I had originally intended to publish a strictly self-indulgent, op-ed style conclusion to the “Dairy, It’s What the Government Order” series this week. However, I stumbled upon something that left me relatively speechless: the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum 2011 itinerary.
BACKGROUND: (Feel free to skip this section if you know anything about the IDFA and go straight to the ‘story.’)
For those of you who were unaware, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) “represents the nation’s ($110-billion a year) dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers” and has a membership of over 500 companies. However, if you look closely, its membership is dominated by companies who are owned by the Dean Foods corporation so often unknowingly championed by individuals attempting to alleviate their reliance on the dairy industry: Dean Foods owns not only Silk Milk, Horizon, and Morningstar – companies renowned for their meat and dairy alternatives.
The IDFA mission statement includes the following: “Seeking the elimination of unnecessary regulations that impede member sales” (i.e. “eliminate the regulation of how dairy is produced so that production can increase while quality can decline” i.e. “poor regulations for CAFOs”); “reducing government intervention in commercial markets” (I’ll come back to this one later)*; “supporting science-based policies that allow for technological advances while preserving the integrity of dairy products” (i.e. “supporting and creating technologies that forgo traditional dairy production in order to increase production” i.e. “supporting and creating and utilizing technologies that damage the environmental, consumer’s bodies, and the world as we know it”).
These are some of their priorities:
1. Push for continued reform and simplification of federal dairy policies.
2. Work toward elimination of unnecessary regulations that affect dairy and related industries.
3. Eliminate the impact of various proposed policies on dairy markets; use sound economic data to advocate policies that reduce government interference in the dairy marketplace.
4. Advocate science-based policies concerning product safety, labeling requirements, standards of identity, weights and measures, environmental issues, worker safety, food technology and nutrition.
5. Maintain strong relationship with such agencies as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as state regulatory agencies.
* Interestingly enough, if the IDFA wants to reduce government intervention in commercial markets, their “strong relationship” with the USDA seems either counterintuitive or contradictory as the USDA’s funding of Dairy Management would, seemingly, be beneficial to the dairy industry as it’s supporting the industry (at least, half of the time).
The IDFA also wishes to “promote and defend the image of dairy products. Serve as an authority on dairy foods issues. Defuse controversy and unwarranted (unwanted?) criticism of the industry and its products. Promote the industry’s positions and messages.” It would appear, though, that in order to simultaneously promote and defend itself, the dairy industry wants to remove all outside forms of criticism or regulation: they want to do it their way – the most profitable way.
STORY:
In order to make progress on their priorities, and continue to fulfill their mission, the IDFA’s Dairy Forum will be held in Miami, Florida from January 23rd to the 26th and provide discussions of policies with its members. Topic headings found within the itinerary appear harmless enough, including words such as “consumer trends,” “food policies,” and “market exchanges” – phrases that do not seem out of place for a industry conference that’s goals include profit increasing and lax regulation. However, if you take a closer look at the descriptions of these discussion, talks, and panels, things become even more unsettling and, in some cases, unbelievable.
“Why Is There a Decline in Fluid Milk Consumption and How Do We Turn It Around?” is the Breakfast Session offered on the Forum’s second day. Its description asks “Why has per capita consumption of milk declined over the past several decades? Where are the opportunities for growth? What consumer behaviors would need to change to take advantage of these opportunities?” During this session, Vivien Godfrey will be among the speakers who will, supposedly, be answering these questions. As Godfrey is the President and CEO of MilkPEP, the company behind Dairy Management’s influential National Milk Mustache “Got Milk?” campaign, you can only imagine the answers that will be provided will involve an increase in governmentally funded dairy advertising.
If that isn’t enough, Godfrey will also be speaking during the “Food Policies & Consumer Trends That Are Changing the Dairy Industry” session later that morning alongside Dan Roehl of the National Restaurant Association (1). These “industry leaders” will address inquires like “Is the Obama administration putting America on a diet? Will the Dietary Guidelines for Americans be successful in getting consumers to eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat/fat-free dairy products?”
These questions are ironic for two reasons: if you remember, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was written by the USDA (who funds Dairy Management, who uses the Guidelines to support their campaigns) and the Obama administration approved the increase in cheese-smothered products in restaurants across the country (and these restaurants have sought out Dairy Management’s guidance for their efforts). It seems then that, rather than actually addressing the ‘attack’ on dairy, industry officials are simply setting up companies with even more options for advertisement bombardments and unnecessary contradictions as the government isn’t undercutting dairy, it’s supporting it.
However, the aforementioned alliances and inconsistencies are not new to this blog-series and, while shocking, were the least offensive things the itinerary included.
Offered concurrently with two other sessions (“Emerging Dairy Markets Around the World” and “The Obama Administration’s Trade Policy Agenda”) is a panel entitled “Marketing in the New Food Environment.” The description IDFA asks,” Can dairy products be positioned as part of the healthy diet that is needed to address America’s growing obesity problem?” and I’m inclined to cite the last two Stay Free entries as my personal answer. However, the second question posited drains every ounce of sarcasm out of my body: “Is the local food movement an untapped marketing opportunity?”
