Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Political Ecology of the Dairy Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the structure of the dairy industry, including the laws and policies that influence and regulate this critical sector of the global agricultural economy. This chapter begins with an introduction to the bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade policies that guide the international market for milk and other dairy-related products, as well as food safety and environmental regulations. The chapter then addresses the nature of the U.S. dairy industry—its structure, key support policies, and changes to the industry over the past several decades. The impacts of the U.S. dairy industry on the environment, animal welfare, and human health are also highlighted. The chapter concludes with a case study of the dairy industry in Hawaii, which reflects many of the larger trends occurring nation-wide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See OECD (2004), p. 31.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., p. 93.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., pp. 58, 63, 66, 70.

  4. 4.

    See Hadjigeorgalis (2005), p. 4.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p. 6.

  6. 6.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  7. 7.

    See Suzuki and Kaiser (2005), p. 1901.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., p. 1902.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., pp. 1902–1903.

  10. 10.

    See Suzuki and Kaiser (2005), p. 1903.

  11. 11.

    See OECD (2004), p. 96.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p. 102.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 98.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., pp. 91–92.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., p. 91.

  16. 16.

    See World Trade Organization (1994), p. 1.

  17. 17.

    See Hadjigeorgalis (2005), p. 4.

  18. 18.

    See Suzuki and Kaiser (2005), pp. 1903–1904.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p. 1906.

  20. 20.

    See OECD (2004), pp. 19–21.

  21. 21.

    See Hadjigeorgalis (2005), p. 3.

  22. 22.

    See von Keyserlingk et al. (2013), p. 5417.

  23. 23.

    See Demirbas et al. (2006), p. 238.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 240.

  25. 25.

    See OECD (2004), p. 20.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p. 165.

  27. 27.

    See DuPuis (2002), p. 125.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., p. 128.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p. 130.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., pp. 131, 141–142.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., pp. 137–138.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., p. 139.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 141.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., pp. 141–142.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 142.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 142.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 160.

  38. 38.

    See von Keyserlingk et al. (2013), p. 5406.

  39. 39.

    See Susanto et al. (2010), p. 1776.

  40. 40.

    Higher amounts of hired foreign labor relative to the total hired labor increase the probability of exit intentions from dairy farming. Essentially, an expected labor shortage in the future (due to tightened immigration policy) increases the probability of exiting dairy farming. The effects of herd size, however, seem to supersede the effects of the ratio of foreign labor to total labor in influencing the probability of exit from dairy farming (see Susanto et al. 2010, pp. 1778, 1780).

  41. 41.

    See Hadjigeorgalis (2005), p. 2.

  42. 42.

    See Bozic and Gould (2009), p. 238.

  43. 43.

    See Stukenberg et al. (2006), p. 1198.

  44. 44.

    See Sumner and Balagtas (2002), p. 7.

  45. 45.

    See Blayney et al. (2006), p. 1.

  46. 46.

    See Stukenberg et al. (2006), p. 1205.

  47. 47.

    See Price (2004); Stukenberg et al. (2006), p. 1205.

  48. 48.

    See Manchester and Blayney (2001), p. 6.

  49. 49.

    See Sumner and Balagtas (2002), p. 2.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p. 1.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  52. 52.

    See Bartlett (1972), p. 18.

  53. 53.

    See DuPuis and Block (2006), p. 5.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 6.

  55. 55.

    See DuPuis and Block (2006), pp. 4–5.

  56. 56.

    See Shields (2009), p. 6.

  57. 57.

    See Stukenberg et al. (2006), p. 1195.

  58. 58.

    See Chouinard et al. (2010), p. 62.

  59. 59.

    See Cakir and Balagtas (2012), p. 648.

  60. 60.

    See DuPuis and Block (2006), p. 4.

  61. 61.

    See Cakir and Balagtas (2012), p. 648.

  62. 62.

    See Sumner and Balagtas (2002), pp. 3, 5.

