Dairy Policy

A Big Step Toward Better Milk Options for Kids

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:45:37 GMT

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry took a key step toward expanding milk choices in schools today, advancing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act by voice vote. The bipartisan legislation, which has already cleared a House committee, would allow schools to once again offer whole and 2% milk, options currently excluded under federal school meal rules in place since 2012.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) applauded the committee’s action, calling it a crucial move toward improving childhood nutrition and giving schools greater flexibility to serve nutrient-dense dairy products.

“The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is about making informed, science-backed decisions that prioritize the health and future of our children,” says Gregg Doud, NMPF president and CEO. “We’re grateful that this common-sense legislation has received such strong support from both sides of the aisle.”

The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Sens. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., Peter Welch, D-Vt., Dave McCormick, R-Pa., and John Fetterman, D-Pa., would give schools the option to serve whole and 2% milk — choices that are currently not allowed under federal school meal guidelines established in 2012. Those rules restrict milk offerings to 1% and fat-free varieties.

If enacted, the legislation would mark a significant shift in school nutrition policy. Whole and 2% milk are the most commonly consumed varieties at home and have been shown to be more satiating for children while still delivering the same 13 essential nutrients, including calcium, vitamin D and high-quality protein.

“Passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act will allow more schoolkids to access essential nutrients in their diets, and that’s something everyone can get behind,” Doud adds.

Support for the legislation extends beyond the dairy sector. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) also welcomed the committee’s action.

“Farm Bureau appreciates the Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup and passage of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act,” says Zippy Duvall, AFBF president. “This bipartisan legislation will allow schools to offer additional nutritious milk varieties to students. Whole and 2% milk, as well as flavored options, are wholesome choices for children and an important building block for a healthy, balanced diet.”

The legislation is rooted in efforts to address declining milk consumption in schools. Since the removal of whole and reduced-fat milk from school menus more than a decade ago, overall milk intake among students has dropped. Advocates say reintroducing these options could help reverse that trend, especially at a time when nearly 90% of Americans fall short of recommended dairy intake levels.

“By offering milk options that align with both modern nutritional research and student preferences, schools can increase milk intake at a critical time,” Duvall says.

The House of Representatives is also considering companion legislation, led by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, R-Pa., and Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash. That version passed out of the House Education and the Workforce Committee with bipartisan support earlier this year and now awaits floor action. A similar bill cleared the full House in 2023 but failed to reach the Senate floor before the session ended.

With momentum now building in both chambers, dairy organizations are urging lawmakers to bring the bill to a final vote. The National Milk Producers Federation continues to call on dairy advocates to contact their representatives and push for the bill’s passage.

Your Next Read: New Federal Milk Marketing Order Reforms Take Effect

Iowa Secretary of Ag Weighs In on The H5N1 Battle, Vaccine Potential And Trade Sensitivities

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:48:13 GMT

Eggs continue to be a hot topic in the news as supplies are down, prices are up – and expected to go even higher – and consumers are understandably concerned.

At the center of the issue, fanning the on-going problem for poultry and dairy producers as well, is the Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A virus (HPAI H5N1).

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory broached the topic with Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig on Tuesday.

At the heart of their conversation was a two-part question – how does the U.S. address the virus and, in the process, prevent any potential negative ramifications on trade?

Naig says the federal government is taking what he described as a three-legged stool approach to addressing the problem in both industries.

He described the three legs of the stool as being USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), individual state animal health officials and industry.

“We work very closely with APHIS on this, meaning that they’re the ones that are providing the indemnity payments to producers. They are providing the disposal and cleanup assistance, but they must work in close collaboration with the states and state animal health officials,” Naig says. “And then, of course, you’ve got to have the third leg, which is industry.”

Biosecurity Measures
Naig noted that while the virus hit the poultry industry hard in 2015, it struck even harder in 2024.

“It’s not just in the Midwest or West, it’s been really all across the country now, affecting the egg laying industry, broilers and turkey production,” Naig says.

