October 26, 2018
CapitalPress.com
9
Dairy
Subscribe to our weekly dairy or livestock email
newsletter at CapitalPress.com/newsletters
Farm Bureau breaks down costs
for new Dairy-RP insurance
Group supports using dairy terms
in labeling alternative foods
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
Capital Press
A new dairy insurance
plan by USDA became avail-
able Oct. 9 and offers a way
to protect dairy farmer reve-
nue — functioning in a man-
ner similar to traditional crop
insurance, as opposed to oth-
er dairy insurance programs
aimed at margins between
milk prices and the cost of
feed.
Dairy Revenue Protection
is designed to protect against
quarterly declines in reve-
nue from milk sales and is
uniquely structured to closely
match farm-level milk prices,
according to American Farm
Bureau Federation, which de-
veloped the product in coop-
eration with American Farm
Bureau Insurance Services.
AFBF had provided infor-
mation about how the insur-
ance will operate, but one un-
answered question was how
much the insurance would
cost.
The cost will vary based
on the state, policy choices,
markets, milk yields and con-
tract quarters, but John New-
ton, AFBF’s chief economist,
has zeroed in on what produc-
ers can expect.
Newton gave examples of
premium ranges in a recent
AFBF MarketIntel report.
“In general, premiums
under Dairy-RP will be more
affordable for lower cover-
age levels and for more near-
by quarters,” he said in the
report.
Capital Press File
Cows feed at a dairy near Kuna, Idaho. The new Dairy Revenue
Protection insurance will protect farmers based on a variety of
factors that will in turn dictate the premium.
“Premiums will get more
expensive for deferred in-
surance policies such as the
fourth or fifth nearby quar-
ters because the uncertainty
in the market is higher,” he
said.
Under Dairy-RP, a pro-
ducer would choose either a
class milk price policy or a
milk component policy, the
amount of milk production
to cover, the level of revenue
coverage to insure and which
quarterly contracts to cover.
Based on the CME fu-
tures settlement prices on
Oct. 4, Newton’s examples
of premium costs factor in
a 44 percent government
premium subsidy associated
with covering 95 percent of
expected quarterly revenue.
The class milk pricing op-
tion is based on a combina-
tion of milk futures prices for
Class III and Class IV, milk
used to manufacture cheese
and powder. A producer can
choose a weight of Class III
ranging from 0 percent to
100 percent to align with the
utilization of milk in his mar-
keting area.
Assuming a 50 percent
class weighting factor, pre-
mium rates in Wisconsin
would range from a low of
11 cents per hundredweight
of milk for a January to
March 2019 contract to 26
cents per hundredweight
for an October to December
2019 contract.
Premiums for a similar
policy in California would
range from 13 cents per hun-
dredweight in the nearby
quarter to 36 cents per hun-
dredweight in the same de-
ferred quarter.
Differences in premiums
between states are due to
different yield standards and
the different degree to which
yield shocks are correlated
to shocks in prices, Newton
said.
The Good Food Institute,
which advocates plant-based
and lab-grown alternatives
to animal products, has filed
comments with FDA support-
ing the use of dairy terminol-
ogy in labeling alternative
foods.
FDA’s standards of identi-
ty — including regulations for
using dairy terminology, which
FDA Commissioner Scott Got-
tlieb recently announced he
intends to enforce — are part
of what FDA wants to address
in its new multi-year Nutrition
Innovation Strategy.
Much of the discussion
has revolved around the use
of dairy terms on alternative
dairy products such as almond
milk.
GFI is calling for a “com-
mon-sense” approach that does
not impede the introduction or
sale of alternative foods.
“As more Americans show
an interest in consuming plant-
based foods, it is important
that the channels of innovation
remain clear for new plant-
based products,” GFI said in
its comments to FDA.
