We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Twelve years ago this January, I completed my first half marathon in Phoenix, Arizona – a fact I admit has absolutely nothing to do with dairy. But the following day, I attended a federal court hearing in Phoenix that many in the dairy industry watched and followed with more than a passing interest.
Earlier this summer (well, it was winter down under) an Australian milk processor terminated the contracts of several dairy farmers because of an oversupply of milk. The processor cited the global supply of milk generally, and the increased production of milk in Europe specifically, as the basis for its decision.
Imagine a scenario where all the manufacturers of blue jeans reached an agreement where they agreed to sell their jeans at the same predetermined price. Without price competition, the jeans manufacturers would be free to increase profits by continually driving up the price to its maximum and reducing outputs when sales failed to maintain those high prices.
Ben Yale, my mentor and a former Progressive Dairyman contributor, firmly believed that the Federal Milk Marketing Order system was a benefit to producers. He also believed that the existence of a separate state-run California marketing order served as a detriment to producers outside of California.
Two years ago, I wrote an article about a challenge to the federal marketing order for raisins. Then, the Supreme Court held that raisin growers who had a portion of their crop seized for “reserve marketing” could challenge the legality of the regulations the USDA utilized to establish these reserve marketing pools.
The federal milk marketing orders have existed in one form or another for more than 80 years. Twenty years ago, Congress mandated a full review and reform of the order system, which was completed in 1999. California was then offered the opportunity to join the federal system.
Here’s some news you might not have heard: The USDA has opened up enrollment for the new Margin Protection Program. OK, that really isn’t news.
In fact, it seems a cottage industry has sprung up to provide producers with guidance on both the mechanics of signing up for the program and analyzing all kinds of data to help producers in selecting an appropriate margin to insure.
A proposed organic agriculture promotion program has rankled some organic dairy producers. But what is really at stake for organic dairies in the possible creation of an organic promotion program?
When Congress passed the recent farm bill, one of the new provisions authorized the USDA to create a promotion, or checkoff, program applicable specifically to organic agriculture.
In a court decision issued late last year, a federal judge determined that soy milk and almond milk are not deceptively labeled. In the judge’s opinion, “even the least-discerning consumers” could readily determine that the products do not contain dairy ingredients. In my opinion, that might be a bit of a stretch. I will claim to have known some not-so-discerning customers.
As an attorney living in Ohio and working largely in the area of federal law and regulation, I have not read very many court decisions from Idaho.
Although I am certain that I have read some, I cannot specifically recall any of them. But in late January, the Idaho Supreme Court rendered an opinion in a case involving dairy farming that caught my interest.