  63. 63.

    See Shields (2009), p. 6.

  64. 64.

    See Chouinard et al. (2010), p. 59.

  65. 65.

    See Chang and Mishra (2011), p. 2945.

  66. 66.

    See Chouinard et al. (2010), p. 61.

  67. 67.

    See Sumner and Balagtas (2002), p. 7.

  68. 68.

    See Bozic and Gould (2009), p. 5.

  69. 69.

    See U.S. Congress (2014).

  70. 70.

    See Stephenson and Novakovic (2014), p. 1.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., pp. 2–3.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., p. 1.

  74. 74.

    See U.S. Congress (2014).

  75. 75.

    See Stephenson and Novakovic (2014), p. 1.

  76. 76.

    See Sumner and Balagtas (2002), p. 7.

  77. 77.

    See Manchester and Blayney (2001), p. 11.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., p. 12.

  79. 79.

    See Manchester and Blayney (2001), p. 13.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., pp. 13–14.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., p. 14.

  82. 82.

    See Suzuki and Kaiser (2005), p. 1903.

  83. 83.

    See Manchester and Blayney (2001), p. 14.

  84. 84.

    See Suzuki and Kaiser (2005), p. 1903.

  85. 85.

    See Cakir and Balagtas (2012), p. 647.

  86. 86.

    See Stukenberg et al. (2006), pp. 1202–1203.

  87. 87.

    See Susanto et al. (2010), p. 1774.

  88. 88.

    See Bragg and Dalton (2004), p. 3097; Susanto et al. (2010), p. 1775.

  89. 89.

    See Melhim et al. (2009), p. 2.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., p. 4.

  91. 91.

    See Bozic and Gould (2009), p. 1.

  92. 92.

    See Cakir and Balagtas (2012), pp. 647–649.

  93. 93.

    See Bozic and Gould (2009), p. 1.

  94. 94.

    See Stukenberg et al. (2006), p. 1204.

  95. 95.

    Advancements in genetics, nutrition, and herd management have significantly contributed to the fourfold increase in milk yields between 1944 and 2007, and well as the associated reduction in the number of farms and cows (von Keyserlingk et al. 2013, p. 5406).

  96. 96.

    See Shields (2009), p. 2.

  97. 97.

    See von Keyserlingk et al. (2013), pp. 5406, 5408.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., pp. 5408–5409.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., p. 5409.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., pp. 5409, 5412.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., p. 5411.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p. 5408.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., p. 5413.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., p. 5412.

  105. 105.

    See von Keyserlingk et al. (2013), p. 5415.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., p. 5415.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., p. 5409.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., pp. 5419–5420.

  109. 109.

    See Bergman et al. (2014), p. 4275.

  110. 110.

    Nestlé also makes several commitments in this announcement. First, they write that they will ensure that all animal-derived materials derived used in the manufacturing of Nestlé, products fully comply with applicable local laws and regulations on farm animal welfare. Second, they support the development and implementation of science-based international standards and guidelines by World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and will contribute to the development of an International Organization for Specification (ISO) technical specification to support the implementation of these OIE guidelines. More specifically, they plan to engage with supply chain partners to establish traceability of the animal-derived materials they source. They will also undertake a monitoring program to understand the current status of farm animal and welfare practices, and the materiality of the use of such practices in their supply chains. Third, they will support and implement actions to promote animal health and welfare, and eliminate practices which contravene the “Five Freedoms” for animals, which they outline in their report. Fourth, they will engage with suppliers, farmers, industry associations, governments, international organizations, NGOs, scientists, and other relevant stakeholders to improve their understanding of farm animal issues; adapt commitments and practices to achieve the goal of improving farm animal welfare in supply chains; develop awareness of farm animal health and welfare in the food supply chain; and implement collective actions to address gaps. Finally, Nestlé commits to regularly and publicly reporting its progress in meeting this Commitment (Nestlé 2014).

  111. 111.

    See Dragich (2013), p. 405.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., p. 391.

  113. 113.

    See Strauss (2011), p. 355.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., pp. 373–374.

  115. 115.

    See Dragich (2013), p. 391.

  116. 116.

    Ibid., p. 423.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., p. 407.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., pp. 423–424.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., p. 398.

  120. 120.

    See Beyranevand (2012), p. 10.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., pp. 1–2.

  122. 122.

    See Dragich (2013), p. 398.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., p. 399.

  124. 124.

    Ibid., p. 415.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., pp. 415–416.

  126. 126.

    See Dragich (2013), pp. 403–404.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., p. 404.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., p. 419.

  129. 129.

    See Kennedy (2004), p. 1.

  130. 130.

    See David (2012), p. 598.

  131. 131.

    See Langer et al. (2012), p. 386.

  132. 132.

    See David (2012), p. 598.

  133. 133.

    See Kennedy (2004), p. 1.

  134. 134.

    See McBride and Greene (2009), p. 793.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., p. 794.

  136. 136.

    See U.S. Congress (1990), pp. 25–10.

  137. 137.

    See McBride and Greene (2009), p. 811.

  138. 138.

    See DuPuis (2002), p. 225.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., pp. 223, 225.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., p. 223.

  141. 141.

    See Lee (2007), p. 2.

  142. 142.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  143. 143.

    Ibid., p. 4.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., p. 5.

  145. 145.

    See Lee (2007), p. 2.

  146. 146.

    Ibid., p. 15.

  147. 147.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  148. 148.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  150. 150.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  152. 152.

    See Lee (2007), pp. 14–15.

  153. 153.

    It is worth noting that California specifically prohibits the repasteurization of fluid milk for fluid purpose. Lee (2007), p. 16.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., p. 17.

  155. 155.

    Ibid., p. 18.

  156. 156.

    See OmniTrak Group Inc. (2011), p. 1.

  157. 157.

    Ibid., p. 2.

References

  • Bartlett RW (1972) Are federal milk orders operating in the public interest? Ill Agric Econ 12(1):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman MA, Richert RM, Cicconi-Hogan KM et al (2014) Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 97(7):4269–4280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyranevand LJ (2012) Milking it: reconsidering the FDA’s refusal to require labeling of dairy products produced from rBST treated cows in light of International Dairy Foods Association v Boggs. Fordham Environ Law Rev 23(1):102–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Blayney D, Gehlhar M, Bolling CH et al (2006) U.S. dairy at a global crossroads. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 28. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/868595/err28_002.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Bragg LA, Dalton TJ (2004) Factors affecting the decision to exit dairy farming: a two-stage regression analysis. J Dairy Sci 87(9):3092–3098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozic, M, Gould BW (2009) The dynamics of the U.S. milk supply: implications for changes in U.S. dairy policy. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Staff Paper No. 540. http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap540.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Cakir M, Balagtas JV (2012) Estimating market power of U.S. dairy cooperatives in the fluid milk market. Am J Agric Econ 94(3):647–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang HH, Mishra AK (2011) Does the Milk Income Loss Contract Program improve the technical efficiency of U.S. dairy farms? J Dairy Sci 94(6):2945–2951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouinard HH, Davis DE, LaFrance JT et al (2010) Milk marketing order winners and losers. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 32(1):56–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David SD (2012) Raw milk in court: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 127(6):598–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirbas N, Karahan O, Kenanoglu Z et al (2006) The evaluation of the developments in food safety systems formation in the world for dairy industry from the standpoint of Turkey. Agric Econ-Czech 52(5):236–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragich M (2013) Do you know what’s on your plate? The importance of regulating the processes of food production. J Environ Law Litig 28(3):385–445

    Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis EM (2002) Nature’s perfect food: how milk became America’s drink. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis EM, Block D (2006) Sustainability and scale: U.S. milk-market orders as relocalization policy. Environ Plann A 40(8):1987–2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjigeorgalis E (2005) The U.S. dairy industry and international trade in dairy products. New Mexico State, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, Cooperative Extension Service Technical Report 42. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/23950/1/tr050042.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Kennedy P (2004) An overview of U.S. state milk laws. http://www.realmilk.com/state-updates/raw-milk-statutes-and-codes-page-1/. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Langer AJ, Ayers T, Grass J et al (2012) Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws – United States, 1993-2006. Emerg Infect Dis 18(3):385–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee CN (2007) Issues related to Hawaii’s dairy industry. Department of Human Nutrition, Food, and Animal Science, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Manoa

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchester AC, Blayney DP (2001) Milk pricing in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 761. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib761.aspx. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • McBride WD, Greene C (2009) Costs of organic milk production on U.S. dairy farms. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 31(4):793–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Melhim A, O’Donoghue EJ, Shumway CR (2009) Do the largest firms grow and diversify the fastest? The case of U.S. dairies. Appl Econ Perspect Pol 31(2):284–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestle (2014) Nestle commitment on farm animal welfare. http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating%20shared%20value/rural_development/nestle-commitment-farm-animal-welfare.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • OmniTrak Group Inc. (2011) Local food market demand study of O’ahu shoppers executive summary. Ulupono Initiative, Honolulu

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for economic cooperation and development (2004) Agriculture, trade, and the environment: The dairy sector. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5104051e.pdf?expires=1418751308&id=id&accname=ocid177224&checksum=6959B94F8EBAB3E964561F79ABAD8EC4. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Price MJ (2004) Effects of U.S. dairy policies on markets for milk and dairy products. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Technical Bulletin Number 1910. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/880661/tb1910.pdf0x-_ls-.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Shields DA (2009) Dairy market and policy issues. Congressional Research Service 7-5700, R40205. http://congressional.proquest.com/congressional/result/pqpresultpage.gispdfhitspanel.pdflink/http%3A%242f%242fprod.cosmos.dc4.bowker-dmz.com%242fapp-bin%242fgis-congresearch%242f4%242f5%242fd%242fd%242fcrs-2009-rsi-0126_from_1_to_13.pdf/entitlementkeys=1234|app-gis|congresearch|crs-2009-rsi-0126. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Stephenson MW, Novakovic AM (2014) The dairy subtitle of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Choices 29(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss D (2011) An analysis of the FDA food safety modernization act: protection for consumers and boon for business. Food Drug Law J 66(3):353–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Stukenberg D, Blayney D, Miller J (2006) Major advances in milk marketing: government and industry consolidation. J Dairy Sci 89(4):1195–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner DA, Balagtas JV (2002) United States’ agricultural systems: an overview of U.S. dairy policy. In: Roginski H, Fuquay J, Fox P (eds) Encyclopedia of dairy sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Susanto D, Rosson CP, Anderson DP et al (2010) Immigration policy, foreign agricultural labor, and exit intentions in the United States dairy industry. J Dairy Sci 93(4):1774–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki N, Kaiser HM (2005) Impacts of the Doha Round Framework Agreements on dairy policy. J Dairy Sci 88(5):1901–1908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (1990) Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624. U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (2014) Act of February 7, 2014, Public Law 113-79, 128 STAT. 649, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Keyserlingk MAG, Martin NP, Kebreab E et al (2013) Invited review: sustainability of the US dairy industry. J Dairy Sci 96(9):5405–5425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization (1994) International dairy agreement. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ida-94_01_e.htm. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Davis, New Haven, CT, USA

    Clare Gupta

Authors
  1. Clare Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clare Gupta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Food Law International, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Gabriela Steier

  2. Food Law International, LLP, Washington, D.C., USA

    Kiran K. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, C. (2017). The Political Ecology of the Dairy Industry. In: Steier, G., Patel, K. (eds) International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18001-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18002-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation