Irony and International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)

Terry D. Etherton

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) recently has issued two contradictory press releases (see below) that relate to labeling of milk and dairy products. In one, they promote absence claim labeling; in the other they propose labels are not needed.

IDFA supports the use of deceptive absence labels in the rbST-free milk market battle! However, they are opposed to labels on ultra-filtered (UF) milk used in cheesemaking because those labels may confuse the consumer!

The only common factor in this puzzling marketing scheme is that conventional and rbST-free milk are indistinguishable (aside from the higher price charged for rbST-free milk) as are the UF and regular milk used to make cheese.

Mystifying….isn’t it? No wonder some consumers are confused!

A question to ponder: Why don’t IDFA members support the use of absence claims to differentiate cheese made from normal and UF milk when they are perfectly happy to do this with rbST-free milk?

This has been a key strategy in the game plan that uses deceptive absence claims to label milk as rbST-free: Mislead the public about it, then sell it for a whole lot more than conventional milk….and cheat dairy farmers out of a technology that allows them to make a reasonable profit!

Irony is too “generous” a word to use to describe the above “smoke and mirrors” marketing campaigns, and the rationale for them. Maybe IDFA actually stands for International Dysfunctional Foods Association?

IDFA, NMPF Call for UF Milk in Cheese without Special Labeling

In joint comments filed last Friday, IDFA and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) reiterated their request for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow ultrafiltered (UF) milk to be used in cheesemaking without requiring special labeling. The two groups originally filed comments when the agency’s proposed rule regarding UF milk was released in 2005, but FDA reopened the comment period last December, seeking additional information on label practicality and consumer perception.

IDFA and NMPF argue in the comments that UF milk, which is milk with the whey stream removed, should remain under the group designation “milk” in the product label ingredient list. Because the whey stream is always removed in traditional cheesemaking, the milk used in the process is exactly the same product as UF milk, and cheese made with UF milk is indistinguishable from cheese made from milk.

“If UF milk were not allowed to be labeled as milk in the ingredient list of cheese, the industry may face millions of dollars of costs to design, store and appropriately use new labels and to store additional versions of cheese,” the comments state. “Also, the use of UF milk could be curtailed as companies identify insurmountable logistical problems and decide to restrict use of the ingredient.”

The comments also address the issue of consumer perception, saying buyers would be misled if processors were required to label UF milk as a separate ingredient. To support this position, IDFA commissioned consumer research in December 2005 that clearly found such labeling would be confusing to consumers. The study showed consumers mistakenly attributed important differences in taste, healthfulness and quality when comparing cheese product labels with and without FDA’s proposed requirements.

“IDFA and NMPF urge FDA to re-evaluate its tentative position on ingredient labeling in the 2005 proposed rule and either determine that ingredient labeling is not called for, or that standardized cheese with UF milk should be exempted from the ingredient labeling requirement. This outcome would promote the adoption of this technology throughout the different types of standard cheeses while providing consumers with a consistent product at an affordable price,” the comments conclude.

Posted April 14, 2008

# # #

Consumer Concerns Largely Ignored in Ohio’s Revised Rule on Dairy Labels
Opposition Grows Among Dairy Processors, Ohio Businesses and Consumer Groups

(Washington, D.C. — April 8, 2008) Ohio’s Department of Agriculture continues to champion state-imposed rules that will severely restrict consumer information on dairy labels despite growing opposition from dairy processors, Ohio grocery chains, and consumer and environmental organizations, as well as Ohio consumers, according to testimony submitted today by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA). IDFA represents hundreds of dairy processors across the nation, and 22 dairy processing companies with facilities in the state of Ohio, including Kroger, Reiter Dairy and Smith Dairy.

According to IDFA’s testimony, Ohio’s Refiled Rule 901:11-8-01 continues to be unwanted by consumers, unnecessarily burdensome for processors and unlikely to restore a market for dairy farmers who use synthetic hormones.

“Despite the department’s efforts to convince consumers that there is a problem, there has been little if any public outcry for the state to mandate the appearance and content of current labels,” IDFA said in its testimony.” To the contrary, we believe that the department and the state of Ohio have heard from hundreds of consumers who have voiced opposition to the department’s efforts to restrict dairy labels and very few proponents, by comparison.”

Ohio’s business community, which was strongly opposed to the rule when it was introduced on an emergency basis earlier this year, remains strongly opposed to the new proposal, believing that it infringes on its right to commercial free speech and impedes interstate commerce. IDFA is joined by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Organic Trade Association and the Midwest Dairy Foods Association in its opposition to the new labeling restrictions.

In today’s testimony, IDFA argues that the refiled rule violates the right of dairy processors to exercise commercial free speech. “It is settled legal doctrine that a government restriction on commercial free speech must be ‘narrowly tailored’ and no more restrictive than necessary to achieve its purpose,” states IDFA’s testimony.” This doctrine has been established in the U.S. Supreme Court and applied repeatedly in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio. As described above, the details of the refiled rule remain too restrictive and go well beyond what was contemplated by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guidance document.”

The testimony continues to state that the refiled rule is an impediment to interstate commerce. “Under the Commerce Clause a state may not impose an unreasonable impediment to interstate commerce. Indeed, a state regulation like the Ohio refiled rule, which would prohibit label claims from being made in Ohio that are readily accepted by most other states, would be particularly vulnerable to legal challenge, especially given the multi-state and even national distribution of many dairy products. This standard has also been articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court and applied in the Sixth Circuit as well as other jurisdictions.”

Saying that the refiled rule “is unnecessary and its fiscal analysis is incomplete,” IDFA urges the department not to adopt Refiled Rule 901:11-8-01 and to continue to allow dairy product labels using the guidelines provided by FDA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *