the choice of Whole Milk in schools. This bill is not a mandate, it is about choice, so students can have the delicious Whole Milk option to benefit nutritionally from milk they will love. The House passed this in a 330 to 99 vote in December. We hope you will soon add your name to the list of cosponsors for the Senate. Whole milk is standardized at 3.25% fat (3.5% in Calif.). Systematic reviews of the scientific literature show milkfat should no longer be demonized by federal policies, especially for children.
Currently, 95% of U.S. schools are in the National School Lunch Program, which in 2012 made rules requiring only fat-free and low-fat (1%) milk be available to students during school hours. Since then, student milk consumption has declined drastically, and milk has become a most frequently discarded item. A 2021 survey showed 78% of parents choose whole or 2% milk for their families, but these options are restricted at school, where kids receive two meals a day, five days a week, three-quarters of the year. A 2019 school trial showed milk consumption increased by 52%, and waste volume decreased by 95%, when offerings were expanded to include Whole and 2% milk. More students chose milk, and fewer students threw away milk. That is a win for kids, dairy farmers and the environment.
This is a critical time to provide what milk delivers — complete protein and 13 essential nutrients. When students aren’t drinking the milk offered at school, they don’t receive its nutrition. In fact, the Dietary Guidelines Committee in 2020 admitted their recommended dietary patterns lack enough key nutrients, including three of the four nutrients of public health concern that milk provides: potassium, calcium, and Vitamin D, which is fat soluble.
Thank you in advance for helping bring the nutritious, delicious option of Whole Milk back to school lunch and breakfast by cosponsoring S. 1957.
EAST EARL, Pa. – In December, the House passed Congressman G.T. Thompson’s Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 1147. This is a major milestone for this bill, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan 330 to 99 vote.
Pictured are a few of the members of the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee and others who joined them for a staff briefing at the Capitol last summer. The focus now is on the U.S. Senate. From left are Christine Ebersole, school nurse in Blair County, Pa.; John Bates, then executive director of The Nutrition Coalition; Nelson Troutman, Berks County dairy farmer and his granddaughter Madelyn, 2022-23 Lebanon County Dairy Maid; Congressman G.T. Thompson (R-PA-15), the champion and prime House sponsor of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act; Sara Haag, 2023-24 Berks County Dairy Princess; Krista Byler, school foodservice director in Crawford County, Pa.; and Sherry Bunting, Farmshine contributor and volunteer advocate for whole milk in schools. Photo courtesy Maddison Stone
“The next stop is the Senate, and we are going to have to work hard to get the Senate bill (S. 1957) to the floor and passed. In Pennsylvania, we need to work on our Senator Bob Casey. We already have Senator John Fetterman as a cosponsor of the bill, but we need Senator Casey also,” says Nelson Troutman, Berks County farmer and originator of the Drink Whole Milk 97% Fat Free baleboards that led to the 97 Milk effort and 97milk.com
“We also need more Senators to cosponsor S. 1957 from across the country,” adds Bernie Morrissey, retired agriculture advocate from Robesonia, Pa. “We need dairy farmers, agribusinesses, organizations and citizens all across the country to reach out to their Senators to cosponsor this bill.”
The Senate bill has 14 cosponsors from 11 states as of January 20th. They include Republicans, Democrats and an Independent as follows: both Dr. Roger Marshall (prime sponsor) and Jerry Moran of Kansas, Peter Welch (prime cosponsor) of Vermont, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, both James Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho, both Susan Collins and Angus King of Maine, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, J.D. Vance of Ohio, and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.
“Every state has two United States Senators. We want every dairy farmer, every organization and business calling their two Senators. If they are already a cosponsor, thank them. If they are not a cosponsor, please write to them, and use our sample letter (or the template at the end of this article),” Bernie explains.
(Find the Washington addresses and phone numbers for your state’s Senators at https://www.senate.gov/ – Click the icon in the top left corner, select your state from drop-down menu to see how to contact them. Go to the end of this article to learn about email options. Some additional resources can be found in a folder at https://qrco.de/WholeMilk-Info )
“We have written to Senator Casey (see letter at top) to let him know how important this is to us, to the children of Pennsylvania, and to the dairy farmers. We need more people, organizations, and businesses to write to him also. If this doesn’t work, it will be our own fault for not getting involved,” he stresses, adding that constituent phone calls and visits are also welcome.
“We must also contact Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. It is important that she knows how vital this bill is to come through her committee to the Senate floor,” Bernie notes. (The call-in notice below was published in the Jan. 5 Farmshine).
The Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee asks organizations and agribusinesses to use the sample letter on this page as-is or tailor it to their state’s Senators and also send it out to all their members or customers asking them to each sign it and send it to their two Senators as well.
“Let us know if you did this,” Bernie continues. “We want to know: Did YOU contact your TWO?” (Email Sherry Bunting at agrite2011@gmail.com or text or call 717.587.3706 to confirm you contacted your two.)
“After all,” Bernie observes: “If the dairy farmer’s next generation of consumers – the children — cannot choose milk they will love, what is your future as a dairy farmer? And what is their future as tomorrow’s leaders?”
“Whole milk is nutritious and delicious. Science supports this choice. It’s up to each one of us to get it done.”
-30-
To email your Senators directly, go to https://democracy.io/ – type in your own address, city and zip code, click submit. Your two Senators and one Representative will show up with red checkmarks. Click ‘Write to them,’ and on the next screen compose the body of your letter. First, say who you are and where you live/work/farm and mention if you have children or grandchildren in school, if you wish. Sample text about cosponsoring S. 1957 can then be copied and pasted from the template below:
———————————————————————————————————————-
Dear Senator,
I write to ask you to stand up for our children, parents, schools and dairy farmers by cosponsoring S. 1957, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, to bring back the choice of Whole Milk in schools. This bill is not a mandate, it is about choice, so students can have the delicious Whole Milk option to benefit nutritionally from milk they will love. The House passed H.R. 1147 in a bipartisan 330 to 99 vote in December. We hope you will soon add your name to the list of Senate cosponsors for S. 1957.
It is vital to have this choice. Whole milk is standardized at 3.25% fat (3.5% in Calif.). Systematic reviews of the scientific literature show milkfat should no longer be demonized by federal policies, especially for children.
Currently, 95% of U.S. schools are in the National School Lunch Program, which in 2012 made rules via the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act requiring only fat-free and low-fat (1%) milk be available to students during school hours. Since then, student milk consumption has declined drastically, and milk has become a most frequently discarded item. A 2021 survey showed 78% of parents choose whole or 2% milk for their families, but these options are restricted from their children at school, where they receive two meals a day, five days a week, three-quarters of the year. A 2019 trial at a PA school showed milk consumption increased by 52% and waste volume decreased by 95% when offerings were expanded to include Whole and 2% milk. More students chose milk, and fewer students threw away milk. That’s a win for kids, dairy farmers and the environment.
