U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman

Marcia E. Miller

Stephen Koplan

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Acting Director, Office of Industries
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

May 2004

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3692

Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein

Products in the U.S. Market

Investigation No. 332--453
Agriculture and Forest Products Division

Staff assigned

Ronald Babula, Joanna Bonarriva, Devry Boughner,

John Fry and Brad Gehrke

This report was principally prepared by

Jonathan Coleman, Project Leader

jonathan.coleman@usitc.gov

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart

Cathy L. Jabara, Chief

Animal and Forest Products Branch

William Lipovsky, Chief

Warren Payne, Deputy Project Leader

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Ron Heller

Reviewers

James Stamps and Karl Tsuji

Administrative Support

Phyllis Boone and Janice Wayne
 1

 For the purpose of this report, the European Union refers to Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden, and United Kingdom (i.e., EU-15).

i

PREFACE

On May 14, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) received a

request from the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), under section 332(g) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) that the Commission conduct an investigation

regarding U.S. market conditions for milk proteins (appendix A). On June 5, 2003, the

Commission instituted investigation No. 332-453, Conditions of Competition for Milk

Protein Products in the U.S. Market. The Committee specifically asked the Commission to

examine the competitiveness of a variety of milk proteins in the U.S. market, focusing on

milk protein concentrate, casein, and caseinate; and the market for those products compared

with other milk proteins, including whole milk, skim milk, dried whole milk, dried skim

milk, whey, dried whey, and whey protein concentrates. The Committee requested that the

investigation cover the period 1998-2002 to the extent possible, and that the Commission

provide its completed report 12 months from the receipt of the request. In its letter, the

Committee requested the Commission to transmit a report that can be fully disclosed to the

public, that is, containing no confidential business information.

As requested by the Committee, the Commission’s report on the investigation includes

the following information:

• an overview of the global market for milk proteins in their various forms,

including such factors as consumption, production, and trade during the period

1998-2002;

• profiles of the milk protein industries of the United States and major dairy

exporting countries, and in particular, the industries of Australia, New

Zealand, and the European Union;1

• information on the overall level of government support and other government

intervention affecting producers of milk proteins in the United States and in

each of the above-referenced trading partners together with a discussion of

competitive factors, including government policies, that impact U.S.

production, use, and trade in milk protein products in their various forms;

• information on U.S. imports and exports of milk protein in its various forms

with data broken down, to the extent possible, by protein content, end use, and

manufacturing processes;

• a history of U.S. tariff classification of milk proteins and tariff treatment of

these products, including any fees or quotas imposed under section 22 of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act, tariff-rate quotas established pursuant to the

Uruguay Round Agreements, and U.S. Customs Service classification

decisions;
 2

 A list of witnesses who testified at the hearing is included in appendix C. 

ii

• a qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of how

imported milk proteins affect farm-level milk prices in the United States; and,

• other information relating to competitive factors affecting: (1) the U.S.

industry that imports and consumes milk proteins; (2) the U.S. industry that

supplies competitive products; and, (3) the competitive factors, including

government policies, that impact potential U.S. production of milk proteins in

their various forms.

Public notice of the investigation, reproduced in appendix B, was posted in the Office of the

Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and published in the

Federal Register (68 FR 35004) of June 11, 2003. A public hearing on the investigation was

held on December 11, 2003, in Washington DC.2
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Preface ................................................................. i

Abbreviations and acronyms ................................... xvii

Executive summary ................................................ xxi

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................... 1-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

Milk components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

Other forms of milk protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

Functional attributes of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

Questionnaire process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

Chapter 2: Overview of the global market for milk

protein products .............................................. 2-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Global production of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Raw milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Casein and caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Global consumption of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Dry whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Global trade in milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

Dry whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
iv

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 2: Overview of the global market for milk

protein products—Continued

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

Milk protein concentrate, caseinate, and whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

World prices of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

Chapter 3: The milk protein industry of the United

States ............................................................. 3-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Production of fluid milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Production systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Milk production, price, and industry structure trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

Cost of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Government programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

Dairy Price Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

Milk marketing orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

Classified pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

Revenue pooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

State milk marketing orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

Direct income support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

Processing of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

Industry structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

Milk protein product production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20

Skim milk powder, whole milk powder, and whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23

Ultrafiltered milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26

Government programs affecting processed milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards of identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

Imports of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29

Import trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29

Import penetration in the domestic market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32

Government import programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32

Exports of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

v

Chapter 3: The milk protein industry of the United

States—Continued

Export trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33

Government export programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

Chapter 4: The milk protein industries of major

exporting countries .......................................... 4-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

The European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Production of fluid milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Production systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Milk production and industry trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Milk prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

Costs of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

Government assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Common Organization of the Market for Milk and Milk Products . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Milk delivery quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Butter market intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

Skim milk powder market intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Common Agricultural Policy reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

Processing of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Industry structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Milk protein for processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Milk protein product production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Government assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

Aid for disposal of skim milk powder in casein and caseinate production . . . . . . 4-18

Aid for disposal of skim milk powder in animal feed production . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Import trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Import programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Milk protein exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Export trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Export assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Export refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Inward processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

Production of fluid milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

Production system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

vi

Chapter 4: The milk protein industries of major

exporting countries—Continued

Milk production and industry trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

Costs of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

Milk prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

Government assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

Milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

Industry structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

Milk protein product production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

Research and market promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

Industry structure and regulations following restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

Milk protein exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

Exports trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

Exports regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

Foreign exchange regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

Milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

Production of fluid milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

Production system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

Milk production and industry trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

Costs of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

Milk prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

Government assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

Milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

Industry structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

Production of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

Research and market promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

Milk protein exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

Milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

Chapter 5: Comparison of competitive factors

affecting milk protein product markets in the

United States and major exporting countries........ 5-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Comparison of milk production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Comparison of milk prices paid by processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported milk protein product prices . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Comparison of prices of imported milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

vii

Chapter 5: Comparison of competitive factors

affecting milk protein product markets in the

United States and major exporting countries—

Continued

Government programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Overall levels of support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Impact of government dairy policies on U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate . . . 5-9

Impact of EU and U.S. dairy policies on U.S. imports of milk protein

concentrate from the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

Relationship between U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate and EU

policies, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

Contribution of EU skim milk powder export refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

Contribution of EU casein production aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

Contribution of U.S. Dairy Price Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

Developments in U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate from the EU after

2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

Impact of Common Agricultural Policy reform and EU expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

U.S. dairy programs and feasibility of milk protein product production in the

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

Milk protein concentrate production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

Return on skim milk powder production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

Return on milk protein concentrate production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

Impact of capital costs on milk protein concentrate production . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

Risk premium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21

Market demand for U.S.-produced milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21

Feasibility of casein production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

Government assistance in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

Production technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

Transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

Chapter 6: Analysis of U.S. imports of milk protein

products ......................................................... 6-1

Importers’ questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Import volumes by protein content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Import volumes by production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Import values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Import average unit values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

viii

Chapter 6: Analysis of U.S. imports of milk protein

products—Continued

Imports of casein and caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

Imports of casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

Imports of caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

Imports of milk protein products on a protein basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

Protein imports from milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

Protein imports from casein and caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

Chapter 7: Uses and substitutability of imported milk

protein products .............................................. 7-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

Uses of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

Substitutability of imported milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

Dairy products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

Regulatory factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

Technical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

Natural cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

Processed cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

Questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12

Ice cream and yogurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

Regulatory and technical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

Questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14

Specialty nutrition products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

Technical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

Weight-loss, meal-replacement, and sport products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16

Medical nutrition products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16

Questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17

Nondairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18

Technical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

ix

Chapter 7: Uses and substitutability of imported milk

protein products—Continued

Other food applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

Questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20

Regulatory and technical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20

Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-21

Potential displacement of U.S.-produced milk proteins by imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-22

Chapter 8: Tariff treatment of U.S. imports of milk

protein products .............................................. 8-1

History of U.S. tariff classification and tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

Tariff history before World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture . . . . . . . . 8-3

Skim milk powder (HTS 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, and 0402.10.50) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Milk protein concentrate (HTS 0404.90.10 and 3501.10.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Casein and caseinate (HTS 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

U.S. International Trade Commission investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

1979 study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

1981 investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

1993 investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

Tariff history after the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture . . . . . . . 8-8

Tariffication and market-access commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

Tariff bindings and reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

Special safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

Tariff treatment for imports of milk protein products in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

Recent rulings by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection concerning

milk protein concentrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

Chapter 9: Assessment of the impact of imported

milk protein products on U.S. farm-level milk

prices ............................................................ 9-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

Recent trends in U.S. farm-level milk prices and imported milk protein products . . . . 9-4

Relationships between milk protein imports and U.S. dairy product markets . . . . . . . . . 9-4

Effect of milk protein imports on the skim milk powder market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

x

Chapter 9: Assessment of the impact of imported

milk protein products on U.S. farm-level milk

prices—Continued

Effect of milk protein imports on the butter, cheese, and whey markets . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

Milk pricing in the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

Pricing under Federal Milk Marketing Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

The all-milk price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12

Effect of milk protein product imports on Commodity Credit Corporation stocks . . . . . 9-12

Estimates of the contribution of imported milk proteins to Commodity Credit

Corporation stocks using Commission questionnaire data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13

Other estimates of the effect of milk protein imports on Commodity Credit

Corporation stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-17

Impact of tilt changes on Federal Milk Marketing Order prices and farm-level

prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-18

Impact of tilt changes on Federal Milk Marketing Order prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19

Impact of tilt changes on farm-level prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-20

Quantitative analysis of the impact of milk protein imports on farm-level prices . . . . . . 9-22

Burke and Cox (2004, ongoing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-23

Bishop and Nicholson (2004, ongoing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-27

Sumner and Balagtas (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-28

Bailey (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-29

Appendixes 

A. Request letter from the Senate Finance Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Federal Register Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Hearing calendar and position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Introduction to milk proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards of identity for milk protein products . . . . . . E-1

F. Census trade tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Tariff terms and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Technical modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Boxes

1-1. Milk protein products and production processes and technology used in the milk

protein industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

7-1. Typical applications of milk protein products by market segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

9-1. Milk class and component price formulas under Federal Milk Marketing Orders . . . . . . . . 9-10

D-1. Production processes and technology used in the milk protein industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xi

Figures

1-1. U.S. imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price, 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1-2. Raw milk: Composition by major constituent and share (by weight) of total . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1-3. Milk and milk derivative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

2-1. Share of global dairy exports by major countries, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

3-1. Major distribution channels for milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

5-1. U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate from the European Union and net potential

revenue associated with government policies, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

6-1. U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate by protein concentration, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6-2. U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate by major source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

9-1. Overview of impact of U.S. imports of milk protein products on farm-level prices . . . . . . 9-2

9-2. U.S. imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price, 1996-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

9-3. Impact of substitutable milk protein imports on the U.S. skim milk powder market . . . . . . 9-6

9-4. U.S. milk pricing under Federal Milk Marketing Orders: Links between milk protein

imports and the all-milk price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

D-1. Raw milk: Composition by major constituent and share (by weight) of total . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

D-2. Milk and milk derivative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5

D-3. Production process of whole milk powder and skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8

D-4. Production process of dry whey, whey protein concentrate, and whey protein isolate . . . . D-10

D-5. Production process for casein and caseniate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-11

D-6. Production process of ultrafiltered milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-14

D-7. Production process for blend milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-14

D-8. Production process for co-precipitate milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-15

Tables

ES-1 Milk protein concentrate: Use in all applications, processed cheese products, and

specialty nutrition, by percent protein, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

ES-2 Milk protein concentrate: End-use application purchases by protein concentration,

as share of total purchases, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv

ES-3 Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. imports by protein concentration and

major supplier, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxx

1-1. Composition of selected milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

2-1. Cow's milk production, cow numbers, and yield per cow, by major producing

countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2-2. Production of skim milk powder, whole milk powder, dry whey, and casein and

caseinate, by major producing countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2-3. Estimated consumption of skim milk powder, whole milk powder, and dry whey,

by major consuming countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2-4. Skim milk powder: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2-5. Whole milk powder: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2-6. Dry whey: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2-7. Casein: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xii

Tables—Continued

2-8. Milk protein products: International prices and U.S. import unit values, by major

source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

3-1. U.S. milk production: Trends in industry structure, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3-2. U.S. milk production: Costs and returns, 2000-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3-3. Skim milk powder: U.S. supply/demand balance, government stocks, and U.S.

prices, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3-4. Skim milk powder and cheese: Manufacturing plant numbers and production in the 

United States, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

3-5. U.S. fluid milk: Production and availability for processing, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

3-6. Milk protein products: U.S. production by product type, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

3-7. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product type, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30

3-8. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3-9. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by major protein product and principal

suppliers, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3-10. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product on a protein basis, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . 3-33

3-11. Milk protein products: U.S. exports by product type, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34

3-12. Milk protein products: U.S. exports by destination, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

3-13. Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP): Maximum allowable subsidies under the

World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture, by DEIP year (July 1 to

June 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36

3-14. Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP): Awards by fiscal year (October1 to

September 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37

4-1. European Union: Milk protein overview, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4-2. European Union: Milk production trends, by primary protein exporters, 1998-2002 . . . . 4-5

4-3. European Union: Milk prices by selected member states, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4-4. European Union: Milk cost and returns, by primary protein exporters, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4-5. European Union: National quota for milk delivery and quota utilization, by primary

protein exporters, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4-6. European Union: Skim milk powder demand/supply balance and prices, 1998-2002 . . . 4-13

4-7. European Union: Industry concentration, top-ten dairy companies by milk

processed, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4-8. European Union: Production of milk protein products, by product type, and

primary protein exporters, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4-9. European Union: Production aid for the conversion of skim milk into casein and

caseinates, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

4-10. European Union: Quantity of subsidized skim milk used in the production of casein

and caseinates, by EU total and primary milk protein exporters, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . 4-19

4-11. European Union: Milk protein imports by primary supplier and products, 1998-2002 . . 4-21

4-12. European Union: Milk protein exports by primary destinations and products,

1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4-13. European Union: Milk protein imports under inward processing (IP) procedures,

1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4-14. New Zealand: Structure of milk production sector, 1997/98-2002/03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xiii

Tables—Continued

4-15. New Zealand: Production of milk protein products, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4-16. New Zealand: Production of dairy products by Fonterra, 2001/02 and 2002/03 . . . . . . . . 4-33

4-17. New Zealand: Tatua production of milk protein products, 1998/99-2002/03 . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4-18. New Zealand: Exports of milk protein products to the world, the United States,

and rest of the world, 1998/99-2002/03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4-19. New Zealand: Exports of casein by type to the world, the United States, and rest of

the world, 1998/99-2002/03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4-20. New Zealand: Exports of milk protein products, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

4-21. New Zealand: Tariff-rate quota amounts by markets and products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

4-22. Australia: Structure of milk production sector, 1997/98-2002/03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

4-23. Australia: Production and exports of selected dairy products, 1997/98-2002/03 . . . . . . . 4-48

4-24. Australia: Production of milk protein products, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

5-1. Cost of milk production: International Farm Comparison Network, selected farms,

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5-2. Average milk prices paid to producers, by country, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5-3. Milk protein products: Price per pound of protein, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5-4. Milks protein concentrate: Index of average unit values of U.S. imports by type

and major source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5-5. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, international

comparison of support to the dairy sector, by country, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5-6. European Union: Variables used to calculate net potential revenue from

government policies, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5-7. Milk protein products: Estimated return on the production of MPC 42, MPC 70,

and MPC 80 versus the return on skim milk powder at the support price from

100 pounds of skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

5-8. Milk protein products: Estimated return on the production of casein and whey

versus the return on skim milk powder at the current support price from

100 pounds of skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5-9. Real quarterly exchange rates in foreign currency per U.S. dollar: Australia,

New Zealand, and the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

6-1. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports by protein

concentration and source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6-2. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. imports by protein concentration,

1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6-3. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports from New Zealand by

protein concentration, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6-4. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports form Australia by 

protein concentration, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6-5. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports from the European

Union by protein concentration, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

6-6. Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. Imports by production process and

major source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xiv

Tables—Continued

6-7. Milk protein concentrate: Value of U.S. imports by protein concentration and

major source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6-8. Milk protein concentrate: Average unit value of U.S. imports by protein

concentration and major source, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

6-9. Casein: U.S.. imports for consumption; by type, quantity, value, and average unit

value, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6-10. Casein: U.S. imports for consumption; by source, quantity, value, and average

unit value, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

6-11. Caseinate: U.S. imports for consumption; by type; quantity, value, and average

unit value, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6-12. Caseinate: U.S. imports for consumption, by source, quantity, value, and average

unit value, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6-13. Milk protein products: Imports of milk protein concentrate, casein, and caseinate,

quantity, value and average unit value of U.S. imports on a protein basis, 

1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17

7-1. Number of questionnaire responses by product and market category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7-2. Milk protein concentrate: Purchases by end-use application as a share of total

purchases by protein concentration, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7-3. Milk protein concentrate: Purchases by protein concentration for use in processed

cheese and specialty nutrition products as a share of total purchases, 2002 . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7-4. Casein: Purchases of acid and rennet casein as share of total purchases, 2002 . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7-5. Caseinate: Purchases of sodium and calcium caseinate, as share of total purchases,

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6

7-6. Skim milk powder: Domestic sales by end-use application, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

7-7. Whey protein concentrate: Domestic sales by end-use application, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . 7-9

7-8. Milk protein products: Estimated quantity of protein from milk protein

concentrate, casein, and caseinate that substitute for U.S.-produced milk

protein, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-22

7-9. Milk protein products: Quantity of milk protein product imports, and estimated

volume of milk protein imports that substitute for U.S.-produced milk protein,

1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-24

8-1. Column 1-General Normal Trade Relations rates for skim milk powder, milk

protein concentrate, casein, and caseinates, 1985 to 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8-2. Certain milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

chapter and note, applicable section 22 quota, and World Trade Organization

Agreement on Agriculture bases and bound tariff-rate quota market access

commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

8-3. Certain milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

chapter and note, in-quota, and base (1995) and bound (2000) over-quota

tariffs under World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8-4. Milk protein products: Product descriptions, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States subheadings, tariff treatment, chapter 4 note, and tariff in 2004 . . . . . . . 8-12

9-1. U.S. skim milk powder market: Supply/use balance, government stocks, and

prices, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xv

Tables—Continued

9-2. Milk protein products: Quantity of milk protein product imports that substitute for

U.S.-produced milk protein 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15

9-3. U.S. skim milk powder market: Analysis of Commodity Credit Corporation stocks

and SMP substitutable imports, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-16

9-4. Analysis of the impact of butter-power tilts on Federal Milk Marketing Order prices,

an example of Northeast order, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-20

9-5. Summary of models and results on effects of milk protein concentrate imports on

U.S. dairy industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-24

D-1. Composition of milk protein products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5

D-2. Main functional characteristics of milk protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-16

E-1. Dairy foods covered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standard of identity

regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4

F-1. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product type, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3

F-2. Milk protein products: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-4

F-3. Casein: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5

F-4. Caseinate: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-6

F-5. Milk protein concentrate: U.S. imports by principal supplier, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . F-7

F-6. Milk albumin: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8

F-7. Casein/milk protein concentrate: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . F-9

F-8. Skim milk powder: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-10

F-9. Whey protein concentrate: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . F-11

F-10. Whole milk powder: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-12

F-11. Whey: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-13

F-12. Fluid whole milk: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-14

F-13. Concentrated unsweetened milk: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . F-15

F-14. Dried whey: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-16

F-15. Fluid skim milk: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-17

F-16. Food preparations: U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-18

F-17. U.S. imports from World, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-19

F-18. U.S. imports from New Zealand, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-19

F-19. U.S. imports from Australia, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-20

F-20. U.S. imports from the European Union, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-20

F-21. U.S. imports from India, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-21

F-22. U.S. imports from Poland, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-22

F-23. Milk protein concentrate: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-23

F-24. Casein: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-24

F-25. Caseinate: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-25

F-26. Fluid whole milk: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-26

F-27. Fluid skim milk: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-27

F-28. Concentrated milk: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-28

F-29. Dried whole milk: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-29

F-30. Dried skim milk: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-30

F-31. Whey: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-31
CONTENTS—Continued

Page

xvi

Tables—Continued

F-33. Whey protein concentrate: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-33

F-34. Milk protein products: U.S. exports by product type, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-34

F-35. Milk protein products: U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-35

G-1. Milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings; description; U.S.

column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003; U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S.

imports, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5

H-1. Forecast error variance decompositions of U.S. MPC 4 imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-9

H-2. Bailey’s SUR-Estimated Econometric Results (with t-statistics parenthesized) . . . . . . . . H-24
OMB No.: 3117--0188

05/04

ITC READER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. Market

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is interested in your voluntary comments (burden less than 10 minutes) to help assess the value and quality of our reports, and to assist

in improving future products. Please return survey by facsimile (202-205-2384) or by mail to the

USITC, or visit the USITC Internet home page

(http://reportweb.usitc.gov/reader_survey/readersurvey.html) to electronically submit a Web version of

the survey.

(Please print; responses below not for attribution):

Your name and title:

Organization (if applicable):

Which format is most useful to you? - CD-ROM - Hardcopy - USITC Internet site

Circle your assessment of each factor below: SA = strongly agree, A = agree, N = no opinion,

D = disagree, or SD = strongly disagree.

Value of this report:

" Statistical data are useful SA A N D SD ..............................

" Other non-numerical facts are useful SA A N D SD ...................

" Analysis augments statistical data/other facts SA A N D SD ............

" Relevant topic(s)/subject matter SA A N D SD ........................

" Primary or leading source of information on this subject SA A N D SD . .

Quality of this report:

" Clearly written SA A N D SD .......................................

" Key issues are addressed SA A N D SD ...............................

" Charts and graphs aid understanding SA A N D SD ...................

" References cite pertinent sources SA A N D SD .......................

Other preferred source of information on this subject:

Specify chapters, sections, or topics in report that are most useful:

Identify any type of additional information that should have been included in report:

Suggestions for improving report:

Please update your mailing and electronic addresses below (voluntary)-

Mailing address:

City, state, and zip code:

E-mail address:
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20436

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE, USE $300

FOLD

NO POSTAGE

NECESSARY

IF MAILED

IN THE

UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12840 WASHINGTON, DC

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

U.S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

500 E STREET, SW.

WASHINGTON, DC 20277--2840

ATTN:

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIES

Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein

Products in the U.S. Market
xvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAA Agriculture Adjustment Act

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics

ADPI American Dairy Products Institute

AFFA Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Australia 

AMA Agricultural Management Association program

AMAA Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

AUV Average unit value

AVE Ad valorem equivalent

CAP Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union

CBI Confidential business information

CCC Commodity Credit Corporation

CDR Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CME Chicago Mercantile Exchange

CN Common nomenclature

CNI Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients

COA Court of Auditors 

Commission U.S. International Trade Commission

Customs U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

cwt Hundredweight, 100 pounds

DCANZ Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand

DEIP Dairy Export Incentive Program

DF Diafiltration

DFA Dairy Farmers of America

DIAP Dairy Industry Adjustment Package

DIP Dairy Indemnity Program

DIRA Dairy Industries Restructuring Act

DMLA program Dairy Market Loss Assistance program

DMS Domestic market support

DPSP Dairy Price Support Program

DRAP Dairy Regional Assistance Program

DRDC Dairy Research and Development Corporation

DSAP Dairy Structural Adjustment Program

ECU European Currency Unit

EDA European Dairy Association

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program

ERS USDA, Economic Research Service

EU European Union

FADN Farm Accounting Data Network (EU)

FAO The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FAS USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDI Foreign direct investment

FMD Foreign Market Development Assistance Program

FMMO Federal Milk Marketing Orders

FRST Foundation for Research Science and Technology

FSA USDA, Farm Services Agency

FY Fiscal year
xviii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS—

Continued

GAO General Accounting Office

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GMP Glycomacropeptide, one type of whey protein found in milk

GSSE General services support estimate

HS Harmonized system

HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

IDB Irish Dairy Board

IDF International Dairy Federation

IDFA International Dairy Foods Association

IDIA Irish Dairy Industry Association

IE Ion exchange

IFCN International Farm Comparison Network

IP Inward processing

ITC U.S. International Trade Commission

lb Pound

MAF New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

MAP Market Access Program

MF Microfiltration

MFN rate Most favored nation rate

MIG Marketing and Innovation Group

MILC payments Milk Income Loss Contract payments

MPC Milk protein concentrate

MPI Milk protein isolate

mt Metric tons

MTR Mid-Term Review

NAC Nominal assistance coefficient

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NASS USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service

NDM Nonfat dry milk

NDPRP National Dairy Promotion and Research Program

NFDM Nonfat dry milk

NMPF National Milk Producers Federation

NPC Nominal protection coefficient

NRCS USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSPF not specifically provided for

NTR rate Normal trade relations rate

NZDB New Zealand Dairy Board

NZDG New Zealand Dairy Group 

NZDRI New Zealand Dairy Research Institute

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PMO Pasteurized Milk Ordinance

PSE Producer support estimate

R&D Research and development

SDA Scheme Supplementary Dairy Adjustment Scheme

SIC Standard Industrial Classification System 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS—

Continued

xix

SMP Skim milk powder

SNF Solids-not-fat, also known as skim solids, or the portion of milk containing the

lactose, minerals, and proteins

SSG Special safeguard

SUR Seemingly unrelated regression

TEAGASC Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority

Tilt A USDA policy change in which the support price for SMP is lowered (raised)

necessarily raising (lowering) the support price for butter, usually done to control

forfeitures to the CCC

TMP Total milk protein

TRQ Tariff-rate quota

TSUS Tariff schedule of the United States

UF Ultrafiltration

UF milk Milk that has been ultrafiltered to remove lactose and minerals but has not been dried,

also known as liquid MPC

UF MPC Milk protein concentrate produced by ultrafiltration

UHT Ultra high temperature

URA Uruguay Round Agreement

URAA Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDEC U.S. Dairy Export Council

USTR U.S. Trade Representative

VAR Vector autoregression model

WMP Whole milk powder

WPC Whey protein concentrate

WPI Whey protein isolate

WTO World Trade Organization

ZMP Zentrale Markt und Preisberichtstelle

 1

 The information and analysis provided in this report are for the purposes of this report only.

Nothing in this report should be construed to indicate how the Commission would find in an

investigation conducted under statutory authority covering the same or similar subject manner.

 2

 For the purpose of this report, the European Union refers to Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden, and United Kingdom (i.e., EU-15).

xxi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

On May 14, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) received a

request from the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), under section 332(g) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) that the Commission conduct an investigation

regarding U.S. market conditions for milk proteins. On June 5, 2003, the Commission

instituted investigation No. 332-453, Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products

in the U.S. Market. The Committee specifically asked the Commission to examine the

competitiveness of a variety of milk proteins in the U.S. market, focusing on milk protein

concentrate (MPC), casein, and caseinate; and the market for those products compared with

other milk proteins, including whole milk, skim milk, dried whole milk, dried skim milk,

whey, dried whey, and whey protein concentrates (WPC). The Committee requested that the

investigation cover the period 1998-2002 to the extent possible, and that the Commission

provide its completed report 12 months from the receipt of the request. In its letter, the

Committee requested the Commission to transmit a report that can be fully disclosed to the

public, that is, containing no confidential business information.

As requested by the Committee, the Commission’s report on the investigation includes the

following information:

• an overview of the global market for milk proteins in their various forms,

including such factors as consumption, production, and trade during the period

1998-2002;

• profiles of the milk protein industries of the United States and major dairy exporting

countries, and in particular, the industries of Australia, New Zealand, and the European

Union (EU);2

• information on the overall level of government support and other government

intervention affecting producers of milk proteins in the United States and in each of the

above-referenced trading partners together with a discussion of competitive factors,

including government policies, that impact U.S. production, use, and trade in milk

protein products in their various forms;

• information on U.S. imports and exports of milk protein in its various forms with data

broken down, to the extent possible, by protein content, end use, and manufacturing

processes;

• a history of U.S. tariff classification of milk proteins and tariff treatment of these

products, including any fees or quotas imposed under section 22 of the Agricultural 
xxii

Adjustment Act, tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) established pursuant to the Uruguay Round

Agreements and U.S. Customs Service (Customs) classification decisions;

• a qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of how imported milk

proteins affect farm-level milk prices in the United States; and,

• other information relating to competitive factors affecting: (1) the U.S.

industry that imports and consumes milk proteins; (2) the U.S. industry that

supplies competitive products; and, (3) the competitive factors, including

government policies, that impact potential U.S. production of milk proteins in

their various forms. 

Commission questionnaires that surveyed milk protein importers, purchasers, and foreign

producers provided the key information necessary to respond to the Committee’s request.

In particular, questionnaire responses provided new information on the protein content,

manufacturing processes, and uses of imported and domestically produced MPC. Also, data

generated from the Commission questionnaires enabled an estimation of how much U.S.-

produced milk protein may have been displaced by imported milk protein. The data also

allowed an assessment of the impact of milk protein imports on farm-level prices. Highlights

of the report and its major findings are summarized below. 

What Are the Major Products and Market Characteristics

for the Milk Proteins Covered in this Investigation?

In its request letter, the Committee specifically asked the Commission to examine the

competitiveness of a variety of milk proteins in the U.S. market, focusing on MPC, casein,

and caseinate. MPC is a concentrated milk protein product that contains both of the major

forms of protein found in milk—casein and whey—and is produced using one of three

different production processes: ultrafiltration, blending, or co-precipitation. MPC is used

in several food applications, especially as an ingredient in processed cheese and specialty

nutrition products (such as infant formula, medical nutrition, and sports bars and beverages).

The protein content of MPC can vary considerably, from 40 percent to over 90 percent. MPC

is often referred to by its protein concentration (e.g., MPC with a protein concentration of

42 percent is referred to as MPC 42). Imports of MPC are subject to a minimal duty of $3.70

per metric ton (about 0.1 percent ad valorem equivalent (AVE)). The U.S. market for MPC

is roughly 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons, virtually all of which is supplied by imports. There

is limited domestic production, although in 2003 commercial production of MPC began in

the United States. In 2002, New Zealand supplied about 55 percent of the U.S. market, with

an additional 25 percent from the EU. Other suppliers of MPC imports to the U.S. market

include Australia, Poland, and India.

Casein is a form of concentrated casein protein (one of the two major proteins found in milk)

and is derived from skim milk. Depending on the method of manufacture, casein is classified

as either acid casein or rennet casein, and both types are high-protein products with protein

concentrations ranging from 85 to 90 percent. Both acid casein and rennet casein contain

very little whey protein and therefore cannot be classified as MPC. Casein is used mainly in

so-called “nondairy foods” (such as imitation cheese, coffee creamers, and margarine) and

specialty nutrition products. Imports enter the United States free of duty. The U.S. market
xxiii

for casein was about 67,000 metric tons in 2002 and was served almost exclusively by

imports. Major suppliers include the EU, accounting for about 45 percent of U.S. imports,

and New Zealand, with a 32-percent share. Other suppliers include Australia, India, and

Ukraine. Casein production recently began in the United States, although is not yet

commercially significant.

Caseinate is a soluable form of casein derived from acid casein. Common forms of caseinate

are calcium caseinate and sodium caseinate. All forms of caseinate contain protein

concentrations of approximately 90 percent. Caseinate is used mostly in specialty nutrition

products, yogurt, and ice cream. Imports are subject to a minimal duty of $3.70 per metric

ton (about 0.1 percent AVE). In 2002, the U.S. market for caseinate was about 23,000 metric

tons, virtually all supplied by imports, although several U.S. firms produce caseinate from

imported dry casein. New Zealand (50-percent share) and the EU (36-percent share) are the

major suppliers of caseinate to the U.S. market.

How Are Milk Proteins Utilized in the U.S. Market?

Information on the uses of milk protein products in the U.S. market was obtained primarily

from a Commission questionnaire sent out to 450 companies, covering the full range of

potential users, including manufacturers of cheese and other dairy products, bakery products,

snack food products, soups and sauces, animal feed, and specialty nutrition products.

Nondairy food applications (such as imitation cheese and coffee creamers) and specialty

nutrition products accounted for approximately 82 percent of all casein and caseinate

purchases. Use of imported MPC varied somewhat by protein content. The end-use

applications of imported MPC are summarized in tables ES-1 and ES-2 below.

Table ES-1

Milk protein concentrate: Use in all applications, processed cheese products, and specialty

nutrition, by percent protein, 2002

Milk protein concentrate, protein concentration (percent)

End-use application 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-90 90+ 40-90+

–––––––––––––––––––––Share of total purchases–––––––––––––––––––––––

All end-uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 0 60 22 6 100

Processed cheese products . . . . 1 0 0 91 8 0 100

Specialty nutrition1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0 0 70 24 100 1

 Includes medical nutrition, sports nutrition, geriatric nutrition, meal replacers, and infant formula.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Key observations from table ES-1 (based on 2002 data):

• 88 percent of MPC purchases were high-protein MPC (containing 70 percent

or more protein).

• 60 percent of MPC purchases were MPC 70-79 (mostly MPC 70).
xxiv

• Over 90 percent of all MPC used in the production of processed cheese

products was MPC 70-79 (mainly MPC 70).

• Only 1 percent of purchases by producers of processed cheese products was

low-protein MPC (MPC 40-69).

• Almost all MPC purchases for use in specialty nutrition had very high-protein

concentration (80 percent or greater).

Table ES-2

Milk protein concentrate: End-use application purchases by protein concentration, as share of

total purchases, 2002

Milk protein concentrate, protein concentration (percent)

End-use application 40-49 50-59 60-691 70-79 80-90 90+ 40-90+

–––––––––––––––––––––Share of total purchases–––––––––––––––––––––––

Processed cheese products2 . . . 7 6 0 95 22 0 62

Specialty nutrition3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2 38 0 0 77 95 24

Other dairy products4 . . . . . . . . . 64 45 02109

Other5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11 03055

All end-uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 (6

) 100 100 100 100 1

 No purchases of MPC 60-69 were reported in 2002.

2

 Includes a small volume of MPC used as starter culture in natural cheese. 3

 Includes medical nutrition, sports nutrition, geriatric nutrition, meal replacers, and infant formula. 4

 Includes yogurt, ice cream, and frozen desserts.

5

 Includes nondairy foods (margarine, imitation cheese, nondairy creamers), bakery, confectionery, meat

products, animal feed, and industrial products. 6

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Key observations from table ES-2 (based on 2002 data):

• MPC purchases are dominated by two end-use applications: processed cheese

products (62 percent) and specialty nutrition products (24 percent).

• 56 percent of all MPC purchased in 2002 was MPC 70-79 used in the

production of processed cheese products (MPC 70-79 accounted for

91 percent of the MPC used in the production of processed cheese products

(table ES-1)).

• Processed cheese products accounted for a very small share of the end uses for

low-protein MPC (MPC 40-69).

• Much of the very high-protein MPC (80 percent protein and greater)

purchased was used in specialty nutrition products.

• Low-protein MPC (MPC 40-69) was overwhelmingly used in dairy products

other than processed cheese products, such as cultured products and frozen

desserts.
xxv

• Other key end-use applications for low-protein MPC (MPC 40-69) were in

bakery and confectionery products, as well as animal feed.

How Are Milk Protein Products Classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States?

U.S. imports of MPC are classified under HTS subheadings 0404.90.10 for imports with a

protein concentration of 40 to 90 percent; and 3501.10.10 for imports with a protein

concentration of 90 percent or more. U.S. imports of casein and caseinate are classified under

HTS subheadings 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60, respectively. U.S. tariffs on imported milk

protein products vary considerably. Imports of skim milk powder (SMP), whole milk powder

(WMP), and fluid milk are subject to TRQs with high over-quota tariffs that limit imports.

U.S. imports of MPC and caseinate are subject to very low tariffs of 0.37 cents per kilogram.

Casein may be imported free of duty.

Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 permitted the imposition of quotas

on agricultural imports if those imports interfered with U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) programs for the product, and therefore virtually all dairy products were subject to

quotas, except casein, caseinates, lactalbumin (i.e., whey), and soft-ripened cow’s milk

cheese. Virtually all section 22 quotas were converted into TRQs in 1995 under the World

Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, but since MPC and casein were not

covered under section 22 import quotas, they were not subject to TRQs.

What Are the Most Recent Trends in the Global Market for

Milk Proteins?

Milk protein products are produced and consumed throughout the world. However, the

global dairy market is highly concentrated among major producing and consuming countries.

In 2002, the EU and the United States accounted for about 39 percent of world milk

production. India and Brazil were also major milk producing countries. Australia and New

Zealand are major suppliers of processed milk protein products, including SMP, WMP,

casein, caseinate, and MPC, to world markets, but are not among the world’s top milk

producers. International trade in milk and dairy products accounts for a small share of global

milk production (6 percent on a milk-equivalent basis). Global milk protein exports are

dominated by the EU, New Zealand, and Australia. The United States is not a major exporter

of milk protein products. New Zealand and Australia have increased their share of the global

protein market, whereas that of the EU has declined, mostly reflecting the EU’s lack of

international competitiveness and export refund limits under the WTO Agreement on

Agriculture. Global import markets for milk protein products are generally located in dry or

tropical regions of Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, where climatic

conditions are unfavorable to efficient production of milk and dairy products.
xxvi

The most widely traded milk protein products are in the form of commodity-type products,

such as SMP, WMP, dry whey, and casein. However, the market is changing with the

development of modern filtration and blending technologies that have reduced costs and

increased the production of more specialized dairy products, tailored to the specific needs

of customers. Such products include MPC, specialized casein and caseinate products, WPC,

and whey protein isolate (WPI). Global trade in these highly specialized products is growing,

benefitting from low levels of global tariffs and quota protection, as well as relatively high

prices of competing, traditionally traded milk-protein products. New Zealand is the world’s

leading MPC producing country, followed by the EU. New Zealand and the EU are also the

largest producers and exporters of casein. World production and exports of caseinate are

dominated by New Zealand, the EU, and Australia. The United States is the world’s largest

market for MPC, casein, and caseinate. Global production and exports of WPC and WPI are

dominated by the United States, the EU, Australia, and New Zealand.

What Are the Main Characteristics of the Milk Protein

Industry in the United States?

The United States is the world’s largest single milk-producing country, and its output of

almost 170 billion pounds (or 77 million metric tons) in 2002 accounted for about 15 percent

of world milk supply. U.S. dairy farms range from relatively small, high-cost, inefficient

operations, to industrial-type operations that are among the largest and most technologically

advanced in the world. Trends in U.S. milk production are dominated by three major

phenomena: (1) a steady increase in production and productivity over time; (2) an increasing

share of U.S. milk supplied from a relatively few, very large dairy operations; and, (3) a

regional shift in production from the Northeast and Upper Midwest to the Southwest and

West. According to the USDA, average operating costs of production were about $9.50 per

hundredweight (cwt) during 2000-2002, of which close to 70 percent was feed costs. Based

on a small survey of dairy farms by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN),

U.S. milk production costs were reported in the $10-13 per cwt range in 2002, significantly

higher than New Zealand and Australia, and slightly above those in the EU.

U.S. production of milk protein products has largely been limited to the production of SMP

and whey products. Casein has not been produced in the United States since the 1960s, and

caseinate production is limited to the further processing of imported casein. Limited

commercial production of ultrafiltered milk (UF milk), which also is referred to as liquid

MPC, began in the late-1990s. MPC production, other than UF milk, is confined to a few

firms that produce blended MPC using imported and domestically produced milk proteins,

and one facility that very recently began to produce MPC using the ultrafiltration process.

The competitiveness of the U.S. dairy industry has been affected by the high level of

government intervention, mainly through Federal price support and deficiency payment

programs, and milk marketing orders. The Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP) attempts

to support raw milk prices by requiring USDA to purchase domestic surpluses of butter,

cheddar cheese, and SMP at prespecified prices. Direct income support is currently provided

through the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program, which provides dairy farmers with

supplemental payments when milk prices fall below a prespecified level. Federal Milk

Marketing Orders (FMMOs) require milk processors to pay dairy farmers minimum prices

for their milk based on established milk price formulas and its end use. Indirect support of
xxvii

the U.S. dairy industry is provided through several other Federal programs, including

assistance for environmental conservation and promotion of milk consumption.

What Are the Main Characteristics of the Milk Protein

Industries in the Major Dairy Exporting Countries?

The European Union

Dairy is the most important agricultural sector in the EU, accounting for about 14 percent

of agricultural value. However, there are vast differences in the dairy sectors among member

states, reflecting significant diversity of geographic, climatic, demographic, and policy

conditions in the region. The EU is the world’s largest milk producer, with production of

about 120 million metric tons (mt) annually, and is the leading global exporter of milk

protein products. The EU supplied 40 percent of the total value of U.S. milk protein product

imports in 2002, of which 95 percent were from Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,

and Denmark.

Milk production in the EU has been stable since 1984 because of quotas that limit

production. The EU dairy sector has undergone considerable structural change moving to

fewer, larger dairy operations, increased cow productivity, and decreased cow numbers.

Costs of producing milk in the EU vary considerably among member states. The 2002 IFCN

report estimated production costs ranging from about $6-13 per cwt.

The competitiveness of EU milk protein products in world markets is heavily influenced by

government programs under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). EU policies impacting

dairy producers and processors include: target prices for milk, intervention prices for butter

and SMP, minimum import prices (threshold prices) via high tariffs and TRQs, production

aids for skim milk and SMP used in animal feed, production aids for skim milk used in

casein production, processing support for butter used in food manufacturing, and export

refunds. Many of these programs influenced EU exports of MPC to the United States during

1998-2002. Implementation of EU dairy policy reforms (such as reductions in intervention

prices and movement to decoupled payments) in 2004 under the Mid-Term Review (MTR)

will likely close the gap between EU internal prices and world prices, and therefore may

impact future competitiveness of EU milk protein products in world markets.

New Zealand

The dairy industry is an important part of New Zealand’s economy, accounting for almost

one-quarter of its total export revenues in 2002. New Zealand is the world’s seventh-largest

milk producer and is a dominant world exporter. New Zealand’s pasture-based production

system, combined with improved genetics and efficient farming practices, allow it to be one

of the world’s lowest-cost producing countries. IFCN data reported milk production costs

ranging from $4.50-5.40 per cwt in 2002.

Only about 6 percent of New Zealand’s milk production is consumed domestically. About

97 percent is used for manufacturing purposes. Returns to the New Zealand dairy industry

are based largely on export revenues. New Zealand’s milk protein products are sold
xxviii

throughout the world using a highly sophisticated global marketing and distribution network.

The United States is the top export market for New Zealand’s dairy products.

In 2001, the New Zealand Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) resulted in major

changes to the structure of the dairy industry. The two largest cooperative milk supply

companies (Kiwi Co-operative Dairy Co. and New Zealand Dairy Group) merged with the

New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) to form Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd. Fonterra

controls 97 percent of New Zealand’s milk supply, and produces and exports a wide range

of milk protein products, including casein, caseinates, MPC, and WPC. As a result of the

2001 legislation, dairy companies are now allowed to export their products directly without

channeling them through the NZDB. However, Fonterra was given exclusive right to export

to “designated markets” (i.e., markets subject to TRQs from which quota rents can be

derived) until the end of an initial period, which ranges from 2007-2010, depending on the

market.

Australia

Dairy products accounted for about 8 percent of total Australian agricultural exports in 2002,

and accounted for 11 percent of Australian agricultural production. Australia is the world’s

tenth-largest milk-producing country; however, it ranks second among leading world

exporters of SMP, WMP, and dry whey; and ranks sixth among exporters of casein.

Australia is a low-cost milk producing country, with production largely based on seasonal

pasture, although use of supplemental feeding has increased in recent years. IFCN data

reported milk production costs ranging from $2.70-9.10 per cwt in 2002. About 20 percent

of Australia’s milk production is consumed as fluid milk and 80 percent utilized for

processing. Approximately 60 percent of all dairy products manufactured in Australia is

exported. Australia is a major supplier of milk protein products to the United States.

The Australian industry is dominated by producer-owned cooperatives. Though not as

concentrated as the dairy industry in New Zealand, the three largest cooperatives account for

60 percent of milk production and 70 percent of the milk used in manufacturing. Murray

Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd. is Australia’s single largest producer and exporter of MPC,

casein, and caseinates.

What Has Been the Impact of U.S. Government Programs

on Domestic Production and Imports of Milk Protein

Products?

Based on an analysis of the costs and returns from producing SMP and MPC, the DPSP

appears to be an important factor creating a disincentive to manufacture MPC in the United

States. The Commission estimated returns for U.S. processors of SMP and compared them

with the returns for U.S. processors of several types of MPC, and found that, under most

conditions, U.S. processors could receive a higher return on the production of SMP.

Consequently, as a result of the relatively lower costs of production and higher price (as a

result of the DPSP) for SMP, U.S. processors are likely to realize a higher return on the

production of MPC under only the most advantageous conditions. Other factors that might
xxix

deter domestic production of MPC are: (1) greater financial risk of MPC production versus

SMP production; (2) significant capital costs; and, (3) a relatively small domestic market

(largely because U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards of identity prohibit

the use of MPC in many dairy products).

How Has Government Intervention in the European Union,

New Zealand, and Australia Affected Milk Protein Product

Exports to the United States?

There is little direct government intervention in the dairy markets in Australia and New

Zealand. Reforms implemented in Australia in 2000 eliminated price support and other

measures that previously controlled the supply and distribution of milk, although some

decoupled structural adjustment payments will continue to be made until 2009. The 2002

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Producer Support

Estimates (PSEs) were 15 percent for Australia, and less than 1 percent for New Zealand.

Most government assistance to both the Australian and New Zealand dairy industries is from

Federal funding of research and development. 

In contrast, there is significant government support in the dairy markets in the EU with a

2002 OECD PSE of 48 percent. Commission analysis indicated that U.S. imports of MPC

from the EU during 1998-2002 were influenced strongly by dairy policies in both the EU

(export refunds and casein production aids) and the United States (the DPSP). In particular,

returns (economic rents) resulting from U.S. and EU policy generated from U.S. imports of

a low-protein, blended MPC from the EU, provided substantial incentives to trade during

1998-2000. However, policy changes in 2001 and 2002 significantly reduced the return on

EU exports of MPC, and contributed to the sudden drop in U.S. imports of MPC from the

EU in 2001 and 2002. As a result of anticipated dairy policy changes in the EU, it is unlikely

that the conditions that contributed to the increase in imports from 1998-2000 will be

repeated in the future.

What Was the Protein Content and Production Method of

U.S. Milk Protein Imports?

Data relating to the protein concentration of U.S. imports of casein and caseinate are readily

available. The protein concentration of U.S. imports of casein fluctuates in a narrow range,

approximately 85-90 percent, and the protein concentration of caseinate imports is about

90 percent. However, the protein content of U.S. MPC imports can vary widely and data on

the protein concentration are not readily available. The Commission sent questionnaires to

122 importers. The volume of MPC, casein, and caseinate imports reported in questionnaire

responses accounted for over 99 percent of U.S. imports of these products in 2002 based on

official U.S. Department of Commerce data. Data collected from this questionnaire provided

information relating to the protein concentration of MPC imports. The results are

summarized in table ES-3 below.
xxx

Table ES-3

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. imports by protein concentration and major supplier,

1998-2002

Country/product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union:

MPC 40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 15.0 17.8 3.6 7.1

MPC 70 or greater . . . . . . 7.3 5.3 3.1 1.9 2.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 20.2 20.9 5.5 9.9

New Zealand:

MPC 40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 3.3 4.2 2.7 1.2

MPC 70 or greater . . . . . . 6.2 11.8 14.1 18.8 21.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 15.2 18.3 21.5 23.0

Australia:

MPC 40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 3.8 3.6 2.5 0.2

MPC 70 or greater . . . . . . 0.8 1.3 3.1 0.9 3.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 5.1 6.7 3.4 4.0

All countries:

MPC 40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 25.9 29.1 10.1 12.9

MPC 70 or greater . . . . . . 14.8 18.6 20.7 21.7 28.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 44.5 49.8 31.8 41.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Key observations with regard to U.S. imports of MPC include:

• The three largest categories of U.S. imports of MPC are MPC with a protein

concentration of 40-49 percent (MPC 40-49), almost exclusively imports of MPC 42;

MPC 70-79; and MPC 80-89. There were relatively few imports of MPC 50-69.

• The significant increase in U.S. imports of low-protein MPC (mainly MPC 40-49) in

1999 and 2000 was primarily driven by imports from the EU.

• The protein content of MPC imports changed during the 1998-2002 period. In 1999 and

2000 there was a sharp increase in imports of low-protein MPC. However, in 2001 and

2002 imports of low-protein MPC declined significantly.

• During 1998-2002, imports of high-protein MPC (especially MPC 70-79) increased

consistently.

• In 1998, the EU accounted for about one-half of U.S. MPC imports, and New Zealand

for about one-third. In 2001, New Zealand surpassed the EU as the largest supplier of

MPC to the United States, and by 2002, about 55 percent of all U.S. imports of MPC

were supplied by New Zealand.

The production process used to produce MPC varies by country. MPC produced in the EU

is manufactured using either a blending or co-precipitation method. MPC with a protein

concentration of less than 90 percent produced in Australia and New Zealand is produced

via the ultrafiltration method, whereas MPC with a protein concentration of 90 percent or

greater is produced using the co-precipitation method.

Questionnaire data indicate that on a protein basis, U.S. imports of MPC increased from

39 million pounds of protein in 1998 to 63 million pounds of protein in 2000. Imports of
xxxi

MPC on a protein basis declined to 47 million pounds in 2001 and then increased to

60 million pounds in 2002. Imports of MPC on a protein basis were less volatile than imports

of MPC on a product basis. This is because of the significant increase in the average protein

content of imports in 2001 and 2002 as a result of the decline in low-protein imports (mainly

MPC 40-49) from the EU. U.S. casein imports on a protein basis increased substantially from

118 million pounds in 1998 to 168 million pounds in 2000, before declining sharply in 2001

and again in 2002 to 131 million pounds. U.S. caseinate imports on a protein basis were

generally stable during the 1998-2002 period, ranging from 40 to 50 million pounds of

protein.

What Factors Influence a Processor’s Choice of Imported

and Domestic Milk Protein Products? 

The degree to which milk protein products can substitute for one another is primarily driven

by three factors: regulatory restrictions, technical substitutability, and economic

substitutability. Regulatory restrictions refer primarily to FDA standards of identity that limit

the use of MPC, casein, and caseinate in food applications. Technical substitutability refers

to the ability of different milk proteins to provide the same functional and/or nutritional

attributes. Factors affecting economic substitutability include price, switching costs, and

availability.

Regulatory restrictions play a key role in the choice of imported and domestic milk protein

products. FDA standards of identity do not permit the use of MPC in products with a

standard of identity. Highly processed cheese products, however, fall outside the standards

and therefore may contain MPC. Standards of identity also impact MPC use in yogurt and

ice cream. Although the standards of identity for yogurt allow for the use of MPC,

regulations require that dairy ingredients used in yogurt be Grade A, and currently MPC does

not have Grade A status. No standards of identity cover the specialty nutrition industry.

According to industry and academic experts consulted by Commission staff, the degree of

technical substitutability between imported milk protein products (primarily MPC) and SMP

in many dairy applications is very high. In particular, experts reported that MPC is highly

substitutable for SMP in the production of processed cheese products, and would be a

superior ingredient to SMP in the production of natural cheese because of its high-protein

content, low lactose level, solubility, color, and flavor characteristics. Experts also indicated

that MPC would be a superior ingredient to SMP in the production of ice cream and yogurt,

mainly because of its low lactose levels. Specialty nutrition products typically require a

much higher protein concentration ingredient than SMP. High-protein concentrations of

WPC and MPC, as well as caseinates and soy protein isolates, can all provide high levels of

protein.

Economic substitutability among protein sources concerns both the price of the product and

the cost of switching between products in the manufacturing process. Several cheese and

specialty nutrition product manufacturers indicated that price is a very important factor when

selecting the protein source. An analysis of the relative price of protein in SMP and MPC

indicates that imported MPC provides a lower cost source of protein than both

U.S.-produced SMP and U.S.-produced UF milk. Use of MPC in cheese manufacturing can

increase both yield and throughput, thereby increasing production efficiency. The improved
xxxii

production efficiency, in combination with lower protein costs, result in significant

substitution from SMP to imported milk protein products.

Although processed cheese products are produced using SMP, UF milk, and ingredient

cheese, U.S. manufacturers indicated that MPC provides two important economic

advantages—a lower cost protein source and functional characteristics (e.g., low lactose).

Processed cheese manufacturers stated that their use of MPC in the production of processed

cheese products is necessary in order to remain competitive. Academic and industry experts

consulted by Commission staff and responses to Commission questionnaires indicated that

processed cheese products are produced using either SMP or MPC with little or no change

in equipment, employees, or manufacturing process. This suggests that the switching costs

of producing processed cheese products with SMP versus MPC are low. Thus, it appears that

the substitution of MPC for SMP, UF milk, and ingredient cheese in processed cheese

product manufacturing, is primarily the result of the economic and technical advantages of

MPC. 

In the specialty nutrition market, caseinate is generally preferred as a source of protein

because of cost and functionality compared with SMP and MPC. However, for a specific

segment of the sports nutrition market, WPC and WPI are preferred protein sources. As

many of the specialty nutrition products require milk protein products with a high-protein

concentration, imported products that have a lower price per pound have a significant

advantage over domestically produced protein sources.

How Much U.S.-Produced Milk Protein Has Been Displaced

by Imports?

Estimates were generated on the amount of imported milk protein products that might have

substituted for domestic milk proteins, based on use, purchase, and import data compiled

from Commission purchasers’ and importers’ questionnaires. On a protein basis, imports of

MPC, casein, and caseinate may have displaced 318 million pounds of U.S.-produced milk

proteins between 1998 and 2002. Annual estimates of the volume of U.S.-produced milk

proteins displaced by imports ranged from a low of 41 million pounds in 1998 to a high of

82 million pounds in 2000. In 2002, imports are estimated to have displaced 66 million

pounds of domestically produced milk protein, which represents about 28 percent of total

U.S. imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate on a protein basis in that year. The 66 million

pounds of milk protein is equivalent to the protein content of about 183 million pounds of

SMP. 

What Has Been the Effect of Imported Milk Protein

Products on Farm-Level Milk Prices?

Farm-level milk prices are determined in the U.S. market through a highly complex process.

Imports of milk protein products affect U.S. milk prices through dairy product prices, which

are used in the FMMO formulas to construct milk component prices (butterfat, protein, other

solids, and nonfat solids) that feed into the formulas for Class I-IV milk prices. The class
xxxiii

prices are used to calculate a weighted-average blend price. Finally, the blend price is the

major determinant of the farm-level milk price. 

The effect of imported milk proteins on farm-level prices depends on whether the market

price for SMP is at, or above, the support price. Since SMP market prices were generally

equal to the support price over the study period, most of the effect of imported milk protein

was through U.S. Government purchases of SMP and the resulting increase in Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC) stocks that reached 1 billion pounds in 2002. In response to

mounting CCC stocks, the USDA twice reduced the support price of SMP (May 2001 and

November 2002) and raised the butter support price. These tilt adjustments are significant

policy changes, because lowering the support price for SMP reduces FMMO class milk

prices, which in turn lowers farm-level prices.

The Commission estimated that imported milk proteins may have contributed about

25-35 percent to the growth in CCC stocks during 1996-2002; however, it is not clear the

extent to which these imports influenced the USDA decisions to adjust the butter/SMP tilt.

A Commission review of studies undertaken by various academic researchers who have used

detailed economic models that capture relationships between milk protein imports,

government support prices, CCC stocks, and farm-level prices generally found that most of

the impact of milk protein product imports is on CCC stocks, not on farm-level prices.

 1

 Although the scope of this investigation covers all forms of milk protein, including casein and

caseinate, rapid import growth was experienced only in MPC under HTS subheading 0404.90.10.

Imports of other milk protein products were relatively stable during the mid- and late-1990s.

 2

 The all-milk price (published monthly in USDA, NASS, Agricultural prices, and found at

http://usda.-mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/price/pap-bb) is the average price of all the milk

sold to plants and dealers. It covers the whole country, including California and other milk not

under the control of Federal Milk Marketing Orders. 

 3

 The 2003 all-milk price was $12.51/cwt.

1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

On May 14, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) received a

request from the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), under section 332(g) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) that the Commission conduct an investigation

regarding U.S. market conditions for milk proteins (appendix A). The Committee

specifically asked the Commission to examine the competitiveness of a variety of milk

proteins in the U.S. market, focusing on milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein, and

caseinate; and the market for those products compared with other milk proteins, including

whole milk, skim milk, dried whole milk, dried skim milk, whey, dried whey, and whey

protein concentrates (WPC). The Committee requested that the investigation cover the period

1998-2002 to the extent possible, and that the Commission provide its completed report 12

months from the receipt of the request. In its letter, the Committee requested the Commission

to transmit a report that can be fully disclosed to the public, that is, containing no

confidential business information.

Background

Interest in U.S. imports of milk protein products was sparked by the rapid increase in imports

of MPC (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheading 0404.90.10)

that began in the mid-1990s.1

 In the 1980s, U.S. MPC imports were less than 1,000 metric

tons (mt) annually. During the early-1990s, imports started to increase and reached 7,300 mt

by 1995 (figure 1-1). Imports grew more rapidly to a peak of 52,000 mt in 2000, fell to about

28,000 mt in 2001, and then stabilized at around 35,000 mt in 2002 and 2003. The 1990s

was also a decade of significant milk price volatility. During 1998-2000, the rapid growth

of MPC imports coincided with a dramatic decline in milk prices, with the all-milk price2

falling from $15.46 per hundredweight (cwt) in 1998 to $12.40 per cwt in 2000 (a drop of

20 percent). In 2001, as MPC imports almost halved, milk prices rebounded to $15.05 per

cwt, while a modest rise in MPC imports in 2002 coincided with milk prices falling to

$12.19 per cwt, the lowest level in more than 20 years.3

 While it is clear that MPC import

growth during 1998-2002 coincided with a period of low milk prices, there are different

views on the causal relationship between these trends.
 4

 NMPF, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 9.

1-2

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service; U.S. Department 

of Commerce.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Imports 1,000 mt

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Year

Price dollar per cwt

Caseinate

Casein

Casein/MPC, HTS chapter 35

Milk protein concentrate (MPC), HTS chapter 4

All-milk price

Figure 1-1

U.S. imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price, 1995-2003

One reason for the debate over the impact of MPC imports stems from the fact that imports

of MPC with significantly different protein levels are classified under HTS subheading

0404.90.10. For instance, MPC imports may have a low- or high-protein content. Both types

of MPC are classified in the same subheading, yet MPCs with different protein content are

sometimes used in different end-use applications. For example, MPC with relatively

low-protein content typically contain large amounts of lactose, which makes it unsuitable for

applications in lactose-free products. Medical nutrition products also may require MPC with

high-protein and low-lactose content. However, because the HTS makes no distinction

between low and high protein MPC there are no separate trade statistics for each category.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), representing U.S. milk producers, is

concerned that most of the increase in MPC imports has been product with low-protein

content that substitutes for domestically produced skim milk powder (SMP) in many end-use

applications, such as cheesemaking.4

 According to the NMPF, MPC imports, as well as

imports of other milk protein products, directly affect farm milk prices by increasing

domestic protein availability and substituting for domestically produced milk protein
 5

 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 28; Mr.

Jerry Kozak, NMPF, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,

Nutrition, and Forestry, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, May 20, 2003,

transcript p. 161.

 6

 NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004, p. 7.

 7

 NMPF and Dairy Producers for Fair Trade, “Straight talk on imported dairy proteins: The

need to Pass S. 560/H.R. 1160,” (Mar. 2003).

 8

 NMPF and Dairy Producers for Fair Trade, “The impact of imported milk protein concentrates

on U.S. dairy producers,” (July 2001).

 9

 Mr. Paul Rosenthal, CNI, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 228; CNI,

“Exploding the Myths about MPC, Casein, and Caseinates,” (May 2003).

 10 CNI, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 2.

 11 Ibid.

 12 For example, in 1999 U.S. MPC imports rose more than 55 percent from the previous year’s

level, while the U.S. SMP prices were close to double those in the international market. 

 13 Mr. Paul Rosenthal, CNI, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 228; CNI,

“Exploding the myths about MPC, casein, and caseinates,” May, 2003.

 14 CNI, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 11-12.

 15 The text of H.R. 1160 and S. 560 can be found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.html.

1-3

products.5 Owing to this displacement, the NMPF alleges that U.S. market prices of SMP fell

to the support level during the late-1990s and government purchases reached record levels.

Mounting government stocks resulted in adjustments to the SMP price support level by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that led to a decline in farm-level milk prices and

incomes.6

 Further, the NMPF argues that imports of MPC increased as a result of the

deliberate circumvention of the tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on SMP by traders.7

 Specifically it

is alleged that suppliers of imported MPC are mixing SMP (which is about 36 percent

protein) with products with high-protein concentrations, such as casein, to create a blended

milk powder with a protein content of 40 percent or more. This blended product is classified

under HTS subheading 0404.90.10 and subject to negligible duty treatment ($3.70 per mt,

or about 0.1 percent ad valorem equivalent (AVE)).8

The U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (CNI), representing foreign producers,

importers, and users of MPC, argues that MPC imports do not substitute for domestically

produced SMP in most uses.9

 It points out that high-protein MPC is not largely available

from U.S. producers and yet is crucial for the production of many food and specialty

nutrition products.10 MPC users say that the real reason for the growth of imports is that the

U.S. support price for SMP is set above the world price.11 This makes U.S.-produced milk

proteins in the form of SMP higher priced and uncompetitive compared with imported

protein in the form of MPC.12 The CNI notes that the buildup of government stocks during

the 1998-2002 period was the result of an over supply of domestically produced milk protein

and weakness in dairy demand.13 Therefore, lower milk prices and dairy farmer incomes

should not be attributed to imports of milk protein products.14

In early May 2001, bills were introduced in Congress (H.R. 1786 and S. 847) to impose

TRQs on MPC, caseinate, and certain casein for food use. Under the bills, imports of these

products would be limited to about 50 percent of recent trade volumes, beyond which

imports would become subject to an over-quota tariff of about 50 percent AVE. On March 6,

2003, new bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 1160) and Senate (S.560) that were

almost identical to the May 2001 bills.15
 16 For the purpose of this report, the European Union refers to Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden, and United Kingdom (i.e., EU-15).

1-4

Purpose

As requested by the Committee, this report provides:

• an overview of the global market for milk proteins in their various forms,

including such factors as consumption, production, and trade during the period

1998-2002;

• profiles of the milk protein industries of the United States and major dairy

exporting countries, and in particular, the industries of Australia, New

Zealand, and the European Union (EU);16

• information on the overall level of government support and other government

intervention affecting producers of milk proteins in the United States and in

each of the above-referenced trading partners together with a discussion of

competitive factors, including government policies, that impact U.S.

production, use, and trade in milk protein products in their various forms;

• information on U.S. imports and exports of milk protein in its various forms

with data broken down, to the extent possible, by protein content, end use, and

manufacturing processes;

• a history of U.S. tariff classification of milk proteins and tariff treatment of

these products, including any fees or quotas imposed under section 22 of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act, tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) established pursuant

to the Uruguay Round Agreements, and U.S. Customs Service classification

decisions;

• a qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of how

imported milk proteins affect farm-level milk prices in the United States; and,

• other information relating to competitive factors affecting: (1) the U.S.

industry that imports and consumes milk proteins; (2) the U.S. industry that

supplies competitive products; and, (3) the competitive factors, including

government policies, that impact potential U.S. production of milk proteins in

their various forms. 

The Commission instituted investigation No. 332-453, Conditions of Competition for Milk

Protein Products in the U.S. Market, on June 9, 2003. Notice of the investigation and

hearing was given by posting copies of the notice at the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, and by publishing the notices in the Federal Register on
 17 Copies of the Federal Register notices of the Commission investigation are included in

appendix B.

 18 The hearing calendar and summaries of the positions of interested parties are provided in

appendix C.

 19 The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center at Cornell University and the Center for Dairy

Research at the University of Wisconsin have developed the initial economic and technological

research promoting the “milk refinery” approach to dairy processing.

1-5

June 11, 2003 (68 F.R. 35004) and November 13, 2003 (68 F.R. 64368).17 A public hearing

in connection with this investigation was held on December 11, 2003, in Washington, D.C.18

Scope

The primary focus of this report is on U.S. imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate, and the

production and markets for these products in the United States and major foreign producing

countries. As requested by the Committee, the report also includes information on other milk

protein products, such as whole milk, skim milk, whole milk powder (WMP), SMP, whey,

dried whey, and WPC. These products are included for the purpose of comparing the markets

for these products to the markets for MPC, casein, and caseinate, and analyzing the impact

of imported milk protein products on U.S. farm-level prices. The report primarily focuses

on U.S. imports of milk protein products from the EU, New Zealand, and Australia. 

Milk protein products are derived from the raw components of milk. These products provide

protein in many food products, as well as certain functional attributes. The following

sections provide more information on the products covered in this investigation, their

extraction from raw milk, and their functional qualities. Major milk protein products and

production processes are described in box 1-1.

Milk Components

Dairy processors are increasingly using milk as a raw material from which individual

components can be extracted. Processors are refining raw milk and isolating its individual

components in a manner analogous to the refinement of crude petroleum into its various

individual component products.19 The components of milk are presented in figure 1-2.

Cow’s milk is made up of about 87 percent water and 13 percent milk components, or milk

solids. The milk solids consist of a fat portion, accounting for 3.7 percent of the milk, and

a solids-not-fat (SNF) portion, accounting for 8.9 percent of the milk. SNF consists of three

broad categories: lactose, minerals, and proteins. Lactose is the sugar component of milk,

while minerals (or “ash”) include elements, such as calcium and potassium, and vitamins,

such as A, B1, B2, C, and D. The two major forms of milk protein are casein and whey.

Casein accounts for 80 percent of the proteins in milk, with whey proteins making up the

remaining 20 percent. Highly formulated food products are being developed that incorporate

very specific types of proteins with specialized chemical and functional attributes. The five

specific types of casein protein are: "s1-casein, "s2-casein, $-casein, 6-casein, and (-
1-6

Box 1-1

Milk protein products and production processes and technology used in the milk protein industry 

Milk Protein Products

Casein: Casein is the primary protein found in milk, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the total protein content.

It is also a milk protein product produced by separating the casein protein in milk from all other milk components. Casein

is typically produced using one of two processes. Rennet casein is produced using enzymes which cause the casein to

coagulate and congeal into a solid mass. Acid casein is produced from the application of acid which causes the casein

protein to precipitate from the milk at a pH of 4.6.

Caseinate: Caseinate is a derivative of casein produced by neutralizing acid with alkali and drying the final product. The

alkali treatments result in caseinates being more soluble in water than casein. The two most common neutralizing agents

are sodium hydroxide (which results in sodium caseinate) and calcium hydroxide (which results in calcium caseinate). 

Milk protein concentrate (MPC): A concentrated milk protein product that contains both casein and whey protein. MPC

is often referred to in conjunction with its protein content. For example, MPC with a protein concentration of 42 percent is

commonly referred to as MPC 42.

Nonfat dry milk (NFDM or NDM): A synonym for skim milk powder commonly used in the United States. 

Skim milk powder (SMP): SMP is produced by removing water from pasteurized skim milk, resulting in a product containing

proteins, lactose, and minerals. The production process consists of evaporation and drying, usually via a spray dryer, to

remove all but 4-5 percent of the water content. SMP is also commonly referred to as nonfat dry milk (NFDM or NDM).

Whey: Whey is one of the two proteins found in milk and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total protein content.

Whey is typically a by-product formed after the fat and casein have been removed from the milk in cheese and casein

production. There are several whey products, including dry sweet whey, dry acid whey, reduced lactose whey, reduced

mineral whey, whey protein concentrate (WPC), and whey protein isolate (WPI).

Whey protein concentrate (WPC): WPC is typically produced using an ultrafiltration process. After the ultrafiltration

process, the concentrated liquid whey passes through an evaporator and a spray dryer to remove all but 4-5 percent of the

water. WPC is often referred to in conjunction with its protein concentration. For example, WPC with a protein concentration

of 34 percent is commonly referred to as WPC 34.

Whey protein isolate (WPI): WPI denotes WPC with very high protein concentrations, 90 percent or more. The production

of WPI requires additional processing steps compared with WPC. Two different processes can be used to produce WPI:

ion exchange or microfiltration. The ion exchange process separates the components based on their electrical charge. The

microfiltration process is analogous to the ultrafiltration process except that it utilizes ceramic filters instead of polymeric

filters. 

Production Processes and Other Terms

Co-precipitation: A production process in which skim milk undergoes a moderate to severe heat treatment followed by

precipitation with acid or calcium salts. 

Denaturation: The process that proteins undergo when subjected to certain physical or chemical treatments (e.g., heating)

that cause disruption of bonds that maintain the protein’s structure. Denaturation causes profound changes in functional

properties.

Diafiltration: A process used in conjunction with ultrafiltration and microfiltration whereby water is added to the retentate

before it passes through the ultrafiltration membrane as a means of decreasing viscosity and increasing the rate of permeate

flow through the filter.

Dry blending: A process in which dried, powdered milk fractions are blended together to form a composite milk component

product, such as mixing casein and WPC to produce MPC.

Evaporation: Process of drying liquid milk or milk fractions by heating the liquid (generally under a vacuum) to remove some

of the water of the liquid.

Electrodialysis: A process that uses electric charge to separate substances in solution, such as removing minerals from

whey or milk fractions.

Homogenization: The process of subdividing the fat globules in liquid dairy products to a smaller, more uniform size by

forcing them under pressure through a membrane.
1-7

Raw 

Milk 

Milk solids 

 (12.6%) 

Water

(87.4%) 

 Fat 

(3.7%)

Milk 

solids-notfat (8.9%) 

Protein

 (3.4%) 

Lactose

 (4.8%) 

Minerals

 (0.7%) 

Casein

(2.8%) 

Whey 

protein 

(0.6%) 

Source: Chardan Ramesh, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan Press

Handbook, 1997).

Figure 1-2

Raw milk: Composition by major constituent and share (by weight) of total

Box 1-1—Continued

Milk protein products and production processes and technology used in the milk protein industry 

Production Processes and Other Terms—Continued

Ion exchange: A form of chromatography where ions held on absorbent beads are exchanged for the ions in the solution.

Different milk components have different charges allowing the ion exchange to separate components with different charges.

Microfiltration: See definition of ultrafiltration. Pores in a microfiltration membrane are larger than ultrafiltration pores,

which allows the passage of larger molecules into the permeate. 

Pasteurization: The process of heating liquid milk or milk fractions to a given temperature for a specified period of time

such that any pathogenic microorganisms present are destroyed.

Permeate: The by-product of the ultrafiltration process consisting of the milk fractions that are allowed to pass through

the filter and be separated out from the retentate.

Precipitation: An acid and heat treatment process through which casein proteins are separated from other milk fractions.

Retentate: The milk fractions captured, or retained, during the ultrafiltration process.

Roller drying (or drum drying): A process where fluid dairy products are dried by conveying them over the surface of

two heated, revolving drums. 

Spray drying: A process in which milk or milk fractions are atomized into a chamber where extremely hot air is used to

dry the milk or milk fractions. The powder is then collected from the drying chamber.

Ultrafiltration: A process that uses a semipermeable membrane to separate milk fractions based on molecular size.
 20 Pieter Walstra, et al., “Dairy Technology: Principles of Milk Properties and Processes,”

Food Science and Technology, vol. 90 (May 1999).

 21 Srinivasan Damodaran, et al., Food Proteins and Their Applications (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

 22 An example is lactoferrin, an iron-binding and transport protein found in whey. Lactoferrin

has antibacterial and antioxidant attributes that provide resistance against nonspecific diseases.

Recently, technology has been developed to isolate lactoferrin and it is now produced on a

commercial basis (requiring 10,000 units of milk for every one unit of lactoferrin). Owing to its

specific properties, the product is used in infant formulas, sports foods, personal care products, and

in veterinary medicines. Lactoferrin is also used as an antipathegen cleaning agent in the meat

sector. International Dairy Federation, World Dairy Situation 2003, Bulletin 384/2003

(Aug. 2003). 

 23 A more detailed description of these products and their functional attributes is presented in

appendix D.

1-8

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Whole milk Milkfat 

Skim milk

Skim milk 

powder (SMP) 

Ultrafiltered 

Cheese Whey milk 

Whey protein 

concentrate 

(WPC) 

Milk protein 

concentrate 

(MPC) 

Whey Curd 

Casein Caseinate

Whole milk 

powder (WMP) 

Figure 1-3

Milk and milk derivative products

casein.20 Whey protein primarily consists of two types of protein, $-lactoglobulin and "-

lactalbumin, but includes five other important proteins as well: serum albumin,

immunoglobulins, glycomacropeptide, lactoferrin, and peptide fragments.21 Food processors,

particularly those involved in the specialty nutrition sector, may use specific casein or whey

proteins for highly formulated products.22 

The shaded boxes in figure 1-3 indicate the major milk protein products relevant to this

study. Five of these products are central to the analysis requested by the Committee: SMP,

MPC, casein, caseinate, and WPC. Figure 1-3 presents how each of these products are

derived from raw milk; their composition in terms of water, fat, protein, lactose, and minerals

is shown in table 1-1.23
1-9

Table 1-1

Composition of selected milk protein products

Product Water Fat Protein Lactose Minerals

––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent –––––––––––––––––––––––– 

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.8 35.9 52.3 8.0

Milk protein concentrate-42 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 40.5 46.0 7.9

Milk protein concentrate-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 2.5 77.2 5.5 8.5

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 1.0 90.0 0.1 2.2

Rennet casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 1.0 85.0 0.1 4.0

Calcium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 90.9 0.1 4.5

Sodium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 91.4 0.1 4.0

Whey protein concentrate-34 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.0 32.6 51.0 6.0

Whey protein concentrate-50 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.0 48.0 35.0 7.0

Whey protein concentrate-80 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.0 76.8 4.0 4.0

Whey protein isolate-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.5 93.0 1.0 2.0

Notes.—Compositions are approximate and may vary.

Sources: Chardan Ramesh, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan Press

Handbook, 1997); Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A Descriptive Analysis of Recent Trends in the

International Market for Dry Milk Products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2 (University of Wisconsin,

2002).

Skim Milk Powder

SMP is produced by removing water from pasteurized skim milk. The production process

consists of evaporation and drying, usually via a spray dryer, to remove all but 4 to 5 percent

of the water content. SMP has a protein content of approximately 36 percent. SMP is often

referred to as nonfat dry milk (NDM or NFDM). SMP is produced extensively in the United

States. SMP is classified under subheadings 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, and 0402.10.20 of the

HTS. Relatively little SMP is imported into the United States because imports are subject

to a TRQ that allows up to 5,261 mt to enter at a rate of 3.3 cents per kilogram (about

2 percent AVE), whereas imports over that amount are subject to tariff of 86.5 cents per

kilogram (about 50 percent AVE). 

Milk Protein Concentrate

MPC is a concentrated milk protein product that contains both of the major forms of protein

found in milk: casein and whey. The protein content of MPC can vary considerably, from

42 percent to over 90 percent. MPC is often referred to by its protein concentration. For

example, MPC with a protein concentration of 42 percent is commonly referred to as

MPC 42.

MPC is produced using one of three different production processes: ultrafiltration, blending,

or co-precipitation. The ultrafiltration process uses a semipermeable membrane to separate

milk components based on molecule size. The production of MPC with a protein

concentration of 60 percent or higher generally requires an additional filtration step,

diafiltration. Diafiltration is an extension of the ultrafiltration process whereby water is

added to the milk during the filtration process as a means of increasing the rate of flow

through the filter. The blending process involves mixing, either in a dry or liquid form,

different milk protein products to obtain MPC with a specific protein, lactose, and other milk

component profile. SMP and casein can be blended to produce a low-protein MPC, while
 24 Casein glues, classified under HTS subheading 3501.90.20, are not covered by this report. 

1-10

WPC and casein can be blended to produce a high-protein MPC. In the co-precipitation

production process, skim milk undergoes a heat and acid treatment that concentrates the

amount of protein in the product. The co-precipitation process results in MPC with a highprotein concentration. Milk protein isolate (MPI) is a term sometimes used to differentiate

MPC with a protein concentration of 90 percent or more from other forms of MPC.

MPC is classified under HTS subheadings 0404.90.10 and 3501.10.10. MPC is defined by

U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) as “any complete milk protein

(casein plus lactalbumin) concentrate that is 40 percent or more protein by weight.” Imports

of MPC are subject to a minimal duty of $3.70 per mt (about 0.1 percent AVE). The MPC

market in the United States is served primarily from imports. However, in 2003 commercial

production of MPC began in the United States. Limited commercial production of liquid

MPC has been undertaken in the United States since the late-1990s. Liquid MPC is

commonly referred to as ultrafiltered (UF) milk. In this report, UF milk will refer to a liquid

product, while MPC will refer to a dry, powder product.

Casein

Casein is a form of concentrated casein protein (one of the two major proteins found in milk)

and is derived from skim milk. Depending on the method of manufacture, casein is classified

as rennet casein or acid casein. In the production of rennet casein, skim milk is treated with

an enzyme that causes the casein to coagulate and separate from other milk components.

Acid casein is produced when skim milk is exposed to an acid treatment which causes the

protein to precipitate out from other milk components. Both rennet and acid casein are highprotein products with protein concentrations from 85 to 90 percent. Both rennet and acid

casein also contain very little whey protein and therefore cannot be classified as MPC.

All forms of casein are classified under HTS subheading 3501.10.50.24 Imports of casein

enter the United States free of duty. The U.S. market for casein is served almost exclusively

by imports. Casein production recently began in the United States, although is not yet

commercially significant. Unlike imported casein, which is produced from fresh, liquid skim

milk, U.S. production of casein uses reconstituted SMP as the starting ingredient.

Caseinate

Caseinate is a further derivative of acid casein produced by neutralizing acid with an alkali.

Common forms of caseinate are calcium caseinate and sodium caseinate. All forms of

caseinate are very high-protein products with protein concentrations of approximately 90

percent. All forms of caseinate are classified under HTS subheading 3501.90.60, and imports

are subject to a minimal duty of $3.70 per mt (about 0.1 percent AVE). The U.S. market for

caseinate is served primarily by imports. Several U.S. firms produce caseinate from imported

dry casein. The flavor and functionality of this product can differ from imported caseinate

produced from fresh, liquid casein.
 25 A. Pour-El, World Soybean Research (Interstate Publishing, 1976).

 26 A more detailed description of the functional attributes of milk proteins is presented in

appendix D.

1-11

Whey Protein Concentrate

WPC is produced by applying the ultrafiltration process to whey. The whey is produced as

a by-product of cheese or casein manufacturing. WPC is defined as any whey protein

concentrate with a protein concentration of 25 percent or more. In a manner analogous to

MPC, WPC is referred to by its protein concentration. For example, WPC 34 has a protein

concentration of 34 percent. The production of WPC with a protein concentration of 60

percent or more requires diafiltration as well as ultrafiltration. Whey protein isolate (WPI)

is WPC with a protein concentration of 90 percent or more. The production of WPI requires

additional processing beyond the ultrafiltration and diafiltration processes. WPI can be

produced using either microfiltration or an ion exchange process. 

WPC is classified under HTS subheading 0404.10.05 and WPI is classified under

subheading 3502.20.00. Imports of WPC are subject to a tariff of 8.5 percent, while imports

of WPI are free of duty. The United States is a significant producer and exporter of both

WPC and WPI. The U.S. market is served primarily by U.S. producers, however, the United

States also imports significant volumes of WPC and WPI.

Other Forms of Milk Protein

Other types of liquid milk protein products include whole milk, skim milk, and fluid whey.

These products are produced extensively in the United States, but are not imported in

meaningful quantities because of their highly perishable nature. Other forms of dry milk

protein products include WMP and dry whey. The United States does not import significant

quantities of these products and the U.S. market is served primarily by domestic production.

Functional Attributes of Milk Protein Products

Milk protein products do more than just increase the protein content of the foods in which

they are present. In many processed foods, milk proteins are used because they also deliver

“functionality.” Functionality refers to “any property of a substance, besides its nutritional

ones, that affects its utilization.”25 Many of the functional properties of milk products are

derived from the protein content of the product, in combination with the protein’s interaction

with other milk components such as fat, lactose, and salts. Several milk protein products

have similar functional properties and applications when used in food processing. Some of

the more commonly referenced functional characteristics include solubility, viscosity, waterbinding, emulsifying, whipping and foaming, heat stability, and gelation/coagulation.26

Additionally, individual functional characteristics are strongly interrelated (for example, a

protein’s solubility affects foaming, gelation, and emulsifying characteristics) and processes

undertaken to enhance one particular characteristic can impact other functional

characteristics. A milk protein product’s functional attributes can vary based on the amount

and type of protein in the product and the manufacturing process. The degree to which a milk

protein product possesses certain functional characteristics may determine how it is used in

a finished product. For example, WPC and caseinate are more soluble than casein, therefore,
 27 Industry questionnaires were developed by the Commission in close collaboration with

industry representatives, including the National Milk Producers Federation and International Dairy

Foods Association. Questionnaires were fully field tested and issued following the approval of the

Office of Management and Budget.

1-12

for many applications which require a soluble protein (such as diet or energy drinks), WPC

and caseinate are used instead of casein. 

Approach

Data and information for this report were obtained from existing sources, fieldwork in the

United States and foreign countries, and through questionnaires. Much of the information

requested by the Committee was available from existing, wide-ranging, sources. Industry

profiles for the United States and major exporting countries were developed from published

sources, as well as through extensive interviews by Commission staff of industry

representatives, government officials, and academics in the United States, Ireland, Belgium,

Australia, and New Zealand. Information on the technical and economic substitutability of

various milk proteins was also obtained from published reports, as well as through interviews

with dairy scientists at research centers in the United States.

A qualitative analysis on the impact of milk protein imports on farm-level prices was

undertaken following a detailed review of market relationships and pricing mechanisms for

milk under the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO). The analysis was based on how

changes in U.S. Government price support levels for SMP impact farm-level prices, using

Commission analysis and results from questionnaires. Additionally, the Commission

reviewed the results of dairy industry modeling analysis published by leading academic

experts. The results of these models regarding the quantitative affect of milk protein imports

on farm-level prices are reported.

Questionnaire data covering U.S. imports and purchases were used to provide an estimate

of the protein content of U.S. imports of milk protein products, as well as identification of

the uses and manufacturing processes of imported milk proteins. Using the questionnaire

results, an evaluation was made of the substitutability of imported and domestically

produced milk proteins.

Questionnaire Process

Certain information requested by the Committee for this investigation was not available from

existing published sources. This information included the protein content of imported milk

proteins, utilization of milk proteins, technical and economic substitutability among milk

proteins in their various forms, recent advances in processing and production technology,

and the potential impact of these factors on demand for the various products. To collect these

data, the Commission conducted an industry-wide survey of the U.S. market for milk protein

products, covering importers, purchasers, and foreign producers.27 Questionnaires were sent

to the vast majority of market participants for SMP, MPC, casein, caseinate, and WPC.
1-13

The Commission sent nearly 600 questionnaires: 122 to firms that imported MPC, casein,

and caseinate between 1998 and 2002; 450 to firms likely to have purchased MPC, casein,

caseinate, SMP, and WPC; and 18 to foreign manufacturers that export MPC, casein,

caseinate, and WPC to the United States. The Commission received responses from

68 importers, of which 47 provided usable data. These responses accounted for the vast

majority of U.S. imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate during the 1998-2002 period. For

example, data reported for 2002 accounted for 99.5 percent of all U.S. imports of MPC.

Purchasers’ questionnaires were issued to firms that produce cheese, ice cream, yogurt, and

other dairy products, as well as manufacturers of bakery, meat, confectionary, snack food,

soups, sauces, animal feed, and specialty nutrition products. The Commission received

280 responses to purchasers’ questionnaires, of which 135 provided usable data. The

Commission received responses with usable data from all 18 foreign producers.

Organization of the Report

The organization of the report follows closely the format of the request letter. Chapter 2

provides an overview of the global market for milk protein products. It discusses recent

trends in world production, consumption, trade, and prices for the major milk protein

products, identifying the major country participants in the global market. Chapter 3 presents

a profile on the U.S. industry for milk protein products, tracing domestically produced and

imported proteins through the processing, marketing, and distribution channels to final

consumption. Chapter 4 includes industry profiles for the major exporting countries—the

EU, New Zealand, and Australia. Chapter 5 summarizes the conditions of competition for

milk protein products, focusing on how product availability and price are affected by

production costs and government intervention in the United States and major exporting

countries. Chapter 6 presents data obtained from the Commission importers’ questionnaires,

including the protein content of imports of MPC and the production processes used for

imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate. Chapter 7 presents data from the Commission

purchasers’ questionnaires on the uses and substitutability of different milk proteins. Chapter

7 also presents the Commission’s analysis of the degree to which imported and domestically

produced milk protein may substitute for one another. Chapter 8 discusses tariff treatment

for milk protein products in the United States, and includes a brief history of tariff

classification for these products, as well as a discussion of the current tariff structure. Recent

Customs classification rulings concerning imported milk proteins are also covered. Chapter

9 presents a qualitative assessment of the impact of imported milk proteins on U.S. milk

prices. It also summarizes some of the results of recent quantitative studies on the impact of

milk protein imports on farm-level prices.

 1

 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Agricultural Outlook: 

2003/2008 (Paris: July 2003).

 2

 International Dairy Federation, 2002 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 378/2002 (Aug. 2002).

The Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) noted that trade is also limited

owing to severe restrictions on trade by many developed countries. DCANZ prehearing

submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 15.

 3

 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database, Jan.

2004 update.

 4

 Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A descriptive analysis of recent trends in the

international market for dry milk products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2

(University of Wisconsin, 2002).

2-1

CHAPTER 2

OVERVIEW OF THE GLOBAL MARKET

FOR MILK PROTEIN PRODUCTS

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the global market for milk proteins in their various

forms, including such factors as consumption, production, and trade during the period 1998-

2002. The focus of this chapter is on markets for standardized, commodity-type products,

such as skim milk powder (SMP), whole milk powder (WMP), dry whey, and casein,

although information is also presented on the international trade of more specialized milk

protein products, such as milk protein concentrate (MPC), caseinate, and whey protein

concentrate (WPC). The chapter also highlights the importance of the European Union (EU),

New Zealand, and Australia as major milk protein product exporting countries in the global

market (discussed in detail in chapter 4).

On a milk-equivalent basis, global trade in all dairy products accounted for 5-7 percent of

global milk production in 2002.1

 Raw milk and other fresh dairy products are highly

perishable and expensive to transport, consequently the vast majority of the world’s dairy

production is consumed domestically.2

 Once domestic demand for fluid and fresh dairy

products has been satisfied, countries typically turn surplus milk into processed dairy

products, such as cheese, butter, SMP, and WMP. These products can be stored and

transported at relatively low cost compared to their value. As a result, global trade as a share

of world production is much greater for processed dairy products than for raw milk. The

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that in 2002, world exports of SMP and

WMP accounted for 35 percent and 64 percent, respectively, of world production of these

products.3

Traditionally, the most widely traded milk protein products have been in the form of

standardized, commodity-type products, such as SMP, WMP, dry whey, and casein. More

recently, the world market has changed with the development of modern filtration and

blending technologies that have drastically reduced the costs and increased production of

a range of more specialized dairy products.4

 These products are individual milk components
 5

 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The global market for dairy blends,” World Dairy, vol. 7, No. 1

(Mar. 2001); U.S. Dairy Export Council, “Global Dairy Blends. 2002 Update,” report prepared by

Landell Mills (Nov. 2002).

 6

 OECD, “OECD Agricultural Outlook,” (Apr. 15-16, 2003).

 7

 For a comprehensive database of available global dairy trade statistics, see U.S. Dairy Export

Council, World Dairy Trade Trends, 2003 Edition.

 8

 The FAS compiles its data from published sources in major markets and from local market

intelligence provided by USDA attaches posted in U.S. embassies throughout the world.

Therefore, FAS data are generally considered accurate. However, not all countries are covered,

especially many developing countries that are not significant participants in world dairy markets.

FAO data, on the other hand, cover a much wider spectrum of countries than FAS, including many

developing countries, but are considered less reliable than FAS data. This report uses FAO data in

order to provide as broad an overview of global trends as possible, and because FAS and FAO data

were found to be identical for many major markets. FAS official, interview by USITC staff,

Sept. 6, 2003; Edward V. Jesse, “World trade in dairy products and the U.S. role: an illustrated

primer,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2003-2 (University of Wisconsin, 2003). 

 9

 Recent studies for the Babcock Institute include, Edward V. Jesse, “World trade in dairy

products and the U.S. role: an illustrated primer,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2003-2

(University of Wisconsin, 2003), and Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A descriptive

analysis of recent trends in the international market for dry milk products,” Babcock Institute

Discussion Paper No. 2002-2 (University of Wisconsin, 2002).

2-2

or blends of individual milk components tailored to the specific needs of customers, and

include such products as MPC, WPC, whey protein isolates (WPI), and specialized casein

products and caseinates. Generically referred to as “dairy-based ingredients,” these products

are increasingly being used by industries for processed foods, animal feed, and

pharmaceutical products.5

 Global trade in these highly specialized protein products has been

growing, benefitting from low levels of global tariffs and quota protection, as well as

relatively high prices of competing, traditionally traded milk protein products.6

Discussion of global market trends for milk proteins is constrained by data availability and

reliability. Data sources that cover world markets for SMP, WMP, dry whey, and casein

include the FAO and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA).7, 8

 Although global markets for dairy-based ingredients are increasing

in importance, a detailed discussion is not possible owing to insufficient worldwide data.

Consequently, this chapter focuses mainly on SMP, WMP, and dry whey.9

 However, the

chapter concludes with some information on global trade trends in dairy ingredients,

including MPC, WPC, and caseinates, from fieldwork and published data sources in the

major supplying countries.
 10 International Dairy Federation, Structural Change in the Dairy Sector, Bulletin 360/2001

(Nov. 2000).

 11 USDA, FAS, “Brazil Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. BR2614 (Oct. 25,

2002).

2-3

Global Production of Milk Protein Products

Raw Milk

Global milk production reached 506 million metric tons (mt) in 2002, produced from about

226 million dairy cows, with an average annual yield of 2.2 mt per cow (table 2-1). Between

1998 and 2002, world milk supply increased about 6 percent, mainly the result of

technology-driven improvements in yields, since the number of dairy cows worldwide has

remained stable during this time frame.

Milk production in the EU (24 percent) plus U.S. production (15 percent) accounted for

about 39 percent of world production in 2002, a share that has remained stable since 1998.

Milk production in the EU has changed little over the past 5 years owing to production

quotas (see chapter 4),10 while the 8 percent growth in U.S. production between 1998 and

2002 can be attributed to growth in productivity. India ranks third among leading milk

producing countries with 35 million mt of milk produced in 2002, accounting for 7 percent

of world supply. With close to 38 million cows, India has over 4 times as many cows as the

United States. However, India’s productivity is low by world standards, with annual yields

about one-eighth of those in the United States.

Russia is the fourth-largest milk producing country in the world with a share of about

6-7 percent of global output. Brazil is the world’s fifth-largest milk producing country;

production increased there by 17 percent during 1998-2002. This is the result of a 30-percent

growth in yields over the 5-year period, reflecting improved on-farm management and

private investment in dairy processing.11 Several of the world’s major milk producing

countries are in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union; and Ukraine and Poland

together accounted for 5 percent of world milk production in 2002. In both countries, the

number of cows fell between 1998 and 2002, offset by increases in productivity. Ukraine,

for example, improved its cow yields by 30 percent between 1998 and 2002. China emerged

as a major milk producing country with output almost doubling between 1998 and 2002.

The major dairy exporting countries of New Zealand and Australia are not significant

milk-producing countries in the context of world production. For example, New Zealand

produced 14 million mt in 2002, accounting for less than 3 percent of world supply, and

Australia’s share of world production was just 2 percent. However, these countries

experienced strong production growth between 1998 and 2002—24 percent in New Zealand

and 19 percent in Australia—in both cases owing to increases in both cow numbers and

improvements in cow productivity.
2-4

Table 2-1

Cow's milk production, cow numbers, and yield per cow, by major producing countries, 

1998-2002

Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change 

1998-2002

–––––––––––Fresh, whole cow's milk (1,000 metric tons)––––––––––– –Percent–

European Union ............ 121,735 122,801 123,279 122,198 121,687 0

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,414 73,804 76,023 74,980 77,248 8

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,600 32,800 34,000 34,400 35,300 12

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,955 32,001 32,000 32,600 33,100 0

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,273 19,661 20,380 21,146 22,635 17

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,532 13,140 12,436 13,169 14,142 5

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,380 10,881 12,235 13,162 14,079 24

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,960 7,514 8,632 10,601 13,356 92

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,596 12,284 11,889 11,884 11,873 -6

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,732 10,494 11,183 10,872 11,620 19

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145681 147,707 148,700 150,552 151,428 4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476,857 483,088 490,758 495,563 506,467 6

–––––––––––––––––––Dairy cattle (1,000 head)–––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,489 21,297 20,556 20,350 20,051 -7

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,158 9,156 9,210 9,115 9,141 0

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,200 34,700 36,000 36,600 37,600 10

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,837 13,158 12,790 12,297 11,729 -15

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,281 17,396 17,885 18,194 15,600 -10

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,952 5,549 5,159 4,710 4,771 -20

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,467 3,358 3,337 3,557 3,749 8

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,729 4,814 4,936 5,021 5,143 9

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,202 3,077 2,785 2,758 2,741 -14

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,060 2,155 2,171 2,176 2,123 3

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108127 108,776 111,197 112,424 113,316 5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223,502 223,435 226,027 227,202 225,963 1

–––––––––––––––Productivity (kilograms per cow)––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,665 5,766 5,997 6,005 6,069 7

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,798 8,061 8,254 8,226 8,451 8

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924 945 944 940 939 2

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,382 2,432 2,502 2,651 2,822 19

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,115 1,130 1,140 1,162 1,451 30

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,274 2,368 2,410 2,796 2,965 30

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,282 3,241 3,666 3,700 3,755 14

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,472 1,561 1,749 2,111 2,597 77

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,933 3,992 4,269 4,309 4,332 10

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,724 4,870 5,151 4,996 5,473 16

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,347 1,358 1,337 1,339 1,336 -1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,134 2,162 2,171 2,181 2,241 5

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database Feb. 3, 2004 update.
 12 International Dairy Federation, 2003 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 384/2003 (Aug. 2003).

 13 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-105 (Mar. 23,

2003), found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/Mar03/LDPM105F.pdf. 

 14 Much of the Russian dairy processing sector has stagnated in recent years owing to

macroeconomic instability, high costs of capital, and weak consumer demand for dairy products.

International Dairy Federation, The Global Dairy Industry Today, Bulletin 361/2001 (Nov. 2000).

 15 USDA, FAS, “Japan Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. JA3042 (July 2,

2003).

 16 European Dairy Association, Major Issues Since July 2000 (Brussels, 2001).

2-5

Skim Milk Powder

Global production of SMP increased from 3.1 million mt in 1998 to 3.5 million mt in 2002

(table 2-2), an increase of almost 10 percent. Production is highly concentrated in a few

major producing countries, and is generally considered a residual product, manufactured

once the demand for skim milk for other uses has been met.12 In 2002, the EU accounted for

31 percent of world skim milk production, while the United States accounted for 21 percent.

The next three countries—New Zealand, Australia, and Russia—together accounted for

another 22 percent of production. Thus, almost three-quarters of world SMP production was

from just five countries in 2002; the top-ten countries accounted for more than 90 percent.

During 1998-2002, production of SMP in the EU remained fairly stable at about 1 million

mt. In contrast, production in the United States and New Zealand grew by more than

35 percent over this period, while growth in Australia and Poland exceeded 20 percent. In

the case of the United States, growth in SMP production resulted from increased milk

supplies, combining with stagnant milk demand and government price guarantees.13 Growth

in SMP production in New Zealand and Australia reflected growth in the overall level of

milk production in these countries. Production in Russia has remained stable over the past

5 years,14 but production in Japan (the world’s sixth-largest SMP producing country) has

declined owing to changes in government dairy policy.15

Whole Milk Powder

Between 1998 and 2002, global production of WMP increased at approximately the same

rate as SMP (table 2-2), reaching about 2.7 million mt in 2002. Like SMP, world production

of WMP is concentrated in a few major countries. The EU produced about 26 percent of

WMP supplies in 2002, while another 20 percent came from New Zealand. These countries,

together with Brazil, Australia and Argentina, produced three-quarters of world supply in

2002, whereas the top-ten producing countries accounted for 88 percent. The United States

produced less than 1 percent of world output in 2002.