A significant positive, Naig says, is that biosecurity measures in the poultry industry appear to be preventing farm-to-farm spread. “The industry continues to get high marks for that, which wasn’t the case in 2015, which was so devastating because we didn’t have those strategies in place.”

“I believe, and our experience has been, that our USDA partners in this regard have been very strong,” he adds.

As Naig addressed the three-legged stool approach the U.S. is taking to addressing the virus in dairy, he says the three partners have more work to do.

“Frankly, there’s been a lot of criticism to share around the three legs, if you will, on how states have reacted, or how strongly USDA should have reacted, and what the industry is doing to try to contain that virus. So, I would say on the dairy side of things, it’s a different story (than in poultry). There’s a lot more work that’s yet to be done to even understand how that virus is impacting those (dairy) herds.”

What Is The Role For Vaccines?
Flory asked Sec. Nagy whether he believes a vaccine could be part of the solution to the virus or whether that would set up too many trade barriers. Flory also asked whether the virus is stable enough for a long enough period of time for a vaccine to be developed that would work effectively.

Both are questions the U.S. is grappling with as it tries to get ahead of the virus in dairy and poultry.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported the U.S. will rebuild a stockpile of avian influenza vaccines for poultry that match the strain of the virus circulating in commercial flocks and wild birds, citing the Department of Agriculture.

Naig told Flory that he believes a vaccine could be developed, with regard to poultry specifically, and its use negotiated into trade agreements.

“Those are challenges, and yet those are things that can be worked on and can be done, but it’s not easily done. I would want to put a flag there,” Naig says.

“I’m supportive of developing … we should try to figure out whether this can be an effective tool. If you’re in the broiler business or if you’re in the turkey meat business or if you’re in the egg business or maybe you’re in the genetics business, those are very different in terms of how you view that vaccine.”

Naig explains part of the different viewpoints on vaccine use have to do with the difference between poultry business segments.

“We need to recognize that those sectors are different in how they’ll view and potentially use a vaccine,” Naig says.

“Don’t treat them all the same. It’ll make way more sense for some than others.”

Naig did not weigh in on vaccine development for the dairy industry specifically.

The full conversation between Naig and Flory on AgriTalk is available below.

Your next read: Think Egg Prices Are Already Too High? USDA Says Retail Egg Prices Could Jump Another 20% in 2025

What The Trump Administration's Mass Deportation Plans Could Mean for Agriculture

Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:47:42 GMT

Farmers and food industry leaders are warning that President-elect Donad Trump’s plans to deport millions of immigrants could devastate agriculture — an industry in which immigrants make up a good chunk of the workforce.

Nearly half of all farmworkers are undocumented, and industries such as dairy and meatpacking plants are especially vulnerable to labor shortages.

“Admittedly, there are some people who slip through,” says Scott VanderWal, vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Perspective employers are required to take documentation that appears to be legal and valid. There are times when that’s not the case and then ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] comes in and cleans house, the workers disappear and go wherever they take them and the employers are left without help.”

While the H-2A visa program has grown, it only covers seasonal work and cannot replace year-round jobs at meat processing plants and on dairy and pork farms.

“Our packing plants need labor. Many of our farms use temporary visa labor — educated, skilled individuals work on our sow farms,” says Lori Stevemer, president of the National Pork Producers Council. “We have been experiencing an increased number of denials over the past year, which really makes it a challenge to find workers. The H-2A visa doesn’t work well when we have animals that need care 24/7, year-round.”

Experts say mass deportations would disrupt food production, raise prices and jeopardize the stability of U.S. agriculture.

Deportation falls under the Department of Homeland Security. President-elect Trump has selected South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem to lead that agency.

“With Governor Noem at the helm, she’s going to bring common sense to that discussion and make sure we don’t close businesses, make sure we get everyone in line, get the workforce in line and then make sure we’re following our country’s rules,” says Hunter Roberts, secretary of South Dakota’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Meanwhile, farm groups continue to urge for reforms to immigration policies or a guest worker program to secure a stable workforce.

“At the same time as controlling the border, we need to overhaul our labor system,” VanderWal says. “We need to make H-2A apply to your own workers or come up with a decent program that will help.”

We need some type of H-2A visa reform to allow those workers to stay year-round, Stevemer adds.

Even then immigration is likely to continue to be a political hot potato in 2025, and labor shortages will continue to top the list of challenges for agriculture.

Milk Marketing Makeover: What You need to Know to about new FMMO Reforms

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:30:01 GMT

In the coming weeks, a significant decision awaits dairy farmers as they prepare to cast their votes on a critical package of milk marketing reforms. This package aims to introduce notable changes, including a higher price for marketed milk, which could significantly impact the dairy industry.

Understanding the Proposal

The Agricultural Marketing Service has reached what it considers a final decision, laying the groundwork for a farmer referendum following a 60-day public comment period and thorough assessment of the suggested amendments. At the heart of this reform lies a new method for pricing Class I milk, which is the milk sold in grocery stores. The proposed formula aims to evaluate pricing using either the higher of the Class III or Class IV prices, complemented by a differential specific to Class I production. Currently, the pricing mechanism employs an average across the board. This change could potentially inject an additional $800 million per annum into producers’ coffers.

The Historical Context

The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system, which has been in place since 1937, requires a two-thirds majority to approve any changes. This system comprises 11 regions with marketing orders, encompassing most of the U.S. states and accounting for about three-fourths of national milk production.

Voting and Participation

To ensure broad participation, the USDA plans to send ballots directly to independent milk producers and dairy cooperatives. Marking the ballots by December 31 and ensuring they reach the USDA before January 15, 2025, will be crucial for the votes to be counted.

Additional Resources

For those seeking more detailed explanations on the amendments and the voting process, the USDA is organizing public webinars scheduled for November 19, 21, and 25. These webinars will serve as an excellent opportunity for farmers to clarify any doubts and gain a comprehensive understanding of the proposed changes.

This upcoming vote is a pivotal moment for the dairy industry and its stakeholders. The potential financial implications and operational adjustments underscore the importance of each vote. Dairy farmers are encouraged to stay informed and actively participate in shaping the industry’s future through this referendum.

Is the Great Financial Reset Now Underway?

Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:28:54 GMT

Dairy farmers are finishing a strong financial year, despite concerns about labor and feed costs, and those concerns are at the forefront of conversations as they enter 2023.

One major bright spot in 2022 is domestic dairy demand, which is on a record pace. During Farm Journal’s Milk Business Conference (MBC) this week in Las Vegas, it was clear it’s now a question on if inflation and higher dairy prices at the store will eat into consumers shopping decisions in 2023. “I think the cost of everything, and of course, water issues are huge in California,” says Arlene Vander Eyk, a dairy farmer in Pixley, California.

It’s not just dairy products seeing the impact of inflation. Dairy farmers from across the country are wading through the reality of higher feed prices, input prices and inflation across the board.

“Inflation has reached a zenith, it did so back in March. It’s now coming down,” says Dan Basse, president AgResource Company . “The question is, ‘How far will it fall in 2023? And what’s the new natural rate of inflation?’ Back in the last 10 years, it was somewhere around 1.4%. We now think it’s closer to 3% to 3.5%, meaning that interest rates are going to be staying higher.”

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) this week showed a positive sign and the rate of inflation is slowing. In the 12 months through November, the CPI climbed 7.1% which was the smallest advance since December 2021, and followed a 7.7% rise in October.

The annual CPI peaked at 9.1% in June, which was the largest increase since November 1981.

However, inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. And as the Fed make a decision on more rate hikes in 2023, Basse is dubbing it the “Great Reset,” and one that he says is costing farmers more money on nearly every corner of the farm.

“If you look at seventh district data for the Kansas City Fed, this is the big farm states and the I-States in the middle of the country, they are now looking at operational loan costs being around 6.8%,” says Basse. “If you needed to borrow money to buy farmland, it’s about 6.5%. This is up about three percentage points from last year substantially. And so, whatever your interest rates costs were last year, it’s going to be double.”

Basse thinks interest rates could increase again early next year. With the Fed Rate hike this week, he thinks two more could be coming in 2023.