This is a critical time to provide what milk delivers — complete protein and 13 essential nutrients. When students aren’t drinking milk offered at school, they don’t receive its nutrition. In fact, the DGA Committee in 2020 admitted their recommended dietary patterns lack enough key nutrients, including three of the four nutrients of public health concern that milk provides: potassium, calcium, and Vitamin D, which is fat soluble.
Thank you in advance for helping bring the delicious option of Whole Milk back to school lunch and breakfast by cosponsoring S. 1957.
From whole milk in schools to farm bill to climate-warped food transformation,scientists and lawmakers are getting busy, farmers need to get busy too
In the global anti-animal assault, real science must lock horns with political science and defend American farmers — the climate superheroes that form the basis of our national security. Photo by Sherry Bunting
By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Jan. 5, 2024
EAST EARL, Pa. – It’s a New Year, and we have new hope on several fronts that are all linked together, in my analysis.
Top 2023 headlines for dairy farmers revolved around dairy markets that underperformed, successes and challenges in the quest to get Whole Milk choice back in schools, a plethora of draft USDA and FDA proposals that dilute real dairy, farm losses and governmental hearings on federal milk pricing, negotiations and extensions for the farm bill, and acceleration of ‘climate-smart’ positives and negatives buckling down for business in an area where political science is trumping real science on the rollercoaster ride ahead.
All of these headlines are inextricably linked. There is a global anti-animal assault underway, but people are wising up to the not-so-hidden agenda that is grounded in climate transitions and food transformation that give more power and control over food to global corporations while diminishing what little power farmers have in Rural America where our national security is at risk.
Real science locks horns with political science
As we head into 2024, a bit of good news is emerging as scientists are mobilizing to defend the nutritional, environmental and social honor of livestock — especially the much-maligned cow.
After an international summit of scientists in October 2022, work has been underway to bring together an international pact.
Dubbed the Dublin Declaration of Scientists, experts around the world have authored and are getting colleagues to sign-on to this document that calls for governments, companies, and NGOs to stop ignoring important scientific arguments when pushing their anti-animal agendas in the name of climate, transformation, and the Global Methane Pledge.
To date, nearly 1200 scientists have signed the Dublin Declaration, aimed foremost at the Irish government’s proposal to slaughter cows to meet methane targets. The Dublin Declaration represents the work of scientists across the globe for a global audience beyond Ireland.
Here in the U.S., we are sitting on the cusp of Scope 3 emissions targets of global milk buyers that have been hastily formulated based on the science of greed, not the science of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s time for the dairy organizations and land grant universities that represent, serve and rely on farmers to drink up on their milk and strengthen their spines.
Farmshine has brought readers the news about what has been happening in Europe, such as in the Netherlands and Ireland, regarding proposed farm seizures and cow slaughter, and the response of farmers there has been to challenge the political establishment.
The U.S. is not far behind. At COP28 recently, American cattle industries were criticized, and even Congressional Ag Leaders are miffed by what they heard.
Still, some of our dairy organizations brag about being at COP26, 27, 28 and taking part. Even the dairy farmers’ own checkoff program is caught flat-footed. They’ve already caved to the Danone’s, the Nestles, the Unilevers, and such.
In fact, DMI’s yearend review touted its increase in U.S. Dairy Stewardship Commitment adopters to 39 companies representing 75% of the milk supply with membership in the Dairy Sustainability Alliance standing at 200 member companies and organizations. But what are they doing with those relationships to STAND UP ON SCIENCE FOR THE COWS?
The Stewardship Commitment includes DMI’s Net-Zero Initiative, where the cyclical short-lived nature of methane and the role of cattle in the carbon cycle is still not appropriately accounted for and is one of the points made in the Dublin Declaration of Scientists.
In the U.S. dairy industry, the trend on GHG revolves around DMI’s Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, which placates large multinational corporations in the development of voluntary programs, telling farmers they are in control with their organizations as a sort of gatekeeper. That is, until those programs become mandatorily enforced by those milk buying corporations, while the science on methane and the cow’s role in the carbon cycle as well as U.S. data vs. global data continue to be ignored when they are sitting in the midst of UN Food Transformation Summits, COP26, 27 and 28, and the WEF at Davos.
In fact, during the annual meeting webinar of American Dairy Coalition in December, U.S. House Ag Chairman G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania was asked his thoughts on some of the statements that came out of COP28 recently criticizing American dairy and livestock consumption.
“My first response was to find it laughable because it really shows you the difference between political science and real science,” he said. “It’s sad when people are so illiterate about the industry that provides food and fiber that they don’t understand how livestock contribute to carbon sequestration.
“We have a real battle,” Thompson said, adding that those putting out such statements criticizing American livestock “don’t even know which end the methane comes from. The world needs more U.S. farmers and less UN if we want a better world. The facts and the science are on our side. Let’s not let the other side control the narrative.”
Bottomline for Thompson is this: “The American farmers are climate heroes sequestering 10% more carbon that we emit. No one does it better anywhere in the world. Let’s be speaking up and speaking out. We can push it back with the facts and the science. I would encourage each of us to do that and become effective just telling that story,”
In the same ADC webinar in December, Trey Forsythe, professional staff for Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member John Boozman of Arkansas agreed.
“The language coming out of COP28, a likely European-led effort, shows what we are up against from people with no background on the role of dairy and livestock. We have to keep beating that drum on the efficiency of U.S. dairy and livestock farms,” he said.
In the same accord, scientists are getting busy, and we all need to get more involved.
In a dynamic white paper released last year, scientists made 10 critical arguments on this topic of livestock greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Here’s what the scientists behind the Dublin Declaration are saying and why it’s so important for our land grant university scientists to sign on.
“Livestock agriculture creates GHG emissions, which is a serious challenge for future food systems. However, arguing that climate change mitigation requires a radical dietary transition to either veganism or vegetarianism, or the restriction of meat and dairy consumption to very small amounts is overly simplistic and possibly counterproductive,” the scientists wrote in a recent description of the Dublin Declaration.
“Such reasoning overlooks that dietary change has only a modest impact on fossil fuel-intensive lifestyle budgets, that enteric methane is part of a natural carbon cycle and has different global warming kinetics than CO2, that the rewilding of agricultural land would generate its own emissions and that afforestation comes with many limitations, that global data should not be generalized to evaluate local contexts, that there are still ample opportunities to improve livestock efficiency, that livestock not only emit but also sequester carbon, and that foods should be compared based on nutritional value. Such calls for nuance are often ignored by those arguing for a shift to plant-based diets,” they continued, listing these 10 Arguments with scientific explanations for each one.