Production trends among the top WMP producing countries have been diverse in recent

years. Production in the EU declined by 13 percent during 1998-2002, as a result of strong

demand and higher producer prices for cheese.16 Similarly, production dropped in the United

States, with supplies in 2002 about one-third of what they were in 1998, as greater returns

were available for alternative products that benefit from government price supports.
2-6

Table 2-2

Production of skim milk powder, whole milk powder, dry whey, and casein and caseinate, by

major producing countries, 1998-2002

Product/country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change

1998-2002

––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons –––––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Skim milk powder:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . 1,079 1,104 1,047 949 1,068 -1

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 627 661 645 715 38

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 255 247 244 261 21

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 173 187 251 255 44

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 252 248 252 252 -3

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 191 194 175 183 -10

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 109 139 151 150 22

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 115 113 115 122 4

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 78 75 90 81 17

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . 60 60 60 60 60 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 330 318 306 314 -4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,148 3,294 3,287 3,239 3,461 10

Whole milk powder:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 821 795 787 730 718 -13

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 382 449 516 540 36

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 244 256 345 355 48

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 145 187 205 239 87

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 224 202 185 180 -11

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 97 102 104 105 15

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 84 75 85 95 25

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 61 59 72 69 -3

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 54 52 51 54 1

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 32 31 34 40 8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 309 310 308 316 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,425 2,426 2,509 2,635 2,711 12

Dry whey:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . 1,160 1,145 1,154 1,298 1,252 8

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 534 539 474 506 -4

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 60 60 60 60 8

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 51 59 45 45 -25

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 14 18 18 357

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 22 23 16 16 -29

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 8 14 11 88

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7 11 11 900

Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 5 6 6 (1

)

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 7 6 6 100

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 41 51 14 14 -60

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,875 1,876 1,927 1,961 1,944 4

Casein and caseinate:

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 87 97 110 (2

) (1)

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 9 8 14 56

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . 140 154 157 171 144 3

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 4 7 (2

) (1)

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 (2

) (2) (2) (1) 1

 Not applicable.

2

 Not available.

Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database Feb. 3, 2004 update;

Casein and caseinate production from ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.
 17 USDA, FAS, “Argentina Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. AR1066

(Oct. 26, 2001).

 18 Representatives of New Zealand and Australia a dairy industries, interviews by USITC staff,

Nov. 2-16, 2003.

 19 International Dairy Federation, 2003 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 384/2003 (Aug. 2003).

 20 USDA, FAS, Dairy: World Markets and Trade (July 2003), found at http://www.fas.usda.-

gov/dlp/circular/-2003/03-07Dairy/toc.htm.

 21 Casein and caseinate production data in table 2-2 were reported by ZMP. The FAO does not

report data on these products. The ZMP data, however, are not consistent with production data

collected from responses to the USITC foreign producer questionnaire in terms of production

volumes.

 22 OECD data from http://www.sourceoecd.com, reported by Brian W. Gould and Hector J.

Villarreal, “A descriptive analysis of recent trends in the international market for dry milk

products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2 (University of Wisconsin, 2002), p. 18.

2-7

Argentina also experienced lower WMP production in 2002 compared with 1998, owing

largely to the decline in that country’s supply of raw milk following increasing production

costs, weak domestic demand, and declining exports to Brazil.17 In contrast, between 1998

and 2002, WMP production in New Zealand rose by 36 percent, in Brazil production grew

by close to one-half, and Australian production almost doubled. Production growth in these

markets reflected the increased availability of raw milk, as well as increased demand for

these products in the major export markets for these countries, particularly in Southeast Asia

and Latin America.18

Whey

Whey is a product derived from casein and cheesemaking so that the world’s major whey

producing countries are also countries with significant cheese and casein production.19

Global production of dry whey reached 1.9 million mt in 2002, a small increase from the

level in 1998 (table 2-2). World whey production is dominated by the EU which accounted

for 64 percent of world supplies in 2002. The United States accounted for an additional

26 percent of world production in the same year. The next most important producing

country, Australia, produced just 60,000 mt in 2002, representing about 3 percent of world

production. Trends in whey production reflect cheese production. For instance, the 8 percent

growth in whey production in the EU between 1998 and 2002 generally reflects the 6 percent

growth in EU cheese production over the same time frame.20

Casein and Caseinate

World casein and caseinate production are dominated by New Zealand and the EU.21

Together these countries account for over 90 percent of reported production. Based on

OECD data, the EU produced about 140,000 mt of casein during 1998-2000, and New

Zealand produced between 90,000 and 95,000 mt.22 Other important casein and caseinate

producing countries include Australia, Poland, Ukraine, India, and Russia. 
 23 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The World Dairy Outlook 2001-2006,” World Dairy, vol. 12,

No. 1 (Feb. 2002).

2-8

Global Consumption of Milk Protein Products

The FAO does not report data for global consumption of milk protein products. However,

consumption for individual countries can be approximated by adding domestic production

and imports, and then subtracting exports. Although this approach does not account for

beginning and ending stocks (there may be significant stockholding for some countries, such

as stocks of SMP in the United States and Japan), it does provide broad consumption

estimates for the major consuming countries and trends in consumption patterns (table 2-3).

Skim Milk Powder

With the exception of New Zealand and Australia, the world’s major SMP consuming

countries are also the world’s major producing countries. The EU and United States account

for about 47 percent of global consumption, whereas Russia and Japan combine for an

additional 14 percent (table 2-3). Australia and New Zealand, major exporting countries,

account for just 5 percent of world consumption. Major importing countries are also among

the world’s leading consumers of SMP. For instance, 4 percent of global SMP is consumed

by Mexico, almost all of which is imported. Algeria, the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia

are also major SMP importing and consuming countries.

Whole Milk Powder

Brazil is by far the world’s largest user of WMP with a 20 percent share of global

consumption. Brazil’s consumption comprises both large domestic production and

significant imports. The EU exports most of its WMP production, but still consumes

significant amounts, and its consumption has been steadily increasing over time. Mexico and

Algeria rank third and fourth among the world’s leading WMP importers and consumers,

while Russia also consumes significant amounts of domestically produced WMP (table 2-3).

China, Sri Lanka, and Chile are also important consumers of WMP in the global market. The

United States is not among the top-ten WMP consuming countries in the world.

Dry Whey

The EU and United States, the world’s leading whey producing countries, are also the

world’s leading consumers of dry whey, accounting for 59 percent of the market (table 2-3),

although consumption in both these markets declined during 1998-2002. Many of the

remaining top-ten whey consuming countries are Asian countries, such as China, Japan,

Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea, where much of the product is imported for use

as animal feed.23
2-9

Table 2-3

Estimated consumption of skim milk powder, whole milk powder, and dry whey, by major

consuming countries, 1998-2002

Product/country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change 

1998-2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Skim milk powder:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . 969 904 775 867 977 1

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 516 572 552 650 44

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 354 230 257 246 -11

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 248 246 228 227 -12

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 142 146 157 150 28

Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 71 91 97 114 31

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 87 111 96 99 28

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 92 63 44 79 -18

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 55 53 59 76 44

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 98 54 62 71 113

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962 933 974 876 782 -19

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,381 3,501 3,316 3,295 3,472 3

Whole milk powder:

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 390 364 387 450 21

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 240 227 224 272 256 7

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 121 124 147 136 3

Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 106 96 122 120 16

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 75 73 65 97 69

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 118 81 91 93 -16

Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 58 60 62 64 11

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 55 64 69 61 -14

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 43 47 53 57 76

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 54 52 51 54 2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975 928 999 894 823 -16

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,205 2,173 2,183 2,213 2,211 0

Dry whey:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . 1,046 1,011 949 1,084 785 -25

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 398 340 306 328 -20

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 83 123 120 138 101

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 56 55 74 52 -8

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 62 68 52 51 -16

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 41 39 44 42 13

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 23 32 37 40 147

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 24 29 32 36 79

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 31 39 39 35 47

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 33 29 33 22

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 144 184 161 346 193

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,881 1,899 1,891 1,976 1,886 0

Source: Commission estimates based on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT

database Jan. 2004 update.
 24 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The Outlook for U.S. Dairy Export Competition,” World Dairy,

vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2002).

 25 Representatives of the New Zealand and Australia dairy industries, interview by USITC staff,

Nov 2-16, 2003; USDA, FAS, “New Zealand Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No.

NZ2035 (Oct. 22, 2002). 

 26 Representatives of the EU dairy industry, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 6-16, 2003.

 27 International Dairy Federation, 2002 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 378/2002 (Aug. 2002).

 28 OECD, Agricultural Outlook: 2003/2008 (Paris: July 2003).

 29 USDA, ERS, “International Dairy Markets and the WTO,” Livestock, Dairy and Poultry,

Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-74 (Aug. 29, 2000), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/-

reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2000/ldp-m74.pdf; Dairy Australia, prehearing submission,

Dec. 1, 2003, p. 63. 

 30 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The World Dairy Outlook 2001-2006,” World Dairy, vol. 12,

No.1 (Feb. 2002).

 31 International Dairy Federation, Structural Change in the Dairy Sector, Bulletin 360/2001

(Nov. 2000).

2-10

Global Trade in Milk Protein Products

Global trade in milk protein products is dominated by a relatively few major exporting

countries (figure 2-1).24 New Zealand and Australia are leading exporters, benefitting from

highly efficient domestic production and processing, as well as sophisticated international

sales and marketing infrastructures.25 The EU is also a major exporter of milk protein

products, although its competitiveness is strongly influenced by the level of domestic and

export assistance provided under the Common Agricultural Policy (see chapter 4).26

Although the top-three exporters dominate world markets, other countries, including

Argentina and Poland, are playing an increasing role in international markets. These

emerging countries typically supply neighboring countries or operate within their own

region.27 With the exception of whey, the United States is not a major player in global

exports of milk protein products.

In contrast to exports, global imports of milk protein products are dispersed among a number

of countries. Many of these countries are located in tropical regions of Latin America, North

Africa, the Middle East, and Asia where climatic conditions are unfavorable to efficient

production of milk and dairy products. These dairy deficit countries tend to be middle- or

middle-to-low-income developing countries with rapid income and population growth, and

where consumer tastes and diets are being increasingly influenced by Western-style retail

and fast food chains.28 Milk protein imports tend to be primarily SMP and WMP, which are

reconstituted for local consumption as beverage milk or as infant formula.29 Also, in many

low- and middle-income countries, significant amounts of imported milk protein products,

particularly whey, are used in animal feed for developing livestock industries.30 Import

demand by these countries has also been spurred by increased foreign direct investment by

multinational dairy companies and co-operatives, such as Nestlé and Fonterra, that process

and package imported milk protein products in these markets for wholesale and retail

consumption.31
2-11

Figure 2-1

Share of global dairy exports by major countries, 2002 

Source: Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 59, based on data from the Food and

Agriculture Organization.

Although trade in various dairy ingredients has been increasing, most trade continues to be

in standardized, commodity-type products. As a result, importers tend to purchase product

from countries offering the lowest price, so long as the quality of the product is assured.

Consequently, international trade tends to be regional rather than global. Australia and New

Zealand are the major suppliers to the Asian market, Argentina mainly serves the South

American market, whereas Central and Eastern European countries largely supply the EU

and Middle East.

Finally, global trade in milk protein products is increasingly influenced by multilateral and

regional trade agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on

Agriculture, in particular, has lowered export subsidies and increased market access for dairy

products by reducing tariffs and increasing quota volumes. Lower WTO export subsidy

limits have been a major factor in the decline of the EU’s share of global exports and
 32 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The Outlook for U.S. Dairy Export Competition,” World Dairy,

vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2002).

 33 USDA, FAS, “European Union Dairy and Products Annual 2001,” Gain Report No. E21042

(Mar. 30, 2001).

 34 Upon accession to the EU on May 1, 2004, all trade between new members and previous EU15 members became duty free.

 35 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “Love Thy Neighbor,” World Dairy, vol. 12, No. 4 (Oct. 2002);

William D. Dobson and Richard Proctor, “How Mexico’s Dairy Industry has Evolved Under the

NAFTA—Implications for U.S. Dairy Exporters and U.S. Investors in Mexico’s Dairy-Food

Business,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-1 (University of Wisconsin, 2002).

 36 Roughly 80 percent of global allowable export subsidies under the WTO are allocated to the

EU.

 37 International Dairy Federation, 2002 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 378/2002 (Aug. 2002).

 38 USDA, ERS, “International Dairy Markets and the WTO,” Livestock, Dairy and Poultry,

Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-74 (Aug. 29, 2000), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/-

reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/-2000/ldp-m74.pdf.

2-12

provided export opportunities to countries with little or no government intervention.32

Although tariffs on dairy products remain relatively high in many countries (e.g., Japan and

several African countries), the WTO Agreement on Agriculture has led to greater market

access in many dairy importing countries. Regional trade agreements are also important. For

instance, in 2000, agreements lowered EU tariffs on dairy products imported from Central

and Eastern European countries that had applied for EU membership.33, 34 The North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has also provided market access opportunities

for certain U.S. dairy exports to Mexico.35

Skim Milk Powder

SMP is the third-most-widely traded dairy product worldwide in terms of both volume and

value (behind cheese and WMP). World exports reached about 1.2 million mt in 2002, an

increase of 27 percent since 1998 (table 2-4). Export suppliers are concentrated among a few

major countries, and about 86 percent of all exports in 2002 were supplied by the top-ten

countries. New Zealand and Australia, which export without benefit of subsidies, combine

for about 46 percent of world exports, with both counties increasing their exports

significantly since 1998. The EU is the world’s third-leading exporter of SMP, with a

13-percent share of the world market in 2002. EU export trends are driven by export

subsidies,36 which were reduced prior to 2001 under the WTO.37 The United States is the

world’s fifth-leading exporter of SMP. U.S. exports declined in the late-1990s as a result of

limits on export subsidies allowable under WTO commitments, as well as factors in the

domestic market for SMP.38 Other major SMP exporting countries include Poland, Canada,

Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Belarus, and Argentina. Many of these countries, particularly

Ukraine and Belarus, have experienced rapid growth in exports over the past 5 years.
 39 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 21.

 40 USDA, FAS, “Mexico Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. MX2146

(Oct. 16, 2002).

 41 USDA, FAS, “Algeria Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. AG2006

(Nov. 25, 2002).

 42 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 21.

2-13

Table 2-4

Skim milk powder: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002

Exporter/importer 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change 

1998-2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Exporter:

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 179 166 218 316 90

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 225 219 181 241 15

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 175 272 357 141 160 -9

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 83 86 108 94 -7

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 121 101 96 74 2

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 41 29 46 49 42

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 23 49 71 43 103

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . 27 32 29 36 30 8

Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11 21 28 27 269

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 28 22 20 21 82

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 135 220 152 165 23

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 1,150 1,299 1,096 1,220 27

Importer:

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 125 129 140 132 29

Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 71 91 97 114 31

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 87 111 96 100 28

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 56 53 59 76 44

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 98 83 74 72 118

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 65 73 84 58 69 5

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 51 57 52 66 47

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 72 75 50 55 -7

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 40 39 46 55 87

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 56 52 53 44 -22

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 627 553 427 447 -24

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,193 1,357 1,328 1,152 1,230 3

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database Jan. 2004 update.

In contrast to exports, global imports of SMP are shared over a large number of countries,

with the top-ten importers accounting for only 64 percent of all trade in 2002. Much of the

world’s major SMP markets are developing countries with low tariffs.39 Mexico, with an

applied tariff of zero, ranked as the world’s largest importer in 2002, with imports of 132,000

mt, up from 103,000 mt in 1998. Much of Mexico’s imported SMP is rehydrated and

distributed to low income households under Mexican Government social welfare programs.40

Algeria was the world’s second-leading importing country in 2002, supplied primarily by

subsidized product from the EU, as well as by unsubsidized product from New Zealand.41

The remaining top-ten SMP importing countries were in Asia, including the Philippines

(with an applied tariff of 3 percent),42 Thailand, and Indonesia. Asian markets for SMP

generally increased during 1998-2002, particularly in Indonesia (118 percent increase),

Singapore (87 percent), Thailand (44 percent), and China (47 percent). Although a major

exporter, the EU is also the world’s sixth-leading importer of SMP. This is because some EU
 43 Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A descriptive analysis of recent trends in the

international market for dry milk products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2

(University of Wisconsin, 2002).

 44 Industry representative of European dairy industry, interview by USITC staff, Brussels,

Oct. 15, 2003. 

 45 USDA, FAS, “Brazil Dairy and Products Annual 2002,” Gain Report No. BR2614 (Oct. 25,

2002).

 46 International Dairy Federation, The Global Dairy Industry Today, Bulletin 361/2001

(Nov. 2000).

2-14

countries re-export SMP, some product is transhipped through the EU,43 and the EU has

minimum-access import requirements under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

Whole Milk Powder

Global exports of WMP are dominated by New Zealand, the EU, and Australia (table 2-5).

In 2002, about 1.7 million mt of WMP were exported globally, of which New Zealand

supplied 529,000 mt, the EU 481,000 mt, and Australia 245,000 mt. Thus, the top-three

exporters supplied 72 percent of the world market that year. Other important exporting

countries included Argentina and the United States. Between 1998 and 2002, WMP exports

increased by about 23 percent, largely the result of increased exports by New Zealand (48

percent) and Australia (67 percent), although exports from the EU and United States declined

by about 18 percent during this time period. Singapore and Oman do not have significant

dairy operations, yet appear among the top-ten exporting countries. These exports reflect

imported powders that were re-exported to neighboring countries.44

As with SMP, world WMP imports are spread among a large number of countries, mostly

developing countries. The top-ten importing countries accounted for about one-half of total

world imports in 2002. During 1998-2002, annual global imports remained fairly stable at

between 1.1-1.2 million mt, although there have been significant changes in import levels

over time among individual countries. Algeria ranked as the world’s largest importing

country of WMP in 2002, with imports of 120,000 mt, representing a global share of about

10 percent. Until 2000, Brazil had been by far the world’s largest WMP importing country.

However, Brazilian imports dropped by more than 100,000 mt between 1999 and 2001,

owing to rapid growth in domestic production and government restrictions on imports.45

Brazil imports recovered in 2002 to reach 96,000 mt. Brazil was followed by China

(76,000 mt), Malaysia (64,000 mt), Saudi Arabia (52,000 mt), and Sri Lanka (50,000 mt).

With the exception of Brazil, imports by all top-five countries grew significantly during

1998-2002, generally reflecting strong population and per-capita income growth in these

countries.46

Dry Whey

World exports of dry whey rose significantly between 1998-2002, increasing by about

70 percent from 361,000 mt to 615,000 mt over this period (table 2-6). Global exports are

dominated by the EU and United States, which together accounted for approximately

64 percent of world exports in 2002, a share that has fluctuated over time. Australia ranked
2-15

Table 2-5

Whole milk powder: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002

Exporter/importer 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change

1998-2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Exporter:

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 390 426 502 529 48

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 577 574 478 481 -18

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 172 204 190 245 67

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 141 98 85 136 38

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 18 29 52 42 -19

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 6 37 972

Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23 13 29 29 1,961

Uruguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 14 17 29 107

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 7 15 21 (1

)

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 17 17 661

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 158 157 179 165 15

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,409 1,502 1,529 1,570 1,732 23

Importer:

Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 106 96 122 120 16

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 146 109 43 96 -28

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 41 51 41 76 276

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 54 58 61 64 43

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 70 43 45 52 53

Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 48 49 46 50 3

Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 59 37 37 49 -18

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 35 34 55 43 -9

Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11 9 32 41 294

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 52 65 55 40 -52

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603 627 652 612 602 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,189 1,250 1,203 1,148 1,232 4 1

 Not applicable.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database Jan. 2004 update.
 47 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “U.S. Export Outlook for China, Taiwan and S.E. Asia,” World

Dairy, vol. 12, No.3 (Nov. 2002).

 48 U.S. Dairy Export Council, “The World Dairy Outlook 2001-2006,” World Dairy, vol. 12,

No.1 (Feb. 2002); and, “U.S. Export Outlook for China, Taiwan and S.E. Asia,” World Dairy,

vol. 12, No. 3 (Nov. 2002).

2-16

Table 2-6

Dry whey: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-2002

Exporter/importer 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Change

1998-2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Exporter:

European Union ........... 116 139 20 223 214 84

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 136 199 169 178 48

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 43 39 38 66 66

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11 16 19 37 253

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 16 15 - 31 136

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 7 11 19 1,066

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 22 30 24 18 -22

Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 3 7 8 (1

)

Lithuania ................. 3 2 6 7 6 133

Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 6 5 6 52

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 28 34 33 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 406 568 537 615 70

Importer:

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 83 123 120 138 100

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 56 55 74 52 -8

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 41 40 44 42 13

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 23 32 37 40 148

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 24 29 32 36 79

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 31 39 39 35 47

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 33 29 33 23

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 33 39 31 21 -14

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 25 17 20 20 164

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 18 16 15 25

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 73 109 111 124 71

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 429 532 552 557 52 1

 Not applicable.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database Jan. 2004 update.

third among leading dry-whey exporting countries in 2002 with 66,000 mt, or 11 percent of

the world exports. Unlike other milk protein products, New Zealand is not a major exporter

of dry whey, supplying less than 2 percent of the world exports in 2002.

World imports of dry whey are dispersed among several countries, most of which are

developing countries. China ranked as the world’s leading importing country of dry whey,

importing 138,000 mt in 2002, accounting for 25 percent of global imports. Between 1998

and 2002, China’s imports doubled and China was responsible for much of the growth in

world imports over the period. Significant volumes of imported dry whey are used for pork

and poultry feed in China’s rapidly developing livestock industry.47 Other importing

countries were centered in either Asia (Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea,

Indonesia, and Malaysia) or the Americas (Mexico, Brazil, and Canada).48
2-17

Casein

World trade in casein remained fairly stable during 1998-2001 at about 300,000 mt annually

(table 2-7). Global exports are highly concentrated among the top-five countries that account

for over 85 percent of the market. New Zealand was by far the world’s leading exporting

country with a 40 percent share of world exports. The EU, Ukraine, Poland, and Russia are

among other leading exporting countries of casein. Importing countries are fairly

concentrated, with the top five accounting for more than three-quarters of global imports.

The United States was the world’s leading casein importing country (see chapter 3 for more

detail), with a world import share of about 40 percent. The EU was also a significant

importer of casein, sourced mainly from Central and Eastern Europe. Poland, Mexico, and

Japan make up the remainder of the top-five world casein importing countries.

Table 2-7

Casein: Exports and imports by major countries, 1998-20011

Exporter/importer 1998 1999 2000 2001

Change

1998-2001

––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons –––––––––––– –Percent–

Exporter:

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 100 111 117 13

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 62 70 66 -22

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17 27 36 100

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 11 18 125

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 19 24 16 -62

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17 14 9 -18

Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 6 7 40

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8 8 7 -30

Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 2 3 0

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2 2 -60

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20 21 10 -52

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 262 295 292 -6

Importer:

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 108 120 107 -4

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 46 51 51 -11

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 13 20 122

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15 18 18 38

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19 19 17 0

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8 12 13 30

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 5 5 25

Hungry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3 4 100

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 4 100

Lativa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 3 50

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 35 36 36 -8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 254 282 278 4 1

 Data for 2002 are not available.

Source: U.S. Dairy Export Council, World Dairy Trade Trends, 2003 Edition.
 49 Specialized products quickly become commodity-type products. For example, WPC 34 which

once was considered a specialized product today is considered more like a standardized

commodity. Industry officials have stated that typically new products become commodity-type

products as quickly as 3 years from being first introduced. The reason why many manufacturers

invest in research and development is to keep ahead of the commodity curve, so that their products

continue to be specialized and thus able to command price premiums in the market place. Mr.

Edward Farrell, DCANZ, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 427-28.

 50 Commission estimate based on information compiled from the foreign producers’

questionnaires. 

 51 Ibid.

 52 Ibid.

 53 Ibid.

 54 Industry representatives, European dairy industry, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 6-16,

2003.

2-18

Milk Protein Concentrate, Caseinate, and Whey Protein

Concentrate

Global trade in MPC, caseinate, and WPC differs from the standardized, commodity-type

milk protein products discussed previously in that these products are typically tailored for

specific end uses by customers, and manufactured to deliver highly specific functional and

nutritional attributes.49 These products have wide-ranging applications, such as in infant

formula, processed cheese, imitation cheese, and specialty sports and medical nutrition

products. Data on these products are generally not available. However, information on global

trade in these products was compiled from miscellaneous published sources, submissions to

the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) in connection with this

investigation, and staff fieldwork.

Milk protein concentrate

Most of the world’s MPC is produced in New Zealand and the EU. In 2002, New Zealand

produced 48,000 mt of MPC, more than double the production level in 1998. MPC from the

EU is produced through blending other protein sources, such as caseinate, dried whey, and

SMP. Data for EU MPC production do not exist. However, based on Commission fieldwork

and questionnaires, it is estimated that annual production during 1998-2002 averaged 30,000

mt, with production varying considerably from one year to the next.50 The major EU

members producing MPC are Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Australia

is not a major MPC producing country with annual output at about 2,000-5,000 mt during

1998-2002.51 Small volumes of MPC are also produced in Eastern Europe, Canada, and

India. Combining production for all countries, the Commission estimates global production

at not more than 100,000 mt. Thus, when compared with other forms of milk protein, MPC

production accounts for a very small share of world milk protein output (see table 2-2).

World exports of MPC are dominated by New Zealand, Australia, and the EU. In 2002, New

Zealand exported 45,000 mt (compared with 21,000 mt in 1998),52 whereas Australia

exported almost all of its production (2,000-5,000 mt).53 EU exports were highly volatile

during 1998-2002, mostly driven by EU support programs for casein and SMP, although

more recently some EU manufacturers are exporting customized MPC driven by market

demand.54 The United States is the world’s largest market for MPC, where it is consumed

in a wide range of dairy and nondairy applications. Other major markets for MPC include
 55 In some sources, data for caseinate are combined with data for casein.

 56 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 23.

 57 Commission estimate based on information compiled from the foreign producers’

questionnaires.

 58 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 25.

 59 Commission estimate based on information compiled from the foreign producers’

questionnaires.

 60 International Dairy Federation, 2003 World Dairy Situation, Bulletin 384/2003 (Aug. 2003).

 61 Ibid.

 62 Ibid.

 63 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 25.

 64 Commission estimate based on information compiled from the foreign producers’

questionnaires. 

2-19

Japan and other East Asian countries, the EU, and Mexico. Minor markets for MPC include

Central America and the Caribbean Basin countries.

Caseinate

There are no official estimates for caseinate production,55 although one estimate puts global

production at 130,000 mt.56 Like MPC, caseinate production is dominated by the EU and

New Zealand. Other global suppliers include Australia, Poland, Ukraine, and China. The EU

is the world’s largest producer of caseinate, and the Commission estimates production at

about 70,000-80,000 mt annually during 1998-2002, based on responses to the foreign

producers’ questionnaires. EU output is dominated by a few very large dairy manufacturers

in the Netherlands, Denmark, and France.57 In 2002, New Zealand produced about 25,000 mt

of caseinate, compared with 22,000 mt in 1998.58 Thus, caseinate production grew in New

Zealand during 1998-2002, although not nearly to the extent of MPC production growth.

Australia produced about 5,000 mt of caseinate in 2002.59 The world’s major caseinate

producing countries are also leading exporters. Most caseinate produced in New Zealand and

Australia is exported, whereas the EU exports about one-half of its production, with exports

estimated at 35,000-40,000 mt annually during 1998-2002. Like MPC, major world

importing countries of caseinate include the United States, Japan, and other East Asian

countries.

Whey protein concentrate

Global production of WPC and WPI is dominated by the EU and United States. In 2001,

world WPC production was estimated at 340,000 mt.60 Of this amount about 240,000 mt was

used for human consumption, made up of 170,000 mt of WPC with a protein content range

of 35 to 65 percent (WPC 35-65), and 70,000 mt with a protein content of 65 to 90 percent

(WPC 65-90).61 The United States accounts for over one-half of the world production of

WPC 35-65, with the EU supplying most of the remainder. For WPC 65-90, the United

States and Oceania each account for about 40 percent of global production, and the EU

accounts for the remaining 20 percent.62 In 2002, New Zealand produced 21,000 mt of WPC

with a protein content above 55 percent,63 and Australia produced about 15,000 mt.64 As with

production, global exports of WPC are dominated by the United States, EU, and Oceania.

U.S. exports of WPC (HTS Schedule B 3502.20.0000) reached 28,383 mt in 2002, valued
 65 The unit value of U.S. exports of WPC was about $2,800 per mt, roughly 5 times the U.S.

export price of dry whey powder, reflecting the high value added of these products.

 66 Commission estimate based on information compiled from the foreign producers’

questionnaires.

 67 Ibid.

 68 According to the NMPF, EU production and exports subsidies on SMP establish the world

market price for proteins. Other exporters, such as New Zealand and Australia, have to match that

EU price, so that whether or not other exporting countries themselves have subsidies, they follow

whatever subsidized, trade distorting mechanisms the Europeans have. (Dr. Peter Vitaliano and

Mr. Jaime Castenada, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 61-62).

DCANZ argues that the EU subsidy practices do not set prices for MPC sales from New Zealand.

The focus of New Zealand is not on commodity-type products, but rather exports of specialized

products that extract premiums and provide a return to research and development investments.

(Mr. Edward Farrell, DCANZ, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 408-09).

 69 This is because milk powders tend to be residual products in that their production increases

during periods of milk surplus, and declines during periods of milk deficit. Company

representative New Zealand Milk Products, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 24, 2003.

 70 Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A descriptive analysis of recent trends in the

international market for dry milk products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2

(University of Wisconsin, 2002); International Dairy Federation, 2002 World Dairy Situation,

Bulletin 378/2002 (Aug. 2002).

 71 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-61 (July 27,

1999), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/1999/ldp-m61-

.pdf.

2-20

at $80 million,65 while EU exports amounted to about 50,000 mt.66 In 2002, most of the WPC

produced by New Zealand and Australia was exported.67

World Prices of Milk Protein Products

Several factors are at play in determining price trends in world markets for milk proteins.

Given that much of international trade in milk proteins consists of SMP, prices of other

protein products, especially lower-protein, commodity-type products, are influenced heavily

by the world SMP price. However, the world SMP price is less important in determining

prices of more tailored and specialized dairy products. For these products, prices reflect both

the functionality as well as their protein content. The world price trends for SMP are

influenced by a complex set of interrelated factors, including supply and demand conditions

in major producing and consuming countries, exchange rates, and government policy.68

During 1998-2002, prices of milk powders were highly volatile, in the case of SMP ranging

from about $1,301 per mt in 1999 to almost $2,012 per mt in 2001 (table 2-8). Price

volatility largely reflected changing supply and demand conditions in the world’s major

importing and exporting markets,69 and the fact that markets have become increasingly

concentrated over time.70 Between January 1998 and June 1999, the SMP price dropped

about 24 percent, resulting mainly from weakness in demand for milk powders in several

Asian markets in response to financial and economic instability.71 This was followed by

higher prices over the next 18 months during which the SMP price increased from $1,213

per mt in May/June 1999 to $2,213 per mt in December 2000 (an increase of more than

80 percent). This rise in price was in response to a recovery of demand in Asia, as well as
 72 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-75 (Sept. 28,

2000), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2000/ldp-m75.-

pdf.

 73 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-78 (Dec. 27,

2000), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2000/ldp-m78.-

pdf.

2-21

Table 2-8

Milk protein products: International prices and U.S. import unit values, by major source,

1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––Dollars per metric ton–––––––––––––––––––––––

International prices:

Skim milk powder1 . . . . . . . . . . 1,453 1,301 1,880 2,012 1,312

Whole milk powder1 . . . . . . . . . 1,764 1,502 1,869 1,951 1,340

Dry whey2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 503 527 526 439

U.S. import unit values:

MPC Chapter 43 ...........

European Union . . . . . . . . . 3,897 2,551 2,402 3,879 2,798

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,586 2,789 3,190 3,694 3,707

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . 3,463 3,082 3,431 3,593 3,647

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,427 2,724 2,902 3,550 3,409

MPC Chapter 354 ..........

European Union . . . . . . . . . 3,248 2,530 3,333 5,078 3,926

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,101 1,163 4,893 4,400 3,384

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . 4,261 3,946 4,246 4,779 4,400

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,483 2,939 3,675 4,829 4,004

Casein5 ..................

European Union . . . . . . . . . 4,517 3,711 4,138 4,799 4,388

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,157 3,745 4,152 5,182 3,996

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . 4,082 3,601 4,170 4,949 3,863

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,199 3,620 4,079 4,787 4,001

Caseinate6 ................

European Union . . . . . . . . . 4,452 4,301 4,403 5,054 4,678

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,026 3,727 4,435 0 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . 4,321 4,034 4,643 5,397 4,384

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,390 4,175 4,493 5,142 4,512 1

 Average North Europe.

2

 Europe Export prices.

3

 HTS 0404.90.10.

4

 HTS 3501.10.10.

5

 HTS 3501.10.50.

6

 HTS 3501.90.60.

Sources: International prices complied from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy

Market News, various issues; U.S. import unit values compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of

Commerce, see appendix F.

tight supplies from the EU following low milk production and strong demand for milk by

the European cheese industry.72 Also, production in Oceania during this time frame was

constrained by unfavorable weather.73 Following the peak in January 2001, prices dropped,

especially during the fourth quarter of 2001, to reach a 5-year low of $1,163 per mt in

August 2002. Thereafter prices quickly rebounded to reach $1,750 per mt in January 2003.

The sharp drop in prices during 2001 resulted from strong production in the EU owing to

favorable spring weather, as well as weak demand in the EU for butter and milk powder.
 74 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-96 (June 25,

2002), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2002/ldp–m96f.-

pdf.

 75 While the dry whey price provides a floor to world SMP prices, the U.S. support price

provides a ceiling to the SMP price. As soon as the international SMP price reaches the U.S.

support price, CCC stocks would be released onto the world market thereby preventing any price

increase beyond the support level.

 76 USDA, ERS, “International Dairy Markets and the WTO,” Livestock, Dairy and Poultry,

Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-74 (Aug. 29, 2000), found at http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/-

reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/-2000/ldp-m74.pdf.

 77 This does not necessarily mean that price changes in SMP cause the changes in import unit

values. The data merely show that protein prices tend to move together.

 78 Chapter 4 MPC unit values for imports from the EU are highly correlated with international

SMP prices.

2-22

Production also increased in Oceania, while demand fell in Asia owing to economic

weakness and political unrest.74

During 1998-2002, WMP prices tended to follow SMP prices, with a small margin reflecting

the higher value of WMP vis-à-vis SMP in several uses, particularly for reconstitution into

liquid milk in developing country markets. Compared with other prices, the dry whey price

was relatively stable, especially during 1999-2001. This may reflect differences in market

demand between dry whey and SMP, such as the widespread use of whey in the animal feed

industry. The world price of dry whey provides a floor for the world price of SMP, for if the

SMP price were to fall below the dry whey price,75 consuming countries would switch from

using whey products to SMP.76

U.S. import unit values for MPC, casein, and caseinate provide a rough estimate of world

prices of these products (table 2-8). Unit value trends during 1998-2002 are similar to those

of SMP and WMP, that is, unit values generally fell between 1998 and 1999, increased

between 1999 and 2001, then fell again between 2001 and 2002.77 There are important

exceptions, however, with the most notable being the unit values for Chapter 4 MPC imports

from Australia and New Zealand which increased annually between 1999-2002, including

between 2001 and 2002 when other protein prices fell significantly.78 This indicates that

factors generating price trends in MPC unit values from these countries (e.g., protein product

functionality) may be different from factors generating trends in SMP prices.
3-1

CHAPTER 3

THE MILK PROTEIN INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES

Introduction

This chapter provides a profile of the milk protein industry for the United States. As

requested by the Senate Committee on Finance, the profile focuses on government support

and other competitive factors that impact U.S. production, use, and trade in milk protein

products. The profile covers the production, price, and cost trends for raw milk, as well as

information on production of milk protein products, including milk protein concentrate

(MPC), casein, and caseinate. Detailed discussion is presented on how government

intervention, and particularly the Dairy Price Support Program, has influenced the U.S.

production of milk protein products in their various forms. The profile also includes a brief

discussion of U.S. imports of milk protein products, although a more detailed description is

provided in chapter 6 covering results from the Commission’s importers’ questionnaires. The

discussion on how milk protein products are used in the U.S. market is reserved for

chapter 7, which provides detailed results from the Commission’s purchasers’

questionnaires. 

This chapter discusses the key components and linkages in the U.S. milk protein industry

that are shown in figure 3-1. It covers the U.S. supply of milk proteins, including

domestically produced raw milk and processed milk protein products and imports, as well

as the domestic uses of milk protein products for domestic consumption, exports, and stocks.

As shown in figure 3-1, government intervention affects several aspects of the supply and

use of milk proteins in the U.S. market.

Overview

Of the 170 billion pounds of milk produced in the United States in 2002, about 55 billion

pounds went into beverage use (accounting for about one-third) and 1.4 billion pounds were

consumed on farms. The remainder (113 billion pounds) was available for use in dairy

processing, which translates into domestic milk protein supply of about 2.5 million metric

tons (mt). U.S. production of milk proteins has largely been limited to the production of skim

milk powder (SMP) and whey, including dry whey, whey protein concentrate (WPC), and

whey protein isolate (WPI), and condensed and evaporated milk products. In addition, milk

protein products are increasingly competing with substitute nondairy proteins, such as soy

proteins. In the United States, milk protein products are processed in several types of

operations (figure 3-1). These include more traditional operations, such as butter/powder

operations, cheese/whey facilities, and fluid milk processing plants. Recently, other types

of milk protein processing facilities have emerged, such as domestic MPC operations, as well
3-2

Figure 3-1

Major distribution channels for milk protein products

Source: Compiled by the Commission based on fieldwork and industry surveys.

Fluid milk consumption

Domestic production of other 

dairy products

. Butter

. Ice cream

. Cheese Imports

. Casein/caseinate

. MPC

. Milk albumin

. Skim milk powder

. Whole milk powder

. Whey

Domestic production of milk protein products

. Dried & modified whey

. Skim milk powder (SMP)

. Whole milk powder (WMP)

. Soft dairy products

. Ultrafiltered MPC

. Dry blend MPC

. Casein/caseinate

. Ultrafiltered milk

Processing of milk protein products

. Butter/skim milk powder

. Cheese/whey

. Milk protein concentrate (MPC)

. Ultrafiltered milk

. Blending and further processing

Production of fluid milk

Fluid milk available for processing

Availability of milk protein products and substitutes

Use of milk protein products and substitutes

Dairy products

. Natural cheese

. Processed cheese

. Ice cream

. SMP

. WMP

Nondairy processing

. Nondairy creamers

. Whipped toppings

. Imitation cheese 

Animal feeds

. Calf milk replacer

. Other formulated feed

Industrial products

. Glue & resin

. Construction chemicals

. High technology products

Specialty nutrition products

. Infant formula

. Medical & dietetic

. Geriatric products

. Nutraceuticals

. Sports bars & drinks

. Pharmaceuticals

Other foods

. Bakery products

. Confectionary & chocolate

. Cereal products

. Meat, poultry, & fish

. Convenience food

Commercial ending stocks

Government removals

. Dairy Export Incentive Program

. Commodity Credit Corporation purchases

Final domestic consumption Exports

Substitute nondairy proteins

. Soy protein
 1

 Kenneth W. Bailey, Marketing and Pricing of Milk and Dairy Products in the United States

(Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1997).

 2

 On some operations located in cold regions where it is important to limit time spent outside

the barn, cows are housed, fed, and milked in a single barn. Because milking equipment is moved

from cow to cow, such operations are highly labor intensive.

 3

 USITC staff farm visit, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, July 22, 2003.

 4

 USITC staff farm visit, Magic Valley region, ID, Oct. 8, 2003, and Select Farms, NM,

Oct. 22, 2003.

3-3

as ultrafiltered (UF) milk plants. There are also protein facilities that concentrate on blending

and further processing milk proteins.

In the United States, milk proteins are used in a diverse set of food, animal feed, and

industrial products. Milk protein products in the U.S. market are sourced from U.S. product

(produced with domestic milk) and imports (figure 3-1). The United States is not a major

dairy exporting country. With a few exceptions, this is largely because U.S. Government

support programs provide greater returns from domestic sales than from exports.

Production of Fluid Milk

Production Systems

Dairy operations that produce milk in the United States range from relatively small, highcost, inefficient operations to industrial-type operations that are among the largest, most

efficient, and technologically advanced in the world. Production systems differ according

to feeding practices, housing, labor usage, waste management, milking methods, and the

level of technological sophistication. Climate and topography are also important in

determining dairying methods.

Broadly, modern dairy operations in the United States are of two types—free-stall housing

operations, which are found throughout the United States, and drylot operations, which are

most often found in the West and Southwest.1

 On free-stall operations, pasture grazing is

limited and cows are kept in well-ventilated barns and fed a total mixed ration (where

forages and concentrates are fed in one ration). Typically, cows are milked in highly

automated milking parlors that allow rapid milking with low labor input.2

 Flush waste

systems also allow barns to be cleaned with minimal labor.3

 Many such operations grow

most of their own feed, rely heavily on family labor, and are diversified into other livestock

products, such as beef and poultry. On drylot operations, cows are kept outdoors in

paddocks, and moved inside for milking either two or three times per day. Many of these

operations are factory-type farms, that concentrate on feeding and milking cows by

purchasing most of their feed and employing hired labor. They are typically very large, lowcost operations, that benefit from economies of scale.4

A small amount of milk in the United States is produced using a system of rotational grazing.

However, climatic conditions limit the areas where this method is feasible. Often rotational

grazing is part of a dual system with cows fed mixed rations during times of the year when

grass growth is insufficient. 
 5

 USDA, FAS, Dairy: World Markets and Trade (July 2003), found at http://www.fas.usda.-

gov/dlp/circular/-2003/-03-07Dairy/toc.htm, retrieved Aug. 6, 2003.

 6

 For more information on structural change in the U.S. dairy industry, see USDA, ERS, The

Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production, Statistical Bulletin No. 978 (June 2002); USDA,

ERS, Structure, Management, and Performance Characteristics of Specialized Dairy Farm

Businesses in the United States, Agricultural Handbook No. 720 (Sept. 2000); William D. Dobson

and Paul Christ, “Structural Change in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Growth in Scale, Regional Shifts

in Production and Processing, and Internationalism,” International Dairy Federation Bulletin,

No. 360/2001 (Nov. 2001), pp. 10-19.

 7

 USDA, NASS, Milk Production, various years.

 8

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Termination Program. An Estimate of Its Impact and

Cost-Effectiveness, GAO/RCED-89-96 (July, 1989).

 9

 USDA, ERS, The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production, Statistical Bulletin No. 978

(June 2002).

 10 USDA, NASS, U.S. Dairy Herd Structure, Da 1-1(9-02) (Sept. 2003).

3-4

Milk Production, Price, and Industry Structure Trends

U.S. milk production reached almost 170 billion pounds in 2002, the highest level ever

recorded and almost 8 percent higher than production in 1998 (table 3-1). The United States

accounts for about 15 percent of world milk supply and is the world’s largest single milk

producing country (the combined production of EU countries is significantly larger than that

of the United States).5

 During 1998-2002, the average value of cash receipts in the dairy

sector was about $23 billion annually. This represented almost 12 percent of total cash

receipts for the entire U.S. agricultural sector, and placed dairy second only to the meat

industry in terms of agricultural sector value added.

Trends in U.S. milk production are dominated by three major phenomena.6

 First is the steady

increase in production and productivity over time. Between 1980 and 2002, U.S. milk

production grew from 128 billion pounds to almost 170 billion pounds, an annual average

increase of 1.3 percent, with growth at a slightly higher annual rate during 1998-2002

(1.5 percent).7

 Meanwhile, there has been a steady downward trend in dairy cow numbers,

dropping from 10.8 million in 1980 to 9.1 million in 2002 (a decline of 16 percent), with a

significant reduction during 1985-1990, partially in response to the Dairy Termination

Program.8

 Between 1998 and 2002, cow numbers stabilized at around 9.1 million head.

Production growth throughout the period therefore was driven by significant increases in

milk production per cow, resulting from technological developments and research into cow

genetics and nutrition.9

 In 1980, annual production per cow was less than 12,000 pounds, but

by 2002, yields reached more than 18,600 pounds, an increase of more than 50 percent, or

2 percent per annum. Productivity growth has been fairly stable over the long term, with

output per cow growing at 1.6 percent annually during 1998-2002. As a result of

productivity gains, the United States is producing 32-percent more milk with 15-percent

fewer cows when comparing 1980 with 2002.

The second trend in U.S. milk supplies is production concentration. An increasing share of

U.S. milk supplies is being sourced from a relatively few, very large dairy operations.10 This

is illustrated by trends in the number of operations, cow numbers, and milk production

according to farm size (table 3-1). In 2002, small dairy farms (those with fewer than

50 cows) accounted for about one-half of U.S. dairy operations, yet contributed less than

8 percent of the nation’s milk supply. In contrast, large operations (those with more than

500 cows) accounted for only 3 percent of dairy operations, yet supplied 42 percent of U.S.
3-5

Table 3-1

U.S. milk production: Trends in industry structure, 1998-2002

Trends 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

—————–––———Million pounds——————————

Production trends:

Production of milk ........................... 157,348 162,559 167,559 165,497 169,758

——–————————Billion dollars——————————

Cash receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 23.2 20.6 24.7 21.0

———––——————1,000 head———————————

Number of cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,154 9,156 9,206 9,114 9,141

————————–———Pounds——––————————

Yield per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,189 17,772 18,201 18,159 18,571

———–––——————Operations———–———————

Farm size trends:

Number of operations ........................ 117,180 111,000 105,170 97,510 91,990

——————–—————Percent—––—————————

Farms with fewer than 50 cows:

Share of total U.S. dairy operations . . . . . . . . . . . 52.6 51.3 50.3 49.2 48.0

Share of total U.S. milk production . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 10.5 9.5 8.3 7.6

Farms with more than 500 cows:

Share of total U.S. dairy operations . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.2

Share of total U.S. milk production . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 33.8 35.8 39 41.9

Farms with more than 2,000 cows:

Share of total U.S. dairy operations . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4

Share of total U.S. milk production . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 9.3 10.5 12.3 15.0

—————–—––———Million pounds—————————

State trends:

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,654 30,459 32,273 33,217 34,884

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,842 23,071 23,259 22,199 22,074

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,750 12,082 11,921 11,780 12,217

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,847 10,931 11,156 10,849 10,775

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,275 9,478 9,493 8,812 8,458

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,765 6,453 7,223 7,757 8,155

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,354 4,724 5,236 5,561 6,316

————————–———Percent———————————

Share of U.S. milk production:

Upper Midwest and Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 43 42 41 40

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34 36 37 38

—————Dollars per hundredweight of milk——––———

Price trends:

All-milk price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.46 14.38 12.40 15.05 12.19

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Market News Annual Summary,

various issues; U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Milk Production, various

years (Feb. issue); U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Agricultural Prices

Annual Summary, various years.
 11 David P. Anderson, Joe L. Outlaw, and Robert B. Schwart, “Structural Change in the Dairy

Industry,” 10th Annual Workshop for Dairy Economists and Policy Analysts, Memphis, TN (April

23-24, 2003), pp. 75-79.

 12 USDA, ERS, The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production, Statistical Bulletin no. 978

(June 2002).

 13 A dairy operation is defined as any place having one or more head of milk cows on hand at

any time during the year. USDA, NASS, Cattle (Feb. 1997). 

 14 USDA, NASS, Milk Production, various years.

 15 USDA, ERS, Structure, Management, and Performance Characteristics of Specialized Dairy

Farm Businesses in the United States, Agricultural Handbook No. 720 (Sept. 2000).

 16 USDA, ERS, Commodity Costs and Returns: Monthly Costs of Production, found at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/-data/costsAndReturns/monthlymilkcosts.htm, retrieved Jan. 7, 2004;

Edward V. Jesse and Bruce Jones, “Cost of Producing Milk: A Comparison by State,” Marketing

and Policy Brief Paper No. 84, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Nov. 2003).

 17 USDA, ERS, “Dairy Policy to Build on Market Orientation,” Agricultural Outlook (July,

1995).

3-6

production. Very large operations (with more than 2,000 cows) made up only 0.4 percent of

dairy operations, but accounted for 15 percent of milk supplies. The increased concentration

of dairy production reflects capital investment in modern technology for milking, feeding,

and waste management, which has facilitated production efficiency by promoting

specialization and increasing scale of operations.11

The third trend is a regional shift in milk production. Milk is produced throughout the United

States, however, production is concentrated in a few states. In 2002, one-third of U.S. milk

was produced in California and Wisconsin, and the top-five states (California, Wisconsin,

New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota) produced 52 percent of the nation’s milk (table

3-1). Since the mid-1980s, production has shifted to the Southwest and West, where very

large (2,000 or more cows) and specialized dairy farms have developed.12 The number of

U.S. dairy operations fell from about 117,000 in 1998 to 92,000 in 2002 (a decline of more

than 20 percent).13 As the number of operations fell in all regions of the country, some

regions experienced sharper reductions than others. Nearly 10,000 operations closed in the

Upper Midwest, and 7,000 in the Central Region (mainly Missouri, Texas, and Ohio),

compared with only 1,600 in the West.14 Between 1998 and 2002, the total number of dairy

cows in the United States remained more or less unchanged (table 3-1). However, there was

an increase in dairy cow numbers in the West of about 500,000 head, offset by a decline of

similar magnitude in the rest of the country. Similarly, the 12.4 billion pounds of additional

milk supplied nationally between 1998 and 2002 was accounted for by an increase of

13.8 billion pounds in the West, offset by a 1.4 billion pound decline in the rest of the

country.

The regional shift in production can be associated with several supply and demand factors.

In general, the westward movement of milk production resulted from the abundance of land

and labor, and a climate favorable to the production of high-quality feed.15 Also, recent

analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicates that total average costs of

production are lower in the West and Southwest than in the Northeast and Upper Midwest.16

At the same time, population growth in the West and Southwest has increased demand for

milk and dairy products in these regions.17 As production has moved westward, new milk

processing facilities (e.g., cheese plants) have been built, whereas relatively little remodeling
 18 William D. Dobson and Paul Christ, “Structural Change in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Growth

in Scale, Regional Shifts in Production and Processing, and Internationalism,” International Dairy

Federation Bulletin No. 360/2001 (Nov. 2001), pp. 10-19.

 19 Edward V. Jesse, “Facing up to the western dairy boom,” Rethinking Dairyland, No. 3

(Sept. 2002), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/www/pub/dairyland/rd3.pdf, retrieved Jan. 8, 2004.

 20 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, various years.

 21 USDA, Informational Memorandum for the Secretary (Jan. 2003).

 22 For more information of the USDA survey, see USDA, ERS, Briefing Room: Agricultural

Resource Management Survey, found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ARMS .

3-7

or expansion in processing capacity has taken place in the Upper Midwest.18 Although dairy

production will probably continue to move toward Western states, factors that may slow this

trend over time include lower average milk prices, competition for forage, water scarcity,

increased environmental scrutiny, and the slowing of technologically induced increases in

cow yields.19

During 1998-2002, farm-level milk prices were highly volatile, ranging from a record high

in 1998 ($15.46 per hundredweight (cwt)) to a record low in 2002 ($12.19 per cwt). USDA

analysts associate such price movements with changes in the supply and demand for milk

and dairy products.20 USDA reports that the high price in 2001 can be associated with the

sharp decline in milk production between 2000 and 2001, whereas the record low prices in

2002 resulted from increased production per cow, owing to favorable weather and forage

conditions, and to weak demand for dairy products.21

Cost of Production

A key factor determining the competitiveness of the U.S. dairy industry is the cost of raw

milk production. U.S. production costs and returns for 2000-2002 are reported in table 3-2,

based on nationwide surveys conducted by the USDA.22 Cost of production data for milk are

published for six regions of the country and separated into operating costs (such as feed,

veterinary expenses, fuel, and waste disposal) and allocated overhead (such as hired labor,

depreciation on capital, taxes, and insurance).

As shown in table 3-2, between 2000 and 2002, average operating costs of milk production

in the United States were $9.56 per cwt of milk produced, of which feed costs accounted for

$6.75 (70 percent). Of the total feed costs, two-thirds covered feed grains, hay, silage, and

complete feed mixes. Other feed costs include vitamins, minerals, and protein supplements,

with only about 8 cents per cwt spent on grazed pasture and cropland. Average allocated

expenses amounted to $8.86 per cwt, most of which was accounted for by the opportunity

cost of unpaid labor and capital recovery (depreciation) of machinery and equipment.

Combining operating and allocated overhead results in a total production cost of $18.42 per

cwt. However, $7.16 per cwt of this amount reflects opportunity costs so that total paid costs

were on average $11.26 per cwt during 2000-02.
 23 Based on the 2000 dairy Agricultural Resource Management Survey, reported in USDA,

ERS, Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook, AIS-79 (Sept. 26, 2002), p. 39, found at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/so/-view.asp?f=economics/ais-bb/, retrieved Jan. 8, 2004.

3-8

Table 3-2

U.S. milk production: Costs and returns, 2000-2002

Cost/return 2000 2001 2002

Average

 2000-02

–—Dollars per hundredweight of milk produced–—

Gross return of production:

Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.63 15.35 12.44 13.47

Other1

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62 1.86 1.61 1.70

Total, gross return of production 14.25 17.21 14.05 15.17

Operating costs:

Feed:

Feed grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1.27 1.48 1.32

Hay and straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.51 1.67 1.67 1.62

Complete feed mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.43 1.50 1.56 1.50

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.33 2.28 2.33 2.31

Total, feed costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.49 6.72 7.04 6.75

Other operating costs2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.89 2.83 2.70 2.81

Total, operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.38 9.55 9.74 9.56

Allocated overhead:

Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 1.19 1.25 1.19

Opportunity cost of unpaid labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.54 3.58 3.64 3.59

Capital recovery of machinery and equipment3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 3.42 3.38 3.34

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.74

Total, allocated overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.64 8.93 9.02 8.86

Total costs listed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.02 18.48 18.76 18.42

Total unpaid costs4

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.09 7.22 7.16 7.16

Total cost less unpaid costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.93 11.26 11.6 11.26

Return less operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.87 7.66 4.31 5.61

Return less operating costs and allocated overhead . . . . . . . . . -3.77 -1.27 -4.71 -3.25 1

 Income from cattle sales, renting or leasing dairy stock to other operations; renting space to other dairy

operations; co-op patronage dividends associated with the dairy; assessment rebates, refunds, and other dairyrelated resources; and manure production. 2

 Includes veterinary and medicine expenses, bedding and litter, marketing, customs services, fuel and electricity,

repairs, manure handling, and interest on operating capital. 3

 Machinery, equipment, housing, manure handling, feed storage structures, and dairy breeding herd. 4

 Unpaid costs include: interest on operating capital, opportunity of unpaid labor, capital recovery of machinery

and equipment, and opportunity cost of land.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs and Returns, found at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/monthlymilkcosts.htm, retrieved Jan. 8, 2004.

The USDA survey revealed considerable differences between farms of various size and

among regions of the country. Small dairy operations (those with fewer than 50 cows) had

operating and ownership costs (capital recovery plus taxes and insurance) of $15.51 per cwt,

but operations with more than 500 cows had costs of only $10.46 per cwt.23 Similarly, in

2002, total costs (operating plus allocated overhead costs) ranged from $13.77 per cwt in
 24 USDA, ERS, Commodity Costs and Returns: Monthly Costs of Production, found at 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsAndReturns/monthlymilkcosts.htm, retreived Jan. 7, 2004;

Edward V. Jesse and Bruce Jones, “Cost of Producing Milk: A Comparison by State,” Marketing

and Policy Brief Paper No. 84, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Nov. 2003), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/www/pub/pbpapers/mpb84.-

pdf, retrieved Jan. 7, 2004.

 25 International Farm Comparison Network, Dairy Report 2003, found at http://www.ifcnnetwork.org.

 26 USDA, ERS, Briefing Room: Dairy Policy, found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/-

Dairy, retrieved May 6, 2003.

 27 USDA, AMS, Forward Pricing Pilot Program, found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/-

for_contr_pilot.htm, retrieved July 30, 2003.

 28 USDA, FSA, Fact Sheet: Dairy Indemnity Program, found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/-

publications/facts/html/dipp03.htm, retrieved June 17, 2003.

3-9

the Fruitful Rim region (California, Arizona, Idaho, and Washington) to $26.46 per cwt in

the Eastern Uplands (Appalachia).24

Other data on costs of production are provided by the International Farm Comparison

Network (IFCN).25 Each year IFCN surveys “typical” farms in several countries and provides

comparisons, including operation size, productivity, and production costs. In its 2003 report,

the IFCN reported data for a 135-cow operation in Wisconsin, a 700-cow operation in

Wisconsin, and a 2,100-cow operation in Idaho. All three farm types reported similar

productivity (about 21,000 to 22,000 pounds of milk per cow per year) and used no

grassland in their operations. For the Wisconsin operations, the report indicated costs of

production of about $12.70 per cwt for the 135-cow operation and $12.50 per cwt for the

700-cow operation. For the 2,100-cow Idaho operation, the survey reported a lower cost of

about $10.60 per cwt.

Government Programs

Milk is marketed in the United States under a complex system of Federal, state, and local

laws and regulations.26 The two major Federal programs directly affecting milk and dairy

product pricing are the dairy price support program (DPSP), established under the

Agricultural Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 1051), as amended; and the Federal Milk Marketing

Orders (FMMOs), provided for under the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937

(50 Stat. 246), as amended. These two programs are the primary price-determining

mechanisms in the U.S. dairy sector. In addition to these programs, the Milk Income Loss

Contract (MILC) Program, a direct income support program, was introduced in the 2002

Farm Bill.

Several other government programs directly and indirectly impact dairy markets in the

United States. There are programs that provide farmers with additional risk management

tools to deal with price volatility, such as the Forward Pricing Pilot Program27 and the Dairy

Indemnity Program.28 The USDA also provides incentives to farmers for conservation and

environmentally sustainable management practices. Many of the USDA’s environmental and

conservation programs benefit dairy producers, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive
 29 USDA, NRCS, The Environmental Quality Incentive Program, found at http://www.nrcs.-

usda.gov/programs/-eqip/, retrieved July 25, 2003

 30 The AMA is authorized under the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. For more detail

on the program, see USDA, NRCS, Agricultural Management Assistance. Program Information

Sheet, found at http://www.nrcs.-usda.gov/programs/ama/amainfo.html, retrieved July 25, 2003.

 31 Report to Congress on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program (July 1, 2002), found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/-

dairy/prb/rtc_2002/total_rtc_-2002.pdf, retrieved July 17, 2003.

 32 USDA, AMS, National Dairy Promotion and Research Program, found at www.usda.ams.-

gov/dairy/ndb.htm, retrieved July 17, 2003.

 33 Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance, Special Milk Program for Children, found at,

http://www.cfda.gov/-public/viewprog.asp?progid=89, retrieved July 28, 2003.

 34 For a detailed history of U.S. dairy programs, see USDA, ERS, Dairy. Background for 1995

Farm Legislation, Agricultural Economic Report No. 705 (Apr. 1995), pp. 11-15; Kenneth W.

Bailey, Marketing and Pricing of Milk and Dairy Products in the United States (Ames IA: Iowa

State University Press, 1997), pp. 170-93.

 35 USDA, ERS, Briefing Room: Dairy Policy, found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/-

Dairy/Policy.htm, retrieved Jan. 9, 2004.

 36 Edward V. Jesse, “Flooring the Support Price for Milk,” Marketing and Policy Brief Paper

No. 81, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Mar. 2003), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/-www/pub/mpbpapers/mpb72.pdf, retrieved May 6,

2003.

 37 Section 1501 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171 omnibus

2002 farm bill).

3-10

Program (EQIP)29 and the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program.30 Several

government programs also try to influence the consumption of dairy products in the United

States. The Fluid Milk Processors Promotion Program funds research and promotion

activities through a 20 cent per cwt assessment on fluid milk products that are processed and

sold commercially in packages suitable for sale in retail outlets.31 Similarly, the National

Dairy Promotion and Research Program imposes an assessment of 15 cents per cwt (socalled checkoff) on all milk produced in the United States to promote the consumption of

dairy products through promotion, research, and nutrition education.32 Also, the Special Milk

Program for Children is aimed at encouraging fluid milk consumption by children.33

While these programs influence the marketing and pricing of milk and dairy products in the

United States, for the purpose of this investigation, discussion of government intervention

in the U.S. dairy industry is limited to programs that directly impact prices and incomes.

Dairy Price Support Program

The price support system for milk and dairy products was first introduced under the

Agricultural Act of 1949. Since then it has been frequently amended, most commonly under

multiyear ominbus farm acts and budget reconciliation acts.The purpose of the Dairy Price

Support Program (DPSP) is to maintain a floor price for milk received by dairy farmers.34

This is achieved by the government intervention agency, the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC), purchasing any domestic surpluses of butter, cheddar cheese, and SMP at

prespecified prices.35 The support prices are set so that processors are able to earn enough

revenue from milk used to produce CCC-purchased products to pay dairy farmers a certain

minimum support price for their milk.36 The support level for milk of $9.90 per cwt (with

3.67 percent butterfat) was established under the 1996 Farm Bill, and is authorized to remain

at this level until 2007 under the 2002 Farm Bill.37 As of May 2004, the support prices for
 38 USDA, AMS, Dairy Market News, found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/mncs/weekly.-

htm.

 39 USDA, ERS, An Analysis of the Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and An Analysis of an

Alternative Milk Pricing Approach, prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture (2004).

 40 Based on monthly data during 1998-2002, the market price of SMP was on average

3.6 percent higher than the government support price.

3-11

manufactured dairy products were as follows: $1.05 per pound for butter, $1.13 per pound

for 40-pound block cheese, and $0.80 per pound for SMP.38

The DPSP has had a significant impact on the U.S. market for SMP in recent years.39 During

1998-2002, production of SMP increased from about 515,000 mt to 712,000 mt (table 3-3).

With little or no growth in domestic disappearance (consumption) over this period, market

prices dropped toward the government support level,40 necessitating large CCC purchases

to prevent market prices from falling below the support price level. Between 1998 and 2002,

price support purchases increased from 51,800 mt to 308,300 mt, and government stocks of

SMP increased more than tenfold from 43,200 mt to 474,800 mt. In 2002, government stocks

were equivalent to two-thirds of domestic production and exceeded annual domestic

disappearance by more than 30 percent.

Table 3-3

Skim milk powder: U.S. supply/demand balance, government stocks, and U.S. prices, 1998-2002

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

—————————————1,000 metric tons————–––––––––––––

Supply:

Domestic production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 617 659 650 712

Beginning commercial stocks . . . . . . . . 47 25 63 54 55

Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5644 7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 648 726 699 774

Demand:

Ending commercial stocks . . . . . . . . . . 25 63 54 55 46

Government removals:

Price support purchases . . . . . . . . . 52 108 253 161 308

DEIP removals1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 138 61 64 74

Unrestricted sales2 ............. 7000 8

Net government removals3 . . . . . 148 245 314 225 374

Commercial disappearance4 . . . . . . . . 394 334 350 429 360

Government stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 61 234 352 475

———————————Dollars per metric ton———–––––––––––––––

Market price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,351 2,281 2,240 2,223 2,052

Government support price . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,296 2,227 2,227 2,080 1,947 1

 Skim milk powder used in the Dairy Export Incentive Program. 2

 Sales of skim milk powder from government stocks.

3

 Equal to price support purchases plus DEIP removals minus unrestricted sales.

4

 Equal to total supply minus ending commercial stocks minus net government removals.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Livestock, Dairy, Poultry Outlook LDP-M110 (Aug. 26, 2003); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service. Annual Summary of Market

Statistics, various issues; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Dairy World Markets and

Trade, various issues.
 41 Domestic disposal has been to welfare recipients, school lunch programs, military and

veterans’ hospitals, and penal institutions. Disposal abroad has mostly been through governmentto-government sales at world prices, sales to the U.S. military overseas, and humanitarian

assistance through donations, mostly under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance

Act of 1954. 

 42 USDA, Press release (Nov. 15, 2003), found at http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/-

11/0476.htm, retrieved Jan. 9, 2004.

 43 USDA, FSA, 2002 Cattle Feed Assistance Program. Fact Sheet (Oct. 2002), found at

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/-pas/publications/facts/html/cattlefeed02.htm, retrieved Jan. 21, 2004.

 44 USDA, FSA, 2003 Livestock Feed Assistance NonFat Dry Milk Program (SMP), found at

http://disaster.fsa.-usda.gov/SMP.htm, retrieved June 6, 2003; USDA, FSA, Fact Sheet: Surplus

Sales of Nonfat Dry Milk (Apr. 2003), found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/-

NFDM03.pdf, retrieved June 6, 2003.

 45 USDA, FSA, Notice to the Dairy Industry, D&DOD-148, found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/-

daco/DDO-Dnotices/PDFs/-ddod119.pdf, May 10, 2002.

 46 USDA, Press release (Nov. 15, 2003), found at http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/-

11/0476.htm, retrieved Jan. 9, 2004.

 47 USDA, FSA, Notice to Cheese Suppliers, D&DOD-148, found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/-

daco/DDOD-notices/PDFs/-DDOD148.pdf, retrieved Mar. 31, 2003.

 48 NMPF, in letter to J.B. Penn, USDA Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural

Services (May, 14, 2003); NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004.

 49 Changing butter and SMP prices is referred to as a tilt because if the support price of one

product is lowered, then the price of the other must be increased in order for the farm price for

milk of $9.90 per cwt to be supported.

 50 Congressional Research Service, Dairy Policy Issues, CRS Issue Brief IB97011 (Apr. 18,

2003).

 51 NMPF, prehearing submission, Dec.1, 2003, p. 13.

3-12

Typically, dairy products acquired by the government under the DPSP are predominantly

disposed of through domestic welfare outlets and sales or donation abroad.41 However, these

traditional outlets for CCC purchases were insufficient to dispose of the huge stocks that had

accumulated during 2000-2002. In response, the USDA launched several new programs to

move existing product out of storage.42 For example, the 2002 Cattle Feed Program43 and the

2003 NonFat Dry Milk Livestock Feed Assistance Program44 were two such initiatives that

made CCC surplus SMP available for livestock feed. Another initiative was to make CCC

funds available to subsidize the domestic production of edible casein and caseinate using up

to 300 million pounds of CCC stocks of SMP.45 The USDA also made up to 441 million

pounds of nonfortified, low-heat SMP available to U.S. private voluntary organizations and

the World Food Program for overseas humanitarian assistance,46 and in March 2003, the

USDA announced a program that exchanges CCC stocks of SMP for American and

mozzarella cheese used in the school lunch program.47 There was also consideration of a

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) proposal to use CCC funds to support the

domestic production of casein.48

Another key action by the USDA to moderate CCC purchases of SMP has been adjusting

the support prices of butter and SMP (the so-called butter-powder tilt).49 By law, the

Secretary of Agriculture can change the tilt twice annually,50 and two such tilts have been

implemented since May 2001 in response to the growth in inventories and the increasing

purchase and storage costs accruing to the Federal budget.51 The first tilt occurred on May

31, 2001, when the USDA reduced the SMP support price from $1.0032 per pound to

$0.90 cents per pound and increased the butter price from $0.65 to $0.85 per pound. A

second tilt occurred on November 15, 2002, when the USDA reduced the SMP support price

further to $0.80 per pound and increased the butter price to $1.05 per pound. Adjusting the
 52 Edward V. Jesse and Robert Cropp, “The Butter-powder Tilt,” Marketing and Policy Brief

Paper No. 72, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of WisconsinMadison, June 2001), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/www/pub/mpbpapers/mpb72.pdf, retrieved

May 6, 2003.

 53 Currently, four classes and prices for each are established from economic formulas that

evolved out the recent Federal order reform. Under this system, Class I milk is used for fluid

(beverage) consumption. It is the highest value use and milk is channeled to fluid use before use in

manufactured products. Class II milk is used to produce so-called soft dairy products. These

include items such as yogurt, cottage cheese, and ice cream. Class II prices are set below Class I

prices reflecting the lower value of Class II products compared with beverage use. Production of

cheese is made with Class III milk, while butter and SMP are produced with Class IV milk. Both

Class III and IV milk prices are below Class I and II prices.

 54 NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004, p. 3.

 55 Kenneth W. Bailey, Marketing and Pricing of Milk and Dairy Products in the United States

(Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1997).

 56 USDA, ERS, An Analysis of the Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and An Analysis of an

Alternative Milk Pricing Approach, prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture (2004).

 57 Grade A milk is produced under sanitary conditions that ensure its safety for fluid

consumption. Only Grade A milk is regulated under Federal milk marketing orders. Grade B milk

is manufacturing grade, which does not meet the fluid grade standards and less stringent standards

generally apply. Today, almost all milk produced in the United States meets the requirements for

Grade A.

3-13

tilt has been highly controversial because tilt changes ultimately mean lower farm-level

prices for milk.52 This is because under the FMMO pricing formulas, lowering the support

price for SMP results in reductions in both the Class IV and Class II prices (the method of

milk pricing under the FMMOs is discussed in detail in chapter 9).53 Further, during months

when the Class IV price is greater than the Class III price, a reduction in the Class IV price

leads to a drop in the Class I price.54 Analysis of recent studies by the USDA and the NMPF

on the impact of these tilts is discussed in chapter 9 of this report.

Milk marketing orders

Federal Marketing Orders for milk date back more than 70 years to the time of the Great

Depression, when the Federal Government implemented the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(AAA) of 1933 aimed at increasing farm income through processor taxes, parity pricing, and

marketing agreements. The legislation affected dairy farmers by establishing marketing

agreements that determined prices and conditions of sale for milk.55 In 1937, the AAA

marketing agreements were replaced by marketing orders established in the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA).56 This Act (as amended) authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to establish FMMOs, which are legal documents requiring “handlers”

(processors) of fluid (Grade A)57 milk in a specified area to pay dairy farmers minimum

prices for their milk.

The stated purpose of the FMMO, as outlined in the AMAA, is to “stabilize market

conditions, benefit producers and consumers by establishing and maintaining orderly

marketing conditions, and assure consumers of adequate supplies of pure and wholesome 
 58 The 1962 Federal Milk Order Study Committee of 1962 (Nourse Report) noted that the major

purposes of FMMO at the time of establishment was to “ bring all handlers in a prescribed

marketing area under the scope of the regulatory mechanism; to place all handlers in the same

competitive position by requiring the use of minimum prices for milk entering the same use

(classified pricing); to provide for a uniform price for all producers (marketwide pooling); and to

extend classified pricing and pooling plans to all handlers and producers in a prescribed marketing

area in order to overcome instability in fluid milk pricing.”

 59 USDA, ERS, An Analysis of the Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and An Analysis of an

Alternative Milk Pricing Approach, prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture (2004).

 60 International Dairy Foods Association, Milk Procurement Workshop, Dallas, TX (Mar. 26,

2003).

 61 Under the 1996 Farm Bill, the number of FMMO was required to be reduced from the

existing number of 31 to at least 10 but no more than 14. Consolidation to 11 Orders became

effective Jan. 1, 2000.

 62 USDA, ERS, An Analysis of the Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and An Analysis of an

Alternative Milk Pricing Approach, prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture (2004).

 63 USDA, ERS, Milk Pricing in the United States, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 761

(Feb. 2001), found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AIB761, retrieved Jan 8. 2004.

 64 USDA, ERS, Briefing Room: Dairy Definitions, found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/-

Dairy/defini-tions.htm, retrieved Jan. 10, 2004.

3-14

milk at all times.”58 Over time, government regulation of milk prices has continued, owing

to the specific characteristics of milk, such as its perishability, expense to transport, the

market concentration of buyers relative to sellers, the fluctuation of supply and demand

throughout the year, and differences between markets for fluid and manufactured dairy

products.59 Today, the overall purpose of the FMMO system continues to be the creation of

an “orderly marketing” system such that there is movement of products through the

marketing system at the desired time and quantities, and without major fluctuations in

prices.60

Currently there are 11 Federal orders (one-third as many as in 2000)61 covering specific

geographic areas, and any milk sold within the region must be sold through the order. These

areas are defined according to where processors are competing for sales of packaged fluid

milk, and not the areas from which it is procured. In 2002, about three-quarters of all milk

processed in the United States was subject to FMMO, with another 20 percent covered by

state orders, most of which by the California state order. About 5 percent of all milk

marketed in the United States is unregulated and not subject to Federal or state orders.62

Classified pricing

Federal milk marketing orders are built upon two key principles—classified pricing and

revenue pooling.63 Under classified pricing, milk is priced according to its end use.64

Currently, the four classes and prices for each class are established by economic formulas

that evolved out of recent Federal order reform. Under this system, Class I milk is used for

fluid (beverage) consumption. It is the highest-value use and milk is channeled to fluid use

before use in manufactured products. Class II milk is used to produce so-called soft dairy

products. These include items such as yogurt, cottage cheese, and ice cream. Class II prices

are set below Class I prices, reflecting the lower value of soft dairy products compared with

beverage use. Cheese is produced using Class III milk, whereas butter and SMP are produced

with Class IV milk. Both Class III and IV milk prices are below Class I and II prices.
 65 These formula are discussed in more detail in chapter 9 of this report.

 66 USDA, ERS, Milk Pricing in the United States, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 761

(Feb. 2001), found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AIB761, retrieved Jan 8. 2004.

 67 NMPF, prehearing submission, Dec.1, 2003, p. 13.

 68 Kenneth W. Bailey, Understanding Your Milk Check, Department of Agricultural and Rural

Sociology, (Pennsylvania State University, 2000), found at

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/ua341.pdf, retrieved July 10, 2003.

 69 It is worth noting what FMMOs do not do. FMMOs do not set minimum prices at the

wholesale or retail level, and while they set minimum Class prices this does not necessarily

guarantee farmers a profit. FMMOs do not limit production, nor do they guarantee a market for

producers’ milk. FMMOs do not place limits on producers from selling to any handler.

3-15

Over time, the formulas that determine class prices have changed. The most recent change

was in January 2000, when new class-price formulas were introduced that significantly

changed producer incentives. Under this latest system, order prices depend on the market

prices of manufactured dairy products, including cheddar cheese, butter, SMP, and dry whey,

and are derived from national surveys of processing plants conducted weekly by the USDA.

These product prices are then used in combination with an economic formula to determine

the value of milk components. Specifically, the price of butterfat is derived from the price

of butter, the price of protein is derived from the price of cheddar cheese, and other nonfat

solid prices are derived from the prices of SMP and dry whey. The component prices are

then fed into formulas determining class prices.65 The aim of pricing milk based on

component values is to provide producers incentives to respond to market demand.

Revenue pooling

The second principle of the FMMO system is revenue pooling.66 This involves collecting all

the receipts from all the different processors in an order and putting them into a single

account (pool). These receipts are then divided by the total weight of milk sold, giving an

average uniform price (or blend price) that is paid back to the producers. The blend price is

a weighted average of the class prices, with weights equal to the portion of milk sold in each

class.67 Through this mechanism, all farmers in an order receive the same uniform price,

regardless of the class use of milk produced by any individual farmer, thereby allowing all

farmers to benefit from the higher-value Class I and II uses.

The uniform price and the milk component prices are used to determine an individual

farmer’s monthly milk check. The production of components by individual farmers is known

through testing at delivery, and with component prices, the value of components produced

by the farm is determined. To this is added a producer price differential (based on the

difference between the blend price and Class III value of milk), and finally adjusted for the

farm location differential, premiums (such as over-order premiums, and quality and volume

premiums) less deductions (such as hauling fees, promotion assessments, and cooperative

fees).68 The mechanisms used to determine farm-level prices are presented in detail in

chapter 9.69

State milk marketing orders

In 2002, about 25 percent of the U.S. milk supply was regulated outside the FMMO system,

most of which was subject to state orders. Similar to Federal regulations, state rules for
 70 Alden C. Manchester, The Public Role in the Dairy Economy: Why and How Governments

Intervene in the Milk Business, Westview Special Studies in Agricultural Science (Boulder: 

Westview Press, 1983).

 71 Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, North Dakota, Maine, Montana,

and California.

 72 Daniel A. Sumner, and Joseph Balagtas, “United States’ Agricultural Systems: An Overview

of U.S. Dairy Policy,” Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences (2002), found at http://aic.ucdavis.edu/-

research1/DairyEncyclopedia_-policy.pdf, retrieved July 30, 2003.

 73 Kenneth W. Bailey, Marketing and Pricing of Milk and Dairy Products in the United States

(Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1997).

 74 For more information on California’s milk pricing system, see California Department of Food

and Agriculture, Dairy Marketing Branch, Milk Pricing in California, DMB-SP-101, found at

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/milk-pricing.pdf, retrieved July 31, 2003; USDA, ERS, “An Analysis

of the Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy” and “An Analysis of an Alternative Milk Pricing

Approach,” prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and the

House Committee on Agriculture (2004); Leslie J. Bulter, “An Overview of the California Dairy

Industry,” Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. 

 75 International Dairy Foods Association, Milk Procurement Workshop, Dallas, TX (Mar. 26,

2003).

 76 Congressional Research Service, Dairy Policy Issues, CRS Issues Brief IB97011 (Dec. 19,

2003).

 77 USDA, FSA, Fact Sheet: Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program (Mar. 1999), found at

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/dairy99.pdfs, retrieved Jan. 13, 2004.

3-16

buying and selling of milk were developed during the Great Depression of the 1930s.70 This

was partly because in the early days of regulation, milk markets tended to be highly localized

and there was limited movement of milk over wide areas. State milk marketing orders

operate in nine states.71 By far the largest is California with roughly 20 percent of the

nation’s milk supply. Other state orders operate in parts of Maine, Montana, Nevada, and

Virginia. A very small share of the nation’s milk production is unregulated.72 The state

orders operate independently (for example, California) or jointly (for example, Pennsylvania)

with the Federal order system so that dairy farmers are subject to overlapping sets of

regulation.73 Milk prices in California are established under a complicated system of

reference prices and price formulas.74 Other states have orders in areas covered by Federal

orders that typically set minimum prices higher than those dictated under the Federal order.

More recently, state regulation of milk has become increasingly difficult to administer as

interstate movement of milk has grown, making it harder to maintain higher state prices

when restrictions on interstate commerce are limited by the Interstate Commerce Clause of

the U.S. Constitution.75

Direct income support

Until the 2002 Farm Bill, the more traditional methods of direct income support involving

target prices and deficiency payments were not used to support dairy incomes.76 However,

as part of the emergency farm spending during FY1999-2001, which was aimed at offsetting

the effects of low agricultural prices and natural disasters, dairy producers received payments

under the Dairy Market Loss Assistance (DMLA) program.77 Supplemental payments made

to dairy farmers under this program amounted to $200 million in FY1999 (P.L. 105-277),

$125 million in FY2000 (P.L. 106-78), and a further $675 million in FY2001 (P.L. 106-387).

Under the DMLA program for FY2001, payments per cwt were set at $0.6468, based on the

difference between current market prices and a target price (based on a 5-year average of
 78 Ibid., (Nov. 2000), found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/dairymar00.htm, retrieved Jan. 13, 2004.

 79 USDA, ERS, Milk Pricing in the United States, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 761

(Feb. 2001).

 80 Congressional Research Service, Dairy Policy Issues, CRS Issues Brief IB97011 (Aug. 3,

1998).

 81 Section 1502 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171).

 82 45 percent is the average Class I utilization rate for the Northeast.

 83 USDA, FSA, Fact Sheet: Milk Income Loss Contract Program (Nov. 2002), found at 

http://www.fsa.usda.-gov/pas/-publications/facts/html/milc02.htm, retrieved Jan. 13, 2004.

 84 Kenneth W. Bailey, and Charles Abdalla, “Dairy Title to the 2002 Farm Bill: Implications

for Dairy Producers in the Northeast,” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural

Sociology, Staff Paper No. 352 (Pennsylvania State University, May 2002).

 85 Equal to 170 billion pounds of milk production times 55 percent (the portion milk production

eligible for payment, based on a 2.4 million pound per farm cap). See, USDA, ERS, The 2002

Farm Act: Provisions and Implications for Commodity Markets, Agriculture Information Bulletin

No. AIB778. 67 (Nov. 2002).

 86 Congressional Research Service, Dairy Policy Issues, CRS Issues Brief IB97011 (Dec. 19,

2003).

3-17

past prices), and payments were made up to 39,000 cwt of an individual producer’s

production (capping payments to individual producers at about $25,000).78

Separately, prior to the 2002 Farm Bill, direct income payments were also made to milk

producers in the Northeast under the Northeast Dairy Compact. Introduced in July 1997

under provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill, the law required fluid milk processors in the

Compact area (covering Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and

Rhode Island) to pay a minimum of $16.94 per cwt for Class I milk (milk for fluid use).79

The Compact was not Federally funded and was ultimately financed by consumers in the

form of higher fluid milk prices. The Compact was highly controversial, because producers

in non-Compact areas, such as the Upper Midwest, argued that the Compact would lead to

production increases in the Compact region and to lower milk prices nationally. Opponents

also feared the precedent that the Compact could set for the creation of regional dairy

compacts in other parts of the country. The Compact expired on September 30, 2002, and

was not reauthorized in the 2002 farm legislation.80

The 2002 Farm Bill authorized the National Dairy Market Loss Payment Program (more

commonly referred to as the Milk Income Loss Contract Payments program, or MILC

Payments program),81 that provides permanent direct income support to dairy producers as

an alternative to ad-hoc emergency payments and dairy compacts. This program contains

elements of the DMLA in that it is national, caps individual producer payments, and is

Federally funded. It also contains features of the Compact, particularly the target price and

payment rate parameters of MILC. Under the MILC program, dairy farmers receive a

payment from the USDA whenever the monthly Class I price of milk in Boston falls below

$16.94 per cwt, with a payment rate of 45 percent82 of the difference.83 The program is

targeted mainly to small dairy operations by limiting individual farm payments to the first

2.4 million pounds of production each fiscal year (roughly equivalent to a 133-cow herd

producing 18,000 pounds per year).84 The program was retroactive to December 1, 2001, and

is due to expire on September 30, 2005.

During 2002, about 93 billion pounds of milk was eligible for payment85 and the average

payment was $1.20 per cwt,86 increasing the all-milk prices from about $12.19 to about
 87 Dr. Keith Collins, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in testimony before the

U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,

Nutrition, and Forestry, May 20, 2003.

 88 Dr. Robert Cropp, professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in testimony before the U.S.

House of Representatives Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,

Nutrition, and Forestry, May 20, 2003.

 89 Edward V. Jesse and Robert Cropp, “Dairy Title: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002,” Marketing and Policy Brief Paper No. 76, Department of Agricultural and Applied

Economics (University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 2002), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/-

www/pub/mpbpapers/mpb76.pdf, retrieved May 6, 2003; David P. Anderson, Joe L. Outlaw, and

Robert B. Schwart, “Structural Change in the Dairy Industry,” 10th Annual Workshop for Dairy

Economists and Policy Analysts, Memphis, TN (Apr. 23-24, 2003), pp. 75-79.

 90 Kenneth W. Bailey and Charles Abdalla, “Dairy Title to the 2002 Farm Bill: Implications for

Dairy Producers in the Northeast,” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,

Staff Paper No. 352 (Pennsylvania State University, May 2002).

 91 USDA, ERS, The Structure of Dairy Markets. Past, Present, Future, Agricultural Economic

Report No. 757 (Sept. 1997). 

 92 William D. Dobson and Paul Christ, “Structural Change in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Growth

in Scale, Regional Shifts in Production and Processing, and Internationalism,” International Dairy

Federation Bulletin No. 360/2001 (Nov. 2001), pp. 10-19.

3-18

$13.39 for eligible milk. Although payments are reported to be of great benefit to small dairy

producers,87 they may have forestalled some less-efficient operations from exiting the

industry thereby prolonging the period of low milk prices.88 In addition to maintaining small

and medium producers in business, the program probably will increase milk supply, thereby

lowering the Boston Class I price relative to the target price of $16.94, and thus increasing

the payment rate.89 Other research points to a rather small supply response to the program,

since the program payments would likely be less than 3 percent of the total value of milk

sales.90

Processing of Milk Protein Products 

Industry Structure

As shown in figure 3-1, milk protein products are processed in several types of operations

in the United States. These include more traditional operations, such as butter/SMP

operations, cheese/whey facilities, and fluid milk processing plants. Recently, other types

of milk protein processing facilities have emerged, including domestic MPC operations, UF

milk operations, and facilities that specialize in the blending and processing of milk proteins.

In recent years, the U.S. dairy processing industry has become much more concentrated.

Through mergers and acquisitions, the U.S. industry has increasingly become dominated by

a few very large firms and cooperatives, including Suiza, Dean Foods, Dairy Farmers of

America, and Land O’Lakes.91 Two important factors affecting this trend are technological

advances in transportation and manufacturing, and the large volume purchase requirements

of many retail accounts, that has increased the minimum efficient plant size for milk, SMP,

and cheese manufacturing.92 Trade sources also report that large retail customers generally

prefer to deal with a small number of suppliers.
 93 Information based on data from the Census of Manufacturers. 1997 is the most recent data

available.

 94 Donald Blayney and James Miller, “Concentration and Structural Change in Dairy

Processing and Manufacturing,” 10th Annual Workshop for Dairy Economists and Policy Analysts,

Memphis, TN (Apr. 23-24, 2003).

 95 William D. Dobson and Paul Christ, “Structural Change in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Growth

in Scale, Regional Shifts in Production and Processing, and Internationalism,” International Dairy

Federation Bulletin No. 360/2001 (Nov. 2001), pp. 10-19.

 96 William D. Dobson, “Competitive strategies of leading world dairy exporters,” Babcock

Institute Discussion Paper No. 95-1(University of Wisconsin, 1995).

 97 William D. Dobson, Jeffrey Wagner and Rodney Hintz, “When will U.S. firms become major

dairy exporters and bigger direct investors in foreign dairy-food businesses?” Babcock Institute

Discussion Paper No. 2001-3 (University of Wisconsin, 2001).

3-19

Industry concentration is indicated by trends in the number of processing plants and

production between 1998 and 2002 (table 3-4). During this period, the number of SMP

plants fell from 48 to 44, while average production per plant increased from 24 million

pounds to almost 36 million pounds. This compares with 113 SMP plants in 1980 producing

about 10 million pounds annually. Further, in 1997,93 almost 70 percent of production of dry,

condensed, and evaporated dairy products (SIC/NAICS code 2023) was accounted for by the

top-four largest processors, compared with 35 percent of production by the top four in 1982.

The number of cheese plants remained fairly stable during 1998-2002 at about 400, while

annual production per plant increased from 19 million pounds to 21 million pounds. This

compares with about 740 cheese plants in 1980 each producing on average about 5 million

pounds of cheese.94

Table 3-4

Skim milk powder and cheese: Manufacturing plant numbers and production in the United

States, 1998-2002

Plants/production 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

———————————Number of plants ————————— 

Number of plants:

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 46 44 44

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 398 402 407 403

————————––——Million pounds——————————

Production:

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,135 1,360 1,452 1,414 1,569

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,492 7,894 8,258 8,261 8,599

Production per plant:

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 29 32 32 36

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20 20 20 21

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Production of Manufactured

Dairy Production, various issues; U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Dairy

Products. Annual Summary, various years.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. milk proteins industry has increased significantly

over the past 20 years.95 Irish firms have invested in U.S. production of milk proteins in the

United States, partly in response to limited expansion opportunities in European markets

owing to quotas that restrict access to milk.96 The Kerry Group (headquartered in Tralee) has

been a major presence in the U.S. dairy ingredient business through a series of acquisitions

since 1987 with the purchase of a food ingredient manufacturing facility in Wisconsin and

the subsequent acquisition of the Beatreme Food Ingredient Co. in 1988.97 More recently,
 98 USITC staff fieldwork, Twin Falls, ID, Oct. 2003.

 99 Glanbia, press release, “Work begins on new $190m USA cheese and whey products facility

being built by Glanbia in joint venture with DFA and Select,” found at http://www.glanbia.ie/-

applications/presscentre/press_item.asp?return_year=2004&item_id=3074&press_code=1,

retrieved Jan. 2004

 100 Dairy Farmers of America, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003.

 101 Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 28.

 102 Dairiconcept officials, interview by USITC staff, Portales, NM, Sept. 2003.

 103 USDA, Food and Nutrition Information Center, Nutrient Data Laboratory, found at

http://www.nal.-usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR16/wtrank/sr16a203.pdf, retrieved Aug. 14,

2003.

3-20

Glanbia Ingredients (headquartered in Kilkenny) has invested in three large facilities in

Idaho (Twin Falls, Gooding, and Richfield) to produce cheese and whey products.98 The

investments include state-of-the-art technology for the production of high-value whey

products, including specialized WPC and WPI. Glanbia has also announced it will begin

work on a major new cheese and whey facility in Clovis, NM, in a joint venture with Dairy

Farmers of America (DFA), Select Milk Producers, and other dairy cooperatives in the

Southwest. The plant is expected to be one of the largest and most efficient facilities in the

world, using 2.4 billion pounds of milk annually to produce more than 250 million pounds

of cheese and about 7,500 mt of high-value whey protein products.99 A further example of

FDI is the formation of Dairiconcepts, a joint venture between the DFA and Fonterra, to

produce MPC 70 at a facility in Portales, NM.100 Production began in 2002, and once fully

operational, the facility will process 900 million pounds of milk annually,

101 and produce up

to 16,000 mt of MPC.102

Milk Protein Product Production

The supply of domestically produced milk proteins available for use is determined by the

total supply of milk, less a small amount of on-farm use. Milk production in the United

States reached 170 billion pounds in 2002, of which about 1.4 billion pounds were consumed

on farms and 55 billion pounds consumed as beverage milk (accounting for about one-third).

The remaining 113 billion pounds was available for use in dairy processing (table 3-5).

During the 1998-2002 period, fluid milk available for processing increased about 13 percent,

as fluid consumption and on-farm use remained fairly stable and total fluid milk production

increased. Although the protein content of raw milk changes seasonally, year-to-year

changes are small. USDA’s nutrient database reports a 3.3-percent protein content of raw

whole milk.103 Thus the 113 billion pounds of raw milk translates into a supply of about

2.5 million mt of domestic milk protein.

Skim milk powder, whole milk powder, and whey

U.S. production of milk proteins has largely been limited to the production of SMP and whey

(including dry whey), WPC, and WPI. U.S. production of these products is reported in table

3-6. SMP production reached almost 1,570 million pounds in 2002, nearly 40-percent higher

than production in 1998. Over the same period, U.S. production of whole milk powder

dropped to 47 million pounds in 2002, about 100 million pounds below the 1998 level. U.S.

production of WPC was about 325 million pounds in 2002, of which close to 90 percent was

used for human consumption and 10 percent for animal feed. Production of dry whey is
3-21

Table 3-5

U.S. fluid milk: Production and availability for processing, 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

——————––—Million pounds of fluid milk ———————

Fluid milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,348 162,559 167,559 165,497 169,758

Milk used where produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,406 1,328 1,303 1,212 1,414

Fluid milk consumed fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,267 55,712 55,517 55,105 55,262

Fluid milk available for processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,675 105,519 110,739 109,180 113,082

————–———1,000 metric tons of milk protein——–———

Fluid milk available for processing1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,335 2,433 2,508 2,477 2,541 1

 Assumes 3.3 percent protein. U.S. Department Agriculture, Nutrient database.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Milk Production, Disposition, and

Income, Annual Summary, various years; U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service,

Dairy Products Annual Summary, various years.

Table 3-6

Milk protein products: U.S. production by product type, 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

———————————1,000 pounds——————————

Dry milk:

Skim milk powder, human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,135,383 1,359,660 1,451,751 1,413,777 1,568,991

Skim milk powder, animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,660 4,817 5,567 5,507 7,565

Dried whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,523 117,991 111,377 41,201 47,411

Dry buttermilk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,093 52,107 56,245 51,712 54,886

Whey:

Protein concentrate, human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,893 315,653 290,462 290,127 287,513

Protein concentrate, animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,286 42,794 43,676 46,094 39,059

Solids in wet blends, animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,341 36,119 36,217 39,851 37,656

Dried whey:

Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,095,383 1,067,023 1,105,057 978,795 1,052,685

Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,878 80,365 82,846 66,860 63,087

Concentrated whey:

Sweet type, human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,186 106,183 101,565 68,824 108,250

Sweet type, animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,720 16,204 13,659 12,660 (1

) 1

 Not reported.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Dairy Products Annual Summary,

various issues.

about 1 million pounds annually, with most being used for human consumption. U.S.

production of most whey products remained rather stable during 1998-2002. There is very

little domestic production of casein, caseinates, and MPC; and no data on production are

reported by USDA.

Casein

Casein was produced in the United States from 1940 through the mid-1960s. However, there

has been almost no domestic production since then, largely because the DPSP made casein
 104 USDA, ERS, Effects of Casein Imports, Staff report AGES860321 (Apr. 1986); U.S.

International Trade Commission, Casein and its Impact on the Domestic Dairy Industry,

Inv. No. 332-105, USITC Pub. 1025 (Dec. 1979).

 105 Announcement RSCS1, “Sale of Nonfat Dry Milk for the Manufacture of Casein or

Caseinate,” USDA, Kansas City Commodity Office (Apr. 26, 2002).

 106 As of Jan. 2004.

 107 “Nonfat Dry Milk Sales Contract Awards,” found at www.fsa.usda.gov/public/dairy/-

defautl.hts, and Dairy Farmers of America, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 18.

 108 Dairy Farmers of America, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 18.

 109 According to the current terms of sale, U.S. companies are required to complete the

conversion of SMP to casein/caseinate within 120 days of purchase. Farm Services Agency

official, USDA, telephone interview by USITC staff, Jan. 9, 2004.

 110 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 28-30; Foreign industry official,

interview by USITC staff, Victoria, Australia, Nov. 11, 2003.

 111 Farm Services Agency official, USDA, telephone interview by USITC staff, Jan. 9, 2004

3-22

relatively less profitable to manufacture than SMP.104 Although casein use was historically

concentrated in the production of industrial products, today it is commonly used in a wide

variety of food products for its favorable flavor characteristics and high protein content. U.S.

casein production remains generally uncompetitive because of the DPSP, exacerbated by

strong competition from casein manufacturers in the EU (that benefit from an EU casein

production subsidy) and in New Zealand and Australia (that benefit from low production

costs). Thus, most domestic casein consumption is furnished by imports.

In May 2002, the USDA announced its intention to accept bids for CCC-owned SMP on a

competitive-offer basis for the manufacture of edible casein or caseinate. The CCC has made

available up to 300 million pounds of SMP, 24 months or older, for this purpose by issuing

periodic invitations for bids.105 Under this program, U.S. companies have been awarded a

total of 7.9 million pounds of SMP from CCC stocks at an average price of $0.22 per pound.

In 5 of 12 bid invitations,106 the USDA rejected all bids because the bid offers were

considered to be too low. Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) is one of the few companies that

successfully purchased SMP from the USDA.107 DFA began production of casein from SMP

in 2002 and currently produces over 200,000 pounds of rennet casein per month in its facility

in Wellsville, UT, and plans to increase monthly production to 280,000 pounds per month

in the near future.108 Just two companies actively bid for the program’s SMP during 2003:

DFA, through its entity Northern Utah Manufacturing, and Bluegrass Dairy and Food,

Glasgow, KY. Several other companies are currently working with the USDA in

manufacturing trials, but may be hesitant to commit to future production absent long-term

contracts for SMP.109

Observers have noted some technical difficulties of converting SMP to casein.110 Trials

conducted in the 1970s indicated that the heat treatment applied to skim milk during the

manufacture of SMP denatures the whey proteins and makes them adhere to the casein

protein. Protein denaturing reportedly interfers with the casein production process in which,

through acidulation and cooking, the casein protein is completely separated from the rest of

the milk components, including the whey proteins. Early trials of casein production from

SMP were plagued by very soft curds breaking up into fine curd particles, that complicated

the washing and drying of the pure casein curd. These problems reportedly resulted in

excessive losses and casein of poor quality and functionality.

The two companies that currently produce casein and caseinates through the USDA program

have not reported any technical difficulties with their manufacturing processes,111 and both
 112 Ibid.

 113 Ibid.

 114 Ibid.

 115 James E. Tillison, CEO, Alliance of Western Milk Producers, letter to U.S. Representative

Philip Crane, June 6, 2002 found at www.waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/trade/107cong/-

tradebills/hr1786westernmilkprod.pdf.

 116 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 10-11, 2003.