“The great financial reset is happening where interest rates are rising,” says Basse. “There’s a new asset class called cash. And as we look forward, I think that reset will have a big impact on recall repricing assets, not so much farmland but equities and lots of other things and farmers need to be aware of that,” Basse says.

Farm Journal’s Washington correspondent, Jim Wiesemeyer, says he’s more concerned about 2024 than 2023 in terms of the great financial reset and impact on agriculture.

“Later in 2023, I think you’ll see some of the pressures start, because as the carryover from relatively firm prices, this past year play out and some of these ad hoc disaster payments are spent and other foreign program payments. So yeah, 2024 could be some crunch times. It has to be cash flow, your cash flow is your predominant and cutting costs,” Wiesemeyer says.

Want To End Hunger? Animal Protein May Be the Answer

Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:35:15 GMT

The White House hosted its first conference on hunger since 1969 this week. While President Biden announced several steps to increase access for free school meals and more incentives to purchase fruits and vegetables with food stamps, some say protein from animal agriculture could be a major answer in the need for healthy and nutritious food for Americans.

According to the USDA, the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health is aimed to bring various parties together to work toward ending hunger and reducing diet-related diseases and disparities in the U.S. by 2030. Some of the announced steps include:

Chobani launching a national corporate responsibility initiative – Food Access in Reach (F.A.I.R.) – to encourage businesses of all sizes to “adopt-a-school” and pledge to make it food- and nutrition-secure. As part of this initiative, businesses including Chobani will pledge to help schools meet child nutrition standards and pay their employees at least a $15/hour minimum wage to reduce hunger within their own ranks.
The National Grocers Association will expand access to full-service grocery stores – grocery stores that stock and sell fresh produce, meat, and dairy, in addition to processed and packaged goods – across the country. It will double the number of retailers offering SNAP Online, prioritizing rural areas and areas with low food access, such as agricultural communities. NGA will also build a toolkit to support its members expanding full-service grocery stores into USDA-designated food deserts.

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) was in attendance Tuesday. Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF, says they worked with other agricultural and anti-hunger groups in preparation of the conference and urged the White House to place a high priority on affordable, diverse and healthful foods. As a result, Mulhern says NMPF is welcoming the strategy’s consistent emphasis on increasing consumption of healthful foods to levels recommended in the dietary guidelines.

“We know from decades of working in this area that dairy products — and the 13 essential nutrients they provide such as protein, calcium, Vitamin D and potassium — will be vital ingredients to meeting these goals,” says Mulhern. “The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) shows that dietary patterns that include dairy are associated with beneficial health outcomes, such as lowered risk for cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. The guidelines also note that dairy is under-consumed across all age categories. Scientific evidence clearly indicates that milk and dairy foods are part of the solution to challenges like food and nutrition insecurity, health equity, and diet-related and other noncommunicable diseases.”

Animal Protein is the Sustainable Answer

While much of the White House’s plan centers around increasing fruit and vegetable availability for families, Elanco, the world’s second largest animal health company, says livestock producers are also a part of the solution. Elanco CEO Jeff Simmons says the company has a clear vision of how animal agriculture is the answer in addressing both hunger and climate demands today.

“Animal protein demand continues to grow,” Simmons says. “It’s probably the biggest misnomer, even inside our industry. The last 10 years, we have increased demand 60 million metric tons. The prediction the next 10 years, 90 million, another 50% more growth.”

He says part of it is more export trade and countries around the world increasing their demand for animal protein. He says the other reason is the health benefits of animal protein.

“You’re seeing this Western diet, more protein, less carbs. What we produce is under tremendous demand, the fastest growing food segment today is animal protein. When demand is up, you turn and say, ‘Hey, there’s real opportunity here for the farmer to play a role,’” he adds.

Simmons says in order to meet those challenges, he has a clear message for livestock producers.

“There are three C’s that matter,” Simmons says. “It’s calories, it’s climate, and it’s choice. On this whole calorie side, 60% of the world is not getting the right calories, they’re not getting enough, or they’re getting the wrong ones. Animal protein is the hot segment inside of that 50% more growth. That’s critical.”

