Flashback one year ago. The sting of 2009’s equity loss inflamed many in the industry who called for dairy reform. Ideas were plentiful, and support groups had formed around a few of them. When Foundation for the Future was first announced early in 2010, it didn’t have its current name, or even its own logo. We started calling it NMPF's plan.
Publicly it was just a PowerPoint presentation with an outline of ideas about what changes were needed to reform the dairy industry. There were four pillars. Still today there are yet-to-be revealed details about some of them.
Initially, the most-talked-about part of the plan was the one that was the most developed –trading MILC for a margin insurance program. The idea riled many, but it had support from the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA). And it still does. ( Click here to read why. )
Well-publicized IDFA support for the insurance program had many saying Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of National Milk Producers Federation, had made a deal with the devil and betrayed those he claimed to represent – milk producers. The image stuck, and for many today still does.
In my opinion, the characterization of Kozak, his plan and his administration of office is similar to that from the Tea Party toward Pres. Obama. Until recently in both national politics and dairy lobbying, there were only two voices. IDFA clearly represented the interests of processors, and it still does.
NMPF represented two interest groups in one – dairy producers and their co-ops, who can at times also be processors. Now NMPF is faced with the same challenge the Republican Party faces. A portion of its former support is emboldened and speaking out about targeted issues, attempting to create its own party and political muscle.
In this issue, we cover the public emergence of such a group in the dairy industry – the National Dairy Producers Organization – and its members’ specific grievances that detail how they believe current dairy policy has failed. ( Click here to read the organization's Contract with Producers. ) The group has membership in 35 states and counting.
But to be realistic, they lack the long-standing political presence to act alone on their initiatives. Their passion and outcry has, and should continue to, influence the conversation about dairy reform toward those immediate ideals they represent. But to achieve reform in the short term, they will still have to caucus with the established majority.
Meanwhile, processors seek to divide producers over the issue of dairy reform. The recent economic study IDFA sponsored, in my opinion, aims to renew traditional divides between East and West dairies and small versus large operations.
Click here to read about the study’s findings.
A proposed, temporary margin-triggered supply management program would most likely impact Midwest and Northeastern producers more than others, the study found.
According to the study, of the states that would be most impacted, five of the top six have a combined total of 79 seats in the House of Representatives. IDFA will obviously be campaigning to convince those states’ producers to not support NMPF’s dairy reform proposal.
It’s a clever counter-maneuver considering IDFA probably thought at this time last year that NMPF’s dairy reform wouldn’t possibly be a bitter pill for them to swallow. And it was smart of NMPF to announce the part of its reform plan the opposition agrees with most, first. The political poker game continues.
IDFA is restating it will not compromise over supply management despite how temporary or margin-triggered it may be. I propose that IDFA’s increased activity signaling intent to try to defeat a piece of Foundation for the Future is evidence the plan may be of more benefit to producers and more of a middle-ground idea than some have previously thought. PD
-
Walt Cooley
- Editor-in-chief
- Progressive Dairyman
- Email Walt Cooley