 117 Erie Foods International, Inc., Past, Present & Beyond, found at http://www.eriefoods.com.

 118 U.S. industry official, interview by USITC staff, Jan. 29, 2004.

 119 American Casein Company, “Custom powder blending,” found at http://www.americancasein.com/docs/-blending%208-01.pdf.

 120 U.S. and European industry official, inteview by USITC staff, Oct. 5-17, 2003.

3-23

are making commercial sales.112 The USDA reports that the casein is generally sold to

manufacturers of coffee-creamers and powdered baking mixes.113 The USDA program

requires producers to manufacture casein to a dry state and therefore may limit its potential

end uses.114

Thus far, the USDA program provides only for the production of casein and/or caseinates,

although some groups have encouraged Congress to extend the SMP sales to MPC

production as well.115 Trials by some U.S. dairy food manufacturers have shown that

conversion of SMP to MPC is technically viable.116

Caseinate

All caseinate produced in the United States is manufactured by a few firms from imported

casein. Erie Foods, in Erie, IL, produces a variety of caseinates mostly from imported casein

purchased from Murray Goulburn Cooperative Co. Ltd. in Australia.117 New Zealand Milk

Products has a facility in Allerton, IA, that manufactures caseinate and other highly

specialized protein products mostly from casein produced in New Zealand.118 The American

Casein Co. also produces a range of caseinate products from casein sourced throughout the

world.119 The U.S. industry’s ability to target small, highly customized caseinate markets and

a faster delivery time, allows U.S. caseinate producers to be competitive with foreign

suppliers in these markets. Delivery times from Australia and New Zealand are

approximately 8-10 weeks, while delivery time runs 6-12 weeks for shipments from the

EU.120 However, although these factors provide some competitive advantage for production

of caseinate in the United States, they are not sufficient to overcome all the previously noted

advantages realized by foreign producers of casein. Consequently, the majority of caseinate

consumed in the United States is imported.
 121 The FDA subsequently approved a process by which cold milk can be filtered using existing

recirculation UF technology. This approval became effective following the April 2003 meeting of

the National Conference of Interstate Milk Shippers, a group of dairy industry representatives and

FDA staff that meets biannually, and is currently a part of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. The

FDA had prohibited recirculation of cold milk owing to concerns that unpasteurized milk could

become contaminated if permitted to recirculate within the machinery. The FDA now allows the

recirculation process because existing regulations permit milk to be stored in a silo for up to

72 hours and that maintaining milk temperature at 45 degrees will keep staph bacteria from

surviving.

 122 North American Milk Products, a joint venture comprised of T.C. Jacoby, a dairy broker,

Select Dairies, and Membrane Systems Specialists, holds the patent on the single-pass

ultrafiltration technology used in the United States. 

 123 U.S. industry official, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 20, 2003.

 124 Mr. Mike McCloskey, Select Milk Producers, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript p. 186.

 125 USITC fieldwork, Dexter, NM, Oct. 23, 2003.

 126 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 22, 2003; Mr. Richard Cotta,

California Dairies, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 142.

 127 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 22, 2003, and Oct. 27, 2003.

 128 On a dry matter basis, 3X UF skim milk is approximately equivalent to MPC 60.

3-24

Ultrafiltered milk

Commercial production of UF milk in the United States began in the late-1990s. In 1996, the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a patented technology for the

ultrafiltration of cold, unpasteurized milk.121, 122 This process results in UF milk, either whole

or skim, that has not been heat treated and is considered a fresh milk product by end users.

UF milk is not dried and is shipped in liquid form, primarily to other dairy producers. It also

is referred to as liquid MPC (sometimes called “wet” MPC). The patented technology

involves a single-pass, cold-filtered process, as opposed to a hot, recirculated process that

is typical of commercial dry MPC production.123 Single-pass filtration has been designed to

take place adjacent to the dairy farm that supplies the raw milk for the operation, and

therefore has also come to be known as “on-farm ultrafiltration.”

Despite differences in production processes, UF milk and MPC can be used in many of the

same food processing applications. However, current FDA regulations allow for the use of

UF milk in a wider array of dairy products than MPC. Whole UF milk is sold mainly to

cheesemakers who prefer cold, fresh UF milk to MPC since UF milk has not been

pasteurized. Such customers report that ultrafiltered milk provides a better yield for cheese

production while maintaining quality, and does not have to be reconstituted.124 Skim UF milk

has been sold mainly to yogurt manufacturers.125

Currently two UF milk facilities in the United States use the single-pass, cold-filtered

production process: the Select Dairies facility in Dexter, NM, and the California Dairies

facility in Tipton, CA.126 A third facility in Southeastern Georgia is being developed. The

Select Dairies facility produces UF milk from both whole and skim milk, but the California

Dairies facility produces UF milk using only whole milk.127 Both facilities produce UF milk

to a 3.0 to 3.5 concentration (3X or 3.5X).128

Until recently, Select Milk Producers operated additional on-farm facilities in Lake Arthur,

NM, El Paso, TX, and Commanche, TX. Currently the Dexter facility is undergoing an

expansion that will double its plant capacity, whereas the Commanche and El Paso facilities
 129 Mr. Michael McCloskey, Select Milk Producers, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11,

2003, transcript p. 137.

 130 NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004.

 131 Richard Cotta, California Dairies, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript

p. 142.

 132 Ibid.

 133 Ibid., pp. 142-43.

 134 Ibid., p. 141.

 135 NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004.

 136 C.A. McCampbell, O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative, letter to the USITC, Nov. 26,

2003.

 137 C.A. McCampbell, O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative, letter to the USITC, Nov. 26,

2003 and Mr. Timothy R. Harner, O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative, testimony before the

USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 179.

 138 Company officials, O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative, interview by USITC staff,

Jan. 21, 2004.

 139 Ibid.

3-25

are being dismantled. As a result, Select Milk Producers’ total production capacity will

remain essentially unchanged at 15 million pounds per year of UF milk on a dry-weight

basis.129 Select Milk Producers report that the Dexter facility is currently running at, or near,

full capacity.130

California Dairies processes approximately 52 million pounds of raw milk per month at its

Tipton facility.131 California Dairies representatives have noted a diminishing interest on the

part of dairy farmers in California to invest in on-farm ultrafiltration technology. They

attribute this to the considerable capital investment involved, the need for technical expertise,

and the questionable ability to justify the transportation costs of shipping a liquid product

over short to medium distances.132 In addition, California Dairies representatives reported

that they are currently experiencing a softening of demand for their UF milk, which they

attribute to cheaper MPC imports.133 In 2003, California Dairies conducted a trial production

of MPC, but was not able to produce at a price competitive with imports.134 California

Dairies currently reports that its UF facilities are operating at between 50 and 60 percent

capacity.135

A third U.S. facility produces UF milk using an alternative production system. O-AT-KA

Milk Products in Batavia, NY, is a joint venture between the Dairylea Cooperative, the

Niagara Milk Cooperative, and Upstate Farms Coopeative. The O-AT-KA facility uses a

two-stage filtration system to produce UF milk rather than the patented single-pass, coldfiltered process.136 The facility produces some UF milk for use in down-stream products

(such as meal replacers, protein drinks, and medical nutritional products) that are also

produced by the company.137 The O-AT-KA facility experimented with producing dry MPC,

but does not consider such production to be feasible at current MPC prices.138 O-AT-KA

Milk Products reports that its UF facility is running at, or near, capacity.139

It is important to note that the production facilities of all three U.S. producers (Select Farms,

California Dairies, and O-AT-KA Milk Products) are certified as Grade A facilities. This

certification permits the UF milk produced in these facilities to be used in the production of

dairy products that require Grade A ingredients. While current FDA standards of identity

permit the use of MPC in the production of yogurt, yogurt is considered a Grade A product
 140 FDA officials, interview by USITC staff, Dec. 8 2003; Mr. Michael Reinke, Kraft Foods,

testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 315-16.

 141 American Casein Company, “Custom powder blending,” found at http://www.americancasein.com/docs/-blending%208-01.pdf.

 142 Dairiconcepts official, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 22, 2003.

 143 Ibid.

3-26

and therefore only milk proteins produced in a Grade A facility may be used in the

production of yogurt.140

Milk protein concentrate

The production of MPC in the United States is generally confined to a few firms that produce

blended MPC using imported and domestically produced milk proteins, and one facility that

produces MPC using the ultrafiltration method. A small number of firms in the United States

produce blended MPC using imported casein and caseinate, domestic SMP, and domestic

WPC. The American Casein Co. reported in 2001 that its facilities were available for

contract blending of milk proteins for the food, nutrition, and technical industries.141

MPC production using the ultrafiltration process in the United States is limited to the

Dairiconcepts plant in Portales, NM. The Dairiconcepts facility is a joint-venture between

the DFA, one of the largest U.S. dairy marketing cooperatives, and Fonterra (successor entity

to the New Zealand Dairy Board, see chapter 4). Prior to the joint-venture, the Portales

facility was wholly owned by DFA and served as a balancing plant, producing SMP and

cream. The facility was not profitable, but continued to operate to handle the excess fluid

milk supply in the Southwest, which was not marketed outside the region owing to

prohibitive transportation costs.142

In 2002, the Portales facility was modified to produce MPC by installing ultrafiltration

equipment to the existing evaporation and drying equipment at the plant. The facility was

uniquely suitable for MPC production because its physical infrastructure differed from what

is typically found in a butter/powder plant. These differences limited the need for significant

additional capital investment to enable the production of MPC.143 With completion of an

expansion to the plant in February 2004, the facility has the capacity to produce

approximately 16,000 mt of MPC 70 annually. 

The MPC produced at Portales may have an important advantage over MPC imported from

other countries. Dairiconcepts has applied for Grade A status, and if granted, the MPC

produced at the facility could be used in any other Grade A facility or in the production of

Grade A products, in which the FDA standard of identity does not prohibit the use of MPC.

Should the facility receive Grade A status, MPC produced in that facility could be used in

the production of yogurt and other cultured products, and ice cream and frozen desserts.
 144 Congressional Research Service, Milk Standards: Grade A vs.Grade B, CRS Report 91-589

ENR (Aug. 5, 1991).

 145 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, Grade "A"

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, 2001 Revision (May 15, 2002), found at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-

~ear/pmo01.html, retrieved June 20, 2003.

 146 The NCIMS began in the early-1950s, with the objective of developing rules for movement

of milk between states without concern for different state standards of milk sanitation.

 147 Kenneth W. Bailey, Marketing and Pricing of Milk and Dairy Products in the United States

(Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1997).

 148 Food safety regulation and enforcement of all products (except for meat, poultry, and eggs

which are covered by USDA) are under the jurisdiction of the FDA, which is part of the

Department of Health and Human Services’ Public Health Service.

 149 See, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/21cfr131_03.html.

 150 Ibid.

 151 Ibid.

3-27

Government Programs Affecting Processed Milk Protein Products

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance

Processors of milk protein products in the United States are subject to strict sanitation

requirements that ensure the milk supply is safe for fluid consumption and for manufacture

into dairy products.144 Federal rules governing how milk should be produced, processed,

handled, pasteurized, sampled, labeled, and distributed are provided in the Grade A

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) with orgins dating back to 1924. With changing

technology and the development of new products and production techniques, the PMO has

been revised every 2 years since the early-1990s, and as many as 24 revisions have been

implemented since 1924. The most recent revision was published in May 2002.145 The PMO

is published by the FDA based on recommendations of the National Conference on Interstate

Milk Shipments (NCIMS) that includes milk, sanitation, and regulatory agencies in all levels

of government, as well as dairy industry representatives and scientists from education and

research organizations.146 Not only does the PMO provide measures against milk-borne

diseases, but it also facilitates interstate and intrastate trade of milk produced in accordance

with the Ordinance without concerns regarding milk safety. Thus the PMO represents a

national standard for sanitary control for milk,147 and facilitates the marketing and

distribution of dairy products throughout the country.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards of identity

Processed milk protein products in the United States are subject to standards of identity for

food products. These were introduced under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

and are enforced by the FDA.148 Standards of identity provide definitions for food products

by establishing requirements on what ingredients must or may be used in the food

manufacturing process, as well as the quantity of such ingredients. Standards of identity are

contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21 Food and Drugs; Part 131

covers milk and cream (including nonfat dry milk, whole milk powder, evaporated and

condensed milk, and yogurt),149 Part 133 covers cheese and related cheese products,150 and

Part 135 covers frozen deserts.151 The standard for cheddar cheese (133.113) sets minimum

requirements for milkfat and moisture content, as well as allowable ingredients, such as milk,

nonfat milk, cream, rennet, and other clotting enzymes. Cheese covered by standards of
 152 “Alternate make” provisions allow for deviation from the prescribed method of manufacture,

as long as the procedure results in a cheese with the same physical and chemical properties. 

 153 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and

Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO-01-326 (Mar. 2001), p. 12; Officials of Food Standards &

Labeling Office, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration,

interview by USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003.

 154 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and

Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO-01-326 (Mar. 2001), p. 11.

 155 In December 2002, the FDA sent a letter to Kraft (See, http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_-

letters/g3740d.pdf, retrieved July 17, 2003) indicating that inspections of three plants found MPC

being used as an ingredient in the production of cheese products subject to standards of identity,

and Kraft had listed MPC as an ingredient in its labels for packaged American cheese slices. In

response, Kraft changed the name of Kraft Singles from “Pasteurized Process Cheese Food” to

“Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product.” “Kraft to change label on American singles,” Wisconsin

State Journal ( Dec. 10, 2002). Because there is no standard of identity for pasteurized prepared

cheese product, Kraft is able to continue using MPC as an ingredient.

 156 Staff, Food Standards & Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and Milk

Safety Branch, Food and Drug Administration, interviews by USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003 and

May 3 and 4, 2004; U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic

Production, and Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO-01-326 (Mar. 2001), p. 11; and responses

to Commission questionnaires.

 157 The International Ice Cream Association, A White Paper on Modernizing Federal Ice Cream

Standards, April 2, 2003.

3-28

identity cannot be produced using MPC as an ingredient. However, the standards of identity

allow MPC to be used in starter cultures, which generally account for less than 5 percent of

the total milk content. 

Although the FDA standards of identity do not explicitly provide for the use of fluid UF milk

as an ingredient in standardized cheese, filtration technology is used in U.S. cheesemaking

under the "alternate make” procedures authorized in certain cheese standards.152 The FDA

has indicated that milk that has been ultrafiltered “as an integral part of the cheesemaking

process” is acceptable in the production of standardized cheeses. This permits cheese

manufacturers that conduct the ultrafiltration process on-site during the cheese

manufacturing process to use UF milk. However, the FDA has exercised enforcement

discretion with respect to cheddar and mozzarella plants that procure UF milk produced

outside their own cheesemaking plants.153 In 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO)

reported that the majority of the ultrafiltered milk transported from ultrafiltration facilities

was destined for use in the cheesemaking operations of related companies.154

Several types of cheese are not covered by standards of identity, such as ricotta and feta.

Also, highly processed cheese products (such as Kraft Velveeta cheese and Kraft Singles)

do not have standards of identity. These products have no restrictions on the ingredients and

therefore MPC can be used legally in their production processes.155

The standard of identity for ice cream, under 135.110 (b) Optional dairy ingredients, allows

for the use of “skim milk, that may be concentrated, and from which part or all of the lactose

has been removed by a safe and suitable procedure.” Since milk protein concentrate is not

defined, this standard could allow for the use of both UF milk and MPC in the manufacture

of ice cream.156 However, the FDA standards limit the share of total milk solids that optional

ingredients can account for in the ice cream. This may restrict or limit the use of optional

ingredients, including MPC, in the production of ice cream.157
 158 47 Federal Register 41519 (Sept. 21, 1982).

 159 Staff, Food Standards & Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Dec. 8,

2003; and Leslie G. Sarasin, President, National Yogurt Association, Citizen petition on yogurt

standards of identity, Feb. 18, 2000.

 160 Staff, Food Standards & Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Dec. 8,

2003.

 161 Ibid.

 162 Detailed data on U.S. imports and exports of milk protein products are provided in

appendix F.

 163 USDA, FAS, U.S. imports of dairy products for consumption, found at, http://www.fas.-

usda.gov/dlp/circular/-2003/03-07Dairy/ustimp.pdf, retrieved Jan.15, 2004.

3-29

Additionally, the FDA standards appear to permit the use of MPC in the production of

yogurt. The standard of identity for yogurt lists specific permissible milk-derived ingredients

under 131.200 (d)(1), 131.203 (d)(1), and 131.206 (d)(1). Interested parties objected to this

list and argued that the regulation should instead allow for the use of any safe and suitable

milk-derived ingredient. In response to the objections, those portions of the standard were

stayed, pending a hearing on the matter.158 As a result, yogurt manufacturers are permitted,

under the standard, to use any safe and suitable milk-derived ingredient in yogurt, including

MPC.159 However, a Notice was published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal

Regulations in which the stayed portions of the standard were not identified.160 Subsequent

printings of the CFR have not been corrected.161 As a result, it is not widely known in the

U.S. industry that the standard has been stayed.

Further, yogurt is a Grade A product, which requires that all ingredients used in the

production of yogurt also must be Grade A products. Currently, neither imported nor

U.S.-produced MPC is considered a Grade A product. As noted above, Dairiconcepts, the

sole U.S. producer of MPC, is applying for Grade A status. 

Imports of Milk Protein Products

Import Trends162

In addition to domestic production, the supply of milk protein products in the U.S. market

is furnished by imports (figure 3-1). In 2002, U.S. imports of milk protein products were

valued at about $630 million, and accounted for about 40 percent of the value of all U.S.

imports of dairy products.163 Milk protein imports that year totaled 193,000 mt (roughly

10 percent higher than imports in 1998); about 70 percent were casein, caseinates, and MPC,

and about 20 percent were whey protein products of various types (table 3-7). Other milk

protein imports, such as SMP and fluid products, make up a smaller share of imports, largely

because they are subject to tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) with high over-quota tariffs. During

1998-2002, imports of casein, caseinate, and high-protein MPC (HTS 3501.10.10) fluctuated

considerably, but did not exhibit any appreciable upward or downward trend. In contrast,

imports of MPC in the 40 to 90 percent protein range (HTS 0404.90.10) increased from

29,000 mt in 1998 to almost 53,000 mt in 2000, before falling to roughly 34,000 mt in 2002.

U.S. imports of whey generally increased during 1998-2002, including imports of WPI

(reported under milk albumin in table 3-7) and WPC.
3-30

Table 3-7

Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product type,1

 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

————————Metric tons of product————————

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,394 65,960 74,230 61,577 57,559

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,929 32,460 34,200 38,234 34,709

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,929 44,877 52,677 28,468 33,626

Milk albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,916 9,535 12,579 10,834 15,594

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,832 4,376 8,171 13,362 13,444

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,642 6,818 7,610 6,990 9,236

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,919 9,849 11,921 6,934 7,815

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,977 7,392 3,550 3,283 7,337

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,957 5,731 4,207 3,889 6,828

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,265 4,826 4,270 4,204 4,586

Concentrated unsweetened milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 895 1,748 3,226 1,963

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 9 93 375 520

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 136 239 346 137

Food preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 41 52 9 44

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,412 192,905 215,549 181,731 193,399 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; caseinate 3501.90.60; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; milk albumin 3502.20.00,

3502.90.00; casein/MPC 3501.10.10; skim milk powder 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50, 0402.21.02,

0402.21.05, 0402.21.25; whey protein concentrate 0404.10.05; whole milk powder 0402.21.27, 0402.21.30,

0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10, 0402.29.50; whey 0404.10.08,

0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, 0404.90.70; fluid whole milk 0401.20.20,

0401.20.40; concentrated unsweetened milk 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30, 0402.91.70,

0402.91.90; dried whey 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, 0404.10.90; fluid skim milk 0401.10.00; food preparations (derived

from dried milk, buttermilk, or whey of chapter 4) 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, 2106.90.09.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The EU and New Zealand are the major countries supplying milk proteins to the U.S.

market. Together they account for two-thirds of all such imports (table 3-8). During

1998-2002, imports from New Zealand were rather stable, ranging from about

65,000-71,000 mt annually, whereas imports from the EU were more volatile. Canada is the

third-most important U.S. supplier; however U.S. imports consist mainly of whey, SMP, and

fluid milk products. Australia ranks fourth among leading import suppliers, although

considerably less important than the EU and New Zealand. Other countries that supply the

U.S. market with milk proteins include Poland, India, and certain members of the former

Soviet Union.

U.S. imports of the major milk protein products from the EU, New Zealand, and Australia

are shown in table 3-9. Major suppliers of casein to the U.S. market include the EU

(40 percent market share), New Zealand (30 percent), and Australia (10 percent). Other

significant U.S. suppliers of casein are India and Poland. New Zealand is the largest supplier

of U.S. imports of MPC (60-percent share in 2002) with imports steadily trending up at

about 23 percent annually between 1998 and 2002. In contrast, U.S. MPC imports from the

EU have been highly volatile, increasing from 10,000 mt in 1998 to 21,000 mt in 2000,

before plummeting to less than 3,000 mt in 2001. Other countries, including Australia,

supplied smaller volumes of MPC to the U.S. market during 1998-2002. The EU and New

Zealand are also the largest suppliers of U.S. imports of caseinates, accounting for 92 percent

of the total volume in 2002. Imports from Poland are relatively modest but have increased

rapidly in the last several years. Finally, casein/MPC (HTS 3501.10.10) is almost exclusively

supplied to the United States by the EU, New Zealand, and Australia.
3-31

Table 3-8

Milk protein products:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1998-2002

Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

——————————Metric tons ———————————

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,381 74,377 87,400 56,267 65,637

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,629 64,611 69,292 70,699 65,021

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,267 21,576 20,938 26,289 28,196

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,988 16,399 17,414 9,588 14,130

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,861 4,621 5,369 4,445 6,774

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,257 2,580 1,282 4,393 3,560

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,176 3,788 4,804 1,845 2,368

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,038 1,887 2,632 2,230 2,169

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 514 0 600 1,154

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 845 1,934 1,627 949

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 396 870 897 622

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 118 183 791 438

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 540 580 401 406

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 109 185 20 380

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 37 430 392 200

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,042 508 2,236 1,245 1,393

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,412 192,905 215,549 181,731 193,399 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; caseinate 3501.90.60; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; milk albumin 3502.20.00,

3502.90.00; casein/MPC 3501.10.10; skim milk powder 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50, 0402.21.02,

0402.21.05, 0402.21.25; whey protein concentrate 0404.10.05; whole milk powder 0402.21.27, 0402.21.30,

0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10, 0402.29.50; whey 0404.10.08,

0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, 0404.90.70; fluid whole milk

0401.20.20, 0401.20.40; concentrated unsweetened milk 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30,

0402.91.70, 0402.91.90; dried whey 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, 0404.10.90; fluid skim milk 0401.10.00; food

preparations (derived from dried milk, buttermilk, or whey of chapter 4) 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, 2106.90.09.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 3-9

Milk protein products:1

 U.S. imports by major protein product and principal suppliers, 1998-2002

Product/country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

———————— Metric tons of product ———————

Casein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,003 28,210 31,085 25,382 22,006

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,799 21,704 23,969 21,829 16,984

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,698 5,697 5,248 4,898 6,415

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,894 10,349 13,928 9,468 12,154

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,394 65,960 74,230 61,577 57,559

Milk protein concentrate:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,832 20,197 21,300 2,720 8,392

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,243 14,601 19,352 21,192 20,610

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,246 4,967 6,936 2,154 2,564

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,608 5,112 5,089 2,402 2,060

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,929 44,877 52,677 28,468 33,626

Caseinate:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,563 17,985 20,546 20,303 20,093

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,034 13,501 12,995 14,811 11,971

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 607 139 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 367 520 3,120 2,645

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,929 32,460 34,200 38,234 34,709

Casein/Milk protein concentrate:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,476 5,409 7,270 1,960 3,235

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,135 2,971 3,263 4,081 2,681

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 320 20 117 1,453

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,064 1,149 1,368 776 446

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,919 9,849 11,921 6,934 7,815 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; caseinate 3501.90.60; casein/MPC 3501.10.10.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 164 Kenneth W. Bailey, “Impact of Dairy Imports on the U.S. Dairy Industry: A Component

Analysis,” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Staff Paper No. 367

(Pennsylvania State University, July 2003), found at http://dairyoutlook.aers.psu.edu/-

reports/Pub2003/-staffpaper367.pdf, retrieved Aug. 2003

 165 NMPF, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, figure 3, p. 10; Dairy Companies Association

of New Zealand, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 36-43; Kenneth Bailey, Grigorios

Emvalomatis, and Zhen Wu, prehearing submission, Dec. 11, 2003.

 166 For more information on the Milk Import Act, see http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/-

fimilkat.htm. 

3-32

Import Penetration in the Domestic Market

An alternative way of expressing milk protein imports is in metric tons of protein (protein

equivalent), rather than tons of product. Converting imports into protein equivalents allows

imports to be summed across a heterogenous range of products. Import volumes of protein

can then be compared with domestic production of milk protein to provide a meaningful

estimation of the contribution of imports to overall domestic supply.164 Imports of product

can be converted into protein equivalents using conversion factors that indicate the

percentage of protein contained in each product. These protein percentages are reported by

the USDA’s Nutrient Data Laboratory. Table 3-10 reports the volume of U.S. milk protein

imports by product type from import quantities previously reported in table 3-7.

During 1998-2002, U.S. imports of milk proteins were equivalent to about 139,300 mt of

protein annually. Major components of the total included casein (40 percent), caseinate

(22 percent), and MPC (18 percent), milk albumin (7 percent), and casein/MPC (6 percent).

Domestic production of protein can be calculated by converting total U.S. milk production

to a protein basis using a factor of 3.3 which represents an average of the protein content of

fluid milk. The resulting domestic protein supply estimate ranges from 2.4 to 2.5 million mt

per year during 1998-2002. Imports of milk protein products therefore represented about 5 to

6 percent of domestic production over this period. Import penetration ratio estimates for milk

proteins reported by other researchers are of similar magnitude.165

Government Import Programs

U.S. imports of milk protein products are subject to tariff and nontariff measures. Tariff

treatment of U.S. imports of milk proteins is discussed at length in chapter 8 of this report.

Nontariff measures generally address health and sanitary issues relating to imported dairy

products. For example, imports into the United States of fluid milk products are prohibited

unless they are accompanied by a valid permit issued by the U.S. Secretary of Health and

Human Services under the provisions of the Import Milk Act of 1927.166
 167 Detailed data on U.S. imports and exports of milk protein products is provided in

appendix F.

 168 This compares with milk protein product imports of $633 million in 2002.

 169 USDA, FAS, U.S. Dairy Exports, found at http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2003/-

03-12Dairy/ust.pdf.

3-33

Table 3-10

Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product on a protein basis, 1998-2002

Products1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

—————————————Metric tons of protein2

——————————

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,243 57,385 64,580 53,572 50,076

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,235 29,539 31,122 34,793 31,585

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,804 29,170 34,240 18,504 21,857

Milk albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,733 7,628 10,063 8,667 12,475

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . 9,827 8,864 10,729 6,241 7,034

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,646 3,886 4,338 3,984 5,265

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,785 2,063 1,515 1,400 2,458

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 565 1,054 1,724 1,734

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849 1,255 1,110 1,093 1,192

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 244 117 108 242

Concentrated unsweetened milk . . . . . . . 33 71 138 255 155

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1 12 48 67

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8 12 5

Food preparations .................. 0 0000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,125 140,675 159,026 130,401 134,145

U.S. milk production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,355,295 2,433,297 2,508,141 2,477,275 2,541,057

Import share (percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 5.8 6.3 5.3 5.3 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; caseinate 3501.90.60; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; milk albumin 3502.20.00,

3502.90.00; casein/MPC 3501.10.10; skim milk powder 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50, 0402.21.02,

0402.21.05, 0402.21.25; whey protein concentrate 0404.10.05; whole milk powder 0402.21.27, 0402.21.30,

0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10, 0402.29.50; whey 0404.10.08,

0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, 0404.90.70; fluid whole milk 0401.20.20,

0401.20.40; concentrated unsweetened milk 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30, 0402.91.70,

0402.91.90; dried whey 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, 0404.10.90; fluid skim milk 0401.10.00; food preparations (derived

from dried milk, buttermilk, or whey of chapter 4) 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, 2106.90.09. 2

 Protein content of imports are taken from USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory, found at http://www.nal.usda.gov/-

fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR14/sr14.html. Percentage protein of products: Casein, 87; caseinate, 91; milk protein

concentrate, 65; milk albumin, 80; casein/MPC, 90; skim milk powder, 36; whey protein concentrate, 57; whole milk

powder, 26; whey, 12.9; fluid whole milk, 3.3; concentrated unsweetened milk, 7.9; dried whey, 12.9; fluid skim milk,

3.4; food preparations, 0.

Sources: Commission estimates based on official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce; USDA, Nutrient

Data Laboratory; USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Milk Production, various issues.

Exports of Milk Protein Products

Export Trends167

U.S. exports of milk protein products were valued at $361 million in 2002,168 accounting for

about one-third of all U.S. dairy exports.169 In 2002, the United States exported 320,000 mt

of milk protein products, about 22 percent higher than in 1998, although below the peak of

355,000 mt in 2000 (table 3-11). In terms of volume, dry whey is the most important export,

accounting for about one-half of all milk protein exports, followed by SMP (23 percent),
 170 U.S. Dairy Export Council, 2002 Annual Report, found at http://www.usdec.org/publications/PubDetail.-cfm?ItemNumber=653.

 171 In the last 5 years, the majority of U.S. SMP exports have been shipped to Mexico under the

DEIP (see full discussion of the DEIP below). Inefficiencies in the Mexican milk industry and

limited processing facilities necessitate the import of dried milk products. Although Mexican

tariffs on most dairy products were eliminated on Jan. 1, 2003, under the North American Free

Trade Agreement, U.S. exports of SMP to Mexico are still subject to a tariff-rate quota until 2008.

USDA, FAS, “Mexico Dairy and Products Semi-Annual,” Gain Report No. MX3064 (May 9,

2003).

3-34

Table 3-11

Milk protein products: U.S. exports by product type,1

 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––——–––––––Metric tons–––––—–––––––––––

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,214 121,402 181,744 146,226 154,846

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,916 120,858 101,048 96,159 74,063

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,294 17,605 25,440 46,070 37,826

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,362 16,869 18,363 26,587 28,383

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,942 9,967 14,795 13,492 14,063

Concentrated milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,767 1,003 1,166 3,868 4,166

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,605 2,977 4,540 2,843 2,323

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,577 2,368 625 1,060 1,211

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,363 2,477 2,175 1,032 969

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,951 3,698 2,853 2,278 1,971

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,504 15,177 2,121 1,072 448

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285,495 300,671 354,871 340,688 320,269 1 Skim milk powder 0402.10.0000; dried whey 0404.10.0850, 0404.10.4000; whey protein concentrate

3502.20.0000, 3502.90.0000, 0404.10.0500; whole milk powder 0402.21.0000, 0402.29.0000; fluid whole milk

0401.20.0000; caseinate 3501.90.2000 and 3501.90.6000; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.0000; concentrated

milk 0402.91.0000; casein 3501.10.0000; whey 0404.10.2000; fluid skim milk 0401.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

WMP (12 percent), and WPC (9 percent). U.S. exports of SMP declined during 1999-2002,

largely because of limits on the export volume that can receive export assistance under the

World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture. U.S. exports of WPC have

grown significantly since 1999, and the United States is highly competitive in the

international market for WPC without government support.170

U.S. exports of milk protein products are focused on North American Free Trade Agreement

countries and Asia (table 3-12). In 2002, Mexico accounted for one-quarter of all milk

protein product exports, consisting mainly of SMP,171 as well as dried whey and fluid whole

milk (appendix F). China overtook Canada to become the second most important destination

for U.S. milk protein exports in 2002, the majority of which is dried whey, with exports

increasing from 11,600 mt in 1998 to almost 40,000 mt in 2002. U.S. exports of milk protein

products to Canada consist mostly of dried whey and WPC, with both products increasing

significantly between 1998 and 2002. Other major purchasing countries of U.S. milk protein

products include Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.
 172 15 USC 713a-14.

 173 USDA, FAS, Fact Sheet: Dairy export incentive program (Jan. 2001), found at

http://www.fas.usda.gov/-info/factsheets/deip.html, retrieved Jan. 20, 2004.

 174 USDA, FAS, “The impact of the Uruguay Round on global trade of nonfat dry milk,”

International Agricultural Trade Report (Jan. 29, 2001), found at http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/-

highlights/2001/iatr9_01.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2003.

 175 Mr. Tom Suber, president, U.S. Dairy Export Council, in testimony before the U.S. House of

Representatives Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agricultural Programs,

June 28, 2001.

 176 USDA, ERS, Briefing Room: WTO, Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, found at

http://www.ers.-sda.gov/Briefing/WTO/exptsubs.htm, retrieved June 11, 2003.

3-35

Table 3-12

Milk protein products: U.S. exports by destination,1

 1998-2002

Markets/Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––——–––––– Metric tons –––––—––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,829 88,715 87,471 92,243 80,451

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,794 14,975 18,513 30,532 43,704

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,902 37,859 44,052 42,641 38,267

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,807 13,484 15,966 12,639 18,715

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,386 19,200 18,308 15,635 18,314

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,488 18,982 21,804 22,776 17,888

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,095 12,987 16,080 21,469 12,679

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,407 8,875 11,852 14,299 12,328

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,258 7,733 6,138 5,177 7,361

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 3,108 2,767 6,587

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,513 77,862 111,577 80,511 63,975

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285,496 300,672 354,869 340,689 320,269 1 Skim milk powder 0402.10.0000; dried whey 0404.10.0850, 0404.10.4000; whey protein concentrate

3502.20.0000, 3502.90.0000, 0404.10.0500; whole milk powder 0402.21.0000, 0402.29.0000; fluid whole milk

0401.20.0000; caseinate 3501.90.2000 and 3501.90.6000; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.0000; concentrated

milk 0402.91.0000; casein 3501.10.0000; whey 0404.10.2000; fluid skim milk 0401.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Government Export Programs

The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP)172 was introduced in the Food Security Act of

1985 and has been reauthorized since then in successive farm bills. Most recently, the Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 extends the program to 2007. Under the DEIP,

U.S. exporters of dairy products receive cash payments (bonuses) from the USDA that allow

them to export products profitably when international prices are below domestic market

prices.173 The original intent of the program was to enable U.S. exporters to compete in

foreign markets served by heavily subsidized product from the EU.174 In addition, it has been

argued that the DEIP provides the United States leverage in negotiations over multilateral

agricultural trade liberalization within the WTO.175

Since 1995, the DEIP has been subject to quantity and budgetary outlay restrictions as part

of the export subsidy discipline of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.176 Under the

Agreement, the quantity of subsidized exports had to be reduced by 21 percent and the value

by 36 percent over the 6-year implementation period 1995-2000. Beyond 2000, subsidy

levels have been fixed at the final implementation levels, and will remain at these levels until
 177 USDA, FAS, “The impact of the Uruguay Round on Global Trade of nonfat dry milk,”

International Agricultural Trade Report (Jan. 29, 2001), found at http://www.fas.usda.gov/-

dlp2/highlights/2001/iatr9_01.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2003.

 178 Also, the discrepancy between DEIP use and limitations may result from the DEIP year

being June to July, and DEIP allocations from Oct.-Sept.

 179 Converting the quantity of SMP exports under DEIP into protein equivalent, shows that the

United States exported significantly more protein under the DEIP than it imported in the form of

MPC during the 1998-2002 period. Assuming a protein content of SMP of 36 percent, on average

about 31,500 mt of protein were exported annually under the DEIP, compared with 24,500 mt

imported as MPC (HTS subheading 0404.90.10), assuming a 65 percent protein content of

imports.

3-36

a new WTO agreement on agriculture is reached. The specific commitments made by the

United States for limits of dairy export subsidies are shown in table 3-13. In the case of

SMP, the quantity of subsidized product was reduced from about 86,331 mt to 68,201 mt,

while the budgetary reductions were from $128.8 million to $82.5 million.

Table 3-13

Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP): Maximum allowable subsidies under the World Trade

Organization Agreement on Agriculture, by DEIP year (July 1 to June 30)

Product Base1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000-03

Skim milk powder:

Value (dollars million)...... 128.8 121.1 113.4 105.7 97.9 90.2 82.5

Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . 86,331 108,227 100,222 92,217 84,212 76,207 68,201

Butter:

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . 47.7 44.8 41.9 39.1 36.2 33.4 30.5 

 Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . 26,705 42,989 38,611 34,232 29,854 25,475 21,097

Cheese:

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.6

Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . 3,836 3,829 3,669 3,510 3,350 3,190 3,030

Other milk products:

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . 32.8 14.4 11.5 8.6 5.8 2.9 0

 Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . 43 12,456 9,971 7,487 5,003 2,518 34 1

 Base is average subsidy level during 1986-90.

Source: WTO, U.S. Schedule of Commitments (1995), pp. 7717-19.

During most of 1998-2002, the DEIP has supported exports of SMP to the maximum level

allowed under WTO commitment limits (table 3-14), and these limitations are significantly

impacting the U.S. market for SMP milk, as well as other milk protein products.177 In some

years, actual subsidized shipments appear to exceed the WTO maximum, such as in 1998

and 1999.178 This is because of “roll-over” provisions that enabled unused quantity from

previous years to be rolled over into future years. In 2001, the expenditure on subsidized

exports dropped to just $6.7 million (or $121 per mt) owing to international prices increasing

above U.S. market prices. In fact, an estimated 25,000-30,000 mt of SMP were exported

without subsidies that year. In recent years, about 70 percent of SMP exports under DEIP

went to Mexico, with 10-15 percent shipped to Asia.179 In addition to SMP exports, over the

past 5 years, the USDA has used the DEIP to export cheese, butter, and WMP. Since 2001,

no awards have been granted to butterfat and WMP exports, largely because of tight supply

in the U.S. market with little product available for export.
 180 USDA official, interview by USITC staff, Dec. 2003.

 181 Its members include Agri-Mark, Inc., California Dairies Inc., Dairy Farmers of America,

Land O'Lakes, Inc., Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Association, O-AT-KA Milk Producers,

Inc., and United Dairymen of Arizona. DairyAmerica website, found at http://www.dairyamerica.-

com/index.html.

 182 Mr. Rich Lewis, Chief Operating Officer, DairyAmerica, testimony before the USITC,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 166.

 183 The New Zealand Dairy Board was a long time critic of the DEIP.

 184 Rich Lewis, Chief Operating Officer, DairyAmerica, in e-mail to USITC staff, Jan. 26, 2004.

 185 James Farrell website, found at http://www.jfarrell.com/Default.asp.

 186 Hoogwegt, U.S., Inc., found at http://www.hoogwegtus.com/companies/us.

3-37

Table 3-14

Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP): Awards by fiscal year (October 1 to September 30)

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Skim milk powder:

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.8 133.3 45.3 6.7 53.7

Quantity (metric tons) ...................... 100,070 127,808 67,862 55,451 85,251

Bonus per metric ton (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887 1,043 668 121 630

Butter:1

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 0.5 6.1 - -

Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,959 395 5,298 - -

Bonus per metric ton (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,272 1,144 1,157 - -

Cheese:2

Value (dollars million) ...................... 3.9 4.2 5.6 1.8 0.9

Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,017 2,779 6,012 3,030 1,222

Bonus per metric ton (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972 1,498 926 581 763

Other milk products3

:

Value (dollars million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 7.4 20.3 - -

Quantity (metric tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,028 5,340 15,832 - -

Bonus per metric ton (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,224 1,387 1,282 - - 1

 Butter and anhydrous milkfat.

2

 Includes cheddar, Monterey Jack, cream cheese, mozzarella, and processed American cheese. 3

 Whole milk powder.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.

Allocation of DEIP expenditures was concentrated among a few major firms, and in fiscal

2002 the top-three recipient firms received 95 percent of all DEIP expenditures

($54.6 million).180 The largest recipient was DairyAmerica, Inc. which received

$26.5 million in DEIP bonuses. DairyAmerica is a federated marketing cooperative

association organized for the purposes of marketing dairy products,181 and its members

account for three-quarters of the U.S. SMP production. DairyAmerica is responsible for

marketing the SMP production of these cooperatives domestically and internationally.182 As

of 2002, New Zealand Milk Products (part of the Fonterra Cooperative Group, previously

the New Zealand Dairy Board)183 entered into an agreement with DairyAmerica to be the

exclusive seller of SMP internationally, thus enabling DairyAmerica to take advantage of

Fonterra’s international marketing and sales network.184 James Farrell & Co., which markets

and exports a range of dairy products out of the Northwest region of the United States,

received $18 million under the DEIP in 2002 (one-third of the total amount).185 The

third-largest DEIP recipient is Hoogwegt, U.S., Inc. (partnered with the Dutch company

Hoogwegt),186 which received 13 percent of DEIP expenditures in 2002.
 187 The FMD was established under the authority of PL480 and reauthorized under Title VII of

the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978. 

 188 USDA, FAS, Foreign Market Development Program: Frequently Asked Questions, found at 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/fmdfaq.html#Foreign%20Market%20Development%20Pro

gram, retrieved Jan. 20, 2004.

 189 The U.S. Dairy Export Council is a nonprofit independent membership organization that

represents the interests of U.S. milk producers, dairy cooperatives, proprietary processors, export

traders ,and industry suppliers. Its mission is to assist U.S. dairy suppliers increase the volume and

value of their exports. USDEC website, found at www.USDEC.org.

 190 USDA, FAS, Fact Sheet: Foreign Market Development Program (Jan. 2002), found at

http://www.fas.usda.-gov/info/factsheets/coopertr.html, retrieved June 12, 2003.

 191 USDA, FAS, Market Access Program: Frequently Asked Questions, found at

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/-programs/mapfaq.html#Market%20Access%20Program, retrieved

Jan. 20, 2004.

 192 USDA, FAS, Fact Sheet: Market Access Program (June 2003), found at http://www.fas.-

usda.gov/info/-factsheets/mapfact.html, retrieved June 12, 2003.

3-38

In addition to the DEIP, U.S. dairy exports are affected by two USDA export-promotion

programs—the Foreign Market Development Assistance Program (FMD)187 and the Market

Access Program (MAP). Aimed at establishing new markets and expanding existing ones,

the FMD program involves a partnering of nonprofit trade associations (referred to as

cooperators) and the USDA through which CCC funds assist the cooperator in funding

promotion of U.S. products in overseas markets.188 Promotion is typically through market

research, trade shows, generic advertising, and trade servicing. The U.S. Dairy Export

Council (USDEC)189 received $818,000 in fiscal 2002 (out of a total program of

$33.6 million).190 The MAP operates in a similar way, involving USDA-private sector

cooperation to promote and service existing and potential markets for U.S. agricultural

products.191 Fiscal year allocation for 2003 was $110 million (under the 2002 Farm Bill,

funding for the program doubles to $200 million by FY2006), of which the USDEC received

$2.16 million.192
 1

 Other countries supplying the United States with milk protein products include India, Canada,

and Poland. However, these countries are not considered major milk protein exporting countries. 

 2

 For the purpose of this report, the European Union refers to Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden, and United Kingdom.

 3

 U.S. Dairy Export Council, World Dairy Trade Trends, 2003 Edition, p. VII-Exporters-18.

4-1

CHAPTER 4

THE MILK PROTEIN INDUSTRIES OF

MAJOR EXPORTING COUNTRIES

Introduction

This chapter provides profiles of the milk protein industries of the European Union (EU),

New Zealand, and Australia. Jointly, these suppliers accounted for about 85 percent of U.S.

milk protein imports during 1998-2002, with the EU the largest supplier, followed by New

Zealand and Australia.1

 The chapter focuses on how government policy and market

intervention influence dairy farmers and milk protein product processors in the EU, New

Zealand, and Australia, as well as on other factors affecting the competitiveness of milk

protein products supplied to the U.S. market, such as production costs, production

technology, and research and development. Much of the information and data provided

below were collected through extensive fieldwork in the EU, New Zealand and Australia,

where Commission staff met with several government officials and industry participants, and

through Commission foreign producers’ questionnaires.

The European Union2

Overview

The EU is by far the world’s largest producer of cows’ milk, accounting for about onequarter of global supply in 2002 (table 2-1). The EU is also the world’s leading exporter of

whey (table 2-6), and ranks second behind New Zealand among major whole milk powder

(WMP) and casein exporting countries (tables 2-5 and 2-7), and third behind New Zealand

and Australia in skim milk powder (SMP) exports (table 2-4). The total value of dairy

exports by the EU was $5 billion in 2001, of which the United States accounted for about

16 percent.3

 The EU is the leading supplier of milk protein product imports to the U.S.

market, accounting for 40 percent of the total value in 2002 (appendix F).

Factors affecting the competitiveness of EU milk protein products differ greatly among

member states, reflecting the significant diversity of geographic, climatic, demographic, and

policy conditions in the region. Based on value, milk is the most important agricultural

product in the EU, accounting for 14 percent of total agricultural production during
 4

 1998 data were not comparable with later data because the method used to calculate the

published value shares was changed between 1998 and 1999; 2002 data are not yet available.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture, Agriculture in the European Union:

Statistical and Economic Information, various issues.

 5

 European Dairy Association, selected members of the Casein Production Committee,

interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

4-2

1999-2001.4 Total EU milk production has been effectively cappedby the production quota

system and averaged 122 million metric tons (mt) annually during 1998-2002 (table 4-1).

Over the period, about 6 percent of EU milk production was consumed on farms or

processed on farms for direct sale to consumers, with the remaining 94 percent delivered to

processing plants. About 70 percent of milk sent to plants (including excess cream separated

from liquid milk) was manufactured into products, such as butter, cheese, condensed milk,

WMP, SMP, and casein, and about 30 percent went to liquid drinking milk, milk-based

drinks, and other fresh and fermented dairy products. With the delivery quotas effectively

capping the quantity of milk available for processing, increased production of one product

requires production cut backs of other products. Thus, milk processors are constantly seeking

a product mix that provides the highest rate of return from a fixed quantity of milk.5

 In terms

of milk protein exports, the most important member countries are Ireland, France,

Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, which together accounted for 95 percent of U.S.

imports of MPC and casein from the EU (table 4-1).

Table 4-1

European Union: Milk protein overview, 1998-2002

Item Germany France Netherlands Ireland Denmark EU total

–––––––––––––––5-year averages: 1998-2002–––––––––––––––

Total milk production (1,000 metric tons) . . . . . 28,222 24,887 11,040 5,259 4,663 121,629

Protein production (1,000 metric tons)

1 . . . . . . . 964 792 382 171 159 4,028

Protein consumption (1,000 metric tons)2 . . . . . 784 606 158 34 49 3,299

Excess protein (1,000 metric tons)3 . . . . . . . . . 180 186 224 137 110 729

EU exports of milk protein to the U.S.

(metric tons)4 ........................... 8,249 11,780 9,693 27,922 2,433 63,193

Milk protein self-sufficiency (percent) . . . . . . . . 123 131 241 505 321 122

Milk price (euros per 100 kilogram) . . . . . . . . . . 30 29 31 28 32 30

Value share of milk production (percent)3 . . . . . 20 12 17 25 18 14 1

 Milk production times average protein content of milk. 2

 Protein consumed through dairy products including fluid milk, cheese, yogurt, and other fermented dairy

products. This estimate does not include milk protein consumed through other processed food products. 3

 3-year average: 1999-2001.

4

 Includes HTS subheadings 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50, and 3501.10.60.

Sources: U.S. Customs; Bureau of Census; ZMP, Dairy Review 2003; European Commission; Commission

estimates.
 6

 This system consists primarily of specialized dairy farms above average in size. Land used for

grazing and forage crop production is intensively managed. In northern latitudes, high-quality

grass silage is produced for long winter-feeding periods. The use of total mixed rations is

increasing and supplementary feeding of concentrates is common. The primary objective is to

provide a constant year-round supply of milk for processing demand.

 7

 The Centre for European Agricultural Studies and The European Forum on Nature

Conservation and Pastoralism, The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production in the EU: 

Practical Options for the Improvement of the Environmental Impact, Final Report, European

Commission (Apr. 2000).

 8

 Cows are fed rations of between 1,000 and 3,000 kilogram per cow per year, and annual milk

yields range from 6,000 to 8,000 liters per cow.

 9

 During 2001-2002, the peak-to-trough ratio in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark

ranged from 1.15 to 1.21; but was slightly higher in France, ranging from 1.31 to 1.33. The peakto-trough ratio is defined as the largest quantity of monthly milk delivered divided by the smallest

quantity of monthly milk delivered and was calculated based on monthly milk deliveries reported

in Agra Europe, Milk Products, No. 149 (May/June 2003).

 10 This system consists of specialized dairy farms that vary in size. Permanent pastures are

intensively grazed and managed because land and climate make crop cultivation difficult.

Supplementary feeding is limited, so that milk output can be highly seasonal.

 11 USITC staff farm visit, Cork County, Ireland, Oct. 7, 2003.

 12 Glanbia Ingredients, interview by USITC staff and site visit, Ballyragget, Ireland, Oct. 8,

2003; Lakeland Dairies, interview by USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003; TEAGASC (the

Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority) Rural Economy Research Centre, interview by

USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 9, 2003.

4-3

Production of Fluid Milk

Production systems

Milk is produced in the EU under a variety of production systems. The most prominent

production system is classified as intensive grassland production, in which herd sizes

ypically range from 30 to 60 cows.6

 This system accounts for about two-thirds of total milk

delivered to EU dairy processors.7

 The intensive grassland production system, like other

high-input, high-output systems,8

 provides a relatively stable year-round supply of milk for

drinking and manufacturing purposes in most of the major EU milk protein exporting

countries.9

In contrast, milk production in Ireland is dominated by the permanent lowland grassland

system that provides a highly seasonal pattern of milk production.10 Farms using this system

typically range from about 30 to 100 cows, with annual milk yields ranging from 4,000 to

6,000 liters per cow. Dairy cows are calved in early spring (to correlate peak milk production

(May) with peak grass growth), grazed and milked during spring, summer, and fall, and dried

off in mid- to late-December.11 Irish milk production is at its lowest point in January. A

limited number of Irish dairy farms produce year-round to supply the market for fresh fluid

milk. These suppliers moderate the overall countrywide peak-to-trough production ratio to

about 6:1, whereas many plants manufacturing processed dairy products may operate at a

ratio as high as 16:1.12

Other production systems are used extensively by some of the primary protein exporters. For

example, nearly 45 percent of France’s milk production takes places on intensive maize
 13 These specialized dairy farms are located where land and climate allow intensive cultivation

of maize (corn). High-quality corn silage is supplemented with concentrates to produce high

yields. The primary objective is to provide a constant year-round supply of milk for processing

demand.

 14 Highly specialized milk production enterprises produce milk for the industrial market. Herds

are very large (up to 500 cows). Cows do not graze and are fed total mixed rations of purchased

ingredients.

 15 The Centre for European Agricultural Studies and The European Forum on Nature

Conservation and Pastoralism. The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production in the EU:

Practical Options for the Improvement of the Environmental Impact, Final Report, European

Commission (Apr. 2000).

 16 The United Kingdom and Italy are among the top five milk producers and accounted for

11.4 and 10.3 percent of total EU milk production, respectively.

 17 The competitiveness of the Irish dairy industry is based on its grass-based, low-input, lowcost production system rather than high milk yields per cow.

 18 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No 6/2001 on milk quotas,” Official Journal of the

European Communities, C 305 (Oct. 30, 2001).

 19 Ibid., p. 9.

4-4

(corn) silage operations,13 and sections of Germany are dominated by the industrial

production system.14,15

Milk production and industry trends

EU milk production trends are dominated by the delivery quota system that stabilized output

during 1998-2002 at about 122 million mt annually (table 4-2).16 Milk production per cow

in the EU increased at an average annual rate of about 2.6 percent, from 5,653 kilogram per

cow in 1998 to 6,241 kilograms per cow in 2002 (table 4-2). Of the top-five protein

exporters, only Denmark and the Netherlands ranked among the top-five members in yield

per cow, while Ireland, the leading milk protein exporting country, had the lowest yield per

cow among all EU members.17 Because of EU quotas limiting milk production, increases in

milk yields over time have required a decline in the number of dairy cows. Between 1998

and 2002, EU dairy cow numbers decreased from 21.4 million to 19.5 million, an average

annual decline of 2.2 percent (table 4-2). The distribution of cow numbers among EU

members has not changed appreciably over time because production quotas are not

transferable among member states.

Long-term trends in the EU dairy sector were discussed in a 2001 report on EU quota

policies by the European Court of Auditors (COA).18 This report noted that between 1985

and 1997, milk production per farm increased by 119 percent (annual average of

9.9 percent). This increase was the result of the combined effect of a 29 percent increase in

production per cow (annual average of 2.4 percent) and a 74 percent increase in the number

of cows per farm (annual average of 6.2 percent).19 During 1998-2002, the trend toward

fewer, larger farms continued (table 4-2). The total number of EU dairy farms decreased at

an average annual rate of 6.3 percent between 1998 and 2002, although there were

significant differences among EU member states. For example, farm numbers in France

decreased at a 2.5-percent average annual rate, whereas the rate of decrease in dairy farm

numbers in the other major protein exporting member states was above the EU average of

6.3 percent (table 4-2).
4-5

Table 4-2

European Union: Milk production trends, by primary protein exporters, 1998-2002

Trend/country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total milk production:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,378 28,334 28,331 28,191 27,874

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,793 24,614 24,975 24,879 25,173

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,995 11,174 11,155 11,079 10,797

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,141 5,320 5,260 5,373 5,200

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,668 4,656 4,717 4,618 4,656

Total European Union .............. 121,191 122,264 121,197 121,662 121,831

––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 animals–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Cow numbers:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,833 4,710 4,564 4,475 4,373

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,432 4,424 4,153 4,195 4,133

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,600 1,570 1,532 1,551 1,546

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,199 1,174 1,153 1,148 1,129

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680 681 644 628 613

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,400 21,024 20,313 20,068 19,520

–––––––––––––––––––––––Kilograms per animal per year –––––––––––––––––––––

Milk per cow:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,872 6,016 6,207 6,300 6,374

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,594 5,564 6,014 5,931 6,091

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,872 7,117 7,281 7,143 6,984

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,288 4,532 4,562 4,680 4,606

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,865 6,837 7,325 7,354 7,595

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,653 5,788 5,955 6,094 6,241

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

National quotas for milk delivery:1

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,768 27,768 27,769 27,769 27,769

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,794 23,816 23,832 23,884 23,854

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,992 10,991 10,993 11,001 10,995

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,237 5,237 5,332 5,386 5,386

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,455 4,454 4,455 4,455 4,455

Total European Union .............. 115,738 116,007 116,989 117,562 117,606

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 farms–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Farm numbers:2

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 153 144 130 125

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 135 134 131 126

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 35 30 28 26

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 34 29 28 27

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11 10 9 8

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 749 681 645 621

––––––––––––––––––––––––––Kilograms––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Per farm quota:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,386 181,490 192,838 213,774 222,154

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169,352 176,417 177,852 182,323 189,316

Netherlands ........................ 305,331 314,020 372,641 394,312 416,466

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,468 154,024 183,876 192,364 202,492

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371,217 404,945 459,237 512,034 549,975

Total European Union .............. 139,443 154,883 171,765 182,295 189,352

–––––––––––––––––––––––Number of animals––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Cows requried to fill per farm quota:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 31 34 35

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 32 30 31 31

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 44 51 55 60

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34 40 41 44

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 59 63 70 72

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 27 29 30 30 1

 Figures represent the actually available delivery quotas; changes can result from conversion of direct-to-consumer quotas to

delivery quotas; the quota year runs from April to March. 2

 1998 farm numbers were extrapolated from 1997 and 1999 numbers.

Sources: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003; Commission estimates.
 20 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No 6/2001 on milk quotas,” Official Journal of the

European Communities, C 305 (Oct. 30, 2001); Dairygold Food Ingredients Division, interview by

USITC staff, Cork County, Ireland, Oct. 7, 2003; Glanbia Ingredients, interview by USITC staff

and site visit, Ballyragget, Ireland, Oct. 8, 2003; Kerry Group, interview by USITC staff, Dublin,

Ireland, Oct. 9, 2003; Lakeland Dairies, interview by USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003;

Erie Europe, interview by USITC staff, Paris, France, Oct. 17, 2003.

 21 Dollar values are based on 5-year average exchange rate of 0.9903 US$/Ecu or Euro.

 22 Prices are for whole milk with a 3.7 percent fat content; these prices do not necessarily reflect

actual prices paid to producers because they do not reflect adjustments for butterfat content,

volume bonus payments, inclusion of cooperative dividend payments, and currency conversion.

ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 23 For example, prices ranged from the i25.80 per 100 kilograms paid by First Milk in the

United Kingdom to i38.14 per 100 kilograms paid by Parmalat in Italy, a difference of

48 percent. LTO Netherlands, LTO International Milk Price Comparison (July 2003), found at

www.milkprices.nl.

 24 Ibid.

 25 Ibid.

4-6

A primary factor that contributes to the differing structural changes among EU members is

the method for reallocating production quotas between farmers in a particular country.

France, which has a highly restrictive transfer method, had the slowest decrease in farm

numbers during 1998-2002, the slowest increase in quota per farm, and virtually no change

in the number of cows needed to fill the average quota (table 4-2).20 Conversely, Denmark,

with a much less restrictive reallocation scheme, recorded the greatest rate of increase in the

quota per farm and number of cows needed to fill that quota.

Milk prices

During 1998-2002, the weighted average milk price in the EU varied by 8.9 percent, ranging

from a low of i28.83 per 100 kilogram ($12.95 per hundredweight (cwt))21 in 1999 to a high

of i31.40 per 100 kilogram ($14.10 per cwt) in 2001 (table 4-3).22 Among primary protein

exporters, price variability (as measured by the percent difference between the highest and

lowest price recorded during 1998-2002) ranged from 5 percent in Denmark to 15 percent

in Germany. Large price differences were also observed between individual EU members.

For example, the 5-year average price in Italy was 21 percent higher than the 5-year average

price in Ireland. Price data reported for individual milk processors also show wide variations

in prices paid for milk in different countries.23 Price variations among member states arise

owing to differences in local supply and demand situations, as well as the types of products

produced. For example, in Italy (a milk deficit country), processors are willing to pay high

prices for milk for the production of high-value, aged Italian cheeses.24 Conversely, Ireland

(a milk surplus country) produces large amounts of butter, which historically has been in

excess supply, and highly dependent on intervention programs for price support.25
 26 The last year for which these estimates are currently available is 1998. European

Commission, Cost of Production for Milk in the European Union Period 1998/90 - 1998/99

(revised methodology), Brussels, Belgium (May 7, 2001), found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/index_en.cfm, retrieved on Feb. 9, 2004.

 27 Estimates by TEAGASC place the average cost of production for a spring-milk Irish dairy

producer at i151 per mt, and at i134 per mt for the top one-third of producers. This result, while

not directly comparative to the FADN results reported above, suggest that Irish production costs

were probably reasonably stable between 2002 and 1998. Trevor Dunwoody and George

Ramsbottom, “Monitor Farms – Are we prepared for the challenges ahead?,” TEAGASC National

Dairy Conference 2003, Caven County, Ireland (Nov. 2003), found at

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2003/20031112/paper4.htm, retrieved on Feb. 10, 2004.

 28 Concentrates are sources of energy and protein, such as grains and meals, while fodders are

sources of roughage, such as hay and silage.

4-7

Table 4-3

European Union: Milk prices by selected member states, 1998-20021

Member state 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

5-year

average

–––––––––––––––––––––Euros per 100 kilograms––––––––––––––––––––

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 34.2 34.1 34.5 33.9 34.3

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 30.8 31.0 32.5 32.4 31.6

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 29.2 30.0 32.6 31.0 30.8

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 28.5 30.0 32.8 30.0 30.2

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 28.1 28.9 30.2 29.2 29.0

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 27.6 28.4 29.6 27.3 28.3

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 26.1 26.2 29.8 24.6 26.6

EU weighted average . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 28.8 29.2 31.4 29.5 29.9

1

 Whole milk with 3.7 percent fat content; price comparisons have to be treated with caution because of possible

incompatibility of the data and sources; e.g., butterfat adjustments, payment of bonuses, inclusion of cooperative

profit payment, and currency conversion. 2

 Weighted by member state milk production.

Source: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

Costs of production

In 1998, the total cost of producing milk in the EU was 244 ECU per mt ($10.96 per cwt)

(table 4-4), with costs ranging significantly among EU members.26 For example, the cost in

Ireland was 195 ECU per mt ($8.76 per cwt) (20 percent below the EU average), but the cost

in Denmark was 298 ECU per mt ($13.39 per cwt) (22 percent above the average).27 France,

Germany, and the Netherlands were within 5 percent of the average EU cost of production.

Feed costs were a major expenditure for all EU producers, accounting for nearly one-third

of the total cost of milk production, of which 68 percent consisted of purchased feedstuffs

(concentrates and fodders).28 Dairy producers in Denmark and the Netherlands were the most

reliant on purchased feedstuffs, accounting for 77 and 74 percent of total feed costs,

respectively, whereas German, French, and Irish producers relied more on farm-grown

sources of feed. High forage costs in France are probably related to the intensive production

of maize silage. Overhead costs accounted for 26 percent of total cost in 1998, and were

fairly consistent among EU members, and external factors of production (such as hired labor,

interest, and rent) accounted for 16 percent of total milk costs. There were substantial
 29 European Commission, “Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the

common organization of the market in milk and milk products,” Official Journal, L 148 (June 28,

1968), pp. 13-23, found at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html, retrieved Jul. 15, 2003.

4-8

Table 4-4

European Union: Milk costs and returns, by primary protein exporters, 1998

Item Germany France Netherlands Denmark Ireland EU total

–––––––––––––––––––––––ECUs per metric ton–––––––––––––––––––––

Receipts from milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 314 322 339 288 318

Variable cost:

Feed cost:

Purchased concentrates . . . . . . . . 37 38 37 60 31 47

Purchased fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 13 11 2 7

Farm production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11 4 9 12 10

Specific forage costs . . . . . . . . . . 13 26 13 12 18 15

Total feed costs . . . . . . . . . . . 68 79 67 92 64 79

Other variable costs1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16 16 20 22 20

Total variable costs . . . . . . . . . . . 90 94 83 111 85 98

Overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 79 65 64 56 64

Total cash expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 173 148 175 142 163

External factors:

Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 3 20 9 9

Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 30 58 12 15

Rent paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 16 16 9 13 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 28 49 86 34 39

Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 43 38 36 19 43

Total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 244 235 298 195 244

Return to management and labor . . . . . 56 70 88 41 93 74 1

 Includes veterinary medical fees, breeding fees, and other variable costs

Source: European Union Commission, Directorate General Agriculture, Farm Accountancy Data Network.

cost differences among member states. For example, external costs in Denmark were

significantly higher than for other members, accounting for 29 percent of total production

cost, largely owing to high labor and interest costs. Conversely, labor, rent, and interest costs

in Ireland were well below the EU average.

Government assistance

Common Organization of the Market for Milk and Milk Products

Government intervention in the EU dairy sector is part of the Common Agriculture Policy

(CAP), which is a complex set of interacting legislation and policies. The initial legislation

regulating EU dairy markets was passed in 1964 (Council Regulation 13/64), which

established the basic policies that support dairy farmers to this day. These basic policies

included: target prices for milk, intervention prices for butter, and threshold prices for

imported dairy products.29 The target price is a theoretical price, which the EU Commission

aims to achieve through market intervention, consumption subsidization, and restricted

imports. Intervention prices are used to determine when the appropriate member state

agencies should enter the market to purchase dairy products (butter and SMP) to support the
 30 During implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, variable levies

were converted to tariff-rate quotas.

 31 European Commission, “Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the

common organization of the market in milk and milk products,” Official Journal, L 148 (June 28,

1968), pp. 13-23, found at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html, retrieved Jul. 15, 2003.

 32 Council Regulation 1255/1999 defines the CAP as applied to milk and dairy products during

the period of this investigation, 1998-2002.

 33 The regulation specifically includes the following products by CN code: 0401, 0402,

0403.10.11 to .39, 0403.90.11 to .69, 0404, 0405 (part of), 0406, 1702.19.00, 2106.90.51, and

2309 (part of).

 34 Agra Europe, CAP Monitor (London: 2002), p. 17.1.

 35 During 1998-2002, the average price paid to EU farmers exceeded the target price in only

2001, and the 5-year average price paid to farmers was 3.5 percent below the target price (table

4-3). The 5-year average price paid to farmers exceeded the target price in only five members

(Italy, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland) representing 18.4 percent of milk delivered to

dairies.

 36 The description of the quota system herein is generally based on Council Regulation (EEC)

No. 3950/92, which was in effect during the period of this investigation. In 2003, Council

Regulation No 3950/92 was replaced by Council Regulation No 1788/2003, which significantly

altered various segments of the system.

 37 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No. 2/87 on the quota/additional levy system in the milk

sector,” Official Journal of the European Union, C 266 (Oct. 10, 1987).

 38 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No. 6/2001 on milk quotas,” Official Journal of the

European Communities, C 305 (Oct. 30, 2001).

 39 Ibid.

4-9

price of milk. Threshold prices were minimum import prices used to establish variable

levies.30 Initially, these prices were country specific. However, common community-wide

prices were established in 1968 by Council Regulation 804/68. This regulation also

established an intervention price for SMP, production aids for skim milk and SMP used in

animal feeds, production aids for skim milk processed into casein, and export subsidies

(refunds) for several dairy products.31 In 1999, regulation 804/68 and its amendments were

consolidated into Council Regulation 1255/1999, defining the basic elements of the CAP as

applied to milk and dairy products,32 including fresh, concentrated, and powdered milk and

cream; butter; cheese and curd; certain lactose preparations; and certain animal feedstuffs

containing milk products.33

The primary goal of EU dairy policy is to manage dairy product markets, such that milk

producers obtain the target price for raw milk. During 1998-2002, the target price for milk

with 3.7 percent butterfat content was i30.98 per 100 kilograms ($14.05 per cwt).34,35 The

primary instruments to maintain the target price are: government purchases and subsidized

storage of butter and SMP; restrictive import policies; processing subsidies for skim milk

used to make casein; processing subsidies for skim milk and SMP used in animal feed; and

processing subsidies on butter used in food manufacturing.

Milk delivery quotas36

By 1974, the CAP had led to self sufficiency in EU milk production,37 and continued to

stimulate growth in supply of 2.5 percent annually, but consumption increased at the rate of

only 0.5 percent annually.38 By 1984, milk supply exceeded internal demand by 20 percent,39

and gross expenditure on export refunds, storage, consumption aids, and processing aids

consumed 30 percent of the total CAP budget (equivalent to 17 percent of the total budget
 40 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No. 2/87 on the quota/additional levy system in the milk

sector,” Official Journal of the European Union, C 266 (Oct. 10, 1987), p. 3.

 41 Ibid.

 42 European Commission, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003

establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector,” Official Journal of the European Union,

L 270/123-136 (Oct. 21, 2003).

 43 EU Regulation No. 3509/92 sets the basic policies that govern the common market for milk

and milk products, including the quota and intervention systems. Other regulations outline the

specific details by which these policies are implemented.

 44 Direct sales quota cover milk production for products sold off the farm; wholesale delivery

quotas cover milk delivered to a plant for processing.

 45 Actual quantities produced are adjusted to a standard fat content.

 46 During the 1990s, Italian producers regularly exceeded their reference quantities without

penalty because the levies were paid by the Italian Government. Recently, the Italian Government 

negotiated with the European Commission to allow Italian producers up to 14 years to repay

i1.3 billion of allocated levies. In effect, this is an additional subsidy to Italian producers.

Guerrera Francesco, “Europe: EU agrees savings tax deal to start in 2005,” Financial Times

(June 4, 2003).

 47 Promar International, Strategic Development Plan for the Irish Dairy Sector (Mar. 2003).

 48 U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, et.al., Economic Evaluation of the U.K.

Milk Quota System, found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/schemes/milkeval/milk.htm, retrieved

Feb. 12, 2004.

4-10

of the European Community).40 This imbalance between supply and demand was deemed

unsustainable, and in 1984, milk supply control was implemented through a system of

delivery quotas.

In March 1984, the EU established a milk quota system to reduce both CAP expenditures

and the surplus milk supply.41 The legislation establishing the quotas was originally set to

expire in 1993, but it was extended several times, most recently until March 31, 2015.42

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3950/92, as amended, was the primary legislation in effect

during 1998-2003.43 This legislation established milk reference quantities (i.e., quotas), split

between a direct sales quota and a wholesale delivery quota, for each EU member country.44

The quotas are enforced by a levy of 115 percent of the target price imposed on milk

production in excess of the member’s reference quantity.45 However, the levy is assessed

only if the member state as a whole exceeds the reference quantity, so that individual milk

producers may exceed their farm-specific reference quantities without penalty, provided the

member state as a whole does not exceed its total reference quantity. Overall, the quotas

succeeded in controlling production, with milk deliveries exceeding the quota by less than

1 percent every year during 1998-2002 (table 4-5).46

Implementation of the quota system is delegated to the individual member states, and

methods of quota allocation to individual farmers differ across member states. Quota

allocation and reallocation methods play an important role in the overall farm structure of

the EU dairy industry, and international competitiveness of the individual member states.47

During 1998-2002, quotas were generally tied to a specific piece of land. However, several

members, (e.g., the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany) developed programs

by which quota can be traded separately from the land,48 so that quotas have become
 49 Court of Auditors, “Special Report No. 6/2001 on milk quotas,” Official Journal of the

European Union, C 305 (Oct 30, 2001).

 50 Ibid.

 51 Chapter II of Council Regulation 1255/1999 outlines the basic measures for market

intervention programs. EU Commission Regulation No. 2771/1999 provides detailed rules for

intervention in the butter and cream markets.

 52 Private storage of cream and butter is also subsidized. Private storage aid may be paid on

butter placed in storage between March and August for a minimum of 90 days and a maximum of

210 days. The private storage aid rate is a fixed i24 per mt plus i0.35 per day plus 3 percent

interest paid on 91 percent of the intervention price. 

4-11

Table 4-5

European Union: National quota for milk delivery and quota utilization, by primary protein

exporters, 1998-20021

Exporters 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,768 27,768 27,769 27,769 27,769

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,794 23,816 23,832 23,884 23,854

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,992 10,991 10,993 11,001 10,995

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,237 5,237 5,332 5,386 5,386

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,455 4,454 4,455 4,455 4,455

Total European Union ............. 115,738 116,007 116,989 117,562 117,606

––– Fat-adjusted milk deliveries as a percent of the available quota –––

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.7 100.6 100.9 100.5 99.7

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.6 99.6 99.3 99.9 100.1

Netherlands ....................... 100.5 100.5 99.2 100.5 100.2

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.8 100.3 99.7 100.2 100.8

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.2 100.4 100.4 100.1 100.5

Total European Union ............. 100.8 100.9 100.7 100.7 100.6 1

 Figures represent the actually available delivery quotas; changes can result from conversion of

direct-to-consumer quotas to delivery quotas; the quota year runs from April to March.

Source: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

valuable assets in themselves.49 In those countries with more restrictive reallocation schemes

(e.g., France), quota values have become capitalized into land values.50 In most countries,

when land with the quota tied to it is sold, a certain portion of the quota reverts to a national

reserve. Member states reallocate quota from this reserve according to priority of specific

farmer groups (e.g., young farmers, organic producers, new producers, existing producers,

etc.) or regions (e.g., less-favored areas, mountain areas, etc.).

Butter market intervention51

Government intervention in the butter market supports the farm-gate milk price and occurs

primarily through purchase and public storage.52 Butter is purchased when the market price

in a member state falls below 92 percent of the intervention price (equal to

i3,282 ($3,250) per mt during 1998-2002) for two consecutive weeks. When this condition

occurs, butter is purchased twice a month through a tendering process. The purchase price

must be at least 90 percent of the intervention price. During 1998-2002, the EU developed
 53 ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 54 Chapter II of Council Regulation 1255/1999 outlines the basic measures for market

intervention programs. EU Commission Regulation 214/2001 provides detailed rules for

intervention in the SMP market.

 55 To qualify for intervention, SMP must be top quality, produced by spray drying within 30

days of being offered for intervention, and have a minimum protein content of 35.6 percent.

 56 When intervention buying is suspended purchases may continue under a tender system at

prices less than the intervention price. Intervention purchases have only been suspended once. This

occurred in 2002, during which four tenders were accepted at 95.5 to 98.5 percent of the

intervention price.

 57 ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 58 Ibid.

 59 EU Commission, Agriculture Directorate, Dairy Division, interview by USITC staff,

Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 60 SMP exports to the United States were not eligible for export refunds during 1998-2002.

4-12

a chronic surplus of butter and resorted to consumption and export subsidies to dispose of

about one-third of the available supply during the period.53

Skim milk powder market intervention54

Intervention in the SMP market is used to support farm-gate milk prices. Under the

regulations, SMP may be purchased into intervention stocks between March 1 and August

31 of each year, with the intervention price during 1998-2002 being i2,055 ($2,035) per

mt.55 When intervention purchases reach 109,000 mt in any given year, further purchases at

the intervention price are suspended, although private storage aid may be paid on SMP at the

rate of i0.35 ($0.347) per mt per day (i0.44 ($0.436) per mt per day in Spain and

Portugal).56

During 1998-2002, EU intervention in the SMP market was highly volatile (table 4-6).

Month-end SMP intervention stocks increased from 130,700 mt in January 1998, peaking

at 273,500 mt in August 1999, and falling to zero by October 2000.57 The EU held no SMP

in intervention stocks during all of 2001. Purchases resumed in March 2002, with

intervention stocks peaking at 146,000 mt in September.58

The drop in intervention stock levels to zero in 2000 and 2001 resulted from several factors.

First, to satisfy increased EU demand for cheese in that period, milk was diverted away from

SMP production toward the production of cheese. Second, a drought in Oceania reduced the

global supply of SMP and increased world prices, so that there was less need for intervention

buying during this period. Third, after July 2000, unused export subsidy commitments under

the WTO Agreement on Agriculture could no longer be carried over to future years. This

motivated the EU Commission to use carried-over export subsidy commitments to deplete

intervention stocks.59 Export refunds were i680 ($673) per mt in January 1998, peaking at

i900 ($891) per mt when SMP intervention stocks peaked in August 1999, and dropped to

i150 ($149) per mt by the time intervention stocks were depleted in October 2000.60 After

2001, stocks increased as supply increased by more than consumption.
 61 European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture, “The CAP reform: milk and

milk products,” Brussels, Belgium (Nov. 1999), found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/-

publi/fact/milk/milk_en.pdf.

 62 Irish Dairy Board, “The Likely Consequences of the Luxembourg Agreement for the Dairy

Market,” staff paper received during USITC fieldwork, Oct. 10, 2003.

4-13

Table 4-6

European Union: Skim milk powder (SMP) demand/supply balance and prices, 1998-2002

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––

Opening stocks1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 270 266 123 200

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,148 1,191 1,116 1,000 1,140

Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 73 78 57 69

Available supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,380 1,534 1,460 1,180 1,409

Exports2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 272 357 142 154

Domestic consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 996 980 502 520

Domestic consumption at market prices . . . 464 498 504 502 520

Subsidized consumption in feed . . . . . . . . . 472 498 476 336 435

Intervention purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 95 0 0 148

Intervention stock (December) . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 180 0 0 140

Closing stocks1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 266 123 200 300

––––––––––––––––––––Euros per metric ton–––––––––––––––––––

Export refunds3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 848 4

541 100 5562

Intervention price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055 2,055

Netherlands price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,050 2,060 2,530 2,320 1,990

–––––––––––––––––U.S. dollars per metric ton–––––––––––––––––

World price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,453 1,301 1,880 2,012 1,312

1

 Includes intervention stocks and subsidized private storage. 2

 Nearly all SMP exports are subsidized by export refunds.

3

 Simple average of refund in effect during year.

4

 During 2000, the refund dropped from 810 to 150.

5

 During 2001, the refund ranged from 200 to 850.

Source: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Market

News, various issues.

Common Agricultural Policy reform

During the mid-1990s, the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers began consultations to

reform the CAP. These consultations resulted in the Agenda 2000 reforms, which were fully

incorporated into EU regulations in May 1999. Under the Agenda 2000, provisions affecting

the dairy sector included lower intervention prices and decoupled payments, which were

scheduled to begin implementation in 2004.61 However, nearly all of the Agenda 2000 dairy

product reforms were altered before being implemented as a result of the Mid-Term Review

(MTR) in June 2003. Implementation of the new reforms under the MTR, which begin in

July 2004, are expected to alter the competitiveness of EU milk protein products in world

markets significantly.62

The main provisions of the MTR for dairy are as follows: (1) the target price for milk will

be abolished; (2) the intervention price for butter will be cut by 25 percent in four stages
 63 Butter intervention purchases will be limited to the period of Mar. 1 to Aug. 31 and will be

limited to 70,000 mt in 2004. The limit on butter purchases will be reduced by 10,000 mt annually,

to 30,000 mt in 2008 and thereafter. Beyond this limit, butter must be purchased by tender. 

 64 The 1.5 percent quota increase for those members that did not receive an increase in 2000/01

will be implemented at 0.5 percent annually beginning in the 2006/07 quota year. Several countries

received immediate increases during initial implementation of the Agenda 2000.

 65 Andrew Slade, Dairy CAP Reform and the UK’s Policy Options, U.K. Department for

Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Dec. 1, 2003).

 66 Irish Dairy Board, “The Likely Consequences of the Luxembourg Agreement for the Dairy

Market,” staff paper received during USITC fieldwork, Oct. 10, 2003.

 67 Mr. Patrick Ivory, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 368.

 68 Ibid.

 69 Irish Dairy Industry Association, interview by USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003;

EU Commission, Agriculture Directorate, Dairy Division, interview by USITC staff, Brussels,

Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 70 The European milk protein industry can be divided into three segments. (1) Primary

processors collect milk from farmers and process it into a variety of consumer-branded dairy

products and high-value, dairy-based food ingredients. Many of these companies are large firms

and are owned or controlled by farmer cooperatives. (2) Secondary processors do not process raw

milk but reprocess and repackage dairy ingredients purchased from primary processors. These

companies tend to be small to medium-sized firms that compete on price. They may provide

specialized manufacturing, blending, and packaging services to the trader/broker segment or to

smaller primary processors that operate single-function plants with limited capacity. (3) Traders

primarily operate based on market arbitrage opportunities and may or may not trade on their own

behalf. They may trade bulk commodities or they may purchase bulk commodities for reprocessing

or repackaging into consumer-ready packaging. They may also provide marketing services to

smaller primary processors that lack sufficient scale to develop a sales force for marginal products.

European Dairy Association, selected members of the Casein Production Committee, interview by

USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003; Eucolait, interview by USITC staff, Brussels,

Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003; Erie Europe, interview by USITC staff, Paris, France, Oct. 17, 2003.

4-14

starting in July 2004;63 (3) the intervention price for SMP will be cut by 15 percent in three

annual installments beginning in 2004; (4) the quota system will be extended to the

2014/2015 marketing year;64 and, (5) dairy producers will be compensated for about

60 percent of the decreased milk price through direct payments that are decoupled from milk

production by 2007.65

Lower intervention prices are anticipated to have an immediate impact on farm milk prices,66

which may decrease by as much as 21 percent once the reforms have been fully

implemented.67 Lower milk prices should result in lower prices to consumers of dairy

products resulting in increased consumption of cheese and fresh dairy products.68 Industry

and EU Commission officials anticipate that lower farm prices will increase the

competitiveness of EU milk protein products in world markets by reducing, and possibly

eliminating, the need for export subsidies and production aids.69

Processing of Milk Protein Products

Industry structure

The European dairy industry is rapidly consolidating.70 During 1998-2002, 42 mergers,

acquisitions, takeovers, joint ventures, and alliances in the global dairy industry involved EU
 71 Danish Dairy Board, Facts & Figures, Global Key Information, Merger Timeline, found at

http://www.mejeri.-dk/view.asp?ID=589, retrieved Feb. 12, 2004.

 72 Promar International, Strategic Development Plan for the Irish Dairy Processing Sector,

reported prepared for the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food, Irish Co-operative

Organization Society, and Irish Dairy Industries Association (Mar. 2003).

 73 Ibid.

 74 Ibid.

 75 ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 76 Preserved dairy products include milk powders, condensed and evaporated milk, and casein.

 77 ATLA (French Dairy Processors Association,) interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium,

Oct. 15, 2003.

 78 DMV International, interview by USITC staff, Veghel, The Netherlands, Oct. 13, 2003.

 79 Irish Dairy Board, interview by USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003.

4-15

primary processors.71 Nonetheless, no individual firm controls more than 7 percent of the

total EU milk supply (table 4-7). Concentration of dairy processing varies among the primary

protein exporting EU members. For example, Arla Foods in Denmark, the largest dairy

processor in the EU based on milk processed, controls at least 80 percent of the Danish milk

supply,72 whereas Campina and Friesland Coberco in the Netherlands, the EU’s third- and

fourth-largest dairy processors, control at least 80 percent of the Dutch milk supply.73 Ireland

is less concentrated with 6 companies (including Glanbia, Dairygold, Kerry, and Lakeland)

controlling at least 80 percent of the nation’s milk supply.74

Table 4-7

European Union: Industry concentration, top-ten dairy companies by milk processed, 2001

Milk Processed 

Company/Base location Each Cumulative

–Million liters– –––––– Percent––––––

Arla Foods (Denmark and Sweden) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,200 6.4 6.4

Lactalis (France) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000 6.3 12.7

Campina (Netherlands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,750 5.1 17.8

Friesland Coberco DF (Netherlands) 5,600 5.0 22.9

Nordmilch (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,200 3.8 26.6

Bongrain/CLE (France) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,100 3.7 30.3

Nestle (Switzerland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,800 2.5 32.8

Dairy Crest (United Kingdom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,700 2.4 35.2

Humana Milckunion (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,460 2.2 37.4

Glanbia (Ireland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,450 2.2 39.6

Total European Union milk deliveries .................. 111,765

Source: LTO International Milk Price Comparison, 2002.

The milk protein processing industry is more concentrated than the overall dairy processing

industry. In 2000, Zentrale Markt und Preisberichtstelle (ZMP) reported 82 companies

producing milk powder in the major protein exporting members with 3 in Denmark, 43 in

Germany, 15 in France, 11 in Ireland (1997), and 10 in the Netherlands.75 The Danish Dairy

Board reports that 6 of Arla’s 23 plants produce preserved dairy products.76 ATLA, a French

dairy processors’ association, reported that about 10 companies in France manufacture

casein.77 DMV International is the only producer of casein in the Netherlands,78 and the Irish

Dairy Board markets casein from 7 manufacturers.79 Limited information is available on the

structure of secondary processors and traders. Eucolait, representing the European dairy

trade, indicated that they have about 1,000 members, including primary processors,
 80 Eucolait, interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 81 European Dairy Association, selected members of the Casein Production Committee,

interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

 82 The German price of edible casein dropped from i6,120 per mt to i4,100 per mt. ZMP,

Dairy Review 2003.

 83 Low-protein MPC is typically produced using casein and skim milk powder. High-protein

MPC is typically produced using casein and whey protein concentrate. MPC may be wet blended

or dry blended depending on the customer specification. Functionality increases with protein level,

therefore, low-protein blended MPC tends to be a commodity product, whereas high-protein

blended MPC tends to be a functional customized food ingredient. European Dairy Association,

selected members of the Casein Production Committee, interview by USITC staff, Brussels,

Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

4-16

secondary processors, and traders; about 80 percent of these members are small and mediumsize firms with 3 to 50 employees.80

Milk protein for processing

The supply of milk available for processing depends on total milk production, delivery rate,

and quantities used for fluid consumption. EU milk production averaged about 122 million

mt annually during 1998-2002 (table 4-2). About 7 million mt (or 6 percent) is consumed

on farms or sold directly to consumers (either in the form of fluid milk or farm-processed

dairy products), with 115 million mt (94 percent) of EU milk production is delivered to

plants for processing. Close to 29 million mt go into fluid milk, leaving about 86 million mt

of milk for manufactured products, which is equivalent to about 3 million mt of protein.

Milk protein product production

As noted above, delivery quotas have effectively capped the quantity of EU milk available

for processing. Consequently, the production of dairy protein products is a zero-sum game:

increased production of one product necessitates decreased production of another product.

Thus, milk processors are constantly seeking a product mix that yields the highest rate of

return.81 Effects of delivery quotas on milk allocation are demonstrated by reviewing changes

in production during 1999-2002. From 1999 to 2001, in response to increased cheese

demand, EU cheese production rose by 6 percent, and in response to higher casein prices,

skim milk used to produce casein increased by 11 percent. At the same time, butter and SMP

production decreased by 3 and 17 percent, respectively. Following higher cheese and casein

production, the supply of whey also rose, increasing by 16 percent during the period.

Conversely, between 2001 and 2002, as the price of casein dropped by 65 percent,82 the

quantity of skim milk used to make casein dropped by 16 percent. Less casein production

translated into less whey production, so whey powder production dropped by 14 percent.

The excess skim milk was then diverted to SMP production, which increased by 14 percent.

During 1998-2002, EU processors of milk protein products focused on the production of

condensed milk, milk powders (whole, partly skimmed, and skimmed), and casein

(table 4-8). During this period, small quantities of MPC were produced, typically by

blending other dairy ingredients, rather than through the ultrafiltration of milk.83 In the EU,

the decision to manufacture MPC by blending was driven by several factors. First, blended
 84 European Dairy Association, selected members of the Casein Production Committee,

interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

4-17

Table 4-8

European Union: Production of milk protein products, by product type, and primary protein

exporters, 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––

Condensed milk:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 564 567 589 525

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 289 274 305 291

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 31 32 36 29

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,284 1,258 1,249 1,317 1,203

Whole milk powder:1

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 259 258 241 240

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 200 183 167 154

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 110 97 108 99

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 97 97 88 81

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 36 40 34 26

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 895 879 836 794

Skim milk powder:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 331 322 290 306

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 302 279 245 308

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 84 79 86 97

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 87 69 70 64

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 35 38 40 42

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,074 1,122 1,038 950 1,080

Whey powder:2

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 586 623 649 611

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 240 242 220 230

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 196 228 236 250

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34 37 40 (3

)

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320 1,355 1,420 1,450 1,465

Casein and caseinates:

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 46 46 50 45

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 43 45 48 38

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12 13 13 10

Denmark 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 11 14 15

Netherlands 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 43 39 38

Total European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 154 157 171 144

1

 Includes partly skimed milk powder.

2

 Includes buttermilk powder.

3

 Not reported.

4

 Quantities for Denmark and the Netherlands were estimated based on quantities of subsidized skim milk.

Source: ZMP, Dairy Review, 2003.

MPC could be manufactured using existing plants and equipment, whereas producing

ultrafiltered MPC generally required new investment. Second, skim milk manufactured into

casein was eligible for casein production aids, whereas MPC manufactured through

ultrafiltration was not eligible for any EU aid programs. Third, SMP blended into a MPC

product qualified for export refunds as an ingredient in a manufactured product, whereas

SMP exported directly to the United Stated did not qualify for export refunds.84 According

to representatives of several major EU dairy processing companies, production of 
 85 Ibid.

 86 EU Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2921/90 was passed on Oct. 10, 1990, and replaced

Regulation No. 756/70 as the basic legislation regulating aid for the production of casein and

caseinates. The consolidated text of the legislation, which includes subsequent amendments, is

found in CONSLEG:1990R2921 — 17/08/2002, Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities.

 87 Annex I and Annex II refer to those sections of the regulation that define the minimum

quality standards for casein and caseinates to receive production aid. Quality is based on moisture

content, fat content, free acid content, ash content, protein content, and bacterial count. Annex II

casein and caseinate would generally be considered higher quality than Annex I casein and

caseinate.

4-18

low-protein blended MPC was driven by short-term arbitrage opportunities, whereas the

production of high-protein MPC is a strategic decision, based on long-term profit potential.85

WMP production has steadily decreased by 3.6 percent annually during 1998-2002. WMP

is an export-oriented product; 62 percent of 794,000 mt produced in 2002 was sold abroad.

The major EU milk-protein exporting countries accounted for 77 percent of total WMP

production during 1998-2002. Production of SMP (an intervention product) varies from year

to year as producers switch to and from SMP, depending on returns on other dairy products.

In 2002, close to 14 percent of EU SMP production was purchased into intervention stocks,

whereas 40 percent was subsidized for use in milk replacers for animal feed. The production

of whey powder varied with the production of cheese and casein, increasing by 2.7 percent

annually during 1998-2002, and totaling more than 1.46 million mt by 2002, of which almost

60 percent was used in milk replacers for animal feed.

Government assistance

Aid for disposal of skim milk powder in casein and caseinate production

To offset the negative impact of high internal milk prices, the EU provides production aids

for the use of skim milk in the production of casein and caseinates.86 To qualify for aid,

casein or caseinates must be produced from skim milk of EU origin and meet composition

and packaging requirements. Processors requesting production aid must submit written

applications indicating the quantity and quality of casein and caseinates produced and

production dates; the total aid is calculated based on official rates of conversion between

casein production and SMP use (i.e., the mt of skim milk used per mt of casein

manufactured) and the aid rate in effect on the date of production. The actual subsidy per mt

of casein or caseinates produced varied during 1998-2002, owing to differences in the

conversion rates based on product quality and changes in the aid rate per mt of skim milk

converted to casein or caseinates (table 4-9).

The average subsidy rate on casein during 1998-2002 was i1,686 ($1,670) per mt of Annex

I acid casein, based on a conversion of 1 mt of casein to 32.17 mt of skim milk, and a

payment of i52.4 ($51.9) per mt of skim milk.87 Subsidies ranged considerably during

1998-2002. For example, the subsidy on Annex II rennet casein and caseinate ranged from
4-19

Table 4-9

European Union: Production aid for the conversion of skim milk into casein and caseinates,

1998-2002

Subsidy rate on casein or caseinate Casein prices 

Range Aid rate (1) (2) (3) (4) Germany

United

States5

Euros per

 metric ton of

 skim milk Euros per metric ton casein or caseinate

Euros per

metric ton 

Dollars per

metric ton 

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 1,686 1,780 1,874 1,497 4,660 4,687

High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.0 2,220 2,344 2,468 1,971 6,120 5,592

Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 1,029 1,087 1,145 914 3,710 3,984

1

 Conversion rate applied to Annex I acid casein: 32.17 metric tons of skim milk per metric ton of casein. 2

 Conversion rate applied to Annex I rennet casein, Annex I acid casein, Annex II acid casein: 33.97 metric tons of

skim milk per metric ton of casein.

3

 Conversion rate applied to Annex II rennet casein, Annex II caseinates: 35.77 metric tons of skim milk per metric

ton of casein.

4

 Conversion rate applied to Annex III caseinate: 28.57 metric tons of skim milk per metric ton of casein. 5

 Acid casein.

Note.—Annex I, Annex II, and Annex III define quality standards for acid casein, rennet casein, and caseinates in

terms of whey protein content, moisture content, fat content, acid content, ash content, and bateria count.

Sources: Office for Official Publications of the European Union Communities, Consolidated: CONSLEG: 1990R2921

--- 17/08/2002; ZMP, Dairy Review 2003; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy

Market News, various issues.

i1,145 ($1,134) per mt to i2,468 ($2,444) per mt. These subsidies account for a large share

of the overall product price. For instance, during 1998-2002, the average subsidy paid on

Annex II casein production represented close to 40 percent of the price received by German

casein manufacturers (table 4-9). From 1998 to 2001, the quantity of skim milk that received

subsidies for conversion into casein increased by 7 percent annually (table 4-10). During the

same time, domestic prices of casein increased by 19 percent annually. After peaking in

2001, the amount of skim milk subsidized for the production of casein dropped by 16 percent

when the domestic casein price dropped by 49 percent.

Table 4-10

European Union (EU): Quantity of subsidized skim milk used in the production of casein and

caseinates, by EU total and primary milk protein exporters, 1998-2002

Exporter 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,789 5,265 5,345 5,829 4,912

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,300 1,539 1,648 1,675 1,304

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,416 1,553 1,394 1,670 1,304

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,211 1,224 1,300 1,317 1,218

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 464 358 492 496

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 401 432 438 325

Sources: ZMP. Dairy Review 2003.
 88 The incorporation rate was temporarily reduced from July 2000 to December 2001 because of

a SMP shortage. Agra Europe, CAP Monitor London (2002).

4-20

Aid for disposal of skim milk powder in animal feed production

In order to make milk protein competitive with vegetable proteins, production aids are

provided for the use of skim milk and SMP in the production of animal feed. Regulation

2799/1999 outlines the rules to qualify for this aid and requires that the end product contain

at least 50 percent SMP, but no more than 80 percent.88 In December 1999, the aid rate was

set at i715.1 ($708.2) per mt of SMP of at least 35.6 percent protein, and was decreased to

i610.0 ($604.1) per mt in October 2000. During 1998-2002, 47 percent of domestic SMP

was consumed through subsidized animal feed (table 4-6).

Milk Protein Imports

Import trends

The total quantity of milk protein products imported into the EU reached 150,000 mt in

2002, an increase of 14 percent over import levels in 1998 and 1999 (table 4-11). SMP

accounted for about one-half of the milk protein products imported during 1998-2002, but

an additional one-third consisted of casein and caseinates. Between 7 to 20 percent of the

imports over this period were WMP and whey powder (table 4-11). However, imports

represent a small amount of domestic dairy consumption. For example, when converted into

skim-milk equivalents, dairy imports increased from about 3.98 million mt in 1998 to

4.35 million mt in 2002, representing about 4 percent of total EU consumption of dairy

products (table 4-11).

EU import values fluctuated considerably during 1998-2002. For example, the import value

of milk protein was about i195 ($193) million in 1999, increasing to i268 ($265) million

in 2001, before declining to i213 ($211) million in 2002 (table 4-11). Over this time frame,

import values were evenly split between milk powders and condensed milk (HS 0402) and

casein and caseinates (HS 3501). In 2002, 32 percent of EU imports of milk protein products

by value were from New Zealand, which supplied mostly casein and caseinates. EU imports

of SMP are dominated by sources in Central and Eastern European countries ascending to

EU membership. Poland, Estonia, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic held nearly 75 percent

of this market in 2002.

Import programs

EU tariff treatment for milk protein product imports varies considerably among products.

Casein and caseinates (HS Chapter 35) entering the EU face relatively low tariffs, ranging

from a rate of “free” to 9 percent ad valorem. In contrast, milk protein product imports

classified in HS Chapter 4 are subject to TRQs with prohibitively high over-quota tariffs. For

SMP, 68,000 mt are allowed to enter at an in-quota duty of i475 ($470) per mt, with an
 89 During 1998-2002, the over-quota tariff of i1,118 was equivalent to an ad valorem tariff

equivalent of between 47 and 58 percent, based on domestic SMP price in Germany.

 90 Commission estimate based on data from the European Commission, Market Access

Database, available at http://mkaccdb.eu.int.

4-21

Table 4-11

European Union: Milk protein imports by primary suppliers and products,1

 1998-2002

Primary suppliers/products 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––Million euros––––––––––––––––

Primary suppliers:

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 48 53 59 68

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 33 28 27 26

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 15 18 23

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 17 41 58 18

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 25 13 13

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 15 26 25 13

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 7 13 12

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11 11 14 6

Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109894

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52663

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 27 34 25 24

Total 225 195 255 268 213

Products:

Milk powders and condensed milk (CN 0402) . . . . 91 90 130 118 105

Whey products (CN 0404) .................. 44875

Casein and caseinates (CN 3501) 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 131 101 117 143 104

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 195 255 268 214

––––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons–––––––––––––––

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 73 78 57 69

Casein and caseinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 45 49 49 49

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 8 19 18

Whey powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 9 6 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 131 145 131 150

––––––––1,000 metric tons of skim milk equivalent––––––––

Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,980 4,250 4,333 4,333 4,350

Domestic consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98,460 101,030 101,180 101,160 102,550

––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––

Import penetration on skim milk equivalent . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 1

 Does not include milk albumins.

2

 Includes casein glues.

Sources: Quantities: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003; Values: European Union Commission, Market Access Database.

over-quota rate of i1,118 ($1,107) per mt applied to additional quantities.89 Within the

World Trade Organization (WTO) quota amount of 68,000 mt, Central and Eastern European

countries ascending to EU membership were granted preferential market access beginning

in 2000. Consequently, about three-quarters of the import value of concentrated milk

products (CN Heading 0402, including SMP) was supplied by countries such as Poland,

Estonia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania during 1998-2002.90 Preferential duties
 91 Official Journal of the European Union, Commission Regulation No. 2335/2001. The first set

of preferences are also known as the zero-zero agreements and the second set are also known as

the zero-profit agreements.

 92 An EU Court of Auditors found a correlation, but not a direct link, between refund rates set

by the Commission and the calculated difference between the average price in selected member

states and the world price. For example, between February 14, 2001, and May 21, 2001, the Court

of Auditors found that the EU price of SMP, net the export refund, was i17 to i143 per mt below

the world price. Court of Auditors, “Special Report No 9/2003 concerning the system for setting

the rates of subsidy on exports of agricultural products (export refunds), together with the EU

Commission replies,” Official Journal of the European Union, C 211 (Sept. 5, 2003).