Here is how the growing number of international scientists, including Dr. Frank Mitloehner of UC-Davis, situate the problem:
Argument 1 – Global data should not be used to evaluate local contexts
Argument 2 – Further mitigation is possible and ongoing
Argument 3 – Only a relatively small gain can be obtained from restricting animal source foods
Argument 4 – Dietary focus distracts from more impactful interventions
Argument 5 – Nutritional quality should not be overlooked when comparing foods
Argument 6 – Co-product benefits of livestock agriculture should be accounted for
Argument 7 – Livestock farming also sequesters carbon, partially offsetting its emissions
Argument 8 – Rewilding comes with its own climate impact
Argument 9 – Large-scale afforestation of grasslands is not a panacea
Argument 10 – Methane should be evaluated differently than CO2
These arguments take nothing away from the technologies that are being developed to help dairy and livestock producers further reduce emissions and sequester carbon. Technology has a role in amplifying the cow’s position as a solution, not to cure a problem she does not have! And farmers deserve to get credit for what they’ve already achieved.
Farm, food, and national security interdependent
The 2018 Farm Bill was extended for another year at the end of 2023, but the urgency to complete a new one continues as a big priority for House Ag Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson. In the recent ADC annual meeting webinar, he said: “You don’t want us writing farm bill legislation — or any legislation — just listening to voices inside the Beltway in Washington. It would not work out well.”
He thanked and encouraged farmers for being part of the process, saying there’s more to do.
“We’re building this farm bill listening to your voices, the voices of those who produce, those who process, and those who consume — all around the country,” said Thompson, noting nearly 40 states were visited for nearly 80 listening sessions over 2.5 years on the House side.
“This farm bill is about farm security. It’s about food security. And it’s about national security – all three of those are interdependent,” he added.
The extension and funding of the current farm bill for another year — while Congress works on the new one — means programs like Dairy Margin Coverage will continue for 2024, but the enrollment announcement has not yet been made by USDA.
In past years, the enrollment began in October of the previous year and ended at the end of January for that program year. When DMC first replaced the precursor MPP, enrollment was announced late and continued into March of the first program year (2019). At that time, farms could sign up for five years through 2023 or do it annually.
In 2023, DMC paid out a total of $1.27 billion in DMC payments for the first 10 months of the year.
Chairman Thompson noted that effective farm policy is the key, and the extension means no disruptions, he said: “We attached good data for dairy with policy changes, including for DMC, and some positive changes for the nutrition title within the debt ceiling discussion.”
On DMC, the supplemental production history was added in the legislation extending the current farm bill that was signed by the President at the end of November.
“It provides our dairy farmers the certainty that their additional production will be covered moving forward,” Thompson confirmed, adding that they are looking at moving up the tier one cap to be more reflective of the industry.
The farm bill is also being crafted to use no new tax dollars by reworking priorities, looking at the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds, administrative funds and shoring up funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) priorities to secure the farm bill baseline for the future.
The $20 billion in IRA funds being thrown about for conservation and environmental programs as well as ‘climate-smart’ grants is already down to $15 billion without spending a dime because of how it is designed to phase down and go away in 2031 and the fact that USDA is believed to not have the authority to keep these funds outside of the farm bill, Thompson explained. Negotiations are considering bringing this into the farm bill baseline so that it is there – and used for farmers – now and in the future.
“(The IRA) is not a victory if agriculture does not get the full benefit of these dollars. We can make that happen in this farm bill,” said Thompson. “Reinvesting the IRA dollars into the farm bill baseline will allow us to perpetually fund conservation in the future.”
Conservation programs are historically oversubscribed and underfunded.
Thompson expects crafting and advancing of the next farm bill to continue in earnest. He hopes to have a chairman’s mark of the bill released by the end of January and have it before the House by the end of February. Much of this timeline depends on House leadership, and the Senate has its own time frame, said Thompson.
He urged dairy farmers to spread the word to their members of Congress that farm security and food security are national security.
He also noted that the nutrition title had some of its toughest elements ironed out during the continuing resolution process in which the farm bill was extended.
“I’ve managed this in such a way that we’ve accomplished already the hard things in that title,” said Thompson.
Deploying dairy farmers on legislative efforts
“Passage of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is good for kids good for the dairy industry, and good for the economy. It simply restores the option, the choice, of whole milk and flavored whole milk, and holds harmless our hardworking school cafeteria folks by making sure the milkfat does not count toward the meal recipe limitations,” Thompson reported.
He wanted well over 300 votes for H.R. 1147 in the House to send a strong message to the Senate. On Dec. 13, the House gave him 330 ‘yes’ votes for Whole Milk for Healthy Kids.
“I would like to deploy you now on the Senate. The bill in the Senate (S. 1957) has the same language and it is tri-partisan with Republican Senator Roger Marshall, a medical doctor, Democrat Peter Welch and Independent Angus King as original sponsors,” said Thompson to dairy farmers gathered virtually for the ADC annual meeting webinar.
“There are other co-sponsors as well (12), and from my state of Pennsylvania, Senator John Fetterman is a cosponsor. Our other Senator (Bob Casey, Jr.) has not cosponsored and seems to be in opposition to it,” he said. “We need you to weigh in with your senators that this is about nutrition and health of our kids and the health of our rural communities. You are in a good position to tell the story of what happened in 2010 when fat was taken out of the milk in schools.”
Thompson noted that, “As you are doing that, you are developing relationships that will help us in the farm bill also. On the farm bill, talk about return on investment, the number of jobs and economic activity and taxes from agribusinesses, about the food security and national security and environmental benefits, science, technology and innovation in agriculture,” he said.
“Less than 1.75% of what we spend nationally is the farm bill. That’s a big return on investment, again, for food security and national security.”
Questioned about the milk labeling bill of Pennsylvania Congressman John Joyce, a doctor, Thompson said it is a strong bill. He confessed his dismay with USDA caving on this question and called FDA “a problem child” on milk labeling.
“This bill is not self-serving for dairy. This is about consumers having the information to make proper decisions on their nutrition,” he said.
New owner is global giant with $47 billion portfolio
By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Jan. 5, 2024
PARIS — On the first day of 2024, another brand of fluid milk was sold to a private equity firm.
This time was no surprise: Paris, France-based Danone announced on Jan.1st its agreement to sell organic dairy businesses, including flagship Horizon Organic, to Platinum Equity, based in Los Angeles, California.
The sale is said to be part of the Renew Danone Strategy announced in March 2022 and is mentioned in Danone’s 2023 Climate Transition Plan.
Danone graphs its “Impact Journey” this way in its 2023 “Climate Transition Plan,” which includes reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030, aligning with the Global Methane Pledge, and achieving Net-Zero emissions by 2050 as the global giant says it will “continue to transform the food system.” (Web image from Danone Climate Transition Plan)
The company reported its organic dairy sector represented approximately 3% of its global revenues in 2022 and had a “dilutive impact” on sales growth and operating margin.
