WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2016 - Dairy industry
leaders are concerned that front-running presidential candidates have staked
out positions in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the industry sees as an
avenue to boost exports of U.S. dairy products.
Speaking in Phoenix Monday at the 2016
Dairy Forum, sponsored by the International
Dairy Foods Association, senior IDFA executives described an
uphill fight for congressional implementation of TPP, which is to be formally
signed Feb. 4 in New Zealand.
“We’ll be lucky, based on comments by
congressional staff, if we get it done in the ‘lame duck’ period after the November
elections,” said Clay Hough, IDFA senior group vice president and general
counsel. “We’d better get it done in the ‘lame duck’ because two of the three
top Republican contenders, Cruz and Trump, oppose it and Rubio has gone from
support to questioning.” Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also
oppose it, Hough noted.
However, IDFA President and CEO Connie
Tipton injected an optimistic note. “Despite opposition from presidential
candidates,” she said, “hopefully at the end of day somebody will flip-flop and
come around” to support an agreement that “holds opportunities for this
industry.”
Hough said the U.S. dairy industry is in a
good position to meet anticipated growth in demand for dairy products around
the world, “but we have strong competitors in New Zealand, Australia and the
European Union.” However, the competitors face limitations in expanding export
sales.
“The United States probably has the best
fundamentals of any exporting platform,” he said, citing its “huge dairy herd” along
with modern processing facilities with proximity to Pacific Rim countries where
demand is projected to increase most significantly.
Tipton expressed concern that current and
proposed dairy policies could serve as constraints to fully realizing potential
growth in export demand. Federal milk marketing orders (FMMOs) “stand in the
way of our markets working efficiently,” she said. “No other export-focused
nation has a pricing system such as our FMMOs. It stands in the way of growth;
it’s a glaring thing.”
The agricultural policy position of Sen.
Bernie Sanders, who is presenting a strong challenge to Hillary Clinton in the
Democratic race, also could hinder industry growth, Tipton said. Because he
represents Vermont, she added, “it’s not surprising that he focuses on small-
and medium- size farms. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s important
from the perspective of our industry that policies continue to push for growth
and efficiency.” Sanders’ ideas are “probably not a policy we will be supportive
of,” she said.
The dairy industry also must address “a lot
of consumer pushback against ‘Big Food,’” she said, including ongoing efforts
to enact laws that would require food product labels to disclose the presence
of genetically engineered ingredients.
“Although activists on the other side are
claiming victory, we’re not ready to cave in yet,” said Dave Carlin, IDFA
senior vice president for legislative affairs and economic policy. He described
“a very narrow window to get action on federal preemption” of state and local
label mandates.
Hough pointed out that the matter could be
settled by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
New York City, which is considering
an appeal by IDFA and the Grocery Manufacturers
Association for an injunction to suspend a mandatory labeling law to take
effect in Vermont in July. “At this point, companies have to think about how to
comply with the Vermont law,” he said.
“The real problem here is that we have been
‘out-messaged,’” Hough said. While proponents of mandatory labeling have put
forth the fundamental message that consumers have a right to know what’s in
their food, “we haven’t come up with a real good rejoinder,” he said.
The label mandate would make food more
expensive, he said, calling it “an indulgence of rich people that’s not worth
the life of one starved-to-death kid.”
#30