With a panel that includes Louie Gentine, President and CEO of Sargento Foods Inc., there are no viable arguments to be made about how a company as notoriously anti-environmental as Sargento could possibly “untap” the local food movement in a way that is anything other than exploitive and dangerous. (I won’t even bother breaking down the rest of the panel; this entry is already too long and the details are too complicated. However, if you’re looking for information on Sargento, please check out Scryve’s review of the company here http://scryve.com/sargento-foods-inc/).
As the local food movement was founded on the principles of sustainability, community, and consciousness, the dairy industry as it stands today has no place within it unless it intends to complete reform its farming, production, and transportation practices, a feat that is as improbable as it is impossible. Rather, the dairy industry will, undoubtedly, approach this as any other profit-increasing pursuit: shamelessly and tastelessly as such a pursuit would only hurt local farmers and swindle consumers. (Look at the “organic” farming that big businesses are promoting, for example.)
Two other sessions are offered concurrently that afternoon, perhaps in order to prevent attendees from hearing a session would could, quite possibly, shift their views on some aspect of the industry; consider their titles: “The U.S. Dairy Industry Commitment to Sustainability” and “Watch Out! Battles Are Brewing Locally.” Which of these two would you sit in on if you were the representative of a dairy company attending an industry conference?
Sadly, the former session seems equally beneficial and detrimental for those willing to attend; the first two sentences of the description read: “The U.S. dairy industry has been striving in unison to calculate its carbon footprint, complete lifecycle assessments and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. There has been a great deal of progress and a lot has been learned, but there is still confusion as to why the industry is pursuing sustainability and where it will take us.”
While this appears as if it will inform attendees about the environmental benefits of shifting toward more sustainable practices, the description’s last two sentences undercut that notion: “Hear more about the win-win nature of the endeavor. Learn how to dispel notions that our activities will harm producers and businesses or generate more regulations.” That is, while the session will be informative in that it seems as if they’ll provide information to convince industry members that sustainability is not necessarily a bad thing, the manner in which the IDFA will be convincing these individuals is questionable, if not disreputable.
If the industry “experts” wish to “dispel notions that [their] activities [will] generate more regulations” they will not be practicing true “sustainability,” at least not on a large scale. Enforced sustainability would only insure more regulations for the dairy industry as the broad scope of their operations are not sustainable. (The details of this, while necessary, will not fit into this post, though, they will most likely be addressed in the near future.) Which is why I will simply name two panelists for this session and call it done (I trust my readers enough at this point that they’ll get the message without me repeating myself): Earl “Chip” Jones III, Senior VP of Dean Foods, and Paul Rovey, Chairman of Dairy Management.
The second session offered during this time slot is the, indisputably, the most despicable of the entire Forum; the “battles” panelists (including one Dan Colgrove, Senior Director of State and Local Government Affairs for Kraft Foods, Inc.) will be discussing anything “from sugar taxes to labels, from raw milk to recycling” and attendees are supposed to be enticed to the session as they will “hear experienced state lobbyists discuss trends in state food regulation and discuss strategies that have successfully beaten bad policies.”
I could break this down for each area noted but I’d rather call attention to the correlation between “recycling” and “bad policies:” what about state, or federal, regulations or requirements for recycling could be a “bad policy?” As liquid waste (yes, it’s exactly what you think) is typical stored on farms in what I would describe as cesspits, they often run the risk of overflowing when it rains; when overflowing occurs, the waste ends up in nearby water sources (2). A policy that would force farmers to fix this problem would not be “bad” as the cost they would incur for correcting it would outweigh the environmental cost that people living around the farm suffer from on a daily basis. However, as the goal of the IDFA is to prevent more regulations from being put into place, I can see where such a policy would be “bad” for them.
Merriam-Webster defines “industry” in several ways; I personally find the second one to be the most desirable form: “a systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value.” However, a sub-definition is provided that describes the dairy industry more accurately: “a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises.”
If the companies and corporations that make up the dairy industry were more focused on creating a product of value instead of making a profit, things like the Dairy Forum would not have to take place. Factory farming would not exist. People living near farms would not become ill from waste run-off and their air would be breathable. Consumers would not be having dairy products shoved down their throat by the government. These products would not be genetically modified, they would not have to carry labels that say ‘hormone free’ because hormones would never have entered the bodies of the animals being consumed. The world as we know it would not exist.
However, dairy is an industry that exists solely to make a profit, by any means necessary. These companies are buying their wealth with the livelihood of the planet. Take a step back and see that what you are told to be “true,” that dairy is good, that dairy is healthy, that dairy is necessary, is not based on fact but on a forgery.
I am not asking you to stop consuming all dairy – if you want to drink a glass of milk, do so. But find a farmer close to you, who isn’t a part of the industry but a part of the community, and buy from them. Chances are it’ll taste better.
Notes:
1: The same NRA that First Lady Obama told to make all restaurants have healthy options, if you remember.
2: Lappe, Anna. Diet For A Hot Planet. I recommend this book to everyone interested in learning about how food and climate change are intrinsically interwoven.
Photo credit: http://www.epa.gov/
No comments:
Post a Comment