But mainly, said CEO Antoine de Saint-Affrique, the organic dairy business “fell outside our priority growth areas of focus,” he said, reiterating his very words to investors a year ago when he first announced “eyeing sale” of Horizon Organic and Wallaby.
Terms of sale were not disclosed, but Danone will retain a non-consolidated minority stake in the business, executives said. The closing of the transaction is subject to customary conditions and regulatory approvals.
“Today marks an important milestone in delivering this (Renew Danone) commitment while giving the Horizon Organic and Wallaby businesses the opportunity to thrive under new leadership. This sale, once completed, will allow us to concentrate further on our current portfolio of strong, health-focused brands and reinvest in our growth priorities,” said de Saint-Affrique.
According to Platinum Equity’s New Year’s Day announcement of the acquisition, Horizon Organic is deemed the largest organic fluid milk company in the world and the first brand of organic milk available coast to coast in the United States. It has since grown to include organic creamers, yogurt, cheese and butter.
Platinum Equity Co-President Louis Samson said the acquisition will “build on that legacy and support Horizon Organic’s growth as a standalone company.”
Horizon Organic became the first public organic food company in 1994 and was purchased by Dean Foods in 2004, where it became part of WhiteWave holdings alongside International Delight, Silk and other fake-milk brands. A 2012 spin-off separated WhiteWave from Dean, taking former Dean CEO Gregg Engles with it as the WhiteWave CEO. In April of 2017, Danone purchased WhiteWave, and Engles continued as a current Danone S.A. board member.
Wallaby is an Australian-style organic yogurt found mostly in natural food stores as well as the Whole Foods chain throughout the U.S.
Platinum Equity estimates that the total U.S. dairy category is valued at $68 billion in sales with fluid milk comprising approximately $17 billion of that total. Of that $17 billion in packaged fluid milk sales, organic milk sales comprised 6.7% of the volume for the first 10 months of 2023, according to the most recent USDA Monthly Packaged Fluid Milk Sales Report.
Meanwhile, Danone has launched full-force into expanding the fake side of its 2017 WhiteWave purchase, adding products and launching new brands of plant-based and AI-engineered biological concoctions of fake-milk, fake-yogurt, fake-cheese, and other fake-dairy products in its quest for so-called “Climate Transition” and “Food Transformation.”
The sale of Horizon to a global private equity firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions also comes on the heels of Danone’s December 2021 decision to end contracts with all of its New England and eastern New York dairy farms after sourcing milk from larger organic farms to the west and south.
After the sale of Horizon Organic is completed, Danone will be able to completely withdraw from Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) to do Cost Performance Model (CPM) pricing with a much smaller number of dairy farms, just like with other ingredient sources. Only Class I fluid milk sales are required to participate in FMMOs, and the sale of Horizon Organic to Platinum Equity ends Class I milk sales for Danone because the rest of their former WhiteWave beverage holdings are plant-based.
While Danone moves on to grow its fake-dairy business, owning the largest plant-based manufacturing facility in the world located in northern Pennsylvania and launching new plant-based alternatives to disrupt the dairy case, the Managing Director of Horizon Organic’s new owner, Adam Cooper, sees organic and value-added products as the “premium offerings” that are “driving growth in the dairy milk category.
“Horizon Organic is a pioneer of that segment and is in position to continue capitalizing on and accelerating the trend,” said Cooper.
Platinum Equity has completed more than 450 acquisitions over the past 28 years, and today operates about 50 global businesses that have been shaken loose from larger corporate entities. The global firm’s current $47 billion portfolio includes a few other companies in the food and beverage sector, such as biscuits, wine, seafood, packaged meat and bakery products, and food ingredients distribution.
“We are excited about Horizon Organic’s potential as an independent business with a renewed sense of focus and a commitment to investing in its success,” said Cooper. “We look forward to partnering with Horizon Organic’s management team to ensure a seamless transition and chart a path for continued growth and expansion.”
Already deemed a “component stock of leading sustainability indexes,” Danone’s ambitions are entrenched with ESG investors, the Global Methane Pledge, Climate Transition, Food Transformation and aspirations to be the publicly-traded global company that is B-Corp certified at the global level in 2025. (Danone is already B-Corp certified in the U.S.)
Over the past seven years, Danone North America has moved toward branding its ‘sustainability’ as increasingly plant-based.
In 2022, Danone North America received a $70 million USDA Climate-Smart grant, which the company says will be used to: 1) reduce methane emissions for dairy through innovative manure management, 2) create infrastructure to sustainably grow and trace U.S. food-grade oats and soybeans, and 3) build processing for traceable organic soy.
During the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health in September 2022, Danone announced a $22 million investment by 2030 to improve access to, and availability of, “nutritious and health-promoting foods,” the bulk of these funds will be used to “educate consumers and healthcare providers” (aka, marketing).
Shortly thereafter, the FDA Milk Labeling Proposed Rule hit the Federal Register for comment requiring only voluntary compliance for nutrition comparisons on labels of fake-milk using the term ‘milk.’ This rule has not been finalized as FDA continues to look the other way when it comes to milk and dairy label standards of identity abuses.
(Rest assured, Danone’s big goal is to become ‘net zero’ by 2050 by transforming food. Sound familiar?)
DANONE FOOD TRANSFORMATION TIMELINE
July 2016, Danone launched the Dannon Pledge for non-GMO verified, positioning its conventional milk supply around a concept of ‘almost-organic.’
Apr. 2017, Danone purchased the Dean WhiteWave spinoff, which included Horizon Organic and Silk, So Delicious, and Alpro plant-based brands. The DOJ Antitrust Division required Danone to simultaneously divest its Stonyfield Farms subsidiary.
Apr. 2018, Danone quietly notified smaller Horizon Organic dairy farms in the western states that their future contracts would not be renewed amid a glut of organic milk and differences in how USDA’s organic livestock origin rules were being applied. Some of these producers were offered conventional non-GMO milk contracts using Danone’s proprietary Cost Performance Model (CPM). Some found other markets, and many exited the business. According to Danone’s 2021 Regenerative Agriculture Report, more than half of all U.S. milk collected by Danone now comes from farms with CPM contracts.
Feb. 2019, Danone completed construction of the world’s largest plant-based yogurt factory in Dubois, Pennsylvania, where other non-dairy lookalike products are also made.
Feb. 2020, Danone told investors the rising global temperature is a business opportunity, and the company would accelerate food transformation with climate at the core of its growth strategy.
Oct. 2020, Danone announced its partnership with a bioscience startup to use artificial intelligence to explore new formulations to improve taste and texture of plant-based dairy alternatives.
Jan. 2021, Danone’s So Delicious launched its first plant-based cheese and Danone S.A. was acknowledged as the largest plant-based company in the world with 10% of total sales coming from plant-based dairy alternatives. The company told investors it would grow this with further acquisitions and a “plant-based acceleration unit.”
Apr. 2021, Danone and the EAT Lancet Commission announced a strategic partnership to promote a so-called “healthier and more sustainable food system by driving a change to planetary diets.” Danone pledged to use its ‘One Planet. One Health’ framework to “accelerate this food revolution.”
July 2021, Danone announced three new plant-based fake-milk launches for 2022, along with a list of other lookalikes. During the July 2021 earnings call, Danone executives identified the U.S. as a “key plant-based market,” but noted 60% of U.S. consumers are not in the category because of product taste and texture. They announced a plan to win them over “with new dairy-like technology under Silk NextMilk, under So Delicious Wondermilk and under Alpro Not Milk.”
Aug. 2021, Danone sent letters notifying all 89 of its organic dairy farms in New England and eastern New York that their milk contracts would be terminated in 12 months’ time. Later, under pressure from organic groups, officials and consumers, Danone agreed to a Feb. 2023 extension.
Jan. 2022, Danone launched the three new fake-milks: NextMilk, Wondermilk, and Not Milk.
(Interestingly, the Silk NextMilk Whole Fat has 6 grams of saturated fat from processed coconut and seed oils. That’s more saturated fat per serving than Real Whole Dairy Milk naturally from cows. Danone’s Silk NextMilk is packaged in red and white cartons with the words ‘Whole Fat’ appearing directly under the brand name to mimic the Whole Milk appearance. Interestingly, the FDA’s proposed healthy labeling rule sets a tougher threshold for saturated fat in dairy products compared to saturated fats from plant-sources.)
Mar. 2022, Danone described its Horizon Organic and “traditional dairy” holdings as “troubled offerings,” telling investors: “There are no sacred cows,” as they “keep pruning” the portfolio to “boost growth” and “distance” the company from “underperformance”… by investing more in “winning products” and selling existing brands or buying new ones.
May 2022, Danone launched its “Dairy & Plants Blend” baby formula (60% plant-based, 40% dairy) “to expose children to food tastes early in life that can help shape their future food preferences… while shifting toward plant-rich diets and embracing alternative sources of protein to help reduce carbon emissions.”
Sept. 2022, Danone joined the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health to announce a $22 million ‘nutrition and health’ investment by 2030 with $15 of the $22 mil. Earmarked “to further nutrition education for consumers and healthcare providers.” (Sounds like marketing). This includes Danone’s new pledge to increase the nutrient density of its plant-based beverages.
Sept. 2022 — Danone was part of a team that was awarded a $70 million USDA Climate Smart grant for projects that include: 1) Reducing methane emissions for dairy through innovative manure management, 2) Creating the infrastructure to sustainably grow and trace U.S. food-grade oats and soybeans, 3) Building processing for traceable organic soy.
Oct. 2022, Danone announced it would use artificial intelligence through its bioscience partner BrightSeed, to reformulate over 70% of its plant-based fake-milk alternatives to reduce added sugars and increase nutrient density. At the same time, it allocated $15 million to “partner with retailers on healthy eating education” and $7 million to partner with community-based programs that provide nutritious foods.
(Timing is everything: Danone is among the financial supporters of the infamous Tufts University Food Compass, launched recently into the federal nutrition policy arena through the Biden-Harris Hunger, Health and Nutrition Strategy and the FDA proposed rule on “healthy labeling.” The Food Compass nutrition profiling algorithm rates nonfat dairy yogurt high as an encouraged food, along with plant-based fake-milks; but real milk and cheese are rated lower as foods to moderate or discourage. More artificial intelligence, to be sure.)
Jan. 2023, Danone announced it was looking for a buyer for Horizon Organic, saying it fell outside of their growth areas of focus.
Feb. 2023, Contract extensions ended for terminated Horizon Organic dairy farms in the Northeast. Some have gone out of business. Others have gone to Stonyfield or Organic Valley, which eventually agreed to take on the remaining Northeast farms facing Horizon termination, along with 40 organic dairies cut last year by Maple Hill in New York.
Mar. 2023, Danone launched a fake-milk-mustache campaign for its Silk NextMilk brand using children, nieces, and nephews of three original real-milk-mustache celebrities to twist the knife.
Apr. 2023, Danone launched an organic alternative beverage: ‘So Delicious Organic Oatmilk’ in ‘original’ and ‘extra creamy.’
May 2023, Danone launched So Delicious Dairy-Free Yogurt
Jan. 2024, Danone announced its agreement to sell organic dairy businesses — Horizon Organic fluid milk and Wallaby yogurt to Platinum Equity.
WASHINGTON — Wednesday, December 13th was a big day for dairy farmers and schoolchildren! After clearing the House Rules Committee Mon., Dec. 11, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 1147, passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The strong bipartisan 330 to 99 vote moves the choice of whole milk closer to school cafeterias across the nation with momentum for the next stop: the U.S. Senate, where S. 1957 has 12 bipartisan sponsors from 10 states – and more are needed.
“Students across the nation deserve school lunches that are both enjoyable and nutritious, and this legislation achieves these goals,” said Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act champion Glenn ‘G.T.’ Thompson (R-PA-15), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and senior member of the Education and Workforce Committee as he testified before the Rules Committee Monday.
“Milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, offering 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits. However, outdated and out-of-touch federal regulations have imposed restrictions … Students are not able to access any of the milk’s essential nutrients if they won’t drink the milk being served to them. As we have seen over the last decade, there has been a steady decline in school milk consumption. This bill does not mandate anything. It gives schools, parents, and students the option of whole milk,” said Thompson.
Education Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC-5) was blunt on the House floor: “Whole milk isn’t just a beverage; it’s a vital source of nutrients essential for children’s growth. Denying access to its calcium, vitamin D, and protein threatens to inhibit their development. To the anti-milk advocates, I have one thing to ask of you: What do you have against milk? Let’s end this war on milk. Pass the bill!”
And they did. Resoundingly, the People’s House sent a strong message to the opposition that hung their hats on the flawed Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) as the end-all, be-all.
Education Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA-3rd) re-litigated his argument that was previously defeated in bipartisan Committee passage of H.R. 1147 in June. He kept referring to the DGAs. He insisted skim milk is the same as whole milk, nutritionally, but disregarded the roles of milkfat in key vitamin absorption and flavor to keep those nutrients from going down the drain.
Congress tied school meals closer to the DGAs in 2010, and the Obama-era USDA developed beverage rules in 2012 that banned whole milk — leading to the loss of a generation of milk drinkers and unprecedented increases in childhood obesity and diabetes — to the point where an April 2019 U.S. Senate hearing noted concern from U.S. military generals on fitness of recruits.
The Rules Committee asked why whole milk is being handled as a separate bill instead of within a Childhood Nutrition Reauthorization package. Thompson explained that the reauthorization has not occurred since the 2010 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act created the issue.
“There is widespread bipartisan support in the Education and Workforce Committee, on the beverage part of this, milk in particular, because studies have shown the BMIs have gone up from what was a baseline prior to removing whole milk. Part of the urgency here is the significant impact that has had on the health of our youths,” he said.
Thompson cited the case study analysis of annual body mass index (BMI) data aggregated by Christine Ebersole RN, BSN, CSN, a school nurse from Martinsburg, Pennsylvania. She shared her data on 7th to 12th graders in a 97 Milk / Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee education session in Washington in June 2023 and in a State Senate hearing in Harrisburg in 2021.
Her data showed the percentage of students in the overweight and obese categories, combined, grew from 39% in 2008 to 52% in 2021. This mirrors national trends demonstrating the anti-milkfat approach has not helped and may have harmed. The trends in fact have worsened ever since DGAs were created to infiltrate institutional feeding programs.
According to the latest National Survey of Children’s Health at the CDC website, the percentage of 10- to 17-year-olds with BMI in the obese category, alone, increased nationally from 15.4% in 2006 to 19.7% in 2018. In 1970 to 1980, it was 5%. This doubled eight years after the DGAs were born to 10% in 1988, then rose to 15.4% by 2006 after six years of USDA school lunch saturated fat caps were implemented, then stabilized at just over 15% from 2008 to 2012, then grew to 19.7% by 2018 — six years into the USDA ban on whole milk in schools.
The big milestone for whole milk in schools comes on the 5-year anniversary of Berks County, Pennsylvania dairyman Nelson Troutman placing his first painted roundbale “Drink Whole Milk (virtually) 97% Fat Free” in a pasture by a crossroads, which led to questions, publicity, and the creation of 97 Milk.
The 97 Milk educational organization has worked alongside the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee on the legislative side. As a team, they continue to lead the charge for children to have the choice of whole milk once again at school. They are pleased to have worked with the Nutrition Coalition, founded by Nina Teicholz, author of Big Fat Surprise, and to see other national dairy and farm organizations join in support in recent years — from the American Dairy Coalition and Farm Bureau to National Milk Producers Federation and International Dairy Foods Association.
“We are grateful for this bill’s champion, the honorable G.T. Thompson. We thank him for not giving up,” said 97 Milk Baleboard originator Nelson Troutman in a Farmshine phone interview about the bill. “So many legislators get pounded from the top down, and they give up… and really, G.T. didn’t have a lot to gain out of this except helping the people. He did this for the kids, for the people, for the farmers. This is not a mandate. This is a choice, and I cannot emphasize the word choice enough.”
“The reason we got here is G.T.’s dedication to children having nutritious and delicious milk choices, and he brought it to the finish line in the House,” said Bernie Morrissey, chairman of the Grassroots PA Dairy Advisory Committee. “We have to keep working on the Senate, and 97 Milk has been a major part of educating people about this choice kids will have when the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act becomes law. The people on our grassroots committee and 97 Milk – we are a team. Our teams help each other. When you have a great team and teamwork, that’s how things get done.”
“This is a strong step in the right direction, and we have to keep going to our total destination,” said G.N. Hursh, Lancaster County, Pa. dairy farmer and chairman of 97 Milk. “We at 97 Milk totally support this bill. Whole milk choice in schools is clearly a national improvement for our future leaders. This is a win for good taste and excellent nutrition!”
Dale Hoffman and his daughter Tricia Adams, also members of the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee expressed their gratitude. Three generations operate Hoffman Farms in Potter County, Pa.
“G.T. has really fought for this and put a lot of work into this. We appreciate what he has done in helping out the kids and the farmers,” said Dale in a phone interview. “When you look at the health situation, the trends have gone the other way without whole milk in the schools. Kids are dumping the milk, and you can’t blame them. They need those nutrients physically and mentally. Milk is one of nature’s most perfect foods. We produce it and grew up with it. Children should be able to choose it.”
Grassroots committee member Krista Byler, of Spartansburg, Pa. is a Union City school foodservice director and head chef. She said the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act “is huge for me because I have seen this from the startup, and I finally seeing movement in the school nutrition organizations. I see the whole picture coming together. I am amazed to see it reach this point that now students are much closer to having a milk choice that meets their nutritional needs,” she said.
Byler notes that the milk carton shortage affecting school districts this year has been a catalyst for support among her peers for the expansion of choices in milkfat levels.
“It’s sad to say, but as we struggle on the milk carton shortage, it forces people in my position to think outside the box and look at alternative service methods,” said Byler. “We are seeing students asking for other milkfat options, such as whole milk.”
She says she sees more of her peers today are excited about this bill and how it is worded in a way that makes it possible for them, as school foodservice directors, to implement — to actually offer whole milk as an option for students and not be financially penalized by the federal government for exceeding arbitrary and outdated fat percentages on the meal.
“I’m excited to be closer to having this choice to meet students’ needs in a way that is nutritious and that they find delicious. My students will be so excited,” said Byler. “When it becomes law, it will be a huge win for kids everywhere, and our waste will certainly go down.”
Look for more in Farmshine about this milestone, what’s next, and the three amendments that were offered and approved along with the bill. They are: 1) allowing school milk to be either organic or non-organic, 2) preventing school milk from Chinese state-owned enterprises, and 3) prohibiting USDA from doing its proposed elementary school ban on flavored milk.
Standing with U.S. House Ag Committee Chairman, Glenn ‘G.T.’ Thompson are some of the volunteers who participated in the legislative staff briefing on G.T’s Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, including a June Dairy Month celebratory Whole Milk Bar at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday, June 13. Congressman G.T. says he wants to reach 150 to 200 cosponsors before it comes to the House floor for a vote. Currently, there are 128 cosponsors representing 43 states (103 R’s and 25 D’s), and the Education and Workforce Committee recently passed H.R. 1147 in a bipartisan 26-13 vote. From left are Christine Ebersole, a school nurse in Blair County, Pa.; John Bates, executive director of The Nutrition Coalition; Nelson Troutman, a Berks County dairy farmer and 97 Milk Baleboard originator and his granddaughter Madalyn, the 2022-23 Lebanon County, Pa. Dairy Maid; Congressman G.T. Thompson (R-PA-15), the champion and prime sponsor of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act; Sara Haag, the 2023-24 Berks County Dairy Princess; Krista Byler, a school foodservice director in Crawford County, Pa.; Sherry Bunting, Farmshine contributor and volunteer advocate for whole milk in schools. Photo credit: Maddison Stone
By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 16, 2023 with June 23 update
WASHINGTON – “Wouldn’t it be great if we could unite the country with whole milk?” That question was posed by a fellow journalist in the Southeast, Julie Walker of Agrivoice, as I was updating her about the grassroots effort to bring milk education and the choice of whole milk to schools.