As the livestock sector answers the need on the calorie side, he thinks the climate piece is equally as important. The United Nations claims as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , countries that adopted the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. And Simmons thinks livestock producers are a valuable piece of that solution.

“Whether you believe or not, that eight-year United Nations statistic is making the whole world, consumers, governments, industries, big companies like Elanco, say we got to get behind climate, and methane is what can do that,” Simmons says.

The third “C” Simmons outlined is “choice.”

“Consumers want your product,” he adds. “And it’s growing significantly. This is an opportunity we need to look at. I believe every farmer needs to gain the knowledge and understanding within the next 24 months. Get a roadmap and action plan together. There’s a lot of people out there to help. Elanco is one of them. There are other companies to help get farmers on this path. It’s the next era of opportunity and animal agriculture.”

Meat Companies Already at Work

The North American Meat Institute (NAMI), which represents the major meat processing companies in the U.S., agrees that meat is part of the solution, and NAMI says meat companies are already working toward that goal .

“According to Feeding America, meat is one of the top three most needed foods for food charities. Yet, meat represents just 1% of food distributed by food charities, in part due to limited capacity to limited infrastructure for cold storage, packing, and distribution,” says Meat Institute President and CEO, Julie Anna Potts. “The resulting “protein gap” worsens hunger and particularly impacts women, children, and older adults who have greater need for the nutrients, vitamins, and minerals best and sometimes only found naturally in animal-source foods.”

Potts says filling that protein gap is a top priority for their members, who have already committed to help end hunger in the U.S. by sharing information and investing in protein pack rooms and refrigerated transportation. She says that’s being done through:

Cargill announcing in August a new $4.9 million donation to Feeding America, including to build and expand protein pack rooms.
JBS already donating more than $2 million for improvements in cold storage and distribution, along with contributing to food safety training and safe meal preparation.
Tyson Foods donating $2.5 million to Feeding America in September , allocating $1 million to Equitable Food Access grants, and 2.5 million pounds of protein.

While the White House Conference on Hunger announced a bold plan this week, some Washington watchers say that with midterms looming, Biden may not have support in Congress for long enough to see these measures through on a federal level.

Biden Administration Will Outline Steps to Boost Competition in the Meat Sector in Monday Announcement

Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:30:13 GMT

President Biden, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Attorney General Merrick Garland will announce “the Biden-Harris Administration’s Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain.” The White House made the announcement in a media advisory early Monday morning, and says the goal of the plan is too boost competition while reducing prices in the meat-processing industry.

Details of the plan will be outlined at 1 p.m. ET Monday. According to the White House fact sheet , the administration says “the meat and poultry processing sector is a textbook example, with lack of competition hurting consumers, producers, and our economy.”

The White House also says the announcement will happen “with family and independent farmers and ranchers to discuss his administration’s work to boost competition and reduce prices in the meat-processing industry, where corporate consolidation has led to rising prices for consumers and lower earnings for farmers and ranchers.” The White House states, “The meat producers will talk about the challenges they have faced as large conglomerates have absorbed more and more smaller processors.”

The action on Monday follows Biden’s Executive Order in July to help address anti-competitive practices in the meat industry. The White House continues to say a small handful of meatpackers control the majority of the markets for beef, pork, and poultry, enabling them to squeeze farmers and ranchers while also raising prices on consumers. The topic has been a point of conversation for the White House several times since, with several mentions of retail meat prices soaring due to consolidation in the industry.

According to ProFarmer Washington Correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer, the bottom-line is antitrust actions remain in focus. He says agriculture remains one of the focal points for the Biden administration on this front, with today’s virtual meeting aimed at discussing the administrations’ efforts to boost competition and reduce prices in the meat processing industry. The officials will listen to complaints about consolidation in the industry, while launching a new portal to allow farmers and ranchers to report unfair trade practices by meatpackers.