4-22

for countries ascending to EU membership were bilaterally negotiated between the EU and

each individual ascending country in two steps—July 2000 and July 2002.91

Milk Protein Exports

Export trends

The total quantity of milk protein products exported by the EU remained stable during

1998-2002, ranging from 1.1 million mt in 2002 to 1.4 million mt in 2000 (table 4-12).

WMP was by far the most important exported product, accounting for about 40 percent of

milk protein product exports during 1998-2002, followed by condensed milk, SMP and whey

powder. Trends in SMP exports were closely connected with EU policy on export refunds,

which resulted in significant export increases from 1998 to 2000, but declined in 2002.

When exports of all dairy products are converted into skim-milk equivalents, they amounted

to about 12.1 million mt in 2002, compared with total deliveries to processors of 111 million

mt (or 11 percent) (table 4-12).

In terms of values, EU exports have fluctuated considerably during 1998-2002, ranging from

i2.1 ($2.08) billion in 2002 to i2.7 ($2.67) billion in 2000 (table 4-12). In 2002, about

80 percent of the total value of EU milk protein exports were accounted for by milk powders

and condensed milk, whereas whey and casein/caseinate each accounted for an additional

10 percent. Milk protein products are exported to several countries and there is no single

dominant export market for EU products. In 2002, Algeria was the leading market for EU

milk protein exports with a share of 11 percent, followed by Saudi Arabia (9 percent) and

the United States (7 percent).

Export assistance

Export refunds

Export refunds are payments designed to compensate exporters for the difference between

internal EU market prices and world prices.92 The procedures by which exporters apply for

refunds differ slightly based on two broad product categories: (1) basic dairy products, as

defined in Annex I to the Treaty that established the EU, and (2) manufactured and processed
 93 Manufactured and processed food products that are eligible for export refunds are referred to

in the industry as Non-Annex I products, referring to Annex I of the Treaty that established the

EU. The export refund is based on the value-added by the basic dairy products used to

manufacture the processed product. For example, the cream used to manufacture Irish Cream

Liqueurs for export is eligible for an export refund. European Dairy Association, selected Casein

Industry Committee representatives, interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003;

Erie Europe, interview by USITC staff, Paris, France, Oct. 17, 2003.

4-23

Table 4-12

European Union: Milk protein exports by primary destinations and products,1

 1998-2002

Primary destinations/products 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––Million euros––––––––––––––––––––

Primary destinations:

Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 248 321 294 230

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 167 178 192 185

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 136 189 175 147

Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 47 77 142 144

United Arab Emirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 73 85 92 84

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 64 140 27 49

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 58 49 48

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 56 54 50 48

Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 47 41 89 37

Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 62 68 27 30

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,273 1,270 1,483 1,376 1,098

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,160 2,217 2,694 2,514 2,101

Products:

Milk powders and condensed milk (CN 0402) . . 1,845 1,846 2,216 2,037 1,660

Whey products (CN 0404) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 177 228 235 217

Casein and caseinates (CN 3501)2 . . . . . . . . . . 171 194 250 242 224

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,160 2,217 2,694 2,514 2,101

–––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––

Whole milk & partly skimmed milk powder . . . . . 590 576 575 478 490

Condensed milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 315 276 318 251

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 272 357 143 160

Whey powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 119 167 188 170

Casein and caseinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 63 70 61 69

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,242 1,344 1,445 1,187 1,141

––––––––––1,000 metric tons of skim milk equivalent–––––––––

Total exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,010 13,570 14,880 11,920 12,130

Deliveries to processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,800 110,300 109,820 110,550 110,850

–––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––––

Export penetration on skim milk equivalent . . . . . . . 12.0 12.3 13.5 10.8 10.9 1

 Does not include milk albumins.

2

 Includes casein glues.

Sources: Quantities: ZMP, Dairy Review 2003; Values: European Union Commission, Market Access Database.

food products that use basic dairy products as ingredients.93 Refunds for basic dairy products

are destination specific, whereas refunds for processed products are based on the proportion

of the products’ value-added derived from basic dairy ingredients used in its manufacture.
 94 For example, if exporters apply for 100,000 mt of product licenses subject to the refund, the

EU Commission may apply a coefficient of 0.5, and award a total of 50,000 mt of licenses; in

which case, applicants are awarded 50 percent of their application amount.

 95 Prior to January 2001, the reduction coefficient did not apply to applications for refunds on

processed (Non-Annex I) products.

 96 Under its World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture commitments, the EU must

limit its annual export refunds on SMP to 273,000 mt and i276 million.

 97 European Dairy Association, selected Casein Industry Committee representatives, interview

by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003; Erie Europe, interview by USITC staff, Paris,

France, Oct. 17, 2003.

 98 Ibid.

 99 Irish Revenue, Inward Processing, Guidelines for Traders, found at http://www.revenue.ie/-

pdf/ip_guide03.pdf.

 100 Erie Europe, interview by USITC staff, Paris, France, Oct. 17, 2003.

4-24

For example, SMP exported to the United States is not eligible for an export refund,

however, SMP blended into MPC and exported to the United States is eligible for a refund.

Exporters applied for refunds based on the product that they expected to export during a

specific time period. For each application period, the EU Commission could accept all

applications, reject all applications, or apply a reduction coefficient that awarded some

portion of all applications.94, 95 In some instances, the coefficient rate was applied when the

total amount of applications would result in exports that exceeded maximum volume and

value levels negotiated under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.96 Furthermore, exporters

receiving refunds must post a deposit, which was forfeited if the product was not shipped

within the designated time period (4 months for most products).97 Therefore, when applying

for refunds, exporters were uncertain whether they would receive coverage for the entire

volume they planned to ship. Such uncertainty does not lend itself to long-term contracting,

and as a result, many primary processors of milk protein products contacted for this

investigation indicated that their use of the export refund system was limited to that period

of time when reduction coefficients did not apply to export refunds on processed products.98

Inward processing

Another program to promote exports of milk protein is the use of customs procedures for

inward processing (IP). IP refers to the provision for which certain imports receive duty-free

treatment provided they are used as inputs to products that are later exported (referred to as

“compensating products”).99 To qualify, the imported inputs need not necessarily be

manufactured into a highly processed food product. Processes such as blending or

repackaging are sufficient to quality for duty-free treatment under the IP guidelines. During

1998-2002, EU imports of casein and caseinate under IP arrangements accounted for

30 percent of total EU casein and caseinate imports in 1998, and increased to 42 percent in

2002 (table 4-13).

The extent to which individual member states can take advantage of the IP arrangements is

influenced by national laws governing the domestic content requirements in product country

of origin labeling regulations.100 Typically, processors in member states with less stringent

domestic content requirements may be able to take greater advantage of IP procedures. For

example, when packaging SMP for retail sale, French content laws require 100-percent
 101 Ibid.

 102 European Dairy Association, data collected during European fieldwork, Oct. 5-17, 2003.

 103 U.S. Dairy Export Council, World Dairy Trade Trends, 2003 Edition, p. VII-Exporters-25.

4-25

Table 4-13

European Union: Milk protein imports under inward processing (IP) procedures, 1998-2002

Inward processing imports 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––

Whey, powdered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 4.2 5.1 2.6 10.0

Whey, not powdered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 34.4 50.8 62.6 60.4

Casein and caseinate:

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 7.4 13.7 14.1 17.0

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 5.3 5.7 4.7 3.7

Total casein and caseinate . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 12.7 19.4 18.8 20.7

–––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––––

Share of imports under IP:

Casein and caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6 28.3 40.6 38.6 42.0

Sources: European Union Dairy Association; ZMP, Dairy Review 2003. 

French origin for a product to be labeled as a “Product of France.” The Netherlands, on the

other hand, only requires that more than 50 percent be of Dutch origin for the product to be

labeled “Product of the Netherlands.”101 Germany’s proximity to major suppliers of casein

imports, including Russia and other Central and Eastern European countries, may also

contribute to Germany’s large share of casein imported under IP procedures. During under

1998-2002, Germany accounted for almost 70 percent of the casein and caseinates imported

under IP procedures in the EU (table 4-13).102

New Zealand

Overview

In 2002, New Zealand was the world’s seventh-largest milk-producing country, with output

of 14.1 million mt of milk, equivalent to about 2.8 percent of world production (table 2-1).

New Zealand is a dominant world exporting country of dairy products, being the world’s

largest exporter of SMP, WMP (tables 2-4 and 2-5) and casein (table 2-7). New Zealand

milk protein products are sold throughout the world through a highly sophisticated global

marketing and distribution network. The United States is the most important market for New

Zealand’s dairy products, accounting for about 20 percent of total exports in 2001.103

Between 1998 and 2002, U.S. imports of milk protein products from New Zealand fell from

$259 million to $240 million (7-percent decrease) and from 67,600 to 65,000 mt (4 percent

decrease) (appendix F).
 104 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), Contribution of the Land-based Primary

Industries to New Zealand’s Economic Growth, Wellington (June 2003).

 105 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003, found at

http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-andforecasts/-sonzaf/2003/sonzaf-2003/pdf, table

5, p. 103.

 106 MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

 107 Other dairy companies purchase milk from these three major suppliers.

 108 MAF, Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand, Wellington, July 2000, found at

http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/publications, Jan. 12, 2003.

 109 “Livestock Improvement,” Dairy Statistics, 2002/03, found at http://www.lic.co.nz/main.-

cfm?menuid=1&sub_-menuid=113. 

 110 Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) prehearing submission, Dec. 1,

2003, p. 11.

4-26

The dairy industry is a crucial sector of New Zealand economy, accounting for almost

one-quarter of its total export receipts in the year ending June 2002.104 In 2003, dairy exports

were NZ$4.7 ($2.26) billion compared with total agricultural exports of NZ$14.4

($6.9) billion, and merchandise exports of NZ$28.2 ($13.6) billion.105 With a population of

4 million people, only about 6 percent of milk production is consumed domestically in

various forms.106 Similarly, most milk (approximately 97 percent) produced in New Zealand

is used for manufacturing purposes, with the remainder destined for the domestic fluid milk

market. The industry is highly concentrated with three farmer-owned, co-operative dairy

processing companies purchasing nearly all milk produced and providing an integrated

supply of products from farm to consumer.107 It is also highly efficient and low-cost, with

returns to farmers largely based on export revenues. The dairy industry receives virtually no

government assistance beyond limited funding in support of research.

Production of Fluid Milk

Production system

New Zealand has a temperate climate, with milk production based on intensive, rotational

grazing on pasture land. The preponderance of New Zealand dairy herds supply milk

seasonally for manufacturing,108 with cows milked in spring through autumn, but dried off

in winter when pasture production is lower. Peak production is around late-October and

early-November, with almost no milk produced in June and July. A small number of herds

(approximately 3 percent of milk supply) provide milk year-round for the domestic liquid

milk industry. 

New Zealand’s seasonal milk production system relies primarily on highly productive,

rotationally grazed pasture and herds of high genetic merit. Just over one-half of all cows in

New Zealand (52 percent) are the Holstein-Friesian breed, which produces a large volume

of milk with a high protein content.109 The North Island provides 72 percent of the nation’s

milk, although production in the South Island has been increasing significantly, rising

270 percent between the 1992/93 and 2002/03 seasons,110 reflecting, in part, the conversion

of sheep and beef operations to dairy farms. The majority of New Zealand dairy farmers are
 111 A sharemilker is a person who operates a dairy farm on behalf of the farmer-owner for an

agreed share of the receipts.

 112 “Livestock Improvement,” Dairy Statistics, 2002/03, found at http://www.lic.co.nz/main.-

cfm?menuid=1&sub_-menuid=113. A report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and

Resource Economics (ABARE) comparing the New Zealand and Australian dairy industries noted

that while both industries are low-cost milk producers, one difference between the industries is the

higher proportion of share-farmers in New Zealand compared to Australia. ABARE, Australia’s

Dairy Industry-Productivity and Profit, Dec. 2002, p. 7.

 113 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 9; “Livestock Improvement,” Dairy

Statistics, 2001/02, found at http://www.lic.co.nz/main.cfm?menuid=1&sub_menuid=113.

 114 Split-year season ending May 31 of the year shown.

 115 MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003; DCANZ, prehearing

submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 9. 

 116 Ibid

 117 USDA, FAS, “New Zealand Dairy and Products Annual 2003,” Gain Report No. NZ3019

(Sept. 29, 2003).

 118 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 11.

 119 “Livestock Improvement,” Dairy Statistics, 2002/03, found at http://www.lic.co.nz/main.-

cfm?menuid=-1&sub_-menuid=113.

 120 Ibid.

4-27

owner-operators. However, 37 percent of all New Zealand milkers are sharemilkers111 with

about two-thirds of the sharemilkers being 50/50 sharemilkers.112\

Milk production and industry trends

New Zealand’s dairy industry grew significantly in the 1990s,113 with milk production

increasing by 67 percent, or 4.6 percent annually, between 1990 and 2000. During 1997/98

to 2002/03,114 milk production increased at an average annual rate of 5 percent, reaching

14.3 million metric tons in 2002/03 (table 4-14), largely reflecting improved livestock

genetics, better farm practices, and the conversion of sheep and beef operations into dairy

farms.115 According to New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), the

future rate of growth of milk production is expected to slow as new conversions have

slowed, owing to increased profitability of other farm operations.116 The U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) also reported that the number of farms converting to dairy production

has slowed in New Zealand, with conversations in the 2003/04 season estimated at

42 compared with more than 80 in 2002/03.117

Similar to other major dairy producing countries, as the number of dairy farms in New

Zealand has declined over time, average operation size has increased. Between 1997/98 and

2002/03, the number of dairy farms fell by 10 percent from 14,643 farms to 13,140 farms,

but the average herd size rose by 30 percent from 220 to 285 cows.118 Roughly 10 percent

of herds have 500 or more cows, with herds of between 500-599 cows having the highest

production per cow.119 Average milk production per cow rose by an average rate of 2 percent

annually during 1997/98 to 2002/03, reflecting improvements in productivity noted above.

In 2002/03, an average of 2.6 cows were maintained per hectare of pasture, a slightly higher

stocking rate than the 2.2 cows per hectare in the early-1980s.120
 121 An international comparison of production costs is provided in chapter 5 of this report.

 122 MAF, Dairy Monitoring Report, Wellington, New Zealand (July 2002), p. 51, found at

http://www.maf.govt.nz/statistics/primaryindustries/farm-monitoring/dairy/htm, Jan. 12, 2003;

MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

 123 Ibid.

 124 Ibid.

 125 Companies that supply drinking milk for the domestic market all year around.

 126 Some town supply payment systems are based on the milk volume only, whereas other

payment systems are similar to seasonal supply payment systems, which incorporate components

of milkfat, protein, and volume. MAF, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

4-28

Table 4-14

New Zealand: Structure of milk production sector, 1997/98-2002/031

Item 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

Growth

per year2

Percent

Number of dairy cows (1,000 head) ......... 3,223 3,289 3,269 3,486 3,693 3,741 3

Milk production (1,000 metric tons) .......... 11,430 10,881 12,235 13,153 13,925 14,346 5

Milk processed (1,000 metric tons of milk

solids) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893 850 970 1,045 1,110 1,150 5

Yield per cow (kilograms/cow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,546 3,308 3,743 3,773 3,771 3,835 2

Number of dairy farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,643 14,362 13,861 13,892 13,649 13,140 -2

Average herd size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 229 236 251 271 285 5

Average milk payment (NZ $/kg milk solids) . . . 3.42 3.58 3.78 5.01 5.32 3.62 3

Cash farm expenditure (NZ $/cow) . . . . . . . . . . 874 783 882 966 4

Net profit after tax (NZ $/cow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 288 670 470 101 8

Number of dairy processing companies ...... 8 7 7 4 3 3 -16 1

 June-May split year.

2

 Annual average growth 1997/98-2002/03.

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture Forestry, 2002,

2003; Livestock Improvement, 2002/03 Dairy Statistics Annual.

Costs of production

Costs of production for milk in New Zealand are among the lowest in the world,121 mainly

because favorable climate and productive pastures enable herds to graze in pasture yearround, thereby avoiding the need for indoor housing and feed supplements. Important costs

for New Zealand milk farmers include payments for interest, fertilizer for growing fodder,

permanent and casual wages, feed (largely maize silage), and repairs and maintenance.122

Many farmers report that it is difficult to find skilled labor, and wages and salary rates have

been climbing in recent years.123 MAF reports that milk profitability growth slowed in

2002/03 owing to lower payments from the milk supply companies.124

Milk prices

Payments to seasonal milk supply farmers are based upon the “A+B-C” system, which

incorporates payments for milkfat (A) and protein (B), with penalties for milk volume (C).

The payment system for suppliers to town-supply dairy companies125 varies.126 During

1997/98-2001/02, the average milk payout rose steadily from NZ$3.42 ($1.65) per kilogram

of milk solids to NZ$5.32 ($2.56) per kilogram of milk solids (table 4-14). The payout fell
 127 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003, found at

http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-andforecasts/-sonzaf/2003/sonzaf-2003/pdf.

 128 Companies that manufacture milk into processed production on a seasonal basis.

 129 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003, found at

http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-andforecasts/-sonzaf/2003/sonzaf-2003/pdf.

 130 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 12.

 131 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry, 2002 and 2003,

found at http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-and-forecasts/sonzaf/2003/sonzaf2003/pdf.

 132 USDA, FAS, “New Zealand Dairy and Products Fonterra Payout & Growth Down,” Gain

Report No. NZ3006 (Mar. 11, 2003).

 133 Fonterra News, “Fonterra Lifts Payout Forecast to $4.15,” (Dec. 9, 2003), found at

www.fonterra.com/content/-news/fonterranews/default..jsp.

 134 Ibid.

4-29

in 2002/03 to NZ$3.62 ($1.74) per kilogram of milk solids, reflecting lower world dairy

commodity prices and the appreciation of the New Zealand dollar.127

Up until the end of the 2000/01 season, New Zealand dairy farmers received payment for

milk from the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) through a system of advance and final

payouts via dairy companies. The seasonal supply companies128 passed on the NZDB

advance payout to their suppliers, along with a margin based on dairy company efficiency,

product mix and investment policies, together known as the total payout. Following the

implementation of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 (DIRA), Fonterra Co-operative

Group Ltd., Tatua Co-operative Dairy Co., and Westland Co-operative Dairy Co., the three

major dairy processing companies, established separate commercial arrangements for pricing

and sale of dairy products, although the DIRA provides Tatua and Westland with the right

to sell specified volumes of dairy products to Fonterra on specified terms.129 According to

the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ), dairy farmers and processing

companies are entirely dependent on the return they obtain from the market.130 The

companies have an incentive to get the best return for their shareholders by keeping their

milk prices as high as possible to minimize financial losses.

In both the 2001/02 and 2002/03 seasons, the final Fonterra payout was lower than the

payouts for Westland and Tatua. In 2001/02, Fonterra’s final payout was NZ$5.30

($2.55) per kilogram of milk solids, compared with Tatua’s payout of NZ$6.80 ($3.27) per

kilogram of milk solids, and Westland's payout of NZ$5.43 ($2.61) per kilogram of milk

solids. In 2002/03, Fonterra’s payout was NZ$3.60 ($1.73) per kilogram of milk solids,

compared to payouts for Tatua of NZ$5.60 ($2.70) per kilogram of milk solids, and

Westland of NZ$3.97 ($1.91) per kilogram of milk solids.131

Under Fonterra’s co-operative structure, farmers who increase supply during a season and

do not hold sufficient shares to cover that increased production, must purchase additional

shares at Fonterra’s fair-value share price. Similarly, if they decrease supply, they must

surrender shares. In 2002/03, Fonterra’s final payout was below the announced fair-value

share price of NZ$3.85 ($1.85) per kilogram of milk solids.132 For 2003/04, Fonterra

announced a payout forecast of NZ$4.15 ($2.00) per kilogram of milk solids,133 while the

fair-value share price for the 2003/04 season has been set at NZ$4.38 ($2.11) per kilogram

of milk solids.134 According to the USDA, payouts less than Fonterra’s fair-value share price
 135 USDA, FAS, “New Zealand Dairy and Products Fonterra Payout & Growth Down,” Gain

Report No. NZ3006 (Mar. 11, 2003).

 136 Fonterra, Annual Report 2002/03.

 137 MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

 138 The PSE is a measure of the ratio of transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural

producers arising from measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature. The

percentage PSE measures the transfers as a share of gross farm receipts. OECD, Methodology for

Measurement of Support and Use in Policy Evaluation (Paris: 2002); OECD, Producer and

Consumer Support Estimates, OECD Database 1986-2002, found at http://www.oecd.org/-

document/23/0,2340,en_2649_33727_4348119_1_1_1_1,00.html. An international comparison of

the OECD’s PSEs for dairy is presented in chapter 5.

4-30

result in net losses for farmers who purchase additional shares to expand production.135 This

in turn reduces incentives for increased milk production.

Fonterra shareholders are also responsible for holding a number of peak notes as determined

by the Fonterra Board at the commencement of the season. Peak notes are issued at NZ$30

($14.44) each, based on each shareholder’s milk supply profile during the season.136 The

system of peak notes requires suppliers with steep milk curves (i.e., those that peak above

the milk supply curve of an average supplier) to contribute more capital to finance the cost

of the extra manufacturing capacity required to process the additional milk during the peak

season.

Government assistance

Subsidy and payment programs for farmers were discontinued or phased out starting in 1984

as part of a general reform of the New Zealand economy. Previous assistance measures

included subsidized rural credit, tax concessions, subsidized credit for marketing boards, and

input subsidies. MAF officials report that assistance benefitting dairy farmers in New

Zealand is currently limited to a tuberculosis control program and general competitive

research grants.137 The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

reports that the Producer Support Estimate (PSE) for milk in New Zealand in 2002 was

1 percent, down from 14 percent in 1986.138

Milk Protein Products

Industry structure

The dairy processing industry in New Zealand is highly concentrated. In 1998, eight cooperative dairy companies purchased raw milk for manufacturing; by 2003, this number had

declined to three (table 4-14). From 1961 to 2001, export and marketing of all New Zealand

dairy products manufactured for export was undertaken by the NZDB. The NZDB, a

statutory organization established by the Dairy Board Act 1961, was jointly owned by the

co-operative export dairy processing companies and, in turn, by the dairy farmers that

supplied them. The NZDB purchased dairy products from manufacturing companies and sold
 139 Ministry of Justice 1999: Directory of Official Information, found at http://www.justice.-

govt.nz/pubs/reports/-1999/dir_of_info/list_d/dairy.html.

 140 On 1 March 2002 all shares remaining shares in the Dairy Board were transferred to

Fonterra Co-operative Group. The Dairy Board converted from a statutory corporation to a

company in September 2002. New Zealand Dairy Board, Report By the New Zealand Dairy Board

on its Statutory Powers Pursuant to the Dairy Board Act 1961 For the Period Commencing 1 June

2001 and Ending 26 September 2002, found at http://www.fonterra.com/pdfs/report_nzdb_exer_-

27_-09_02.pdf, retrieved Jan. 13, 2004.

 141 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 11.

 142 Fonterra officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003; Fonterra, Fonterra

Annual Report 2002-2003, found at www.fonterra.com/pdfs/2003_annual_report.pdf.

 143 Ibid.

 144 Ibid.

 145 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 11.

 146 Tatua Co-operative Dairy Company, Annual Report ‘03, found at www.tatua.com, retrieved

Jan. 13, 2004; Tatua officials, interview by USITC staff, Tatuanui, New Zealand, Nov. 6, 2003.

 147 MAF, Contribution of the Land-based Primary Industries to New Zealand’s Economic

Growth, Wellington (June 2003), p. 17; responses to Commission foreign producers’

questionnaires.

 148 Ibid., p. 18; MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

4-31

them either directly or through its marketing network. Net proceeds from sales were

distributed to the manufacturing dairy companies and ultimately to dairy farmers.139

In September 2001, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 (DIRA) was enacted, which

resulted in major changes in the structure of the dairy industry. The legislation authorized

the two largest co-operative milk supply companies, Kiwi Co-operative Dairy Co. (Kiwi)

and New Zealand Dairy Group (NZDG), to merge with the NZDB to form Fonterra. The

legislation eliminated the exclusive export status of the Dairy Board, thus allowing dairy

companies to export their products directly.140 Tatua and Westland remained independent

entities.141

Since 2001, Fonterra has been by far the dominant milk supply company in New Zealand.

It is an integrated supply and marketing company with 12,165 shareholder suppliers. In

2002/03, it produced 1.15 million mt of milk solids out of a total nationwide production of

1.19 million mt of milk solids (97 percent).142 Fonterra is the largest dairy ingredients

company in the world, producing milk powders, cheese, milk proteins, and cream products

from 25 sites in New Zealand.143 It also produces branded, consumer-ready products through

its subsidiary, New Zealand Milk.144 Westland, with 370 suppliers, accounted for 2.5 percent

of New Zealand milk solids production,145 and Tatua, with 128 farmer shareholders,

accounted for 1 percent.146 Westland’s main products are milk powder and butter, with lesser

amounts of milk proteins (casein and MPC).147 Tatua has invested in scientifically advanced

processing plants and is a niche manufacturer of mainly protein-based functional products.

New Zealand’s domestic market has two main domestic operators: New Zealand Milk

(owned by Fonterra) and New Zealand Dairy Foods, which together have 75 percent of the

domestic market. In addition, approximately 70 smaller niche companies produce cheese,

fresh and cultured milk, specialty milk powders, ice cream, and edible fats.148 These

companies largely source milk from Fonterra.
 149 As indicated by unit values of imports into the United States, based on trade data from the

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 150 Fonterra, “The Ingredients to Lead in Dairy,” found at www.fonterra.com.

 151 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003.

 152 Ibid. Fonterra officials, interview by USITC staff, and site visits by USITC staff to

Fonterra’s Whareroa and Hautapu production facilities, Nov. 5-6, 2003.

 153 Ibid.

4-32

Milk protein product production

Among the milk protein products shown in table 4-15, casein has typically been the most

important product produced in New Zealand by volume. Both casein and caseinate

production grew during 1998-2002, but slowed in 2002, likely reflecting the decline in

world casein/caseinate prices in that year.149 New Zealand’s production of MPC and whey

proteins exhibited the largest growth rates during 1998-2002, increasing annually on average

by 22 and 9 percent, respectively.

Table 4-15

New Zealand: Production of milk protein products, 1998-2002 

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Growth

per year

1998-20021

––––––—–––––1,000 metric tons–––––––——–– –Percent–

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 56 58 64 63 3

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 43 41 48 22

Caseinate2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21 23 24 25 4

Whey proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14 15 18 21 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 121 139 147 157 5 1

 Annual average growth 1997/98-2002/03.

2

 Production from liquid milk.

Source: Commission foreign producers’ questionnaires; Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, prehearing

submission, Dec. 1, 2003.

Fonterra’s production of protein products includes casein (rennet and acid), caseinates, MPC,

milk protein isolate (MPI), whey protein concentrate (WPC), whey protein isolate (WPI),

hydrolysates, and protein combinations.150 During 2001/02, Fonterra’s production of these

protein products accounted for almost 13 percent of its production of dairy products, falling

slightly to 11 percent in 2002/03. Larger shifts occurred in production of cheese and milk

powders (SMP, WMP, and butter milk powder), with the cheese production falling from

about 20 percent to 14 percent of Fonterra’s production, and milk powders increasing from

39 percent to 45 percent during this period (table 4-16). This shift reflected low international

cheese prices and a recovery in milk powder prices in 2002/03, as noted by MAF.151 As milk

powder prices were higher than the prices of other products, there was a shift of production

away from protein products and cheese toward milk powders.

Fonterra’s manufacturing sites tend to be large multiproduct facilities, designed to

accommodate the seasonal nature of New Zealand milk production and provide economies

of scale.152 Most factories are fully utilized at the peak production period (October and

November) and at other times milk is allocated to different processing plants according to

production schedules.153
 154 Tatua officials, interview by USITC staff, Tatuanui, New Zealand, Nov. 6, 2003.

 155 Tatua, Annual Report’03; DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 13.

 156 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 13.

 157 Fonterra officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003; Officials from

Fonterra Research Centre, interviews by USITC staff, Palmerston North, New Zealand, Nov. 5,

2003.

4-33

Table 4-16

New Zealand: Production of dairy products by Fonterra, 2001/02 and 2002/031

Product 2001/02 2002/03

––––––1,000 metric tons –––––

Milk powders2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 867

Butter and cream products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 440

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 274

Protein (including nutritional/whey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 217

Other (including lactose) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 143

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,746 1,940

1

 June-May split year.

2

 Includes whole milk powder, skim milk powder, and butter milk powder.

Source: Fonterra, Fonterra Annual Report 2002-2003, found at www.fontera.com/pdfs/2003_ annual_report.pdf.

Tatua’s production of protein products is shown in table 4-17. Tatua sells products such as

caseinates, WPC, and cream to Fonterra, and produces acid WPC 80 to customer

specifications. Tatua also produces lactoferrin using the facilities of Westland Milk Products

and plans to enter a manufacturing agreement with Tatura Milk Industries in Australia in

2003/04.154 Tatua also produces such products as ultra high temperature (UHT) milk and

cream products.155

Table 4-17

New Zealand: Tatua production of milk protein products, 1998/99-2002/03 

Product 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

––––————–––––––1,000 metric tons–––—––––———––

Caseinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 7 7 6

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) (1) (1) (1) 1

Other products .............................. 1 1 1 1 1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 8 9 8 1

 Less than 500 tons.

Source: Tatua, Annual Report, 2003.

Westland Milk Products is primarily a producer of heat-stable milk powders, butter, and

small amounts of casein and MPC. Westland is currently extending its range of milk powders

to include colostrum-based products and other nutraceutical ingredients and formulations.156

According to Fonterra officials, milk protein products are formulated to meet the

characteristics ordered by consumers.157 New Zealand’s technologies include use of

ultrafiltration to produce MPC (protein concentration up to 88 percent) and MPI (protein

concentration of 90 percent). Fonterra also produces total milk protein (TMP), a

co-precipitated MPC primarily used in energy bars. Whey protein production includes
 158 Fonterra, “The Ingredients to Lead in Dairy,” found at www.fonterra.com, p. 9.

 159 Fonterra officials, interview by USITC staff, and site visits by USITC staff to Fonterra’s

Whareroa and Hautapu production facilities, Nov. 5-6, 2003.

 160 Fonterra officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

 161 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003.

 162 The NZDRI was a specialized research institution jointly supported by the New Zealand

Government and industry. DCANZ prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 10.

 163 Fonterra, Annual Report 2002-2003, found at www.fonterra.com/pdfs/2003_annual_report.-

pdf.

 164 Ibid.

 165 Officials from Fonterra Research Centre, interviews by USITC staff, Palmerston North, New

Zealand, Nov. 5, 2003.

 166 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1,2003, p. 13; Officials from Fonterra Research

Centre, interviews by USITC staff, Palmerston North, New Zealand, Nov. 5, 2003.

 167 Fonterra, Annual Report 2002-2003, found at www.fonterra.com/pdfs/2003_annual_report.-

pdf.

4-34

ultrafiltered WPC, and WPI, which uses an ion exchange (IE) process, and sold into the

sports drink market in the United States.158 Fonterra officials have indicated they do not

produce milk proteins using casein/SMP blends.159

Most milk protein products produced in New Zealand are exported, with only a small

fraction sold into the domestic market. Fonterra officials have indicated that the growing

market for health and nutritional products in the United States has resulted in increased

export sales. In addition, highly efficient U.S. food processing facilities make it more cost

effective to manufacture products using milk protein ingredients in the United States.160

Research and market promotion

Research and development (R&D) is a key component affecting the competitiveness of New

Zealand’s dairy industry. The merger of Fonterra with the NZDB led to changes in the

research structure affecting dairy producers and processors. Historically, dairy industry-good

funding (activities that benefit the whole dairy industry) were paid for and managed by the

NZDB.161

At the processor level, the DIRA affected the role and status of New Zealand’s premier dairy

products research institution, the New Zealand Dairy Research Institute (NZDRI). The

NZDRI, formerly a crown trust which provided R&D services to the NZDB and dairy

industry,162 was changed to a company under the DIRA and transferred to Fonterra, along

with other assets of the NZDB.163 In 2002/03, Fonterra established its Marketing and

Innovation Group (MIG), which amalgamated the Fonterra Research Centre (formerly the

NZDRI) with its global ingredients marketing team and elements of its business development

group.164 According to Fonterra, the purpose of this new group is to provide scientific

research and technical support to drive Fonterra’s value-added business.165 The MIG is

involved in research partnerships throughout New Zealand and the rest of the world.166

Fonterra also has a biotechnology company, ViaLactia Biosciences (NZ), whose function

is to identify, discover, and commercialize genes important to the dairy industry, including

those affecting pasture grasses, milk production and composition, and animal health.167

Fonterra is New Zealand's largest private sector investor in R&D, with an annual budget

close to NZ$110 ($53) million. In 2001/02, Fonterra received government funding of
 168 Ibid

 169 Fonterra News (May 24, 2002), found at www.fonterra.com.

 170 DCANZ, prehearing brief, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 13.

 171 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003. 

 172 The revenues for Dexcel also includes contributions from FRST, commercial revenue, and

farm income. Dexcel, Annual Report 2003, found at http://www.dexcel.co.nz.

 173 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2001. 

4-35

NZ $5 ($2.4) million through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST)

for work on milk protein research.168 In May 2002, it was announced that Fonterra, through

a research consortia, would receive NZ$2 ($0.96) million per year over 7 years for research

aimed at discovering biomedical components in milk. Grants received from the FRST

involve similar matching funds provided by Fonterra.169

New Zealand’s two other core milk supply companies also provide strong support for R&D.

DCANZ reports that Tatua spends nearly 2 percent of its annual turnover (over

NZ$1 ($0.48) million per year) on R&D to support is specialty products. Similarly, Westland

has recently invested NZ$73 ($35) million in laboratory, R&D facilities, as well as

processing capabilities and infrastructure.170

At the farm level, the industry continued to fund industry-good activities formerly

undertaken by the NZDB during the 2002/03 season through a fee of NZ$0.03 ($0.014) per

kilogram milk solids paid by the three core milk supply companies. In May 2002, New

Zealand dairy farmers voted in favor of a milk solids levy to fund industry-good activities.

This levy came into effect at the start of the 2003/04 dairy season, with all farmers who

produce milk from bovine animals and supply a dairy company responsible for payment of

the levy. The rate of the levy is set each year, but in 2003/04 it is NZ$0.034 ($0.016) per

kilogram of milk solids (plus General Sales Tax). Dairy InSight, an incorporated society, was

established to coordinate projects with the collected levies, which amounted to about NZ$39

($19) million in 2002/03. Projects funded are in the areas of R&D, farming systems, data

analysis, technology transfer, industry promotion, education and training, and quality

control.171 In addition, Dairy InSight is a contributor to Dexcel, which performs farm-level

research, education, and extension activities. Dexcel was initially established by the NZDB,

but became funded and owned by New Zealand dairy farmers following the restructuring.172

Industry structure and regulations following restructuring

The merger of New Zealand’s two largest dairy companies, and their amalgamation with the

NZDB to form Fonterra, resulted from concerns that the previously regulated structure of the

dairy industry was not in the industry’s long-term interest.173 To facilitate the merger, the

New Zealand Government implemented the DIRA, which removed the NZDB’s statutory

powers as the single-desk exporter of dairy products, and introduced a number of regulatory

interventions designed to promote competition in the markets for raw and processed milk.

Provision of research, extension, and health services to dairy farmers that were previously

supplied by the NZDB also changed, with farmers purchasing shares in, or paying a fee to

fund, new service organizations.

The regulatory measures introduced following the formation of Fonterra were designed to

promote competition within New Zealand’s dairy industry and to mitigate concerns related
 174 Summarized from MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry

2001; MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

 175 MAF officials have noted that Fonterra is currently providing 300,000 million liters of milk

to independent processors, indicating there is room for a new company to enter the market and

purchase milk; MAF officials, interview by USITC staff, Wellington, Nov. 4, 2003.

4-36

to the dominant position that Fonterra would hold in raw milk procurement and dairy

product processing. The package included elements as follows:174

• Open entry and exit to Fonterra–The DIRA requires Fonterra to offer

open entry and exit to all farmers and share milkers who supply milk. The

price of shares of entry and exit is the same at any given time. A

supplying shareholder who wants to leave Fonterra may do so by giving

notice by the end of February in any year for exit. Suppliers are paid the

current value of their capital investment in Fonterra if they leave.

• Ease of entry–Fonterra must offer new suppliers the same terms and

conditions of milk supply as it offers existing suppliers. Fonterra must

offer 1 year supply contracts to all suppliers. Fonterra may offer longerterm contracts, but in any given season, at least 33 percent of milk solids

produced in a 160-kilometer radius of any point in New Zealand must be

supplied to someone other than Fonterra or under contracts that expire at

the end of the season without penalty, to ensure that milk supply is

available for other processors to acquire.

• Supply of milk by farmers to other processors–Farmers and sharemilkers

who are shareholders and milk suppliers to Fonterra will be allowed to

supply up to 20 percent of their milk to other processors without penalty.

• Fonterra’s supply of milk to other processors–Fonterra must supply raw

milk to anyone in New Zealand who seeks it, up to a maximum of 400

million liters per year (around 3 percent of Fonterra’s total annual milk

production) at a regulated price.175 The price of the milk must be the

payout to shareholders, less the annualized capital value of the shares and

peak notes, plus transport, and reasonable additional speciality milk costs.

• Dairy disinvestment–The DIRA required Fonterra to divest 50 percent of

its shareholding in New Zealand Dairy Foods, a supplier of fresh and

processed dairy products primarily to the domestic market and owned by

the New Zealand Dairy Group.

Milk Protein Exports

Export trends

New Zealand’s total exports of milk protein products by volume for 1998/99 to 2002/03 are

shown in table 4-18. New Zealand’s exports rose from 123,000 metric tons in 1998/99 to
 176 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003, pp. 24- 25.

4-37

Table 4-18

New Zealand: Exports of milk protein products1

 to the world, the United States, and rest of

world, 1998/99-2002/20032

Country 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

––––————––––––––1,000 metric tons––—––––—–——––

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 68 60 61 75

Rest of world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 64 72 73 93

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 132 131 133 167

U.S. share (percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 51 45 46 45 1

 Casein, caseinate, milk protein concentrate, whey protein concentrate, and whey. 2

 July-June.

Source: Statistics New Zealand, Information Network for Official Statistics.

167,000 mt in 2002/03, or by 36 percent. The U.S. share of these shipments fell, however,

from 51 percent to 45 percent in the latest year. The United States is the largest market for

New Zealand’s exports of casein and caseinates, followed by the EU, and Japan. The United

States accounted for 34 percent of New Zealand’s exports of casein in 2002/03 (table 4-19),

and for just under one-half of its exports of casein and caseinates.176 New Zealand’s casein

exports consist of rennet, acid, and other casein as further shown in table 4-19. Acid casein

accounted for 63 percent of New Zealand’s casein exports to the United States in 2002/03,

although the share of rennet casein/other has been increasing in recent years.

Table 4-19

New Zealand: Exports of casein1

 by type to the world, the United States, and rest of the world,

1998/99-2002/20032

Product/country 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

––––————–––––––1,000 metric tons–––—––––———––

Acid casein:

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 18 10 12

Rest of world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13 15 17 26

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 32 33 27 38

Rennet casein/other:3

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 6 57

Rest of world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 11 8 11

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14 17 14 18

–––––––—————––––––Percent–––––––————––––––

U.S. share:

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 59 55 38 32

Rennet casein/other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 28 36 39 40

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 48 38 34 1

 Acid casein 3501.10.00.01; rennet casein 3501.10.00.11; other casein 3501.10.00.19. 2

 July-June.

3

 Includes rennet casein and very small amounts of casein other than acid.

Source: Statistics New Zealand, Information Network for Official Statistics.
 177 Commission foreign producers’ questionnaires.

 178 DCANZ, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 25.

 179 Government of New Zealand, Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, found at http://www.-

legislation.govt.nz.

 180 Ibid.

4-38

New Zealand’s exports of milk proteins, as estimated through Commission foreign

producers’ questionnaires for calendar years 1998-2002, are shown in table 4-20. Among the

milk proteins, exports of casein are the largest, followed by MPC. New Zealand’s exports

of MPC on a volume basis experienced the largest percentage increase during the 1998-2002

period, with the rate of increase slowing in 2002. The United States, the EU, Canada, and

South American countries are the largest markets for MPC.177 The major markets for whey

protein concentrates are Japan, the EU, and the United States.178 Trends in New Zealand’s

exports of milk protein products to the United States based on the Commission

questionnaires are discussed in more detail in chapter 6.

Table 4-20

New Zealand: Exports of milk protein products, 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Growth

per year

1998-2002

––––———–––1,000 metric tons–––—––––——– Percent

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 48 49 48 54 2

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 28 36 44 45 21

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 27 26 27 29 2

Whey proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15 15 13 17 8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 118 126 132 145 6

Source: Commission foreign producers’ questionnaires. 

Export regulations

The DIRA restructured dairy exporting by allowing for the unrestricted export of New

Zealand dairy products, except in the case of certain “designated markets.”179 Under the

DIRA, the NZDB retained the exclusive right to export to the designated markets until the

end of an initial period, ranging until 2007 to 2010, depending on the market.180 These

designated markets and the initial periods (in parentheses) include:

• milk powder to the Dominican Republic (June 2007);

• butter to Canada (July 2007);

• butter, cheddar cheese, and cheese for processing to the EU (December

2007);

• cheddar and low-fat cheese to the United States (December 2008);
 181 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001.

 182 Fonterra, Select Committee Submission: Export Regime, found at http://www. fonterra.com.

 183 Fonterra, Select Committee Submission: Export Regime, found at http://www.fonterra.com.

Fonterra, in its submission, noted that the cheese market in Japan is not constrained by TRQs, but

domestic blending subsidies have an equivalent effect and create potential quota rents. The market

for milk powder to the Dominican Republic was also included to honor New Zealand’s treaty

obligations.

 184 DCANZ, posthearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 8.

 185 Fonterra Annual Report 2001/02.

 186 Fonterra, Select Committee Submission: Export Regime, found at http://www. fonterra.com.

4-39

• NSPF (not specifically provided for) cheese (cheese substitutes), and

other American-type cheese to the United States (December 2009);

and,

• cheese and prepared edible fat to Japan (March 2010).

Under the DIRA, the NZDB retained the licenses to export to the designated markets until

the end of the initial period for each market. More specifically, in the case of exports to the

EU, the percentage share of export licenses reserved exclusively to the NZDB will be

reduced in stages during 2008-2010. When the NZDB became part of Fonterra, Fonterra

received the licenses to export to the designated markets. Further, the DIRA limited the

ability of the NZDB to transfer any export licenses for the designated markets prior to the

end of the initial periods.181

The designated markets were treated differently under the DIRA because these markets were

deemed to generate, or have the potential to generate, significant economic rents from

preferential access under TRQs or from other foreign government intervention. It was

recognized that if the export supply could be controlled from New Zealand, then any

economic rents from tariff preferences or foreign government intervention would more likely

accrue to New Zealand dairy farmers. Thus, the DIRA reserved the right to export to these

markets to the NZDB (via Fonterra) for a certain period of time for the purpose of securing

the quota rents for New Zealand dairy farmers.182

Designated markets and quantities for export under TRQs specifically reserved for New

Zealand are shown in table 4-21. The designated markets also include certain processed and

natural cheese to Japan and milk powder exports to the Dominican Republic.183 According

to DCANZ, Fonterra’s exports of dairy products to the designated markets amounted to

170,000 mt in 2002/03, or 7.1 percent of Fonterra’s total ingredient sales in that year.184 In

2001/02, Fonterra estimated that its payout of NZ$5.30 ($2.56) per kilogram of milk solids

for raw milk included a quota return of NZ$0.15 ($0.07) per kilograms of milk solids.185

According to Fonterra, any change in the returns received from the designated markets could

impact both the milk payout and Fonterra’s fair-value share.186
 187 MAF, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 2003.

 188 USDA, FAS, “New Zealand Dairy and Products,” Gain Report No. NZ3010 (May 30, 2003).

 189 New Zealand Customs Service, The Working Tariff Document of New Zealand 2002, found

at www.customs.-govt.nz/resources/tariff.pdf.

 190 Officials, DCANZ, interview by USITC staff, Auckland, Nov. 7, 2003.

4-40

Table 4-21

New Zealand: Tariff-rate quota amounts for designated markets

Market/products Metric tons

European Union:

Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,667

Cheddar cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000

Cheese for processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000

United States:

Other cheese-NSPF1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,322

Cheddar cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,200

American-type (including colby) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000

Other cheese-NSPF-Low-fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000

Canada:

Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,322

1

 Not specifically provided for.

Source: Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Marrakesh, Apr.15, 1994.

Foreign exchange regime

According to New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, during 2002/03, the

annual trade-weighted average U.S. dollar price of New Zealand dairy exports fell by

18 percent from the previous season. At the same time, the New Zealand dollar appreciated

by 21 percent against the U.S. dollar, resulting in the New Zealand- dollar-weighted price

of dairy exports falling by 32 percent.187 Owing to the appreciation in the New Zealand

dollar in May 2003, Fonterra implemented a new foreign exchange hedging policy to

protect 100 percent of its projected foreign exchange earnings against spot market currency

movements. Under the policy, Fonterra will enter each month into standard forward

exchange contracts to sell U.S. dollars (and other currencies) to the total value of Fonterra’s

projected earnings 15 months later. At the end of each month, all of Fonterra’s projected

foreign exchange earnings for the next 15 months will be protected against spot market

currency movements. Fonterra’s previous hedging policy provided up to 70-percent cover

over 12 months and up to 30-percent cover over 13 to 24 months.188 Fonterra’s hedging

policy is expected to reduce earnings volatility associated with foreign currency movements

and improve the accuracy of its payout forecasts. Payouts will continue to be affected by

changes in commodity prices and sales volumes. However, foreign exchange effects will

be delayed until the following year. 

Milk Protein Imports

New Zealand’s tariffs on imported milk proteins such as MPC, WPC, casein, caseinate, and

WMP and SMP range from “free” to 5 percent ad valorem.189 New Zealand industry officials

have indicated that although most of the production of milk proteins is exported, some

finished products, including health, nutrition, and sports drinks and bars are imported.190
 191 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 4.

 192 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Australia (AFFA), Australian Food

Statistics 2003 (June 2003), table 1.2, pp. 37-38. 

 193 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Commodities (Dec.

2003).

 194 Australia’s marketing year for milk, ending June 30.

 195 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 7.

 196 Interview by USITC staff with dairy farmers in Victoria and Tasmania, Australia, and with

Dairy Australia officials, Nov. 11-14, 2003.

 197 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 10.

 198 Mr. Paul Kerr, Chief Operating Officer, Murray Goulburn Co-op Ltd, testimony before the

USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 371.

 199 Ambassador Michael Thawley, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 14.

4-41

Australia

Overview

In 2002, Australia was the world’s tenth-largest milk-producer with output of 11.6 million

mt, accounting for about 2.3 percent of world production (table 2-1). Australia’s share of

world exports is significantly greater, ranking second among leading world exporters of

SMP, third among world exporters of WMP and dry whey, and sixth among world exporters

of casein (tables 2-4 through 2-7). Asia is the largest market for Australia’s dairy product

exports (accounting for about one-third of the total value in 2001), reflecting Australia’s

geographic proximity to those markets. The United States is also an important market for

Australian dairy exports, accounting for about 5 percent of the total value of Australian dairy

exports in 2001. Australia is the third-largest exporter of milk proteins to the U.S. market,

accounting for about 7 percent of both value and volume in 2002 (appendix F).191

The dairy industry is Australia’s third-most-important agricultural industry (behind wheat

and beef), and milk production accounted for about 11 percent of the total value of

Australian agricultural production in 2000/01.192 Further, dairy products contributed about

8 percent to total agricultural exports in 2002.193 In 2002/03,194 about 20 percent of

Australia’s milk production was consumed as drinking milk and 80 percent used for

processing (table 4-22). Approximately 60 percent of all dairy products manufactured in

Australia are exported.195 Australia is a low-cost milk producing country, with production

largely based on seasonal pasture, although use of supplemental feeding has been increasing

in recent years.196 The pasture-based system meant that the Australian dairy industry was

significantly affected by a drought in 2002/03, which reduced national milk production by

8.4 percent.197 As in New Zealand, Australia’s dairy industry is largely dominated by

co-operatives which process about three-quarters of the all milk delivered to factories.198

According to Australian Government officials, the Australian dairy industry has undergone

significant deregulation since 2000, and today competes at international prices.199
 200 Dairy Australia, Australia Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 3.

 201 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), The Australian Dairy

Industry: Impact of an Open Market in Fluid Milk Supply (Jan. 2001), p. 27; and Dairy Australia,

Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 9.

 202 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, pp. 5-6.

 203 A share-farmer is one who works land belonging to an owner or lessor for a share of the

production or proceeds. Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 5.

4-42

Table 4-22

Australia: Structure of milk production sector, 1997/98-2002/031

Item 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

Growth

per year2

–Percent–

Number of dairy cows (1000 head)

3 . . . . . 2,060 2,155 2,171 2,176 2,123 2,095 0

Milk production (million liters) . . . . . . . . . . 9,440 10,179 10,847 10,546 11,271 10,322 2

Milk processed (million Iiters) . . . . . . . . . . 7,521 8,248 8,911 8,626 9,355 8,406 3

Market (drinking) milk (million Iiters) . . . . . 1,919 1,931 1,936 1,920 1,916 1,916 0

Yield per cow (liters/cow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,677 4,831 4,996 4,859 5,215 4,800 1

Number of dairy farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,478 13,156 12,896 11,839 11,048 10,654 -5

Average herd size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 161 170 190 215 195 5

Average milk payment (A¢/liter)4 . . . . . . . . 28.3 27.9 25.6 29.0 33.0 27.1 0

Farm business profit (A$/farm) ......... (5

) (5) 15,441 13,942 60,880 6-76,700 34 1

 Season ending June 30 except where noted. 2

 Annual average growth 1997/98-2002/03.

3

 Number of cows at Mar. 31 until 1999/2000 and at June 30 thereafter. 4

 Prices up to 1999/2000 are weighted averages for manufacturing and drinking milk. 5

 Not available.

6

 Decline owing to the effects of drought.

Sources: Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry In Focus 2003, Dec. 2003; Australian Bureau of Agricultural and

Resource Economics, Australian Commodities, found at www.abareconomics.com/ australiancommodities/

commods/dairy.html and Abareconomics, Australia’s Dairy Industry-Productivity and Profit, various issues.

Production of Fluid Milk

Production system

Although milk is produced in every Australian state, almost two-thirds of national

production was from the state of Victoria in 2002/03.200 Similar to New Zealand, Australia’s

milk production is largely based on intensive, rotational grazing on pasture lands. As a result

of the pasture-based system, Australian milk production is highly seasonal, with a peak in

October and November and a trough in May and June. The seasonality of milk production

in states such as Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia is less pronounced

than in Victoria, owing to a greater focus on fluid milk and fresh products, as well as to less

seasonal variation in pasture growth.201 Approximately 20 percent of milk is supplied yearround for the domestic fluid milk industry (table 4-22). The most prevalent breed of cow in

Australia is the high-yielding Holstein-Friesian, which accounts for 70 percent of the

nation’s dairy herd.202 Other important breeds include the Holstein/Jersey cross; the Jersey;

and the Illawarra, Australia’s native breed. The majority of Australia’s dairy farmers are

owner–operators, with approximately 15 percent being share-farmers.203
 204 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 3.

 205 U.S. Embassy officials, interview by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003.

 206 ABARE (Abareconomics), Australia’s Dairy Industry–Productivity and Profit, Dec. 2002,

p. 3; USITC staff site visit to 300 dairy cow operation, Korumburra region of South East Victoria,

Nov.11, 2003.

 207 For example, it is reported that 90 percent of dairy farmers in Victoria have rotary milkers.

U.S. Embassy officials, interview by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003.

 208 ABARE (Abareconomics), Australia’s Dairy Industry–Productivity and Profit (Nov. 2003),

draft.

 209 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec 1., 2003, p. 2.

 210 Ibid.

 211 ABARE (Abareconomics), Australia’s Dairy Industry-Productivity and Profit (Dec. 2002),

p. 4.

 212 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 4.

4-43

Most dairy production is located in areas near the coast where pasture growth is dependent

on rainfall. Inland irrigation of pastures, primarily in Victoria and southern New South

Wales, provide for approximately one-quarter of Australia’s milk production.204 Water

availability is increasingly becoming a constraint for many agricultural industries, and dairy

farmers have invested in water-saving technology, as well as taken steps to increase the

value-added of their production in order to compete with other industries.205 Many dairy

farmers have adopted computer technology, and top farmers have added improved cattle

breeding among other activities to increase the value of production from their farms.206

Adoption of new dairy shed technology has also enabled dairy farmers to raise productivity

in milk production.207 In recent years, Australia’s dairy operators have increased their use of

purchased feed, and as a result, grain and fodder purchase costs have increased from about

5 percent of total farm expenditures in 1978/79 to 25 percent in 2001/02.208

Milk production and industry trends

Australia’s milk production rose from 9.4 billion liters in 1997/98 to 11.3 billion liters in

2001/02, or by 20 percent, before falling to 10.3 billion liters in 2002/03 owing to the

drought (table 4-22). According to Dairy Australia, there is a long-term trend in the dairy

sector toward farm consolidation and improvements in productivity. In 1980, there were

about 22,000 dairy operations with an average herd of 85 dairy cows.209 By 2001/02, the

number of farms had halved to about 11,000 operations, while average herd size had more

than doubled to 215 cows (table 4-22). Production per cow has also increased, by 68 percent

between 1980 and 2002,210 and by 12 percent during the more recent 1997/98-2001/02 period

(table 4-22). Productivity growth has been attributed to adoption of new milking

technologies, increased use of supplementary feeding, soil testing, fodder conservation, and

general farm management improvements, as well as improved animal genetics. The

consolidation of dairy farms and increased productivity can be attributed to financial

pressures resulting from a declining trend in the ratio between prices received for milk and

the prices paid for inputs.211

Costs of production

According to a 2002 survey, Australia’s cost of production for milk averaged A$15 per

100 kilograms ($3.11 per cwt) of milk and is among the lowest in the world.212 Average dairy
 213 Farm cash receipts plus trading stocks less cash costs, depreciation, and operator and family

labor.

 214 ABARE (Abareconomics), Australia’s Dairy Industry-Productivity and Profit (Dec. 2002),

p. 6.

 215 ABARE (Abareconomics), Australia’s Expanding Dairy Industry (Dec. 2002).

 216 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 7; ABARE and Dairy Australia

officials, interviews by USITC staff, Canberra and Melbourne, Nov.10-14, 2003. 

 217 ABARE, Australia’s Expanding Dairy Industry-Productivity and Profit (Dec. 2001), p. 7;

Dairy Australia officials, interviews by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 13, 2003. 

 218 Ambassador Michael Thawley, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p 14.

 219 Government of Australia, prehearing submission, Nov. 20, 2003, p. 3.

 220 Ibid.; AFFA officials, interviews by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003. 

 221 OECD, Producer and Consumer Support Estimates, OECD Database 1986-2002, found at

www.oecd.org/- document/23/0,2340,en_2649_33727_4348119_1_1_1_1,00.html. 

4-44

farm business profits213 reached a high in 2001/02, owing to strong export prices for dairy

products and increases in cow numbers and production,214 but fell sharply in 2002/03 owing

to drought (table 4-22). According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource

Economics (ABARE), the long-term trend in real (deflated) farm business profits in the dairy

sector has been flat over the last decade, owing to increased investment and adoption of

technology by operators that resulted in increased depreciation costs and higher levels of

debt. ABARE also noted that before deregulation (July 2000), many dairy farmers opted to

reduce farm debt in order to better position themselves to operate in the deregulated

market.215

Milk prices

Farm-gate prices for milk in Australia vary among manufacturers. Most milk prices are based

on the fat and solids content of fresh milk, as well as milk quality. Some farmers receive

higher prices under contract arrangements to supply milk year-round for the fluid milk

market. Until July 2000, farmers received significantly higher prices for fluid milk in each

state, as compared to prices received for selling manufacturing (processing) milk. However,

following price deregulation on July 1, 2000, such arrangements ended and most farmers

now receive a “blended price” incorporating returns from both fluid and manufacturing

milk.216 Following market deregulation, farm-gate prices for milk fell in all states, but rose

in the latter part of the 2000/01 marketing year. Average farm-gate prices continued to rise

during 2001/02 before falling in 2002/03 (table 4-22). Trends in Australian farm-gate prices

largely reflect trends in international prices for dairy products, as well as the value of the

Australian dollar.217

Government assistance

According to testimony by officials of the Australian Government, the Australian dairy

industry is completely deregulated and competes at international prices.218 Reforms

implemented at the end of June 2000 eliminated price supports and other measures that

previously controlled the supply and distribution of milk.219 Australian sources have

indicated that dairy farmers in that country receive little government assistance, and that the

remaining assistance will cease by 2009.220 The most recent OECD Producer Support

Estimates for milk producers in Australia show a decline from 25 percent in 1997 to

15 percent in 2002.221 Most of the policy measures cited by the OECD for milk in 2002
 222 OECD, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation (2003),

p. 116.

 223 AFFA officials, interviews by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003; AFFA, “Overview: 

Australian Dairy Industry Reform,” unpublished paper. For example, the average Australian

producer price for market milk in 1999 was approximately 47.4 cents per litre compared to

22.5 cents per litre for manufacturing milk.

 224 ABARE, The Australian Dairy Industry: Impact of an Open Market in Fluid Milk Supply,

p. 6.

 225 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 20.

 226 Australian sources have noted that manufacturers largely based their farm-gate prices for

manufacturing milk on actual export returns and made up any difference on domestic sales through

the DMS payment. Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 20.

 227 For example, support under the DMS declined from around A$180 million in 1995 to

A$90 million in 2000. AFFA, Overview: Australian Dairy Industry Reform.

4-45

involve transfers to milk producers arising from the adjustment assistance paid to producers

to ease the transition to a deregulated market. In addition, in December 2002, the Australian

Government announced a drought assistance package, which included interest rate subsidies

and loans to help save livestock and a one-time drought assistance payment.222

Prior to July 2000, government support for the dairy sector was separated into two distinct

jurisdictions. Production, processing and distribution of market (drinking) milk was

regulated at the state level, whereas Federal programs operated to provide assistance to

manufacturing milk producers. At the state level, various state-by-state arrangements

provided a guaranteed producer price for market milk that was about double the price of

manufacturing milk.223 Quota or pooling arrangements were used to source market milk from

farms. In states such as New South Wales, Western Australia, and Queensland, most of the

dairy farm revenues were derived from market milk sales. In these states, the supply of

market milk was managed through a system of individual farm supply entitlements or quotas

in which each liter of market milk received an administratively-determined price. In states

such as Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, most dairy farm revenue was derived from

manufacturing milk sales and from sales on the export market. In these states, dairy farmers

received a share of the administratively-determined price paid for drinking milk in each state,

based on each farmer’s share of total state milk production and the ratio of total state market

milk sold to total state milk produced in a certain period.224

At the Federal level, producers of manufacturing milk received price assistance through two

milk levies: (1) A$0.02 ($0.009) per liter (approximate) paid monthly by dairy farmers on

drinking milk sold for domestic consumption (market milk levy); and, (2) A$0.03-

$0.04 ($0.014-0.018) per liter (approximate) paid by dairy manufacturers on manufacturing

milk used in products for domestic sale.225 The funds collected from the levies were

distributed to dairy farmers through a monthly Domestic Market Support (DMS) payment

calculated by dividing expected DMS income by the expected volume of manufacturing milk

production. Manufacturers were assumed to pass the second levy on to consumers, thus the

payments provided a transfer of funds from Australian consumers and an intraindustry

transfer from market milk producers to manufacturing milk producers. Manufacturing milk

used in production of exported products was exempt from any levy.226 The DMS system was

subject to phased reductions of support levels and was legislated to terminate in June 2000.227

The dairy regulations that had existed prior to July 2000 had been previously under

increasing scrutiny for a number of reasons that led industry and government officials to

recognize that some changes in dairy policies were necessary. These reasons included: (1)
 228 For example, an incompatibility of regulations in dairy price support was that the price

premiums for market milk could only be maintained in the absence of interstate trade in fluid milk.

However, Australia’s Constitution prohibits any actions that constrain free trade between the

States. ABARE, The Australian Dairy Industry: Impact of an Open Market in Fluid Milk Supply,

p, 1. 

 229 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 25.

 230 Ibid., pp. 26-27.

 231 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 26; AFFA officials,

interviews by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003.

 232 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 26. AFFA officials

noted that the DSAP payments are considered amber box policies under the WTO Agreement on

Agriculture because they involve transfers from consumers to producers through the drinking milk

levy.

 233 ABARE, The Australian Dairy Industry: Impact of an Open Market, pp. 23-24.

4-46

a government-wide review in 1999 of the compatibility of regulatory arrangements under the

National Competition Policy;228 (2) the planned termination of the DMS scheme in 2000;

and, (3) the view of many firms that price support regulations hampered their commercial

operations and restricted industry development.229 In late-1999, major industry dairy groups

in Australia secured Federal and state government agreement to the simultaneous removal

of all domestic regulations relating to the supply and pricing of milk after July 2000. To

assist the transition to a fully commercial environment, the Federal government introduced

the Dairy Industry Adjustment Package (DIAP), which provided: 

• A$1.63 ($0.75) billion under the Dairy Structural Adjustment Program

(DSAP), to be paid to eligible individuals in 32 quarterly payments

between July 2000 and 2008;

• A$30 ($13.7) million to individuals to exit the dairy industry under the

Dairy Exit Program; and,

• A$45 ($20.6) million in grants to eligible communities adversely affected

by deregulation under the Dairy Regional Assistance Program (DRAP).230

According to officials of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Australia

(AFFA), the DSAP payments are decoupled, meaning they do not affect farmers’ decisions

for future milk production, because they are based on production in 1998/99.231 Funding for

these programs is through a levy on domestic sales of drinking milk. The adjustment levy

was set at A$0.11 ($0.05) per liter.232

A study completed in January 2001 by ABARE estimated the reduction in transfers to dairy

producers as a result of deregulation at approximately A$170 ($77.8) million. In addition,

the study indicated that the impacts of dairy deregulation varied significantly by region,

depending on the extent of the region’s dairy sector income.233 In response, the Federal

government provided an additional transition package, the Supplementary Dairy Adjustment

(SDA) program. This program provided:
 234 Dairy Australia, Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 27-28. 

 235 AFFA officials, interviews by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003; Dairy Australia,

Addendum to prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 28. 

 236 AFFA officials, interviews by USITC staff, Canberra, Nov. 10, 2003. 

 237 Ibid.

 238 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 12; Murray Goulburn officials,

interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 11, 2003

 239 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 12.

 240 AFFA, Australian Food Statistics 2002.

 241 Bonlac Supply officials, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 13, 2003.

4-47

• $A120 ($54.9) million in additional market milk payments;

• $A20 ($9.2) million for discretionary payments to producers who were

excluded from the DSAP or received unexpected low entitlements; and, 

• A$20 ($9.2) million in additional DRAP funding.

Payments under the SDA program commenced in September 2001, and will be funded by

a 1-year extension of the levy on domestic drinking milk sales.234

According to Australian sources, few farm exits followed deregulation, with most of them

concentrated in the former drinking-milk states.235 Although DSAP payments were scheduled

to be paid quarterly until 2008, a large proportion of farmers converted their DSAP payment

streams into lump sum payments through arrangements with commercial banks.236 The

DSAP funds were then used to repay debts and to restructure farms in order for farmers to

position themselves to a more market-oriented dairy economy.237

Milk Protein Products

Industry structure

Milk is processed in Australia by farmer-owned co-operatives and dairy companies, both

public and private. The three largest co-operatives—Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co.

Ltd., Bonlac Supply Co. Ltd., and the Dairy Farmers Group—account for over 60 percent

of all milk production and more than 70 percent of milk used for manufacturing. The largest

milk co-operative, Murray Goulburn, is owned by 3,500 farmers and accounts for more than

30 percent of the nation’s milk production and 40 percent of dairy exports.238 Several

multinational dairy companies also operate in Australia, including Fonterra, Parmalat,

Nestlé, Kraft, and Snow Brand.239

In 1999/2000, there were approximately120 dairy processing companies, although this

number is declining over time as the industry has rationalized and consolidated in an effort

to improve processing efficiency.240 In September 2003, Australia’s fourth-largest dairy

company, Bonlac Foods, agreed to a restructuring in which Fonterra increased its

shareholding in Bonlac Foods to 50 percent. Following this restructuring, Bonlac Supply

provides processed dairy products to Fonterra Australia, which markets the products through

its global network of companies.241
 242 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, chart p. 14.

 243 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 12.

 244 Ibid.

 245 The Commission received questionnaire responses from all major dairy exporting companies

in Australia.

4-48

In recent years, an increasing proportion of Australia’s milk production has been destined

for manufacturing and export markets. During 1997/98 to 2002/03, milk used for

manufacturing increased at an annual growth rate of 3 percent, whereas milk used for fluid

consumption remained stable (table 4-22). In addition, in 2002/03, it is estimated that

approximately 60 percent of milk produced was exported, compared with about 35 percent

in 1989/90.242

Production of milk protein products

In 2002/03, cheese production accounted for 42 percent of utilization of manufacturing milk,

followed by butter and SMP.243 However, there has been a movement towards increased

production of cheese and WMP in line with international price trends.244 Cheese and WMP

are Australia’s largest dairy exports (table 4-23).

Table 4-23

Australia: Production and exports of selected dairy products, 1997/98-2002/031

Commodity 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

Growth

per year2

––––——––––––––––– 1,000 metric tons ––—––––––––––––—— –Percent–

Production:

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 327 376 376 413 368 4

Skim milk/buttermilk powder . . . . 231 272 264 265 257 215 -1

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . 128 145 187 205 239 170 8

Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 175 170 160 164 149 0

Whey products . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 60 66 61 85 96 13

Casein3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 9 8 14 (4

) 16

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887 987 1,072 1,075 1,172 (4

) 7

Exports:

Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 172 223 219 218 208 7

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . 110 139 175 183 213 202 13

Skim milk/buttermilk powder . . . . 199 243 253 218 224 196 1

Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 104 125 110 109 102 2

Whey products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 46 47 43 50 80 15

Casein3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 11 13 (4

) 17

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 713 832 784 827 (4

) 8 1

 July-June

2

 Annual average growth 1997/98-2002/03.

3

 Calendar year data.

4 Data not available.

Source: Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry In Focus 2003.

Information on Australian production of milk protein products compiled from the

Commission’s foreign producers’ questionnaires is shown in table 4-24.245 Questionnaire

data indicated that, among the products shown in the table, WPC is the largest category of
 246 Following Bonlac Food’s restructuring, Bonlac’s sales of dairy products are to Fonterra

Australia.

 247 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 3.

 248 Mr. Paul Kerr, Chief Operating Officer, Murray Goulburn Co-op Ltd, testimony before the

USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 371.

 249 Murray Goulburn officials, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 11, 2003; USITC

staff site visit, Leongatha production facility, Victoria, Nov. 11, 2003; Erie Foods web site for

information on Murray Goulburn production at http://www.eriefoods.com .

 250 Murray Goulburn officials, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 11, 2003; Bonlac

Supply official, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 13, 2003.

 251 Erie Foods web site, found at http://www.eriefoods.com.

 252 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003. p. 30.

4-49

Table 4-24

Australia: Production of milk protein products, 1998-2002 

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Growth

per year

1998-20021

––––––––––––––1,000 metric tons ––––––––––––––––– –Percent–

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15 14 13 15 13

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 7 7 8 13

Caseinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 4 5 125

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 5 3 3 17

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 27 27 27 32 16 1

 Annual average growth 1997/98-2002/03.

Source: Commission foreign producers’ questionnaires.

milk protein products produced on a volume basis, followed by casein, caseinates, and MPC.

Production of all products increased significantly during the 1998-2002 period. WPC is

produced and exported by three companies in Australia: Murray Goulburn, Bonlac Foods,246

and Warrnambool Cheese and Butter Factory Co. Ltd.247 Of these, only Murray Goulburn

is a regular supplier of MPC, caseinates, and casein to the United States.248 These products

are produced at Murray Goulburn’s Leongatha plant in Victoria.249 MPC and WPC are

produced using UF membrane technology.250 Murray Goulburn also produces WPI using IE

technology.251

Research and market promotion

Market promotion and research activities for the dairy industry are partially funded by

farmer-paid levies imposed on the fat and protein content of milk produced. Starting in the

2003/04 season, levies that previously funded the activities of the Australian Dairy

Corporation and the Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) were replaced

with a single levy that funded a new organization, Dairy Australia. In 2003/04, this levy

amounted to A$0.0031 ($0.0014) per liter of milk. In addition to the activities of Dairy

Australia, the Federal government matches expenditure on R&D that meets established

criteria.252

In 2001/02, the research portfolio of the DRDC included projects affecting both dairy

farmers and the manufacturing industry. Projects in the farm sector were designed to
 253 Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Dairy Projects 2002, Melbourne (2001).

 254 Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2003, p. 26; Murray Goulburn officials,

interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 11, 2003.

 255 Ibid.

 256 Murray Goulburn officials, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 11, 2003; Bonlac

Supply official, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 13, 2003; Warrnambool Cheese and

Butter official, interview by USITC staff, Melbourne, Nov. 13, 2003; Warrnambool Cheese and

Butter Factory Company Holdings Limited, Annual Report 2003.

 257 Mr. Jim Klein, Erie Foods International, Inc., testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript p. 262.

 258 Dairy Australia and dairy company officials, interviews by USITC staff, Melbourne,

Nov. 11-12, 2003.

4-50

improve performance of dairy farmers in managing natural resources, the feed base, animal

performance, and farm economics. The manufacturing portfolio included projects designed

to enhance processing performance, product quality and safety, dairy product demand

(including functional ingredients), utilization of whey, and product profitability for cheese

making.253

Milk Protein Exports

Most Australian milk protein production is destined for the export market. The United States

and Japan are the most important markets for casein, caseinates, and MPC.254 Approximately

20-30 percent of Australian whey production is consumed domestically.255 The most

important export markets for Australia’s whey products are countries in Asia. The United

States and Japan are important markets for WPC 80 and WPI.256 Trends in Australian exports

of milk protein products to the United States based on the Commission questionnaires are

discussed in more detail in chapter 6.

Murray Goulburn officials have indicated that its milk protein products are customized to

meet functional and nutritional specifications of its customers. According to these officials,

Murray Goulburn sells little or no product without a contract with a buyer. Products are sold

to customers based on long-term relationships. Murray Goulburn sells all its milk protein

products in the United States to Erie Foods International, whose corporate headquarters are

in Erie, IL. Erie Foods officials report that the company only imports MPCs from Australia

with a protein content of 75 percent and higher.257

Milk Protein Imports

Milk proteins, such as WPC, casein, caseinates, and MPC, are imported free of duty into

Australia. Australian industry officials report that Australia imports some nutritional and

health products that contain milk proteins from the United States.258
5-1

CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON OF COMPETITIVE

FACTORS AFFECTING MILK PROTEIN

PRODUCT MARKETS IN THE UNITED

STATES AND MAJOR EXPORTING

COUNTRIES

Introduction

This chapter provides information on the overall level of government support affecting

producers of milk proteins in the United States, the EU, New Zealand, and Australia.

Additionally, the chapter provides a discussion of competitive factors, including government

intervention, that impact U.S. production, use, and trade in milk protein products in their

various forms. Responses to Commission questionnaires by purchasers and importers of milk

protein products, as well as fieldwork by Commission staff, indicated that factors such as

price, product availability, production technology, exchange rates, and transportation costs

are important in purchasing decisions. 

As shown in this chapter, the most important factors affecting the competitiveness of milk

protein industries are the cost of milk production and government programs. These factors

affect both the price and availability of milk protein products in the U.S. market. Low-cost

milk production translates into lower input costs for milk protein product producers. As

discussed in the following sections, both Australia and New Zealand have significant

advantages over the United States, and to a lesser extent, the EU, in milk production costs.

Additionally, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data

indicate that the United States and the EU have the highest levels of government support for

the dairy sector. This government intervention, which is primarily through price support in

the United States, and production and export aid in the EU, has influenced the types of milk

protein products produced in these countries, and the level of U.S. imports. At the same time,

U.S. government support for SMP reduces the incentives to produce MPC and casein in the

United States.

Comparison of Milk Production Costs

The most significant input into the production of milk protein products is raw milk. Thus,

the cost of producing raw milk in a country or region is a key factor in determining

international competitiveness in milk protein products. Harmonized data on milk production
 1

 The IFCN is a global network of agricultural scientists, advisors, and farmers who produce an

annual overview of the status of dairy farming worldwide. Information on the IFCN and its Dairy

Report can be found at www.ifcnnetwork.org.

 2

 The IFCN Dairy Report has been published annually since 2000.

 3

 Data for 2002 are reported in IFCN’s 2003 Dairy Report.

 4

 In the United States, the use of high-cost feed results in a higher total cost of production and

superior yields per cow in comparison with other major dairy exporting countries.

 5

 The IFCN methodology considers dairy farms engaged in milk production, raising

replacement heifers, and forage production. Milk production costs only consist of expenses from

the profit and loss account of each farm, including costs for labor, land, capital, depreciation, and

quota costs, if any. 

 6

 Dairy industry officials in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, interviews

by USITC staff, Sept.-Nov. 2003.

5-2

costs across countries are compiled by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN).1

The annual IFCN Dairy Report includes costs of milk production for individual farms of

varying sizes in different countries. Although each year’s report covers different farms with

varying herd sizes and geographic locations, the data provide a consistent comparison of the

relative magnitudes of cost differences between countries over time. Despite varying yearly

data sets, IFCN findings of costs of production among countries and country groups for 2002

are consistent with their findings in prior years.2

 For this reason, the summary of the IFCN

analysis for the cost of milk production in table 5-1 is limited to 2002.3

According to IFCN analysis in 2002, the cost of milk production in the United States ranged

from $10 to $13 per hundredweight (cwt) (table 5-1).4

 The 2002 data include three U.S.

farms: a 2,100 cow farm in Idaho, and two farms in Wisconsin—one with 700 cows and

another with 135 cows. The individual farms may represent a “typical farm” based on data

from similar farms in the region, or may represent an actual farm in a region. Each of these

“typical” farms results from input from a panel of experts, including dairy farmers of the

region, advisors, and scientists that regularly contribute to IFCN projects.5

 In 2002, the Idaho

farm with 2,100 cows benefits from economies of scale to achieve a lower cost of production

than the 700 and 135 cow farms in Wisconsin.

The costs of production for the 11 EU farms in the major milk protein product exporting

countries (Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Germany) ranged from $6 to

$13 per cwt in 2002 (table 5-1). Most of the farms analyzed reported costs of $9 per cwt or

less. Many EU farms in the sample were small compared with those in the United States,

having fewer than 100 cows. Milk production costs for three New Zealand farms ranged

from $4.50 to $5.50 per cwt in 2002. For Australia, the six reporting farms had costs of

production ranging from about $3 to $9 per cwt for 2002. That year, drought raised costs for

farms that depend on irrigation, including the 915 and 250 cow farms in the state of Victoria,

which limited irrigation and forced farmers to purchase more feed at higher prices.

Overall, the IFCN findings show milk production costs to be lowest in New Zealand and

Australia, and to a lesser extent, the EU, where cows are generally fed by rotational grazing.

In this aspect of dairy farming, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU operations have a

distinct competitive advantage over their counterparts in the United States, where dairy cows

are fed forage and expensive concentrates.6
 7

 Dairy Australia, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 58.

 8

 The International Dairy Federation, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, is an international

organization that promotes communication and information exchange among the dairy industries

of its 41 member countries. 

5-3

Table 5-1

Cost of milk production: International Farm Comparison Network, selected farms, 2002

Country Location Number of cows Cost

Dollars per cwt

United States ..... Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 10.7

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 12.5

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 12.7

European Union . . Elbe/Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 12.7

Jutland, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 10.0

Southeast Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.9

Flevoland, The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.9

Jutland, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 9.8

East Schleswig-Holstein, Germany 80 8.0

Northeast France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 8.2

Flevoland, Gelderland, The Netherlands . . . . . . . . 51 7.7

South Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8.6

Upper Bavaria, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.8

Northwest France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.6

New Zealand ..... Central South Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 5.2

Southern South Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 5.4

Waikato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 4.5

Australia ........ Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915 9.1

Western Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 3.9

Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 5.4

Western Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 5.0

Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 2.7

Western Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 5.0

Source: International Farm Comparison Network, Dairy Report 2003.

Comparison of Milk Prices Paid by Processors

Differences in international costs of production are reflected in the farm-gate prices paid for

milk in various countries.7

 The International Dairy Federation (IDF) publishes data on

worldwide dairy manufacturing, including the average milk prices paid to producers.8

 IDF

data for 1998-2002 show milk prices in the United States and the EU to be nearly identical

in the first 3 years of the period and diverging significantly in 2001 (table 5-2). Prices in

New Zealand and Australia were approximately $7 per cwt for the period, averaging about

one-half of those in the United States and the EU. This translates directly into lower

production costs for producers of milk protein products in Australia and New Zealand.
 9

 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Jan. 2004.

 10 USDA, AMS, Dairy Market News, various issues. 

 11 Prices for MPC 70 are reported in table 5-7.

 12 Company officials, Dairiconcepts, interviews by USITC staff, Dec. 2003 and Jan. 2004. For

additional information on the Dairiconcepts facility, see chapter 3.

5-4

Table 5-2

Average milk prices paid to producers, by country, 1998-2002

Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––Dollars per hundredweight––––––––––––––––––

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.10 13.49 12.40 15.05 12.34

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.96 14.03 12.25 12.78 12.66

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 7.50 7.45 8.32 6.13

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14 8.24 6.83 7.46 (1

) 1

 Data not available at time of publication.

Source: International Dairy Federation, World Dairy Situation, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003.

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported Milk Protein

Product Prices

Although some imported MPC and U.S.-produced ultrafiltered (UF) milk are essentially the

same product, direct price comparisons are difficult because of the lack of available U.S.

pricing data. However, as indicated in tables 5-1 and 5-2, U.S. producers of UF milk face

higher raw milk costs than MPC producers in Australia or New Zealand. Standard pricing

practice among U.S. producers of UF milk is to price products off the relevant Federal Milk

Marketing Order (FMMO) class price, plus a protein premium to account for the higher

protein content over SMP and to cover their cost of production.9

 If the UF milk was sold for

use in cheese manufacturing then the cheese producer would be charged the FMMO Class

III price plus a premium. In 2002, the Class III price averaged $1.04 per pound.10 In contrast,

the average price for MPC 70 in 2002 was $1.66 per pound.11 The difference between the

Class III price and the market price of MPC 70 in 2002 was $0.62 per pound. Based on the

current pricing practices of U.S. UF milk producers (pricing at the Class III price plus a

premium), it is unlikely that they would be able to produce and market MPC at a price near

or below the price of imports. The range of protein premiums typically applied by U.S. UF

milk producers and Class III prices in 2002 would result in a price above that of imported

MPC.

Currently, the Dairiconcepts facility in Portales, NM, pays the Class IV price for milk used

to produce MPC.12 It is possible that any future MPC producer would also pay the Class IV

price, which is the class price for dry, powder products. The Class IV price in 2002 was

$1.08 per pound, only slightly higher than the Class III price. As a result, if potential U.S.

producers of MPC applied the same protein premiums as in UF milk production, it is

unlikely that the price of U.S.-produced MPC would be near or below import prices.
 13 Conversion rates for SMP and WPC 34 were 35.9 percent and 32.6 percent, respectively, and

conversion rates for MPC, casein, and caseinate were based on the protein content reported in

Commission questionnaires.

 14 Dr. Peter Vitaliano and Mr. Jaime Castaneda, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11,

2003, transcript pp. 61-62.

5-5

Direct comparison of the prices for imported MPC and U.S.-produced UF milk is difficult

owing to the lack of U.S. price data, however, direct comparisons between the prices for

imported milk protein and U.S.-produced SMP and whey protein concentrate (WPC 34) are

possible. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes data on the price of SMP

and WPC 34 in the United States. Prices of imported MPC, casein, and caseinate were

compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires. Prices for each product were

converted to prices per pound on a protein basis, and are shown in table 5-3.13

Table 5-3

Milk protein products: Price per pound of protein, 1998-2002

U.S. U.S Imports 

Year

skim milk

powder

whey protein

concentrate1

Milk protein

concentrate Casein Caseinate

–––––––––––––––––––Dollars per pound of protein––––––––––––––––––

1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.98 1.81 2.49 2.12 2.19

1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.88 1.40 2.28 1.90 2.09

2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.84 2.04 2.41 2.13 2.26

2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.81 2.39 2.55 2.60 2.63

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.59 1.60 2.32 2.15 2.31

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82 1.84 2.41 2.18 2.29

1

 Whey protein concentrate 34, as reported by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Market Statistics, various issues,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook , various issues;

compilation of data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

WPC 34 had the lowest price per pound of protein of the five products, with an average price

of $1.84 per pound of protein (table 5-3). Because WPC is a by-product of cheese

manufacturing and because WPC 34 is a widely produced, commodity product, it can be

expected to have a lower price than any of the other milk protein products. U.S. imports of

casein had the second lowest average price for the 1998-2002 period at $2.18 per pound of

protein. The average price of U.S. imports of caseinate were slightly higher at $2.29 per

pound. U.S. imports of MPC had an average price per pound of protein of $2.41 during the

1998-2002 period. U.S.-produced SMP had the highest average price per pound of protein

of any of the milk protein products at $2.82 per pound (table 5-3), and is considerably higher

than imported MPC, casein, or caseinate.

Comparison of Prices of Imported Milk Protein Products

Representatives of U.S. milk producers have alleged that the EU is a price leader in the

world market for MPC because of the subsidies EU producers receive.14 Hence, producers

in Australia and New Zealand are compelled to lower their prices in order to compete in the
 15 Dr. Peter Vitaliano and Mr. Jaime Castaneda, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11,

2003, transcript pp. 61-62.

5-6

U.S. market.15 Imports of MPC from the EU, Australia, and New Zealand compete primarily

in the 40-49 and 80-89 percent protein ranges. Table 5-4 presents an index of average unit

values (AUVs) for U.S. imports by protein concentration where all AUVs are indexed

relative to the AUV of MPC 40-49 from the EU in 1998. To protect confidential business

information (CBI), the index for Australia and New Zealand is presented as a combined

index (Oceania) of their trade-weighted AUVs.

Table 5-4

Milk protein concentrate: Index of average unit values of U.S. imports by type and major source,

1998-2002

Description 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Average unit value (index) –––––––––––––––––

40-49 percent protein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 99 110 124 101

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 91 101 119 111

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 120 135 138 93

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 101 111 125 98

50-59 percent protein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 151 (1

) (1) 160

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 140 138 159 141

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 140 138 159 147

60-69 percent protein:

European Union .................... (1

) (1) 179 185 183

Oceania .......................... (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1) 179 185 183

70-79 percent protein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 225 167 307 291

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 175 177 188 175

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 177 177 189 177

80-89 percent protein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 236 262 292 303

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 262 263 260 229

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 251 285 271 269

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 245 264 271 251

90 percent or more protein:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 215 220 243 218

Oceania .......................... (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 215 220 243 218

Total all protein concentrations:

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 135 131 182 159

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 168 178 197 190

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 128 150 150 98

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 149 156 192 173 1

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 16 The PSE is often expressed as a ratio between the value of direct government assistance and

the value of total gross farm receipts. The producer NPC is a ratio of domestic prices to world

prices and indicates the degree to which domestic producers are insulated from world competition.

The producer NAC is a measure of the percentage of farm income that is derived from government

assistance as opposed to market returns.

5-7

The AUV of MPC 40-49 from the EU was lower than the AUV of imports from Oceania

only in 1998 and 2002. From 1999 to 2001, the AUVs of imports from Oceania were

between 5 percentage points and 9 percentage points below the AUV of imports from the

EU. The AUV of U.S. imports of MPC 80-89 from the EU was lower than the AUV of

imports from Oceania for the 1998-2000 period (table 5-4). However, the difference between

the EU and Oceania AUVs declined in each year from 34 percentage points in 1998 to

26 percentage points in 1999 and to 1 percentage point in 2000. In 2001 and 2002, U.S.

imports of MPC 80-89 from Oceania were 32 percentage points and 74 percentage points,

respectively, less costly than imports from the EU.

For other protein concentrations, responses from Commission questionnaires indicated that

the level of competition between the EU and Oceania was not as significant. However, where

head-to-head comparisons exist, such as for MPC 50-59 and MPC 70-79, the AUV of

imports from the EU was greater than the AUV of imports from Oceania in seven of the

eight comparisons, often by a large margin. Overall, the AUV of U.S. imports from Oceania,

particularly in 2001 and 2002, were lower than imports from the EU across all protein

ranges. Thus, the Commission’s questionnaire price data indicate that if price leadership

exists in the U.S. MPC market, it is exercised by the Oceania countries.

Government Programs

Overall Levels of Support

OECD indicators of the degree of government intervention in the dairy sector show that

dairy producers in the United States and the EU receive a much higher share of their income

from government support than producers in Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, much

of this support is in the form of price supports, production and export assistance, and

restrictions on imports. The OECD measures the degree of government support in a manner

that allows for cross-country comparisons (table 5-5). The OECD calculates three dairy

industry-specific measures of support; the producer support estimate (PSE), the producer

nominal protection coefficient (NPC), and the producer nominal assistance coefficient

(NAC).16 Additionally, the OECD calculates the general services support estimate (GSSE):

a measure of general services, such as publically funded research, inspection services, and

marketing and promotion, provided to a country’s agriculture industry. The GSSE is not

specific to the dairy industry.

New Zealand has the lowest percentage of dairy farm receipts from government support

policies at less than 1 percent during the period (table 5-5). Producer NPCs and NACs for

all years are either equal or close to one, reflecting the lack of government programs to

support of the dairy sector. During 1998-2002, between 56 and 71 percent of total

government expenditures for agriculture were paid under general services support.
5-8

Table 5-5

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, international comparison of support

to the dairy sector, by country, 1998-2002

Country Indicator 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––

Australia .......... PSE1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 15.0 13.0 13.0 15.0

GSSE2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 32.0 35.0 39.0 41.0

–––––––––––––––––––––Ratio––––––––––––––––––––

Producer NPC3 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Producer NAC4 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2

–––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand ....... PSE1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6

GSSE2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.0 56.0 57.0 72.0 51.0

–––––––––––––––––––––Ratio––––––––––––––––––––

Producer NPC3 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Producer NAC4 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

–––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––

European Union .... PSE1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.4 51.5 42.1 41.3 48.1

GSSE2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0

–––––––––––––––––––––Ratio––––––––––––––––––––

Producer NPC3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.9

Producer NAC4 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.9

–––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––

United States ....... PSE1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3 56.4 44.3 52.8 45.6

GSSE2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 29.0

–––––––––––––––––––––Ratio––––––––––––––––––––

Producer NPC3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.7

Producer NAC4 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.8 1

 The Producer Support Estimate (PSE) incorporates market price supports and direct payments based on

production, size, input, or farm income. 2

 The General Services Support Estimate (GSSE) is the share of total government support provided 

across agriculture sectors in the form of general services, such as publicly funded research and development, 

agricultural schools, inspection services, and marketing and promotion. 3

 The Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) measures the ratio between the average price received at

the farmgate and the world price. 4

 The Producer Nominal Assistance Coefficient (NAC) measures the ratio between total farm income, including

support, and production valued at world prices without support. When the NAC is equal to one, gross farm receipts

are derived entirely from the market without support.

Source: OECD, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries Monitoring and Evaluation, 2003.
 17 Imports of other primary suppliers, primarily New Zealand and Australia, increased steadily

throughout the period without sharp increases or decreases between years.

 18 Commission staff fieldwork confirmed that most EU MPC exports during 1998-2000

consisted of MPC 42 produced by dry blending. European Dairy Association, selected members of

casein industry committee, interviews by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

5-9

The PSE for the Australian dairy sector fell from 22 percent in 1998 to 15 percent in 2002,

owing mainly to deregulation in 2000 (table 5-5). Milk price supports were completely

eliminated, as indicated by a producer NPC of 1.0 in 2001 and 2002. Gross dairy farm

receipts were almost entirely derived from the market as shown by the producer NAC of just

above one throughout the period. 

Compared with New Zealand and Australia, the dairy sectors in the EU and the United States

receive a much larger share of their income as a result of government policies. The PSE for

the EU ranged between 41 to 57 percent during 1998-2002, indicating that almost one-half

of dairy farm income came from government support over this period (table 5-5). Close to

90 percent of the transfers was in the form of market price support. In addition, prices

received by producers and overall farm receipts throughout the period were almost double

what they would have been absent government support. 

Generally the PSE for the United States was the highest of all four regions during

1998-2002, ranging from 44 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 1998 (table 5-5). Close to

90 percent of the transfers received by dairy producers as a result of government policies was

in the form of market price support. This is reflected in the producer NPCs and NACs,

indicating that for most of the period overall receipts were approximately double what they

would have been without government policies. 

Impact of Government Dairy Policies on U.S. Imports of Milk

Protein Concentrate

As discussed in chapter 3, total U.S. imports of MPC (HTS 0404.90.10) increased between

1998-2000, dropped significantly in 2001, and then rebounded somewhat in 2002. U.S.

imports of MPC from the EU played an important role in the volatility of total U.S. MPC

imports during this period.17

Monthly U.S. imports of MPC from the EU increased from less than 500 metric tons (mt)

in early 1998 to more than 3,000 mt in May 2000 (figure 5-1). After peaking in May 2000,

imports fell abruptly to less than 100 mt in April 2001, and then recovered to more than

1,200 mt in October 2002. Data compiled from Commission importers’ questionnaires (see

chapter 6) indicate that U.S. imports of MPC from the EU, especially during 1998-2000,

consisted mostly of low-protein MPC (40-49 percent protein), particularly MPC 42.18 The

increase in imports of MPC 40-49 from the EU during 1998-2000 accounted for almost

one-half of the total change in U.S. MPC imports over this period. However, between 2000

and 2002, imports of MPC 40-49 from the EU dropped from 85 to 68 percent of total U.S.
5-10

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

Jan-98 Jul-98 Jan-99 Jul-99 Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Ju

Metric tons

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce and Commission estimates.

Monthly U.S. Imports of Ch4 MPC from the EU (left axis) Net potential revenue per metric ton of MPC 42 (ri

Figure 5-1U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate from the European Union and net potential revwith government policies, 1998-2002
 19 From Feburary 1998 to August 1999, EU intervention stocks increased from 129,700 mt to

273,500 mt; only decreasing by 3,700 mt between September 1999 and February 2000. See

chapter 4 for additional discussion of the EU SMP intervention system.

 20 For the purposes of this report, the values estimated for this analysis will be referred to as

potential revenue. However, the use of “revenue” is not meant to imply that only the producer or

exporter benefits from trade. In reality, this value represents the total potential economic rents

created by the interaction of U.S. and EU policies, which can only be accessed through trade of

milk protein concentrate. These total rents are divided among the EU processor/exporter and the

U.S. user/importer based on negotiated prices. Data were not available in sufficient detail to

estimate how total rents were divided between the EU processor/exporter and the U.S.

user/importer.

5-11

imports of MPC from the EU (tables 6-1 and 6-2). While total U.S. MPC imports dropped

by 8,562 mt between 2000 and 2002, imports of MPC 40-49 percent from the EU dropped

by 11,137 mt (table 6-2).

MPC 42 from the EU is generally produced as a blend of casein and SMP. Thus, it is likely

that EU dairy policies effecting SMP and casein contributed to this trend in U.S. imports.

These policies included government purchases of SMP, export refunds for SMP, and

production aid for casein production (see chapter 4 for a description of these programs).

These programs, combined with the impact of the U.S. Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP)

for SMP, which maintained a U.S. price for SMP higher than the world market price for most

of 1998-2002, created incentives that encouraged U.S. imports of low-protein MPC from the

EU.

Impact of EU and U.S. dairy policies on U.S. imports of milk protein

concentrate from the EU

According to Commission fieldwork and interviews with EU industry officials, EU and U.S.

dairy policies created the potential for EU milk protein processors to increase revenues, and

for U.S. milk protein users to reduce costs, by trading in MPC. Typically, an EU milk protein

processor with excess SMP had two marketing options. One option was to sell SMP into EU

intervention stocks, an option available only from April 1 to August 31 of each year.19 A

second option was to export the product at the world market price. However, during 1998-

2002, the interaction of EU and U.S. dairy policies and world market conditions resulted in

a third option, to blend the SMP with casein to produce MPC 42 and export this product to

the United States. This option offered EU processors three major advantages over selling

SMP into intervention stocks or onto the world market: (1) SMP used in the production of

MPC was eligible for an EU SMP export refund; (2) casein used in the production of MPC

was eligible for EU casein production aid; and, (3) the U.S. price of SMP was well above the

world price for significant periods during 1998-2002. Thus, these three factors combined to

provide U.S. end-users with incentive to seek lower cost milk protein inputs from the EU,

and EU processors with an incentive to export MPC 42 to the U.S. market, rather than sell

SMP into EU intervention stocks or export to the world market.

Calculations in table 5-6 provide information on the potential revenues created by selling

MPC 42 to the U.S. market as compared to selling SMP on the world market.20 The potential

gross revenue from EU sales of MPC 42 in the United States (column e) was estimated as
5-12

Table 5-6

European Union: Variables used to calculate net potential revenue from government policies,

1998-2002

Year/quarter

U.S. SMP

support

price1

90 %

 of EU

export

refund

10 % of 

EU casein

production

aid

Shipping

and

import

costs

Gross 

potential

 revenue

World2

price

Net

potential

revenue

a b c d e = a + b + c - d f g = e - f

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––U.S. dollars per metric ton –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

1998:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,296 665 212 144 3,029 1,457 1,572

II . . . . . . . . . . . 2,296 677 212 136 3,050 1,433 1,617

III . . . . . . . . . . . 2,296 752 212 82 3,178 1,340 1,838

IV . . . . . . . . . . 2,296 878 212 116 3,270 1,242 2,028

1999:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 873 227 115 3,213 1,257 1,956

II . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 856 234 100 3,218 1,222 1,996

III . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 850 234 102 3,209 1,275 1,934

IV 2,227 805 229 126 3,135 1,400 1,735

2000:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 683 218 123 3,005 1,463 1,542

II . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 540 218 104 2,881 1,653 1,228

III . . . . . . . . . . . 2,227 375 196 110 2,688 2,067 621

IV 2,227 127 176 116 2,414 2,100 314

2001:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,217 124 167 104 2,404 2,083 321

II . . . . . . . . . . . 2,136 86 150 157 2,214 2,033 181

III . . . . . . . . . . . 1,984 5 129 67 2,051 2,023 27

IV 1,984 56 122 94 2,069 1,707 362

2002:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,984 269 109 110 2,252 1,400 852

II . . . . . . . . . . . 1,984 534 109 154 2,472 1,200 1,272

III . . . . . . . . . . . 1,984 739 176 138 2,761 1,200 1,561

IV 1,837 622 199 120 2,538 1,400 1,138

1

 According to discussions with EU industry officials, the price of MPC 42 is largely based on the U.S. skim milk

powder (SMP) price; Source: European Dairy Association, selected members of the casein industry committee,

interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003. Furthermore, the U.S. SMP support price acts as a floor

on the U.S. SMP price. Therefore, to incorporate the impact of tilt changes into this analysis, the U.S. SMP support

price was used as a proxy for the milk protein concentrate 42 price. 2

 Western European export price.

Sources: U.S. Department Agriculture; European Commission; U.S. Department of Commerce; Commission

estimates.
 21 According to discussions with EU industry officials, the price of MPC 42 is largely based on

the U.S. SMP price. Furthermore, the U.S. SMP support price acts as a floor on the U.S. SMP

market price. Therefore, to incorporate the impact of butter/powder tilt changes into this analysis,

the U.S. SMP support price was used as the proxy for the MPC 42 price. European Dairy

Association, selected members of the casein industry committee, interview by USITC staff,

Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

 22 According to industry officials, MPC 42 exported to the United States was generally a blend

of about 10 percent casein and 90 percent SMP. European Dairy Association, selected members of

the casein industry committee, interviews by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003; Dr.

Peter Vitaliano, National Milk Producers Federation, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript pp. 28-29.

 23 Although this example implies that the EU processor receives the full amount of these

potential revenues, the actual distribution of these potential revenues between the EU processors

and U.S. importers would be based on negotiated prices and market conditions for substitute

products.

 24 Data on net potential revenue in figure 5-1 is presented as the three-month moving average of

monthly net potential revenue.