New foods and foods ad-
opted across the globe are pro-
liferating the market, yet exist-
ing FDA standards of identity
largely deal with traditional
American food — often made
from a limited set of tradition-
al ingredients such as wheat,
dairy and eggs, GFI said.
Historically, standards of
Associated Press File
The Food and Drug Adminis-
tration is weighing whether and
how to restrict the use of dairy
terms such as “milk” in labeling
drinks made from soybeans,
nuts and other commodities.
identity have never been un-
derstood to prevent new prod-
ucts from referring to standard-
ized terms in their marketing
or labeling. They were mainly
intended to address fraud and
economic adulteration, GFI
said.
“A new product with its
own clear and distinct identity
does not present such a risk. Yet
some voices in industry have
advocated for FDA to weap-
onize identity standards against
innovative products, contrary
to this historical understand-
ing,” GFI said.
It’s pretty clear consumers
of alternative foods under-
stand what they’re getting, Ni-
gel Barrella, a private attorney
who helped GFI formulate its
comments to FDA, told Capital
Press.
The government should not
attempt to regulate common
language consumers use to
identify these products, he said.
The labeling issue didn’t get
much attention when soymilk
was kind of a hippie food sold
in health food stores, he said,
but it became a bigger issue
with the dairy industry when
alternative milk products start-
ed taking a significant portion
of dairy sales.
The issue has nothing to do
with protecting consumers and
everything to do with squelch-
ing competition, he said.
“We think it’s anti-compet-
itive and unconstitutional. It’s
almost Orwellian for the ben-
efit of one industry that we’re
going to limit the term ‘milk’
to certain favored products,”
he said.
National Milk Producers
Federation, however, said
GFI’s assertions are false.
NMPF has been raising
these concerns since the 1970s,
Alan Bjerga, NMPF senior vice
president of communications,
said.
“The difference now is that
FDA is interested in picking
this up,” he said.
GFI’s claim about “weap-
onizing” the standards to pro-
tect market share is overblown.
It’s about truth in labeling and
transparency, he said.
Dairy has a health halo that
makers of alternative products
are trying to exploit for their
own benefit. NMPF isn’t say-
ing anyone can or can’t make
those products, which sell fine
in Canada and Europe where
they aren’t labeled “milk,” he
said.
Siskiyou County Hi 4-H Helps Prepare
Animal Owners For Evacuations
Siskiyou County Hi 4-H members presented their PEEP project at the California Focus conference.
Forest fires and other natural disasters are a concern for our
communities. Many residents own pets and livestock, but may lack
the agency resources to help with pet/livestock emergency
evacuation.
Siskiyou County, Calif.’s Hi 4-H project wanted to help people
prepare for emergency evacuations that included plans for pets and
livestock.
To inform the public about how to prepare for a disaster, they
created PEEP (Pet Emergency Evacuation Plan) pamphlets. The
main objective is to inform and teach the public about how to keep
pets and livestock safe in case of evacuation. They worked with
Siskiyou County’s Animal Control and used resources from the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) in preparation for this
project. They learned about important things to have prepared if
animals need to be evacuated, and what to do if animals need to be
left behind or let loose.
In the pamphlets, they included information about how to
evacuate small and large animals, important items to have prepared
in case of an emergency, and the importance of pre-planning.
PEEP brochure.
The pamphlets were handed out at the Siskiyou Golden Fair and
a PDF version is available on Siskiyou County’s Animal Control/
OES website. They have also given presentations and supplied
pamphlets to local 4-H clubs. They also gave a presentation at the
2018 California Focus conference hosted by the University of
California 4-H Youth Development Program in Sacramento.
Our animals are counting on us.
Hopefully, this project will help 4-H’ers
and members of the community be
prepared for future disasters. After
completing this project, Siskiyou
County Hi 4-H members gained
knowledge about how to evacuate both
large and small animals and recognize
that it is animal owners’ responsibility to
make sure to have a plan for their
animals. Don’t forget your PEEPs in an
emergency!
43-1/HOU