After the events of the past two weeks, my answer to that question is: Yes, I believe we can and we are… seeing the fruits of the labor of grassroots volunteers.
On Tuesday, June 13, the Grassroots Pennsylvania Dairy Advisory Committee and 97 Milk were part of a legislative staff briefing hosted by Congressman G.T. Thompson and his staff at the Longworth House office building on Capitol Hill in Washington. This had been planned weeks earlier, before Thompson’s bill – the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 1147 – passed the Education and Workforce Committee on June 6 in a bipartisan 26-13 vote.
This week, the identical bipartisan Senate companion bill was introduced on June 13 by prime sponsor Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican and medical doctor from Kansas and prime cosponsor Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont along with other bipartisan cosponsors.
Allow me to take you behind the scenes of the June 13 legislative staff briefing on Congressman Thompson’s House bill and why it gives me hope to see people rediscovering and uniting behind the effort to legalize whole milk in schools so children have true access to the most wholesome nutritional beverage, milk.
What becomes apparent is that children are not benefiting from milk’s nutrition when their choices at school are restricted to fat free and low fat. They should be able to choose whole milk and 2% milk that are currently banned by federal nutrition standards, and they should be able to continue to choose flavored milk, which USDA is considering restricting to only high school students.
“Milkfat was demonized as a part of the child nutrition standards, especially since 2010… and we’ve seen a lot of waste and unopened milk cartons at school cafeterias because (fat-free/low-fat milk) is not a great milk experience for kids. Meanwhile, we’ve seen a significant increase in childhood obesity. If they don’t have access to milk they like, they will drink something, and the alternatives won’t give them milk’s essential nutrients or be as satisfying,” said Rep. Thompson. “Everything has its own time, and I’m pleased that we’ve gotten to this point with the bill and appreciate the panel here today to share and answer the question: ‘Why whole milk in schools?’”
Two school professionals from the grassroots advisory group were on the panel: Krista Byler (second from left) of Spartanburg, foodservice director for Union City Area Schools and Christine Ebersole RN, BSN, CSN (left) of Martinsburg, school nurse at Williamsburg Community School District. They were joined by John Bates (second from right), executive director of the Nutrition Coalition, a nonprofit founded by Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise; as well as Paul Bleiberg (right) of National Milk Producers Federation.
Around 25 to 30 staff members working for Representatives and Senators from both parties attended for the entire briefing. That may not sound like a lot, but for this setting, and the constantly changing schedules during floor votes, hearings and meetings, it’s a big deal. The event was by invitation and targeted key legislative offices for an educational briefing on the bill.
It was Congressman Thompson’s idea to have a “whole milk bar,” so our crew brought 100 half pints of whole milk — unflavored, chocolate, strawberry and mocha — donated by the Lesher family of Way-Har Farms, Bernville, Pennsylvania. We added some full pints of flavored and unflavored milk picked up at two convenience stores on the way (Rutter’s and Clover) to be sure we had enough as we heard interest in the briefing was growing.
We baked fresh strawberry cheesecake cookies with butter and cream cheese, and brought a few other types of cookies, as well as cheese snacks and nuts, arranged a nice table, kept the milk iced cold (that was a fun challenge through security scanners).
We brought with us Berks County Dairy Princess Sara Haag and former Lebanon County Dairy Maid Madalyn Troutman. Ebersole brought her daughter Vanessa Wiand, an elementary school teacher.
Nelson Troutman (right) with our driver Frank Tomko
Berks County farmer and Drink Whole Milk 97% fat free Baleboard originator Nelson Troutman was part of our crew, and he made sure the van we rented for travel had several 97 Milk magnets for the ride.
I provide these details because here’s the deal: Each person in our crew is a volunteer among the many volunteers working on the whole milk in schools issue, not just in Pennsylvania, but in other states as well.
Sara and Madalyn handed out the 6×6 cards designed by Jackie Behr at 97 Milk that visually show what milk provides nutritionally. It’s an impressive piece. They also handed staffers a business card with a QR code (above) that they could scan to reach the online folder to a video created by students and technology teacher at Krista’s school as well as finding other important information about whole milk and the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. On the table next to the whole milk bar was a one page handout with bullet points, and 97 Milk provided milk education tabletop displays.
As Congressman Thompson talked about “ruining a generation of milk drinkers with failed federal nutrition policy,” he praised the bipartisan support for H.R. 1147 and noted the 107 cosponsors in the House (as of June 13, the number as of June 23 is 128 and counting).
That’s a large number by historical standards, but Thompson wants to get to 150 cosponsors by the time the bill is officially reported to the House, which will be soon.
There is still time, and it is still important to keep contacting members of Congress to ask them to consider cosponsoring the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in the House, and thank them if they already have signed on.
Ebersole shared with staffers her perspective as a nurse, what she observes, what milk nutrition means for children.
“I thought it would be interesting to compare BMI (Body Mass Index) screenings when whole milk was served in schools with the recent screening where students have been served only skim and 1% milk. The results of the comparison are striking (above). The overweight and obese categories for students in grades 7-12 in 2007-2008 school year was 39% with 60% in the proper BMI scale. In the year 2020-2021, after being served low fat milk during school hours, the overweight and obese categories were increased to 52% while the recommended range was decreased to 46%. That is a 13% increase over the past 13 years!” said Ebersole.
“While one cannot assume that the low fat milk alternatives are the only determining factors, they certainly did not have the intended outcome of reducing obesity in school age children,” she said.
Ebersole explained that, “Whole milk is a nutrient dense food and with its natural combination of protein, fats and carbohydrates, it is called Nature’s most nearly perfect food. Whole milk also provides satiety, which is stabilizing for blood sugar as well as feeling fuller longer thus decreasing food intake. Another important quality is that students prefer the taste of whole milk compared to the reduced fat and skim milk options.”
Byler talked about the trial at her school in the 2019-20 school year. She explained that the milkfat restrictions at school have led to a loss of school milk consumption with results that are far reaching.
“We are now hearing of very early onset osteoporosis and an increase in malnutrition and/or obesity. It is shameful that our youth cannot have a choice of a wholesome, nutritious product that is farm-to-table/farm-to-school,” said Byler. This, and the amount of milk wasted daily prompted the school trial.
She provided slides of the trial results and talked about how half of the students didn’t really know whole milk was not allowed. This means they didn’t know how good milk can be.
“The results of the trial were astounding. When offerings were expanded to include whole and 2% milk, the amount of wasted milk was reduced by 95% and we saw a 52% increase in students choosing milk,” said Byler, explaining that the student council did actual milk collection data as part of an environmental project.
She also shared results of her survey of the elementary school children showing that if this latest possible restriction on milk options for schoolchildren is approved by USDA, fewer than 25% of students currently taking and drinking the milk say they would continue taking milk and drinking it if flavored milk were not offered.
“That’s huge,” said Byler.
That means we would see even more reductions in milk consumption at school and more waste. This struck a chord because when Byler presented the 2019-20 trial where her school offered whole and 2% along with fat free and 1% milk, for trial purposes, we heard audible gasps among those attending the briefing when Byler shared the data on the reduction of wasted milk. ((The students also created a video about school milk, view it here.)
We also saw reactions while Ebersole was sharing her analysis of student BMI data over the past 13 years.
Both women concluded by sharing a heartfelt message about how important dairy farmers are to communities, how they care for their cattle and work to provide a high quality nutritious product, and what it means to them for children to be able to choose milk they love so they can benefit from the nutrition the milk provides.
“As the wife and granddaughter of proud Pennsylvania dairymen, I knew the decrease in milk we were ordering for schools would impact dairy families. I know firsthand about the dairy farmers we have lost,” said Byler. “What I know based on 18 years in school nutrition, raising two children and being part of two dairy families is that restricting milk offerings to our school children does not benefit our children or our dairies. It benefits big corporations who have exponential marketing power and are preying upon our youth.”
School nurse Christine Ebersole and her daughter Vanessa Wiand, an elementary teacher at the briefing.
Ebersole noted that, “Being born and raised on a dairy farm and having lived in the dairy community all my life, I can say I know something about the American Dairy Farmer. They are on call 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. They care about their animals and also care about their neighbors. When a tragedy happens like a fire, the neighbors come together. Dairy farmers work diligently to bring a wholesome natural food to us. Let’s do our part to support this industry by allowing students to have a choice of a delicious, nutritious whole food, whole milk,” she said.
For the Nutrition Coalition, John Bates explained they are a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to improve health in America by ensuring that the public gets evidence-based nutritional advice. They emphasize good science, transparency, and methodology and receive no industry funding.
“When the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was enacted in 2010, milk became counted as part of that less than 10% of calories from saturated fat, when previously it had been in its own, separate beverage category,” said Bates.
He noted that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines that these rules for schools are based on “never reviewed studies on dietary fat specifically for children until 2020. Children have just been assumed to be like adults, but children are different: they need more protein for their growing bodies and more fat for their growing brains,” said Bates.
The Guidelines in 2020 cite a single clinical trial on school-aged children, ages 7-10 (“DISC,” funded by the NIH). It showed ‘Modestly’ lowered LDL-cholesterol, he explained. “Yet the study was not on a normal population. The expert USDA committee acknowledged this study could not reliably be generalized to a larger population
The bottom line, said Bates is that expert committees have found “insufficient evidence” to show that restricting saturated fats in childhood could prevent heart-disease or mortality in adulthood.
“In our view, a single trial on an atypical population is not enough to make population-wide guidelines to all American children,” he said.
Paul Bleiberg for National Milk Producers Federation focused his comments on the problems with underconsumption of dairy.
“Milk is the number one source of three of the four food nutrients of public health concern as identified by the DGA’s — calcium, vitamin D and potassium. Dairy delivers 7 of the 14 nutrients the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends for optimal brain development as well as nutrients vital for immune health and bone growth and development during a child’s school-aged years,” said Bleiberg.
“The 2020 DGA Committee found that 79% of 9 to 13 year olds fall short of recommended dairy intake and the data from MilkPEP show that students take less milk and throw away more milk at schools when they do not have options they like,” he added.
Before, after and during these four short presentations on whole milk choice in schools, staffers trickled in, gathered around the whole milk bar and had conversations.
In fact, when news began to spread through texts and emails that there were milk and cookies in room 1302 — more staffers came and went. Connections were made around good food and delicious, nutritious milk.
From congressional staff we heard appreciation and these words: informative, enlightening, authentic, delicious!
Those four words give me hope that we can unite with whole milk… for our children and our dairy farmers.
June 23 UPDATE: This was another good week for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in Washington, and here’s how you can help…
As of June 23, the bipartisan Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 1147 grew the number of cosponsors to 128 including prime sponsor G.T. Thompson (103 Republicans, 25 Democrats). These cosponsors represent 43 states.
Texas tops the list with 13, followed by Pennsylvania 10, New York 8, California, Florida and Wisconsin at 7. Maine, Idaho, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Wyoming have fewer Representatives and their full delegations are on board. Wisconsin is nearly 100% with 7 of their 8 Representatives signed on.
The 43 states now represented are listed in the order of number of cosponsors vs. the total number of representatives for the respective states: Texas 13 of 36, Pennsylvania 10 of 17, New York 8 of 26, California 7 of 52, Wisconsin 7 of 8, Florida 7 of 28, Georgia 5 of 14, Indiana 4 of 9, Iowa 4 of 4, Michigan 4 of 13, Minnesota 4 of 8, North Carolina 4 of 14, Illinois 3 of 17, Virginia 3 of 11, Washington 3 of 10, Alabama 2 of 7, Arizona 2 of 9, Connecticut 2 of 5, Idaho 2 of 2, Kansas 2 of 4, Kentucky 2 of 6, Maine 2 of 2, Missouri 2 of 8, New Jersey 2 of 12, Ohio 2 of 15, Oklahoma 2 of 5, Oregon 2 of 6, South Carolina 2 of 7, Tennessee 2 of 9, Arkansas 1 of 4, Colorado 1 of 8, Hawaii 1 of 2, Louisiana 1 of 6, Maryland 1 of 8, Mississippi 1 of 4, Nebraska 1 of 3, Nevada 1 of 4, New Mexico 1 of 3, North Dakota 1 of 1, South Dakota 1 of 1, Utah 1 of 4, West Virginia 1 of 2, and Wyoming 1 of 1.
To reach all 50 states, here’s what we need in the East: Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In the West: Alaska and Montana. Is your state on the list? Is your Congressional Representative a cosponsor? Make the call! Go to this link to see the bill’s progress and cosponsors, and click “contact your member” on the right to find your Representative.
Call Senators too. On June 13, the bipartisan Senate companion bill, S.1957, was introduced by Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican and medical doctor from Kansas, along with prime cosponsor Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont. Also cosponsoring right out of the gate are Democratic Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania; Independent Senator Angus King of Maine; and Republican Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Susan Collins of Maine, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, and James Risch and Mike Crapo, both of Idaho. As of June 23, that’s 11 Senate sponsors from 9 states. Maine and Idaho have both of their respective Senators on board!
Ag Moos 