5-13

the U.S. price of MPC 42 (proxied by the U.S. SMP support price (column a)),21 plus

90 percent of the export refund on SMP (column b),22 plus 10 percent of the casein

production aid (column c), less the estimated transportation cost of shipping product from

the EU to the United States (column d). The difference between the estimated potential gross

revenue from MPC 42 sales to the United States (column e) and the world price of SMP

(column f) represents the net potential revenue (column g) available to be divided between

end-users and processors. This difference represents the combined value generated by U.S.

and EU dairy policies for MPC 42 relative to the price of SMP on the world market.23

Relationship between U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate and EU

policies, 1998-2002

The relationship between U.S. imports of MPC from the EU and the net potential revenue

that stimulated U.S. end-users to demand and EU processors to supply MPC 42 to the United

States is illustrated in figure 5-1.24 During 1998, net potential revenue increased from

$1,579 per mt in January to $2,123 per mt in October, driven by an increase in the export

refund rate and a decrease in the world price of SMP, while the U.S. support price of SMP

remained unchanged. The net potential revenue exceeded $1,700 per mt from July 1998 to

August 1999, began to trend downward in the second half of 1999, and dropped below

$1,000 per mt by July 2000. From January 1998 to May 2000, while the net potential

revenue exceeded $1,240 per mt, monthly imports of MPC 42 from the EU increased from

498 mt to a peak of 3,240 mt. Once the net potential revenue dropped below $1,000 per mt

in June 2000, monthly imports fell to 371 mt by December 2000, reaching a low of 38 mt

in April 2001. When export refunds dropped below $100 per mt in June 2001, the net

potential revenue also dropped below $100 per mt. Export refunds increased, from zero in

October 2001 to $834 per mt in September 2002. During this period, however, the effect of

the increased export refunds and decreased world price were moderated by the reduction in

U.S. support price. Nonetheless, the net potential revenue and MPC 42 imports from the EU

trended upward, but to a lesser degree than in 1998-2000.
 25 The accounting year for World Trade Organization commitments is from July 1 to June 30.

 26 ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 27 EU Commission officials, Agriculture Directorate, Dairy Division, interview by USITC staff,

Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 28 Commission Regulation (EC) No 238/2000, Official Journal of the European Union, L24/45

(Jan.28, 2000).

5-14

The analysis in figure 5-1 is supported by statistical evidence from a monthly 1997-2003

vector autoregression model (VAR) analysis of these two variables. The net potential

revenue and MPC imports form a VAR model which generates strong statistical evidence

that since mid-1997, changes in net potential revenue have indeed driven U.S. MPC imports

from the EU. This statistically significant relationship is lagged, where an increase in net

potential revenue takes up to three months before appreciable increases in MPC imports

register. A more detailed presentation of this analysis can be found in appendix H.

Contribution of EU skim milk powder export refunds

During 1998-2002, a key factor in determining the trend in the net potential revenue from

MPC 42 was the level of EU SMP export refunds. As part of the implementation period of

the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, the EU was allowed to

carry-over unused export refund commitments from one year to the next for use without

penalty. This export refund carry-over provision expired at the end of June 2000.25 Until

June 2000, the WTO limitations on export refunds did not constrain EU SMP exports, even

though the maximum annual quantity fell from 335,000 mt in 1995/96 to 272,500 mt in

2000/01. In fact, unused export refund allocations were carried-over and accumulated, such

that by 1999/2000, the EU had accumulated unused current and carried-over export refund

commitments of 642,310 mt of SMP.

At the same time, EU purchases of SMP into intervention stocks increased and by August

1999 intervention stocks were more than 273,000 mt.26 As a result of accumulating SMP

intervention stocks, and the pending expiration of export refund carry-overs, the EU

Commission significantly increased export refund rates to reduce intervention stocks.27 As

shown in table 5-6, from the first quarter of 1998 to the first quarter of 1999, the contribution

of EU export refunds to net potential revenue from MPC 42 rose from $665 per mt to

$873 per mt, and by June 2000 SMP intervention stocks had dropped to less than 68,000 mt.

Coinciding with the decline in intervention stocks, the export refund for MPC 42 fell to

$127 per mt in the fourth quarter of 2000. The drop in the value of export refunds during

2000 also coincided with a decline in U.S. imports of MPC from the EU, which declined

from more than 3,000 mt in May 2000 to less than 500 mt by the end of 2000.

In addition to changes in the level of export refund, after May 2000, EU exporters of MPC

to the United States were affected by a system of reduction coefficients applied to exports

of milk protein products.28 As noted in chapter 4, if export license applications in a given

period exceed the quantity or value that the EU Commission planned to allocate, a

coefficient (based on the ratio of total export refund applications to total export refunds

provided) was applied to all applications, such that only some portion of each application

was awarded. As a result, exporters did not know the actual amount of refund that would be

received. According to EU industry officials, this uncertainty made applications for export
 29 Export licenses subject to export refunds must be executed within 4 months of being awarded

or the license and the deposit on the license are forfeited. This time is insufficient for companies to

negotiate and execute supply contracts for many of these products.

 30 EU Commission officials, Agriculture Directorate, Dairy Division, interview by USITC staff,

Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 31 The contribution to the net potential revenue on MPC 42 was calculated as 10 percent of the

euro-value of the Annex II acid casein subsidy rate per mt of casein, multiplied by the exchange

rate.

 32 The U.S. Market (West) and the Northern Europe low FOB, respectively, as reported by

USDA.

5-15

refunds unattractive for many EU dairy exporters since such contracts required export

refunds to be competitive.29

Contribution of EU casein production aid

Changes in the production aid rate for casein during 1998-2002 also influenced the net

potential revenue from MPC 42. Casein production aid is adjusted according to market

conditions to maintain a balance between casein and SMP production.30 The contribution of

the casein production aid to the net potential revenue began in 1998 at $212 per mt of MPC

42 and increased to $234 per mt of MPC 42 during the second and third quarters of 1999

(table 5-6).31 After this peak, the contribution of casein production aid to the net potential

revenue decreased to $109 per mt in the first half of 2002, but again increased to $199 per

mt by the fourth quarter of 2002.

Contribution of U.S. Dairy Price Support Program

U.S. dairy policies also contributed to the incentives for EU processors to manufacture and

sell MPC 42 to the U.S. market. The U.S. SMP price, supported by the DPSP, exceeded the

world price by more than $700 per mt from January 1998 to April 2000, and by more than

$500 per mt from December 2001 to November 2002.32 When the U.S. SMP support price

is above the world price, its impact on the net potential revenue from MPC 42 is magnified.

This is because as the world price falls, the level of EU export refunds increase (thereby

increasing the net potential revenue on MPC 42), while the world price decline also directly

increases the net potential revenue. Consequently, when the U.S. support price is above

world prices, every unit decrease in the world price causes more than a unit increase in the

net potential revenue. The January 1999 butter-powder support price adjustment, or tilt,

helped drop the net potential revenue from MPC 42 below $2,000 per mt. Net potential

revenue, however, quickly recovered to more than $2,000 per mt as world prices continued

to decrease and the EU continued to increase export refund rates. By the time the next tilt

took place in May 2001, the net potential revenue from sales of MPC 42 had already dropped

to less than $300 per mt as world prices increased and export refunds decreased.
 33 U.S. Department of Commerce.

 34 European Dairy Association, selected members of casein industry committee, interview by

USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003; Irish Dairy Industry Association, selected

members, interview by USITC staff, Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003.

 35 Ibid.

 36 Ibid.; Irish Dairy Industry Association, selected members, interview by USITC staff, Dublin,

Ireland, Oct. 10, 2003; EU Commission officials, Directorate General for Agriculture, Dairy

Division, interview by USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

 37 Ibid.; EU Commission officials, Agriculture Directorate, Dairy Division, interview by USITC

staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2003.

5-16

Developments in U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate from the EU after

2001

Responses to Commission importers’ questionnaires indicated that U.S. imports of

MPC 40-49 from the EU fell from 17,820 mt in 2000 to 3,588 mt in 2001 (table 6-5).

However, from 2001 to 2002, U.S. imports of MPC 40-49 from the EU grew from 3,588 mt

to 6,683 mt. Review of U.S. MPC import data (HTS 0404.90.10) for the EU revealed that

there was a change in the source of these imports by EU member states. During 1998-2002,

Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Denmark accounted for 95 percent of these

imports. However, when U.S. MPC imports from the EU rose in 2002, Germany

significantly increased its import share.

Further information on the nature of MPC imports from the EU by source is provided

through AUV data. The AUV of U.S. MPC imports from all major EU member states

trended downward from 1998 to 2000, then increased in 2001. In 2002, however, AUVs for

individual member states diverged. AUVs for MPC from Ireland, the Netherlands, and

Denmark increased, while AUVs of German imports decreased.33

Several factors suggest that German milk protein processors and traders continued to react

to incentives to export MPC 42 by blending casein and SMP, in contrast to other EU

processors. Based on interviews by Commission staff, primary processors from Ireland and

the Netherlands indicated that they exited the market for low-protein MPC in 2001, and were

focusing on exports of high-protein products that did not depend on export refunds to be

competitive.34 However, the German industry has close ties to the milk protein industries in

Central and Eastern Europe, which provide German processors access to low cost supplies

of casein and SMP. Additionally, with a large domestic population relative to milk supply,

the German industry has more incentive to focus on research and development on domestic

consumer products, rather than high-protein products for export.35 Thus, it is likely that

German processors and traders continued to focus on MPC 42.

Impact of Common Agricultural Policy reform and EU expansion

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and EU expansion will likely limit the

ability of EU policies to provide incentives for exports of MPC 42 to the United States in the

future.36 CAP reform phases in a reduction of 15 percent in the SMP intervention price over

3 years beginning in 2004. Because intervention prices are considered when setting export

refunds and casein production aids, export subsidies and casein production aids are also

expected to decrease.37 Furthermore, the EU currently imports significant quantities of milk
 38 ZMP, Dairy Review 2003.

 39 Ibid.

 40 Mr. Paul C. Rosenthal, U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients, testimony before the

USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 230; Mr. Michael A. Reinke, Kraft Foods, testimony before

the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 237.

 41 USDA, Cooperative Service Program, “The Feasibility of Producing Casein in the United

States,” technical assistance report to NMPF (Oct. 1999).

 42 The analysis used $0.80 per pound as the support price for SMP and the Class IV skim price

of $5.98 per cwt was used as the raw milk cost. 

 43 As mentioned in chapter 4, this facility is the only one currently producing MPC on a large

scale in the United States.

 44 U.S. and foreign industry officials, interviews by USITC staff.

5-17

protein from Eastern and Central Europe that will become EU members in 2004.38 The

accession agreements set production quotas that should result in reduced milk production in

these countries, likely reducing the quantities of protein available for export to third

countries.39

U.S. Dairy Programs and Feasibility of Milk Protein Product

Production in the United States

Under the DPSP, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is required to accept any SMP

delivered to it by processors at a support price established by the USDA (see chapter 3 for

more detail on the DPSP). Therefore, the program provides SMP producers with a

guaranteed customer at a risk-free price. Users of milk protein products assert that the DPSP

creates a disincentive for U.S. dairy producers to produce MPC, casein, and casinate.40

Potential producers of these products would need to invest in the production facilities and

then market their product without the benefit of the DPSP. Additionally, it is possible for the

support price to be higher than the market price for casein or MPC, which further

discourages production. Recently, the USDA conducted a review of the feasibility of casein

production in the United States at the request of the National Milk Producers Federation

(NMPF).41 However, aside from this study, there are no analyses of the impact of the DPSP

on the economic viability of producing casein and MPC in the United States. The following

section provides analysis of the feasibility of producing MPC and casein in the United States.

Milk protein concentrate production

An analysis of the feasibility of domestic MPC production, given the existence of the DPSP,

is provided below. The approach was to estimate the processing costs and returns from

producing several different protein concentrations of MPC from 100 pounds of raw milk.

These returns were then compared to the return from producing SMP from 100 pounds of

raw milk with returns based on sales at the support price.42

To obtain estimates of both variable and fixed costs associated with a commercial MPC

production facility, the Commission surveyed many WPC producers throughout the United

States, as well as the Dairiconcepts facility in Portales, NM.43 WPC production costs were

used as proxies for MPC production because the ultrafiltration process and equipment

employed in each is virtually identical.44 These processes utilize the same filtration
 45 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Jan. 2004.

 46 For example, some protein can be lost in the permeate during the filtration process, which

would reduce the yield.

 47 The location of the facility impacts utility costs and the permeate and waste water disposal

costs associated with the UF process. 

 48 Mr. Richard Cotta, California Dairies, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript

p. 141.

5-18

equipment and similar evaporation and drying equipment. Cost estimates were obtained for

the filtration process, the drying process, the disposal of the permeate, labor, and utilities.

Return on skim milk powder production

On average, processors can extract approximately 9 pounds of SMP from 100 pounds of

skim milk (table 5-7). The costs associated with the drying of SMP vary between processors,

but were estimated at approximately $0.14 per pound.45 Therefore, the costs associated with

producing 9 pounds of SMP from 100 pounds of skim milk are approximately $1.22. The

support price for SMP in 2003 was $0.80 per pound, which equates to revenue of $7.20 for

9 pounds of SMP. Therefore, after accounting for the raw milk and other variable costs, the

return on producing SMP from 100 pounds of skim milk is approximately $0.01 (table 5-7).

Return on milk protein concentrate production

The return on SMP was compared with the returns on producing MPC 42, MPC 70, and

MPC 80 from 100 pounds of skim milk. The amount of MPC produced from 100 pounds of

skim milk can vary based on the protein content of the milk and the efficiency of the

filtration process.46 Therefore, costs and returns were calculated for both low- and high-yield

estimates of the pounds of product from 100 pounds of milk (table 5-7). Also, for each

protein concentration of MPC, a low and high estimate for variable costs were analyzed,

because costs vary according to the size of the operation and the geographic location of the

facility (table 5-7).47

The price for each MPC concentration was estimated as the average unit value for U.S.

imports of MPC 42, MPC 70, and MPC 80 in 2002, as reported in Commission purchasers’

questionnaires. Based on these estimates, dairy processors could realize a higher return

selling SMP at the 2003 support price than producing and selling MPC 42 at the average

market price (table 5-7). Production of MPC 42 resulted in losses ranging from

$0.29-$0.80 per 100 pounds of skim milk (table 5-7). This analysis conforms to the results

from trial runs of MPC 42 production by U.S. dairy processors.48

For MPC 70 and MPC 80, the opportunity cost associated with producing SMP instead of

MPC depends on the actual variable costs (table 5-7). Under the most advantageous

conditions (i.e., high-yield and low variable costs), producers of MPC 70 could realize

$0.18 more from 100 pounds of skim milk than from producing SMP, whereas for processors

of MPC 80, the return would be $0.29 greater. However, under less advantageous conditions

(i.e., low-yield and high variable cost), processors would be worse off producing MPC 70

or MPC 80.
5-19

Table 5-7Milk protein products: Estimated return on the production of MPC 42, MPC 70, and MPC 80 versus the return on skim milk powder atthe support price from 100 pounds of skim milk1

MPC 42 MPC 70 MPC 80 

Skim milk High yield Low yield High yield Low yield High yield Low yield

Production factors powder low cost high cost low cost high cost low cost high costRaw milk quantity (pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Raw milk price (dollars per pound)2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

Raw milk cost (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98Yield (lbs. protein product from 100 lbs. skim milk) ........... 9.0 7.3 7.1 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.8

Variable cost (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.40Total variable cost (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1.39 1.70 1.31 1.46 1.40 1.52Milk cost plus variable cost (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.20 7.37 7.68 7.29 7.44 7.38 7.50Price (dollars per pound) ............................... 0.80 0.97 0.97 1.66 1.66 1.92 1.92

Revenue from processing(dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.20 7.08 6.89 7.47 7.14 7.68 7.30Profit from processing (dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 -0.29 -0.80 0.19 -0.30 0.30 -0.20Opportunity cost versus SMP (dollars) .................... (3) -0.30 -0.81 0.18 -0.31 0.29 -0.21

1 Costs and returns presented in this table are rounded to 2 decimal places.2 Average 2003 class IV price skim.3 Not applicable.

Source: Commission estimates.
 49 Commission staff fieldwork, Plover, WI, Aug. 21, 2003, and the Magic Valley region, ID,

Oct. 7-10, 2003.

 50 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Aug. 21, 2003; USITC fieldwork, Dexter,

NM, Oct. 7-10, 2003; Mr. Richard Cotta, California Dairies, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11,

2003, transcript p. 182.

 51 Calculated on a straight-line basis assuming costs of $40 million and $108 million,

depreciated over 15 years at a plant producing 16,000 mt of MPC per year.

 52 U.S. industry officials, interview by USITC staff, Aug. and Oct. 2003.

 53 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Aug. 2003. 

 54 Ibid, Oct. 2003. 

5-20

Impact of capital costs on milk protein concentrate production

The potential returns estimated above, however, do not include fixed (or capital) costs

associated with the production of MPC. Capital costs vary depending upon the existing

capital infrastructure of the dairy processor. Capital costs associated with the filtration

equipment are estimated at between $1.5 and $2 million.49 However, the production process

also requires an appropriately sized evaporator and dryer, bagging and packaging equipment,

and a building. The evaporation and drying equipment necessary for the production of MPC,

particularly a high-protein MPC, differs from the equipment used in the production of SMP.

A greenfield MPC facility is estimated to cost between $40 million and $108 million.50

Using these estimates for fixed costs, the depreciation expense on these two estimates, on

a per pound basis, are $0.08 and $0.20, respectively.51 Under the most advantageous

situations (lower variable costs and higher yields), processors could still realize a better

return producing MPC 80 than producing SMP. However, these capital costs would be

sufficient to make the return on producing SMP higher than the return on producing MPC

70 or MPC 80 under the less advantageous conditions. These capital costs pose a significant

hurdle for U.S. dairy processors. Conversion of an existing WPC facility would ameliorate

some of these capital costs. However, the evaporation and drying equipment used in the

production of WPC differ from the optimal mix of equipment in the production of MPC, and

therefore some additional capital costs would be necessary.52

Moreover, conversion of an existing WPC facility to the production of MPC would be

economical only under conditions where excess WPC capacity existed or when the return

on producing MPC is superior to the combined return on cheese and WPC. WPC facilities

are generally built in conjunction with cheese plants in order to maximize the return on the

total facility.53 However, conversion of a WPC plant to produce MPC would necessarily

result in idling the cheese production facility. The WPC production process is

complementary to the cheese production process, by processing the whey by-product. In

contrast, the production of MPC requires both the casein and whey proteins and therefore

is not complementary to the simultaneous production of cheese. A cheese facility that wanted

the option of producing both cheese/WPC and MPC would likely require two separate

filtration systems, one for WPC and one for MPC, because of sanitary concerns associated

with switching between whey and skim milk.54

It is likely that U.S. dairy processors would face costs closer to the higher end of the range

than the lower end of the range. The Dairiconcepts facility in Portales, NM, benefitted from

a unique set of circumstances that limited additional capital costs. The involvement of

Fonterra also brings experience in operating the ultrafiltration technology and in marketing

MPC. Even with these advantages, purchasers of MPC from the Dairiconcepts facility still
 55 Certain purchasers are willing to pay a premium for MPC produced at the Dairiconcepts

facility to ensure some U.S. production. Industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 2003;

Mr. John Wilson, Dairy Farmers of America, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript p. 219.

 56 In contrast, the U.S. market for SMP was 700 million pounds, or approximately 318,800 mt

in 2002.

5-21

pay a premium over the price of imported MPC to provide the facility with a return that is

equivalent to the return on SMP.55

Risk premium

The DPSP offers manufacturers of SMP both a guaranteed price floor and guaranteed

customer (the CCC) for their product. No such guarantees exist for MPC, and processors

contemplating a switch from SMP to MPC would be forced to assume significant additional

financial risk. Therefore, even if prevailing market conditions offer a superior return from

producing MPC, U.S. processors could require additional revenue, or a risk premium, as

compensation for the additional risk associated with marketing MPC versus SMP.

Market demand for U.S.-produced milk protein concentrate

Potential U.S. producers of MPC would have to overcome the relatively small size of the

MPC market in the United States. Based on responses to Commission questionnaires, total

imports of all protein concentrations of MPC in 2002 were 41,254 mt (table 6-1). As a result

of very limited U.S. production until 2003, imports represented virtually the entire U.S.

market for MPC in 2002. This is a relatively small market when compared with other milk

protein products.56 Any new entrant supplying MPC domestically would face significant

competition from two sources. First, foreign producers that have been supplying imports to

the U.S. market have a significant advantage in that they have well-established relationships

with all MPC users and have been able to demonstrate the quality and consistency of their

product. Second, the Dairiconcepts facility has a reported production capacity of

approximately 16,000 mt, which is equivalent to about 40 percent of 2002 imports.

Therefore, the U.S. market for MPC will have to grow by about 40 percent just to absorb the

additional capacity of the Dairiconcencepts facility, assuming import levels remain

unchanged.

Additional U.S. MPC production could cause downward price pressure that could make

MPC production unprofitable at all protein levels. For example, the analysis of costs and

returns demonstrates that a $0.05 decline in the average MPC 70 and MPC 80 prices reduces

the return on variable costs (even under the most advantageous conditions) to a point where

any significant capital costs would make MPC production unprofitable relative to SMP

production (table 5-7).

A key reason why the U.S. market for MPC is currently relatively small in comparison to

those for other milk protein products is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

standards of identity. These regulations limit the use of MPC in the United States. Revisions

to the FDA standards of identity to allow for the more widespread use of MPC in dairy

products could create significant new demand for MPC. Without regulatory changes that

would permit the increased use of MPC, and therefore increased demand, U.S. producers
 57 It is the general policy of the USDA cooperating agencies that technical assistance reports are

confidential and not made available to the public. In this case NMPF provided a copy of this report

to the Commission.

 58 The production cost estimate includes variable costs and the capital costs associated with the

facility and equipment, but not the land. The plant was assumed to produce 14,784,000 pounds of

casein annually and all capital costs were depreciated over 10 years. 

5-22

would only be able to enter the MPC market by takings sales from imported MPC. However,

it is unlikely that U.S. dairy processors, under current market conditions, could produce and

market MPC at prices lower than those for imported MPC.

Feasibility of casein production

At the request of the NMPF, the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Services Program and

the Agricultural Research Service performed a technical analysis on the feasibility of

producing casein versus SMP in the United States, in a report completed in October 1999.57

The USDA estimated the production costs, including some capital costs, for acid casein at

approximately $0.20 per pound.58 Unlike the production process for MPC, casein production

does not capture all the protein found in milk. In a manner similar to cheese production,

casein production results in the generation of a whey protein by-product or whey stream.

Therefore, a comparison of the return on producing SMP versus producing casein must also

account for the value of the whey stream. Table 5-8 presents analysis of the cost and returns

associated with producing SMP versus casein and whey from 100 pounds of skim milk.

Table 5-8

Milk protein products: Estimated return on the production of casein and whey versus the return 

on skim milk powder at the current support price from 100 pounds of skim milk

Production factors

Skim milk

powder Acid casein Whey

Casein/

whey total

––––––––––––––––––Pounds–––––––––––––––––––

Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.00 2.80 6.00 (1

)

––––––––––––Dollars per pound–––––––––––––––––

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.80 2.27 0.20 (1

)

Processing costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.20 0.16 (1

)

––––––––––––Dollars per cwt of raw milk–––––––––––

Revenue from processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.20 6.36 1.20 7.56

Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.26 0.56 0.96 1.52

Return from processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.94 5.80 0.24 6.04 1

 Not applicable.

Source: USDA, Rural Business Cooperative Service Program, The Feasibility of Producing Casein in the United

States, technical assistance report (Oct. 1999), updated by the Commission.
 59 The casein and whey prices are average prices as reported in Commission questionnaires and

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service, respectively.

 60 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 28.

 61 Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, posthearing submission, Dec. 23, 2003, p. 12.

 62 Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, posthearing submission, Dec. 23, 2003, p. 28.

 63 Fonterra Annual Report 2001/02 states that $0.15 of each $5.33 per kilogram of milk solids

paid to shareholders was attributable to premiums realized from quota rents.

5-23

Prices of SMP and casein and the production costs for SMP and dry whey have been updated

from 1999 to 2002 levels by the Commission.59 However, the casein production cost estimate

was not updated and reflects production costs for 1999. It is likely that over the intervening

period, the production cost for casein has risen, just as the production costs for SMP and dry

whey have risen. Based on the available data, U.S. producers could expect to realize

approximately $5.94 on the production of SMP from 100 pounds of raw milk versus

approximately $6.04 from the production of casein and whey (table 5-8). Thus, producers

could realize an increased return of approximately $0.10 per cwt of raw milk on the

production of casein. However, as noted above, the casein production cost estimate is

probably low. An increase in the casein production cost estimate from $0.20 to $0.25 would

result in more revenue from the production of SMP than casein and whey. Additionally,

these calculations do not include a risk premium. A risk premium could be required by dairy

processors to cover the additional risk of having to market the casein without the guaranteed

price and customer offered through the DPSP for SMP. Therefore, under current market

conditions it appears unlikely that dairy processors could receive a superior return on

producing casein versus SMP.

Government Assistance in New Zealand

Concerns regarding Fonterra’s ability to use quota rents to cross-subsidize the marketing of

products not subject to quotas were raised by representatives of the U.S. milk producers.60

As noted in chapter 4, licenses held by the New Zealand Dairy Board to export to certain

designated quota markets were transferred to Fonterra in 2001.61 Fonterra’s exclusive license

to export to quota markets could result in the accumulation of quota rents when the price in

the quota market is higher than the world price.

Calculating the value of quota rents is highly complex and cannot be accomplished without

access to company-specific confidential business information. However, Fonterra reports that

approximately 7 percent of its total sales by volume are to quota markets.62 These sales

consist primarily of sales of butter and cheese to Canada, the EU, and the United States.

Sales of these products to these markets provide Fonterra an opportunity to realize returns

from sales that are made at prices higher than the world price. However, the impact of any

potential quota rents is not the total value of sales to the quota market, but rather the

difference in that value and the value of the same products sold at the world price. The

marginal value of these quota rents accounted for slightly less than 3 percent of Fonterra’s

payments to farmers in the 2001/02 marketing year.63
 64 The real exchange rate of a foreign country’s currency (“currency-K”) per U.S. dollar is

equivalent to: (currency-K/U.S. dollar)*(deflUS/deflK). The asterisk is the multiplication operator;

the slanted line is the division operator; and the real rate’s first parenthetical term is the nominal

exchange rate. The real rate’s second parenthetical term is the “relative inflation factor” or the ratio

of the general price indices (more specifically the gross domestic product price deflators) of the

United States (deflUS) and for the foreign country (deflK). The nominal and real exchange rates

would be similar if the foreign country K and the United States have similar inflation patterns,

whereby the relative inflation factor would approach unity.

 65 USDA, FAS, Dairy Production and Trade Developments, found at http://www.fas.usda.gov/-

dlp2/circular/-2000/00-12Dairy/dairyprd.html, retrieved Mar. 23, 2004.

5-24

Production Technology

The production technology for milk protein products such as SMP, MPC, and WPC in all

major producing countries is virtually identical. The production process for SMP is primarily

an evaporation and drying process, the equipment and technology for which are well

established. The filtration technology to produce MPC and WPC is also standardized, and

several equipment producers can provide the necessary technology to any potential producer.

In contrast, the production technology for whey protein isolate (WPI), casein, caseinate, and

blend or co-precipitate MPC is less established and often involves proprietary processes.

Although aspects of the production technology for WPI are considered proprietary by

producers, there is extensive U.S. production of WPI, to the extent that the United States is

considered a world leader in the WPI market. However, the production technology for

certain forms of casein, caseinate, and in particular co-precipitate MPCs, is not widely

available in the United States. This is due primarily to the lack of production of these

products in the United States and therefore there has been limited research and development

in the United States. In particular, the production technology for co-precipitate MPC, while

similar to the production technology for acid casein, is often unique and closely held

proprietary information. 

Exchange Rates

Exchange rates of foreign currency relative to the U.S. dollar can impact the competitiveness

of foreign goods. Exchange rate movements, for the purpose of an analysis of

competitiveness, are usually provided in real terms. The real exchange rate refers to rates of

foreign exchange deflated by relative price changes in the countries for which currency

changes are being compared.64 For example, if the value of a country’s currency weakens in

real terms relative to the U.S. dollar, then the U.S. dollar has a stronger purchasing power

at the new exchange rate, and the real exchange rate rises. Similarly, if the value of a

country’s currency increases in real terms relative to the U.S. dollar, then the U.S. dollar has

less purchasing power at that exchange rate and the real exchange rate falls.

Nearly all international dairy transactions, including those for milk proteins, are denominated

in U.S. dollars.65 This means that when the foreign currency appreciates in real terms and the

real exchange rate falls, the real return from exports, when translated into local currency, also

falls because dollars purchase less in terms of real foreign currencies. Under a system where
 66 During 1998 the average rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and the European

Currency Unit (Ecu) was $1.1224/Ecu. The euro was instituted in Jan. 1999, at an exchange rate of

$1.1812/euro. The average monthly rate for Jan. 1999 was $1.1591/euro, which fell to

$0.8525/euro in Oct. 2000.

5-25

exchange rates and world prices are determinants of domestic dairy prices, this will result

in reduced earnings from dairy product exports, all other things held constant. Similarly,

when the foreign currency depreciates in real terms and the real exchange rate increases, the

real return from exports, when translated into local currency values, also increases, all other

things held constant. 

Table 5-9 provides quarterly real dollar exchange rates relative to the currencies of the

primary milk-protein exporters: New Zealand, Australia, and the EU. Real exchange rate

data were obtained for all three regions from 1999, when the euro was officially instituted,

to the third quarter of 2003.66 The real exchange rate of these currencies per U.S. dollar

declined since the first quarter of 2002, meaning that each U.S. dollar purchased less foreign

currency in real terms. This real exchange rate depreciation of the U.S. dollar is reflected by

a 23 percent decline relative to the Australian dollar, a 27 percent decline relative to the New

Zealand dollar, and a 22 percent decline relative to the euro since early 2002. Before 2002,

real dollar exchange rates exhibited a rising trend. 

Table 5-9

Real quarterly exchange rates in foreign currency per U.S. dollar: Australia, New Zealand, and the

European Union

Quarterly date Australia New Zealand European Union

1998:1 1.478 1.751 (1)

1998:2 1.567 1.897 (1

)

1998:3 1.643 1.991 (1

)

1998:4 1.589 1.921 (1

)

1999:1 1.573 1.909 0.871

1999:2 1.529 1.889 0.924

1999:3 1.529 1.954 0.933

1999:4 1.546 2.013 0.944

2000:1 1.567 2.085 1.001

2000:2 1.672 2.154 1.059

2000:3 1.687 2.314 1.094

2000:4 1.816 2.465 1.139

2001:1 1.811 2.315 1.069

2001:2 1.875 2.410 1.132

2001:3 1.877 2.402 1.110

2001:4 1.887 2.412 1.096

2002:1 1.850 2.345 1.116

2002:2 1.741 2.190 1.066

2002:3 1.748 2.136 0.992

2002:4 1.710 2.077 0.979

2003:1 1.605 1.854 0.910

2003:2 1.482 1.776 0.858

2003:3 1.432 1.709 0.867 1

 The euro became the official currency of the EU on January 1, 1999.

Source: Compiled by the Commission with data from the International Monetary Fund, International Financial

Statistics.
 67 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and

Forestry 2003, p. 21.

 68 USDA, FAS, “Australia Dairy and Products Annual 2003,” GAIN Report No. AS3046 (Nov.

2003), p. 19.

 69 Eric Donald, “Strengthening Euro Hurting Food Exporters,” Irish Farmers Journal (Jan. 10,

2004).

5-26

Changes in real dollar exchange rates have reportedly had differential impacts on the

competitiveness of milk protein suppliers. In New Zealand and Australia, since July 2000,

returns to dairy farmers are largely based on export prices and U.S. dollar exchange rates.

As noted in chapter 4, the depreciation of the Australian and New Zealand currencies relative

to the U.S. dollar were factors that likely contributed to higher returns to dairy farmers prior

to the 2002/03 seasons in those countries. 

The appreciation of the New Zealand currency relative to the U.S. dollar in 2002 is reported

to have adversely impacted New Zealand farmers through lower dairy prices paid by

Fonterra and other New Zealand dairy supply companies (see chapter 4). In May 2003,

Fonterra implemented a new foreign exchange hedging policy to protect 100 percent of

projected foreign exchange earnings against spot market currency movements for a period

of 15 months. This policy, in effect, will delay the impact of exchange rate changes on

domestic dairy product prices on a rolling, 15-month basis.67 For Australia, USDA reports

that Australia’s earnings (in Australian dollars) from dairy exports in 2002/03 were

24 percent below earnings from the previous year, owing to the effects of drought, lower

international prices for some dairy products, and the effects of a surge in the value of the

Australian dollar.68

EU exporters, on the other hand, are partially insulated from exchange rate changes because

the European Commission considers exchange rates when setting export refund rates.

Historically, the EU Commission has used a strengthening U.S. dollar as a reason to decrease

export refunds.69 That is, as the U.S. dollar’s value increased relative to the euro, EU

exporters should be able to maintain internationally competitive pricing with lower export

refund rates. Conversely, as the U.S. dollar weakens against the euro, increased export

refunds would be necessary for EU milk protein exporters to maintain competitive pricing.

Exchange rates, however, appear to have had only a minor impact on EU milk protein

exports to the United States during 1998-2002. During 1999 and most of 2000, the U.S.

dollar appreciated by as much as 31 percent relative to the euro. During this time however,

the export refund rate on SMP dropped by nearly 80 percent, from i900 to i150 per mt (or

from $980 to $128 per mt). The change in the export refund rate during this time appears to

have been driven primarily by increases in the world price of SMP from $1,210 to

$2,100 per mt. Comparatively from January 1999 to October 2000, export refunds for butter

were unchanged, while export refunds for whole milk powder decreased by only 43 percent,

from i120 to i68 per mt ($130 to $58 per mt).

Transportation Costs

During the 1998-2002, transportation costs from the EU and Oceania to the United States

fell into the same general range. Costs from the EU during the period were relatively steady,
5-27

ranging from $120 to $130 per mt. Costs from Oceania ranged from $100 to $140 per mt

during the period. Imports from both regions face similar transportation costs. Therefore,

transportation costs do not appear to significantly affect the relative competitiveness of

imports from the EU or Oceania.

6-1

CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS OF U.S. IMPORTS OF MILK

PROTEIN PRODUCTS

This chapter contains the results and analysis of data gathered through the U.S. International

Trade Commission (Commission) importers’ questionnaires. Data were gathered on imports

of milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein, and caseinate for the 1998-2002 period. The

Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) requested that the Commission provide

information on U.S. imports of milk protein in its various forms with data broken down, to

the extent possible, by protein content. This chapter provides detailed information on the

nature of U.S. imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate. Specifically, data on the protein

content of imports of MPC, trends in import volume and prices of MPC by protein content

and country of origin, data on imports of casein and caseinate by type, and a calculation of

the total volume of milk protein imported in the form of MPC, casein, and caseinate are

presented.

Importers’ Questionnaires

The Committee’s request for detailed information on the protein content of MPC imports

reflects the prevailing uncertainty with regard to this issue. The U.S. Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) classifies imports of MPC into two tariff subheadings; 0404.90.10 for

imports with a protein concentration from 40 to 90 percent, and 3501.10.10 for imports with

a protein concentration of 90 percent or more. Considerable uncertainty existed with regard

to the actual protein content of MPC imports classified in subheading 0404.90.10. Therefore,

the Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to companies that imported MPC from

Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU), and New Zealand, classified in

HTS subheadings 0404.90.10 or 3501.10.10 between 1998 and 2002. The questionnaires

requested data on both the volume and value of imports by protein concentration. The data

were aggregated into 10 percent concentration level ranges (e.g., imports of MPC 42 were

aggregated with all imports with a protein concentration between 40 and 49 percent).

Further, the Commission sent questionnaires to all firms that imported casein and caseinate

from Australia, Canada, the EU, and New Zealand classified in subheadings 3501.10.50 and

3501.90.60, respectively, between 1998 and 2002. The HTS classifies all imports of casein

and all imports of caseinate in the same subheading, regardless of type (e.g., no distinction

is made between acid and rennet casein or between sodium and calcium caseinate). The

questionnaires sent by the Commission requested data on both the quantity and value of

imports based on product type. This approach permits a more detailed analysis of imports,

and, as the protein content of casein and caseinate imports vary somewhat by type, a more

detailed analysis of the protein content of imports. 

The Commission sent questionnaires to 122 importers and received 68 responses. The

volume of MPC imports reported in questionnaire responses accounted for the majority of

imports based on official U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) data for each year in

the 1998-2002 period. More specifically, MPC imports for 2002 based on questionnaire data
6-2

were equivalent to 99.5 percent of the volume of imports for 2002 reported in official

Commerce trade statistics. Quantities and values of imports of casein and caseinate obtained

through questionnaire responses differed somewhat from official Commerce trade data.

However, data on total imports of casein and caseinate obtained through the questionnaires

closely matched total imports of casein and caseinate reported by official Commerce data.

Therefore, it is possible that any differences in the data are the result of differences in what

importers classify as casein versus caseinate.

Data compiled from Commission questionnaire responses are presented so as not to reveal

the operations of individual firms furnishing the information. Certain firms supplying data

authorized the Commission to publish certain data on import quantities, particularly imports

of MPC by protein concentration, even though the Commission might otherwise have been

obligated to withhold such data. Data on import values and average unit values were

aggregated and/or presented in index form so as not to reveal the data of individual firms.

U.S. Imports of Milk Protein Concentrate

Import Volumes by Protein Content

Based on the questionnaire data, U.S. imports of MPC increased by 53 percent between

1998-2002, from 26,878 metric tons (mt) to 41,254 mt (table 6-1 and figure 6-1). Import

volume peaked in 2000 at 49,816 mt, declined to 31,798 mt in 2001, before increasing again

in 2002. Based on protein content, the three largest categories are MPC 40-49 (which

consists almost exclusively of imports of MPC 42), MPC 70-79, and MPC 80-89 (both of

which include a range of protein concentrations) (figure 6-1). There were relatively few

imports in the MPC 50-59 and MPC 60-69 categories between 1998 and 2002. Therefore,

the Commission distinguished between low-protein and high-protein MPC by identifying

MPC with a protein content of 69 percent or less as low-protein, and MPC with a protein

content of 70 percent or more as high-protein. MPC with a protein content of 70 percent or

more accounted for the majority of imports in 3 of the 5 years during 1998-2002, 55 percent

of total imports in 1998, 68 percent in 2001, and 69 percent in 2002. The significant increase

in low-protein imports (mostly MPC 40-49) in 1999 and 2000 resulted in low-protein

imports accounting for 58 percent of total imports in those years.

Questionnaire data indicate that the protein content of MPC imports changed during the

1998-2002 period. In 1998, MPC imports were split fairly evenly between low- and highprotein MPC (12,116 mt and 14,762 mt, respectively). However, in 1999 and 2000 there was

a sharp increase in imports of MPC 40-49, from 8,961 mt in 1998 to 27,036 mt in 2000 (an

increase of 200 percent). In 2001 and 2002, imports of MPC 40-49 declined significantly and

accounted for much of the overall decline in import levels from the 2000 level. Imports of

MPC 70-79 rose steadily from 2,846 mt in 1998 to 17,065 mt in 2002 (table 6-1 and figure

6-1). In both 2001 and 2002, MPC 70-79 accounted for about 41 percent of all MPC imports.

Imports of MPC 50-59 declined relatively steadily between 1998-2002, from 12 percent of
6-3

Table 6-1

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports by protein concentration and

source, 1998-2002

Protein concentration/source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons) –––––––––––––––––––

Low protein (percent):

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,961 23,608 27,036 6,755 11,230

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,155 2,285 1,903 2,636 1,388

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 195 704 248

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,116 25,893 29,134 10,095 12,866

High protein (percent):

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,846 7,608 9,709 13,040 17,065

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,536 8,030 8,237 5,480 8,380

90 or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,380 2,958 2,736 3,183 2,943

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,762 18,596 20,682 21,703 28,388

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,878 44,489 49,816 31,798 41,254

––––––––––––––––––––Share (percent)––––––––––––––––––––––

Low protein (percent):

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 53 54 21 27

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5 4 8 3

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 2 1

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 58 58 32 31

High protein (percent):

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17 19 41 41

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 18 17 17 20

90 or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 5 10 7

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 42 42 68 69

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100

–––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons)––––––––––––––––––

By source, all protein concentrations:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354 5,058 6,713 3,418 4,003

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,219 20,243 20,943 5,451 9,861

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,027 15,162 18,313 21,477 23,031

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,278 4,026 3,847 1,452 4,359

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,878 44,489 49,816 31,798 41,254

––––––––––––––––––––Share (percent)––––––––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 13 11 10

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 46 42 17 24

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 34 37 68 56

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 8 5 11

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 Imports from New Zealand have continued to increase steadily. Based on official U.S.

Department of Commerce data, imports of MPC of all protein concentrations from New Zealand

increased to 31,268 mt in 2003, accounting for 65 percent of total U.S. imports of these products.

6-4

Figure 6-1

U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate by protein concentration, 1998-2002

total imports in 1998 to approximately 3 percent in 2002. Imports of MPC with a protein

concentration of 80 percent or more remained relatively stable during 1998-2002. 

As noted in chapter 5, the primary cause of the volatility in imports of low-protein MPC

were the changes in government policies in the United States and the EU. The combined

effect of these policies provided strong incentives for U.S. imports of low-protein MPC in

1999 and 2000. However, changes in these policies, as well as changes in the world price for

SMP, significantly reduced these incentives in 2001 and 2002. As a result, imports of

low-protein MPC declined significantly.

Data from the importers’ questionnaires indicated that in 1998, the EU accounted for about

one-half of the total U.S. MPC imports, and New Zealand for about one-third. In 2001, New

Zealand surpassed the EU as the largest supplier of MPC to the U.S. market. By 2002, about

55 percent of U.S. MPC imports were supplied by New Zealand, 25 percent by the EU, and

10 percent each by Australia and the rest of the world (table 6-1 and figure 6-2).

Data on U.S. MPC imports by country and protein concentration are shown in tables 6-2 to

6-5. Imports from New Zealand increased steadily from 9,027 mt in 1998 to 23,031 mt in

2002, or by 155 percent (table 6-3).1

 MPC 70-79 accounted for most of this increase, rising

from 2,588 mt in 1998 to 15,602 mt in 2002. By 2002, two-thirds of U.S. MPC imports

supplied by New Zealand consisted of MPC 70-79. In addition, New Zealand accounted for

more than 90 percent of total U.S. imports of MPC 70-79 in most years of this period. In

2001 and 2002, imports of MPC 70-79 from New Zealand accounted for close to 40 percent

of total U.S. imports of MPC across all suppliers and protein ranges.
6-5

Figure 6-2

U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate by major source, 1998-2002
6-6

Table 6-2

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. imports by protein concentration, 1998-2002

Protein concentration/soure 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

Percent protein:

40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,116 25,893 29,134 10,095 12,866

70 or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,762 18,596 20,682 21,703 28,388

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,878 44,489 49,816 31,798 41,254

All protein concentrations:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354 5,058 6,713 3,418 4,003

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,219 20,243 20,943 5,451 9,861

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,027 15,162 18,313 21,477 23,031

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,278 4,026 3,847 1,452 4,359

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,878 44,489 49,816 31,798 41,254

40-49 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 3,747 3,222 479 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,904 14,926 17,820 3,588 6,683

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,153 2,520 1,373 318

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,853 3,782 3,474 1,315 4,229

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,961 23,608 27,036 6,755 11,230

50-59 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 48 193 1,290 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 41 0 0 460

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,825 2,196 1,710 1,346 928

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,155 2,285 1,903 2,636 1,388

60-69 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 195 704 248

European Union .................... 00000

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 195 704 248

70-79 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 113 127 1,202

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 215 207 86 261

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,588 7,316 9,389 12,827 15,602

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,846 7,608 9,709 13,040 17,065

80-89 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 1,186 2,990 818 2,553

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,077 5,061 2,916 1,777 2,457

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,234 1,539 1,958 2,748 3,240

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 244 373 137 130

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,536 8,030 8,237 5,480 8,380

90 percent or more protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

European Union .................... 00000

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,380 2,958 2,736 3,183 2,943

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,380 2,958 2,736 3,183 2,943

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 2

 This pattern continued in 2003. Based on official U.S. Department of commerce data, imports

of MPC of all protein concentrations from Australia increased to 5,513 mt in 2003.

6-7

Table 6-3

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports from New Zealand by protein

concentration, 1998–2002

Protein concentration 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons) ––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,153 2,520 1,373 318

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,825 2,196 1,710 1,346 928

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,588 7,316 9,389 12,827 15,602

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,234 1,539 1,958 2,748 3,240

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,380 2,958 2,736 3,183 2,943

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,027 15,162 18,313 21,477 23,031

–––––––––––––––––––––Share (percent)––––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8 14 6 1

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 14 9 6 4

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 48 51 60 68

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 11 13 14

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 15 15 13

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Imports of MPC from Australia increased irregularly from 1,354 mt in 1998 to 4,003 mt in

2002 (table 6-4).2

 Such imports trended toward higher-protein MPC during 1998-2002.

Imports of MPC 80-89 from Australia amounted to 2,553 mt in 2002, or 64 percent of U.S.

imports of MPC from Australia. There were no imports of MPC 40-49 and MPC 50-59

reported in 2002, whereas imports of MPC 70-79 increased considerably to 1,202 mt.

Table 6-4

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports from Australia by protein

concentration, 1998–2002

Protein concentration 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons) –––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 3,747 3,222 479 0

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 48 193 1,290 0

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 195 704 248

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 113 127 1,202

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 1,186 2,990 818 2,553

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354 5,058 6,713 3,418 4,003

––––––––––––––––––––Share (percent)–––––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 74 48 14 0

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1 3 38 0

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3 21 0

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 4 6

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 23 45 24 30

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 64

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 Imports of MPC from the EU continued to remain below peak levels. Imports of MPC of all

protein concentrations from the EU declined to 8,084 mt in 2003 based on official U.S.

Department of Commerce data.

6-8

U.S. MPC imports from the EU fluctuated during the 1998-2002 period, increasing from

14,219 mt in 1998 to 20,243 mt and 20,943 mt in 1999 and 2000, respectively (table 6-5).

Imports dropped significantly in 2001, then rose somewhat in 2002, but remained below

prior levels.3

 The volatility in MPC imports from the EU is apparent in figure 6-2, and is

discussed in chapter 5. Imports of MPC from the EU were largely concentrated in the

MPC 40-49 and MPC 80-89 categories during 1998-2002. U.S. imports of MPC 40-49 from

the EU increased from about 6,900 mt in 1998 to 17,800 mt in 2000, and accounted for

25 percent of total U.S. imports of MPC in 1998 and about one-third in both 1999 and 2000

(table 6-5). Thus, the significant increase in U.S. imports of low-protein MPC imports in

1999 and 2000 was primarily the result of imports of MPC 40-49 from the EU. U.S. imports

of MPC 40-49 from the EU dropped significantly in 2001 and 2002, although those imports

remained the predominant form of MPC imported from the EU. Low-protein MPC accounted

for the majority of imports in each year except 1998 when imports of high-and low-protein

MPC were approximately equal. High-protein MPC from the EU actually declined in both

relative and absolute terms in 1999 and 2000. 

Table 6-5

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity and share of U.S. imports from the European Union by

protein concentration, 1998–2002

Protein concentration 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons) ––––––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,904 14,926 17,820 3,588 6,683

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 41 0 0 460

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 215 207 86 261

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,077 5,061 2,916 1,777 2,457

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,219 20,243 20,943 5,451 9,861

–––––––––––––––––––––Share (percent)–––––––––––––––––––––––

40-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 74 85 66 68

50-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 5

60-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

70-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1 2 3

80-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 25 14 33 25

90 percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In 2002, about 11 percent of U.S. imports of MPC were supplied by countries other than

Australia, the EU, and New Zealand. These imports were heavily concentrated in the

40-49 percent protein range, with a small volume of imports in the 80-89 percent protein

range, primarily from Canada, India, and Poland.
 4

 European Dairy Association, selected members of casein industry committee, interview by

USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

 5

 New Zealand produces and markets a branded milk protein isolate called Total Milk Protein

(TMP).

6-9

Import Volumes by Production Process

The Committee also requested information on imports of milk protein in its various forms

with data broken down by manufacturing process. As noted in chapter 1, three primary

production processes are used to produce MPC: wet or dry blending, co-precipitation, and

ultrafiltration. The production process used to produce MPC varies by country. All U.S.

imports of MPC from the EU are produced using either a blending or co-precipitation

method (table 6-6). There is virtually no production of MPC using the ultrafiltration process

in the EU and none of it is exported.4

 In Australia and New Zealand, MPC is largely

produced using the ultrafiltration process. Milk protein isolates (MPI) (MPC with a protein

concentration of 90 percent or higher) is the only form of MPC not produced using the

ultrafiltration process.5

 MPI is produced using the co-precipitation method (table 6-6).

Table 6-6

Milk protein concentrate: Quantity of U.S. imports by production process and major source,

1998-2002

Production process 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––

Blending or co-precipitation:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,219 20,243 20,943 5,451 9,861

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,380 2,958 2,736 3,183 2,943

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,599 23,201 23,679 8,634 12,804

Ultrafiltration:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354 5,058 6,713 3,418 4,003

European Union ........................ 00000

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,647 12,204 15,577 18,294 20,088

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,001 17,262 22,290 21,712 24,091

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Import Values

Between 1998 and 2002, the value of U.S. MPC imports increased from about $96 million

to $139 million, or by 45 percent (table 6-7). The value of U.S. imports of high-protein MPC

was $113 million in 2002, and accounted for about 80 percent of the value of all MPC

imports. This compares with a value share of less than 60 percent in 1999 and 2000. Thus,

imports of high-protein MPC became more significant in terms of quantity and value over

the 1998-2002 period. Trends in import values follow closely the trends in import quantities.

For example, the value of low-protein imports of MPC follows closely the trend in import

quantities of MPC 40-49, increasing between 1998 and 2000, before declining significantly

from 2000 to 2001. The value of high-protein MPC increased steadily throughout

1998-2002, again, reflecting the upward trend in import volumes.

To protect confidential business information, country-specific data on import values and

import average unit values were converted into indices, with a base year of 1998 equal to
6-10

Table 6-7

Milk protein concentrate: Value of U.S. imports by protein concentration and major source, 

1998-2002

Protein concentration/source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––Value (1,000 dollars)–––––––––––––––––––

Percent protein:

40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,591 52,632 64,418 27,231 26,388

70 or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,475 77,066 87,674 92,288 112,726

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,066 129,698 152,092 119,519 139,114

––––––––––––––––––––––––Value (index)–––––––––––––––––––––

All protein concentrations:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 233 417 219 262

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 111 112 40 64

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 151 179 237 242

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 135 152 58 113

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 135 158 124 145

40-49 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1,701 1,619 259 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 214 283 64 98

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 100 263 180 38

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 196 203 79 170

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 252 319 90 117

50-59 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 13 57 416 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1,210 0 0 14,340

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 74 55 48 31

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 68 56 89 43

60-69 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 100 373 308

European Union ..................... 00000

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 100 373 308

70-79 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 258 450 553 5,138

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 86 61 47 135

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 256 331 481 539

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 239 305 438 537

80-89 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 148 374 103 225

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 70 45 31 44

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 114 139 209 247

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 41 71 25 23

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 82 90 62 88

90 percent or more protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

European Union ..................... 00000

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 118 112 144 119

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 118 112 144 119

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 Indices show trends over time for the individual country and protein ranges, but do not allow

comparison between individual time series.

6-11

100 (table 6-7).6 The value of U.S. MPC imports from New Zealand rose steadily in each

year between 1998 and 2002, increasing by about 2.5 times over the period (table 6-7). This

growth reflects the steady increase in import volumes. The value of U.S. imports of

MPC 40-59 from New Zealand declined steadily during the 1998-2002 period, while the

value of imports of MPC 70-89 increased substantially. The value of U.S. imports from

Australia fluctuated during the 1998-2002 period, generally following the same trend as

import volumes (table 6-4). The value of U.S. imports from Australia peaked in 2000,

declined in 2001, and increased in 2002, but remained below 2000 levels. The value of U.S.

imports of MPC 70-79 from Australia increased steadily from 1998-2001 and then increased

sharply in 2002, reflecting the sharp rise in imports of MPC 70-79. The value of U.S. MPC

imports from the EU generally declined, falling by 36 percent between 1998 and 2002

(table 6-7). The value of U.S. imports of MPC 40-49 from the EU fluctuated considerably

during the 1998-2002 period, but returned to 1998 levels in 2002, following the same trend

as import volumes. The value of U.S. imports of MPC 80-89 from the EU generally declined

from 1998 to 2002.

Import Average Unit Values

The trend in the overall import average unit value (AUV) for MPC appears to be primarily

driven by changes in the mix of low- versus high-protein imports. The AUVs for total U.S.

imports of MPC fluctuated considerably during the 1998-2002 period (table 6-8), generally

declining in years when the volume of imports increased, and increasing when the volume

of imports declined. For example, AUVs were at their lowest levels, $1.32 per pound in 1999

and $1.38 per pound in 2000, when imports of low-protein MPC reached their highest levels.

Import AUVs subsequently peaked in 2001 when imports of low-protein MPC declined.

Import AUVs declined in 2002, reflecting the decline in AUVs of both low-and high-protein

MPC. In 2002, the AUV of low-protein MPC imports matched the previous low AUV in

1999 (at 93 cents per pound), while the AUV of high-protein MPC was at its lowest level

at $1.80 per pound (table 6-8).

The AUVs of U.S. imports from New Zealand fluctuated within a narrow range during the

1998-2002 period (table 6-8). The AUV of all U.S. imports of MPC from New Zealand

declined slightly from 1998 to 1999, and again in 2000 to about 12 percent below the 1998

level. Import AUVs then increased to 1998 levels in 2001 before declining again in 2002.

The AUV of U.S. imports of MPC 40-49 from New Zealand increased in each year when

shipments occurred except 2002. The AUV of U.S. imports of MPC 70-79 from New

Zealand fluctuated within a narrow range during the 1998-2002 period, reaching a peak in

1998, before declining by about 10 percent from this level in 1999, 2000, and 2002.

The AUV for total U.S. imports of MPC from Australia declined by about 38 percentage

points between 1998 and 1999, but increased in each year thereafter (table 6-8). Even in

2001 and 2002, when imports from Australia declined relative to the peak level in 2000,

import AUVs continued to increase. This reflects the overall shift toward higher value,

high-protein MPC imports from Australia. The AUV for U.S. imports of MPC 80-89 from

Australia remained constant from 1998 to 2001, before declining sharply in 2002. AUVs for

all other forms of MPC imported from Australia were generally stable throughout the

1998-2002 period.
6-12

Table 6-8

Milk protein concentrate: Average unit value of U.S. imports by protein concentration and major

source, 1998-2002

Protein concentration/source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––Average unit value (dollars per pound) ––––––––––––

Percent protein:

40-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.03 0.92 1.00 1.22 0.93

70 or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 1.88 1.92 1.93 1.80

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62 1.32 1.38 1.70 1.53

––––––––––––––––––––Value (index)–––––––––––––––––––––––

Total all protein concentrations:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 62 84 87 89

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 78 76 106 92

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90 88 100 95

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 76 90 90 59

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 82 85 105 94

40-49 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 93 102 110 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 99 110 124 101

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 100 120 151 138

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 96 108 111 75

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 96 106 119 93

50-59 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 89 97 106 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 89 0 0 94

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 95 92 100 95

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 94 92 106 99

60-69 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 100 103 102

European Union ..................... 0 0 0 0 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 100 103 102

70-79 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 77 92 100 98

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 94 70 128 122

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90 91 97 89

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 89 89 96 90

80-89 percent protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 101 71

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 98 109 122 126

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 92 88 94 94

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 72 81 77 77

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 97 105 107 100

90 percent or more protein:

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

European Union ..................... 0 0 0 0 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 95 97 107 96

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 95 97 107 96

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
6-13

The overall AUVs of U.S. imports from the EU fluctuated considerably during the

1998-2002 period, declining 22 percentage points from 1998 to 1999 and a further

2 percentage points in 2000 (table 6-8). However, the significant decline in low value,

low-protein U.S. MPC imports in 2001 and 2002 resulted in a significant increase in import

AUVs in those years, as U.S. imports from the EU consisted primarily of higher value,

high-protein MPC. It should be noted that the sharp increase in U.S. imports of MPC 40-49

from the EU during 1998-2000 did not coincide with a decline in the AUV of these imports.

The AUV of MPC 80-89 from the EU declined slightly from 1998 to 1999, and increased

in each year thereafter. Thus, fluctuations in import AUVs from the EU are largely

attributable to differences in the type of MPC imported, rather than changes in the AUVs of

U.S. imports of MPC.

Imports of Casein and Caseinate

Imports of Casein

U.S. imports of casein fluctuated during the 1998-2002 period, reaching a peak of 86,459 mt

in 2000, followed by a decline in 2001 and 2002 (table 6-9). Acid casein imports accounted

for 53-69 percent of total U.S. casein imports during the 1998-2002 period (table 6-9), and

the decline in overall casein imports during 2000 and 2001 can largely be attributed to a drop

in imports of acid casein. Such imports fell by 36 percent from 2000 to 2001, while imports

of rennet casein increased by 12 percent. In 2002, imports of acid casein recovered

somewhat, while imports of rennet casein declined. The decline in total U.S. casein imports

in 2000 and 2001 coincided with increases in the total AUVs (table 6-9). The AUV of

imports of acid casein increased sharply in 2001 to $2.23 per pound.

Table 6-9

Casein: U.S. imports for consumption; by type, quantity, value, and average unit value,

1998-2002

Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons)––––––––––––––––––––––

Rennet casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,270 23,482 28,978 32,554 26,227

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,332 52,622 57,481 36,513 41,173

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,602 76,104 86,459 69,067 67,400

–––––––––––––––––––Value (thousand dollars)–––––––––––––––––––––

Rennet casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,406 85,424 122,713 138,403 121,105

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168,421 196,594 235,482 179,113 160,617

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249,827 282,018 358,195 347,516 281,722

––––––––––––––Average unit value (dollars per pound)–––––––––––––––

Rennet casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.92 1.65 1.92 1.93 2.09

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 1.69 1.86 2.23 1.77

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.87 1.68 1.88 2.09 1.90

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
6-14

Unlike imports from Australia and the EU, which peaked in 2000, imports of casein from

New Zealand reached their highest level in 1999 (table 6-10). Imports declined somewhat

in 2000 and declined more significantly in 2001 before recovering slightly in 2002. The

AUV of imports from New Zealand declined by 7 percentage points between 1998 and 1999,

which coincided with the largest increase in total U.S. import volume (table 6-10). Import

AUVs returned to 1998 levels in 2000, before increasing significantly in 2001 in conjunction

with the largest decline in total U.S. import volumes. Import AUVs declined significantly

between 2001 and 2002, to approximately the same level as in 1998 and 2000.

Table 6-10

Casein: U.S. imports for consumption; by source, quantity, value, and average unit value,

1998-2002 

Source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons)––––––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,866 4,137 5,671 4,105 5,161

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,781 37,317 42,241 37,419 31,447

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,494 26,012 25,385 20,684 21,569

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,461 8,638 13,162 6,858 9,224

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,602 76,104 86,459 69,066 67,401

––––––––––––––––––––––––Value (index)–––––––––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 211 299 277 260

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 116 152 162 121

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 99 103 104 87

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 121 208 119 126

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 113 143 139 113

–––––––––––––––––––Average unit value (index) –––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 95 98 126 94

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 87 100 120 107

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 93 100 123 99

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90 102 112 89

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90 100 122 101

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. imports of casein from Australia increased significantly from 1998 to 1999 and

fluctuated somewhat from 1999 to 2002 (table 6-10). U.S. imports of casein from Australia

accounted for a relatively small share of total U.S. casein imports. The index of AUVs of

imports of casein from Australia also fluctuated considerably during the 1998-2002 period.

Import AUVs declined somewhat in 1999, increased slightly in 2000, increased to a peak

level in 2001, before declining significantly in 2002 to levels close to 1999 AUV.

The EU was the largest U.S. supplier of casein in each year during 1998-2002 (table 6-10).

U.S. casein imports from the EU increased somewhat from 1998 to 2000, before declining

to their lowest level since 1998 in 2002. The large increase in imports from the EU in 1999

coincided with the lowest AUV level, which fell by 13 percent that year.
6-15

Imports of Caseinate

U.S. imports of caseinate were more stable than imports of casein, particularly during the

1999-2002 period (table 6-11). In 1998, imports of sodium caseinate accounted for

57 percent of all caseinate imports, and remained relatively stable from 1999 to 2001.

However, imports of calcium caseinate increased steadily so that imports of sodium caseinate

as a share of total imports declined slightly in each year of the 1999-2001 period. 

Table 6-11

Caseinate: U.S. imports for consumption; by type, quantity, value, and average unit value,

1998-2002

Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons)––––––––––––––––––––––

Calcium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,548 10,517 10,981 12,205 12,329

Sodium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,148 11,989 11,568 12,572 10,675

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,696 22,506 22,549 24,777 23,004

––––––––––––––––––––Value (thousand dollars)–––––––––––––––––––––

Calcium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,030 44,541 51,005 67,169 57,716

Sodium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,489 50,043 51,397 63,644 48,832

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,519 94,584 102,402 130,813 106,548

–––––––––––––Average unit value (dollars per pound) ––––––––––––––––

Calcium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.02 1.92 2.11 2.50 2.12

Sodium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.97 1.89 2.02 2.30 2.07

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.99 1.91 2.06 2.39 2.10

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Imports of sodium caseinate declined more significantly in 2002, while imports of calcium

caseinate increased slightly. As a result, imports of calcium caseinate accounted for the

majority (54 percent) of U.S. caseinate imports in 2002. The AUV of caseinate imports

fluctuated within a fairly wide range during the 1998-2002 period (table 6-11), reaching a

peak of $2.39 in 2001, coinciding with the peak in import volumes. In every year between

1998 and 2002, the AUV of calcium caseinate was above that of sodium caseinate, although

the difference was at most 20 cents per pound.

The AUV of caseinate imports from all three major suppliers peaked in 2001 (table 6-12).

The import AUVs declined by 12 percentage points from 2001 to 2002, while import volume

declined slightly. Imports of New Zealand caseinate fluctuated during the 1998-2002 period,

reaching a peak in 2000 (table 6-12). The AUV of imports from New Zealand fluctuated

throughout 1998-2002.

U.S. imports of Australian caseinate increased significantly from 2000 to 2002 (table 6-12).

Imports from Australia declined somewhat in 2001 before increasing significantly in 2002.

However, Australia is a relatively small U.S. supplier of caseinate. The slight decline in U.S.

imports in 2001 occurred in conjunction with a sharp increase in the AUV. The import AUV

increased by 24 percentage points from 1999 to 2001, then declined by 18 percentage points

between 2001 and 2002, although remaining above the levels during 1998-1999. The second

highest AUV for caseinate imports coincided with the largest volume of U.S. caseinate

imports from Australia.
6-16

The EU was generally the second largest source of U.S. caseinate imports during 1998-2002

(table 6-12). U.S. imports of caseinate rose each year from 1998 to 2000 before declining in

2001 and 2002. The AUV of imports from the EU peaked in 2001 and occurred in

conjunction with the start of the decline in import volumes. The AUV of imports declined

by 12 percentage points between 2001 and 2002, when import volumes from the EU

declined slightly.

Table 6-12

Caseinate: U.S. imports for consumption; by source, quantity, value, and average unit value,

1998-2002

Source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons) ––––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 96 664 527 1,506

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,185 9,188 10,910 9,632 8,167

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,387 13,201 10,775 12,475 11,827

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 21 200 2,143 1,504

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,696 22,506 22,549 24,777 23,004

–––––––––––––––––––––Value (index)––––––––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 101 641 718 1,747

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 124 163 161 124

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 101 88 125 98

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 57 483 5,823 4,107

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 109 118 151 123

–––––––––––––––––Average unit value (index)––––––––––––––––

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 96 88 124 106

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 97 108 120 109

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 95 101 124 103

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 89 80 90 90

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 96 103 120 105

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Imports of Milk Protein Products on a Protein Basis

To better facilitate product comparisons, U.S. imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate were

converted to pounds of protein. Imports of MPC were converted based on the protein

concentration reported by questionnaire respondents who were asked to provide the exact

protein content of imports. Imports of casein and caseinate were converted based on average

protein concentrations reported in the scientific literature for acid and rennet casein and for

sodium and calcium caseinate. The trends in imports on a protein basis mirrored the trends

in imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate on a volume basis (table 6-13). The import AUVs

on a protein basis fluctuated in a wide range, but the volatility in AUVs was largely confined

to a significant decline in the AUV in 1999 and a significant increase in the AUV in 2001.

Notably, although the import AUVs on a protein basis were significantly lower in 1999 than

in any other year, U.S. import volume did not peak until 2000. Despite significant

differences in U.S. import volumes, import AUVs in 1998, 2000, and 2002 varied by only

3 cents per pound.
6-17

Protein Imports from Milk Protein Concentrate

U.S. imports of MPC on a protein basis increased by 55 percent between 1998 and 2002

(table 6-13). Imports rose substantially from 39 million pounds of protein in 1998 to

63 million pounds in 2000, fell to 47 million pounds in 2001, then increased to 60 million

pounds in 2002. Although this trend corresponds to the trend in total U.S. imports of MPC,

imports on a protein basis were notably less volatile than imports as a whole. For example,

whereas from 2000 to 2001 total U.S. MPC imports declined by 36 percent on a product

basis, they declined only 26 percent on a protein basis. Additionally, U.S. imports on a

protein basis recovered from the decline in 2001 more significantly than total imports of

MPC. On a product basis, U.S. imports of MPC in 2002 were equivalent to 83 percent of

U.S. imports in 2000, the peak year for imports, while on a protein basis, U.S. imports in

2002 were equivalent to 95 percent of imports in 2000. This difference reflects the fact that

the primary cause of the increase in total U.S. MPC imports in 1999 and 2000 were imports

of low-protein MPC, while in 2001 and 2002 imports of MPC were primarily high-protein

MPC. Thus, imports of protein recovered more quickly than total imports of MPC.

Table 6-13

Milk protein products: Imports of milk protein concentrate, casein, and caseinate, quantity, value

and average unit value of U.S. imports on a protein basis, 1998-2002

Product 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Quantity (metric tons of product)–––––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 26,878 44,489 49,816 31,798 41,254

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,602 76,104 86,459 69,067 67,400

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,696 22,506 22,549 24,807 23,027

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,176 143,099 158,824 125,672 131,681

–––––––––––––––––Quantity (million pounds of product) –––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 59 98 110 70 91

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 168 191 152 149

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 50 50 55 51

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 316 350 277 290

–––––––––––––––––Quantity (million pounds of protein)––––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 39 57 63 47 60

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 148 168 133 131

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 45 45 50 46

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 251 277 230 237

–––––––––––––––––––––––Value (thousand dollars) ––––––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 96,066 129,698 152,092 119,519 139,114

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249,827 282,018 358,195 347,516 281,722

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,519 94,584 102,402 130,813 106,548

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432,412 506,300 612,689 597,848 527,384

––––––––––––Average unit value (dollars per pound of protein)––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 2.49 2.28 2.41 2.55 2.32

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12 1.90 2.13 2.60 2.15

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.19 2.09 2.26 2.63 2.31

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20 2.02 2.21 2.60 2.23

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
6-18

The AUV of MPC imports on a protein basis declined from $2.49 per pound in 1998 to

$2.32 per pound in 2002, a decline of 7 percent, although it fluctuated considerably over this

period (table 6-13). In 2002, the AUV was the second lowest during the 1998-2002 period,

and was below the AUV of $2.41 in 2000, the peak year of imports on a volume basis. This

is a considerably different trend from AUVs for total U.S. imports of MPC where AUVs

were lowest in 1999 and 2000 (when U.S. import volumes were at their highest levels). This

trend is a result of imports increasing more rapidly on a protein basis than on a product basis.

The trend to higher-protein concentration imports equates to a higher-protein per dollar value

of imports. Therefore, it appears that the shift to higher protein imports did not result in a

comparable increase in the value of imports, and that purchasers do not appear to be paying

a significant protein premium for high- versus low-protein imports.

Protein Imports from Casein and Caseinate

U.S. casein imports on a protein basis increased substantially from 118 million pounds 1998

to 168 million pounds in 2000, before declining sharply to 131 million pounds in 2002 (table

6-13). This pattern resembles trends in U.S. casein imports on a product basis. The

significant increase in U.S. casein imports on a protein basis from 1999 to 2000 was the

primary cause of the overall increase in total U.S. imports on a protein basis. The increase

in product imports of casein from 1999 to 2000 were larger than the increase in imports of

MPC, and because casein imports in 2000 had a significantly higher protein concentration

than MPC imports, the increase in imports on a protein basis was magnified. The AUV of

casein imports on a protein basis fluctuated considerably during 1998-2002, ranging from

$1.90 per pound in 1999 to $2.60 per pound in 2001.

U.S. caseinate imports on a protein basis were generally stable during the 1999-2002 period.

Imports increased slightly from 1998-2001 and declined in 2002 (table 6-13). However, the

AUV of imports on a protein basis fluctuated considerably throughout the 1998-2002 period.

The AUV of caseinate imports on a protein basis ranged from a low of $2.09 per pound in

1999 to a high of $2.63 per pound in 2001. Moreover, in 1998, 2000, and 2002, when U.S.

import volumes were very similar, the AUV varied by $0.12 per pound. The AUV of

caseinate imports on a protein basis reached a peak of $2.63 per pound in 2001, at least

$0.32 per pound more than any other year. The volume of caseinate imports on a protein

basis also peaked in that year. 
 1

 Mr. Paul Rosenthal, CNI, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 227; and

Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 28.

 2

 For more information, see ADPI web site, found at http://www.adpi.org/publications.asp.

7-1

CHAPTER 7

USES AND SUBSTITUTABILITY OF

IMPORTED MILK PROTEIN PRODUCTS

Introduction

This chapter provides information on purchases and end-uses of milk protein products in the

U.S. market. The chapter identifies which end-use applications incorporate imported milk

proteins, the applications where imported and domestically produced milk proteins compete,

and the degree to which the various milk proteins substitute for one another. This

information was compiled from responses to the Commission’s purchasers’ questionnaires,

as well as public reports and fieldwork. 

In the second part of this chapter, an assessment is made of the volume of imported milk

protein that may have displaced U.S.-produced milk proteins during the 1998-2002 period.

The degree to which imported and U.S.-produced milk proteins substitute for one another

is an important factor determining the extent to which imports may reduce demand or prices

for milk proteins in the U.S. market. The Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (CNI) claims

that these products are minimally substitutable, while the National Milk Producers

Federation (NMPF) counters that the products are highly substitutable.1

 Based on use,

purchase, and import data obtained from Commission questionnaires, it was estimated that

imported milk protein products may have displaced approximately 318 million pounds of

U.S.-produced milk protein between 1998-2002. These results are also incorporated in the

qualitative analysis of the impact of imports on farm-level milk prices in chapter 9.

Uses of certain dry milk and whey products in the United States are reported each year by

the American Dairy Products Institute (ADPI), based on an extensive survey of dairy

processing firms and manufacturers.2

 However, the ADPI survey does not cover milk protein

concentrate (MPC), casein, or caseinate, and there is very little information on the use of

these products from public sources. Therefore, the Commission conducted its own survey

of U.S.-based companies that purchase and use milk protein products, requesting information

on the end-use applications of these products.

The Commission sent purchaser questionnaires to 450 companies, covering the full range

of potential milk protein users. Included among questionnaire recipients were all members

of the National Cheese Institute, as well as several manufacturers of ice cream, yogurt, and

other dairy products. Questionnaires were also sent to several companies involved in the

production of specialty nutrition products, including sports, geriatric, dietetic, and medical

nutrition products, and infant food and formulas. Companies involved in the production of
7-2

other food and animal feed products that typically incorporate milk proteins also were

included in the survey. Questionnaire response rates and the markets identified as using milk

protein products are summarized in table 7-1 and text box 7-1. The Commission received

280 questionnaire responses, of which 135 provided useable data on purchases of MPC,

casein, caseinate, skim milk powder (SMP), or whey protein concentrate (WPC) during

1998-2002.

Table 7-1

Number of questionnaire responses by product and market category

Market category

Milk protein

concentrate Casein Caseinate

Skim milk

powder

Whey protein

concentrate

————–—–————Number of responses———–——–—–——

Cheese products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 6 28 8

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1 13 4

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8 11 13 15

Nondairy foods ........................ - 3 5 - -

Bakery products ....................... 3 2 3 5 5

Confectionary applications ............... 1 - 2 5 -

Meat applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 2 - -

Soups, sauces, & dressing ............... - - 3 4 4

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2 8 10

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Box 7-1

Typical applications of milk protein products by market segment

Cheese products: natural and processed cheese.

Processed cheese products: processed cheese products produced outside the FDA standards of identity.

Other dairy foods: yogurt and other cultured products, ice cream and other frozen desserts.

Nondairy foods: margarine, imitation cheese, nondairy creamers, and whipped toppings.

Specialty nutrition: infant formula, meal replacer, medical nutrition, sports nutrition, and geriatric nutrition.

Other food applications: bakery, confectionary, and meat applications.

Animal feed: milk replacers and other animal and pet food.

Industrial applications: adhesives, fabric applications, paper coatings, and plastic applications.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and Dairy Companies

Association of New Zealand, prehearing submission, Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 28-29. 

Aggregating quantities of milk protein products across respondents and end-use applications

and comparing these quantities with official U.S. trade data indicated that the majority of the

total U.S. market was covered by the survey. Questionnaire responses, in conjunction with

the available public information, interviews, and site visits by Commission staff, were used

to analyze the uses of milk protein products. Questionnaire responses indicated that all five

forms of milk protein products (MPC, casein, caseinate, SMP, and WPC) were used in the

production of cheese, specialty nutrition, and bakery products. All milk protein products,

except casein, were used in the production of dairy foods other than cheese and in animal

feed products (table 7-1). Respondents also reported that nondairy products and meat

products used only casein and caseinate. MPC, caseinate, and SMP were used in the
 3

 No respondents reported purchases of MPC with a protein concentration between 60 and

69 percent.

7-3

 production of confectionary products, while caseinate, SMP, and WPC were used in soup

and sauce products.

Uses of Milk Protein Products

Milk Protein Concentrate

Questionnaire respondents reported purchases of MPC with protein concentrations between

42 percent to more than 90 percent (table 7-2).3

 In 2002, 71 percent of MPC purchases by

volume were used in the production of dairy products, of which processed cheese products

accounted for 62 percent and other dairy foods, such as cultured products and frozen

desserts, accounted for 9 percent. Most of the MPC was used in the production of processed

cheese products outside the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards of identity,

although some firms reported using MPC in the starter culture in natural cheese production.

Specialty nutrition products represented the second-largest use of MPC, accounting for 24

percent of total purchases. No company reported purchases of MPC for use in nondairy

foods. MPC was also used in bakery and confectionary applications. 

Table 7-2

Milk protein concentrate: Purchases by end-use application as a share of total purchases

by protein concentration, 2002

Milk protein concentrate, protein concentration (percent)1 

End-use application 40-49 50-59 70-79 80-89 90 + 40-90+

––––––––––––––––––Share of total purchases–––––––––––––––––

Processed cheese products2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 95 22 0 62

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 38 0 77 95 24

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 45 2 1 0 9

Other foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 3 0 0 3

Bakery products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12 0 0 5 1

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100 100

1

 No companies reported purchases of MPC 60-69.

2

 Includes a small volume of MPC used as starter culture in natural cheese. 

Note.—Data are presented as shares of total purchases so as not to reveal confidential business information.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

A breakdown of MPC use by protein concentration for the two main MPC uses—processed

cheese products and specialty nutrition—is reported in table 7-3. Firms reported using MPC

with protein concentrations between 42 and 80 percent in the production of processed cheese

products. However, MPC 70-79 accounted for 91 percent of MPC used in processed cheese

products. Given that 62 percent of all MPC was used in processed cheese production,

approximately 56 percent of total MPC use in 2002 was MPC 70-79 for production of
 4

 Data compiled from responses to Commission purchasers’ questionnaires.

 5

 U.S. industry officials, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 20, 2003; FDA staff, interview by

USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003.

 6

 Global New Products Database found at www.gnpd.com, search conducted on July 2, 2003.

 7

 Ibid.

7-4

Table 7-3

Milk protein concentrate: Purchases by protein concentration for use in processed cheese and

specialty nutrition products as a share of total purchases, 2002

Milk protein concentrate, protein concentration (percent)1

End-use application 40-49 50-59 70-79 80-89 90 + 40-90+

—————–—––——Share of total purchases——––——————

Processed cheese products2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 91 8 0 100

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 60 22 6 100

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0 70 24 100 1

 No companies reported purchases of MPC 60-69.

2

 Includes a small volume of MPC used as starter culture in natural cheese. 

Note.—Data are presented as shares of total purchases so as not to reveal confidential business information.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

processed cheese products. Firms reported using MPC produced via ultrafiltration and the

blending method in the production of processed cheese products. However, the use of MPC

produced using ultrafiltration was far more common.4

 MPC 40-49 was mainly used in

production of other dairy foods, such as frozen desserts and cultured milk products, whereas

very little low-protein MPC was used in processed cheese products.

Although respondents reported using the full range of MPC protein concentrations (from

42 to over 90 percent) in specialty nutrition applications, most used MPC 80 or higher

(table 7-3). Specialty nutrition applications accounted for most purchases of milk protein

isolate (MPI) and a significant share of all purchases of MPC 80-89. Several of the

companies that used MPC in their sports nutrition or dietetic products reported that they

utilize other protein products in combination with MPC. Such producers mixed MPC with

WPC, soy protein, and caseinate in a manner that provides the desired functionality and

protein delivery at the lowest possible cost. These mixtures can generally be altered to some

degree depending on the health claims made by the producer.5

 This practice is particularly

common for nutrition bar manufacturers.

Although MPC is used in a number of specialty nutrition products, use appears to be more

common in bar products than in beverages. A search of products incorporating MPC brought

to market between January 2001 and June 2003 identified 113 new products, or product

extensions, that incorporated MPC.6

 Of these, 32 could be classified within the specialty

nutrition market, including 12 ready-to-drink beverages or drink mixes, 18 bar products, and

2 were other types of products. A search for products incorporating MPI returned 54 results,

44 in the specialty nutrition market, including 34 bar products, 8 ready-to-drink beverages

or drink mixes, and 2 infant formulas.7

The amount of MPC used in bakery products was reported to be small relative to all other

uses. Companies reported using MPC 42, MPC 50, and MPC 90 in products such as cake

mixes and donuts. However, MPC of protein concentrations between 40 and 59 percent
 8

 Milk replacers are animal feed products used to replace the mother’s milk in the feeding of

newborn animals.

 9

 Four companies reported purchases of acid casein for use in adhesives, leather, paint, plastic,

and fabric applications.

7-5

accounted for most of the MPC used in these applications. One firm reported using small

quantities of MPC 42 in confectionary applications in the past, although it discontinued use

of MPC during the 1998-2002 period. MPC is used in animal feed applications, although

animal feed is not a major end-use. Firms reported using MPC 42, MPC 70, and MPC 85 in

milk replacers.8

Casein

Casein is utilized in a wide variety of applications, although questionnaire respondents

reported that its use is concentrated primarily in nondairy foods. In 2002, nondairy products,

primarily imitation cheese and coffee creamers, accounted for 68 percent of total casein

purchases (table 7-4). About 14 percent of reported casein use was for the production of

specialty nutrition products and 9 percent was used to produce other dairy foods. Seven

percent of casein purchases were used in processed cheese product production. While

important in the past, the use of casein in industrial products has almost completely

disappeared as the result of increased use of synthetic materials.9

Table 7-4

Casein: Purchases of acid and rennet casein as share of total purchases, 2002

Casein type/market category Percent

Total casein:

Nondairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Other dairy foods .................................................................. 9

Processed cheese products .......................................................... 7

Other food applications .............................................................. (1

)

Industrial applications ............................................................... 1

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Acid casein:

Nondairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Industrial applications ............................................................... 2

Bakery products ................................................................... 1

Other food applications .............................................................. (1

)

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Rennet casein:

Nondairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Processed cheese products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Other dairy foods .................................................................. 5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1

 Less than 0.5 percent

Note.—Data are presented as shares of total purchases so as not to reveal confidential business information.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.
7-6

Coffee creamer accounted for 31 percent of all casein purchases, all of which was acid

casein. Companies also reported using acid casein in the production of bakery products, such

as mixes and cookies. Imitation cheese accounted for 54 percent of reported purchases for

the nondairy foods category. Rennet casein accounted for 96 percent of all the casein used

in imitation cheese. Firms reported using rennet casein in grated cheese toppings, pizza

cheese, and other processed cheese products.

Caseinate

Questionnaire responses indicated that caseinate was the only milk protein product used in

the full range of products (table 7-1). Almost three-quarters of caseinate purchases were used

in the production of specialty nutrition products, such as ready-to-drink beverages, drink

powders, bar products, and other forms in sports, dietetic, and medical nutrition applications

(table 7-5). Both sodium and calcium caseinate were utilized in manufacturing specialty

nutritional products, which accounted for 59 percent of all purchases of sodium caseinate and

94 percent of all purchases of calcium caseinate. 

Table 7-5

Caseinate: Purchases of sodium and calcium caseinate as share of total purchases, 2002

Caseinate type/market category Percent

Total caseinate:

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Nondairy foods .................................................................... 9

Processed cheese products .......................................................... 3

Meat products ..................................................................... 2

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Confectionary products .............................................................. 1

Bakery products ................................................................... (1

)

Other food applications .............................................................. (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Sodium caseinate:

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Other dairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Nondairy foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Processed cheese products .......................................................... 5

Meat products ..................................................................... 4

Animal feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Confectionary products .............................................................. 1

Bakery products ................................................................... 1

Other food applications .............................................................. (1

)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Calcium caseinate:

Specialty nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Other dairy foods .................................................................. 5

Processed cheese products .......................................................... 1

Bakery applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

)

Confectionary products ............................................................. (1

)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1

 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note.—Data are presented as shares of total purchases so as not to reveal confidential business information.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.
 10 USDA, NASS, Dairy Products, Annual Summary, various issues.

 11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and

Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO-01-326 (Mar. 2001). 

 12 Data are not available to demonstrate the degree of any subsitition between UF milk and

SMP.

7-7

Other dairy foods, including dairy ingredients and frozen dessert products, were reported as

the second-largest use of caseinate. The third-largest use of caseinate was in the production

of nondairy foods, although only sodium caseinate was used in this application. Companies

indicated that they used sodium caseinate in the production of coffee creamers, toppings, and

other flavoring products. 

Respondents reported using small amounts of caseinate in bakery, meat, confectionary, and

animal feed applications. Companies also reported using calcium and sodium caseinate in

the production of sugar-free products, and indicated that caseinate is an essential ingredient

in the production of sugar-free or lactose-free products. Sodium and calcium caseinate were

the only milk protein products that companies reported using in meat applications.

Companies reported using both calcium and sodium caseinate in soup and dip products and

in animal feed applications. Caseinates are commonly used in milk replacers or in other

liquid applications because of their more soluble nature. Two firms reported using sodium

caseinate in the production of milk replacers.

Skim Milk Powder

According to ADPI data, SMP is used in a wide array of end-use applications (table 7-6).

SMP use in dairy applications accounted for the largest share, approximately 56 percent of

total SMP use in 2002. The amount of SMP used in the dairy industry declined sharply

during the 1998-2002 period, falling from 651 million pounds in 1998 to 416 million pounds

in 2002 (table 7-6). The most significant decline was in the production of hard cheese, which

declined by 83 million pounds. However, the decline in the use of SMP in cheese production

was not reflected by a decline in the production of cheese. While SMP use in cheese

production declined by approximately 33 percent from 1998 to 2002, total production of

American-type cheese increased by approximately 12 percent, and all cheese production

increased by 15 percent.10 U.S. dairy industry representatives claim that imports of milk

protein products contributed to the decline in SMP use in cheese production. The ADPI data

on hard cheese primarily reflects production of American-type cheeses that are governed by

FDA standards of identity. These regulations do not permit the use of MPC in the production

of these products.

Responses to Commission questionnaires indicated that SMP was the only milk protein

product used in the production of cheese products with FDA standards of identity. However,

fieldwork by Commission staff indicated that cheese producers are increasingly using

ultrafiltered (UF) milk in the production of natural cheese. A prior study identified 22 dairy

plants in the United States that produce UF milk, primarily for cheese manufacturing.11 Also,

as noted in chapter 3, U.S. dairy producers in California and New Mexico are producing UF

milk for use in the cheese-making process. The increased use of UF milk under the FDA’s

alternate make procedures (see chapter 3) may be contributing to the decline in SMP use in

the cheese-making process.12
 13 ADPI, Whey Products 2002 Utilization & Production Trends (2003).

7-8

Table 7-6

Skim milk powder: Domestic sales by end-use application, 1998-2002

End-use application 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Million pounds–––––––––––––––

Dairy Industry:

Hard cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 189 112 269 169

Frozen dessert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 110 94 93 85

Cottage & cream cheese ....................... (1

) (1) 33 39 31

Fluid milk & drink mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 43 41 13 20

Cultured products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 68 29 21 18

Dry dairy blends .............................. (1

) (1) 47 14 12

Sales of skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1

) (1)611

All other dairy uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 231 164 172 82

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651 640 527 621 416

Nutraceuticals, pharmaceutical & special dietary use . . . . 3 24 50 52 72

Confectionary industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 54 51 59 67

Baking industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 55 67 60 59

Prepared dry mixes & dry blend manufacturers . . . . . . . . 54 60 42 47 43

Infant formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 19 18 19 26

Beverage manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11 31 25 24

All other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 62 55 37 35

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896 925 840 920 742

1

 Not available.

Source: American Dairy Products Institute, Dry Milk Products Utilization & Production Trends (2000 and 2002).

Whey Protein Concentrate

According to ADPI data, WPC is used extensively in dairy, specialty nutrition, and animal

feed products. In 2002, dairy products accounted for approximately 51 percent of all WPC

utilization.13 The use of WPC in dairy products increased from 62 million pounds in 1998

to 95 million pounds in 2002 (table 7-7). WPC use increased considerably from 1998 to

1999 but then declined between 1999 and 2002. Questionnaire responses indicated that WPC

with protein concentrations from 35 to 55 percent were used in the production of processed

cheese products, whereas WPC 34 to WPC 80 were used in the production of cultured and

other frozen dessert products. WPC use in specialty nutrition applications (including infant

formula, nutraceuticals, pharmaceutical, and other special dietary use) increased from

26 million pounds in 1998 to 40 million pounds in 2002 (table 7-7). Questionnaire responses

indicated that companies use WPC in a variety of concentrations from WPC 34 to whey

protein isolate (WPI) in the production of specialty nutrition products. Infant and pediatric

nutrition products incorporate WPC 34 to WPC 80, whereas dietetic, medical, and sports

nutrition products utilized WPC 34 to WPI. 
7-9

Table 7-7

Whey protein concentrate: Domestic sales by end-use application, 1998-2002

End-use application 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––Million pounds––––––––––––––––

Dairy industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 98 90 95 95

Dry blends & prepared dry mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 51 42 24 26

Infant formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 19 15 19 23

Nutraceuticals, pharmaceutical & special dietary use . . . . 15 24 36 32 17

Baking industry ................................. 68673

Institutional use ................................. 01001

Confectionary industry ........................... 22231

Meat industry .................................. 24341

Soup manufacturers ............................. 11000

Wet blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 10 0 0

All other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 13 23 6 19

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 231 228 191 186

Source: American Dairy Products Institute, Whey Products Utilization & Production Trends (1999, 2000, and

2002).

Substitutability of Imported Milk Protein Products

In order to conduct an analysis of the impact of imports of milk protein on the U.S. dairy

industry, the Commission first determined the degree to which imports of MPC, casein, and

caseinate may have been displacing U.S.-produced milk protein products, primarily SMP.

The Commission utilized data gathered from purchasers’ questionnaires to examine the

potential displacement of U.S.-produced milk protein by imported milk protein products.

Questionnaire data on purchasing patterns and choices by end-users allowed the Commission

to estimate the amount of U.S.-produced milk protein that was displaced by imports during

the 1998-2002 period.

Questionnaire responses and interviews with industry and academic experts indicated that

the degree to which different milk protein products can substitute for one another is primarily

driven by three factors: regulatory restrictions, technical substitutability, and economic

substitutability. Regulatory restrictions refer primarily to FDA standard of identity

regulations, which limit the use of MPC, casein, and caseinate in food applications.

Technical substitutability refers to the ability of different milk proteins to provide the same

functional and/or nutritional attributes required in an end-use application. As noted in

chapter 1 and appendix D, the functional attributes of milk proteins depend heavily on the

protein concentration and the manufacturing process. Factors influencing economic

substitutability include prices, switching costs, and availability. The following discussion

reviews how each of these factors affect the use and substitutability of different milk proteins

in the production of dairy products; imitation or nondairy products; specialty nutrition

products; animal feed; and other food products, such as bakery, confectionary, and meat

applications.

Dairy Products

Milk proteins are used extensively in the production of dairy products, including hard,

processed, and other forms of cheese; ice cream and other frozen desserts; and yogurt and
 14 Dr. David Barbano, Cornell University, interview by USITC staff, July 21, 2003; Dr. Tom

Flores, Pennsylvania State University, interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003; company official,

Kraft Foods, interview by USITC staff, July 23, 2003; Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff,

presentation to USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 15 Academic experts consulted by the Commission indicated that excess lactose levels may be

of more concern in natural cheeses than in processed cheese products. The reactions that cause the

lactose to alter the color, flavor, and consistency of the cheese occur over time and are not

instantaneous. The production process for many natural cheeses includes an aging process. It is

during this aging process that the unwanted reactions can occur. Processed cheese products that

are used rapidly, either as an ingredient in other products or shipped to the retail market, may be

consumed before these unwanted reactions can occur. Dr. David Barbano, Cornell University,

interview by USITC staff, July 21, 2003; Dr. Mark Johnson, Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research,

presentation to USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

7-10

other cultured products. Manufacturers of such products need the raw milk to be of a known

and consistent protein concentration. However, the protein content of raw milk varies

according to a number of natural factors, such as season, cow age, and the type of animal

feed used. Therefore, milk proteins are often used to standardize the protein concentration

of the milk used in the production process in order to control for the natural fluctuations in

the protein concentration of raw milk. 

Historically, dairy product manufacturers primarily used SMP as a protein source for milk

protein standardization. However, the use of SMP for this purpose is limited by its high

lactose content. Lactose is a problematic ingredient in a number of dairy products. Therefore,

alternative protein sources that can deliver the desired protein without the lactose are

appealing for the production of products where excess lactose is a concern. In these

applications, MPC can be a good substitute for SMP, as MPC has less lactose than SMP.

However, FDA standards of identity, as well as economic considerations, are also important

factors in a processor’s decision to use MPC instead of SMP.

Cheese

Regulatory factors

As discussed in chapter 3, current FDA regulations do not allow producers to use MPC in

the production of natural cheese products with a standard of identity. MPC may be used in

the production of processed cheese products (such as cheese slices, sauces, dips, and

powders) for which there are no standards of identity. Additionally, cheesemakers may use

MPC in the starter culture in the production of natural cheese. More detail on FDA standards

of identity are provided in appendix E.

Technical factors

The presence of high levels of lactose in many dairy products is problematic for

manufacturers. In interviews with Commission staff, industry and academic experts stressed

the importance of controlling the amount of lactose present during the manufacturing of both

natural and processed cheese.14 Excess lactose reacts with water to form crystals, results in

poor cooking and melting properties, and over time, may alter the color, flavor, and

consistency of the product.15 Industry experts noted that MPC produced using the
 16 In cheese manufacturing, yield gains refer to the ability of the cheese manufacturer to

produce more cheese from the same starting amount of milk, while throughput gains refer to the

ability of the cheese manufacturer to produce more cheese by adding more ingredients and

recovering the additional ingredients in the cheese, as opposed to the additional ingredients

flowing out in the whey stream.

 17 Dr. David Barbano, Cornell University, interview by USITC staff, July 21, 2003; Dr. Tom

Flores, Pennsylvania State University, interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003; Company official,

Kraft Foods, interview by USITC staff, July 23, 2003; Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff,

presentation to USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 18 Dr. David Barbano, Cornell University, interview by USITC staff, July 21, 2003; company

officials, Kraft Foods, interview by USITC staff, July 23, 2003.

7-11

ultrafiltration process is a superior ingredient to SMP in cheese manufacturing. MPC has

similar solubility, color, and flavor characteristics as SMP, but has less lactose. The use of

MPC allows for protein standardization without the addition of large amounts of lactose. In

conjunction with this advantage, the use of MPC could increase both yield and throughput

in the production of natural cheese.16

Natural cheese

Although the use of MPC is generally not permitted in the production of natural cheese,

current FDA regulations and enforcement policy do not prohibit the use of UF milk. As a

result, U.S. manufacturers of natural cheese are taking advantage of the beneficial properties

of UF milk, which, like MPC, has lower levels of lactose than SMP. The use of UF milk can

also increase yield and throughput in a manner similar to MPC. Some cheesemakers use UF

milk purchased from third-party suppliers, while others have installed ultrafiltration

equipment in their cheese plants, and the UF process is part of the entire cheese-making

process.

Both industry and academic experts interviewed by Commission staff noted that MPC

produced using the ultrafiltration method would function differently in the cheese-making

process than MPC produced via blending or co-precipitation. In particular, experts doubted

whether a blend or co-precipitate MPC would function properly in the natural cheese

production process because of concern regarding the solubility and flavor; and in the case

of a blend MPC produced from caseinates, because of the presence of alkalis.17

Processed cheese

Unlike natural cheeses, FDA regulations do not prohibit the use of MPC in processed cheese

products. Processed cheese manufacturers may prefer to use MPC rather than UF milk

because of important differences in the production processes between natural and processed

cheese. The production process for natural cheese begins with liquid milk, so these

production facilities have the infrastructure to store and process large volumes of liquid

ingredients. In contrast, the production process for processed cheese begins with natural

cheese (ingredient cheese or barrel cheese) as the primary ingredient. Processed cheese

facilities may not have the capability to store and process large quantities of liquid

ingredients. Therefore, the ability of these processed cheese facilities to use UF milk is

limited without significant new capital investment.18
 19 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, presentation to USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003; Mr.

Michael Reinke, Kraft Foods, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 323.

7-12

Questionnaire results

The Commission sent questionnaires to every member of the National Cheese Institute, about

150 cheese manufacturers who account for approximately 80 percent of all cheese produced

in the United States. These companies produce a wide range of natural and processed cheese

products. Firms reported using SMP, MPC, WPC, casein, and caseinate in the production

of natural or processed cheese. SMP was the only dairy protein used in the production of

natural cheese. Some firms that purchased SMP stated that if the FDA standards of identity

permitted the use of MPC in the production of natural cheese, they would likely switch from

SMP to MPC because of its functional attributes. Firms did, however, report using MPC and

SMP in the starter culture for the production of natural cheese. SMP was used in both natural

and processed cheese, however, MPC was used only in processed cheese. 

Firms that use MPC 42 in processed cheese products noted that potential substitute proteins

were SMP and WPC, whereas firms using MPC 70 reported that potential substitute protein

sources are ingredient cheese, SMP, and UF milk. Of the firms that reported using MPC 70

in processed cheese, all but one stated that their use of MPC 70 was directly substituting for

ingredient cheese or SMP. One firm reported that it switched from UF milk to MPC 70.

SMP and MPC were not the only milk protein products used in the production of processed

cheese products. Firms reported the use of rennet casein in grated cheese toppings, pizza

cheese, and other processed cheese products. Firms also reported using sodium and calcium

caseinate in cheese sauces, powders, cream cheese, and other processed cheese products.

Firms reported using WPC of protein concentrations between 35 and 55 percent in a variety

of processed cheese products. In many of these cases, manufacturers noted that SMP and

ingredient cheese were viable substitutes. 

The questionnaire responses indicate that many firms produce a wide array of products

outside the FDA standards of identity. By operating outside the FDA regulations, firms have

considerably more freedom to substitute other milk proteins, particularly MPC, for

ingredient cheese and SMP in the production of processed cheese products. As a result,

producers utilize the full array of milk proteins available in the production of these products.

There appear to be few technical factors that limit the use of MPC in processed cheese. In

fact, as noted above, MPC appears to provide some functional attributes that are superior to

SMP. However, where the FDA regulations apply, they prevent the use of MPC. Some firms

that produce private-label cheese products reported that their use of ingredients can be

dictated by the need to match the ingredient labels of their major brand-name competitors.

One questionnaire respondent explicitly stated that the need to match the ingredient label of

the major brand-name products is increasing demand for MPC. 

