Dairy Foods
  Home
  Subscribe
  e-newsletter
  Subscription Customer Service
  Online
  Web Exclusives
  Dairy News
  Calendar of Events
  Dairy Field Reports
  DFR Behind the Scenes
  Ask The Experts
  DF Blog
  Videos
  Webinars
  Podcasts
  Source Book
  Supplier Product Guide
  FISA Distributer Guide
  Associations Index
  Current Issue
  Features
  Departments
  New Products + Marketing
  Ingredient Technology
  Plant Operations
  Resources
  Dairy Foods Archives
  Dairy Field Archives
  Digital Edition Archive
  E-Newsletter Archive
  Career Center
  Classified Ads
  Industry Links
  Market Research
  Digital Brochures & Supplements
  Case Studies
  White Papers
  DF Info
  Contact Ad Staff
  Media Kit
  Contact Editorial Staff
  Reprints
  DF Events
  Membrane Short Course
  Special Collections
  Dairy 100
  Supplier Spotlights
Search in: EditorialProductsCompanies
Washington Watch
by J. Mark Huffman
January 1, 2007

ARTICLE TOOLS
EmailEmailPrintPrintReprintsReprintsshareShare

Class I and Class II Pricing Debated


One of USDA’s first big decisions of 2007, at least as far as the dairy industry in concerned, is whether to change the Class I and Class II pricing formulas to include increases in the minimums for both classes. USDA held a public hearing in December to consider a petition from dairy producers to implement the change as quickly as possible.

The International Dairy Foods Association was among the groups lining up in opposition. The group’s chief economist, Bob Yonkers, testified at the hearing that farm milk production continues to grow, but utilization of milk in Class I and II continues to decline. The changes, he argued, would harm milk producers in some parts of the country while benefiting others.

If adopted by USDA, the changes would de-link both the Class I and Class II price formulas from the Class III and Class IV price formulas. IDFA said it estimates the move would increase the Class I minimum price by 77 cents per hundredweight and the Class II butterfat price by 1.6 cents per pound of butterfat.

FDA has heard from food industry and consumer groups as it tries to decide whether there should be a regulatory definition of functional foods, and if so, what it should be. Noting that the food industry has begun using the term in its marketing of certain foods that are said to offer some health benefit beyond nutrition, a public hearing in early December solicited input from all parties.

Regulators said they will use that input to decide if there should be new labeling requirements. The Food Products Association, the largest trade association representing the food industry, took the position that no separate category or definition of functional foods is necessary.

But another industry group, Institute of Food Technologists, which advanced the concept of functional foods as a category in a 2005 report, advocated new regulatory guidelines to allow food marketers to describe products as functional foods, as long as product labels reflected current scientific evidence.

Consumer groups testifying at the hearing were highly skeptical of the entire concept. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a long-time food industry nemesis, said while creating a functional foods category might prove useful to consumers in theory, it does not trust the industry nor government regulators to make it beneficial in practice.


J. Mark Huffman
annews@crosslink.net
Dairy Foods' Washington correspondent. Contact him at 4741 Playfield St., Annandale, VA 22003. Phone: 703/425-6879 Fax: 240/201-8367

|PrintEmail

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
BNP Media