Democrat's Green New Deal Wants to Eliminate "Farting Cows"

Sat, 09 Feb 2019 01:12:00 GMT

A proposed set of legislative goals released by a pair of Democratic freshmen members of Congress mentions getting fewer emissions from “farting cows,” but they want to work with farmers, too. The Green New Deal was released on Feb. 7 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and aims to eliminate greenhouse gas emission while revamping the U.S. economy.

The Green New Deal has been drawing some attention because it would drastically change how many facets of the economy operate in an effort to address climate change. Components of the Green New Deal – that tries to fashion itself similar to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal – focuses on utilizing renewable energy, cutting fossil fuels, overhauling health care and addressing the wealth divide.

The Green New Deal also contains mention of “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

The initiative aims to support family farmers, invest in sustainable agriculture practices to increase soil health and building a sustainable food system that ensures access to healthy food.

While the legislation doesn’t have much more in details about the role agriculture will play in this effort, a FAQ sheet released with the Green New Deal does paint a different picture.

In a section of the FAQ sheet asking about the difference between the goal of going “100% clean and renewable” versus “100% renewable” there is a call out about methane emissions in cattle.

“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero,” the FAQ sheet reads.

Voices From Agriculture

The mention of “farting cows” drew concerns from groups representing agriculture and farmers on social media.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has been working to address sustainability through efforts like the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) . Also, NCBA recently released a Cost/Benefit Principles that serves as a guide for decision-making on various policy proposals regarding climate change.

“Despite all the progress we’ve made on the environmental front in recent decades, some policymakers still seem to think targeting U.S. beef producers and consumers will make a huge impact on global emissions,” says Colin Woodall, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs. “That’s why we drafted our Principles – to give the folks who are proposing new public policies the opportunity to outline the specific costs and estimated benefits of their proposals.”

You may think the #GreenNewDeal is some far out but case dream. If you're involved in #agriculture you'd better view it as a threat to your entire way of life. https://t.co/Gp6Oe53HdX
— Casey Kimbrell (@CBKimbrell) February 8, 2019

Like the part where is says "work with farmers & ranchers to create sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free food". So basically the gov't will retrain us how they think we should farm & ranch. No thanks!
— Brandon Bell (@bjbell60) February 8, 2019

The language is very vague. Almost like those who drafted it don't know much about agriculture in the US. Farm bill supports most of what they list.
— Jeannine Otto (@AgNews_Otto) February 7, 2019

I feel like I need more details. But I’m excited we’re having this conversation and as a rancher I’d like to be part of making things better instead of worse.
— MegRaeB.bsky.social (@MegRaeB) February 8, 2019

Lots of wiggle room, kind of like now. Define ‘feasible’..🤷🏽‍♂️
— Doug Doughty (@_dpdoughty) February 7, 2019

Research and Statistics Shows Improvement on “Farting Cows”

While much of what is suggested for agriculture is already being handled through programs funded in the farm bill, the mention of “farting cows” shows a divide between rural and urban America.

According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), direct greenhouse gas emissions that come from cattle and their manure represents 2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or less than 0.4% of global emissions.

Research by Virginia Tech and USDA-ARS determined that if all livestock were eliminated from production agriculture it would only reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6% or 0.36% globally. However, the shift would cause changes in dietary needs as people would not be able to receive enough of several different essential dietary nutrients without animal proteins. There would be deficiencies in calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some important fatty acids. Ultimately, resulting in higher caloric diets .

“A take-home message from the study was that we need to expand the way we think about food production to account for the complex consequences of changing any individual piece within the wider food system,” says Robin R. White, a professor of Animal and Poultry Science at Virginia Tech.

The announcement of the Green New Deal is something that Sara Place, NCBA’s senior director of sustainable beef production research, hopes will serve as starting off point for a conversation between the politicians supporting it and livestock producers.

“I think it highlights the large divide between people that are interacting with the environment and growing food every day, and those that are concerned about environmental issues, but ignorant,” Place says.

The U.S. has become one of the most efficient producers of both beef and dairy in the world during the past few decades, helping curtail the amount of emissions.

