US farm groups urge Congress to pass Milk from Family Dairies Act

Senator Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, introduced the bill in June, with Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders as a co-sponsor. It was referred that month to the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it awaits a hearing. The organisations backing the October letter include groups representing farmers, rural communities, labour, processors and environmental interests. They argue that payments to American milk producers have remained below production costs for decades, preventing farmers from meeting bills, funding sustainable practices and providing fair wages. Their letter calls for policy centred on small and medium-sized dairies, saying the proposed changes would improve farmers’ remuneration, market transparency and bargaining power while securing an affordable and reliable milk supply for consumers, workers and processors.

Welch’s Senate Bill 4906 would set minimum milk prices using farm production costs and herd size, assign production allowances and charge farmers who produce beyond their allocations. The proposed Dairy Market Stabilization Program would be run by the US Department of Agriculture, advised by a National Dairy Producer Board led by producers and by regional boards. According to Welch’s office, the programme would bring national output into line with domestic demand so that farmers receive fair prices. The legislation would also encourage consumption of American-produced dairy products, establish oversight and accountability arrangements, and prohibit financial exploitation or consolidation within the programme. Welch argues that farmers currently have limited negotiating power because they depend on a small number of large processors, which bottle milk and manufacture dairy products. He says fluctuating processor payments frequently leave production costs uncovered.

The NFFC links farm closures both to low prices and to output exceeding domestic consumption, which it says has increased dependence on exports to absorb surplus milk. Its letter says licensed dairy herds fell by almost two-thirds over the past 20 years, while national milk output rose by more than 30%. The coalition argues that dependence on overseas buyers exposes smaller producers to international political uncertainty. The number of independent dairy farmers fell from approximately 200,000 in 1980 to around 23,600 by 2025. Juliette Albrecht, a second-generation farmer with a 100-cow dairy in south-west Missouri, says the current market threatens the livelihoods of thousands of independent producers. She says fewer herds have been accompanied by more cows as production has shifted into very large dairies.

Albrecht argues that this concentration has enabled processors to impose terms on farmers, including ending milk-collection routes without warning, charging unaffordable transport fees and requiring contracts that restrict direct raw-milk sales. She says fear of retaliation discourages many producers from speaking publicly. Missouri allows farmers to sell raw milk originating on their farms to individuals for personal consumption, and Albrecht says her cooperative permits those transactions. Direct sales provide her with another income stream and make her less fearful of retaliation. She says other cooperatives prohibit such sales, although selling without an intermediary can generate substantially higher returns than supplying a processing plant. Albrecht describes her current cooperative as one that operates in accordance with the cooperative model.

Tristan Swartz, a Wisconsin farmer who advocates dairy reform through his social-media page, Doing It Wrong Dairy, also questions whose interests cooperatives represent. His 50-cow operation produces about 1m pounds of milk annually. Swartz says large commercial interests have acquired enough influence within cooperatives that these organisations frequently lobby on behalf of bigger businesses rather than individual small farmers. Albrecht supports the proposed legislation as a way to limit arbitrary processor decisions and place an intermediary between producers and processors, reducing the risk of retaliation. Welch likewise argues that prices covering farmers’ costs would help small and medium-sized operations remain in business and slow the concentration of dairy production.

Production allowances are a point of disagreement. Critics contend that the legislation would introduce a quota arrangement resembling Canada’s system. Albrecht argues that its prohibition on selling or leasing allowances would help stop them becoming an expensive obstacle for younger entrants. The proposal would, however, create regional waiting lists for new farmers seeking production allocations. Albrecht says farmers worry about additional entry barriers, but she argues that existing financial conditions already discourage young people from entering dairying. In her account, prospective farmers may value dairy farming and its way of life yet find the prospect of persistent debt unattractive. She says changes are needed quickly to retain younger producers.

The NMPF, which represents dairy farmers and their farmer-owned cooperatives, rejects the bill’s approach. Trey Forsyth, its vice-president for government and regulatory affairs, says the federation shares Welch’s objective of keeping producers financially viable but objects to the proposed means. In an emailed response, he argued that mandatory government supply controls have produced unintended effects, restricting farmers’ expansion and their ability to adjust to market signals. He also said such controls disadvantage producers who have already invested in increasing output and raise grocery costs for consumers. Forsyth opposed inflexible production restrictions and said the federation wanted to work with Welch and other members of Congress on measures serving farms across different sizes and circumstances.