Since 1977, the U.S. beef cattle herd has decreased by 33% and the same amount of beef is being produced. A Journal of Animal Science study by Dr. Jude Capper showed that comparing 1977 versus 2007 to produce 1 kg of beef it took 69.9% of the animals, 81.4% of feedstuffs, 87.9% of the water, and only 67.0% of the land required. Modern beef systems produce 81.9% of the manure, 82.3% CH4, and 88.0% N2O per billion kilograms of beef compared with production systems in 1977.

Dairy has seen wide improvements as well. A study published in the Journal of Animal Science ( Capper et al., 2009 ) showed that modern dairy production has become much more efficient. Comparing 1944 versus 2007 it takes 21% fewer cows, 35% less water and 10% less land produce 1 billion kg of milk. All while emitting 37% less of a carbon footprint. Other greenhouse gas impacts included a reduction of 24% for manure, 43% for CH4, and 56% for N2O per billion kg of milk compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying.

Even with these gains in recent history to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in beef and dairy production there still appears to be a need to share that information with political leaders.

88% of Parents Want Whole and 2% Milk in School Meals

As the nation celebrates National School Lunch Week, U.S. parents are calling for Congress to reinstate whole and reduced-fat (2%) milk in U.S. public schools. For 12 years, students in public schools have been unable to access these widely consumed milk options in school meals. A new Morning Consult poll , commissioned by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), reveals that the vast majority of parents want these milk options to be available in school cafeterias, as they are at home.

The new poll of parents with children in public school shows widespread support for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023—bipartisan legislation to restore whole and 2% milk in school meals. The U.S. Senate is currently considering this bill, which already passed the House of Representatives in December 2023 with a strong bipartisan vote.

Key poll results include:

91% of parents serve whole or 2% to their school-aged children at home, and they want these options to be made available to their children at school;
88% of parents agree that whole milk and 2% milk should be options for children in public schools;
81% of parents support Congress passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act to make these options available, including 89% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans;
Parents consider whole and 2% milk to be nutritious (89%), healthy (88%), wholesome (85%), and tasty (87%);
Most parents of public-school students believe whole (60%) and/or 2% milk (60%) is currently served in their children’s school cafeterias, although these options were banned more than a decade ago; and
Nine in ten (87%) view drinking milk as an important component of children’s daily nutritional intake.

“Regardless of income or location or political leanings, parents want public schools to offer whole and 2% milk because they know milk is critical to the health and wellbeing of their children, and they know their children prefer these options,” said Michael Dykes, D.V.M., IDFA president and CEO. “This new polling underscores the near unanimous support among parents with children in public school for Congress to reinstate whole and 2% milk in school meals by passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.”

Whole and 2% milk provide children with 13 essential nutrients for growth, development, healthy immune function, and overall wellness. Since whole and 2% milk were banned from school meals menus more than a decade ago, school milk consumption and meal participation have declined , meaning children are consuming fewer essential nutrients. This is especially concerning considering underconsumption of milk and dairy products is prevalent among school-aged children, where between 68% and 94% of school-age boys and girls are failing to meet recommended levels of dairy intake per federal guidelines.

Evolving Science Supports Whole and 2% Milk

Nutrition science has evolved in the past decade to show neutral or positive benefits of full-fat dairy foods such as whole milk, including less weight gain , neutral or lower risk of heart disease , and lower childhood obesity . Learn more about the importance of milk—especially whole and 2% milk—in the diets of healthy children at www.wholemilkforkids.com .

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023 ( H.R.1147 , S.1957 ) would allow schools to once again provide children with a wide variety of milk options that meet their individual needs—whether that be whole or 2%, low-fat, or lactose-free milk. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in December by a wide margin, while the U.S. Senate companion bill has been cosponsored by 18 bipartisan U.S. Senators.

“It is time for Congress to allow dairy farmers and milk processors to serve their best products to students. Reinstating whole and 2% milk in schools will increase milk consumption, ensuring more children get the necessary nutrients they need to thrive every day. IDFA urges the Senate to swiftly pass this legislation and grant U.S. students the ability to access the nutritious milk options they prefer to drink,” said Dykes.