Economic factors

Academic and industry experts consulted by Commission staff indicated that the equipment

currently used to produce processed cheese products with SMP could be used to produce

processed cheese products with MPC, with little or no change in the plant equipment,

employees and manufacturing process.19 Moreover, questionnaire respondents indicated that

they produce processed cheese products using either SMP or MPC on the same equipment
 20 U.S. industry officials, interviews of USITC staff, July 23, 2003.

 21 Mr. John Wilson, Dairy Farmers of America, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript p. 175.

 22 Mr. Thomas Palchack, Dr. John Flores, and Dr. Bob Roberts, Pennsylvania State University,

interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003.

7-13

with the same employees. This may indicate that the switching costs of producing processed

cheese products with SMP versus MPC are minimal.

The analysis of the relative price of protein in SMP and MPC presented in chapter 5,

indicates that imported MPC provides a lower-cost source of protein than both U.S.-

produced SMP and U.S.-produced UF milk. Several questionnaire respondents reported

substituting MPC and WPC for SMP and ingredient cheese in processed cheese production,

based on relative prices. One firm reported switching between MPC and UF milk owing to

the lower price of MPC. Firms that used SMP in the starter culture in the production of

natural cheese reported switching back and forth between MPC and SMP, based on price

difference. Additionally, the functional attributes of MPC provide further economic

advantages over SMP in the production of processed cheese products. U.S. processed cheese

manufacturers indicated that the use of MPC instead of SMP can improve the efficiency of

the production process and thereby lower total production costs.20 Processed cheese

producers reported that in order to remain competitive, they must use MPC.21 

Both SMP and MPC are widely used in the production of processed cheese products. SMP

has historically been used as the primary ingredient for protein standardization in the

processed cheese production process. More recently manufacturers have realized the benefits

of using MPC in this process instead of SMP. The use of MPC in the production of

processed cheese increased during the 1998-2002 period. Based on questionnaire responses,

the use of MPC in the production of processed cheese products increased by approximately

550 percent from 1998 to 2002. 

Ice cream and yogurt

Regulatory and technical factors

Ice cream and other frozen deserts, and yogurt and other cultured products, require both

casein and whey protein. Ice cream requires the casein proteins for its emulsifying properties,

and the whey protein for its water-binding properties. Yogurt requires the casein protein for

gel formation and the whey protein for its water-binding properties. However, for both ice

cream and yogurt, a complete milk protein (such as SMP or MPC) is better than using a

casein protein and a whey protein separately (such as casein or caseinate and WPC). Since

casein is not readily soluble, it is not widely used in the production of ice cream and yogurt.

The presence of alkali in caseinates makes them a less desirable ingredient than a complete

milk protein. Higher-protein WPC in ice cream production would result in too much gel

formation. As a result of these technical problems, a MPC, in particular a MPC produced

using the ultrafiltration method, is considered a superior ingredient to other forms of milk

proteins in ice cream and yogurt production. Academic experts consulted by Commission

staff indicated that such a MPC would be a superior ingredient to SMP in the production of

ice cream and yogurt.22 Since high lactose levels lower the freezing point of ice cream,
 23 Food Standards & Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and

Drug Administration staff, interview with USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003.

 24 Industry and academic experts consulted by Commission staff indicated that a MPC produced

using the ultrafiltration process would be a superior product to MPC produced via blending or

co-precipitation for the production of ice cream and yogurt. The ultrafiltration process leaves the

proteins in their native state, while the production process of blended or co-precipitated MPC

requires chemical and/or heat treatments that can alter the proteins’ chemistry thereby altering their

functionality.

7-14

complicating the production process and storage of the finished product, the low lactose

levels available in MPC are attractive for the production of ice cream and yogurt.

Interviews with these experts indicated that the main reason MPC is not used in ice cream

and yogurt production are regulatory restrictions that limit the use of MPC in these products.

In the case of yogurt, the current FDA standards of identity allow for the use of MPC in the

production process.23 However, regulations require that any dairy ingredient used in the

production of yogurt be a Grade A product as determined by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA), and currently MPC does not have Grade A status.24

Questionnaire results

In response to the Commission’s questionnaires, 14 firms indicated that they used SMP in

ice cream, yogurt or other cultured products, or frozen dessert manufacturing. Four firms

reported using WPC with protein concentrations between 34 and 80 percent in yogurt or ice

cream products. Only two firms reported using MPC in cultured or frozen dessert products,

and one of the firms reported that it discontinued its use of MPC. However, one company

reported using a high-protein UF milk in the production of a cultured yogurt product.

Companies noted that SMP would be a potential substitute protein for the WPC or MPC. As

discussed in chapter 3, there is some confusion as to whether or not the FDA standards of

identity permit the use of MPC in the production of ice cream and yogurt. Based on

questionnaire responses it appears that U.S. manufacturers believe the FDA standards

generally prohibit the use of MPC in the production of ice cream and yogurt.

Economic factors

Owing to FDA regulatory restrictions, there appears to be only minor use of MPC in dairy

products other than cheese. As a result, the data on the economic substitutability are sparse.

However, if regulations do permit the use of MPC, two economic factors could encourage

the use of MPC in other dairy products: relatively low switching costs and the lower price

of per pound of protein from MPC. Academic experts consulted by Commission staff

indicated that switching from SMP to MPC in the ice cream production process would not

require significant changes in the production process or equipment. In the case of products

such as yogurt and ice cream, experts reported that producers conceivably could switch on

a daily basis depending on the relative prices between SMP and MPC without significant

changes to the production process. As shown in chapter 5, imported MPC offers producers

a lower cost protein source than U.S.-produced SMP. The lower price of protein from MPC

would provide a direct economic benefit for manufacturers.
 25 The U.S. market for sports nutrition products was estimated to be about $7 billion in 2001.

Sales of nutritional bars reached $592 million in 2003, reflecting double digit growth in recent

years. Euromonitor, Global Strategy (Nov. 2002), table 29; Dairy Australia, prehearing

submission, Dec. 1, 2003, p. 22; “Energetic Growth,” Milling & Baking News (July 8, 2003).

 26 Mr. John Frierott, Unilever, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript

pp. 243-244; Mr. Alan Hubble, Dean Foods, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

transcript pp. 258-260.

 27 For example, a weight-loss shake that uses skim milk as its base ingredient may require

different functional characteristics than a weight-loss shake that uses water as its base ingredient.

For beverages or shakes that use water as the base ingredient, whey protein may be preferred over

caseinates because of whey’s superior foaming characteristics that provide the desired thickness

and mouth-feel that would otherwise have been obtained from SMP.

 28 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, July 28 and Oct. 20, 2003; Wisconsin

Center for Dairy Research staff, presentation to USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

7-15

Specialty Nutrition Products

Specialty nutrition products include a wide variety of sports nutrition, dietetic, geriatric,

medical, or other functional-food products. This sector experienced significant growth during

the 1998-2002 period.25 Often the primary function of these products is to deliver very high

levels of protein in a highly concentrated form, often through beverages and bar products.

Brand-name consumer products found within this sector include Slimfast shakes and bars,

Ensure and Boost shakes, Atkin’s shakes and bars, Balance Bars, and PowerBars, among

others. 

Few regulations restrict the use of milk proteins in specialty nutrition products. In particular,

unlike many dairy products, there are no standards of food identity for specialty nutrition

products. Therefore, the choice of protein source in the production of specialty nutrition is

based primarily on technical and economic factors.26

Technical factors

Specialty nutrition products need to deliver very high levels of protein. As a result, they

typically require a higher-protein concentration ingredient than SMP. High-protein

concentrations of WPC and MPC, as well as caseinates and soy protein isolates, can all

provide high levels of protein. Therefore, issues of technical substitutability tend to focus on

the other functional characteristics of the protein, consumer perceptions of the efficacy of

the protein, and the targeting of specific protein compositions, rather than the amount of raw

protein in the protein source. The desired functional characteristics of the protein can vary

depending on the production process and what other ingredients are utilized.27 Typically, the

selection of the protein used by manufacturers is significantly affected by the marketing

claims of the product.

According to industry officials and academic experts consulted by Commission staff, the

most significant limiting factor in the use of soy protein is its taste.28 While milk proteins

often have a clean, milk flavor, soy protein has a very distinct taste that has not proven as

popular with consumers. As a result, the use of soy protein has been generally limited to

products that use soy as a selling point, products with formulations that can overcome the

soy flavor, and where taste is not a factor. 
 29 U.S. industry officials, interview by USITC staff, July 16, Aug. 20, and Oct. 9-10, 2003.

 30 Ibid.

 31 Ibid., July 28, 2003.

7-16

Weight-loss, meal-replacement, and sport products

In the production of weight-loss and meal-replacement products, caseinates, WPI, and soy

protein isolates tend to be used more than MPC, SMP, and WPC. Most of the Slimfast brand

weight-loss beverages are produced using calcium caseinate, whereas the Atkin’s brand

shakes are produced using WPI.29 Bar products, both the diet and sports nutrition segment,

commonly utilize a range of protein sources in each bar product. For example, Balance Bar

and PowerBar products are all labeled as containing a protein blend which may include

casein or caseinates, MPC, WPC, and soy protein. Several companies reported that very

high-protein sources are essential ingredients for products manufactured to be lactose free

or low-carbohydrate. For such products, SMP is not a viable protein source because of its

high lactose content.

In certain segments of the sports/fitness nutrition market, such as body-building

supplements, product manufacturers have a strong preference for whey protein. In this

market, whey protein is perceived by consumers to offer superior nutritional results

compared with casein or soy protein.30 Products in this market heavily promote and advertise

the presence of whey protein. Given the well established consumer perceptions of the

benefits of whey protein, substitution to other protein sources is unlikely in these markets.

Medical nutrition products

Medical nutrition products are food or nutritional supplements used when an individual’s

physical condition prevents the consumption of necessary nutrients from food. These

products are generally used in hospitals, nursing homes, or home health-care settings. These

products are designed to provide specific protein profiles to meet very specific nutritional

needs, and use the full range of highly concentrated protein sources, including MPC, casein,

caseinates, WPC, and soy protein. Producers are targeting very specific protein compositions

in these products and consequently, substitution between different protein sources is more

difficult. However, U.S. manufacturers noted that, despite substitution difficulties, there are

some applications where different protein sources can be substituted for one another, and in

such cases, they will typically select the least-expensive protein source.31

Questionnaire results

In response to the Commission’s questionnaires, 28 companies reported producing specialty

nutrition products using either SMP, WPC, WPI, MPC, casein, or caseinate. Based on

questionnaire responses, caseinate appears to be the most widely used milk protein in the

specialty nutrition market. Soy protein is also used extensively in this market. 

Of the 28 questionnaire respondents, 13 reported using SMP in specialty nutrition products,

mostly in diet and infant food products. SMP is both the sole protein source and a base

ingredient for several types of beverage products. However, products using SMP have a

different nutritional profile than competing products that incorporate imported milk proteins.

For example, products containing SMP cannot generally be marketed as low-carbohydrate
 32 Mr. Alan Hubble, Dean Foods, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 279.

7-17

or low-sugar products. The most common potential substitute for SMP identified by

questionnaire respondents was soy protein, and only one firm indicated that MPC could

potentially substitute for SMP in its product formulation. Several firms reported using SMP

in their products in combination with other protein sources, such as caseinate or MPC, in

order to optimize flavor, functionality, and protein delivery. 

Questionnaire respondents included 20 firms that reported use of MPC in specialty nutrition

products. Although respondents reported using the full range of protein concentrations (42-

90 percent), most used protein concentrations of 80 percent or higher. Where producers

provided information on potential substitute products for MPC, soy protein was the most

commonly cited, although WPC, WPI, and caseinate were also cited as potential substitutes.

Only one company indicated that SMP was a potential substitute protein source for MPC.

Several of the companies that utilize MPC in their sports nutrition or dietetic products use

other protein products in combination with MPC. Producers mix MPC with SMP, WPC, soy

protein, and caseinate to obtain the desired functionality and protein delivery. These mixtures

can generally be altered to some degree, depending on the health claims made by the

manufacturer.

Eleven firms reported using both sodium and calcium caseinate in a wide range of specialty

nutrition products. The most commonly reported substitute protein for caseinate was soy

protein, and manufacturers reported switching from caseinate to soy protein during the 1998-

2002 period. Other potential substitutes for caseinate were high-protein MPC and WPC,

although certain manufacturers use custom-made caseinate blends for which no viable

technical substitutes are possible. 

Overall, it appears that the main factors determining the technical substitutability among

different protein sources are the specific nutritional claims of the products. When

substitution is possible, soy protein appears to be the most common substitute. Additionally,

MPC, high-protein WPC, and caseinate appear to be at least partially substitutable for one

another in several products. SMP and MPC generally do not appear to be readily

substitutable in specialty nutrition products, although SMP and MPC are complementary

ingredients in the manufacture of certain products.

Economic factors

Caseinate is generally a cheaper source of protein than either SMP and MPC (table 5-3), and

this cost difference may account for some of the preference for caseinate in the specialty

nutrition market. Since many of the specialty nutrition products require milk protein products

with a high-protein concentration, imported protein products with a lower price per pound

have a significant advantage over domestically produced protein sources. Several specialty

nutrition product manufacturers indicated that price is a very important factor when selecting

a protein source.32 However, in products where manufacturers can substitute among different

protein sources in an effort to reduce costs, typically they substitute soy protein for milk

proteins. Questionnaire respondents indicated extensive switching from milk proteins,

including MPC and caseinate, to soy protein because of the lower price of soy protein. For

those products that use a blend of several protein products, several manufacturers reported

reducing their use of milk proteins in favor of soy protein to the maximum extent possible

in the blend.
 33 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Aug. 21, Oct. 9-10, and Nov. 13, 2003.

 34 Ibid., July 16 and Oct. 9-10, 2003.

 35 Ibid.

 36 Mr. James T. Schultz, Novartis Nutrition Corporation, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11,

2003, transcript, pp. 290-293. 

7-18

High-protein WPC and WPI are used extensively in the specialty nutrition market. Recently,

U.S. production of WPC 70 and WPC 80 has increased substantially, as producers moved

away from WPC with low-protein concentrations in response to a recent period of weak

WPC 34 prices.33 Increased U.S. production, coupled with increased imports of low-priced

WPC 70 and WPC 80 (particularly from New Zealand), created an oversupply in this market,

that in turn led to a dramatic decline in the price of high-protein WPC. Prices for WPC 80

reportedly declined from $1.80 per pound in 2000 to $1.20 per pound in 2002.34 This

downward price pressure also impacted prices for WPI that declined from approximately

$5.00 per pound to $3.00 per pound from the late-1990s to 2002.35 Some U.S. producers of

WPC noted that price premiums previously available on high-protein WPC are no longer

available and that high-protein WPC now trades at protein-adjusted prices based on the price

of WPC 34. Several questionnaire respondents mentioned that their use of SMP and MPC

declined because they switched to less-expensive ingredients, particularly WPC and soy

protein.

An important economic consideration in the specialty nutrition market is potentially

significant costs associated with changing the protein source used in the finished product

(switching costs). These costs are the result of significant requirements for research and

development (R&D), market testing, and in the case of certain medical products, clinical

testing. Although specialty nutrition producers were unable to provide an exact dollar

estimate of these switching costs, they indicated that the resource and time expenditures

would be significant, likely amounting to $100,000 or more.36 Although companies are

reluctant to reformulate their products, reformulation (such as substituting less expensive

WPC and soy protein, for more expensive SMP and MPC) can result in significant cost

savings. Thus, U.S. producers of specialty nutrition products continually need to balance the

benefit of using the least-cost ingredients with the cost of switching product formulations.

Nondairy Foods

Food products included in the nondairy processing segment include imitation cheeses,

margarine, and nondairy creamers. Although these products are marketed as nondairy foods,

many are manufactured using dairy proteins. There are no government regulations on

product formulations of these products. Therefore, the choice of protein sources is

determined by technical and economic factors.

Technical factors

Many imitation dairy products are manufactured using a combination of protein ingredients,

including whey or casein. A significant amount of U.S. imports of rennet casein is used in

the production of imitation cheese, whereas caseinate (both sodium and calcium caseinate)

is used extensively in the production of coffee creamers and toppings. However, nondairy

ingredients, such as vegetable oils, also account for a significant share of the total ingredients

used in many nondairy food applications.
 37 Mr. Alan Hubble, Dean Foods, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 297.

 38 American Institute of Baking staff, interview by USITC staff, July 8, 2003.

7-19

The Commission received questionnaire responses from companies using casein and

caseinate in the production of coffee creamers, toppings, and flavor additives. These firms

reported limited substitutability for casein and caseinate in the production of nondairy foods.

Firms reported using both casein and caseinate in coffee creamers. A small number of firms

reported soy protein as a potential substitute. No firms reported that SMP could substitute

for casein and caseinate in their product formulations.

Economic factors

Nondairy food manufacturers have experimented with using less-expensive protein sources,

such as whey protein and soy protein. However, these experiments have not resulted in final

products with the desired attributes.37 Technical limitations on the substitution of different

proteins in the nondairy foods sector tend to outweigh the economic advantages of

lower-cost protein sources.

Other Food Applications

Dairy proteins are used in a wide variety of other food products, including bakery products,

confectionary, cereals, soups, sauces, and meat products. In these applications, the choice

of the protein ingredients is generally based on functional characteristics, rather than ability

to provide protein. For example, in bakery products, wheat flour provides sufficient protein

to meet product protein requirements, whereas dairy proteins are used for their emulsifying,

gel formation, and flavor characteristics.38

Questionnaire results

Twenty-one firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaires indicated that they use

SMP, WPC, MPC, casein, and/or caseinate in the production of bakery, confectionary, or

soup and sauce products. However, only a small number of firms reported using MPC in any

of these product categories, and use was limited to bakery and confectionary products. In

bakery products, MPC with protein concentrations from 42 percent to over 90 percent was

used. Only MPC 42 was used in confectionary products. None of the responding firms

producing meat products, soups, or sauces reported purchases of MPC, although firms

manufacturing soup and sauce products reported using WPC with protein concentrations of

between 42 and 80 percent. The questionnaires found that WPC 34 and WPC 80 were used

in bakery products, while no firm reported purchasing WPC for use in meat or confectionary

products. 

In confectionary products, producers indicated few potential substitutes. Many confectionary

products are governed by FDA standards of identity, which limit the use of MPC. Where

substitutes were identified by questionnaire respondents, it was often between whole milk

powder (WMP) and a combination of SMP and milkfat. Two firms indicated that MPC and

SMP would be potential substitutes and that some minor substitution of SMP for MPC did
 39 Ibid.

7-20

occur. Two producers indicated that there are no viable substitutes for either sodium or

calcium caseinate in low-sugar or low-carbohydrate confectionary products. 

Those companies using SMP in bakery products indicated that WMP, MPC, or WPC were

potential substitutes for SMP. However, companies reporting MPC as a potential substitute

for SMP also indicated that considerable R&D would need to be undertaken before MPC

could be incorporated into their product formulations. The firms also noted that MPC could

successfully substitute for SMP in only a small portion of their respective product lines.

Companies that use MPC in bakery products reported that SMP and WPC are potential

substitutes at low-protein concentrations, whereas caseinate would be a potential substitute

product at high-protein concentrations. Only one firm reported that MPC and SMP could

substitute for caseinate in bakery products, and no firms reported potential substitutes for

WPC or casein in bakery products.

Firms using SMP in soup and sauce products reported only liquid or condensed skim milk

as potential substitutes. Firms using low-protein concentrations of WPC reported that SMP

would be a potential substitute, whereas no substitute product information was provided for

high-protein WPC. Those companies that reported substitute product information for

caseinate in soup and sauce products indicated soy protein as a potential substitute.

Companies that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires listed both sodium and

calcium casinate as the only dairy proteins used in meat applications. These companies

indicated that potential substitutes are nondairy protein products, such as soy protein.

Economic factors

Producers of food products will typically use the least-expensive protein that provides the

desired protein level and functional characteristics. As a result, WPC is often the first choice

among alternative protein sources. In the bakery industry, producers have shifted away from

SMP because of the significant volatility in SMP prices, and toward whey protein and/or

whey protein/casein blends.39 Questionnaire respondents also indicated that they switched

from SMP to lower-protein MPC because of price.

Animal Feed

Twelve companies responded to Commission questionnaires indicating that they purchased

SMP, MPC, WPC, or sodium caseinate for use in animal and/or pet foods. The most

commonly reported dairy protein purchased was WPC with protein concentrations between

34 and 85 percent. WPC purchases were universally used in milk replacer products, while

most purchases of SMP, MPC, and caseinate were also used in milk replacers.

Regulatory and technical factors

Firms using dairy proteins in animal feed indicated a high degree of technical substitutability

among different protein sources. In this market, potential substitutes are not limited to other

dairy proteins. Manufacturers indicated that soy protein, blood plasma, and wheat protein
 40 The future use of blood plasma in animal feeds is uncertain pending changes in FDA

regulations.

 41 U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Aug. 21 and Oct. 9-10, 2003.

 42 Ibid.

7-21

would all be potential substitute protein sources.40 The most common substitute product

reported for WPC was SMP, although companies indicated that MPC, soy protein, or blood

plasma are all potential substitutes for WPC. Those firms that use SMP in their products

mentioned WPC, MPC, or blood plasma as potential substitutes. Firms that use SMP

reported switching between SMP and WPC based on relative prices, whereas firms that use

MPC indicated that they can, and do, substitute WPC for MPC. Firms that use sodium

caseinate reported high-protein WPC as a potential substitute product.

Economic factors

The relative ease with which animal feed manufacturers can meet their technical

requirements using a wide array of protein sources results in most ingredient decisions being

price based. WPC, generally the lowest-priced milk protein, therefore has a significant

advantage and is the most frequently used milk protein in animal feed products. However,

firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaires indicated a high degree of economic

substitutability among protein sources. Several firms indicated that they had switched

between WPC, MPC, and SMP at different times during the 1998-2002 period based on

relative prices.

It is generally held that the world price of SMP acts as a price ceiling for U.S. WPC 34

prices.41 During the 1998-2002 period, the price of WPC 34 reported by the USDA averaged

$0.12 per pound less than the world price of SMP and $0.41 per pound less than the U.S.

price of SMP. With average prices of $1.01 per pound for U.S. SMP and $0.60 per pound

for WPC 34, the $0.41 price gap is a significant price advantage.

Two other factors that impacted WPC prices and demand in the United States are the

increased supply of high-protein WPC and USDA drought assistance programs. As noted

above, U.S. WPC producers reported sharp declines in the prices of high-protein WPC as a

result of increased supply. An additional economic factor affecting the selection of the

protein source in animal feed has been recent USDA drought assistance programs. In 2002

and 2003, the USDA provided large amounts of SMP at very low prices to the U.S. animal

feed industry as part of drought assistance programs. U.S. WPC producers claim that the

large quantities of SMP made available through this program depressed prices in the WPC

market as feed producers switched to the low-priced SMP.42 This allegation appears to be

supported by questionnaire responses. Multiple questionnaire respondents indicated that they

switched from WPC to SMP to take advantage of the USDA drought assistance program.

However, the downward trend in WPC prices provides further economic advantage for the

use of WPC versus other proteins in animal feed products for feed manufacturers unable to

take advantage of the USDA programs. 
7-22

Potential Displacement of U.S.-produced Milk Proteins by

Imports

Based on the above information, manufacturers are using imported milk protein, such as

MPC, casein, and caseinate, instead of U.S.-produced milk proteins, such as SMP, ingredient

cheese, UF milk, and WPC. This substitution has occurred in several applications, including

processed cheese products, other dairy foods, and bakery products. There appears to be little

substitution between imported and U.S.-produced milk proteins in specialty nutrition

products. It appears that the majority of this substitution occurs in the production of

processed cheese products where MPC substitutes for SMP, UF milk, and ingredient cheese.

To a lesser extent, manufacturers are substituting imported casein and caseinate for SMP,

WPC, UF milk, and ingredient cheese in processed cheese products, other dairy foods, and

bakery products. Direct analysis of the degree of substitution is difficult because the protein

content of these milk protein products varies considerably. However, each can be converted

to a protein basis to permit an analysis of the degree of substitution between imported and

U.S.-produced milk protein products. Questionnaire responses provided data on the volume

of imported milk proteins that substituted for U.S.-produced milk proteins in 2002. Data

from 2002 was used to estimate the volume of substitutable milk proteins in 1998-2001.

Table 7-8 presents the estimated volume of MPC, casein, and caseinate that substituted for

U.S.-produced milk protein products.

Table 7-8

Milk protein products: Estimated quantity of protein from milk protein concentrate, casein, and

caseinate that substitute for U.S.-produced milk protein, 1998-2002

Products 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Million pounds of protein––––––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 34 51 37 39

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22 25 22 20

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 7 6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 63 82 66 66

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The volume of imports that substitute for U.S.-produced milk protein products, on a protein

basis, were estimated to range from 41 million pounds in 1998 to 82 million pounds in 2000.

The peak in substitutable imports in 2000 matched the peak in total imports of MPC in 2000.

However, substitutable imports did not decline as significantly from 2000 to 2001 as imports

of MPC declined. This is primarily the result of the increase in average protein concentration

of imports from 2000 to 2001 (see chapter 6). Substitutable imports accounted for between

21 and 30 percent of total imports.

This analysis assumes that MPC, casein, and caseinate used in the production of processed

cheese products, other dairy products, and bakery products are highly substitutable for U.S.-

produced milk protein products. However, while manufacturers may readily switch from

U.S.-produced to imported milk proteins, they are somewhat less likely to switch from

imported to U.S.-produced milk proteins. Barring significant changes in relative prices, the

superior functional properties of imported milk proteins discourage switching to SMP, UF

milk, WPC, or ingredient cheese from MPC. It also assumes that MPC, casein, and caseinate
 43 Because of a lack of data, no attempt was made to estimate the potential displacement of UF

milk by imported milk proteins in specialty nutrition applications. Additionally, this analysis does

not estimate the degree to which U.S.-produced WPC may be displaced by imported MPC, casein,

and caseinate in the specialty nutrition market. Any such displacement of U.S.-produced WPC

could impact WPC prices. However, because of the manner in which FMMO prices are calculated,

the impact on farm-level prices or CCC stocks would be minimal (see chapter 9). For similar

reasons the analysis also does not estimate the amount of U.S.-produced WPC that may be

displaced by imports of WPC.

 44 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 28-29.

7-23

are only marginally substitutable for U.S.-produced milk proteins in the production of other

food products, specialty nutrition products, and animal feed products.43 For nondairy foods,

such as imitation cheese and coffee creamers, this analysis assumes that imported and

U.S.-produced milk proteins do not substitute for one another. Further, because firms did not

provide any data on the end-use applications for MPC 60-69, the Commission was unable

to estimate the degree to which imports of MPC 60-69 may substitute for U.S.-produced

milk proteins.

Changes in the assumptions of the degree to which imported and U.S.-produced milk

proteins can substitute for each other would alter the analysis in table 7-8. Changes in the

assumptions regarding substitutability in processed cheese products and specialty nutrition

would have the most significant impact on this analysis. Specialty nutrition and nondairy

foods accounted for approximately 24 percent of purchases of MPC and 82 percent of

purchases of casein and caseinate (tables 7-2, 7-4, and 7-5). Processed cheese products

accounted for 62 percent of MPC purchases, 7 percent of casein purchases, and 3 percent of

caseinate purchases (tables 7-2, 7-4, and 7-5). Therefore, these three end-use applications

account for more than 80 percent of all purchases of MPC, casein, and caseinate. Because

other end-use applications, such as other dairy foods, confectionary, meat, and animal feed,

account for a small portion of total purchases, changes in the assumptions regarding

substitutability for these applications would have a limited impact on the analysis.

The volume of imports that substitute for U.S.-produced milk proteins can be converted to

an SMP equivalent to allow for a direct comparison between imported and U.S.-produced

milk protein products on a product basis. The product comparison is on a SMP equivalent

basis because SMP has a constant protein content (approximately 36 percent). Although

imported milk protein products also substitute for UF milk, ingredient cheese, and WPC, the

protein content of these products varies considerably more than SMP. This variability makes

conversion of pounds of protein to pounds of product less accurate. On an SMP equivalent

basis, the 66 million pounds of protein used in 2002 are equivalent to approximately

183 million pounds of SMP (table 7-9). The volume of imports that substitute for

U.S.-produced milk proteins on an SMP basis will be used in chapter 9 to analyze the impact

of imports on U.S. farm-level prices.

The above analysis limits the estimate of the displacement of U.S.-produced milk proteins

by imported milk protein products to those applications where physical substitution has

actually occurred. The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) distinguishes between

this type of analysis and what they refer to as “economic substitution.”44 The NMPF claims

that “U.S. milk proteins could be and would be manufactured into any and all products

currently imported, if imported milk proteins did not benefit from subsidies which reduce

their prices or if U.S. milk proteins were able to receive corresponding subsidies to match
 45 Ibid., transcript p. 28.

7-24

Table 7-9

Milk protein products: Quantity of milk protein product imports, and estimated volume of milk

protein imports that substitute for U.S.-produced milk protein, 1998-2002

Imports 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––Quantity (million pounds of protein)–––––––––––

Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 251 277 230 237

Substitutable imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 63 82 66 66

–––––––Quantity (million pounds, skim milk powder equivalent)–––––

Substitutable imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 174 229 183 183

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

imported protein prices.”45 The analysis presented in chapter 5 indicates that U.S. imports

of MPC from the EU were strongly affected by EU and U.S. dairy policies and that current

U.S. dairy policies may limit the competitiveness of U.S.-produced MPC, casein, and

caseinate. U.S. production of these products is limited, and likely to remain limited, so long

as current Federal Milk Marketing Order and Dairy Price Support Program prices remain in

effect. Should these conditions change, then the viability of U.S. production of MPC, casein,

and caseinate could also change. Under conditions where U.S. dairy producers could be

competitive in the production of these products, the degree of direct substitution between

imported and U.S.-produced milk proteins could increase as imported and U.S.-produced

milk proteins compete in the same form (i.e., U.S.-produced MPC versus imported MPC, as

opposed to U.S.-produced SMP versus imported MPC).
 1

 During 2000-2002, imports of dried skim milk (HTS Chapter 4, note 7) and dried whole milk

(HTS Chapter 4, note 8) in excess of their quota levels accounted for less than 1 percent and 2

percent, respectively, of total imports of these products.

 2

 Mr. Jerry Kozak, NMPF, in letter to USITC, concerning Bill Report H.R. 1786 and S. 847,

Aug. 13, 2001.

 3

 Mr. Jerry Kozak, NMPF, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, Committee on Agriculture House of Representatives, May 20,

2003, transcript p. 161.

 4

 The Milk Import Tariff Equity Act of 2003 was introduced into the House (H.R. 1160) and

Senate (S. 560) on March 6, 2003. Under these identical bills, annual imports of MPC (HTS

subheading 0404.90.10) would be limited to 15,818 mt, beyond which imports would face an overquota tariff of $1,560 per mt. Also, imports of casein and caseinate (3501.10.10, 3501.10.50, and

3501.90.60) would be limited to 54,051 mt annually, beyond which imports would face an overquota tariff of $2,160 per mt. The proposed quota levels are roughly 50 percent of actual average

imports over 1997-1999, and the over-quota tariff rates would reflect the protein content of these

imports in relation to the over-quota tariff and protein content in SMP.

8-1

CHAPTER 8

TARIFF TREATMENT OF U.S. IMPORTS

OF MILK PROTEIN PRODUCTS

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the tariff treatment of U.S. imports of milk protein

products by presenting a brief history showing how the tariff structure evolved. Tracing this

history explains how current differences in tariff treatment among milk protein products

arose. The chapter concludes with a review of recent rulings by the U.S. Bureau of Customs

and Border Protection (Customs) concerning milk protein products.

U.S. tariff treatment of imported milk proteins varies considerably by product type. Imports

of skim milk powder (SMP), whole milk powder (WMP), and fluid milk, are subject to

tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) with high over-quota tariffs that, for the most part, limit trade to

within quota levels.1

 In contrast, imports of many other milk protein products, such as milk

protein concentrate (MPC) and whey protein concentrate (WPC), face generally low ad

valorem or specific tariffs and no quantity limits, whereas imports of casein and milk

albumin (whey protein isolate) enter the United States free of duty.

U.S. dairy producers, represented by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), have

expressed concern that importers have used this differentiation in tariff rates to “circumvent”

U.S. trade regulations.2

 Specifically, the NMPF asserts that importers are exploiting a

“loophole”3

 in the U.S. tariff schedule in which dairy products with very similar

characteristics and composition to SMP are being imported as MPC at a low rate of duty,

whereas SMP is subject to much higher TRQ rates. The NMPF has responded to its

members’ concerns in two ways. First, it has supported proposed legislation that would

introduce two new TRQs—one for MPC and another for casein and caseinate—that would

significantly reduce imports from recent levels.4

 Second, the NMPF has petitioned Customs

to reclassify MPC manufactured through a blending process in a tariff provision that would

subject imports to the existing TRQ on SMP.
 5

 7 U.S.C. sec. 624 as amended.

 6

 The WTO Agreement on Agriculture is also referred to as the Uruguay Round Agreement on

Agriculture.

 7

 When the United States became a member of the GATT in 1947, it became subject to GATT

Article XI banning quantitative restrictions on trade which posed a legal obstacle to the use of

section 22 against U.S. imports of agricultural products. However, in 1955, the United States was

granted a waiver to GATT Article XI, thereby permitting continued use of section 22.

 8

 Before quotas could be introduced, the Secretary of Agriculture had to advise the President

that there was a reason to believe imports were impacting programs administered by the USDA.

Then, the President would request that the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) conduct

an investigation to provide findings and recommendations. Following the USITC report, the

President was permitted to impose an import fee of up to 50 percent ad valorem or a quantitative

restriction. Quotas on dairy products generally limited imports to a quantity of about 2 percent of

the equivalent of U.S. production of milk. U.S. International Trade Commission, “Section 22: 

Uruguay Round Agreement Changes U.S. Operation of Agricultural Program,” Industry, Trade,

and Technology Review (May 1995).

 9 Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement of Administrative Action, published in H. Doc.

103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 728.

8-2

History of U.S. Tariff Classification and Tariff Treatment

Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

Current tariff treatment of milk protein products is the result in part of actions taken by the

President under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 19335

 prior to 1995,

when the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture6

 entered into force.7

Section 22 authorized the President to impose quotas or fees on imported agricultural

products when such imports were found to “render or tend to render, or materially interfere

with, any program or operation undertaken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

or to reduce substantially the amount of any product processed in the United States from any

agricultural commodity or product thereof covered by a USDA program.”8

 Between mid1953 and the implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, 55 separate section 22

investigations were conducted, most of them covering dairy products. Quotas were imposed

on virtually all imports of articles derived from cow’s milk except casein, caseinates,

lactalbumin, and soft-ripened cow’s-milk cheese. Dairy and products containing dairy

ingredients accounted for nearly 45 percent of the total value of U.S. import restrictions

under section 22. As a result of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, section 22 quotas and

fees were converted into tariffs in the form of TRQs (see below). As part of its commitments

under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the United States agreed not to use section 22

in the future against imports from other WTO members, and virtually all section 22 quotas

were converted to TRQs in 1995.9
 10 “Dried milk and cream: Other: Containing not over 3 percent of butterfat.”

 11 Proc. 3019 of June 8, 1953, 18 F.R. 3361.

 12 7 U.S.C. sec. 624 as amended.

 13 P.L. 100-418. 

 14 “Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter: In

powder, granules or other solid forms, of a fat content, by weight, not exceeding 1.5 percent.”

 15 “Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter: In

powder, granules or other solid forms, of a fat content, by weight, exceeding 1.5 percent: Not

containing added sugar or other sweetening matter: Of a fat content, by weight, not exceeding

3 percent.”

 16 Proc. 6763 of December 23, 1994, 60 F.R. 1007.

 17 The quantity permitted under that note 7 during 1995 was 1,261 mt and was increased over

the subsequent 5 years to the bound quantity of 5,261 mt. See “Tariffication and market-access

commitments,” below.

8-3

Tariff History Before the World Trade Organization Agreement on

Agriculture

Skim milk powder (HTS 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, and 0402.10.50)

During the 1980s, until the 1989 implementation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS), imports of SMP were classifiable for tariff purposes under item

115.5010 of the former Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) at the rate of 1.5 cents

per pound (equivalent to the current 3.3 cents per kilogram). Imports were also subject to an

absolute quantitative limitation pursuant to a Presidential Proclamation11 issued under the

authority of section 22 of the AAA.12 The annual quantity permitted under that proclamation

was 1,807,000 pounds.

In 1989, the United States adopted the international Harmonized Commodity Description

and Coding System (HS) as the framework for its combined tariff-statistical nomenclature.

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 198813 authorized the President to proclaim

the new HS-based publication, the HTS. Under the new system, SMP was provided for in

HTS subheading 0402.10.00.14 The existing section 22 quota quantity was converted to

819,641 kilograms (HTS subheading 9904.10.09). Imports under HTS 0402.21.2015 were

also counted toward that quota.

On December 23, 1994, the President proclaimed modifications to the HTS, for the purpose

of implementing the trade agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round of Multilateral

Trade Negotiations.16 Among the modifications proclaimed were the replacement of existing

absolute quantitative limitations with TRQs. HTS subheading 0402.10.00 was replaced with

three new subheadings: (1) 0402.10.05, covering imports under HTS general note 15 (U.S.

Government imports, personal imports, samples or display articles, and certain other

exclusions), dutiable at the existing rate of 3.3 cents per kilogram and not subject to or

counted against the TRQ; (2) 0402.10.10, covering SMP shipments, dutiable at the existing

3.3 cents per kilogram rate, up to the TRQ limit, described in additional U.S. note 7 to

Chapter 4;17 and, (3) 0402.10.50, covering quantities beyond the TRQ limit. The tariff rate

on imports beyond the quota was initially set at 99.2 cents per kilogram in 1995 and

decreased over a 6-year period to the bound rate of 86.5 cents per kilogram in 2000. At the

same time, original subheading 0402.21.20 was superseded by three new subheadings,

0402.21.02, 0402.21.05, and 0402.21.25; imports under these subheadings were counted
 18 P.L. 98-573; 98 Stat. 2948.

 19 The Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act also created two other rate lines: TSUS 118.35, for

“whey protein concentrates,” at the TSUS 183.05 rate of 10 percent; and TSUS 118.40, for

“lactalbumin,” at the TSUS 190.05 rate of free.

 20 Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), sec. 1885(a)(3)(A), enacted October 22, 1986. The

change was effective 15 days after enactment.

8-4

toward the same TRQ as subheadings 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, and 0402.10.50, and were

subject to the same tariff rates. Tariff rates applicable to SMP from 1985 to 2004 are reported

in table 8-1.

Milk protein concentrate (HTS 0404.90.10 and 3501.10.10)

Before the implementation of the HTS in 1989, U.S. imports of milk protein concentrates

were classified for tariff purposes under one of three rate items of the TSUS. In the TSUS,

milk protein products not considered to be natural milk products (e.g., fluid milk,

concentrated or dried milk, butter, and cheese) or fermented milk products (e.g., yogurt and

buttermilk) were classified by Customs in one of the following provisions, depending on the

proportions of constituent materials: (1) TSUS item 183.05, a residual category for edible

preparations (the column-1, or most-favored-nation (MFN) rate—now known as the normal

trade relations (NTR) rate—was 10 percent ad valorem); (2) TSUS item 190.05, a residual

category for albumin (the NTR rate was free); or, (3) TSUS item 493.17, a residual category

for casein and mixtures in chief value of casein (the NTR rate was 0.2 cents per pound).

None of these rate lines was subject to fees or quantitative restrictions that had been imposed

on many other imported dairy products pursuant to section 22.

The Trade and Tariff Act of 198418 created a new TSUS rate line for MPC. Specifically,

section 123 of that Act established TSUS item 118.45, covering MPC, with a duty rate of

0.2 cents per pound (the same rate then in effect for casein under TSUS 493.17) and not

subject to fees or quantitative restrictions under section 22.19 Section 123 also created a

TSUS legal note defining the scope of the new MPC rate line. The note stated, that “for

purposes of item 118.45, the term ‘milk protein concentrate’ means any complete milk

protein (casein plus albumin) concentrate that is 40 percent or more protein by weight.” In

1986, Congress modified the definition by changing “albumin” to “lactalbumin.”20

When the HTS was implemented in 1989, TSUS item 118.45 was split into two subheadings,

with MPC provided for under subheadings 0404.90.10 and 3501.10.10. HTS heading 0404

covers, “Whey, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening

matter; products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or not containing added

sugar or other sweetening matter, not elsewhere specified or included.” Subheading 0404.10

(a subordinate or subset HS category) covers “Whey and modified whey, whether or not

concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter.” HS 0404.90 is a

residual subheading covering other products of heading 0404, and subheading 0404.90.10

covers “milk protein concentrates.” Heading 0404 covers products containing several or all

components found in milk (with or without added sweetening), but which contain such

components in proportions not found in fresh milk (heading 0401), concentrated or

sweetened milk (heading 0402), or buttermilk and acidified or fermented milk (heading

0403). Subheading 0404.90.10 carried the 0.44 cents per kilogram (0.2 cents per pound)
8-5

Table 8-1Column 1-General Normal Trade Relations (NTR) rates for skim milk powder, milk protein concentrate, casein, and caseinates, 1985 to

20041

Year(s) Skim milk powder2 Milk protein concentrate Casein Caseinates

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Cents per kilogram––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(TSUS 115.50) (TSUS 118.45) (TSUS 493.12) (TSUS 493.17)

1985-88 . . . . 3.3 0.44 Free 0.44

(HTS 0402.10.00) (HTS 0404.90.10) (HTS 3501.10.10) (HTS 3501.10.50) (HTS 3501.90.50)

1989-94 . . . . 3.3 0.44 0.44 Free 0.44

(HTS 0402.10.05)3 (HTS 0402.10.10)4 (HTS 0402.10.50)5 (HTS 0404.90.10) (HTS 3501.10.10) (HTS 3501.10.50) (HTS 3501.90.60)

1995 . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 99.2 0.43 0.43 Free 0.431996 . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 96.7 0.42 0.42 Free 0.421997 . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 94.2 0.41 0.41 Free 0.411998 . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 91.6 0.39 0.39 Free 0.391999 . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 89.0 0.38 0.38 Free 0.382000-04 . . . . 3.3 3.3 86.5 0.37 0.37 Free 0.37

1 See appendix G for an explanation of tariff items and codes used in this table. 2 Section 22 Quotas (before 1995) and tariff rate quotas (after 1995) apply to imports of dried skim milk under the indicated tariff lines and other tariff lines.3 Imports under General Note 15 to the HTS. See explanation in “Tariff History pre-Uruguay Round: “Skim Milk Powder.”4 Imports under the tariff-rate-quota quantity. See explanation in “Tariff History pre-Uruguay Round: “Skim Milk Powder.”5 Imports above the tariff-rate-quota quantity. See explanation in “Tariff History pre-Uruguay Round: “Skim Milk Powder.”

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission, Tariff Schedules of the United States; Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
 21 Chapter 4, additional U.S. note 13 states, “for purposes of subheading 0404.90.10, the term

“Milk Protein Concentrate” means any complete milk protein (casein plus lactalbumin)

concentrate that is 40 percent or more protein by weight.” 

 22 Chapter 35, additional U.S. note 1 states, “for purposes of subheading 3501.10.10, “Milk

Protein Concentrate” means any complete milk protein (casein plus lactalbumin) concentrate.” 

 23 It is the understanding of the Commission that preparations containing a high proportion of

protein by weight are in HS 3501. Customs has classified in subheading 3501.10 products with

more than 90 percent protein. Therefore, the 40 percent criteria would not seem to be necessary in

additional U.S. note 1 of Chapter 35.

 24 “Casein and mixtures in chief value thereof: Casein.”

 25 “Casein and mixtures in chief value thereof: Other: Other”

 26 “Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives: Casein.”

 27 “Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives: Other: Other.”

 28 Proc. 6763 of Dec. 23, 1994, 60 F.R. 1007.

8-6

NTR rate of duty corresponding to that of former TSUS item 118.45. The TSUS legal note

describing the scope of that item was restated as HTS Chapter 4, additional U.S. note 13.21

HTS heading 3501 provides for “Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives; casein

glues” and subheading 3501.10 describes “Casein.” The first subheading under 3501.10 is

3501.10.10 which describes “Milk protein concentrates.” Subheading 3501.10.10 continued

the 0.44 cents per kilogram (0.2 cents per pound) NTR rate of duty corresponding to that of

former TSUS item 118.45. The TSUS legal note describing the scope of that item was

restated as HTS Chapter 35 additional U.S. note 1,22 except the phrase, “that is 40 percent

or more protein by weight” was omitted.23 The rates of duty applicable to milk protein

concentrates, on January 1 of each year from 1985-2004 are shown in table 8-1.

Casein and caseinate (HTS 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60)

During the 1980s, until the 1989 implementation of the HTS, imports of casein entered free

of duty under item 493.1224 of the TSUS. Imports of caseinates were classifiable in item

493.1725 at the rate of 0.2 cents per pound. In 1989, casein was provided for in HTS

subheading 3501.10.50 at a Free rate,26 and caseinates were provided for in HTS subheading

3501.90.5027 at a rate of 0.44 cents per kilogram. Subheading 3501.90.50 was later

renumbered as 3501.90.60 in the Presidential proclamation28 modifying the HTS to

implement the trade agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade

Negotiations. That proclamation also provided for reductions in the duty rate for such

caseinates over a 6-year period from 0.44 cents per kilogram to the bound rate of 0.37 cents

per kilogram. Casein (subheading 3501.10.50) continues to enter free of duty. Tariff rates

applicable to casein and caseinates from 1985 to 2004 are shown in table 8-1.

U.S. International Trade Commission investigations

Since the late-1970s, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) has conducted

three investigations concerning imports of milk protein products—a section 332

investigation in 1979 and section 22 investigations in 1982 and in 1993. As with this

investigation, these earlier investigations were requested largely in response to concerns

about imports of milk protein products and their impact on Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC) purchases under the dairy price support program. No previous Commission statutory

investigation has specifically focused on MPC.
 29 U.S. International Trade Commission, “Casein and its Impact on the Domestic Dairy

Industry,” Report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of

Representatives on Investigation No.332-105 Under Section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

Amended, USITC publication No. 1025 (Dec. 1979).

 30 U.S. International Trade Commission, “Casein, Mixtures in Chief Value of Casein, and

Lactalbumin,” Report to the President on Investigation No. 22-44 Under Section 22 of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act, USITC publication No. 1217 (Jan. 1982).

 31 Commissioner Eugene J. Frank, dissented, opining that there was sufficient evidence that

imports of casein and caseinates were materially interfering with the USDA price support program

for milk. Ibid, p. 17.

8-7

1979 study

In 1979, the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives requested

that the Commission examine trade trends with respect to casein and the impact of casein on

the domestic dairy industry. On June 21, 1979, the Commission instituted an investigation

pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). Investigation No.

332-105 focused on casein and mixtures in chief value of casein, and involved a study of

sources of casein used in the United States, food and industrial uses of casein in the United

States, patterns of import trade in casein, estimates of future trade patterns, and the

relationship between imported casein and domestic utilization of other protein-containing

milk products. In December 1979, the Commission reported29 that imports of casein had

fluctuated in recent years, and that casein was generally used in applications for which other

sources of milk proteins were not used. It was also noted that the market segmentation

appeared to be the result of two factors: (1) the lack of import quotas on casein, permitting

casein to be available in the United States at or near the relatively low world price of casein;

and, (2) the relatively high price of other sources of milk proteins—notably SMP—resulting

from restrictive section 22 quotas on imports of such products and from the price support

program. The Commission investigation found, “virtually no relationship between imports

of casein and mixtures of casein and purchases of nonfat dry milk under the price support

program in recent years.”

1981 investigation

In 1981, the President requested that the Commission conduct an investigation under section

22(a) of the AAA (7 U.S.C. 624(a)) to determine whether imports of casein, casein mixtures

(“caseinates”), or lactalbumin materially interfered with the price support program for milk

products or reduced the level of domestic production of such products. On January 29, 1982,

the Commission reported30 to the President that imports were not being or likely to be

imported in such quantities as to materially interfere with the price support program.31 In this

report, the Commission stated that imports of the subject products did increase the cost of

the program, but not enough to consider the imports to “materially interfere with” the price

support program, as required by statute for an affirmative finding. The Commission and the

USDA (which administers the dairy price support program) agreed that the impact of

lactalbumin imports was de minimis and they therefore focused their attention on casein and

caseinates. With regard to the impact of subject products on domestic milk-derived products,

the Commission reached essentially the same conclusion it had made in the 1979 report, and

for the same reasons. The Commission again reported that the most significant influence on

the high costs of the dairy price support program was the high prices established by statute

for CCC purchases of products that were the subject of the price support program.
 32 U.S. International Trade Commission, “Certain Dairy Products,” Investigation No. 22-53,

USITC publication No. 2659 (July 1993).

 33 The actions were: (1) removing from quotas any imported cajeta not made from cows’ milk

and inedible dried milk powders used for calibrating milk analyzers; (2) changing the relevant

quota category for margarine cheese from Sweden; (3) taking dried cream and malted milk and

articles of milk or cream off of the import licensing program while leaving it subject to quotas;

and, (4) permitting any country not specifically excluded from any quota to take advantage of

unused country quotas for a particular quota category.

 34 In earlier rounds, agriculture had been granted special exemptions from GATT rules (under

GATT 1947) and had not been subject to the disciplines applied to industrial and manufactured

goods. USDA, ERS, “Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture: The Record to Date,”

Agricultural Outlook (Dec. 1998).

 35 Text on the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture can be found at http://www.wto.org/-

english/docs_e/-legal_e/legal_e.htm.

8-8

1993 investigation

In 1993, the Commission conducted a section 22 investigation to determine whether

conditions of trade in several specific dairy products had changed sufficiently to permit

modifications of the section 22 restrictions. In its report,32 the Commission stated that it had

determined that circumstances had changed to the extent that the proposed modifications

would not reduce the effectiveness or otherwise materially interfere with a program or

operation of the USDA. The proposed actions33 were eventually proclaimed by the President,

but there is no indication that any form of milk protein concentrate was involved in this

action.

Tariff History After the World Trade Organization Agreement on

Agriculture

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture was the first agreement to bring agriculture under

disciplines of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).34 The Agreement set out

principles in three major areas—export subsidies, domestic support, and market access.35

Under the market-access provisions, significant changes were introduced with respect to

tariff treatment of dairy products, especially through conversion of nontariff barriers to

tariffs, commitments to maintain current access or provide minimum-access opportunities,

tariff bindings and reductions, and special safeguards. The United States was obligated to

implement its commitments over a 6-year period beginning in 1995.

Tariffication and market-access commitments

As indicated above, under WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the United States agreed to

convert its section 22 quotas to tariffs, a process referred to as “tariffication.” For the U.S.

dairy industry, this meant converting existing section 22 absolute import quotas to TRQs.

In all, 16 dairy TRQs were established, in groupings generally consistent with the products

subject to section 22 quotas, 7 of which covered milk protein products (table 8-2). Those

products that were within the scope of existing GATT bindings related to section 22 quotas

or fees were accorded TRQ treatment under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Because

MPC and casein were not subject to section 22 restrictions prior to 1995, they were not made

subject to TRQs under the new regime.
 36 Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement of Administrative Action, published in H. Doc.

103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 712.

 37 Ibid., p. 711.

8-9

Table 8-2

Certain milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) chapter and 

note, applicable section 22 quota, and World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture

base and bound tariff-rate quota market access commitments

HTS chapter 

WTO Agreement on

Agriculture commitment 

Milk protein product & note Section 22 Base (1995) Bound (2000)

–––––––––––––Metric tons—–––––––——–––

Milk & cream, fluid,or frozen, fresh or sour1, 2 . . . . . . 4, 5 5,678 5,727 6,695

Dried skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7 820 1,261 5,261

Dried whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8 3 371 3,321

Dried milk & cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9 0 100 100

Articles with 5.5 percent-45 percent butterfat . . . . . . 4, 10 1,170 1,905 4,105

Milk and cream, condensed or evaporated. . . . . . . . 4, 11 2,445 2,857 6,857

Dried buttermilk/whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12 225 296 296 1

 1,000 liters. 

2

 Section 22 quotas only applied to fluid milk with a butterfat content greater than 5.5 percent.

Note.—Excludes quantities allocated to Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Source: World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture.

Under WTO Agreement on Agriculture rules, countries were required to set minimum initial

(1995) TRQ quantities equivalent to 3 percent of domestic consumption during a 1986-88

base period, increasing to 5 percent by the end of the implementation period.36 If imports

during 1986-88 were greater than 5 percent of domestic consumption, then countries were

required to maintain at least this level of access during the implementation period. Countries

were required to set in-quota tariffs low enough to enable commercial trade to take place

(many countries used the same rates they applied to products under the quota system). For

over-quota tariffs, countries were required to set any over-quota tariff rates at levels no

greater than the level of protection afforded by the nontariff barriers, based on the 1986-88

base period.37 For example, if the quota had resulted in a U.S. domestic price of SMP of

80 cents per pound during 1986-88, while the world price was 35 cents per pound, under

tariffication, an over-quota tariff limited to 45 cents per pound would have been applied.

Tariff bindings and reductions

In addition to “tariffication,” the WTO Agreement on Agriculture required that tariffs on

articles subject to TRQs (both those resulting from tariffication of nontariff barriers and any

preexisting tariffs) be reduced in equal increments over 6 years by a minimum of 15 percent

and on average by 36 percent (using a simple, unweighted average). The United States

mostly committed to reduce over-quota tariff rates on dairy products by the minimum

15 percent (table 8-3). U.S. tariffs on SMP were reduced from 46 cents per pound to 39 cents

per pound, and in-quota rates were held constant throughout the Agreement’s

implementation period at 1.5 cent per pound.
 38 Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement of Administrative Action, published in H. Doc.

103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 714.

8-10

Table 8-3

Certain milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) chapter and

note, in-quota, and base (1995) and bound (2000) over-quota tariffs under the World Trade

Organization Agreement on Agriculture 

Milk protein product

HTS

chapter

and note

In-quota

 tariff1

Base

 over-quota

 tariff

Bound

 over-quota

tariff

Milk & cream, fluid or frozen, fresh or sour (cents per litter) . . . . 4, 5 3.2 90.8 77.2

Dried skim milk (cents per kilogram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7 3.3 101.8 86.5

Dried whole milk (cents per kilogram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8 6.8 128.5 109.2

Dried milk & cream (cents per kilogram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9 13.7 183.1 155.6

Articles with 5.5%-45% butterfat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 10 (2) (2) (2)

Milk & cream, condensed or evaporated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 11 (2

) (2) (2)

Dried buttermilk/whey (cent per kilogram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12 3.3 103.0 87.6 1

 In-quota tariff was set during 1995-2000 at levels shown.

2

 Numerous tariffs

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 1995 and 2000.

Products not subject to section 22 quotas or tariffication, such as MPC and casein, were also

subject to tariff reductions under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. As noted above, prior

to the Uruguay Round, tariffs on these products were generally low. For example, the tariff

on MPC was reduced by the minimum 15 percent from 0.44 cents per kilogram in 1995 to

0.37 cents per kilogram in 2000, and the reduction for WPC was from 10 percent ad valorem

to 8.5 percent.

Special safeguards

Under Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, countries may apply special

safeguards (SSG) to products whose prior nontariff measures have been converted into

tariffs, when goods were designated for SSG treatment in their schedules of GATT

obligations.38 Thus, U.S. imports of milk protein products subject to TRQ are also covered

by SSG. Special safeguards take the form of temporary additional duties and are typically

applied to products that are particularly “sensitive to trade.” Under rules in the WTO

Agreement on Agriculture, SSGs are permissible to prevent low prices or import surges from

injuring a domestic industry (although no determination of injury is required). There are two

types of SSGs: price-based and volume-based. In either case, SSGs are applied on a tariffline basis and may be applied only to over-quota tariff lines. Only one type of SSG may be

applied at any one time, so if criteria are met for both, a country must choose whether to

impose price- or volume-based safeguards. Because SSG on milk protein products exist only

for products subject to TRQs, they do not apply to imports of MPC, casein, and caseinates.
 39 General note 15 products are those that do not enter U.S. commerce, such as products

imported for research purposes and samples.

 40 For example, North American Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-Chile Free Trade

Agreement.

8-11

Tariff Treatment for Imports of Milk Protein Products in

2004

Customs classifications for milk protein products under the HTS are shown in table 8-4.

Most imported milk protein products fall under Chapter 4 (dairy produce; birds’ eggs;

natural honey; and edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included) of

the HTS. Such goods include MPC, WPC, SMP, WMP, and fluid milk. Casein and

caseinates enter under Chapter 35 (albuminoidal substances, modified starches, and glue

enzymes), whereas a few milk protein products are classified in Chapter 21 (miscellaneous

edible preparation). Appendix G contains HTS product definitions and rates of duty of milk

protein products.

Many products entered under Chapter 4 and Chapter 21 are subject to TRQs. Typically, a

product subject to a TRQ will have three separate 8-digit HTS subheadings—one for

products subject to general note 15,39 an in-quota tariff line, and an over-quota tariff line. The

quota quantities are provided in the “additional U.S. notes” to the chapter and each TRQ has

such a note. The additional U.S. notes also list the HTS subheadings covering goods that are

counted toward a specific TRQ quantity. For example, additional note 7 to Chapter 4 states

that total imports entering under HTS 0402.10.10 and 0402.21.05 can not exceed 5,261 mt,

otherwise the over-quota tariff applies. As required by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture,

in-quota tariffs are low, generally 5 percent ad valorem equivalent (AVE) or less (with the

exception of duty rates on modified whey and certain types of dried whole milk). Over-quota

tariffs are higher, with most in the 30-50 percent AVE range. Products not subject to TRQs

include MPC, WPC, casein, caseinate, fluid skim milk, and fluid whey. Tariffs on these

products are negligible (with the exception of WPC—8.5 percent ad valorem). In addition

to the NTR tariffs listed in table 8-4, the United States participates in several regional and

bilateral free trade agreements,40 in which special tariff concessions are afforded to U.S.

imports of dairy products from partner countries. A detailed description of U.S. tariff

treatment for dairy products is provided in appendix G.

Recent Rulings by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection Concerning Milk Protein Concentrates

On June 21, 2001, the NMPF requested that Customs reconsider two earlier rulings (NY

800374 of July 27, 1994, and NY D83787 of November 13, 1998) in which Customs had

classified certain milk protein products in HTS subheading 0404.90.10, a non-TRQ category.

On September 18, 2002, Customs published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 58837)

announcing “Receipt of Domestic Interested Party Petition Concerning Tariff Classification

of Dairy Protein Blends” and that pursuant to section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), it was conducting a review of the two rulings. Customs received

over 960 comments during the public comment period. 
8-12

Table 8-4

Milk protein products: Product descriptions, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) subheadings, tariff treatment, chapter 4 note, and tariff in 2004

Product Description

HTS

subheading

TRQ 

treatment1

TRQ

note2 Tariff 2004 AVE3

Percent

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1% fat 0401.10.00 NA NA 0.34 ¢/liter (2

)

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%-6% fat 0401.20.20

0401.20.40

IQ

OQ

NA

NA

0.43 ¢/liter

1.50 ¢/liter

1

3

Dried skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1.5% fat

1.5% - 3% fat

0402.10.05

0402.10.10

0402.10.50

0402.21.02

0402.21.05

0402.21.25

GN 15

IQ 

OQ

GN 15

IQ 

OQ

NA

4-7

4-7

NA

4-7

4-7

3.3 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

86.5 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

86.5 ¢/kg

2

2

51

2

2

55

Dried whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%-35% fat

unsweetened

>35% fat

unsweetened

>1.5% fat

sweetened

0402.21.27

0402.21.30

0402.21.50

0402.21.73

0402.21.75

0402.21.90

0402.29.05

0402.29.10

0402.29.50

GN 15

IQ

OQ

GN 15

IQ

OQ

GN 15

IQ

OQ

NA

4-8

4-8

NA

4-9

4-9

NA 

4-10

4-10

6.8 ¢/kg

6.8 ¢/kg

109.2 ¢/kg

13.7 ¢/kg

13.7 ¢/kg

155.6 ¢/kg

17.5%

17.5%

110.4 ¢/kg + 14.9%

4

4

59

18

18

202

83

Concentrated milk . . . . . . . . . . . Not dried

unsweetened

0402.91.03

0402.91.06

0402.91.10

0402.91.30

0402.91.70

0402.91.90

GN 15

GN 15

IQ

IQ

OQ

OQ

NA

NA

4-11

4-11

4-11

4-11

2.2 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

2.2 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

31.3 ¢/kg

31.3 ¢/kg

3

4

3

4

38

38

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . 0404.10.05 NA NA 8.5%

Modified whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0404.10.08

0404.10.11

0404.10.15

GN 15

IQ

OQ

NA

4-10

4-10

13%

13%

103.5 ¢/kg + 8.5% 36

Fluid whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0404.10.20 NA NA 0.34 ¢/liter 3

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0404.10.48

0404.10.50

0404.10.90

GN 15

IQ

OQ

NA

4-12

4-12

3.3 ¢/kg

3.3 ¢/kg

87.6 ¢/kg

6

6

160

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . 0404.90.10 NA NA 0.37 ¢/kg (4

)

Products consisting of 

natural milk constituents ....

0404.90.28

0404.90.30

0404.90.50

0404.90.70

GN 15

IQ

OQ

NA

NA

4-10

4-10

NA

14.5%

14.5%

118.9 ¢/kg + 8.5%

8.5%

57

Food preps derived from

 dried milk, buttermilk or

whey of Chapter 4 ........

2106.90.03

2106.90.06

2106.90.09

GN 15

IQ

OQ

NA

4-10

4-10

2.9 ¢/kg

2.9 ¢/kg

86.2 ¢/kg

1

1

30

Casein, MPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3501.10.10 NA NA 0.37 ¢/kg (4

)

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3501.10.50 NA NA Free

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3501.90.60 NA NA 0.37 ¢/kg (4

)

Milk albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3502.20.00 NA NA Free

Other albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3502.90.00 NA NA Free 1

 NA: Not applicable; IQ: in-quota tariff rate; OQ: over-quota tariff rate; GN15: general note 15. 2

 Chapter 4 note of the HTS. 

3

 Ad valorem equivalents (AVE) of the specific tariffs were calculated as the import unit value for the in-quota

imports averaged over 2000-2002. 4

 Less than 0.5 percent

 Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 2004.
 41 Not provided in NY D83787; case files were lost in the destruction of the New York Customs

House at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Assumed to be approximately 15

percent.

 42 Absent explicit language in the HTS, Customs classifies goods based on their conditions as

imported. Customs cannot directly verify how a good was made upstream or easily follow it

downstream into U.S. commerce.

8-13

On April 1, 2003, Customs issued a ruling (HQ 965592) affirming its earlier classification.

Customs stated that subheading 0404.90.10 includes both (1) the traditional MPC produced

by ultrafiltration, containing the same proportions of casein and albumin as are present in

milk, and (2) a blend of milk constituents and concentrated milk proteins, containing over

40 percent by weight of proteins (casein plus lactalbumin). 

The percentage composition by weight of the products in the two earlier rulings is provided

below:

NY 800374 NY D83787

Lactose . . . . . . . . 42 N/A41

Protein . . . . . . . . 41 41

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7

Moisture . . . . . . . 4 6

Fat . . . . . . . . . . . 2 29

The NMPF’s position was that the product consisting of a blend of milk constituents and

milk proteins was an intentional blend rather than milk that had been subjected to a

concentration operation. In their view, it was classifiable as sweetened or concentrated milk

of heading 0402 (and thus subject to a TRQ as specified in Chapter 4, note 7). In rejecting

the petition, Customs stated that there was neither statutory language nor legislative history

to justify that distinction.42

The NMPF had argued that the expression, “complete milk protein” in Chapter 4 additional

U.S. note 13 refers only to “unified protein complexes in which both the casein and

lactalbumin are present in the same proportion, relative to each other, as they are found in

natural milk.” To reinforce its claims, the NMPF cited language from the Senate Finance

Committee Report on the Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 (S. Prt. 98-219) in which the

Committee described “total milk proteinate” as “a soluble milk proteinate in which casein

and undenatured whey products were isolated as a single protein complex.” In its reply,

Customs noted that neither the expression “total milk proteinate,” nor any of the other

specifications for similar products was adopted as statutory language in the HTS, although

in creating a new legal note Congress could have chosen to do so. Customs noted that U.S.

Food and Drug Administration regulations used the expression “concentrated” in the context

of “concentrated milk,” referring to the product resulting only from the removal of water

from milk. In Customs’ view, the “concentrates” in question were not “concentrated” milk

of HTS heading 0402 because, although they contained only milk constituents, the

constituents were not in the same proportion as found in natural milk. The text of HTS

heading 0404 (“..., products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or not

containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, not elsewhere specified or included”)

clearly provides for these products.

Similarly, Customs rejected NMPF’s argument that the proportion of milk constituents in

the subject articles was too different from “traditional” MPC to be considered the same
 43 In 2001, in response to an informal request by the NMPF, Customs had considered revoking

several existing rulings on milk protein concentrate, including the above mentioned NY D83787.

In its notice of proposed revocation, Customs noted that, “the common dictionary meaning of the

words ‘milk protein concentrate’ would be a protein product derived from milk in which the milk

protein content has been intensified or purified by the removal of ‘foreign or inessential’ milk

constituents, such as water, minerals and lactose” Customs further suggested that milk protein

concentrate of HTS subheading would have milk protein as its “sole substantive constituent.”

Customs Bulletin and Decision, vol. 35, No. 40 (Oct. 3, 2001). Such a ruling would have excluded

from the scope of the HTS 0404.90.10 those shipments that contained more than a small amount of

lactose and/or fats. However, after analyzing the responses to their notice of possible revocation,

Customs decided to withdraw the proposed revocation of the rulings. Customs Bulletin and

Decisions, vol. 36, No. 14 (Apr. 3, 2002)

8-14

product. Customs opined that the intent of the framers of the HS was to create in heading

0404 a single location for various combinations of natural milk products with widely varying

proportions of ingredients. Customs noted the broad trade usage of the expression “milk

protein concentrate” and ruled that there is no evidence, in either the statutory language,

legislative history, or common meaning of the expression “milk protein concentrate,” that

the HTS subheading should be construed so narrowly as to encompass only a particular type

of MPC.43

Customs regulations provide that when Customs rejects a section 516 “domestic interested

party” petition, the domestic interested party petitioner may contest the decision within

30 days (19 C.F.R. 175.23). On April 29, 2003, the NMPF filed a notice with Customs

contesting that decision. On July 15, 2003, Customs published notice of receipt of the NMPF

appeal. As of mid-May 2004, Customs was examining records to determine actual ports at

which the subject products had entered, in order to assist the interested domestic party in

selecting a specific entry or entries whose classification would be contested. Challenges to

Customs’ rulings on these petitions are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of

International Trade.
 1

 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), testimony before the

USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 30-31.

 2

 Mr. Paul Rosenthal, Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (CNI), testimony before the USITC,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 239-40.

9-1

CHAPTER 9

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF

IMPORTED MILK PROTEIN PRODUCTS

ON U.S. FARM-LEVEL MILK PRICES

Introduction

This chapter provides both qualitative and quantitative assessments of how imported milk

protein products affect farm-level milk prices in the United States. This issue has been

widely debated and still remains highly controversial among industry groups. U.S. dairy

producer representatives allege that the recent growth in U.S. imports of milk protein

products was a major factor contributing to the low milk prices in 2000 and 2002.1

 In

contrast, representatives of dairy processors who purchase imported milk protein products

counter that low milk prices reflect trends in domestic production and consumption, and are

not attributable to imports.2

Standard economic theory suggests that an increase in the level of imports, which raises

overall domestic supplies, should lead to a fall in the domestic price. However, the extent to

which this theoretical relationship holds in the case of imports of milk protein products and

farm-level milk prices depends on several factors. These factors include the substitutability

of imported and domestically produced milk protein products, and the effects of government

intervention on dairy prices through the Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP) and Federal

Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs).

An overview of how U.S. imports of milk protein products affect farm-level prices is shown

in figure 9-1. As discussed in chapter 7, domestically produced and imported milk protein

products compete primarily in the production of dairy products, particularly processed

cheese products. A significant amount of this competition is with skim milk powder (SMP).

Therefore the impact of imports on farm-level prices will be felt primarily through their

effects on the demand for domestically produced SMP.

Information on U.S. government dairy programs, including the DPSP, was provided in

chapter 3. As discussed in that chapter, the DPSP maintains a floor price for SMP through

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchases of domestic product when the market price

reaches the predetermined support price level. The impact of imported milk proteins on

farm-level prices depends on where the market price of SMP is in relation to its support

price. If market prices are above the support price, then growth in milk protein imports
9-2

Farm-level

prices

Classified and component 

milk prices under

Federal Milk

Marketing Orders

U.S. imports of milk

protein products

Dairy product prices

. Skim milk powder

. Butter

. Cheese

. Whey

Imports of substitutable 

milk protein products

U.S. market 

skim milk powder price

at support price level

Adjustment of the

butter/skim milk powder tilt

U.S. market 

skim milk powder price 

above support price level

Commodity Credit 

Corporation stocks

Source: Compiled by the Commission.

Figure 9-1

Overview of impact of U.S. imports of milk protein products on farm-level prices
 3

 Changing butter and SMP prices is referred to as a tilt because if the support price of one

product is lowered, then the price of the other must be increased in order for the legislated support

price of $9.90 per hundredweight (/cwt) to be maintained. The prices at which the CCC purchases

butter, SMP, and cheese are determined by formulas that take into account the cost of

manufacturing products and assumptions about the yield of product per hundredweight of fluid

milk. In the case of the joint products butter and SMP, support prices are determined so that the

revenues from sales of butter and SMP obtained from a hundredweight of milk over and above the

make allowance are sufficient to meet the support price of milk of $9.90/cwt. As long as the joint

net revenue from butter and SMP is equal to this support price, then the USDA can adjust the

relative support prices of butter and SMP in response to market conditions. Edward V. Jesse and

Robert Cropp, “The Butter-Powder Tilt,” Marketing and Policy Brief Paper No. 72, Department of

Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 2001), found at

http://www.aae.wisc.edu/www/pub/mpbpapers/mpb72.pdf, retrieved May 6, 2003.

9-3

will tend to force market prices lower; if market prices are at the support level, then the

impact of imports is reflected in additional government purchases and growth of CCC stocks.

In this scenario, the impact of imports could be to cause CCC stocks to rise to a level at

which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lowers the SMP support price (referred

to as an adjustment in the butter/SMP tilt).3

The effect of lower SMP prices (either from additional imports reducing market prices, or

from a tilt adjustment) on farm-level prices is largely determined by the pricing mechanism

under the FMMOs, as discussed in chapter 3. Under FMMOs, SMP prices feed into formulas

for milk component prices (protein, butterfat, nonfat solids, and other solids), that in turn

feed into the milk class prices that make up the farm-level price (figure 9-1).

The qualitative analysis of the impact of milk protein imports on farm-level prices presented

in this chapter is as follows. First, a brief discussion of recent trends in milk protein imports

and farm-level prices is presented. This is followed by a number of sections that explain how

imports of substitutable milk protein products impact the domestic SMP price and CCC

stocks, and how farm-level prices are linked to dairy product prices through FMMO

component and class pricing. Given that U.S. SMP prices were at, or near, the support level

for most of the 1998-2002 period, the next sections discuss how milk protein imports may

have affected growth in CCC stocks and, consequently, adjustments in the butter/SMP tilt.

Using Commission questionnaire data on substitutable milk protein imports, it is estimated

that such imports contributed about 35 percent to the growth in CCC stocks during

1996-2002. However, it is not clear the extent to which these imports affected the USDA

decisions to adjust the butter/SMP tilt. The final section of this analysis examines how

adjustments in the butter/SMP tilt affect component and class prices under the FMMOs.

The quantitative assessment of the effect of milk protein imports and farm-level prices

involves a review of studies undertaken by various academic researchers who have used

detailed economic models that capture relationships between milk protein imports,

government support prices, CCC stocks, and farm-level prices. These analyses generally

found that most of the impact of milk protein product imports is on CCC stocks, not on

farm-level prices.
 4

 For the purposes of this investigation, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistical Service

(NASS) all-milk price was considered the best indicator of the farm-level price that a producer

receives for milk. It is a weighted average of the prices dairy processors pay producers for grade A

milk (milk for consumption) and grade B milk (manufacturing grade milk). The all-milk price is

collected for most states and a national average is calculated. The all-milk price is reported prior to

making deductions for hauling and does not include government deficiency payments. However,

the price does include quality, quantity, and other premiums, such as over-order premiums.

 5

 The all-milk price is reported in USDA, NASS, Agricultural Prices, found at http://usda.-

mannlib.cornell.edu/-reports/nassr/price/zap-bb/.

 6

 The all-milk price increased rapidly in early-2004, reaching $18.00/cwt in April.

 7

 This analysis of import and price trends does not take into account other factors that may have

been influencing changes in milk prices over time, such as feed costs and government programs.

9-4

Recent Trends in U.S. Farm-Level Milk Prices and Imported

Milk Protein Products

Trends in farm-level milk prices, as measured by the USDA’s all-milk price,4 between 1996

and 2003 are shown in figure 9-2. The average annual all-milk price reached a historical

peak in 1998 at $15.46 per hundredweight (/cwt) for the calendar year.5

 However, prices

declined over the next 2 years, reaching $12.40/cwt in 2000. Prices rebounded in 2001 to

$15.05/cwt, before falling to $12.19/cwt in 2002, the lowest-recorded annual price since

1979. In 2003, the price rose moderately to $12.51/cwt.6

 Within this overall trend, monthly

average milk prices have become increasingly volatile in recent years. In September 2001,

the all-milk price was $17.20/cwt. Ten months later, the price had declined to $11.20/cwt,

a drop of about 35 percent.

U.S. Department of Commerce data on U.S. imports of milk protein concentrate (MPC),

casein, and caseinate are also plotted in figure 9-2. The data do not show a clear and direct

relationship between imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price in all years.

There appears to be an inverse relationship between the two series during 1999 and 2002,

that is, a decline in the all-milk price occurred in years when imports of milk protein

products increased. However, this relationship was not evident in 1998, the year the all-milk

price was at a historical high of $15.46/cwt, and when imports of milk protein products rose

relative to the previous 2 years.7

Relationships between Milk Protein Imports and U.S. Dairy

Product Markets

This section deals with the first part of the chain shown in figure 9-1—the direct link

between substitutable imported milk protein products and the U.S. price of SMP. However,

owing to the interrelationships among dairy products, changes in milk protein imports can

indirectly affect the markets for cheese, butter, and whey. These indirect market relationships

are also discussed in this section.
9-5

15.05

12.40

14.38

15.46

13.36 12.51

12.19

14.75

0

80604020

200180160140120100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1,000 metric tons

18.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00

Dollars per cwt

U.S. imports of milk protein products All-milk price

 1 Milk protein products include milk protein concentrate in HTS Chapters 4 and 35, casein, and caseinate.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service; U.S. Department of Commerce.

Figure 9-2U.S. imports of milk protein products1 and the all-milk price, 1996-2003
 8

 More information on the economics of TRQs is found in Devry S. Boughner, Harry de Gorter,

and Ian Sheldon, “The Economics of Two-Tier Tariff-Rate Import Quotas in Agriculture,"

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, No. 20 (Apr. 2000), pp. 58-69.

9-6

TRQSMP

SSMP

DSMP

P1

us

PCCC

Commodity Credit 

Corporation stocks

P0

us

TRQSMP + M1

TRQSMP + M2

Pw

Quantity

Price

SCCC S1 DCCC S0 D0 D1 Dw Sw

Source: Complied by the Commission.

Figure 9-3

Impact of substitutable milk protein imports on the U.S. skim milk powder market 

Effect of Milk Protein Imports on the Skim Milk Powder Market

An analytical framework to demonstrate how substitutable imported milk proteins affect the

U.S. SMP market is presented in figure 9-3. The U.S. supply and demand for SMP are

represented by SSMP and DSMP, respectively, in figure 9-3. Initially, assume a U.S. price of

SMP (P0

us) above the world price (Pw), with domestic supply and demand at S0 and D0,

respectively. U.S. prices are maintained above world prices through a tariff-rate quota (TRQ)

on SMP that limits imports to the amount TRQSMP.

8

 Since the over-quota tariff is assumed

to be prohibitive, no SMP imports enter the U.S. market beyond the quota level. Thus, the

TRQ has the effect of raising the U.S. domestic price of SMP from Pw to P0

us, which in this

scenario is also above the U.S. support price (Pccc) at which the CCC purchases SMP from

the domestic market. Now consider the impact of imports of milk protein products that

substitute for SMP in the U.S. market. First, assume that SMP-substitutable imports of milk

protein products increase by the amount M1, so that total imports entering the market are

represented by TRQSMP + M1 (figure 9-3). This has the effect of increasing the wedge

between domestic supply and demand (domestic quantity supplied falls from S0 to S1 and

domestic quantity demanded rises from D0 to D1), forcing the domestic price of SMP to fall

from P0

us to P1us, but remains above the price support level, Pccc. 
 9

 Kenneth W. Bailey, “Impact of MPC Imports on 2002 U.S. Cheese Production,” Staff Paper

No. 362 (Pennsylvania State University, Mar. 2003), found at http://dairyoutlook.aers.psu.edu/-

reports/Pub2003/staffpaper362.pdf.

9-7

Next consider the impact of additional imports of milk protein products that are substitutable

for SMP of amount, M2. Now overall imports (SMP, plus SMP-substitutable imported milk

protein products) are represented by TRQSMP + M2 in figure 9-3. In the absence of the DPSP,

imports at this level force the domestic price of SMP to the world price level, Pw, and

domestic quantity supplied and demanded to Sw and Dw , respectively. However, before

reaching the world price level, the domestic price falls to the government support price, Pccc,

at which point greater returns are derived from selling product to the CCC than from selling

to the domestic market. Thus, an amount of SMP is purchased by the CCC (equivalent to

(Sccc - Sw ) + (Dw - Dccc) in figure 9-3), with CCC expenditure represented by the shaded

rectangles in figure 9-3. These CCC purchases would prevent the domestic price from falling

below the support level. At the support level, domestic quantity supplied and demanded

would be Sccc and Dccc, respectively (figure 9-3).

Under these conditions, once the domestic price has reached the support price level,

additional imports have no impact on domestic SMP prices or production. Any additional

imports beyond the level at which the market price is equal to the support prices would result

in SMP sales to the CCC. Thus, the impact of such imports is felt not in the marketplace, but

as a rise in government expenditures on SMP purchases and maintaining stocks. When the

domestic price is at the support level, the manner in which imported milk proteins affect the

SMP price is if the support price (Pccc) is lowered by the USDA. In this case, the market price

for SMP (Pus), would fall, which, as explained later in this chapter, would lead to lower

FMMO and farm-level prices.

Effect of Milk Protein Imports on the Butter, Cheese, and Whey

Markets

The Commission questionnaires provided evidence that imported milk protein products may

substitute for ingredient cheese in the production of processed cheese (see chapter 7). The

analysis presented in figure 9-3 on the impact of milk protein products imports on the U.S.

SMP market would therefore also be applicable to analyzing the cheese market. Thus,

imports of MPC that substitute for both SMP and cheese will likely affect FMMO and

farm-level prices. In addition, some analysts have noted a potential impact of imported milk

protein products on U.S. cheese production.9

 This is because use of low-cost protein imports

in cheese making may reduce production costs and boost efficiency, leading to increased

cheese production and lower cheese prices. Again, the effect would be a lowering of FMMO

and farm-level prices.

Owing to the dynamics of the dairy market in the United States, secondary, or counter

effects, may positively affect the farm-level price as a result of imported milk protein

products placing downward pressure on the price of SMP. Secondary market-driven effects

arise as a result of a drop in the production of milk in response to a lower milk price. If

overall milk production declines as a result of imports of milk protein products, a drop in the

U.S. supply of all milk components occurs, such as a decline in the production of butterfat,
 10 Analysis by Nicholson and Bishop showed empirically the importance of capturing counter

effects in estimating the impact of milk protein imports on U.S. farm-level prices. Charles F.

Nicholson and Phillip M. Bishop, U.S. Dairy Product Trade: Modeling Approaches and the

Impact of New Product Formulations, Final Report for NRI Grant No. 2001-35400-10249, Cornell

Program on Dairy Markets and Policy, Department of Applied Economics and Management,

Cornell University (Mar. 2004).

 11 Class I milk is used for fluid (beverage) consumption. Class II milk is used to produce soft

dairy products, such as ice cream and yogurt. Class III milk is used in cheese production. Class IV

milk is used to produce butter and SMP.

 12 The make allowance of 14 cents in the nonfat solids price formula is based on the assumption

that it takes 14 cents to manufacture one pound of SMP. Currently, the make allowances for other

products are as follows: butter, 11.5 cents per pound; cheese 16.5 cents per pound; and dry whey,

15.9 cents per pound.

9-8

leading to an increase in the price of components, which causes increases in FMMO prices.10

These counter effects may mitigate the decline in the all-milk price that initially may have

occurred because of increased imports of milk proteins.

Milk Pricing in the U.S. Market

The link between imported milk proteins and the all-milk price is shown in figure 9-4.

Imports of milk protein products affect U.S. farm-level milk prices through their effect on

the prices of dairy products (SMP, butter, cheese, and whey). Dairy product prices are used

in the FMMO-class price formulas to construct milk component prices (butterfat, protein,

other solids, and nonfat solids), that in turn feed into the formulas for Class I-IV prices.11 The

FMMO formulas that determine class prices are shown in box 9-1. The class prices are then

used in a blend price, which is a weighted average of the class prices, with weights

determined by the milk utilization in each class. Finally, the blend price is the major

determinant of the farm-level all-milk price.

Pricing Under Federal Milk Marketing Orders

Since January 1, 2000, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has

compiled weekly product price data (i.e., block and barrel cheddar cheese, Grade AA butter,

SMP, and whey) from a weekly nationwide survey of dairy buyers and sellers. These product

prices are used in the FMMO price formulas to determine values of four milk components

(protein, butterfat, nonfat solids, and other solids). Protein values are determined from cheese

and butter prices; butterfat values are determined from butter prices; nonfat solid values are

determined from SMP prices; and other solids value is determined from the dry whey price.

Component price formulas are based on a simple product break-even analysis and consist

of NASS survey prices, make allowances, and yield factors. The make allowance is the

manufacturing cost (including labor, energy, and capital costs, as well as marketing and

administrative expenses) of processing raw milk into finished products.12 Yield factors are

used in the component value formulas and indicate the amount of a particular component

needed to produce one pound of finished product. Because a certain amount of components

is inevitably lost between the farm and processing facility (referred to as “shrinkage”), yield
9-9

A ll-m ilk p rice

C la s s I 

s k im m ilk p ric e 

C la s s I 

b u tte rfa t p ric e 

C la s s II 

s k im m ilk p ric e 

C la s s II 

b u tte rfa t p ric e 

* q I * q I I * q III *q I V + + +

H ig h e r o f C la s s III o r 

C la s s IV A d va n c e d 

s k im m ilk p ric in g 

facto r + 

C la s s I d iffe re n tia l

A dva n ced b u tte rfa t

P ric in g fa c to r + 

C la s s I d iffe re n tia l

A d va n c e d C la s s IV 

s k im m ilk

p ric in g fa c to r + 

$0.7 0

B utter 

p ric e

Cheese 

p ric e

D ry 

whey 

p ric e

S k im m ilk

powder

p ric e

M ilk p ro te in p ro d u c t im p o rts

C la s s III 

s k im m ilk p ric e 

C la s s III 

b u tte rfa t p ric e C la s s IV s k im m ilk p ric e C la s s IV b u tte rfa t p ric e 

B len d p rice

O ve r-o rd e r p re m ium sP a ym e nt fo r com po ne ntsV o lu m e & q u a lity p re m iu m s

A d va n c e d p ric e

M o n th e n d p ric e

C las s IV p ric e

(b u tter/s kim

m ilk p ow d er)

C lass III p rice

(ch ees e) C la ss II p ric e (so ft p rod u cts) C lass I p rice (flu id )

B u tte rfa t 

p ric e

P ro te in 

p ric e

O th er n o nfa t

s o lid s p ric e

N o n fa t s o lid s 

p ric e

Note.—qI, qII, qII, qIV are Class I-IV shares of total milk allocated to each class.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Figure 9-4U.S. milk pricing under Federal Milk Marketing Orders: Links between milk protein imports and the all-milk price
9-10

Box 9-1

Milk class and component price formulas under Federal Milk Marketing Orders 

Class I

Class I price= (Class I skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class I butterfat price x 3.5) 

Class I skim milk price = Higher of the advanced1 Class III skim milk pricing factor and advanced1 Class IV skim

milk pricing factor + Class I differential adjusted for location

Class I butterfat price = Advanced butterfat pricing factor1

 + (applicable Class I differential divided by 100)

Class II

Class II price = (Class II skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class II butterfat price x 3.5) 

Class II skim milk price = Advanced Class IV skim milk price + $0.70

Class II butterfat price = Butterfat price + $0.007

Class II nonfat solids price = (Class II skim milk price) / 9.0

Class III

Class III price = (Class III skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class III butterfat price x 3.5)

Class III skim milk price = (Class III protein price x 3.1) + (Class III other nonfat solids price x 5.9)

Class III protein price = ((NASS2

 weighted average cheese price - $0.165 ) x 1.383 ) + ((((NASS weighted average

cheese price - $0.165 ) x 1.572 ) - butterfat price x 0.90) x 1.17)

Class III other nonfat solids price = (NASS dry whey price - 0.159 ) x 1.03

Class III butterfat price = (NASS AA butter price - $0.115 ) x 1.20

Class IV

Class IV price (per cwt) = (Class IV skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class IV butterfat price x 3.5) 

Class IV skim milk price = Class IV nonfat solids price x 9.0

Class IV nonfat solids price = (NASS skim milk powder price - 0.14) x 0.99 

Class IV butterfat price = (NASS AA butter price - $0.115 ) x 1.20

Somatic cell adjustment = Cheese price x 0.0005. Rate is per 1,000 somatic cell count from 350,000

________________________

 1

 The advanced pricing factors are based on a weighted average of the two most recent NASS U.S. average

weekly survey prices announced before the 24th day of the month. All other prices use NASS survey prices for the

entire month.

 2

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service,Federal Milk Order Price Information. Price

Formulas 2003, http://www.ams.usda.gov/dyfmos/mib/price_form_2003.htm, retrieved June 25, 2003.
 13 Butter (finished product) is about 82 percent butterfat (component), so that one pound of

butter requires 0.82 pounds of butterfat. Thus, one pound of butterfat yields about 1.22 (i.e.,

1/0.82) of butter. To account for shrinkage, the butterfat value formula includes a yield factor of

1.2. Similarly, SMP is 96 percent nonfat solids, so that one pound of nonfat solids produces about

1.04 pounds of SMP. To account for shrinkage and the fact that in plants producing butter some

nonfat solids are contained in buttermilk, a yield factor of 0.99 is used. The value of protein is

derived from cheese prices. In this case, the USDA formula uses the Van Slyke cheese yield

formula that takes into account the effects of both protein and butterfat on cheese yields. The value

of other nonfat solids is based on the price of dry whey.

 14 Consider how much a manufacturer of SMP (product) would be willing to pay for one pound

of nonfat solids (component). Because nonfat solids are an input in the production of SMP,

processors are willing to pay for nonfat solids to the point at which they break-even. On a per

pound SMP basis, the break-even point is where the price of SMP (revenue) = make allowance +

price of nonfat solids x amount of nonfat solids required to produce one pound of SMP (cost).

Rearranging this expression gives: price of nonfat solids = (price of SMP - make allowance)

/amount of nonfat solids to produce one pound of SMP. Alternatively, price of nonfat solids per

pound = (price of SMP - make allowance) x amount of SMP produced from one pound of nonfat

solids. International Dairy Foods Association, Milk Procurement Workshop, Dallas, TX (Mar. 26,

2003).

 15 Based on whole-milk components of 96.5 percent skim milk and 3.5 percent butterfat.

 16 A listing of base zone Class I differentials for all Federal orders is provided in table 33 of

USDA, AMS, Federal Milk Order Market Statistics, 2002 Annual Summary, Statistical Bulletin

No. 1001 (June 2003), found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dyfmos/mib/annsum2002.pdf.

 17 Class I differentials tend to be higher in the east and south.

9-11

factors are adjusted downward.13 The formulas are based on the economic value of one

pound of milk component to a dairy processor.14 In general, the component value formulas

are structured as product price, less the make allowance, multiplied by the yield factor.

The next step is to convert component prices into class prices. There are four classes and for

each class, two prices are derived, one for skim milk and another for butterfat. For all

classes, the price (at 3.5 percent butterfat) is equal to the class skim-milk price (measured in

dollars per hundredweight) multiplied by 0.965 plus the class butterfat price (measured in

dollars per pound) multiplied by 3.5 (box 9-1).15 The formulas that link the component

values with the class skim-milk and butterfat prices are also shown in box 9-1.

While Class II, III, and IV prices are the same each month across all FMMOs, prices for

Class I skim milk and butterfat prices differ between FMMOs because of the “Class I

differential.” Every county in the nation is assigned a Class I differential which is added to

the Class III or IV price (in the Class I skim milk price formula) and to the butterfat price (in

the Class I butterfat price formula).16 The map of Class I differentials was adjusted with

Congressional approval under the recent FMMO reform, and differentials account for the

distance milk is produced from consumption centers,17 reflecting the costs of transportation.

Finally, the blend price is a weighted-average price received by producers for all sales of

milk to processors. The blend price Pb is defined as:

Pb = (PI

 x qI) + (PII x qII) + (PIII x qIII) + (PIV x qIV) 

where: PI

, PII, PIII, and PIV are Class I -IV prices of milk, and qI, qII, qIII, and qIV are Class

I-IV shares (utilization) of total milk allocated to each class (e.g., qI

 is the percentage of total

milk used in Class I (fluid) processing).
 18 Kenneth W. Bailey, “Understanding Your Milk Check,” Department of Agricultural and

Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University (2000), found at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/-

FreePubs/pdfs/ua341.pdf, retrieved July 10, 2003; Kenneth W. Bailey, Pennsylvania State

University, interview by USITC staff, July 8, 2003.

 19 Farmers are paid premiums over the announced uniform prices because the uniform prices are

in terms of standard component levels (i.e., 3.5 percent butterfat, 2.99 percent protein, and

5.69 percent other solids). Most farmers produce milk with component levels higher than these

standard levels and thus receive a premium for their milk. For orders using multiple component

pricing, farmers are paid in terms of the pounds of butterfat, protein, and other solids they actually

supply (individual farmer’s milk is tested for component levels).

 20 Farmers may receive payments over and above the minimum prices required under FMMOs.

These premiums generally reflect the need for plants to maintain high levels of capacity utilization,

and thus must provide financial incentives to suppliers of the plant, especially during periods when

supplies are short.

 21 Premiums are also paid for milk quality (e.g., lower levels of bacteria) because higher-quality

milk is more valuable in terms of the yields and quality of finished products.

 22 Producers receive premiums based on the volume of milk they ship to any particular plant,

reflecting the economies of scale and cost savings in transporting the milk from farm to plant.

 23 For more information on the components of the mailbox price, see http://www.fmma30.com/-

Homepage/-FO30-MailboxPrices.htm.

 24 USDA official, interview by USITC staff, Dec. 17, 2003.

9-12

The All-Milk Price

The final step is linking the blend price to the all-milk price. Although the link between the

two is not determined by a formula, the blend price is the principal determinant of the allmilk price. The main difference involves various premium payments to farmers, of which

there are four major types:18 components premiums,19 over-order premiums,20 quality

premiums,21 and volume premiums.22 Neither the blend price nor the all-milk price include

deductions, such as fees paid to cooperatives, charges for milk hauling, and assessments for

milk promotion and advertising.23 The all-milk price also does not include producer direct

payments under the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Payments Program.

Effect of Milk Protein Product Imports on Commodity

Credit Corporation Stocks

Since mid-1997, U.S. market prices for SMP have been at, or close to, support levels. With

the U.S. SMP price at the support level, increased imports likely had little direct bearing on

the all-milk price, but rather on CCC purchase levels. Between 1998 and 2002, annual CCC

purchases of SMP increased from 114 million pounds to 680 million pounds, while CCC

stocks rose from 95 million pounds to over 1 billion pounds. According to USDA officials,

tilt adjustments were made in response to growth in CCC stocks and the mounting purchase

and storage costs to the Federal budget.24 Given the importance of the tilt adjustments in

2001 and 2002, an important issue for the analysis of milk protein imports and farm-level

prices is the extent to which growth in milk protein imports contributed to the CCC stocks.

Alternatively, would CCC stocks have reached the levels that gave rise to tilt changes, absent

the growth in imports?
 25 NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004, pp. 5 and 7.

 26 CNI, prehearing submission Dec. 1, 2003, pp. 11-12.

 27 In the 3 years prior to 1996, the U.S. SMP market also appeared to have been in balance, as

indicated by government stocks averaging about 2 percent of commercial disappearance between

1993 and 1995.

9-13

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) claims that the two tilt adjustments were

solely the result of imports. To support this view, NMPF compared the growth in milk

protein imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate (converted into SMP equivalent based on

protein content) since 1993 with annual levels of SMP purchases by the CCC. A close

correlation was asserted between these two series, and it was alleged that for 2000 and 2001,

more than 80 percent of CCC purchases of SMP since 1993 were accounted for by imports.

For this reason the NMPF claimed, “that the growing volume of skim solids finding their

way into the government price support program was strongly related to growing milk protein

imports,” and that imports “were responsible for the large purchases and growing inventories

that were the justification for the tilt in 2001.”25

According to the Coalition for Nutrition Ingredients (CNI), imports were not a major factor

contributing to the tilt adjustments.26 The CNI contended that the high support price of SMP

has led to an overproduction of milk proteins, which in turn resulted in large purchases by

the U.S. Government. CNI has argued that a domestic structural surplus of milk protein

caused the recent expansion of CCC stocks, rather than the growth in imports. According

to the CNI, “ the condition of oversupply and the consequent reduction in prices and farmer

revenues were the direct result of the market signals generated by the U.S. price support

program.” CNI does not hold imports responsible for the recent tilt changes and the

consequent reduction in farm-level prices.

Estimates of the Contribution of Imported Milk Proteins to

Commodity Credit Corporation Stocks Using Commission

Questionnaire Data

The Commission estimated the contribution to CCC stocks of imported milk protein products

based on a supply/use balance for SMP during the 1996-2002 period using its questionnaire

response data. The Commission compared the growth in CCC SMP stocks with imports of

milk protein products that are directly substitutable for SMP. The year 1996 was chosen as

a starting point for this analysis for two reasons. First, in 1996 there appears to have been

little or no surplus of milk proteins in the U.S. market. Domestic SMP production was almost

the same as commercial disappearance (consumption) (table 9-1), and the commercial ending

stocks-to-use ratio was at very low levels. The U.S. market price of SMP in 1996 was

$1.22 per pound (/lb), about 14-percent higher than the government support level of

$1.07/lb, and as a result, there were no price-support purchases that year and government

stocks of SMP were nonexistent.27 Second, 1996 was chosen as a starting point for the

analysis because it was about that year when imports of MPC started to increase rapidly.
9-14

Table 9-1U.S. skim milk powder market: Supply/use balance, government stocks, and prices, 1996-2002Variable 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Annual growth

1996-2002 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Million pounds ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––Percent–––

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,062 1,218 1,135 1,360 1,452 1,414 1,569 7.1Beginning commercial stocks . . . . . . . . 71 71 103 56 140 119 121 22.7Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 11 13 9 9 15 23.8

Total supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,138 1,295 1,250 1,428 1,601 1,541 1,705 7.3

Ending commercial stocks . . . . . . . . . . 71 103 56 140 119 121 101 19.8Price support purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 40 114 237 558 355 680 (1)

DEIP removals2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 258 228 304 134 141 162 48.9

Unrestricted sales3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 16 0 0 0 18 (1)

Net removals4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 298 326 541 693 496 824 93.6

Commercial disappearance5 . . . . . . . . . 1,009 894 867 748 789 924 780 -3.5

Government stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 22 95 134 516 776 1,047 (1)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Dollars per pound––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Market price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1.1 1.07 1.03 1.02 1.01 0.93Government support price . . . . . . . . . . 1.07 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.01 0.94 0.88

1 Not applicable.2 Skim milk powder used in the Dairy Export Incentive Program.3 Sales of skim milk powder from government stocks.4 Equal to price support purchases plus DEIP removals minus unrestricted sales.5 Equal to total supply minus ending commercial stocks minus net government removals.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, Livestock, Poultry, and Dairy, Situation and Outlook, various issues; USDA,

Agriculture Marketing Service, Dairy Market News, various issues; Official trade statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce; Commission importers’questionnaires.
 28 Protein content and the degree of substitutability of imported milk proteins in 1996 and 1997

were estimated based on 1998 data.

 29 The approach by NMPF was to compare, annually, changes in milk protein imports from a

base year of 1993, with the actual level of CCC purchases. NMPF, prehearing submission,

Dec. 11, 2003, p. 10.

9-15

Responses to the Commission questionnaires indicated that in 1996 about 39 million pounds

of imported milk protein displaced domestically produced SMP, which was equivalent to

109 million pounds of SMP (based on a conversion factor of 35.9 percent) (tables 9-2 and

9-3).28 Thus, in a year when the U.S. protein market appeared to be in balance and when the

SMP market price was 14 percent above the support price of $1.07/lb, the market absorbed

109 million pounds (SMP equivalent) of imported milk protein products without the need

for CCC purchases. Between 1996 and 2000, annual imports of milk protein products that

were substitutable for SMP grew to 229 million pounds (SMP equivalent), before declining

to 183 million pounds (SMP equivalent) in 2001 and 2002 (table 9-2).

Table 9-2

Milk protein products: Quantity of milk protein product imports that substitute for U.S.-produced

milk protein, 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––Quantity (million pounds of protein)––––––––––––––––––

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 12 19 18 34 51 37 39

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 18 22 25 22 20

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 6 6 6 76

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 45 41 63 82 66 66

––––––––––Quantity (million pounds, skim milk powder equivalent1

)––––––––––

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 125 114 174 229 183 183 1 Converted from pounds of protein to skim milk powder equivalent using a conversion factor of 35.9 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Growth of imports since 1996 was captured by the accumulated difference between annual

imports and 1996 imports. In other words, in each year from 1997-2002, the difference

between the actual import level in that year and 109 million pounds (the 1996 import level)

was calculated (table 9-3), and then summed across all the years, 1997-2002. By

accumulating additional imports over time, import growth was captured in terms of a stock

variable that is appropriate for a comparison with growth of CCC stocks of product.29

Finally, the ratio of accumulated imports to accumulated stocks was calculated to measure

the contribution of SMP-substitutable imports to CCC stocks. 

Using this approach, it was shown that accumulated imports that may substitute for SMP

increased from 16 million pounds (SMP equivalent) in 1997 to 353 million pounds (SMP

equivalent) (table 9-3). Over this period, accumulated CCC stocks of SMP grew from

22 million pounds to 1,047 million pounds. As a result, the ratio of accumulated imports to

accumulated CCC stocks over the 1996-2002 period was 34 percent. To determine whether

this result was sensitive to the base year, an identical comparison was made using base years

of 1997 and 1998. As shown in table 9-3, changing the base year to 1997 resulted in the ratio

of accumulated imports to accumulated CCC stocks of 25 percent by 2002, and 33 percent
9-16

Table 9-3U.S. skim milk powder (SMP) market: Analysis of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) stocks and SMP substitutable imports, 1996-2002Variable 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Million pounds––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Government stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 22 95 134 516 776 1,047SMP substitutable milk protein imports1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 125 114 174 229 183 183

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Million pounds––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Change since 1996:

Accumulated change in CCC stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 22 95 134 516 776 1,047Change in SMP substitutable milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16 5 65 120 74 74Accumulated change in SMP substitutable imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16 21 86 205 279 353

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Ratio of accumulated imports to accumulated stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 73 22 64 40 36 34

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Million pounds––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Change since 1997:

Accumulated change in CCC stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 74 112 494 754 1,025Change in SMP substitutable milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 -11 49 104 58 58Accumulated change in SMP substitutable imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 -11 38 143 201 259

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Ratio of accumulated imports to accumulated stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . -15 34 29 27 25

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Million pounds––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Change since 1998:

Accumulated change in CCC stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 38 421 680 952Change in SMP substitutable milk protein imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 60 115 69 69Accumulated change in SMP substitutable imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 60 175 244 313

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Ratio of accumulated imports to accumulated stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 42 36 33

1 Converted from pounds of protein to SMP equivalent using a conversion factor of 35.9 percent.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Livestock, Poultry, and Dairy, Situation and Outlook, various issues; Commission

importers’ questionnaires.
 30 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-105 (Mar. 2003),

pp. 2-7, found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/Mar03/LDPM105Dairy.-pdf.

 31 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript p. 91.

 32 USDA official, interview by USITC staff, Dec. 17, 2003.

 33 Kenneth W. Bailey, prehearing submission, Dec. 11, p. 11-12.

 34 Net removals are defined by the USDA as price support purchases plus removals under the

Dairy Export Incentive Program, less unrestricted sales.

9-17

by 2002 using a 1998 base-year. Thus, there was only a small change in magnitude of these

ratios for different base years. These calculations indicate that about 65-75 percent of CCC

stocks in 2002 were likely the consequence of factors other than imports.

A key factor contributing to CCC purchases and stock growth is domestic SMP production

growth during 1996-2002 (table 9-1). SMP production increased from about 1 billion pounds

in 1996 to 1.6 billion in 2002, and production grew as much as 11 percent between 2001 and

2002. Most of the growth in SMP production reflects growth in milk production over this

period, especially production from the large dairy operations in the Western United States.

For example, between 1999 and 2002, the period when CCC purchases grew significantly,

U.S. milk production increased at almost 2 percent annually. Much of this milk production

growth was in response to strong demand for many dairy products during 1999-2001.30 Thus,

although milk did not appear to be in surplus over this time frame, there did appear to be an

oversupply of milk protein.31 At the same time, SMP production remained profitable because

of the high support price for SMP.

The precise methodology used by the USDA to determine whether, and by how much, tilt

changes are made is not transparent.32 Given that the USDA relies primarily on the level of

CCC stocks for determining when tilt adjustments are necessary, it is possible that the

accumulation of CCC stocks resulting from imports could have raised stocks to a level that

prompted a tilt adjustment. However, owing to the nontransparency of the USDA’s decisions

on tilts, it is not possible to make definitive statements as to whether or not a reduction of

CCC stocks by about 25-35 percent would have prevented a change in the tilt. In summary,

the analysis presented above suggests that imports of milk protein products may have

contributed to the buildup of CCC stocks during 1996-2002. At the same time, domestic

production and consumption trends during the time period also appear to have been

important factors behind the recent CCC accumulation of SMP.

Other Estimates of the Effect of Milk Protein Imports on

Commodity Credit Corporation Stocks

Analysis of this issue was also provided by Bailey, based on certain assumptions about the

protein content and uses of imported milk protein products.33 Bailey calculated that during

1997-2002, imports of MPC rose by 8,938 metric tons (mt), whereas government support

purchases increased by 103,963 mt. Net removals34 are shown to increase about 90,000 mt

between 1997 and 2002. Protein import growth represented about one-tenth of the growth

in net purchases over this time period. Bailey concluded that even if one assumes that

imported protein displaces domestically produced SMP on a one-for-one basis, only about

9,000 mt of imports went into CCC stocks and that 96,700 mt had nothing to do with
 35 NMPF argues that the period of 1997-2002 used by Bailey, “is completely unrepresentative

of the relationship between increased milk protein imports and CCC purchases during the entire

period from 1993 through the present.” NMPF, posthearing submission, Jan. 15, 2004, p. 6.

 36 Displacement of domestically produced SMP by imports was calculated as the difference

between actual domestic commercial-use of SMP during 1997-2002 and a trend in commercial use

derived by extrapolating SMP commercial use growth experienced during 1982-1996 into the

period 1997-2002. 

 37 Edward V. Jesse, “U.S. Imports of Concentrated Milk Proteins: What We Know and Don’t

Know,” Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper No. 80, Department of Agricultural and Applied

Economics (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Feb. 2003).

 38 Jesse raised the question of whether the tilts would have occurred if milk protein imports had

been curtailed. He concluded that, “the Secretary (of Agriculture) would have been obligated to

reduce the SMP purchase price even if imports had remained at their 1996 levels.” He also noted

however, that political pressure may have been sufficient for the USDA to resist making a tilt

adjustment if the level of SMP purchases and stocks had not been so high. Edward V. Jesse, “U.S.

Imports of Concentrated Milk Proteins: What We Know and Don’t Know,” Marketing and Policy

Briefing Paper No. 80, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Feb. 2003), p. 17.

 39 Congressional Research Service, Dairy Policy Issues, CRS Issue Brief No. IB97011

(Apr. 18, 2003).

9-18

imports.35 For this reason and the observation that the supply/use balance indicated that

imports represent only about 5-6 percent of milk protein supplies to the U.S. market, Bailey

concluded that imports alone had limited impact on farm-level milk prices.

Jesse also explored the issue of imports and recent tilt decisions by estimating the amount

of domestically produced SMP that may have been displaced by imported milk proteins36

between 1997 and 2002, and then comparing this displacement with CCC purchases.37 The

imputed SMP displacement by milk protein imports was estimated to have increased from

79 million pounds in 1997 to 427 million pounds in 2002, whereas actual CCC net removals

of SMP increased from almost 300 million pounds to over 800 million pounds in this time

frame. Thus, the difference between government purchases and estimated displacement

increased from 200 million pounds in 1997 to almost 400 million pounds in 2002.38

Impact of Tilt Changes on Federal Milk Marketing Order

Prices and Farm-Level Prices

The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to change the tilt twice annually;39 and since

2001, the USDA twice reduced the support price of SMP and increased the support price of

butter in an attempt to reduce production of SMP and control forfeitures to the CCC. The

first tilt adjustment occurred on May 31, 2001, when the SMP support price was reduced

from $1.0032/lb to $0.90/lb (the butter support price increased from $0.65/lb to $0.85/lb),

followed by a second tilt on November 15, 2002, when the SMP support price was reduced

to $0.80/lb (the butter support price increased to $1.05/lb). Although the butter support price

was raised, the prevailing market price for butter continued to exceed the support level, so

no forfeitures of butter resulted. After the first adjustment in the tilt, production of SMP

continued to rise, increasing by 11 percent between 2001 and 2002. After the second tilt,

production declined, falling by about 5 percent between 2002 and 2003.
 40 Dr. Peter Vitaliano, NMPF, interview by USITC staff, June 17, 2003.

 41 Edward V. Jesse and Robert Cropp, “The Butter-Powder Tilt,” Marketing and Policy Brief

Paper No. 72, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (University of WisconsinMadison, June 2001), found at http://www.aae.wisc.edu/www/pub/mpbpapers/mpb72.pdf, retrieved

May 6, 2003.

 42 It is important to note that the impact of the tilt on the Class I occurs when the Class IV skim

milk price is higher than the Class III skim milk price. During most of the period since Jan. 2000

when the new formulas were adopted, the Class IV skim milk price has been above the Class III

skim milk price, and as a result, fluid milk prices were totally independent from the cheese market.

Thus, for this period, the government support price for SMP has been key in determining fluid

milk prices, and this largely has made the tilts controversial.

9-19

Impact of Tilt Changes on Federal Milk Marketing Order Prices

Tilts are significant policy changes because, under pricing formulas established under

FMMOs, lowering the support price for SMP results in reductions in the Class IV price, as

well as Class I and Class II prices.40 Thus, through the complex system of formula pricing,

tilt changes ultimately mean lower farm-level prices.41 Lowering the support price of SMP

reduces the market price and the NASS survey price. This lower SMP price then feeds into

the formula for nonfat solids and the Class IV price via the Class IV skim milk price. In

addition, the Class I skim milk price is determined by the higher of the Class III skim milk

pricing factor and Class IV skim milk pricing factor. Since the Class IV skim milk price was

above the Class III skim milk price for the period in which the tilts took place,42 lowering the

Class IV skim milk price had the effect of lowering the Class I skim milk price, and thus the

overall Class I price. Finally, the Class II skim milk price is determined by the advanced

Class IV skim milk price (plus a 70-cent differential), so, again, a decline in the Class IV

skim price would give rise to a decline in the Class II skim price and thus the overall Class

II price.

For illustrative purposes, the impacts on class and component prices following the two recent

tilt changes (in which the per-pound SMP support price was lowered from $1.00 to $0.90,

and then further from $0.90 to $0.80) are shown in table 9-4. The example shows how tilt

changes might impact FMMO prices, assuming milk class utilization rates and the Class I

price differential for the Northeast Order in 2002, and annual average product prices for

2001 and 2002. The table shows how class, component and blend prices are affected when

the SMP support price is lowered. These impacts assume no change in the market price of

butter, even though the support price of butter increases with the tilts, because market prices

for butter were above the support level during 2001 and 2002. The analysis also assumes no

changes in milk class utilization rates following the tilt adjustments.

As a result of the first tilt adjustment, the Class IV nonfat solids price falls from $0.85/lb to

$0.75/lb, which leads to drops in both the Class IV and II skim milk prices by $0.92/cwt and

the overall Class IV and II prices by $0.89/cwt (the tilt is assumed not to impact the butterfat

price). The Class I skim milk price also falls by $0.49/cwt. This is because the Class I mover

(that is, the higher of the Class III and IV skim milk prices) falls from $7.69/cwt (the Class

IV skim price) to $7.20/cwt (the Class III skim price). Combining the Class I mover, the

Class I differential, and butterfat price, results in a reduction of the overall Class I price of

$0.47/cwt ($17.12/cwt to $16.64/cwt). Combining the class price changes with assumed

utilization rates (Class I, 42 percent; Class II, 17 percent; Class III, 31 percent; and Class IV,

10 percent), the blend price falls $0.44/cwt ($15.20/cwt to $14.77/cwt). For the 2002 tilt, a
 43 This decline would be offset by an increase in the MILC payment. Based on the assumptions

above, the MILC payment (equal to $16.94 less the Class I price) multiplied by 0.45, would

increase from $1.36 /cwt to $1.42 /cwt, a rise, of $0.06/cwt. Payments per farm are limited to the

first 2.4 million pounds of production each fiscal year.

9-20

Table 9-4

Analysis of the impact of butter-powder tilts on Federal Milk Marketing Order prices, an example of

the Northeast Order, 2002

2001 price support level 2002 price support level 

Prices 1 dollar 90 cents Change 90 cents 80 cents Change

Product prices:

Block cheese (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.42 1.42 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00

Grade AA butter (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 1.65 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00

Skim milk powder (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 -0.10 0.90 0.80 -0.10

Dry whey (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00

Class IV:

Butterfat price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.84 1.84 0.00 1.18 1.18 0.00

Nonfat solids price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . 0.85 0.75 -0.10 0.75 0.65 -0.10

Class IV price skim (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . 7.69 6.77 -0.92 6.77 5.88 -0.89

Class IV price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.87 12.98 -0.89 10.67 9.81 -0.86

Class III:

Butterfat price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.84 1.84 0.00 1.18 1.18 0.00

Protein price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 2.10 0.00 2.06 2.06 0.00

Other nonfat solid (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00

Class III skim price(dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . 7.20 7.20 0.00 6.63 6.63 0.00

Class III price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.39 13.39 0.00 10.53 10.53 0.00

Class II:

Nonfat solids price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.83 -0.10 0.83 0.73 -0.10

Butterfat price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 1.85 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00

Class II skim price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . 8.39 7.47 -0.92 7.47 6.58 -0.89

Class II price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.57 13.68 -0.89 11.37 10.51 -0.86

Class I:1

Butterfat price (dollars per pound) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.87 1.87 0.00 1.21 1.21 0.00

Class I skim price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.94 10.45 -0.49 10.02 9.88 -0.14

Class I price (dollars per cwt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.12 16.64 -0.47 13.92 13.78 -0.14

Blend price (dollars per cwt)2 .................. 15.20 14.77 -0.44 12.11 11.82 -0.29 1

 Class I differential for Northeast Order is 3.25.

2

 Assumes class utilization rates of 42 percent (Class I), 17 percent (Class II), 31 percent (Class III), 10 percent

(Class IV).

Source: Commission estimates based on information from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, Federal Milk Order Market Statistics, Annual Summary, 2001 and 2002, found at http://www/ams.usda.gov/-

dyfmos/mib/fmoms.htm. 

similar analysis shows that reducing the tilt from $0.90/lb to $0.80/lb gave rise to a drop in

the blend price of $0.29 ($12.11/cwt to $11.82/cwt).43

Impact of Tilt Changes on Farm-Level Prices

The illustration above shows how tilt changes might impact class and component prices

under FMMOs. However, the overall impact of tilt changes on farm-level prices and incomes

depends on other factors in addition to FMMO prices. Such factors include the effects of the

tilt changes on milk-class utilization, market prices for other dairy products, (such as butter),

and deficiency payments under the MILC program (see chapter 3 for more details). This

section discusses analysis by the USDA and others on how the two recent tilt changes
 44 USDA official, interview by USITC staff, Feb. 2004. 

 45 NMPF, prehearing submission, Dec. 11, 2003, p. 14.

 46 Thomas L. Cox, “Interregional Impacts of 2002 U.S. Dairy Policies: The 2002 Dairy MILC,

80/105 SMP-Butter Tilt, and New Class III/IV Prices,” presented at the Minnesota-Wisconsin

Dairy Policy Conference, St. Paul, MN (Apr. 4, 2003).

9-21

affected farm-level prices and producer incomes. Studies indicate that tilt changes did reduce

farm-level prices, although there are significant differences over the magnitude of those

reductions.

The USDA estimated that the November 2002 tilt reduced the fiscal year (FY) 2003 all-milk

price from $12.10/cwt to $11.90/cwt (a drop of $0.20/cwt).44 This decline resulted from a

drop in the Class IV price of about $0.30/cwt, with the lower SMP price offset by higher

butter prices. Butter prices were estimated to increase following the tilt because lower milk

prices translated into lower milk production, such that less milk was available for use in

Class IV product (SMP and butter), resulting in lower butter production and higher butter

prices. The USDA determined that butter prices also rose because the price of Class III milk

declined less than the price of Class IV milk ($0.10/cwt as opposed to $0.35/cwt), so that

milk was diverted toward cheese production and away from butter/SMP production, again

resulting in higher butter prices. The analysis also showed a reduction in both the Class I and

II price of $0.35/cwt. USDA also estimated that the $0.20/cwt drop in the all-milk price

would be offset by an average increase in the MILC payment of about $0.10/cwt, although

the magnitude would depend on geographical location, with the offsetting MILC payment

being lower in regions where operations are very large. Finally, USDA estimated that the

November 2002 tilt led to a loss in farm income (cash income plus MILC payments) of about

$192 million in FY2003.

The NMPF estimated that the tilts had a significantly larger impact on farm prices and farm

incomes than the USDA. Specifically, NMPF estimates that the two tilts in 2001 and 2002

(i.e., reducing the SMP support price from $1.0032/lb to $0.90/lb to $0.80/lb) had the effect

of lowering producer prices by $0.19/cwt in 2001, $0.48/cwt in 2002, and $0.76/cwt in 2003.

These price declines translated into reductions in producer income of $156 million in 2001,

$816 million in 2002, and $1,283 million in 2003.45 In addition to the $0.20/lb drop in the

SMP support price, the NMPF analysis assumed that the tilt changes had no effect on

butterfat prices or the Class III price of milk. It was also assumed that tilt changes would

have no impact on U.S. milk production or utilization of milk in each class. The NMPF also

assumed no effects of MILC payments in its calculation of impacts of tilt changes on

producer revenues.

A simulation model of the U.S. dairy sector (the Interregional Competition Model) was used

by Cox to analyze the November 2002 tilt.46 Based on market conditions in 2000, the model

results indicated that the change in the SMP/butter support price from $0.90/lb to $0.80/lb

would give rise to a $0.16/cwt drop in the all-milk price, a 814-million-pound drop in milk

production, and a $371 million decline in farm-level revenue. However, simulations on the

effect of the tilt and MILC in 2000 (a low-price year) indicated that the milk price received

by producers would actually increase by $0.47/cwt (in other words, the lower price resulting

from the tilt is more than offset by the MILC payment). Using 2001 as the base year for the

analysis, the effects of the tilt change were estimated to be larger. In this scenario, the milk

price fell by $0.43/cwt, and farm production and income declined by 1.8 billion pounds and

$959 million, respectively. Similarly, in 2001 (a high-price year) the MILC payment offset

the lower milk price from the tilt change, such that the net reduction in milk price was
 47 For an example, refer to U.S. International Trade Commission, The Economic Effects of

Significant U.S. Import Restraints, Third Update 2002, (Investigation No. 332-325) USITC

publication No. 3519 (June 2002).

 48 The COMPAS model has been adapted to account for linkages between upstream and

downstream goods (e.g., wheat and flour, flat rolled steel products). However the parameters

necessary to adapt the COMPAS model to reflect the linkages in the dairy market are not available

at the dairy component level. Likewise, while the USITC CGE framework models linkages in the

dairy market, the necessary parameters and data are not available at the dairy component level.

 49 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal: Assessing

the impacts of Off-Shore Dairy-Based Ingredients on the U.S. Dairy Sector,” unpublished and

undated paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI,

received by USITC staff on Sept. 30, 2003.

 50 Charles F. Nicholson and Phillip M. Bishop, “U.S. Dairy Product Trade: Modeling

Approaches and the Impact of New Product Formulations,” Final Report for NRI Grant No. 2001-

35400-10249, Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy, Department of Applied Economics

and Management, Cornell University (Mar. 2004).

9-22

$0.24/cwt. These results suggested that farmers did not face the full brunt of the tilt, and that

a substantial part of the cost was borne by the taxpayers through the MILC payment

program.

Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Milk Protein Imports

on Farm-Level Prices

A quantitative analysis of the impact of milk proteins on farm-level prices requires the

application of an economic model that captures the complexity of the U.S. dairy industry as

outlined throughout this report. In particular, any model for such analysis must: (1) be

specified in terms of dairy components; (2) account for the system of component and class

pricing under the FMMO; and, (3) capture the dairy price support program, including

intervention pricing and CCC stocks. The Commission frequently uses three models in

factfinding investigations—the Commercial Policy Analysis System (COMPAS) model,

which is a partial equilibrium trade model developed by the USITC; the USITC computable

general equilibrium (CGE) model (U.S. model); and, the Global Trade Analysis Project

(GTAP) model, also a CGE model. Although the Commission has used these models for

analysis of trade policy changes on the U.S. dairy sector,47 the models are based on

aggregated product groupings (e.g., fluid milk and cheese), and parameters and input-output

data are not available at the dairy component level necessary to estimate how imported milk

proteins affect farm-level milk prices in the United States.48 Therefore, the quantitative

assessment of the impact of milk protein imports on farm-level prices presented below is

based on a review of recent studies that have attempted to model the effects of imports on

milk prices, as opposed to developing a U.S. dairy model at the Commission especially for

this investigation.

Four directly relevant modeling analyses of effects of milk protein product imports on

farm-level prices by Burke and Cox,49 Bishop and Nicholson,50 Sumner and
 51 Daniel A. Sumner and Joseph Balagtas, “Effects of Imported Milk Protein Concentrate on the

U.S. Dairy Situation,” unpublished paper commissioned by Dairy Companies Association of New

Zealand and Dairy Australia for submission to the USITC hearing, Dec. 11, 2003; posthearing

submission to the USITC on behalf of the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23,

2003; Daniel Sumner, email message sent to USITC staff, received Jan. 13, 2004.

 52 Kenneth W. Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports: The Case of Milk Protein

Concentrates,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, vol. 31, No. 2 (2002), pp. 248-59.

 53 Detailed summaries of these studies are provided in appendix H.

 54 Joseph Burke, and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal: 

Assessing the impacts of Off-Shore Dairy-Based Ingredients on the U.S. Dairy Sector,”

unpublished and undated paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, WI, received by USITC staff on Sept. 30, 2003; USITC staff’s field notes of meetings

with University of Wisconsin dairy economists, Aug. 19, 2001; telephone conversation with

Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist, Sept. 22 and Oct. 1, 2003.

9-23

Balagtas,51and Bailey52 are summarized in table 9-5.53 Even though these studies differed in

terms of modeling approaches, commodity coverage, and base year, they generally found

that imports of milk protein products have had little impact on farm-level prices in the U.S.

market. In the models developed by Burke and Cox and Nicholson and Bishop, which fully

incorporated government intervention in the dairy sector through the FMMO system and the

DPSP, the price impacts of milk protein imports were small because government SMP

purchases prevented the SMP price from falling below the support level. Thus, policy

changes that might influence U.S. imports of milk protein (such as an import ban or quota,

or liberalization of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards of identity to allow

for MPC use in standardized cheese) affected CCC stocks and not farm-level prices. In the

case of the Sumner/Balagtas analysis, the finding that milk protein imports have a minimal

impact on farm-level price was driven by the assumption that imported milk proteins account

for less than 5 percent of total protein availability in the U.S. market. Bailey did not directly

estimate the impact of imports on farm-level prices, but rather simulated the effects of milk

protein price changes on imports and CCC purchases. More detailed discussion of these

analyses is presented below.

Burke and Cox (2004, Ongoing)54

Burke and Cox developed a mathematical optimization (programming) model capable of

estimating the effects of milk protein product imports on U.S. dairy production and use,

government support purchases, and farm-level milk prices. The model has a single aggregate

U.S. dairy market and up to 23 dairy and milk protein products. All products are defined by

a production function consisting of five milk components (whey and casein proteins, fat,

lactose, and other solids). The baseline for the model is 2002. The framework captures the

imperfect substitutability among domestically produced and imported milk protein products

in the cheese-making process. The impacts of changes in the milk-protein import level are

traceable through to domestic use and prices of all 23 products, and government purchases

under the dairy price support program, by means of an accounting balance of the 5 milk

components. By simultaneously balancing all five components, offsetting effects of imports

on different milk-component prices can be captured. For example, lower milk prices

following increased milk protein imports might lead to a reduction in overall milk supply,

which, in turn, would reduce production of butterfat and cause the price of butter to increase.
9-24

Table 9-5Summary of models and results on effects of milk protein concentrate imports on the U.S. dairy industryAuthor(s) General framework and general dimensions. Experiments simulated ResultsBurke and Cox (2004)Goal: model milk protein import-inducedimpacts on U.S. dairy sector.

Mathematical programming optimization followingSamuelson/Takayama/Judge. Products: 5 componentsor inputs, and 23 intermediate or final products, including Chapter 4 and 35 MPC. Regions: AggregateU.S. region and undetermined number of foreignregions. 2002 baseline.

Five simulations against baselinefocus on three policy issues:(1) elimination of MPC imports undervarying degrees of substitutabilityamong cheese and noncheeseproteins; (2) unlimited MPC importswith relaxed standards of identity;and (3) implementation of mild andpronounced tilts ($0.80/lb, $0.70/lb).

(1) MPC import elimination effects on U.S.dairy markets generally mild: little/no effecton farm milk price, farm revenue, and milksupply, although Commodity CreditCorporation (CCC) purchases decline22-70 percent. (2) Relaxation of standardsidentity has generally mild U.S. marketimpacts: little/no change in farm milk price,supply, revenue, and prices/use of mostdairy products, although CCC purchasesnoticeably rise 219 percent and MPCimports escalate ten-fold. (3) Implementation of tilts generates following ranges ofnoticeable impacts: decline in milk prices(2-4 percent), farm revenue (3-6 percent), and milk supply (1-2 percent);31-70 percent declines in CCC purchases;and large changes in selected productprices and use levels. Pronounced tilt to a$0.70/lb, skim milk powder (SMP) supportprice equals world 2002 level andeffectively dismantles dairy price supportprogram.

Nicholson and Bishop (2004)Goal: model milk protein import-inducedimpacts on U.S. dairy sector.

Mathematical programming optimization followingSamuelson/Takayama/Judge with extended, nonlinearframework. Products: 3 components and 15 finalproducts including 12 separate Chapter 4 and 35imports. Regions: bi-regional United States (California

and rest of United States) and aggregate rest of world. 2001 baseline. Includes 888 equations.

One simulation against baseline:elimination of Chapter 4 MPCimports (Chapter 35 MPC35 importsunchanged) under two assumptions:(1) dairy users consider MPC andSMP perfect substitutes, and(2) nondairy users have noalternative substitute for MPC suchthat domestic MPC production isactivated.

MPC import elimination induces domesticMPC production, and in turn, the demandfor milk, and generating following U.S.effects: increases in farm milk price(0.4 percent), milk production (0.1 percent),and cheese prices (1 percent). As MPCproduction side effect, butter productionrises 21 million pounds and price falls4 percent. SMP production falls 4 percentand SMP prices unchanged, as CCCpurchases increase 13 percent.

Sumner and Balagtas (2003)Goal: model milk protein import-inducedimpacts on U.S. dairy sector.

COMPAS-like partial equilibrium model of US/rest ofworld trade in milk protein. Log-linear, percent changemodel. 2 components: protein and nonprotein solids.1999-2002 baseline. Includes 12 equations.

25 percent drop in milk proteinimports.

1.5 percent rise in milk protein price and1 percent decline in price of nonproteinsolids; 0.3 percent rise in farm milk price;0.1 percent rise U.S. milk production; lessthan 0.5 percent rise in U.S. dairyrevenues.
9-25

Table 9-5—ContinuedSummary of models and results on effects of milk protein concentrate imports on the U.S. dairy industryAuthor(s) General framework and general dimensions. Experiments simulated ResultsBailey (2002)Goal: econometrically estimate U.S.demand for SMP and imported milkproteins. Simulate effects of milk proteinprice changes on U.S. dairy sector. 

Econometrically estimated, quarterly two-sector modelof the U.S. SMP subsector and U.S. milk imports. Summarized by 3 Seemingly unrelated regression(SUR)-estimated demand equations: equations for U.S.SMP, imported MPC4, and imported MPC35. Equationsestimated 1990.1-2000.4; 1996.1-2000.4 baseline.Simulated over all or part of baseline period.

Simulation 1: rise in world milk

protein price to $0.99/lb.Simulation 2: decrease CCCpurchase SMP price to $0.80/lb.

Ranges of quarterly results:Simulation 1: rise in SMP use,

10-42 percent; imports fall 14-51 percent;CCC SMP outlays fall $800 million.Simulation 2: SMP prices falls14-35 percent; SMP use up 7-21 percent;substantial fall in imports; and Federaloutlays fall $572 million.

Sources: Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal: Assessing the impacts of Off-Shore Dairy-Based Ingredients on the U.S. Dairy Sector,”

unpublished and undated paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, received by USITC staff on Sept. 30, 2003; Charles F. Nicholson and

Phillip M. Bishop, “U.S. Dairy Product Trade: Modeling Approaches and the Impact of New Product Formulations,” Final Report for NRI Grant No. 2001-35400-10249, Cornell Programon Dairy Markets and Policy, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University (Mar. 2004); Daniel A. Sumner and Joseph Balagtas, “Effects of Imported Milk

Protein Concentrate on the U.S. Dairy Situation,” unpublished paper commissioned by Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and Dairy Australia for submission to the USITC

hearing, Dec. 11, 2003; Kenneth W. Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports: The Case of Milk Protein Concentrates,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, vol. 31, No. 2(2002), pp. 248-59.
 55 Simulation scenarios and resulted based on: Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Impact of MPC

Imports on Farm-Gate Milk Prices and CCC Purchases of Dry Milk, Executive Summary,”

unpublished paper, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin,

Madison (undated, but received by USITC staff, Feb. 27, 2004), pp. 1-6.

 56 This impact differs from the results of the Cox analysis of the 90/80 tilt change reported

earlier. This is mainly because of a difference in the base period.

9-26

Burke and Cox55 simulated their model to estimate the impacts of certain changes in trade

and domestic policies on the U.S. dairy industry. In all, five policy scenarios were analyzed:

elimination of MPC imports (scenarios 1 and 2); allowing unlimited imports of MPC with

relaxation of standards of identity for cheese making (scenario 4); and, adjustment of the

government support prices of SMP and butter (tilt changes) (scenarios 3 and 5). The effects

of these policy changes on key U.S. dairy industry variables were analyzed, including farm

milk price, milk supply and farm revenue, CCC purchases of SMP, as well as market prices

and commercial disappearance for a number of processed dairy products (whole milk, skim

milk, butter, cheese, SMP, condensed skim milk, buttermilk, soft products, and frozen

products).

In scenarios 1 and 2, Burke and Cox simulate the effects of setting MPC imports to zero.

Simulations are run under two extreme assumptions about the substitutability between cheese

proteins and noncheese proteins, where cheese proteins are those from SMP and MPC

(primarily casein) for use in cheese making (these exclude whey stream products), whereas

noncheese proteins are those which are not used in cheese making, and include whey stream

products. Import elimination under both scenarios has negligible effects on farm-level milk

prices, dairy product prices, and domestic production. Domestic production of MPC

increases in response to the demands of manufacturers of nonstandardized cheese and

nondairy products (e.g., nutritional beverages and sports drinks). However, the main impact

of eliminating MPC imports under both scenarios is on the level of CCC purchases, which

fall by between 180 million pounds (scenario 1) and 581 million pounds (scenario 2)

compared with the 2002 base.

Under the assumption of unlimited MPC imports and full liberalization of FDA

domestic-cheese standards to permit MPC use in all production (scenario 4), imports of MPC

increase dramatically (from 107 million pounds in the baseline to 1.2 billion pounds, a

ten-fold increase). Again, there are no significant changes in farm milk prices, milk supply,

or farm revenues. Further, there is little impact on dairy product prices (3 percent or lower)

and commercial disappearance levels (1 percent or less), because the CCC absorbs the

additional imports, such that CCC purchases of SMP escalate from 828 million pounds to

2.6 billion pounds, an increase of 219 percent.

Given that most of the effects of alternative MPC import scenarios are through the CCC

purchases and stock levels, Burke and Cox explore how tilt changes might impact farm-level

prices. They simulate implementation of two tilts—adjusting the support price of SMP down

from $0.90/lb to $0.80/lb (i.e., the November 2002 tilt) (scenario 3) and a hypothetical tilt

where the SMP support price is lowered from $0.90/lb to $0.70/lb (scenario 5). Model

simulations of these policy changes indicate that the effects of the 90/80 tilt would likely

reduce the farm-level price by about 2 percent (or $0.26/cwt).56 However, the milk price

decline is shown to be largely offset by the 2002 MILC payments, so that overall farm

revenue is unchanged. However, the 90/70 tilt is equivalent to eliminating the dairy price

support program, because the 70-cent SMP support price is equivalent to the world price in

2002. In this scenario, the market effects are significant. First, the lower support price leads
 57 This range is consistent with the Commission estimate of 353 million pounds of CCC SMP

stocks that were attributable to imports of milk protein products. It is also consistent with the

estimate by Edward V. Jesse that displacement of SMP by imported proteins increased from

200 million pounds in 1997 to 400 million pounds in 2002.

 58 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Market Impacts of Milk Trade Policy: Brief Model

Description,” unpublished paper, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell

University, Sept. 25, 2003; Phillip Bishop, and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the Market Impacts

of Dairy Protein Trade Policy: Comments on Current Status,” unpublished summary of project

status, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, July 21, 2003;

USITC staff field notes of meetings with Cornell University dairy economists, July, 2003; Charles

Nicholson, telephone interview by USITC staff, Sept. 2003.

9-27

to a reduction in the milk price by about $0.52/cwt (or 4 percent), and milk supply falls by

about 2 percent and farm revenues by almost 6 percent. Again, the effects of lower milk

prices and revenues are offset (though not entirely in this scenario) by additional deficiency

payments under the MILC. The 90/70 tilt would also have significant effects of dairy product

prices, ranging from a 24 percent increase in the price of butter to a 23 percent drop in the

price of SMP. Another key finding of the 90/70 tilt analysis is that a 70-cent SMP support

price would completely eliminate imports of MPC because cheaper milk proteins would be

available from the domestic market.

The Burke and Cox analysis confirms that the mechanism by which imported milk proteins

can affect farm-level prices is through a change in the tilt. They indicate that changes could

lower farm-level milk prices by 2 to 4 percent depending on the magnitude of the tilt change,

although the overall impact on farm revenues depends on the degree to which additional

MILC payments offset the decline in the milk price. The key question of whether USDA

would have adjusted the tilt during 2000-2002, absent growth in milk protein imports, is not

answered by the quantitative analysis. However, Burke and Cox show that elimination of

milk protein imports would decrease CCC purchases of SMP by 180 to 581 million pounds,

depending on the assumption about protein substitutability,57 and in their view, displacement

of 581 million pounds of SMP would be sufficient to have induced a tilt.

Bishop and Nicholson (2004, Ongoing)58

Bishop and Nicholson developed a mathematical programming model that estimates the

effects of milk protein imports on the U.S. dairy industry, including effects on U.S.

production, consumption, prices, and Federal outlays on the dairy price support program.

Products in the model are specified in terms of milk components (fat, protein, and other

solids), and the model solves for component and product prices by balancing components

not only among regions, but also among competing plants within regions. The model

calibrates to a 2001 baseline and includes 888 equations and variables. Included in the model

are 15 final products, 7 interplant dairy products traded/shipped among processors, a

two-region U.S. entity (California and the rest of the country), and an endogenous

12-product import model. Bishop and Nicholson’s model balances components at both the

regional and processor (plant) levels with nonlinear and endogenous yield equations rather

than fixed Leontief proportions.
 59 Charles F. Nicholson and Phillip M. Bishop, U.S. Dairy Product Trade: Modeling

Approaches and the Impact of New Product Formulations, Final Report for NRI Grant No. 2001-

35400-10249, Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy, Department of Applied Economics

and Management, Cornell University (Mar. 2004). Charles Nicholson and Phillip Bishop,

telephone interview by USITC staff, Mar. 2, 2004.

 60 Daniel A. Sumner and Joseph Balagtas, “Effects of Imported Milk Protein Concentrate on the

U.S. Dairy Situation,” unpublished paper commissioned by Dairy Companies Association of New

Zealand and Dairy Australia for submission to the USITC hearing, Dec. 11, 2003; posthearing

submission to the USITC on behalf of the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23,

2003; Daniel Sumner, email message sent to USITC staff, received Jan. 13, 2004.

9-28

Nicholson and Bishop59 provide preliminary results for the effects of restricting U.S. imports

of MPC (HTS 0404.90.10 only) on the U.S. dairy sector. They look at elimination of U.S.

MPC imports under two different assumptions about the substitutability of imported and

domestically produced protein. Under the first assumption, dairy users consider MPC and

domestic dairy proteins (particularly SMP) as perfect substitutes; and under the second

assumption, other nondairy users of milk protein have no available substitute protein for

imported MPC, such that import restrictions result in domestic MPC production.

Similar to Burke and Cox, model results indicate that the market impacts of eliminating U.S.

MPC imports on farm-level milk prices are mild. The Nicholson and Bishop results show

that by banning MPC imports, incentives are created for domestic MPC production which,

in turn, increases demand for milk and leads to a 0.4-percent rise ($0.06/cwt) in the U.S.

all-milk price. Higher milk prices translate into increased U.S. milk production, which rises

by about 0.1 percent or 200 million pounds. The model captures the counter effects of an

increase in milk production on other milk-component prices. For example, increased

domestic production of MPC raises demand for raw milk and generates by-product

production of fat and whey products, leading to a 21-million-pound rise in butter production

and a 4-percent decline in the price of butter. U.S. cheese prices rise by about 1 percent, and

the prices of certain evaporated and condensed milk products increase by about 2 percent.

U.S. production levels for most final dairy products change by less than 0.5 percent,

although production of butter increases by 1.6 percent, whereas the production of SMP falls

by 34 million pounds or 4 percent. As SMP production drops, CCC purchases also decline

by a similar amount or by nearly 13 percent, resulting in a $36-million Federal outlay

savings.

Sumner and Balagtas (2003)60

In a study commissioned by the New Zealand and Australian dairy industries, Sumner and

Balagtas provide an analysis of the influence of milk protein product imports on the U.S.

dairy sector, with focus on effects on the U.S. farm milk price. The framework employed is

a partial equilibrium, comparative static, log-linear (percent-change) model that captures

relationships along the vertical chain from the farm-gate to consumers. The model includes

two regions—the United States and the rest of the world—and is based on an accounting

system in which all domestic dairy products and imported milk proteins are denominated in

terms of two milk components—protein and nonprotein solids. It is also assumed that all

U.S.-produced milk proteins form, or translate into, a domestic aggregate or “composite;”

and that all imported milk proteins form an imported milk protein composite. Imported and

domestic milk protein composites are considered as imperfect substitutes. Domestic and

imported protein composites then form a single total U.S.-market milk protein supply, which
 61 At the hearing and in posthearing requests, substantive questions arose regarding some of

these assumptions, particularly on aggregating all imported and all domestic milk proteins into a

two separate composites, and over the assumed imperfect substitutability of the domestic and

imported protein composites. Daniel Sumner, Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics, University of California, Davis, testimony before the USITC, Dec. 11, 2003,

pp. 395-98.

 62 Since the model is linear, results of different simulations are proportional to the differences in

size of the simulated shocks, and only the results of the 25-percent milk protein product import

decline are provided here.

 63 Kenneth W. Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports: The Case of Milk Protein

Concentrates,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, vol. 31, No. 2 (2002), pp. 248-59.

9-29

is combined with the supplies of nonprotein solids as inputs, or “building blocks,” in the

production of a single aggregate U.S. dairy output. The model parameters assume limited

technical substitutability between the protein and nonprotein milk components in the

production of the U.S. dairy aggregate output.61

Simulation results are reported for reductions in milk protein imports by 12.5 percent,

25 percent, and 50 percent under a range of assumptions about substitutability and other key

parameters. The results indicate that any restrictions on imported milk protein products

would have little effect on U.S. farm milk price, milk use, and milk revenues. More

specifically, a 25-percent reduction62 in milk protein imports from the 1999-2002 baseline

levels would generate minor U.S. protein price increases of 1.5 percent or less; price declines

for U.S. nonprotein solids of about 1 percent; increases in U.S. farm milk price of 0.3 percent

or less; small rises in U.S. milk quantity of 0.14 percent or less; and increases in U.S. milk

revenues of less than 0.5 percent. These results are driven by the degree of substitutability

among the imported and domestic protein composites (assumed as imperfect or moderate

substitutes) and the imported protein composite’s share of the total milk protein market

(calculated at 4.7 percent). 

Bailey (2002)63

Bailey econometrically estimates and simulates a quarterly model to test two hypotheses.

First, did the combination of lowering U.S. import barriers, low world milk protein prices,

and high U.S. levels of dairy sector support lead to escalating U.S. imports of milk protein

products? And, second, did increased milk protein product imports displace U.S. SMP, and

raise U.S. Federal outlays on the dairy program through increased Federal SMP purchases?

Owing to limited data resources, Bailey econometrically estimated a two-subsector U.S. milk

protein model (domestic SMP market and imported milk proteins) with three U.S. demand

equations as a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) system. Three U.S. demand equations

were specified for SMP, milk protein imports entering under HTS Chapter 4 (MPC 4), and

protein imports entering under HTS Chapter 35 (MPC 35).

The model was estimated over 1991-2000, and simulated over 1996-2000 under two

experiments: (1) a rise in the world SMP price to $0.99/lb, and (2) a fall in the CCC SMP

purchase price to $0.80/lb. As formulated, the simulation results are a series of

period-specific quarterly values for all, or part, of the 1996-2000 period, which are

summarized in ranges. Increasing the world protein price to $0.99/lb generated the following

ranges of results over the 1997-2002 period: U.S. quarterly SMP use would rise by between

10 and 42 percent, and quarterly protein product imports would fall by between 14 and
9-30

51 percent. Over the entire 1996-2000 period, U.S. Federal dairy program outlays would fall

by more than $800 million. Results from dropping the CCC purchase price of SMP to

$0.80/lb generated the following ranges of results over the 1996-2002 period: U.S. quarterly

SMP use would rise by between 7 and 21 percent; the U.S. SMP market price would fall by

between 14 and 35 percent. U.S. protein product imports would fall noticeably (by up to

91 percent for MPC 4 and by up to 30 percent for MPC 35). And over the entire 1996-2000

simulation period, model results suggest that U.S. dairy program outlays would decline by

$572 million.
APPENDIX A

REQUEST LETTER FROM THE SENATE

FINANCE COMMITTEE



APPENDIX B

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES





APPENDIX C

HEARING CALENDAR AND POSITIONS

OF INTERESTED PARTIES

C-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below were scheduled to appear as witnesses at the United States International

Trade Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the

U.S. Market

Inv. No.: 332-453

Date and Time: December 11, 2003 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

EMBASSY APPEARANCES:

Embassy of Australia

Washington, D.C.

His Excellency Michael Thawley, Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary,

Embassy of Australia

Embassy of New Zealand

Washington, D.C.

His Excellency John Wood, Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary,

Embassy of New Zealand

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS:

PANEL 1

National Milk Producers Federation 

Peter Vitaliano, Vice President, Economics, National Milk 

Producers Federation

Jaime Castaneda, Vice President, Trade Policy, National Milk

Producers Federation

Robert Byrne, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, National Milk

Producers Federation

Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Incorporated

Bob Naerebout, Executive Director, Idaho Dairymen’s Association,

Incorporated
ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS:

C-4

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Philip S. Tong, Ph.D., Professor, Dairy Products Technology Center,

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

American Dairymen’s Federation

Stuart Huber, Member, American Dairymen’s Federation

California Dairy Campaign

Xavier J. Avila, President, California Dairy Campaign

National Farmers Union

Joaquin Contente, President, California Farmers Union 

PANEL 2

Select Milk Producers, Incorporated

Michael McClosky, Chief Executive Officer, Select Milk 

Producers, Incorporated

California Dairies, Incorporated

Richard Cotta, Senior Vice President, Government and Producer Relations,

California Dairies, Incorporated

Land O’Lakes, Incorporated

Peter Kappelman, Dairy Producer and Member, Board of Directors,

Land O’Lakes, Incorporated

Upstate Farms Cooperative, Incorporated

Timothy R. Harner, General Counsel, Upstate Farms Cooperative, 

Incorporated

Dairy America

Richard Lewis, Chief Executive Officer, Dairy America

Associated Milk Producers, Incorporated

Mark Furth, General Manager, Associated Milk Producers, 

Incorporated

Dairy Farmers of America, Incorporated
ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS:

C-5

John Wilson, Vice President, Corporate Marketing and Economic 

Analysis, Dairy Farmers of America, Incorporated

PANEL 3

Collier Shannon Scott

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients

Clayton L. Hough, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,

International Dairy Foods Association

Gregory M. Frazier, Consultant, International Dairy Foods Association

Paul C. Rosenthal )

) – OF COUNSEL

Michael R. Kershow )

Dean Specialty Foods Group

Alan M. Hubble, Director, Commodities and Food Ingredients, 

Dean Specialty Foods Group 

Erie Foods International, Incorporated

James M. Klein, Vice President, Technical Services/Sales, Erie Foods

International, Incorporated

Unilever United States, Incorporated

John Frierott, Vice President, Beverage Manufacturing, 

Slim Fast Foods Company

Novartis Nutrition Corporation

James T. Schultz, Vice President, Research & Development/Quality

Assurance, Novartis Nutrition Corporation

Kraft Foods North America, Incorporated

Michael A. Reinke, Associate Director, Dairy Procurement, Kraft Foods 

North America, Incorporated

Penn State University

Kenneth W. Bailey, Associate Professor, Penn State University
ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS:

C-6

PANEL 4

DMV International

Toine Hendrickx, Technical Marketing Manager, Proteins,

DMV International

Irish Dairy Industries Association

Patrick Ivory, Director, Irish Dairy Industries Association

Glanbia

Michael Patten, Group Managing Director, Corporate Affairs, Glanbia plc 

Fraser Tooley, Director of Marketing and Research, Glanbia Ingredients

Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Company, Limited

Paul Kerr, Chief Operating Officer, Murray-Goulburn Co-Operative

Company, Limited

Robert Pettit, Manager, Americas and Caribbean, International 

Trade Development Group, Dairy Australia

Blank Rome LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand

Terry Childs, Director, Business Development, Fonterra (USA)

Daniel Sumner, Frank H. Buck, Jr., Professor, Department of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of 

California, Davis; and Director, University of California, 

Agricultural Issues Center

Edward J. Farrell )

) – OF COUNSEL

Roberta Kienast Daghir )

-END-
 64 Written statements to the Commission, received Dec. 8, Nov. 25, Dec. 10, Nov. 21, Dec. 4,

Dec. 9, and Dec. 1, 2003, respectively.

 65 Ibid., Dec. 23, 2003.

 66 Ibid., Dec. 11, 2003.

C-7

Senators Arlen Specter and Larry Craig; and

Representatives James Walsh, Tim Holden, Tammy

Baldwin, Don Sherwood, and Dennis Cardoza 64

These Members of Congress state that imported milk protein products have placed

downward pressure on domestic milk prices to such an extent that milk prices recently

reached a 25-year low. According to these Members, this is caused by an oversight during

the Uruguay Round of global trade negotiations that allowed imports of milk protein

concentrate (MPC) into the United States to face a very low tariff and no quantitative

restrictions. These Members state that imported casein for edible use interferes with domestic

sales of milk proteins for use in human food and animal feed. They also state that most

nations that export these proteins to the United States heavily subsidize their production.

They state that the lack of restrictions on MPC, casein, and caseinate imports has cost the

U.S. Government $890 million since 1994. These Members urge the U.S. International Trade

Commission (Commission) to recognize that the importation of casein and MPC has

negatively impacted U.S. dairy producers. 

Senator Russell D. Feingold65

Senator Feingold states that the growing level of imports of milk protein products such as

MPC and casein has been a concern of Wisconsin dairy farmers for years. According to

Senator Feingold, the net economic effect of these imports has been to depress U.S. farm

prices by more than $1 billion between 1994-2001. Senator Feingold also states that blended

dairy proteins are being imported for the sole purpose of avoiding the U.S. TRQ on nonfat

dry milk (NFDM). According to Senator Feingold, imported milk proteins are displacing

U.S.-produced milk for use in cheese, dairy foods, and nutritional supplement products.

Senator Feingold states that he is cosponsoring legislation that would impose TRQs on MPC,

casein, and caseinate imports.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton66

Senator Clinton states that milk price declines in the State of New York, caused in large part

by increased MPC imports, have cost dairy farmers more than $114 million in 2003.

According to Senator Clinton, imported dairy proteins are able to displace domestically

produced nonfat dry milk, much of which is subsequently bought by the U.S. Government

under the dairy price support program, because they are subject to a very low tariff. Senator

Clinton states that by imposing a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on MPC, casein, and caseinates

U.S. dairy farmers would be able to compete fairly with producers in other countries.
 67 Ibid.

 68 Ibid.

 69 Ibid., Oct. 1, 2003.

C-8

Senator Mark Dayton67

Senator Dayton states that a flood of excess milk protein is undermining U.S. milk prices.

According to Senator Dayton, when the United States negotiated during the Uruguay Round

and converted its dairy quotas to TRQs, imports of MPC were not included owing to an

oversight. This created a loophole through which imports of milk protein products are

imported without restriction. Senator Dayton states that he is a cosponsor of legislation that

would impose a TRQ on MPC and casein. 

Representative David Obey68

Representative Obey states that dairy farmers in northern and central Wisconsin are

concerned about the growing impact of MPC and other imported milk proteins on the U.S.

industry. Representative Obey notes that in 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office

reviewed the situation and reported that although there are significant TRQs on similar dairy

products, there is a negligible tariff on MPC. Representative Obey states that he has

proposed legislation that would place a TRQ on MPC and casein that would maintain the

current level of imports while establishing a cap on future growth. According to

Representative Obey, imported milk proteins displace domestically produced milk proteins

in manufactured dairy products, and U.S. MPC imports originate either from countries that

generously subsidize dairy production, or from New Zealand, which operates a monopoly.

Representative Kenny Hulshof69

Representative Hulshof strongly supports the Commission’s investigation into the U.S.

market for milk protein products. Representative Hulshof hopes that the Commission’s study

will explain why the United States imports large quantities of milk protein products when

there are large amounts of domestically produced milk protein in the form of nonfat dry milk

(NFDM) in storage with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). According to

Representative Hulshof, milk prices remain volatile and it is important for the Commission

to describe in its study how imported milk proteins affect farm-level milk prices.
 70 Stuart Huber, President of the Board, Primary Dairies, USA, and Member, American

Dairymen’s Federation, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 44-48.

 71 Mark Furth, General Manager, Associated Milk Producers, statement before the Commission,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 164-69.

 72 Richard Cotta, Senior Vice-President, Government & Producer Relations, California Dairies,

Inc., statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 145-52.

C-9

American Dairymen’s Federation70

The American Dairymen’s Federation (ADF) is a federation of dairy producer organizations

that promotes the development of strategies to address issues that affect the U.S. dairy

industry. ADF claims that the failure of U.S. trade negotiators during the Uruguay Round

to impose TRQs on milk protein products has allowed low-priced imports to displace

substantial amounts of domestically produced NFDM and producer milk. ADF maintains

that the butter-powder tilts that occurred in 2000 and 2001 were a direct result of the

increased cost of CCC purchases of NFDM and contributed to substantial decreases in dairy

farmers’ incomes. 

Associated Milk Producers Inc.71

Associated Milk Producers Inc. (AMPI) is a dairy farmer cooperative that represents 6,000

Midwest dairy farmers. AMPI states that there is currently an adequate supply of

domestically produced milk protein for use by U.S. food processors, yet imports of milk

protein products are entering the U.S. market in increasing volumes because they are being

sold at artificially depressed prices. These imports are hurting U.S. dairy producers by

lowering the U.S. milk pricing structure, AMPI states. In addition, the cooperative maintains

that milk protein imports are surging because of their low price relative to other dairy inputs,

not because of any superior qualities they may possess. 

California Dairies, Inc.72

California Dairies’ 674 member-owners handle over 40 percent of the milk produced in

California and own five milk processing plants throughout the state. California Dairies is

the largest dairy cooperative in the state and the second-largest dairy cooperative in the

United States. California Dairies states that imported milk proteins hurt U.S. dairy producers

by displacing domestically produced milk proteins, thereby increasing CCC purchases of

NFDM. California Dairies maintains that increased costs incurred by the CCC have resulted

in butter-powder tilts that lower the price farmers receive for their milk. If U.S. milk proteins

were able to receive subsidies to match imported protein prices (similar to those received by

foreign producers), California Dairies maintains that U.S. milk proteins would be

manufactured into all forms for which domestic uses exist.
 73 Xavier Avila, President, California Dairy Campaign, statement before the Commission,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 48-54.

 74 Joaquin Contente, President, California Farmers Union, statement before the Commission,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 57-62.

 75 Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D., Professor, Dairy Products Technology Center, California Polytechnic

State University, San Luis Obispo, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript

pp. 36-43.

C-10

California Dairy Campaign73

The California Dairy Campaign (CDC) represents more than 350 dairy producers throughout

the state of California. The CDC asserts that rising imports of casein and MPC have been the

direct cause of growing stocks of NFDM held by the CCC. The CDC states that the lack of

tariffs or quotas on imports of MPC and casein is a serious flaw in U.S. trade laws that must

be fixed if U.S. dairy producers are to remain competitive in the future. U.S. producers do

not produce MPC today because it is not profitable, according to the CDC, owing to the level

of subsidization of casein and MPC that is occurring in the European Union (EU).

California Farmers Union74

The California Farmers Union (CFU) is the 24th state chapter of the National Farmers

Union, a general farm organization representing nearly 300,000 family farmers and ranchers

nationwide. CFU states that the high level of EU subsidies on casein production and the U.S.

government’s failure to establish TRQs on casein and casein derivatives have a large impact

on the U.S. market for dairy proteins and provide an unfair competitive advantage for EU

producers in the global dairy market. The CFU asserts that unrestricted imports of milk

protein directly compete with U.S.-produced NFDM. The CFU contends that American dairy

producers are very efficient, and can be competitive if they are provided a fair and level

playing field. However, according to the CFU, the current flaws in our trade agreements

have given our foreign competitors an unfair advantage at the expense of U.S. producers.

California Polytechnic State University75

Dr. Phillip S. Tong is a professor at the Dairy Products Technology Center of the California

Polytechnic State University. Dr. Tong states that MPCs are produced by a process of

ultrafiltration of skim milk and subsequently spray dried to produce a powder. He states that

the dry blending of isolated milk components is not considered to be true MPC. According

to Dr. Tong, it is highly unlikely that dry blending of milk components could result in a

product with the same nutritional and functional properties as traditional MPC. Dr. Tong

asserts that when large quantities of blend products are used instead of true MPC, an

economic factor or other market forces are probably involved.
 76 Paul Kerr, Chief Operating Officer, Murray-Goulburn Cooperative Co. Ltd., statement before

the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 353-58.

 77 Edward J. Farrell, Esquire, Blank Rome LLP, Counsel to Dairy Companies Association of

New Zealand; Terry Childs, Director, Business Development, Fonterra (USA); Daniel Sumner,

Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis,

statements before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 359-77.

C-11

Dairy Australia76

Dairy Australia is the trade organization that represents the members of the Australian dairy

industry. Murray Goulburn is Australia’s largest milk processor and is the only regular

Australian supplier of MPC, caseinates, and casein to the United States. Dairy Australia

states that Australian exports are not subsidized, the Australian market for dairy products is

open, and U.S. demand for Australian MPC is strong despite the fact that its

protein-equivalent prices are above U.S. domestic prices for NFDM. According to Dairy

Australia, U.S. food processors import large volumes of milk protein products because the

food ingredients market is a highly sophisticated one. Dairy Australia claims that restricting

access for milk protein products will increase the commercial incentives for nondairy

substitutes, such as soy, a development that would be detrimental to the United States as well

as the global dairy industry. Dairy Australia maintains that economic analysis has shown that

imported MPC, casein, and caseinate comprise such a small share of the milk protein

consumed in the United States, that even very large reductions from the current level of

imports would most likely raise the all-milk price in the United States by less than

0.3 percent. 

Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand77

Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) is composed of three New Zealand

dairy cooperatives–Fonterra, Tatua, and Westland–which collectively account for almost all

New Zealand-produced milk. DCANZ states that Fonterra engages in extensive research and

development, which plays a significant role in its growth and profitability. DCANZ believes

that the increased trade in milk protein products has been market driven and reflects an

increasing sophistication in the application of technology to milk proteins. According to

DCANZ, because MPCs are customized for use in specific end products, they sell at higher

prices than the equivalent amount of domestic milk protein in NFDM. DCANZ maintains

that economic analysis has shown that imports of MPC, casein, and caseinate are small

relative to the total milk protein consumed in the United States, and that the restriction of

imports of these products into the United States would raise the price of milk in the United

States by less than 1 percent. 
 78 John Wilson, Vice President, Corporate Marketing and Economic Analysis, Dairy Farmers of

America, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 170-76.

 79 Rich Lewis, Chief Operating Officer, DairyAmerica, statement before the Commission,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 158-64.

 80 Alan M. Hubble, Director, Commodities and Food Ingredients, Dean Specialty Foods Group,

statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 253-60.

C-12

Dairy Farmers of America78

Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) is a dairy farmer-owned cooperative of 14,329 farms in

47 states that markets approximately 30 percent of the U.S. domestic milk supply. DFA

states that increased imports of milk proteins have adversely affected prices paid to U.S.

dairy farmers. According to DFA, the co-op led an initiative in 2003 to better align domestic

milk production with demand. However, DFA contends that U.S. dairy farmers need

assistance from the Federal Government in limiting imports that negate steps already taken

by U.S. milk producers. DFA states that the use of MPC in processed cheese production

displaces the use of natural cheese, and, as a result, more U.S. milk ends up in NFDM

production. DFA states that although compelled to purchase and use imported MPC in its

processed cheese operations to remain price competitive, it supports the imposition of tariffs

on MPC and casein, as well as the strengthening of the standards of identity to prohibit its

use in cheese making. In addition, DFA states that it has been proactive in response to

continued high levels of imported milk proteins by forming a joint-venture with Fonterra

(USA) to produce MPC in the United States.

Dairy America79

Dairy America is a marketing organization for its dairy cooperative members, which

represent 75 percent of the NFDM produced and marketed in the United States.

DairyAmerica states that imported proteins displace U.S.-produced NFDM and increase

CCC purchases, thereby putting downward pressure on already low producer milk prices.

According to DairyAmerica, imports of MPC and casein are subsidized by foreign

governments and will continue to enter the U.S. market unless a TRQ is imposed on all

imported dairy products. 

Dean Specialty Foods Group80

Dean Foods Co. is a processor and distributor of milk and other dairy products with

120 manufacturing facilities in 37 states. Dean Foods uses casein, sodium and calcium

caseinates, and high-protein MPC in the production of its dry and liquid nondairy creamers,

dry whipped toppings, nutritional beverages, meal-replacement beverages, nondairy aerosol

toppings, and weight-loss drinks. Dean Foods states that the flavor, functionality, and low

level of allergen concerns of these milk protein products makes them superior to any other

alternatives in its finished products. Dean Foods has found that U.S.-produced NFDM

converted to casein results in an undesirable elevated lactose content, as some lactose
 81 Toine Hendrickx, Technical Marketing Manager, DMV International, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 336-41.

 82 His Excellency Michael Thawley, Ambassador, Embassy of Australia, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 10-14.

 83 His Excellency John Wood, Ambassador, Embassy of New Zealand, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 14-23.

C-13

remains chemically bound to the casein. In addition, Dean Foods states that multiple

drying/heating cycles negatively affect the flavor of the resulting casein. Dean Foods states

that actions that would increase the cost of imported milk protein products would have a

significantly negative impact on the U.S. elderly, diabetic, lactose-intolerant, and weightconscious customer bases that rely on its products.

DMV International81

DMV International, a division of the Dutch dairy cooperative Campina, produces caseinates

and pharmaceutical-grade lactose in Europe; and protein hydrolozates, bioactive proteins,

and bioactive peptides in the United States. DMV states that the processes used to produce

these specialized protein products require investments of up to hundreds of millions of

dollars. DMV states that casein, caseinates, and MPC 80 differ in many aspects from NFDM

because they can be specially formulated to meet customers’ specific needs. According to

DMV, in terms of functionality, NFDM is poor in most of the qualities that U.S. food

manufacturers are seeking in their products.

Embassy of Australia82

The Australian Government states that Australia’s exports of milk protein products to the

United States have provided a key input that has facilitated the rapid growth of new food

products such as sports, protein, and health-food supplements. According to the Australian

Government, imports of milk protein products do not reduce the market for NFDM produced

in the United States. This is because Australian high-protein, ultrafiltered milk protein

product cannot be replaced by the lower-protein, higher-lactose NFDM produced in the

United States. In addition, the Government contends that Australia’s exports of milk protein

products are relatively small and therefore have a negligible impact on the U.S. market for

milk and milk products.

Embassy of New Zealand83

The New Zealand Government states that imports of milk protein products serve an

important and useful function within the U.S. food-processing industry. According to the

New Zealand Government, U.S. food processors are constantly employing new technology

to develop innovative products that have generated new demand for specialized milk protein

ingredients, many of which are not produced in the United States. For this reason, the New
 84 James M. Klein, Vice President of Technical Services and Sales, Erie Foods International,

statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 246-53.

 85 Jon E. Huenemann, Senior Vice President, Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations, for the

European Dairy Association, written statement to the Commission, Dec. 19, 2003.

 86 Stewart G. Huber, President of the Board, Family Dairies USA, written statement to the

Commission, Nov. 19, 2003.

C-14

Zealand Government contends that limiting imports of MPC and caseins would not have a

significant impact on the prices U.S. dairy producers receive for their product. New Zealand

is an unsubsidized exporter that does not seek special treatment, but simply an opportunity

to trade freely in response to market demand.

Erie Foods International84

Erie Foods International is a privately held company supplying milk protein ingredients and

custom processing services to the food and nutritional industries. Erie Foods states that it

imports high-protein MPCs from Australia for use in health and nutritional applications. Erie

Foods attributes its growth in recent years to its focus on providing new, specialized milk

protein products to the functional foods and nutritional application markets. Erie states that

NFDM cannot meet the requirements that Erie Foods’ customers demand for their products.

European Dairy Association85

The European Dairy Association (EDA) is a federation of the national dairy associations in

the EU. EDA states that the EU casein production aid program was introduced in the 1960s

to compliment another policy program to encourage the use of NFDM in animal feed and

not to encourage large exports of casein and caseinates to third-country markets. The EDA

also notes that the reform of the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) will reduce the

current amount of aid on casein production by 50 percent by 2006 and will probably

eliminate it thereafter. EDA states that the EU is not the dominant global price setter for milk

protein products, but that Oceania is currently the leading exporter to the world of such

products. The EDA states that its strategic focus is currently on high-protein, value-added

products that offer functional and technical value to customers.

Family Dairies USA86

Family Dairies USA is a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–qualified cooperative

representing 4,200 dairy farm members operating in seven Upper Midwestern states. The

cooperative states that the implementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1996

established TRQs on the import of most manufactured dairy products entering the U.S.

market with the exception of MPCs, casein, and caseinates.
 87 Fraser Tooley, Director of Marketing and Research, Glanbia Ingredients, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 342-47. 

 88 Bob Naerebout, Executive Director, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 32-36.

 89 Patrick Ivory, Director, Irish Dairy Industries Association, statement before the Commission,

Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 347-53. 

C-15

Glanbia87

Glanbia is an international dairy company specializing in consumer foods and nutritional

products with processing operations in Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Glanbia maintains that of the 2.5 million tons of milk protein production in the United States,

casein and caseinate imports (which have remained relatively stable) equal only 3.5 percent

of the total, and MPC imports equal only about 0.8 percent of the total. Glanbia states that

at least 10 percent of the dairy proteins imported into the United States are subsequently

reexported as value-added products such as baby food, or peptides and hydrolysates. 

Idaho Dairymen’s Association/Oregon Dairy Farmers

Association/Washington State Dairy Federation88

The Idaho Dairymen’s Association (IDA), the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association (ODFA),

and the Washington State Dairy Federation (WSDF) represent all the dairy farmers in their

respective state. These three states combined produce approximately 10 percent of the annual

U.S. milk supply. The IDA/ODFA/WSDF state that the dairy industries in rural communities

in the Pacific Northwest have felt a significant economic impact due to MPC and casein

imports. IDA/ODFA/WSDF contend that a significant portion of domestically produced

skim milk is being displaced by imported MPCs and caseins, particularly for use in cheese

making which is important in Idaho. The IDA/ODFA/WSDF hold the view that given the

proper market signals, a domestic supply of specialized milk protein products would rapidly

develop. 

Irish Dairy Industries Association89

The Irish Dairy Industries Association (IDIA) represents the interests of Irish dairy

manufacturing and processing companies and cooperatives, as well as the infant formula

industry in that country. The IDIA maintains that owing to the reform of the CAP,

restrictions on milk output will continue until 2015, intervention prices will be reduced for

butter and NFDM over a 3-4 year period, and significant limits will be placed on dairy

intervention support. The IDIA states that these changes should result in a more efficient,

market-driven dairy industry, focused increasingly on research and development of

higher-value-added dairy products in place of the traditional commoditized dairy products.

 
 90 Michael A. Reinke, Associate Director, Dairy Procurement, Kraft Foods North America, Inc.,

statement before the Commission, De. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 233-40.

 91 Peter Kappelman, Dairy Producer and Member, Board of Directors, Land O’Lakes, statement

before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 145-52.

 92 Written statement to the Commission, Dec. 23, 2003.

C-16

Kraft90

Kraft Foods North America is the largest branded food company in North America and a

major processor, marketer, and purchaser of dairy products. Kraft states that while casein,

caseinates, MPC, and NFDM are all derived from whole milk, each is a unique product with

distinguishing characteristics, functionalities, applications, price structures, and markets, and

they are not interchangeable within product formulations. Kraft maintains that available

production technology and large supplies of fluid milk have not sparked U.S. production of

milk protein products because the U.S. dairy price support program ensures that the U.S.

Government buys certain processed dairy products at prescribed prices, leaving dairy

producers little incentive to invest in new manufacturing equipment or technological

expertise to take advantage of developing market opportunities. Kraft maintains that excess

milk production in the face of lagging demand, rather than imports of milk protein products,

has caused the recent slump in producer milk prices.

Land O’Lakes91

Land O’Lakes (LOL) is a farmer-owned cooperative made up of approximately 5,000 dairy

producers across the United States. LOL states that other dairy producing countries use

subsidies and other internal policies to give their dairy products an advantage in the global

marketplace, which allows them to sell milk proteins to food producers in the United States

at prices lower than most U.S. dairy farmers can produce them. This results in a surplus of

U.S. NFDM, which increases dairy producers’ costs and the cost to the U.S. taxpayer. LOL

states that if it became profitable to produce MPC domestically to fill the demand for it, U.S.

users would import less, thereby reducing the CCC stocks of NFDM. 

National Family Farm Coalition92

The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) represents 33 grassroots farms, resource

conservation, and rural advocacy groups from 33 states, regarding family farm issues. NFFC

states that food processors began using MPC as an ingredient in clear violation of the Code

of Federal Regulation regarding food safety. NFFC maintains that Kraft Foods is exploiting

a nondomestic supply of ingredients in many of its food products instead of using regional

American milk supplies. According to NFFC, Customs rulings have shown that MPC is not

a unique product manufactured by utilizing the latest filtration technology, but actually a

blend of NFDM and other ingredients. NFFC also states that it is food processors that use

milk protein products and their retailers that retain all the cost savings of a cheaper

ingredient, and that the cost borne by the farmer cannot be sustained.
 93 Peter Vitaliano, Vice President, Economic Policy and Market Research, National Milk

Producers Federation, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 24-32.

 22 James Schultz, Vice President of Research and Development and Quality Assurance,

Novartis Nutrition, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 240-46.

 23 Dr. Kenneth Bailey, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 268-74. 

C-17

National Milk Producers Federation93

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is the national farm commodity

organization that represents dairy farmers and the dairy cooperative marketing associations

that they own and operate throughout the United States. NMPF supports legislation to

impose tariffs on the importation of milk protein products. According to NMPF, the price

advantage that imported milk protein products enjoy over domestically produced products

is due to the fact that production and marketing of these products by other countries is

largely subsidized. NMPF contends that U.S. milk proteins could and would be

manufactured into any and all forms for which domestic uses exist, including all products

currently imported, if U.S. milk proteins were able to receive corresponding subsidies to

match imported protein prices. NMPF foresees that imported milk proteins will continue to

grow as a percentage of U.S. domestic milk protein production, and the increased CCC

purchase of displaced domestic milk protein in the form of NFDM will render the price

support program increasingly unmanageable.

Novartis Nutrition22

Novartis Nutrition is dedicated to researching, producing, and marketing medical nutrition

products for patients and residents in hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics. Novartis states

that it uses milk protein products in its medical formulas to meet protein nutritional

requirements, as well as for their lactose-free qualities, flavor, cost, clarity, pH level, mineral

contribution, emulsification, heat-processing stability, solubility, viscosity, and color.

According to Novartis, for many of their applications there are no suitable protein

replacement options. Novartis states that if a high tariff is placed on caseinates and MPC,

great economic hardship will be placed on the medical nutrition industry because not only

will millions of dollars in reformulation cost have to be at least partially passed onto

customers, but also resources will be taken away from developing new innovative nutrition

therapies. Novartis also states that any reformulation would almost certainly substitute soy

proteins and/or whey protein isolate, rather than NFDM, for currently used milk protein

products. 

Pennsylvania State University23

Dr. Kenneth Bailey is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University (PSU). As

part of his work through a research grant from the USDA and PSU, Dr. Bailey has conducted

an assessment of the protein content of U.S. trade in dairy products and their potential impact
 24 Michael McCloskey, Chief Executive Officer, Select Milk Producers, Inc., statement before

the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 132-38.

 25 John Frierott, vice president of Beverage Operations, Slim Fast Foods Company, statement

before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 261-68. 

C-18

on farm-gate milk prices. Dr. Bailey concludes that MPC imports are not related to the

volatility in U.S. milk prices, particularly during 1997-2002. He also states that MPC imports

had little to do with the growing CCC purchases of NFDM, which are more likely a result

of the imbalance between the growing U.S. milk supply and insufficient demand.

Select Milk Producers, Inc.24

Select Milk Producers is a cooperative of dairy producers in eastern New Mexico and

western Texas that produces and markets fluid milk, with the balance sold to cheese plants

as milk or processed into liquid MPC in the co-op’s own ultrafiltration/reverse-osmosis

facilities. According to Select Milk Producers, they have created an on-farm ultrafiltration

system to process their regional surplus of fluid milk and improve its access into the U.S.

marketplace. Select Milk Producers states that the largest hurdle to U.S. competitiveness in

the market for milk protein products is the existence of subsidies for these products in the

EU, which allows EU producers of dry MPC to price their product in the U.S. market at a

lower level than can U.S. producers. 

Unilever (Slim Fast Foods Co.)25

The Slim Fast Foods Co. produces weight-loss, meal-replacement products, including

ready-to-drink beverages, bars, powders, soups, and pastas. The company employs

600 people and has two production facilities in Covington, TN, and Tucson, AZ. According

to Slim Fast, the company uses predominantly NFDM and calcium caseinate in its products.

Slim Fast states that since consumers increasingly demand high-protein products with low

calorie content, the company supplements the protein in the NFDM with calcium caseinate,

which adds protein with fewer additional calories than would be the case in using additional

NFDM. Slim Fast imports calcium caseinate from the EU or New Zealand because those

sources produce it from fresh milk as opposed to domestic supplies made from imported

casein. According to Slim Fast, the calcium caseinate available from U.S. producers results

in a finished product with unsatisfactory sensory qualities.
 26 Timothy Harner, General Counsel, Upstate Farms Cooperative, statement before the

Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 152-58. 

 27 Paul C. Rosenthal, Esquire, Collier Shannon Scott, Counsel to the U.S. Coalition for

Nutritional Ingredients, statement before the Commission, Dec. 11, 2003, transcript pp. 226-33.

 28 Michael L. H. Marsh, chief executive officer, Western United Dairymen, written statement to

the Commission, Dec. 5, 2003.

C-19

Upstate Farms Cooperative (O-At-Ka Milk Products

Cooperative, Inc.)26

O-At-Ka Milk Products operates a milk-processing facility in Batavia, NY, which produces

a wide variety of processed dairy products, including ultrafiltered MPC, infant formula, meal

replacers, and protein drinks. O-At-Ka states that it has encountered many quality issues

from imported proteins owing to the lack of stringent regulatory programs in certain

countries of origin. According to O-At-Ka, the United States has the technology and

expertise to produce high-quality MPC. However, foreign cost advantages from poor quality

and/or subsidies prevent further development of U.S. production.

U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients27

The U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients is an ad hoc association of approximately

50 organizations that support policies aimed at ensuring continued affordable and

unrestricted access to imported milk protein products. The Coalition states that U.S. dairy

and other food processors purchase specialized milk protein products even though they can

be more expensive than NFDM on a protein-content basis. This is because their precise

formulations and functional attributes make them superior to NFDM in a wide range of

applications. The Coalition maintains that imports of milk protein products have responded

to the growth in market demand and do not displace U.S. production of NFDM. The

Coalition claims that there would be no meaningful effect on the accumulated CCC stocks

of NFDM if imports of milk protein products were eliminated. The Coalition contends that

the U.S. dairy price support program diverts milk protein from growing high-value markets

to government stockpiles of a low-value commodity.

Western United Dairymen28

Western United Dairymen (WUD) asserts that evidence suggests that imported milk protein

products have contributed to large surplus stocks of domestic protein products, primarily

NFDM, perhaps lowering prices paid for those goods and for the raw milk used to make

them. The WUD urges the Commission to analyze in depth the possibility of restructuring

the current price-support system to contain a program to foster domestic production of milk

proteins such as casein and MPC. According to the WUD, subsidies provided by foreign

governments may prohibit domestic milk proteins from competing with imported milk

proteins. WUD urges the Commission to address and examine the blending of imported milk
 29 Written statements to the Commission, received Dec. 12, 2003.

C-20

protein products, such as NFDM and casein, as attempts to circumvent tariffs on these

individual products.

Oleta Harton, Doris and Lean Bogley, and Jerry Holmes29

These individuals state that U.S. dairy farmers are facing increased costs of production and

are receiving less per hundredweight of milk today than they received in 1982. They state

that at the same time, imports of MPCs are displacing large amounts of NFDM. They urge

the Commission to support the setting of reasonable limits on imports of MPC and casein.
APPENDIX D

INTRODUCTION TO MILK PROTEINS

 1

 The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center at Cornell University and the Center for Dairy

Research at the University of Wisconsin have developed the initial economic and technological

research promoting the “milk refinery” approach to dairy processing.

D-3

Source: Chardan Ramesh, Dairy-Based ingredients American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan Press

Handbook, 1997).

Raw 

Milk 

Milk solids 

 (12.6%) 

Water

(87.4%) 

 Fat 

(3.7%)

Milk 

solids-notfat (8.9%) 

Protein

 (3.4%) 

Lactose

 (4.8%) 

Minerals

 (0.7%) 

Casein

(2.8%) 

Whey 

protein 

(0.6%) 

Figure D-1

Raw milk: Composition by major constituent and share (by weight) of total

Milk Protein Manufacturing Processes

Overview

The milk processing industry worldwide is constantly evolving. Through scientific discovery

and development of new technology and techniques, new products and applications for

existing products are continually being developed. Processors are increasingly using milk

as a raw material from which individual components, such as fat, lactose, minerals, and

particularly proteins, can be extracted. Processors are refining raw milk and isolating its

individual components in a manner analogous to the refinement of crude petroleum into its

various refined component products.1

 The gross composition of raw milk is presented in

figure D-1. 

Cows’ milk is made up of about 87 percent water and 13 percent milk components (milk

solids). The milk solids consist of a fat portion, accounting for 3.7 percent of milk, and a

solids-not-fat (SNF is sometimes referred to as skim solids or skim serum solids) portion,

accounting for 8.9 percent of milk. SNF consists of three broad categories: lactose, minerals,

and proteins. Lactose is the sugar component in milk, while minerals (“ash”) include

elements, such as calcium and potassium, and vitamins, such as A, B1, B2, C, and D. There
 2

 Pieter Walstra, et. al., “Dairy Technology: Principles of Milk Properties and Processes,” Food

Science and Technology, vol. 90 (May 1999).

 3

 Srinivasan Damodaran, et. al., Food Proteins and Their Applications (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

 4

 An example is lactoferrin, an iron-binding and transport protein found in whey. Lactoferrin

has antibacterial and antioxidant attributes which provide resistance against nonspecific diseases.

Recently, technology has been developed to isolate lactoferrin and it is now produced on a

commercial basis (requiring 10,000 units of milk for every one unit of lactoferrin). Owing to its

specific properties, the product is used in infant formulas, sports foods, personal care products, and

in veterinary medicines. Lactoferrin is also used as an antipathegen cleaning agent in the meat

sector. International Dairy Federation, World Dairy Situation 2003, Bulletin 384/2003

(Aug. 2003). 

 5

 A. Pour-El, World Soybean Research (Interstate Publishing, 1976).

D-4

are broadly two types of milk protein: casein and whey. Casein accounts for 80 percent of

milk proteins, with whey proteins making up the remaining 20 percent. Increasingly, more

highly formulated food products are developed by processors that incorporate very specific

types of proteins with very specialized chemical and functional attributes. For example, there

are five specific types of casein protein: "s1-casein, "s2-casein, $-casein, 6-casein, and (-

casein.2

 Whey protein primarily consists of two types of protein, $-lactoglobulin and "-

lactalbumin, but includes five other important proteins as well, serum albumin,

immunoglobulins, glycomacropeptide, lactoferrin, and peptide fragments.3

 Food processors,

particularly those involved in the speciality nutrition sector, may use specific casein or whey

protein for highly formulated products.4

The major types and forms of milk protein products produced from raw milk are shown in

figure D-2. The shaded boxes indicate the major milk protein products relevant to this study,

particularly skim milk powder (SMP), whey protein concentrate (WPC), milk protein

concentrate (MPC), casein, and caseinate. These products have overlapping ranges of protein

concentration and end-use applications. 

The component composition for several milk protein products is shown in table D-1, and

provides a useful snapshot of the wide range of protein concentrations found in different

products. As the percentage concentration of protein in these products increases, the

percentage concentration of other components must necessarily decrease. Lactose accounts

for the largest share of solids in whole and skim milk. Therefore, as the protein concentration

in products increase, the amount of lactose decreases, because most of the increased share

of protein comes at the expense of the share of lactose.

Milk protein products do more than just increase the protein content of the foods in which

they are present. In many processed foods, milk proteins are used because they also deliver

functionality. Functionality refers to “any property of a substance, besides its nutritional

ones, that affects its utilization.”5

 Many of the functional properties of milk products are

derived from the protein content of the product, in combination with the protein’s interaction

with other milk components, such as fat, lactose, and salts. Several milk protein products

have similar functional properties and applications when used in food processing.
D-5

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Whole milk Milkfat 

Skim milk

Skim milk 

powder (SMP) 

Ultrafiltered 

Cheese Whey milk 

Whey protein 

concentrate 

(WPC) 

Milk protein 

concentrate 

(MPC) 

Whey Curd 

Casein Caseinate

Whole milk 

powder (WMP) 

Figure D-2

Milk and milk derivative products

Table D-1

Composition of milk protein products

Product Water Fat Protein Lactose Minerals

––––––––––––––––––––––––Percent–––––––––––––––––––––––– 

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.8 35.9 52.3 8.0

Milk protein concentrate-42 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 40.5 46.0 7.9

Milk protein concentrate-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 2.5 77.2 5.5 8.5

Acid casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 1.0 90.0 0.1 2.2

Rennet casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 1.0 85.0 0.1 4.0

Calcium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 90.9 0.1 4.5

Sodium caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 1.0 91.4 0.1 4.0

Whey protein concentrate-34 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.0 32.6 51.0 6.0

Whey protein concentrate-50 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.0 48.0 35.0 7.0

Whey protein concentrate-80 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.0 76.8 4.0 4.0

Whey protein isolate-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.5 93.0 1.0 2.0

Notes.—Compositions are approximate and may vary.

Sources: Ramesh Chardan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan Press

Handbook, 1997); Brian W. Gould and Hector J. Villarreal, “A Descriptive Analysis of Recent Trends in the

International Market for Dry Milk Products,” Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 2002-2 (University of Wisconsin,

2002).
 6

 Chapter 3 and appendix E of this report further explains the FDA standards of identity.

 7

 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan

Press Handbook, 1997).

 8

 The definition and composition of WMP is governed by the FDA standards of identity found

in 21 CFR 131.147.

 9

 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan

Press Handbook, 1997).

 10 Spray drying is more common because roller drying may result in more scorched particles

and results in poorer product solubility. Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American

Association of Cereal Chemists (Eagan Press Handbook, 1997).

 11 The definition of SMP is governed by the FDA standards of identity found at

21 CFR 131.125. SMP is also commonly referred to as nonfat dry milk (NFDM or NDM).

D-6

Whole Milk and Whole Milk Powders

In the United States, whole milk (also referred to as raw milk, or commercial raw milk) is

defined as cow’s milk under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Standards of

Identity.6

 Prior to processing, whole milk is heat pasteurized to render it safe for human

consumption.7

 The production process for whole milk powder (WMP) generally consists of

two stages: condensation/evaporation and drying (text box D-1).8

 In the first stage, milk is

condensed to 45-50 percent solids under vacuum in a multieffect evaporator.9

 In the second

stage, the milk is dried using either spray or roller dryers, which removes all but 4-5 percent

of the water content.10 The resulting powder is WMP. The protein content of WMP can vary,

but is generally about 26 percent (table D-1). WMP has a considerably higher fat content (27

percent) than other milk products; and this reduces its shelf life (to 6-9 months) compared

with other dry milk products. WMP does not dissolve well in water unless further processed

by the addition of an emulsifier (such as lecithin, a soybean extract). 

Skim Milk and Skim Milk Powder

Liquid skim milk results when most of the fat is removed from whole milk. When

milk is left undisturbed the fat globules, which are lighter (less dense), rise to the

surface and separate from other milk components. This natural process is accelerated

using centrifuges to separate the fat from the water containing other milk solids. In

this process, the fat concentration in the milk is reduced from approximately

3.5 percent in whole milk to 0.1 percent in skim milk, while the water content and protein

concentration is increased (owing to the fat removal). The milk fat (cream) is used in the

production of butter, some full-fat cheeses, and ice cream. 

SMP is produced by removing water from pasteurized skim milk, resulting in a product

containing proteins, lactose, and minerals (figure D-3).11 The production process for SMP

is the same as WMP. SMP has a higher protein content than WMP (approximately

36 percent versus approximately 26 percent), and a much lower fat content (about 1 percent),

(table D-1). SMP has a high lactose content, up to 52 percent (table D-1). Several of the
D-7

Box D-1

Production processes and technology used in the milk protein industry _____________________________

Milk Protein Products

Casein: Casein is the primary protein found in milk, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the total protein content.

It is also a milk protein product produced by separating the casein protein in milk from all other milk components. Casein

is typically produced using one of two processes. Rennet casein is produced using enzymes which cause the casein to

coagulate and congeal into a solid mass. Acid casein is produced from the application of acid which causes the casein

protein to precipitate from the milk at a pH of 4.6.

Caseinate: Caseinate is a derivative of casein produced by neutralizing acid with alkali and drying the final product. The

alkali treatments result in caseinates being more soluble in water than casein. The two most common neutralizing agents

are sodium hydroxide (which results in sodium caseinate) and calcium hydroxide (which results in calcium caseinate). 

Milk protein concentrate (MPC): A concentrated milk protein product that contains both casein and whey protein. MPC

is often referred to in conjunction with its protein content. For example, MPC with a protein concentration of 42 percent is

commonly referred to as MPC 42.

Nonfat dry milk (NFDM or NDM): A synonym for skim milk powder commonly used in the United States. 

Skim milk powder (SMP): SMP is produced by removing water from pasteurized skim milk, resulting in a product containing

proteins, lactose, and minerals. The production process consists of evaporation and drying, usually via a spray dryer, to

remove all but 4-5 percent of the water content. SMP is also commonly referred to as nonfat dry milk (NFDM or NDM).

Whey: Whey is one of the two proteins found in milk and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total protein content.

Whey is typically a by-product formed after the fat and casein have been removed from the milk in cheese and casein

production. There are several whey products, including dry sweet whey, dry acid whey, reduced lactose whey, reduced

mineral whey, whey protein concentrate (WPC), and whey protein isolate (WPI).

Whey protein concentrate (WPC): WPC is typically produced using an ultrafiltration process. After the ultrafiltration

process, the concentrated liquid whey passes through an evaporator and a spray dryer to remove all but 4-5 percent of the

water. WPC is often referred to in conjunction with its protein concentration. For example, WPC with a protein concentration

of 34 percent is commonly referred to as WPC 34.

Whey protein isolate (WPI): WPI denotes WPC with very high protein concentrations, 90 percent or more. The production

of WPI requires additional processing steps compared with WPC. Two different processes can be used to produce WPI:

ion exchange or microfiltration. The ion exchange process separates the components based on their electrical charge. The

microfiltration process is analogous to the ultrafiltration process except that it utilizes ceramic filters instead of polymeric

filters. 

Production Processes and Other Terms

Co-precipitation: A production process in which skim milk undergoes a moderate to severe heat treatment followed by

precipitation with acid or calcium salts. 

Denaturation: The process that proteins undergo when subjected to certain physical or chemical treatments (e.g., heating)

that cause disruption of bonds that maintain the protein’s structure. Denaturation causes profound changes in functional

properties.

Diafiltration: A process used in conjunction with ultrafiltration and microfiltration whereby water is added to the retentate

before it passes through the ultrafiltration membrane as a means of decreasing viscosity and increasing the rate of permeate

flow through the filter.

Dry blending: A process in which dried, powdered milk fractions are blended together to form a composite milk component

product, such as mixing casein and WPC to produce MPC.

Evaporation: Process of drying liquid milk or milk fractions by heating the liquid (generally under a vacuum) to remove some

of the water of the liquid.

Electrodialysis: A process that uses electric charge to separate substances in solution, such as removing minerals from

whey or milk fractions.

Homogenization: The process of subdividing the fat globules in liquid dairy products to a smaller, more uniform size by

forcing them under pressure through a membrane.
D-8

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Raw milk 

Evaporation/

Drying 

Whole milk 

powder (WMP) 

Fat Separation 

Skim milk 

powder (SMP) 

Evaporation/

Drying 

Figure D-3

Production process of whole milk powder and skim milk powder

Box D-1—Continued

Production processes and technology used in the milk protein industry _____________________________

Production Processes and Other Terms—Continued

Ion exchange: A form of chromatography where ions held on absorbent beads are exchanged for the ions in the solution.

Different milk components have different charges allowing the ion exchange to separate components with different charges.

Microfiltration: See definition of ultrafiltration. Pores in a microfiltration membrane are larger than ultrafiltration pores,

which allows the passage of larger molecules into the permeate. 

Pasteurization: The process of heating liquid milk or milk fractions to a given temperature for a specified period of time

such that any pathogenic microorganisms present are destroyed.

Permeate: The by-product of the ultrafiltration process consisting of the milk fractions that are allowed to pass through

the filter and be separated out from the retentate.

Precipitation: An acid and heat treatment process through which casein proteins are separated from other milk fractions.

Retentate: The milk fractions captured, or retained, during the ultrafiltration process.

Roller drying (or drum drying): A process where fluid dairy products are dried by conveying them over the surface of

two heated, revolving drums. 

Spray drying: A process in which milk or milk fractions are atomized into a chamber where extremely hot air is used to

dry the milk or milk fractions. The powder is then collected from the drying chamber.

Ultrafiltration: A process that uses a semipermeable membrane to separate milk fractions based on molecular size.
 12 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists

(Eagan Press Handbook, 1997).

 13 Ibid.

 14 Members of the U.S. industry are currently developing new processing techniques that result

in the separation of the casein protein from the whey protein via a filtration process. The whey

protein that results from this process is generally referred to as serum protein to distinguish it from

whey protein obtained via the cheesemaking process. This processing technology is being

developed because it is believed that serum protein is more consistent and has better functionality

as a result of not having been exposed to heat and chemical reactions in the cheesemaking process.

Removing some of the whey before cheese production would also improve the efficiency of the

cheese production process. This product is still in the development stage and not yet produced or

traded commercially in the United States.

 15 The definition of dry whey is governed by the FDA standards of identity that specify the

exact composition of the product and can be found at 21 CFR 184.1979.

 16 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists

(Eagan Press Handbook, 1997).

 17 Dominic W.S. Wong, et. al., “Structures and Functionalities of Milk Proteins,” Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 36, issue 8, (1996).

D-9

functional characteristics of SMP vary depending on the temperature during the drying

process. Both high- and low-heat SMP are readily soluble in cold water. High-heat SMP has

good water-binding characteristics that add structure and firmness, and is typically used in

bakery, meat, and confectionary applications.12 Low-heat SMP is typically used in dairy and

beverage applications because of its good flavor profile.13

Whey14

Whey is a greenish-yellow watery liquid formed after the fat and casein have been removed

from the milk in cheese and casein production. There are several whey products, including

dry sweet whey, dry acid whey, reduced lactose whey, reduced minerals whey, WPC, and

whey protein isolate (WPI).

Fluid whey can be pasteurized and dried to produce dry whey.15 There are typically two

types of dry whey: sweet whey and acid whey. Sweet whey is the water and milk solids

remaining after either the manufacture of cheddar, Swiss, and mozzarella cheeses, or after

the production of rennet casein. Acid whey results from the production of cottage and ricotta

cheeses, or the production of acid casein.16 The protein content of both dry sweet and acid

whey is 12-13 percent. The production process for dry whey is similar to the production

process for WMP and SMP. The primary difference in the manufacturing processes is that

whey also passes through a crystallizer as well as an evaporator and dryer. 

Whey Protein Concentrate

A further derivative product of whey is WPC, typically produced using an ultrafiltration and

diafiltration process (figure D-4).17 Diafiltration involves adding water to the filtration

process to reduce product viscosity, allowing more of the lactose and minerals to pass

through the membrane, and resulting in higher protein concentrations. After the filtration

process, which removes lactose, the concentrated liquid whey passes through an evaporator

and a spray dryer to remove all but 4-5 percent of the water. WPC with a protein

concentration of 34 percent (WPC 34) is a standard product. WPC 34 has similar properties
 18 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff and U.S. industry officials, interviews by USITC

staff, Aug. 20 and 21, 2003.

 19 Dominic W.S. Wong, et. al., “Structures and Functionalities of Milk Proteins,” Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 36, issue 8 (1996); U.S. industry officials, interviews

by USITC staff.

 20 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 21 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003; U.S.

industry officials, interview by USTIC staff, Oct. 16 and 17, 2003.

D-10

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Liquid whey Evaporation/

Drying 

Dry whey 

Ultrafiltration 

WPC 34-60 

Diafiltration 

WPC 60-88 

Microfiltration or 

Ion Exchange 

Whey protein 

isolate (WPI) 

Figure D-4

Production process for dry whey, whey protein concentrate, and whey protein isolate

to SMP and can be used in many of the same applications.18 WPC with lower-protein

concentrations (34-50 percent) have high lactose contents (35-51 percent). Independent of

its protein content, WPC has a slightly higher fat content than SMP, typically between

3-5 percent (table D-1). 

Whey Protein Isolate

The term WPI is used to denote WPC with very high-protein concentrations, 90 percent or

more. The production of WPI requires additional processing steps compared with WPC. Two

different processes can be used to produce WPI: ion exchange or microfiltration (MF).19 The

ion exchange process separates the proteins by changing their charge which alters the

functional and nutritional profile of the proteins.20 WPI can also be produced using MF, a

filtration process utilizing ceramic or polymeric filters. This process results in WPI with the

same protein composition as the original whey. The major difference between these two

processes is that WPI produced using the ion exchange method does not contain

glycomacropeptide (GMP). GMP is a specific type of whey protein that has specific

nutritional characteristics not found in other types of whey protein.21
 22 The terms casein and caseinate are sometimes used interchangeably, with the underlying

chemical differences assumed. For the purposes of this report, casein will describe only those milk

proteins produced from milk and not having been exposed to alkali treatment. The term caseinate

will refer only to casein that has been exposed to an alkali treatment.

 23 The production of serum protein via ultrafiltration results in the production of casein protein

as well. As noted above this production process is, however, not currently in commercial use.

 24 Dominic W.S. Wong, et. al., “Structures and Functionalities of Milk Proteins,” Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 36, issue 8 (1996).

 25 TEAGASC Dairy Products Research Center staff, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 7, 2003.

 26 Historically rennet was taken from the fourth stomach of a cow. Today, chymosin (a

synthetic version) is more commonly used in commercial production applications.

 27 TEAGASC Dairy Products Research Center staff, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 7, 2003.

D-11

Skim milk 

Acid casein Rennet casein 

Enzyme Treatment 

Evaporation/Drying 

Whey by-product 

Acid Treatment 

Whey by-product 

Evaporation/

Drying 

Alkali Treatment 

Caseinate

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Figure D-5

Production process for casein and caseniate

Casein and Caseinates22,23

Casein is the primary protein found in milk, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the

total protein content.24 Commercial casein production was originally used in industrial

applications (e.g., glue, paper coatings, plastics, and synthetic fiber production). As

manufacturing technologies improved the ability to isolate casein protein and reduce its

bacteria content, casein increasingly became a food ingredient while synthetics replaced

casein in industrial products.25 There are two types of casein: rennet casein and acid casein.

Rennet casein is produced when the enzyme chymosin causes casein to coagulate and

congeal into a solid mass.26 Acid casein is produced when the addition of acid causes the

casein protein to precipitate from milk at a pH of 4.6 (figure D-5).27

To start the process, rennet or acid (hydrochloric or sulfuric) is injected into the skim milk

stream. At this point, the rennet process slightly diverges from the acid process; because the

reaction is slower, the milk-rennet mixture is circulated in a holding tank for several minutes

before entering the coagulator. In contrast, the acid-milk mixture enters the coagulator
 28 Acid casein production creates a whey stream with a higher mineral concentration then rennet

casein production because acid strips calcium and phosphorous from the casein molecules, hence

the higher mineral or ash level and correspondingly lower level of protein in rennet casein as

compared with acid casein. TEAGASC Dairy Products Research Center staff, interview by USITC

staff, Oct. 7, 2003.

 29 TEAGASC Dairy Products Research Center staff, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 7, 2003.

 30 The standard mesh sizes used for casein and caseinate production are 30-60-and 90-mesh.

European industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 7-18, 2004

 31 There is no FDA standard of identity for casein, however, the composition of casein is set

forth in the Codex Alimentarius at Codex Stan A-18-1995, Rev. 1-2001.

 32 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003; the

European industry refers to imitation cheese as “analog cheese,” European industry officials,

interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 7-18, 2003.

 33 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists

(Eagan Press Handbook, 1997).

 34 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 35 DMV International staff, interviews by USITC staff, Veghel, the Netherlands, Oct. 13, 2003.

 36 There is no FDA standard of identity for caseinate, however, the composition of caseinate is

set forth in the Codex Alimentarius at Codex Stan A-18-1995, Rev. 1-2001.

D-12

directly after acid injection. In both processes, the coagulator applies indirect heat and mixes

the clotted milk to maximize casein precipitation. After leaving the coagulator, the casein

curd is separated from the whey stream by centrifuge. The curd is then washed with fresh

water to remove residual whey, lactose, and minerals.28 The casein curd is again centrifuged

to reduce moisture to about 50 percent. At this point, the casein may be dried to be sold as

acid or rennet casein, or it can be combined with alkalis to produce caseinates. Casein and

caseinates are typically dried using vibrating-bed, roller, or attrition dryers,29 after which the

product is milled to the appropriate mesh size.30 Attrition drying combines the drying and

milling processes.

Codex standards require rennet casein to have a protein concentration of not less than

84 percent, and acid casein to have a protein concentration of not less the 90 percent. Casein

proteins must account for at least 95 percent of the total protein content.31 Both rennet and

acid casein are insoluble in water. Rennet casein is generally used without further

modification, often in the production of imitation cheese.32 Acid casein is, however,

generally further modified by the addition of an alkali which makes the product soluble, and

is thereafter considered caseinate. 

Caseinate is a derivative of casein produced by neutralizing acid with alkali and drying the

final product.33 The alkali treatments result in caseinates being more soluble in water than

casein.34 A range of alkalis can act as neutralizing agents. The two most common

neutralizing agents are sodium hydroxide (resulting in sodium caseinate) and calcium

hydroxide (resulting in calcium caseinate). Other potential alkali agents include potassium

and magnesium. The specific alkali used can affect the functionality of the resulting

caseinate. For example, sodium caseinate has somewhat different solubility, viscosity, and

emulsification properties than calcium caseinate.35 Caseinates have a protein concentration

of at least 88 percent and the casein protein must account for at least 95 percent of the total

protein content.36
 37 The term lactalbumin is rarely used by food scientists in the dairy sector to denote whey

protein.

 38 The U.S. HTS definition of MPC does not specify or limit the manufacturing process used to

manufacture it.

 39 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 40 Ibid.

 41 Dr. David Barbano, Cornell University, interview by USTIC staff, July 21, 2003.

 42 European industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Oct. 7-18, 2003.

 43 Dr. Brendan T. O’Kennedy and Dr. Philip M. Kelly, TEAGASC Dairy Products Research

Center, interview by USITC staff, Oct. 7, 2003.

D-13

Milk Protein Concentrate

The definition of MPC in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS),

Additional U.S. Note 13, is “any complete milk protein (casein plus lactalbumin) that is

40 percent or more protein by weight,” The term “lactalbumin” in this definition is a

synonym for whey protein.37 Thus, this definition requires that MPC contain both casein

protein and whey protein. Unlike many dairy proteins, there is no FDA standard of identity

for MPC, nor is there an accepted industry standard for the composition or production

process for MPC, other than that set forth in the HTS. There is also no internationally

recognized definition of MPC in the Codex Alimentarius. MPC may be produced using three

very different methods: ultrafiltration, blending, and co-precipitation.38 The ultrafiltration

method is most commonly used in Australia and New Zealand. A limited amount of

production using the ultrafiltration method takes place in the United States and EU. The

blending method is most commonly utilized in Europe. The co-precipitate method is not

common but is utilized in Australia, Europe, and New Zealand.

In the ultrafiltration process, MPC is produced from skim milk using a filter (a polymeric

membrane with minute pores) that separates larger molecules from smaller molecules (figure

D-6). When skim milk is passed over the membrane, the lactose and minerals particles that

are able to pass through the pores in the membrane are separated from the larger protein

molecules.39 The remaining milk therefore has a higher concentration of protein than the

original skim milk. The lactose and minerals separated out during the filtration process are

called “the permeate,” while the concentrated milk protein retained is called “retentate.” The

retentate is then spray dried in a manner similar to the WMP and SMP production process.

To achieve protein concentrations of 65 percent or higher, diafiltration is required.40 The

proteins in MPC produced by ultrafiltration are often referred to as native-state proteins

because the original structure of the casein and whey proteins remains the same both before

and after the filtering processes.41 

MPC may be produced by blending various dairy proteins, such as SMP, casein, or WPC,

in specific proportions to produce powders with specific protein concentrations or functional

properties (figure D-7). Low-protein MPC (e.g., 42 percent protein) is typically produced

by combining SMP with casein, whereas high-protein MPC (e.g., 80 percent protein) is

typically produced by combining casein and WPC.42 Blended MPC may be produced using

dry blending or wet blending techniques. The specific dairy ingredients and blending

techniques used affect the functionality of the final product.43 Therefore, it not possible to

predict the functional properties of a blended MPC based solely on its protein content.
 44 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

D-14

Skim milk 

Ultrafiltration 

UF milk 42-60 

UF milk 60-88 

Diafiltration 

MPC 42-88 

Evaporation/Drying

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Figure D-6

Production process of ultrafiltered milk protein concentrate

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

SMP Casein WPC 

Wet or Dry 

Blending 

Low-protein MPC 

Wet or Dry 

Blending 

High-protein MPC 

Evaporation/Drying Evaporation/Drying 

Figure D-7

Production process for blend milk protein concentrate

The process of co-precipitation is essentially a modification of the acid casein process

(figure D-8). In the co-precipitating process, skim milk is first heated to cause the whey

protein to denature. In their denatured state, the whey proteins bind to the casein proteins.44

When an acid treatment is applied, the whey protein precipitates out with the casein protein
 45 Ibid.

 46 Ibid.

 47 One producer of co-precipitate MPC reports the functionality of the product is similar to

caseinate. Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Sept. 24, 2003.

D-15

Skim milk

Heat and Acid 

Treatment Whey by-product 

Evaporation/

Drying 

High-protein MPC 

Source: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

Figure D-8

Production process for co-precipitate milk protein concentrate

because the two proteins are bound together.45 This process recovers approximately

96 percent of the proteins in the milk and results in a product with a protein concentration

of at least 80 percent.46 Co-precipitate MPC has different functional characteristics than

either ultrafiltered MPC or blended MPC, although it is potentially more similar to a blend

MPC than MPC produced using ultrafiltration.47

Functional Properties of Milk Proteins

In addition to delivering protein, food processors use milk protein products because they

provide functionality to the products in which they are used. A number of milk proteins have

similar functional properties and applications. Some of the more commonly referenced

functional characteristics include solubility, viscosity, water-binding, emulsifying, whipping

and foaming, heat stability, and gelation/coagulation. Additionally, individual functional

characteristics are strongly interrelated (for example, a protein’s solubility affects foaming,

gelation, and emulsifying characteristics) and processes undertaken to enhance one particular

characteristic can impact other functional characteristics. These major functional

characteristics are examined in more detail below; table D-2 presents a broad summary of

the functional characteristics of casein and whey proteins.
 48 John F. Kinsella, “Milk Proteins: Physicochemical and Functional Properties,” CRC Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 21, issue 3, 1981.

 49 Guy Linden and Denis, Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 50 P.F. Fox, Advanced Dairy Chemistry, vol. 1, part B (Kluwer Academic/Plendum Publishers,

2003).

 51 Srinivasan Damodaran, et. al., Food Proteins and Their Applications (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

D-16

Table D-2

Main functional characteristics of milk protein

Product Casein Whey

Solubility Insoluble at pH 4.6 Very soluble at all pH levels, but insoluble at

pH 5 if denatured

Viscosity Solutions very viscous at neutral and

alkaline pH

Solutions not very viscous unless denatured

Water-binding (hydration) High water retention with formation of

glue at high concentrations

Water retention increases with denaturation

Emulsifying Excellent emulsifying characteristics

especially at neutral or alkaline pH

Good emulsifying characteristics except at

pH4-5 after denaturation

Whipping/foaming Good swelling but poor foam stability Good swelling and excellent foam stability

Heat stability Good heat stability Protein subject to denaturing when exposed

to heat

Gelling No thermal gelling except in the

presence of calcium

Thermal gelling from 70 degrees Celsius,

influenced by pH

Source: Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and Agriculture (CRC

Press, 1999).

Solubility

Solubility refers to the ability of the protein to dissolve or disperse evenly in a solution.

Insoluble proteins will clump together and form a strata within, or drop out of, a solution.48

Solubility is particularly important in beverage applications, such as meal replacement or

nutritional supplement beverages (such as Slim Fast shakes). A number of factors during

milk protein production can impact the level of solubility. For example, evaporation and

drying temperatures, pH level of the solution, and the charge of the protein molecule are all

important in determining the solubility of the final product.

The solubility of SMP depends on the production process used in the evaporation and drying

of the skim milk. High-heat SMP has low solubility, but low-heat SMP is very soluble.49

Casein produced both by acid precipitation and rennent coagulation is insoluble in water.50

Solubility of caseinate depends upon the final pH and the alkali used. Sodium and potassium

caseinate are almost completely soluble, while calcium caseinate is less soluble.51 The

production process influences the solubility of MPC. MPC is soluble in solutions with a pH

of 7.0 or higher. However, MPC produced using ultrafiltration with a protein content of

80 percent or more is less soluble than lower-protein concentration MPC. The solubility of

MPC produced via a blending process is dependent on the solubility of its constituent parts

and the production process. Co-precipitate MPC, after certain pH adjustments, is highly
 52 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 53 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

 54 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 55 Ibid.

 56 Ibid.

 57 Srinivasan Damodaran, et. al., Food Proteins and Their Applications (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

 58 The interaction of proteins with water can be expressed interchangeably by using the terms

water hydration, water holding, water retention, water binding, water imbibing, water absorption,

and others. There is no standardized definition of protein functionality. Joseph F. Zayas,

Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1997). 

 59 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 60 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997). 

 61 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 62 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997). 

D-17

soluble.52 WPC is generally soluble over the full pH range, however, exposure to heat

treatments may cause some loss in its solubility.53

Viscosity

Viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow. For example, a fluid with a high

viscosity resists motion because its molecular composition generates significant friction.

Dairy products, such as yogurt and ice cream, require proteins with high viscosity in order

to maintain their form and structure. The viscosity of the protein is determined by the size,

shape, composition, and charge of the protein.54

Casein and caseinates tend to produce solutions with higher levels of viscosity than other

milk proteins.55 Casein is more viscous at higher pH levels. The viscosity of caseinates

(generally considered to be highly viscous) depends on both the temperature and pH of the

solution.56 Whey proteins are not particularly viscous, even at high-protein concentrations.57

The viscosity of whey proteins is also dependent upon the pH and temperature of the

solution. 

Water-binding (Hydration)58

Water-binding, or hydration, refers to the ability of the protein to absorb and/or bind water

molecules to the protein.59 Water-binding properties are important functional characteristics

in both the meat and bakery industries. In these applications, the water-binding

characteristics are important to the texture and structure of the final product. Highly soluble

proteins are less effective at water-binding than less soluble proteins.60 Therefore, milk

protein products that are highly soluble, such as WPC, are less effective as water-binders.

However, WPC is a more effective water-binder when exposed to heat.61 Casein and

caseinates have effective water-binding characteristics.62 The water-binding ability of MPC

produced from a blending process is dependent on the solubility of its constituent parts and

the production process. MPC produced via the ultrafiltration process has good water-binding
 63 Ibid. 

 64 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 65 Ramesh Chandan, Dairy-Based Ingredients, American Association of Cereal Chemists

(Eagan Press Handbook, 1997).

 66 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 67 Srinivasan Damodaran, et. al., Food Proteins and Their Applications (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

 68 Ibid.

 69 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

 70 Company officials, DMV International, interviews by USITC staff, Veghel, the Netherlands,

Oct. 13, 2003.

 71 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 72 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

D-18

properties. SMP has moderate water-binding capacity compared to other milk proteins.63

Medium-heat SMP has the best water-binding properties of all forms of SMP because of its

reduced solubility.64

Emulsification

An emulsion is a suspension of oil and water. An emulsifying agent is soluble in both oil and

water and holds together oil and water, which otherwise would not mix.65 The emulsion

prevents the separation of the oil and water into two separate compounds. Emulsifying

properties are important in virtually all applications that use milk proteins. In processed

imitation cheese and meat applications, the emulsifying characteristics of milk protein are

critical to maintaining the structure and texture of the product.

Milk proteins are capable of capturing the oil and fat molecules on one side of their

molecular structure, while capturing water molecules on the other side, thus serving as the

binding agent between these two substances.66 Caseinates have excellent emulsifying

properties.67 Casein has good emulsifying properties, but not as good as caseinate. Whey

proteins also have good emulsifying characteristics, but this varies greatly by the pH and

temperature of the whey protein.68 Caseinate, casein, and WPC have better emulsifying

properties than SMP, although low-heat SMP has better emulsifying properties than highheat SMP.69 MPC produced using ultrafiltration has good emulsifying capacity but is not

considered superior to caseinate, particularly sodium caseinate.70 Co-precipitate MPC with

a high calcium content has better emulsifying properties than other forms of co-precipitates.71

The emulsifying properties of MPC produced via a blending process are dependent on the

solubility of its constituent parts and the production process. 

Whipping and Foaming Properties

Generally, the higher the protein concentration of a milk protein the better its foaming

characteristics. There is a limit however, and very high protein concentrations have poorer

foaming characteristics because of their decreased solubility.72 The amount of heat applied

to the protein and the pH can affect the amount and stability of the foam. WPC and WPI are
 73 Ibid.

 74 Ibid.

 75 Dominic W.S. Wong, et. al., Structures and Functionalities of Milk Proteins (Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 36, issue 8, 1996).

 76 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

 77 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 78 John F. Kinsella, “Milk Proteins: Physicochemical and Functional Properties,” CRC Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 21, issue 3, 1981.

 79 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 80 Ibid.

 81 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

 82 John F. Kinsella, “Milk Proteins: Physicochemical and Functional Properties,” CRC Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 21, issue 3, 1981.

D-19

particularly effective at forming a stable foam because they are soluble, and stabilize foam

by increased viscosity.73 The foaming characteristic of WPC increases as its solubility

increases.74 Caseinate has good whipping and foaming properties.75 Casein generally produce

a less stable foam than WPC, WPI, or caseinate, because of its less soluble nature.76 MPC,

especially MPC with high-protein concentrations, has good foaming characteristics. Coprecipitate MPC generally has foaming characteristics somewhat better than sodium

caseinate.77 Co-precipitate MPC with high-calcium concentrations has better whipping and

foaming characteristics than acid co-precipitate MPC.78

Heat Stability

Heat stability represents the protein’s ability to maintain its structure when exposed to heat

treatments.79 Heat stability is particularly important in aseptically packaged products. The

aseptic process requires a high heat treatment. Thus, for products that are packaged in aseptic

cans, such as meal-replacement beverages, the ability of the protein to resist heat is

particularly important.

Caseins and sodium caseinates are heat stable, but most calcium caseinates are not. Whey

proteins are not generally heat stable because they tend to denature when exposed to high

temperature, although the degree of the instability is also affected by the pH, and protein, and

lactose concentration.80 The heat stability of MPC produced via a blending process is

dependent on the solubility of its constituent parts and the production process. Co-precipitate

MPC has good heat stability characteristics.81 SMP has better heat stability than WPC

because of the presence of casein proteins that will not denature.82

Gelation and Coagulation

A gel occurs when a small proportion of solid is dispersed in a relatively large proportion

of liquid but maintains many of the properties (such as stability) of a solid. Many of the same

products that require good emulsifying characteristics also require good gel formation

characteristics. Applications of milk proteins with good gelation and coagulation properties

in products, such as imitation cheese, processed cheese, and certain meat products, helps
 83 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

 84 Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Aug. 20, 2003.

 85 Ibid.

 86 Ibid.

 87 Joseph F. Zayas, Functionality of Proteins in Food (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,

1997).

 88 Ibid.

 89 Wisconsin Center of Dairy Research staff, interview by USITC staff, Sept. 26, 2003.

 90 Guy Linden and Denis Lorient, New Ingredients in Food Processing: Biochemistry and

Agriculture (CRC Press, 1999).

D-20

maintain the product’s structure. The gelation of milk proteins is directly responsible for the

structure of cheese and semisolid dairy products and influences the texture of other dairy

products such as yogurt.83 Casein generally does not have good gel-forming characteristics.84

Sodium caseinate has better gel-forming characteristics than other forms of caseinate.85 WPC

and WPI have very good gel-forming characteristics, although the pH level and temperature

can affect the gel characteristics.86 WPC require higher temperatures before gel formation

begins, therefore the temperature of the process incorporating WPC can determine its

effectiveness.87 Very high temperatures, however, will denature the whey protein and

weaken its gel-forming properties.88 MPC produced using ultrafiltration also has good

gel-forming characteristics.89 The gel-forming properties of MPC produced via a blending

process is dependent on the solubility of its constituent parts and the production process.

Co-precipiate MPC has gel-forming characteristics similar to caseinate. Low-heat SMP has

good gel forming characteristics.90
APPENDIX E

U.S. FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS OF

IDENTITY FOR MILK PROTEIN

PRODUCTS

 1

 The standards of identity for food products are found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Parts 130-169. Parts 131-135 apply to dairy foods.

 2

 The standard-setting process for all foods was a formal one prior to 1990. That is, interested

parties were permitted to object to any portion of a final standard (or “rule”) after publication of

that standard by the FDA in the Federal Register. Any objection led to that portion of the standard

being stayed, or suspended, pending a further hearing on the matter. The formal process often

resulted in significant delays in the final rule making. The 1961, a public hearing to debate the

standard for peanut butter lasted 20 weeks and generated 8,000 pages of transcript. Junod Suzanne

White “The Rise and Fall of Food Standards in the U.S.,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

paper presented to the Society for the Social History of Medicine, Aberdeen, Scotland (Spring

1999). While the standard-setting process for other food standards has since been converted to an

expedited informal one, in which the standard is set once the FDA issues the final rule, rule

making for dairy foods continues to operate under the lengthier formal process. 

 3

 Petition submitted to the Food and Drug Administration to amend standard of identity for

yogurt, Leslie G. Sarasin, President, National Yogurt Association (Feb. 18, 2000).

 4

 “Alternate make” provisions allow for deviation from the prescribed method of manufacture,

as long as the procedure results in a cheese with the same physical and chemical properties. 

 5

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and

Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO-01-326 (Mar. 2001), p. 12.

E-3

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Standards of Identity

The 1938 Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act established standards of identity for foods. These

standards govern what ingredients may be used and the manufacturing process by which a

food must be produced in order to be labeled with the food name indicated by the standard.

In order to comply with Federal regulations, food manufacturers are responsible for

following the standard exactly as written in order to use the name listed in the standard. As

food technology evolved in the 1960s and 1970s, efforts were made to transform and

modernize the food standards process. In 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act

embodied the notion that food standards should not inhibit innovation in the marketplace and

that new products should be safe and informatively labeled. 

Today, there are 98 standards for dairy foods, 72 of which apply to individual cheeses and

cheese products (table E-1).1

 Many of these standards have not evolved with food

manufacturing technology and are in much the same state as they were when they were

originally issued in the late-1970s and early-1980s. It is not clear that efforts to amend and

clarify existing dairy food standards have met with much success since the 1990s.2

 Petitions

to amend dairy standards for ice cream and frozen desserts, and to define filtered skim milk

have been pending since the late-1990s. Portions of the yogurt standard have been stayed,

pending a hearing, since the early-1980s.3

Dairy food manufacturers are limited in their manufacturing choices by the food standards.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently explicitly

provide for the use of fluid ultrafiltered (UF) milk as an ingredient in standardized cheese,

filtration technology is used in U.S. cheese making under the "alternate make” procedures

authorized in certain cheese standards.4

 FDA has indicated that milk that has been

ultrafiltered “as an integral part of the cheesemaking process” is acceptable in the production

of standardized cheeses. FDA has exercised enforcement discretion with respect to cheese

plants that use ultrafiltered milk produced outside their own cheese making plants.5

 In
E-4

Table E-1

Dairy foods covered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standard of identity regulations

Section Product

§131.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whipped cream products containing flavoring or sweetening. 

§131.110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milk.

§131.111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acidified milk.

§131.112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultured milk.

§131.115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concentrated milk.

§131.120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweetened condensed milk.

§131.125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonfat dry milk.

§131.127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D.

§131.130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaporated milk.

§131.147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dry whole milk.

§131.149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dry cream.

§131.150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heavy cream.

§131.155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Light cream.

§131.157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Light whipping cream.

§131.160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sour cream.

§131.162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acidified sour cream.

§131.170 ............. Eggnog.

§131.180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half-and-half.

§131.200 ............. Yogurt.

§131.203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lowfat yogurt.

§131.206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonfat yogurt. 

§133.102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asiago fresh and asiago soft cheese.

§133.103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asiago medium cheese.

§133.104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asiago old cheese.

§133.106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blue cheese.

§133.108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brick cheese.

§133.109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brick cheese for manufacturing.

§133.111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caciocavallo siciliano cheese.

§133.113 ............. Cheddar cheese.

§133.114 ............. Cheddar cheese for manufacturing.

§133.116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low sodium cheddar cheese.

§133.118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colby cheese.

§133.119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colby cheese for manufacturing.

§133.121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low sodium colby cheese.

§133.123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cold-pack and club cheese.

§133.124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cold-pack cheese food.

§133.125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cold-pack cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cook cheese, koch kaese.

§133.128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottage cheese.

§133.129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dry curd cottage cheese.

§133.133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cream cheese.

§133.134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cream cheese with other foods.

§133.136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washed curd and soaked curd cheese.

§133.137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washed curd cheese for manufacturing.

§133.138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edam cheese.

§133.140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gammelost cheese.

§133.141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gorgonzola cheese.

§133.142 ............. Gouda cheese.

§133.144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Granular and stirred curd cheese.

§133.145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Granular cheese for manufacturing.

§133.146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grated cheese.

§133.147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grated American cheese food.

§133.148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hard grating cheeses.

§133.149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gruyere cheese.

§133.150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hard cheeses.

§133.152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limburger cheese.

§133.153 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monterey cheese and monterey jack cheese.
 6

 Ibid., p. 11.

E-5

Table E-1—Continued

Dairy foods covered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standard of identity regulations

Section Product

§133.154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . High-moisture jack cheese.

§133.155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mozzarella cheese and scamorza cheese.

§133.156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low-moisture mozzarella and scamorza cheese.

§133.157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part-skim mozzarella and scamorza cheese.

§133.158 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low-moisture part-skim mozzarella and scamorza cheese.

§133.160 ............. Muenster and munster cheese.

§133.161 ............. Muenster and munster cheese for manufacturing.

§133.162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neufchatel cheese.

§133.164 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuworld cheese.

§133.165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parmesan and reggiano cheese.

§133.167 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized blended cheese.

§133.168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized blended cheese with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese.

§133.170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process pimento cheese.

§133.173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese food.

§133.174 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized cheese spread.

§133.176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized cheese spread with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.178 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized neufchatel cheese spread with other foods.

§133.179 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese spread.

§133.180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasteurized process cheese spread with fruits, vegetables, or meats.

§133.181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provolone cheese.

§133.182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft ripened cheeses.

§133.183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romano cheese.

§133.184 ............. Roquefort cheese, sheep’s milk blue-mold, and blue-mold cheese from sheep’s milk.

§133.185 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samsoe cheese.

§133.186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sap sago cheese.

§133.187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Semisoft cheeses.

§133.188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Semisoft part-skim cheeses.

§133.189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skim milk cheese for manufacturing.

§133.190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spiced cheeses.

§133.191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part-skim spiced cheeses.

§133.193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spiced, flavored standardized cheeses.

§133.195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swiss and emmentaler cheese.

§133.196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swiss cheese for manufacturing.

§135.110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ice cream and frozen custard.

§135.115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goat`s milk ice cream.

§135.130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mellorine.

§135.140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sherbet.

§135.160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water ices. 

Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 131-135.

2001, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that the majority of the

ultrafiltered milk transported from ultrafiltration facilities was destined for use in the cheese

making operations of related companies.6

Three separate, but similar, petitions from the National Milk Producers Federation, the

National Cheese Institute, and the American Dairy Products Institute requesting that the

definition of milk in cheese standards include ultrafiltered milk are currently pending at
 7

 Letters from Jerry Kozak, Chief Executive Officer, National Milk Producers Federation to

Christine J. Lewis, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements,

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, dated Sept. 6, 2001 and Oct. 19, 2001, and letter from C.

Gordon Brown, Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Scientific Affairs, International Dairy Foods

Association, to Dr. Christine J. Lewis, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and

Dietary Supplements, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, dated Sept. 20, 2001.

 8

 FDA’s intention was to complete at least 90 percent of the "A-list" items by the end of FY

2003. CFSAN 2003 Program Priorities, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition, Mar. 10, 2003, found at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cfsan303.-

html, retrieved Oct. 1, 2003.

 9

 Letter from C. Gordon Brown, Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Scientific Affairs,

International Dairy Foods Association, to Dr. Christine J. Lewis, Director, Office of Nutritional

Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, Food and Drug Administration, dated Sept. 20,

2001.

 10 Letter from John B. Foret, Director, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of

Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration to James E. Harsdorf, Secretary, Wisconsin

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, dated May 7, 2002.

 11 Use of the words “like,” “similar to,” or “imitation” in the product name or labeling of a food

product is regulated by the FDA. It has been determined by FDA that the word “like” is not

sufficient to differentiate a product that has not been manufactured to the specifications of the

standard. The use of the words “imitation” and “substitute” is permitted and governed by CFR,

Title 21, Part 101.3. 

 12 The procedure for securing a temporary marketing permit to produce a food outside the

standard of identity is outlined in 21 CFR Part 130.17. 

E-6

FDA.7 Among the FDA FY2003 “A-list” work priorities was the development of a proposed

rule to amend the definition for "milk" in cheese standards to clearly allow for the use of

fluid UF milk.8

 Some cheese manufacturers have been waiting to invest in filtration

technology until the issue of standardization can be settled.9

Should a food manufacturer desire to produce a food whose ingredients deviate from the

standard of identity for that product, options are limited. One is to rename the product. Foods

that do not meet a defined standard must be named by a common or usual name of the food

other than the name in the standard, or in the absence of a common or usual name, an

appropriately descriptive term.10 In one such instance, Kraft Foods renamed their single

cheese slices “process cheese product” in order to use the ingredient milk protein

concentrate, which is unapproved for use in cheeses that have a standard of identity.

Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to add the word “substitute” or “imitation” to its

product, although those terms may have pejorative connotations to consumers.11

Another option is to apply for a temporary marketing permit by which permission is granted

by FDA to manufacture the product outside the standard but label it with the standard

name.12 Such permits are granted for a period of 15 months, after which the requester must

file a petition requesting a change in the standard of identity to allow for the product to be

manufactured with a new ingredient. The requester can continue to manufacture the product

outside the standard until FDA acts on the petition. Once a temporary marketing permit is

granted to the requester, the same option is available to any other firm that desires to produce

a product outside the standard. However, that company must notify FDA that it desires to

manufacture under the provisions of the temporary marketing permit.

Milk protein concentrate (MPC) is not permitted in the production of most standardized

dairy foods since it is not listed as a primary ingredient nor as an optional ingredient in the
 13 Letter from John B. Foret, Director, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of

Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration to James E. Harsdorf, Secretary, Wisconsin

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, dated May 7, 2002.

 14 The standard of identity for ice cream, under 135.110 (b) Optional dairy ingredients, allows

for the use of “skim milk, that may be concentrated, and from which part or all of the lactose has

been removed by a safe and suitable procedure.” Since milk protein concentrate is not defined, this

standard allows for the use of both liquid ultrafiltered milk and dry milk protein concentrate in the

manufacture of ice cream. 

 15 The standard of identity for yogurt lists specific permissible milk-derived ingredients under

131.200 (d) 1, 131.203 (d)(1), and 131.206 (d)(1). Objections by interested parties to the listing of

specific ingredients versus language that provided for any safe and suitable milk-derived

ingredient were acknowledged by the FDA in the late 1970s. Those portions of the standard were

subsequently stayed, pending a hearing on the matter. As a result, yogurt manufacturers are

permitted, under the standard, to use any safe and suitable milk-derived ingredient in yogurt,

including MPC. Food Standards & Labeling staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,

Food and Drug Administration, interview with USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003.

 16 Food Standards & Labeling staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and

Drug Administration, interview by USITC staff, Dec. 8, 2003.

E-7

standards of identity. MPC may not be used as an ingredient in any of the cheeses or cheese

products covered by standards of identity.13 The standards appear to permit the usage of

MPC in the manufacture of ice cream14 and yogurt.15 They also permit the use of UF milk

in the manufacture of certain standardized cheeses for which FDA has practiced enforcement

discretion (cheddar and mozzarella).16

APPENDIX F

CENSUS TRADE TABLES

F-3

Table F-1

Milk protein products: U.S. imports by product type,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342,558 280,952 295,579 238,774 302,806 294,779 230,320

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,767 117,165 131,392 135,508 153,674 196,614 156,605

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 56,855 65,826 99,133 122,253 152,847 101,060 114,619

Milk albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,814 36,868 43,967 37,967 64,801 75,805 64,565

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . 14,366 38,824 38,037 28,943 43,806 33,485 31,290

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,967 5,660 8,119 8,077 6,815 7,658 10,451

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 2,616 6,240 6,570 9,104 12,981 11,355 8,545

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,091 6,278 6,782 8,527 7,926 9,431 7,650

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 957 1,801 1,738 2,759 3,876 4,223

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,030 3,760 4,042 4,879 2,522 2,206 2,555

Concentrated unsweetened milk . . . 1,236 1,489 499 967 1,533 2,794 1,455

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 116 9 54 130 149

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 18 97 197 251 120

Food preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 122 72 42 92 25 95

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592,093 564,203 636,127 596,887 752,813 739,467 632,642

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,166 65,025 70,394 65,960 74,230 61,577 57,559

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,481 25,961 29,929 32,460 34,200 38,234 34,709

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 14,256 16,998 28,929 44,877 52,677 28,468 33,626

Milk albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,960 10,429 10,916 9,535 12,579 10,834 15,594

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . 3,867 11,394 10,919 9,849 11,921 6,934 7,815

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,469 3,057 4,957 5,731 4,207 3,889 6,828

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 1,140 3,409 4,642 6,818 7,610 6,990 9,236

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,461 3,023 3,265 4,826 4,270 4,204 4,586

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,304 3,068 5,832 4,376 8,171 13,362 13,444

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,660 5,688 5,967 7,392 3,550 3,283 7,337

Concentrated unsweetened milk . . . 1,117 1,284 421 895 1,748 3,226 1,963

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 32 152 9 93 375 520

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 42 136 239 346 137

Food preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 61 37 41 52 9 44

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,903 149,429 176,412 192,905 215,549 181,731 193,399 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; caseinate 3501.90.60; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; milk albumin 3502.20.00,

3502.90.00; casein/Milk protein concentrate 3501.10.10; skim milk powder 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50,

0402.21.02, 0402.21.05, 0402.21.25; whey protein concentrate 0404.10.05; whole milk powder 0402.21.27,

0402.21.30, 0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10, 0402.29.50; whey 

0404.10.08, 0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, 0404.90.70; fluid whole milk

0401.20.20, 0401.20.40; concentrated unsweetened milk 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30,

0402.91.70, 0402.91.90; dried whey 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, 0404.10.90; fluid skim milk 0401.10.00; and 

preparations (derived from dried milk, buttermilk or whey of chapter 4) 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, 2106.90.09.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-4

Table F-2

Milk protein products:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union ............... 303,043 259,927 265,479 259,114 321,503 269,949 253,781

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,490 212,495 259,123 219,598 272,690 316,866 240,058

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,895 26,804 34,438 47,006 58,753 43,690 48,863

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,988 5,688 13,737 15,662 21,415 20,408 26,153

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,923 16,514 19,999 23,883 24,055 25,233 22,409

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,263 7,838 8,630 4,720 4,454 17,351 12,588

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,190 4,678 3,780 5,960 8,813 8,423 6,979

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,576 19,105 18,377 11,513 17,670 6,633 6,900

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,801 4,865 4,269 3,536 7,811 5,385 3,668

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,660 1,019 1,301 1,359 2,796 2,593 2,066

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 228 1,065 964 0 1,061 1,825

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,083 2,272 1,654 431 578 2,325 1,766

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 1,390 1,534 422 388 43 1,026

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 143 381 1,047 2,259 1,419 817

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 20 180 115 1,508 1,672 719

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,864 1,216 2,180 1,558 8,121 16,417 3,024

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592,093 564,203 636,127 596,887 752,813 739,467 632,642

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,245 58,248 62,381 74,377 87,400 56,267 65,637

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,381 55,090 67,629 64,611 69,292 70,699 65,021

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,409 7,905 9,988 16,399 17,414 9,588 14,130

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,417 1,385 3,861 4,621 5,369 4,445 6,774

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,610 14,114 18,267 21,576 20,938 26,289 28,196

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,992 3,106 4,257 2,580 1,282 4,393 3,560

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,366 1,339 1,038 1,887 2,632 2,230 2,169

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,189 5,588 5,176 3,788 4,804 1,845 2,368

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 796 730 845 1,934 1,627 949

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,152 248 317 396 870 897 622

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 600 514 0 600 1,154

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 625 468 118 183 791 438

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 476 423 109 185 20 380

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 60 180 540 580 401 406

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 54 37 430 392 200

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667 372 1,042 508 2,236 1,245 1,393

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,903 149,429 176,412 192,905 215,549 181,731 193,399 1

 Casein 3501.10.50; caseinate 3501.90.60; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.10; milk albumin 3502.20.00,

3502.90.00; casein/Milk protein concentrate 3501.10.10; skim milk powder 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50,

0402.21.02, 0402.21.05, 0402.21.25; whey protein concentrate 0404.10.05; whole milk powder 0402.21.27,

0402.21.30, 0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10, 0402.29.50; whey 

0404.10.08, 0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, 0404.90.70; fluid whole

milk 0401.20.20, 0401.20.40; concentrated unsweetened milk 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30,

0402.91.70, 0402.91.90; dried whey 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, 0404.10.90; fluid skim milk 0401.10.00; and food

preparations (derived from dried milk, buttermilk or whey of chapter 4) 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, 2106.90.09.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-5

Table F-3

Casein:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union ............... 189,261 136,754 126,479 104,695 128,638 121,810 96,571

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,130 92,978 113,480 78,153 99,951 108,037 65,602

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,518 15,069 15,370 21,334 21,789 25,385 25,633

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,988 5,590 12,815 15,393 21,231 19,698 24,879

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,122 4,678 3,780 5,716 8,374 7,289 6,909

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,909 19,037 18,211 11,117 17,388 6,185 6,825

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 1,100 1,372 216 0 0 1,026

Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 136 700 473 183 463 719

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,213 5,611 3,372 1,677 5,253 5,913 2,158

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342,558 280,952 295,579 238,774 302,806 294,779 230,320

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,393 28,985 28,003 28,210 31,085 25,382 22,006

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,567 22,393 27,799 21,704 23,969 21,829 16,984

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,506 3,548 3,698 5,697 5,248 4,898 6,415

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,417 1,301 3,221 4,178 5,312 4,250 6,470

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,343 1,339 1,038 1,827 2,518 1,896 2,129

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,041 5,568 5,128 3,663 4,716 1,729 2,341

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 303 389 60 0 0 380

Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 40 200 140 40 100 160

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,799 1,548 920 482 1,342 1,491 673

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,166 65,025 70,394 65,960 74,230 61,577 57,559

–––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,347 4,718 4,517 3,711 4,138 4,799 4,388

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,854 4,152 4,082 3,601 4,170 4,949 3,863

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,995 4,247 4,157 3,745 4,152 5,182 3,996

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,933 4,296 3,979 3,685 3,997 4,635 3,845

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,813 3,494 3,641 3,128 3,325 3,843 3,245

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,751 3,419 3,551 3,035 3,687 3,577 2,915

Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,938 3,627 3,528 3,601 0 0 2,699

Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,311 3,397 3,498 3,375 4,587 4,631 4,491

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,004 3,623 3,667 3,478 3,914 3,965 3,206

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,953 4,321 4,199 3,620 4,079 4,787 4,001

1

 HTS 3501.10.50.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-6

Table F-4

Caseinate:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,155 58,404 69,288 77,356 90,468 102,619 93,989

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,350 57,235 60,634 54,463 60,336 79,938 52,480

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 166 157 419 1,875 13,111 9,769

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 3 11 291

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 0 0 0 0 0 71

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 0 243 168 887 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 1249 383 2,261 617 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4517 111 930 767 207 49 4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,767 117,165 131,392 135,508 153,674 196,614 156,605

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,929 12,579 15,563 17,985 20,546 20,303 20,093

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,471 13,016 14,034 13,501 12,995 14,811 11,971

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 38 40 133 434 2,896 2,510

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 4 114

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 0 0 0 0 0 20

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 60 40 199 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 313 127 607 139 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 15 165 174 45 21 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,481 25,961 29,929 32,460 34,200 38,234 34,709

–––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,349 4,643 4,452 4,301 4,403 5,054 4,678

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,261 4,397 4,321 4,034 4,643 5,397 4,384

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,353 4,402 3,925 3,154 4,322 4,527 3,892

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 11,000 2,410 2,547

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,625 0 0 0 0 0 3,550

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,410 0 0 4,055 4,205 4,468 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,197 3,992 3,026 3,727 4,435 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,124 7,359 5,633 4,409 4,567 2,374 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,328 4,513 4,390 4,175 4,493 5,142 4,512

1

 HTS 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-7

Table F-5

Milk protein concentrate:1

 U.S. imports by principal supplier, 1992-2002

Supplier 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . 461 1 4,780 9,904 17,217 26,974 38,935 44,998 66,387 76,149 75,172

European Union . . 7,300 11,384 18,688 9,377 30,418 30,371 38,318 51,518 51,152 10,550 23,483

Australia . . . . . . . . 211 940 1,245 717 2,575 3,121 8,053 13,854 22,122 7,956 9,507

Hungary . . . . . . . . 0 2 955 854 812 1,099 2,668 1,714 4,642 3,562 2,617

Poland . . . . . . . . . 41 1,099 676 656 1,728 1,143 5,168 1,544 175 1,406 1,739

India . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 1,154

Estonia . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 143 381 577 161 508 566

Canada . . . . . . . . . 0 82 1,941 670 3,325 2,630 4,917 7,753 5,063 0 349

All other . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 1,084 780 344 692 295 3,143 770 32

Total . . . . . . . . 8,014 13,508 28,285 23,261 56,855 65,826 99,133 122,253 152,847 101,060 114,619

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . 158 0 1,477 3,000 4,905 7,831 11,243 14,601 19,352 21,192 20,610

European Union . . 3,301 4,943 8,586 3,187 6,014 6,126 9,832 20,197 21,300 2,720 8,392

Australia . . . . . . . . 85 342 455 152 1,036 1,141 2,246 4,967 6,936 2,154 2,564

Hungary . . . . . . . . 369 0 170 153 114 168 395 416 1,267 1,280 730

Poland . . . . . . . . . 20 470 331 237 700 519 2,720 875 59 624 660

India . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 255

Estonia . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 60 180 300 80 201 237

Canada . . . . . . . . . 0 65 990 340 1,303 1,016 1,957 3,420 2,234 0 169

All other . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 218 183 137 356 101 1,451 263 10

Total . . . . . . . . 3,933 5,820 12,009 7,287 14,256 16,998 28,929 44,877 52,679 28,468 33,627

–––––––––––—–————–——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––————–––———––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . 2,927 5,112 3,236 3,301 3,510 3,444 3,463 3,082 3,431 3,593 3,647

European Union . . 2,211 2,303 2,177 2,942 5,058 4,958 3,897 2,551 2,402 3,879 2,798

Australia . . . . . . . . 2,482 2,751 2,735 4,720 2,485 2,736 3,586 2,789 3,190 3,694 3,707

Hungary . . . . . . . . 0 5,146 5,618 5,580 7,122 6,522 6,753 4,120 3,663 2,783 3,586

Poland . . . . . . . . . 2,051 2,339 2,044 2,768 2,467 2,205 1,900 1,764 2,962 2,253 2,637

India . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,640 4,526

Estonia . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 2,382 2,119 1,924 2,016 2,529 2,382

Canada . . . . . . . . . 0 1,262 1,961 1,972 2,552 2,588 2,512 2,267 2,267 0 2,066

All other . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 4,972 4,262 2,520 1,947 2,934 2,167 2,930 3,309

Total . . . . . . . . 2,038 2,321 2,355 3,192 3,988 3,873 3,427 2,724 2,902 3,550 3,409

1

 HTS 0404.90.10.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-8

Table F-6

Milk albumin:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,230 6,312 7,405 9,362 21,053 20,252 21,111

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,527 22,236 25,526 21,508 26,147 26,815 29,382

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,950 5,879 8,193 5,299 10,112 9,442 7,205

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,821 2,298 2,622 1,593 4,004 3,949 5,080

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 118 439 900 1,766

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 5 8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 143 221 87 3,046 14,442 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,814 36,868 43,967 37,967 64,801 75,805 64,565

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 859 925 1,411 3,308 2,316 3,827

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,086 7,355 7,193 6,219 6,052 5,663 8,523

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,044 2,099 2,768 1,714 2,849 2,268 2,671

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 115 26 152 37 40 132

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 38 144 219 438

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 313 380 371 775 947 487

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,958 10,428 10,916 9,532 12,580 10,833 15,594

–––––––––––—–——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,588 7,348 8,005 6,635 6,364 8,744 5,516

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,643 3,023 3,549 3,458 4,320 4,735 3,447

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,826 2,801 2,960 3,092 3,549 4,163 2,697

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,648 19,983 100,851 10,480 108,228 98,725 38,485

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 3,105 3,049 4,110 4,032

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 6750

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 5000 4,000

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 457 582 235 3,930 15,250 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,997 3,535 4,028 3,983 5,151 6,998 4,140

1 HTS 3502.20.00 and 3502.90.00.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-9

Table F-7

Casein/milk protein concentrate:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,910 23,242 21,033 13,685 24,231 9,952 12,702

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,740 8,225 13,360 11,725 13,851 19,502 11,795

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,000 372 98 514 4,915

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,025 3,045 627 1,174 2,119 1,496 962

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,432 4,194 1,743 928 607 586 348

Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 0 0 0 73 0 332

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 30 0 72 377 75

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 0 3 0 51 66

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 68 244 1,056 2,755 1,007 30

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,520 38,874 38,037 28,943 43,806 33,485 31,290

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,086 7,186 6,476 5,409 7,270 1,960 3,235

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 1,916 3,135 2,971 3,263 4,081 2,681

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 244 320 20 117 1,453

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 452 145 289 407 280 199

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 1,800 840 454 231 167 100

Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0 0 0 20 0 100

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 17 0 24 101 20

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 0 0 1 0 5 6

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 40 63 405 687 224 21

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,867 11,394 10,919 9,849 11,921 6,934 7,815

–––––––––––—–——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,792 3,234 3,248 2,530 3,333 5,078 3,926

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,560 4,293 4,261 3,946 4,246 4,779 4,400

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4,101 1,163 4,893 4,400 3,384

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,836 6,736 4,336 4,068 5,208 5,352 4,823

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,388 2,330 2,075 2,043 2,631 3,511 3,483

Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,845 0 0 0 3,629 0 3,311

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,771 0 3,008 3,725 3,730

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 0 0 3,495 0 10,172 11,006

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,898 2,942 3,873 2,608 4,010 4,492 1,428

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,715 3,407 3,483 2,939 3,675 4,829 4,004

1

 HTS 3501.10.10.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-10

Table F-8

Skim milk powder:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,259 629 508 575 943 3,522 4,287

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 2,881 3,928 2,662 1,381 1,702 2,133

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 217 1,065 900 0 1,052 1,823

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,282 1,364 1,306 2,364 2,452 0 1,469

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 114 334 295 571 124 358

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 246

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 247 70

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 301 584 1,209 383 35 21

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 153 394 73 1,085 976 45

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,967 5,660 8,119 8,077 6,815 7,658 10,451

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,124 360 282 367 576 1,678 2,946

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 1,564 2,398 2,091 1,117 908 1,375

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 600 500 0 600 1,153

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 746 780 1,716 1,498 0 954

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 56 179 80 268 71 161

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 168

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 135 40

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 175 398 933 189 20 17

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 81 320 44 530 477 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,469 3,057 4,957 5,731 4,178 3,889 6,828

––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,010 1,749 1,802 1,565 1,638 2,099 1,455

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,283 1,843 1,638 1,273 1,236 1,874 1,551

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,833 2,898 1,775 1,800 0 1,754 1,581

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,917 1,828 1,674 1,378 1,637 0 1,540

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,091 2,036 1,861 3,688 2,130 1,745 2,224

Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,463

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1,832 1,750

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,895 1,720 1,468 1,296 2,026 1,750 1,235

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,176 1,883 1,230 1,659 1,938 2,047 3,214

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,012 1,852 1,638 1,409 1,620 1,969 1,531

1

 HTS 0402.10.05, 0402.10.10, 0402.10.50, 0402.21.02, 0402.21.05, 0402.21.25

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-11

Table F-9

Whey protein concentrate:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,579 4,115 1,694 1,536 4,163 3,605 4,225

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 1,768 4,077 3,938 6,419 7,208 3,782

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 248 229 2,508 1,722 262 316

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 140

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 28 847 540 110 51

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 98 542 265 112 170 21

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 5 0 10 25 0 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,616 6,240 6,570 9,104 12,981 11,355 8,545

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 2,066 726 591 2,502 2,778 6,027

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 1,157 3,210 3,598 3,968 4,029 2,911

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 101 144 1,222 965 103 219

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 20 960 136 21 16

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 84 543 442 33 59 20

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 0 0 5 6 0 1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,140 3,409 4,642 6,818 7,610 6,990 9,236

–––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,662 1,992 2,333 2,597 1,664 1,298 701

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,458 1,529 1,270 1,094 1,618 1,789 1,299

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,911 2,459 1,595 2,053 1,786 2,544 1,444

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 6,000 1,380 883 3,971 5,238 3,188

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,168 999 600 3,394 2,884 1,050

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,119 0 0 2,000 4,167 0 3,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,295 1,831 1,415 1,335 1,706 1,624 925

1

 HTS 0404.10.05.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-12

Table F-10

Whole milk powder:1 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 1,700 2,986 3,582 2,882 4,460 3,032

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 933 1,294 1,300 2,087 1,781 2,066

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,410 3,328 2,466 2,877 1,402 2,749 2,061

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 128 36 78 479 82 137

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 2 0 88

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 114 0 675 1,023 283 84

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 19 0 59

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 58

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 75 0 15 32 76 64

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,091 6,278 6,782 8,527 7,926 9,431 7,650

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons–––––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 911 1,663 2,301 1,551 2,111 2,143

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 237 317 356 564 539 622

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 1,729 1,276 1,721 970 1,214 1,221

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 50 10 26 565 106 300

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 1 0 31

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 57 0 420 587 130 57

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 13 0 51

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 137

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 39 0 2 104 64 24

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,461 3,023 3,266 4,826 4,355 4,164 4,586

–––––––––––—––—–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,936 1,866 1,795 1,557 1,859 2,113 1,415

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,526 3,942 4,088 3,655 3,703 3,307 3,321

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,295 1,925 1,933 1,672 1,445 2,264 1,688

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 2,560 3,600 3,000 847 771 456

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 2,539 0 2,838

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,949 2,003 0 1,609 1,741 2,173 1,470

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 1,507 0 1,164

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 427

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,395 1,923 0 7,500 308 1,188 2,667

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,115 2,077 2,077 1,767 1,820 2,265 1,668

1

 HTS 0402.21.27, 0402.21.30, 0402.21.50, 0402.21.73, 0402.21.75, 0402.21.90, 0402.29.05, 0402.29.10,

0402.29.50.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-13

Table F-11

Whey:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 837 1,183 1,637 2,478 3,458 4,069

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 112 498 72 268 404 150

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 15 3 9 0 3

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3 25 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 101 0 3 14 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 957 1,801 1,738 2,759 3,876 4,223

––––––––––—–––––––––––––Metric tons–––—–––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,279 3,046 5,394 4,289 8,092 13,297 13,423

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21 331 14 74 62 21

Ecuador ......................... 3 1 2 0 1 0 0

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4 71 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 101 0 5 3 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,304 3,068 5,832 4,376 8,171 13,362 13,444

––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton ––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 275 219 382 306 260 303

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,315 5,343 1,505 4,990 3,643 6,496 7,106

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,841 5,974 6,299 6,027 6,806 0 7,169

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 885 356 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,003 0 672 4,450 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,465 11,592 9,911 11,755 11,427 11,206 14,578

1

 HTS 0404.10.08, 0404.10.11, 0404.10.15, 0404.10.20, 0404.90.28, 0404.90.30, 0404.90.50, and 0404.90.70.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-14

Table F-12

Fluid whole milk:1 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––———––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . 2,007 3,720 4,036 4,876 2,518 2,197 2,406

European Union .... 19 8 0 0 0 0 104

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 38

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000034

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0403002

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2860461

Total . . . . . . . . . . 2,030 3,760 4,042 4,879 2,522 2,206 2,555

–––––––––––—––––––––––––––––1,000 liters———–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . 3,658 5,666 5,975 7,392 3,548 3,268 7,088

European Union .... 1 4 0 0 0 0 180

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 60

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 10 7

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0200001

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1620251

Total . . . . . . . . . . 3,660 5,688 5,977 7,392 3,550 3,283 7,337

––––––––————–––—––——––––– Dollars per liter ––––––———–––––———––––––––

Canada ........... 1111110

European Union .... 19200001

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . 0000001

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000001

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0303003

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4230210

Total . . . . . . . . . . 1111110 1

 Fluid whole milk 0401.20.20, and 0401.20.40.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-15

Table F-13

Concentrated unsweetened milk:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 365 389 518 443 546 952

Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 57 149

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 5 91 148 123

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 188 104

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896 1,108 101 439 989 1,792 92

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 26 21

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16 9 5 10 37 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,236 1,489 499 967 1,533 2,794 1,455

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––––––––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 316 334 454 411 569 1,394

Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 55 147

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 4 78 95 71

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 123 138

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 966 79 433 1,236 2,312 108

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 34 95

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 8 4 23 38 10

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,117 1,284 421 895 1,748 3,226 1,963

–––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,057 1,155 1,164 1,141 1,078 960 683

Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1,038 1,011

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,360 1,175 1,560 1,731

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1,528 754

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,126 1,148 1,270 1,013 800 775 851

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 763 217

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,155 1,165 1,141 1,078 960 1,464

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,106 1,159 1,186 1,081 877 866 741

1

 HTS 0402.91.03, 0402.91.06, 0402.91.10, 0402.91.30, 0402.91.70, and 0402.91.90.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-16

Table F-14

Dried whey:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 22 0 145

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6 9 0 50 2

Honduras .................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 30 0 0

Nicaragua .................... 0 2 0 0 3 0 0

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 60 110 0 0 0 0

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 80 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 116 9 55 130 149

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––Metric tons––––––––——–––––––––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 22 0 516

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 13 9 0 84 4

Honduras .................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 69 0 0

Nicaragua .................... 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31 139 0 0 0 0

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 291 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 32 152 9 93 375 520

–––––––––––—––——–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 972 0 281

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,136 0 503 967 0 599 635

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,441

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 439 0 0

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,835 0 0 1,466 0 0

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,944 790 0 0 0 0

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 276 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,336 1,940 766 967 585 348 287

1

 HTS 0404.10.48, 0404.10.50, and 0404.10.90.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-17

Table F-15

Fluid skim milk:1 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––——–––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––––——–––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 18 97 171 251 120

European Union ......... 0000000

Lebanon ............... 3000000

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 24 0 0

Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000200

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 18 97 197 251 120

––––––––––––————––––––––––1,000 liters—————––––––––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 42 136 236 346 137

European Union ......... 0000000

Lebanon ............... 0000000

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000300

Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000000

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 42 136 239 346 137

–––––––––—––——–————––––– Dollars per ton –––––———–––———––––––––

Canada ................ 0011111

European Union ......... 0000000

Lebanon ............... 80000000

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000800

Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 35 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80011111

1

 HTS Fluid skim milk 0401.10.00.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-18

Table F-16

Food preparations:1

 U.S. imports by principal suppliers, 1996-2002

Supplier 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––—––––––––––––1,000 dollars–––––—––––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 54 12 42 69 6 83

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 8 9

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 6 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 17 45 0 11 0 0

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7 5 0 0 0 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 3 0 0 0 0

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 31 0 0 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11 9 0 12 5 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 122 72 42 92 25 95

–––––––––—––––––––––––––—–Metric tons–––––––—–––––––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 28 6 41 43 1 43

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 7 1

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 21 0 8 0 0

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Dominican Republic ............... 12 25 0 0 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 8 0 1 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 61 37 41 52 9 44

–––––––––––—––—–––––– Dollars per ton –––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,822 1,927 1,901 1,015 1,622 6,331 1,925

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 17,481

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,351

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 4,640 0

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,250 6,183 2,193 0 1,433 0 0

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2,767 2,894 0 0 0 0

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,883 0 0 0 0 0

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878 1,267 0 0 0 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,435 5,199 938 0 6,123 57,419 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,062 1,986 1,971 1,015 1,759 2,677 2,133

1

 HTS 2106.90.03, 2106.90.06, and 2106.90.09.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-19

Table F-17

U.S. imports from World,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

—————––––——————Value (1,000 dollars)———––––———————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 56,855 65,826 99,133 122,253 152,847 101,059 114,619

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . 14,366 38,824 38,037 28,943 43,806 33,485 31,290

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342,558 280,952 295,579 238,774 302,806 294,779 230,320

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,767 117,165 131,392 135,508 153,674 196,614 156,605

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549,546 502,766 564,141 525,479 653,133 625,936 532,834

————––––––––——–——Quantity (metric tons)————––––——————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 14,256 16,998 28,929 44,877 52,677 28,469 33,626

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . 3,867 11,394 10,919 9,849 11,921 6,934 7,815

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,166 65,025 70,394 65,960 74,230 61,577 57,559

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,481 25,961 29,929 32,460 34,200 38,234 34,709

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,771 119,378 140,171 153,146 173,029 135,214 133,709

—–——————–––—Unit value (dollars per metric ton)———–——————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 3,988 3,873 3,427 2,724 2,902 3,550 3,409

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . 3,715 3,407 3,483 2,939 3,675 4,829 4,004

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,953 4,321 4,199 3,620 4,079 4,787 4,001

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,328 4,513 4,390 4,175 4,493 5,142 4,512

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,873 4,212 4,025 3,431 3,775 4,629 3,985 1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table F-18

U.S. imports from New Zealand, 1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

————————————Value (1,000 dollars)————————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,217 26,974 38,935 44,998 66,387 76,149 75,172

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . 2,740 8,225 13,360 11,725 13,851 19,502 11,795

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,130 92,978 113,480 78,153 99,951 108,037 65,602

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,350 57,235 60,634 54,463 60,336 79,938 52,480

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,436 185,413 226,408 189,339 240,525 283,627 205,049

————–––––—————Quantity (metric tons)————–————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,905 7,831 11,243 14,601 19,352 21,192 20,610

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . 601 1,916 3,135 2,971 3,263 4,081 2,681

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,567 22,393 27,799 21,704 23,969 21,829 16,984

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,471 13,016 14,034 13,501 12,995 14,811 11,971

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,543 45,156 56,211 52,778 59,578 61,913 52,246

—–————————Unit value (dollars per metric ton)———–——————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,510 3,444 3,463 3,082 3,431 3,593 3,647

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . 4,560 4,293 4,261 3,946 4,246 4,779 4,400

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,854 4,152 4,082 3,601 4,170 4,949 3,863

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,261 4,397 4,321 4,034 4,643 5,397 4,384

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,795 4,106 4,028 3,587 4,037 4,581 3,925 1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-20

Table F-19

U.S. imports from Australia,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

——————————Value (1,000 dollars)—————–————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,575 3,121 8,053 13,854 22,122 7,956 9,507

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,000 372 98 514 4,915

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,518 15,069 15,370 21,334 21,789 25,385 25,633

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 1,249 383 2,261 617 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,524 19,439 24,807 37,820 44,625 33,855 40,055

————–––—————Quantity (metric tons)———–––————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,036 1,141 2,246 4,967 6,936 2,154 2,564

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 0 0 244 320 20 117 1,453

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,506 3,548 3,698 5,697 5,248 4,898 6,415

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 313 127 607 139 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,625 5,002 6,314 11,590 12,343 7,169 10,432

—–——————Unit value (dollars per metric ton)———––——————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,485 2,736 3,586 2,789 3,190 3,693 3,707

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 0 0 4,101 1,163 4,892 4,400 3,384

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,995 4,247 4,157 3,745 4,152 5,182 3,996

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,197 3,992 3,026 3,727 4,435 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,282 3,886 3,929 3,263 3,616 4,722 3,840 1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table F-20

U.S. imports from the European Union,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

————————————Value (1,000 dollars)—————————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . 30418 30,371 38,318 51,518 51,152 10,550 23,483

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . 7,910 23,242 21,033 13,685 24,231 9,952 12,702

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,261 136,754 126,479 104,695 128,638 121,810 96,571

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,155 58404 69,288 77,356 90,468 102,619 93,989

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296,744 248,770 255,120 247,254 294,489 244,931 226,745

—––——––––—————Quantity (metric tons)———––––––———————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . 6,014 6,126 9,832 20,197 21,300 2,720 8,392

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . 2,086 7,186 6,476 5,409 7,270 1,960 3,235

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,393 28,985 28,003 28,210 31,085 25,382 22,006

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,929 12,579 15,563 17,985 20,546 20,303 20,093

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,423 54,876 59,874 71,801 80,202 50,365 53,726

—–——––––––––––––—Unit value (dollars per metric ton)————––———

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . 5058 4,958 3,897 2,551 2,402 3,879 2,798

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . 3,792 3,234 3,248 2,530 3,333 5,078 3,926

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,347 4,718 4,517 3,711 4,138 4,799 4388

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,349 4,643 4,452 4,301 4,403 5,054 4678

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,259 4,533 4,261 3,444 3,672 4,863 4220 1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-21

Table F-21

U.S. imports from India,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

————————––———Value (1,000 dollars)———————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 158 1,154

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . 0 0 30 0 72 377 75

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,988 5,590 12,815 15,393 21,231 19,698 24,879

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3504000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,988 5,590 13,195 15,397 21,303 20,232 26,108

————––––––––———Quantity (metric tons)——–—————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 34 255

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . 0 0 17 0 24 101 20

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,417 1,301 3,221 4,178 5,312 4,250 6,470

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 811000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,417 1,301 3,319 4,179 5,336 4,385 6,745

——–———–––––—Unit value (dollars per metric ton)——–––—————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 4,640 4,526

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . 0 0 1,771 0 3,008 3,725 3,730

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,933 4,296 3,979 3,685 3,997 4,635 3,845

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4,337 4,216000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,933 4,296 3,976 3,685 3,992 4,614 3,871

1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-22

Table F-22

U.S. imports from Poland,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

————————–––—Value (1,000 dollars)———————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,728 1,143 5,168 1,544 175 1,406 1,739

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . 1,432 4,193 1,743 928 607 586 348

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,595 2,034 977 621 1,248 1,989 710

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 166 157 419 1,875 13,111 9,769

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,554 7,536 8,045 3,512 3,905 17,092 12,566

————–––————Quantity (metric tons)——–—————————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 519 2,720 875 59 624 660

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . 600 1,800 840 454 231 167 100

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,177 575 260 185 309 588 273

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 38 40 133 434 2,896 2,510

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,627 2,931 3,859 1,647 1,033 4,275 3,543

—–—–——––––––Unit value (dollars per metric ton)———–————

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,467 2,205 1,900 1,764 2,962 2,252 2,637

Casein/Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . 2,388 2,330 2,075 2,043 2,631 3,511 3,483

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,964 3,540 3,763 3,357 4,038 3,384 2,598

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,353 4,402 3,925 3,154 4,322 4,527 3,892

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,578 2,570 2,032 2,132 3,780 3,998 3,547

1

 HTS 0404.90.10, 3501.10.10, 3501.10.50 and 3501.90.60.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-23

Table F-23

Milk protein concentrate:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1992-2002

Market 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––——–––––––––––––––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––—————–––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . 1,679 1,439 1,186 1,363 2,791 3,181 2,673 2,375 5,954 289 1,478

European Union 464 247 204 79 326 518 875 574 230 628 684

Korea . . . . . . . . 78 592 702 259 203 73 49 46 21 179 499

Canada . . . . . . . 5,208 4,706 3,049 519 986 667 458 502 310 486 470

Switzerland . . . . 14 8 0 0 4 0 70 7 255 60 315

China . . . . . . . . 0 0 17 40 0 548 0 392 552 4,800 273

Bahamas . . . . . 26 24 39 3 34 0 6 0 3 111 195

Panama . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 62 23 23 31 72 65 152

All other . . . . . . 3,259 2,458 1,144 1,656 1,322 2,246 1,282 3,320 4,804 1,710 854

Total . . . . . . 10,728 9,474 6,341 3,919 5,728 7,256 5,436 7,247 12,201 8,328 4,920

––––––––––––————————––––––––Metric tons––––––––––––———————–––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . 541 664 1,266 782 1,947 1,643 1,442 1,270 2,004 99 724

European Union 138 76 69 37 92 124 215 173 72 181 332

Korea . . . . . . . . 72 111 241 132 59 20 28 36 5 55 279

Canada . . . . . . . 2,792 1,938 1,146 187 340 299 211 555 195 153 165

Switzerland . . . . 1 2 0 0 1 0 9 2 88 9 85

China . . . . . . . . 0 0 5 13 0 172 0 69 140 1,493 207

Bahamas . . . . . 9 9 31 1 12 0 7 0 2 89 46

Panama . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 74 19 8 22 25 43 87

All other . . . . . . 788 752 534 814 611 898 685 850 2,009 721 398

Total . . . . . . 4,341 3,552 3,292 1,966 3,136 3,175 2,605 2,977 4,540 2,843 2,323

–––––––––––—————–———––––––Dollars per ton––––––––———————––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . 3,104 2,167 937 1,744 1,433 1,937 1,853 1,871 2,972 2,906 2,040

European Union 3,356 3,244 2,941 2,125 3,547 4,185 4,065 3,313 3,183 3,476 2,062

Korea . . . . . . . . 1,086 5,310 2,908 1,967 3,422 3,682 1,756 1,294 3,911 3,283 1,790

Canada . . . . . . . 1,865 2,429 2,660 2,782 2,899 2,227 2,166 905 1,591 3,188 2,843

Switzerland . . . . 13,628 4,031 - - 3,540 - 7,644 3,125 2,902 6,806 3,702

China . . . . . . . . - - 3,127 3,126 - 3,193 - 5,676 3,930 3,215 1,319

Bahamas . . . . . 2,974 2,488 1,260 2213 2,825 - 779 - 1,469 1,248 4,266

Panama . . . . . . - - - - 839 1,247 2,752 1,418 2,876 1,505 1,738

All other . . . . . . 4,136 3,269 2,142 2,034 2,164 2,501 1,872 3,906 2,391 2,372 2,146

Total . . . . . . 2,471 2,667 1,926 1,993 1,827 2,285 2,087 2,434 2,687 2,929 2,118

1 Schedule B number for milk protein concentrate 0404.90.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-24

Table F-24

Casein:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––——––—–––––1,000 dollars––––––––————–––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 120 577 127 2,356 1,362 997

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,607 5,576 8,217 6,612 5,792 2,438 795

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 299 209 744 305 138 303

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3 23 5 12 227 51

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 51 4 3 0 0 44

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 0 0 0 0 0 23

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 70 617 165 1,673 1,387 22

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 22 20 116 0 15

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973 639 411 1,858 2,407 1,485 20

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,584 6,765 10,080 9,534 12,661 7,037 2,270

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 31 117 28 546 257 209

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 778 1,148 932 946 360 141

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 36 46 87 61 18 63

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 45 2 70 1 9 6

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7 0 0 0 0 19

Ecuador ...................... 6 0 0 0 0 0 3

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6 98 32 244 216 2

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 4 4 23 0 3

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 133 89 364 300 212 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962 1,037 1,504 1,517 2,121 1,072 448

–––––––––––––––———–––––Dollars per ton–––––––––––——–––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,792 3,800 4,928 4,616 4,312 5,305 4,769

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,603 7,165 7,156 7,094 6,126 6,770 5,651

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,079 8,215 4,577 8,563 4,993 7,573 4,815

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 63,578 13,116 66,471 8,261 26,609 8,750

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,347 7,696 7,562 6,805 - - 2,257

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,124 - - - - - 8,265

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 12,667 6,279 5,085 6,865 6,415 11,638

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,667 10,882 5,576 5,304 5,019 - 5,000

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,015 4,805 4,618 5,104 8,023 7,005 10,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,844 6,524 6,702 6,285 5,969 6,564 5,067

1

 Schedule B number for casein 3501.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-25

Table F-25

Caseinate:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––——–––1,000 dollars––––––––––———–––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,770 9,040 12,243 14,052 7,204 4,002 2,506

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 1,313 1,084 670 1,645 4,464 2,489

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 265 1,174 1,140

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 83 0 10 7,539 548 420

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 911 12 387 27 14 417

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 701 455 255 659 261 197

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 136

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 1,632 987 541 18,698 1,637 596

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,654 13,680 14,781 15,915 36,037 12,100 7,901

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,762 1,872 4,548 3,335 1,684 955 667

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 265 202 127 272 738 510

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 42 183 147

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 0 2 164 82 58

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 160 2 82 3 4 372

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 155 75 35 89 32 27

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 479 52 117 599 284 164

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,133 2,934 4,951 3,698 2,853 2,278 1,971

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton–––––––––———–––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,545 4,829 2,692 4,214 4,277 4,193 3,759

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,264 4,945 5,363 5,270 6,048 6,052 4,876

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 6,264 6,410 7,772

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,394 24,650 - 6,144 46,034 6,706 7,226

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,918 5,699 5,287 4,733 8,522 3,444 1,122

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,762 4,531 6,073 7,306 7,414 8,168 7,344

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - 5,187

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,498 3,407 11,216 4,624 31,215 5,764 3,634

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,464 4,663 3,007 4,312 12,631 5,312 4,009

1

 Schedule B numbers for caseinate 3501.90.2000 and 3501.90.6000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-26

Table F-26

Fluid whole milk:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––———––—––1,000 dollars––––––––––—————–––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,555 15,438 9,865 3,229 6,408 5,969 6,151

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . 4,603 3,961 4,032 3,524 3,845 3,274 2,919

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,239 2,549 2,779 1,893 2,485 2,406 2,345

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 30 81 248 200 218

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 0 0 0 133

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 111 57 134 177 125

French Polynesia . . . . . . 52 41 49 27 37 77 66

European Union . . . . . . . 26 30 820000

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,002 1,027 1,906 1,758 984 168 103

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,494 23,046 18,854 10,569 14,141 12,271 12,060

––––––––––––––––————––––Thousand liters––––––—————–––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,210 22,521 13,708 4,120 8,948 9,163 9,423

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . 3,897 2,788 2,655 2,472 2,581 2,008 2,366

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,395 1,507 1,805 1,169 1,586 1,644 1,580

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 41 95 320 205 288

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 0 0 0 0 75

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 152 48 107 183 108

French Polynesia . . . . . . 71 52 67 37 45 106 91

European Union . . . . . . . 35 42 1130000

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 867 2,401 2,026 1,208 183 132

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,315 27,777 20,942 9,967 14,795 13,492 14,063

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Dollars per liter––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 686 720 784 716 651 653

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . 1,181 1,421 1,519 1,426 1,490 1,631 1,233

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,605 1,691 1,540 1,619 1,566 1,464 1,483

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 727 859 776 976 756

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . 1,032 - - - - - 1,782

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 727 1,198 1,259 968 1,149

French Polynesia . . . . . . 726 787 726 726 817 727 726

European Union . . . . . . . 727 727 727 ----

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,450 1,185 794 868 815 918 780

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 830 900 1,060 956 910 858 1

 Schedule B number for fluid whole milk 0401.20.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-27

Table F-27

Fluid skim milk:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––———––—––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––—————–––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912 2,837 2,151 1,114 888 805 574

Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 39 48 27 5 34 132

Turks and Caicos Islands . . . 0 0 0 0 0 34 46

Cayman Islands . . . . . . . . . . 0 3 13 34 11 10 33

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 1630703

Aruba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6400000

Barbados ............... 0000300

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 0 21 0 5 15 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,006 1,873 1,410 261 369 90 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,231 4,837 3,785 1,441 1,298 973 788

––––––––––––––––————––––1,000 liters––––––––––—————–––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,856 5,420 3,224 2,053 1,623 838 723

Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 60 46 32 5 43 181

Turks and Caicos Islands . . . 0 0 0 0 0 16 9

Cayman Islands . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 18 47 15 16 52

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 2240904

Aruba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6300000

Barbados ............... 0000300

European Union . . . . . . . . . . 0 29 0 7 12 0 0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,940 1,693 1,851 338 508 119 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,193 7,269 5,363 2,477 2,175 1,032 969

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Dollars per liter––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 523 667 543 547 960 793

Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 647 1,049 839 1,022 789 731

Turks and Caicos Islands . . . - - - - - 2,161 5,354

Cayman Islands . . . . . . . . . . - 726 727 727 727 608 634

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 - 727 - 726 - 727

Aruba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 1,021 -----

Barbados ............... - - - - 1,214 - -

European Union . . . . . . . . . . - 727 - 727 1,233 - -

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 1,106 762 772 726 756 -

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 665 706 582 597 943 813 1

 Schedule B number for fluid skim milk 0401.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-28

Table F-28

Concentrate milk:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1992-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––—––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––———–––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,575

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 236 59 137 584 462 855

Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 77 326

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5 3 0 0 982 135

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 28 68 0 8 62 116

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 235 108

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 20 8 3 0 210 91

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,140 3,792 2,273 837 451 1,469 371

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,429 4,081 2,411 977 1,043 3,497 4,577

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 646 143 191 805 569 930

Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 102 427

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 1 0 0 1,432 204

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 50 0 1 39 70

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 306 154

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 11 5 0 104 17

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,915 4,827 2,562 807 360 1,316 364

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,421 5,489 2,767 1,003 1,166 3,868 4,166

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton––––––––———–––––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - 1,287

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 365 411 717 725 812 919

Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - 761 764

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2,539 3,711 - - 686 663

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,213 5,069 1,363 - 10,038 1,578 1,655

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - 766 700

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,576 2,497 725 725 - 2,009 5,401

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734 786 887 1,037 1,253 1,116 1,019

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 743 871 974 895 904 1,099 1

 Schedule B number for concentrate milk 0402.91.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-29

Table F-29

Dried whole milk:1 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––—––––––––1,000 dollars––––––––––———–––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 0 0 0 4,087 6,023 5,665

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958 67 123 27 63 3,582 4,692

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,293

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 862 84 140 291 0 4,000

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,904 3,592 718 222 452 3,141 3,074

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 14 0 805 2,924

Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 362 0 2,178

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 166 6,414 800 304 668 40

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,564 71,500 65,001 20,216 32,368 41,825 17,941

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,811 76,187 72,340 21,419 37,927 56,044 44,807

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 0 0 0 3,091 2,767 4,587

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 65 44 11 73 1,556 3,152

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,561

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 613 67 115 194 0 3,250

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,393 2,923 566 211 457 2,265 2,263

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 5 0 424 2,368

Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 234 0 1,472

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 197 2,576 633 90 767 14

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,081 44,811 48,041 16,630 21,301 38,291 17,159

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,181 48,609 51,294 17,605 25,440 46,070 37,826

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton–––––––––———–––––––––––

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 - - - 1,322 2,177 1,235

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,424 1,041 2,772 2,343 863 2,302 1,489

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - 1,206

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 1,406 1,253 1,222 1,502 - 1,231

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,150 1,229 1,268 1,051 988 1,387 1,358

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934 - - 3,056 - 1,901 1,235

Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 1,547 - 1,479

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,442 841 2,490 1,264 3,386 870 2,799

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,123 1,596 1,353 1,216 1,520 1,092 1,046

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,163 1,567 1,410 1,217 1,491 1,216 1,185 1

 Schedule B number for dried whole milk 0402.21.000, and 0402.29.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-30

Table F-30

Dried skim milk:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––—––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,349 3,028 24,563 87,711 51,755 111,002 62,907

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,854 9,494 5,236 4,617 3,910 3,278 8,259

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,835 11,469 6,642 7,655 9,435 11,505 7,188

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 276 367 25 34 10 6,967

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,301 2,909 2,991 2,725 2,268 17,360 6,259

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9,113 639 5,605 6,335 8,416 4,776

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 620 77 1,541 481 2,955 3,969

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 474 1,691 320 878 359 309

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,975 71,850 78,395 57,510 82,353 34,647 13,899

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,939 109,233 120,601 167,709 157,449 189,532 114,533

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,442 1,850 14,578 60,882 30,503 57,191 42,964

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928 6,026 3,616 3,230 2,215 1,521 4,513

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,865 6,811 4,167 6,018 5,962 5,714 3,725

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 309 234 37 33 4 4,130

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 1,649 1,940 1,781 1,480 7,804 3,665

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6,131 425 4,929 3,303 3,860 2,826

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 441 111 1,185 575 1,393 2,045

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 225 779 248 490 237 521

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,445 38,628 47,066 42,548 56,487 18,435 9,674

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,422 62,070 72,916 120,858 101,048 96,159 74,063

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton–––––––––———–––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,718 1,637 1,685 1,441 1,697 1,941 1,464

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,999 1,575 1,448 1,429 1,765 2,155 1,830

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,056 1,684 1,594 1,272 1,583 2,014 1,930

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,422 893 1,570 686 1,026 2,252 1,687

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,414 1,764 1,541 1,530 1,532 2,225 1,708

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 1,486 1,503 1,137 1,918 2,180 1,690

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,324 1,406 700 1,301 836 2,122 1,941

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,856 2,101 2,171 1,292 1,789 1,513 594

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 538 600 740 686 532 696

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 568 605 721 642 507 647 1

 Schedule B number for dried skim milk 0402.10.000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-31

Table F-31

Whey:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––—––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––———–––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,183 1,584 1,564 1,015 604 1,476 1,148

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 0 22 107 0 137 445

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 122 0 0 0 0 40

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 0 0 0 0 32 33

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,042 1,028 2,131 2,091 345 71 31

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 0 15 0 0 0 9

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 0 39 0 0 0 3

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8 0 17 4 0 3

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 354 398 527 49 39 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,191 3,096 4,169 3,757 1,002 1,755 1,712

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons–––––––––––———––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 959 947 615 366 894 857

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 0 13 65 0 80 270

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 74 0 0 0 0 24

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 0 0 0 0 19 20

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764 622 1,293 1,285 216 43 19

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 9 0 0 0 19

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,384 0 74 0 0 0 2

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5 0 10 2 0 2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 292 241 393 41 24 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,495 1,952 2,577 2,368 625 1,060 1,211

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton––––––––———–––––––––––

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,651 1,651 1,651 1,651 1,651 1,651 1,341

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 - 1,651 1,651 - 1,711 1,651

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1,651 - - - - 1,651

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 - - - - 1,651 1,651

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,364 1,654 1,648 1,627 1,596 1,651 1,651

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,651 - 1,651 - - - 468

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 - 536 - - - 1,650

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 1,651 - 1,651 1,651 - 1,650

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953 1,212 1,651 1,341 1,195 1,625 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 1,586 1,618 1,587 1,603 1,656 1,414

1

 Schedule B number for whey 0404.10.2000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-32

Table F-32

Dried whey:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––—––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––———–––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,475 19,417 17,943 14,438 36,411 17,080 20,194

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,984 15,602 14,938 21,333 30,651 28,349 18,051

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061 4,885 9,258 8,420 6,945 11,415 18,005

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,164 5,628 4,500 5,069 8,699 8,047 5,401

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,193 19,479 12,771 9,320 8,393 4,057 4,683

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,540 2,787 2,451 5,249 5,269 3,715 4,143

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,362 2,054 614 702 558 1,329 1,148

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,605 27,649 24,483 27,225 31,051 22,058 19,287

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,384 97,501 86,958 91,756 127,977 96,050 90,912

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons––––––––––––———––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,033 15,494 16,393 12,581 36,446 16,854 20,297

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,001 21,577 22,153 31,462 37,901 35,701 30,248

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,800 8,598 11,604 12,431 15,838 25,533 39,979

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,230 7,178 6,827 11,355 14,226 13,315 9,494

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,865 11,786 10,956 10,057 10,460 7,215 9,596

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,841 4,128 4,380 9,285 12,785 9,157 10,539

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,327 792 590 221 255 708 199

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,622 36,329 27,311 34,010 53,833 37,743 34,494

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,719 105,882 100,214 121,402 181,744 146,226 154,846

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton–––––––––———–––––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,388 1,253 1,095 1,148 999 1,013 995

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 723 674 678 809 794 597

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 568 798 677 439 447 450

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 784 659 446 611 604 569

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,410 1,653 1,166 927 802 562 488

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894 675 560 565 412 406 393

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,875 2,593 1,040 3,180 2,185 1,879 5,775

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754 761 896 800 577 584 559

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 921 868 756 704 657 587

1

 Schedule B numbers for dried whey 0404.10.0850 and 0404.10.4000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-33

Table F-33

Whey protein concentrate:1

 U.S. exports by destination, 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––––––—––––1,000 dollars––––––––––———–––––––––

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,310 8,060 12,865 11,286 15,973 22,326 23,639

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,018 3,407 4,524 5,495 9,053 16,402 23,115

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958 3,834 9,053 7,664 9,611 14,566 11,299

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,008 3,390 3,307 4,282 5,079 5,231 5,436

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,255 1,327 1,917 2,917 4,142 6,836 3,744

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 634 760 702 901 748 2,203

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1,620 456 728 975 1,269 1,527

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,307 3,482 6,217 9,811 6,287 12,565 8,942

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,997 25,754 39,099 42,885 52,021 79,943 79,905

––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons––––––––––––———––––––––

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 3,710 6,185 4,656 4,884 7,718 8,440

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894 1,124 1,358 1,454 2,345 3,744 5,018

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 160 917 836 838 1,648 869

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 1,303 2,304 2,313 3,110 2,983 3,271

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 751 1,525 896 1,493 2,537 1,795

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 427 997 984 488 375 1,549

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 1,041 754 863 746 1,081 1,120

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,127 2,419 6,322 4,867 4,459 6,501 6,321

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,506 10,935 20,362 16,869 18,363 26,587 28,383

–––––––––––––––––––——–Dollars per ton–––––––––———–––––––––––

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,195 2,173 2,080 2,424 3,271 2,893 2,801

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,256 3,033 3,330 3,778 3,860 4,381 4,606

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,134 23,898 9,868 9,172 11,469 8,839 13,004

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,349 2,602 1,436 1,851 1,633 1,753 1,662

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,258 1,766 1,257 3,253 2,774 2,694 2,086

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 1,485 762 714 1,845 1,994 1,422

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 1,556 604 843 1,307 1,173 1,363

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,160 1,439 983 2,016 1,410 1,933 1,415

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,997 2,355 1,920 2,542 2,833 3,007 2,815

1

 Schedule B numbers for whey protein concentrate 3502.20.0000, 3502.90.0000, and 0404.10.0500.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-34

Table F-34

Milk protein products: U.S. exports by product type,1

 1996-2002

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––——––––1,000 dollars––––––––––––––––———–––––––––

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,384 97,501 86,958 91,756 127,977 96,050 90,912

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 8,997 25,754 39,099 42,885 52,021 79,943 79,905

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,939 109,233 120,601 167,709 157,449 189,532 114,533

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,811 76,187 72,340 21,419 37,927 56,044 44,807

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,494 23,046 18,854 10,569 14,141 12,271 12,060

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,654 13,680 14,781 15,915 36,037 12,100 7,901

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 5,728 7,256 5,436 7,247 12,201 8,328 4,920

Concentrated milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,429 4,081 2,411 977 1,043 3,497 4,577

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,584 6,765 10,080 9,534 12,661 7,037 2,270

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,191 3,096 4,169 3,757 1,002 1,755 1,712

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,231 4,837 3,785 1,441 1,298 973 788

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222,442 371,436 378,514 373,209 453,757 467,530 364,385

–––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons––––––––––––———––––––––

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,719 105,882 100,214 121,402 181,744 146,226 154,846

Whey protein concentrate . . . . . . . . 4,506 10,935 20,362 16,869 18,363 26,587 28,383

Skim milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,422 62,070 72,916 120,858 101,048 96,159 74,063

Whole milk powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,181 48,609 51,294 17,605 25,440 46,070 37,826

Fluid whole milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,315 27,777 20,942 9,967 14,795 13,493 14,063

Caseinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,133 2,934 4,951 3,698 2,853 2,278 1,971

Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . 3,136 3,175 2,605 2,977 4,540 2,843 2,323

Concentrated milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,421 5,489 2,767 1,003 1,166 3,868 4,166

Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962 1,037 1,504 1,517 2,121 1,072 448

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,495 1,952 2,577 2,368 625 1,060 1,211

Fluid skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,193 7,269 5,363 2,477 2,175 1,032 969

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,483 277,129 285,495 300,741 354,870 340,688 320,269 1

 Casein 3501.10.0000; caseinate 3501.90.2000, and 3501.90.6000; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.0000; skim

milk powder 0402.21.0000; whey protein concentrate 3502.20.0000, 3502.90.0000, 0404.10.0500; whole milk powder

0402..21.000 and 0402.29.0000; whey 0404.10.2000: fluid whole milk 0401.20.0000; concentrated milk

0402.91.0000; dried whey 0404.10.0850, 0404.10.4000; and fluid skim milk 0401.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
F-35

Table F-35

Milk protein products: U.S. exports by destination, 1

 1996-2002

Market 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

–––––––––––––––——––––1,000 dollars–––––––––––———–––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,978 106,815 120,261 125,198 116,547 153,461 102,086

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,286 31,723 35,481 43,160 51,826 54,057 48,092

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,139 31,252 30,207 23,978 28,486 29,129 28,668

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,260 8,505 10,631 11,727 11,187 26,709 24,093

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,315 17,355 11,619 15,860 20,636 26,228 19,962

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,540 13,901 8,183 10,995 10,934 10,060 16,983

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000 7,582 11,423 12,326 11,551 15,341 14,517

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,780 13,168 9,074 7,310 9,765 11,237 11,065

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,940 11,559 1,527 9,871 8,974 9,579 9,677

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 0 30 0 4,111 6,023 8,240

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,488 129,575 140,078 112,785 179,744 125,705 81,001

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231,104 371,435 378,514 373,211 453,758 467,529 364,385

–––––––––––––————–––––––Metric tons––––––––––––———––––––––

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,362 80,539 89,829 88,715 87,471 92,243 80,451

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,001 27,239 29,902 37,859 44,052 42,641 38,267

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,154 21,151 22,386 19,200 18,308 15,635 18,314

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,998 10,548 13,794 14,975 18,513 30,532 43,704

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,907 14,365 11,488 18,982 21,804 22,776 17,888

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,902 11,195 8,807 13,484 15,966 12,639 18,715

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,824 11,073 14,095 12,987 16,080 21,469 12,679

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,302 13,256 9,407 8,875 11,852 14,299 12,328

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,985 8,876 1,258 7,733 6,138 5,177 7,361

Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 17 0 3,108 2,767 6,587

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,876 78,843 84,513 77,862 111,577 80,511 63,975

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,564 277,085 285,496 300,672 354,869 340,689 320,269 1

 Casein 3501.10.0000; caseinate 3501.90.2000, and 3501.90.6000; milk protein concentrate 0404.90.0000; skim

milk powder 0402.21.0000; whey protein concentrate 3502.20.0000, 3502.90.0000, 0404.10.0500; whole milk powder

0402.21.000 and 0402.29.0000; whey 0404.10.2000: fluid whole milk 0401.20.0000; concentrated milk

0402.91.0000; dried whey 0404.10.0850, 0404.10.4000; and fluid skim milk 0401.10.0000.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

APPENDIX G

TARIFF TERMS AND TABLES

G-3

Tariff and Trade Agreement Terms

In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), chapters 1through 97 cover

all goods in trade and incorporate the internationally adopted Harmonized Commodity

Description and Coding System through the 6-digit level of product description. Subordinate

U.S. 8-digit rate lines, either enacted by Congress or proclaimed by the President, allow

more narrowly applicable duty rates; nonlegal 10-digit statistical reporting numbers provide

data of national interest. Chapters 98 and 99 contain special U.S. classifications and

temporary rate provisions, respectively. The HTS replaced the Tariff Schedules of the

United States (TSUS) effective Jan. 1, 1989. The HTS is updated by published supplements

and by electronic revisions at http://www.usitc.gov/taffairs.htm#HTS; see preface pages and

change records in each document.

Duty rates in the general subcolumn of HTS column 1 are normal trade relations rates; many

general rates have been eliminated or are being reduced due to concessions resulting from

the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. General duty rates apply to all

countries except those listed in HTS general note 3(b) (Cuba, Laos, and North Korea) plus

Serbia and Montenegro, which are subject to the statutory rates set forth in column 2.

Specified goods from designated general-rate countries may be eligible for reduced rates of

duty or duty-free entry under preferential tariff programs, as set forth in the special

subcolumn of HTS rate of duty column 1 or in the general notes. If eligibility for special

tariff rates is not claimed or established, goods are dutiable at general rates. The HTS does

not list countries covered by a total or partial embargo; it likewise does not contain

antidumping or countervailing duties (consult the International Trade Administration of the

Department of Commerce).

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) affords nonreciprocal duty-free entry to

certain goods of designated beneficiary developing countries. The U.S. GSP, under title V

of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, now applies to merchandise imported on or after Jan.

1, 1976, and before the close of Dec. 31, 2006. Indicated by the symbol "A", "A*", or "A+"

in the special subcolumn, The legal framework of the GSP is set forth in HTS general note

4; eligible articles must be the product of and imported directly from designated beneficiary

developing countries. Eligible products of listed sub-Saharan African countries may qualify

for duty-free entry under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (see HTS gen.

note 16) through Sept. 30, 2008, as indicated by the symbol “D” in the special subcolumn;

see subchapter XIX of chapter 98.

The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) affords nonreciprocal tariff

preferences to designated Caribbean Basin developing countries. The CBERA--enacted in

title II of Pub. Law 98-67, implemented by Presidential Proclamation 5133 of Nov. 30, 1983,

and amended by the Customs and Trade Act of 1990, applies to goods entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse for consumption, on or after Jan. 1, 1984. Indicated by the symbol "E" or

"E*" in the special subcolumn, CBERA provides duty-free entry to eligible articles, and

reduced-duty treatment to certain other articles, which are the product of and imported

directly from designated countries (see HTS gen. note 7). Other eligible products of listed

beneficiary countries may qualify for duty-free or reduced-duty entry under the Caribbean

Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) (see HTS gen. note 17), through Sept. 30, 2008, as

indicated by the symbol “R” in the special subcolumn; see also subchapter XX of chapter 98.

Free rates of duty in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol "IL" are applicable to

products of Israel under the United States-Israel Free Trade Area Implementation Act of
G-4

1985 (IFTA), as provided in general note 8 to the HTS; see also subchapter VIII of

chapter 99. 

Nonreciprocal duty-free treatment in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol "J" or

"J*" in parentheses is afforded to eligible articles from designated beneficiary countries

under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), enacted as title II of Pub. Law 102-182

(effective July 22, 1992; see HTS gen. note 11) and renewed through December 31, 2006,

by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act of 2002. Goods eligible for new

benefits under the latter act are designated by a “J+” in the special subcolumn; see also

subchapter XXI of chapter 98.

Preferential free rates of duty in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol "CA" are

applicable to eligible goods of Canada, and rates followed by the symbol "MX" are

applicable to eligible goods of Mexico, under the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), as provided in general note 12 to the HTS and implemented effective Jan. 1,

1994, by Presidential Proclamation 6641 of Dec. 15, 1993. Goods must originate in the

NAFTA region under rules set forth in general note 12(t) and meet other requirements of the

note and applicable regulations.

Preferential rates of duty in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol “JO” are

applicable to eligible goods of Jordan under the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area

Implementation Act, (JFTA) effective as of Dec. 17, 2001; see HTS gen. note 18 and

subchapter IX of chapter 99.

Other special tariff treatment applies to particular products of insular possessions (gen. note

3(a)(iv)), products of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (gen. note 3(a)(v)), goods covered by

the Automotive Products Trade Act (APTA) (gen. note 5) and the Agreement on Trade in

Civil Aircraft (ATCA) (gen. note 6), articles imported from freely associated states (gen.

note 10), pharmaceutical products (gen. note 13), and intermediate chemicals for dyes (gen.

note 14).

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), pursuant to the

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and based upon the earlier GATT

1947 (61 Stat. (pt. 5) A58; 8 UST (pt. 2) 1786), is the primary multilateral system of

discipline and principles governing international trade. The agreements mandate

most-favored-nation treatment, maintenance of scheduled concession rates of duty, and

national treatment for imported goods; GATT provides the legal framework for customs

valuation standards, "escape clause" (emergency) actions, antidumping and countervailing

duties, dispute settlement, and other measures. Results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral

tariff negotiations are set forth in separate schedules of concessions for each participating

contracting party, with the U.S. schedule designated as Schedule XX. Pursuant to the

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) of the GATT 1994, member countries are

phasing out restrictions on imports under the prior "Arrangement Regarding International

Trade in Textiles" (known as the Multifiber Arrangement (MFA)). Under the MFA, a

departure from GATT 1947 provisions, importing and exporting countries negotiated

bilateral agreements limiting textile and apparel shipments, and importing countries could

take unilateral action to control shipments. Quantitative limits were established on textiles

and apparel of cotton, other vegetable fibers, wool, man-made fibers or silk blends in an

effort to prevent or limit market disruption in the importing countries. The ATC establishes

notification and safeguard procedures, along with other rules concerning the customs

treatment of textile and apparel shipments, and calls for the eventual complete integration

of this sector into the GATT 1994 and the phase-out of quotas over a ten-year period, or by

Jan. 1, 2005.
G-5

Table G-1Milk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings; description; U.S. column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003;

U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S. imports, 2002

HTSsubheading Brief description

Column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003 U.S. exports

2002

U.S. imports

2002

General Special1

–––Value (1,000 dollars)–––

0401.10.00 Milk and cream, not concentrated or sweetened, fat content, by 

weight, not exceeding 1 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.34¢/liter Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) 788 120

0401.20.20 Milk and cream, not concentrated or sweetened, fat content, by 

weight, exceeding 1 percent, but not exceeding 6 percent,for not over 11,356,236 liters entering in any calendar year . . . . . 0.43¢/liter Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (3) 2,525

0401.20.40 Milk and cream, not concentrated or sweetened, fat content, by 

weight, not exceeding 1 percent, but not exceeding 6 percent,over 11,356,236 liters entering in any calendar year . . . . . . . . . . 1.5¢/liter Free (CA,IL,MX) 0.6¢/liter (JO) (3) 31

0402.10.05 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight, notexceeding 1.5 percent, not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (4) 454

0402.10.10 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight, notexceeding 1.5 percent, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (4) 6,967

0402.10.50 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight, notexceeding 1.5 percent, over tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.5¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (4) 1,197

0402.21.02 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, but not exceeding 3 percent, notcounted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (5) 13

0402.21.05 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder, 

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, but not exceeding 3 percent, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (5) 919

0402.21.25 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, but not exceeding 3 percent, overtariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.5¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (5) 901

See footnotes at end of table.
G-6

Table G-1—ContinuedMilk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings; description; U.S. column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003;

U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S. imports, 2002

HTSsubheading Brief description

Column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003 U.S. exports

2002

U.S. imports

2002 General Special1

–––Value (1,000 dollars)–––

0402.21.27 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 3 percent, but not exceeding 35 percent, notcounted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (5) 103

0402.21.30 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 3 percent, but not exceeding 35 percent, undertariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (5) 5,027

0402.21.50 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 3 percent, but not exceeding 35 percent, overtariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.092/kg Free (MX) (2) (5) 2,326

0402.21.73 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 35 percent, not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . 13.7¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (5) 0

0402.21.75 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 35 percent, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (5) 0

0402.21.90 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 35 percent, over tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.556/kg Free (MX) (2) (5) 56

0402.29.05 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . 17.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (6) 93

0402.29.10 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (6) 33

0402.29.50 Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened, in powder,

granules, or other solid form, fat content, by weight,exceeding 1.5 percent, over tariff-rate quota ................

$1.104/kg +14.9% Free (MX) (2) (6) 11

0402.91.03 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in airtight containers,not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (7) 250

See footnotes at end of table.
G-7

Table G-1—ContinuedMilk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings; description; U.S. column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003;

U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S. imports, 2002

HTSsubheading

Column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003 U.S. exports

2002

U.S. imports

2002 Brief description General Special1

–––Value (1,000 dollars)–––

0402.91.06 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in other than airtightcontainers, not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (7) 0

0402.91.10 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in airtight containers,under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (7) 1,161

0402.91.30 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in other than airtightcontainers, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (7) 0

0402.91.70 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in airtight containers,over tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (7) 25

0402.91.90 Milk and cream, concentrated, not sweetened, in other than

powder, granules, or other solid form, in other than airtightcontainers, over tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (7) 19

0404.10.05 Whey protein concentrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,MX)

 2.1% (JO)

40,579 8,545

0404.10.08 Modified whey, other than whey protein concentrates, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, not counted towardstariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% Free (A,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (8) 0

0404.10.11 Modified whey, other than whey protein concentrates, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . 13% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (8) 60

0404.10.15 Modified whey, other than whey protein concentrates, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, over tariff-rate quota .......

$1.035/kg +8.5% Free (MX) (2) (8) 3

0404.10.15 Modified whey, other than whey protein concentrates, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, over tariff-rate quota .......

$1.035/kg +8.5% Free (MX) (2) (8) 3

0404.10.20 Fluid whey, whether or not concentrated or sweetened . . . . . . . . . . 0.34¢/liter Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) 1,712 0

0404.10.48 Dried whey, whether or not concentrated or sweetened, not

counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (9) 147

0404.10.50 Dried whey, whether or not concentrated or sweetened, under

tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3¢/kg Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (9) 0

0404.10.90 Dried whey, whether or not concentrated or sweetened, over

tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.6¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (9) 2

0404.90.10 Milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7¢/kg Free (A+,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (10) 114,619See footnotes at end of table.
G-8

Table G-1—ContinuedMilk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings; description; U.S. column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003;

U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S. imports, 2002

HTSsubheading Brief description

Column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003 U.S. exports

2002

U.S. imports

2002 General Special1

–––Value (1,000 dollars)–––

0404.90.28 Dairy products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, not elsewhere specifiedor included, containing over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand not packaged for retail sale, not counted towards tariffrate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (10) 0

0404.90.30 Products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether

or not concentrated or sweetened, not elsewhere specifiedor included, containing over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand not packaged for retail sale, under tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . 14.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,JO) (10) 83

0404.90.50 Products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or

not concentrated or sweetened, not elsewhere specified orincluded, containing over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand not packaged for retail sale, over tariff-rate quota ..........

$1.189/kg +8.5% Free (MX) (2) (10) 201

0404.90.70 Products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or

not concentrated or sweetened, not elsewhere specified orincluded, containing not over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfat and not packaged for retail sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5% Free (A+,CA,D,E,IL,J,MX) 2.1% (JO) (10) 3,875

2106.90.03 Products derived from dried milk, dried buttermilk, or dried

whey, containing not over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand which are mixed with other ingredients, including sugar,not counted towards tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 ¢/kg Free (A,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (11) 26

2106.90.06 Products derived from dried milk, dried buttermilk, or dried

whey, containing not over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand which are mixed with other ingredients, including sugar,under the tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 ¢/kg Free (A,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (11) 0

2106.90.09 Products derived from dried milk, dried buttermilk, or dried

whey, containing not over 5.5 percent by weight of butterfatand which are mixed with other ingredients, including sugar,over the tariff-rate quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.2¢/kg Free (MX) (2) (11) 68

3501.10.10 Casein, milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.37¢/kg Free (A*,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) (12) 31,2903501.10.50 Casein, other than milk protein concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free (12) 230,3203501.90.60 Caseinates and casein derivatives, nesoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.37¢/kg Free (A*,CA,E,IL,J,JO,MX) 4,415 156,605

3502.20.00 Milk albumin, including concentrates of two or more whey proteins . . Free 25,760 42,202See footnotes at end of table.
G-9

Table G-1—ContinuedMilk protein products: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings; description; U.S. column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003;

U.S. exports, 2002; and U.S. imports, 2002

HTSsubheading Brief description

Column-1 rate of duty as of January 1, 2003 U.S. exports

2002

U.S. imports

2002 General Special1

–––Value (1,000 dollars)––

3502.90.00 Other albumin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 13,567 22,363

1 Programs under which special tariff treatment may be provided and the corresponding symbols for such programs as they are indicated in the “Special”

subcolumn are as follows: North American Free Trade Agreement: Goods of Canada (CA); North American Free Trade Agreement, Goods of Mexico (MX);

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (E); United States-Israel Free Trade Act (IL); Andean Trade Preference Act (J); U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Area

Implementation Act (JO); General System of Preferences (A*). See below for more information on tariff and trade agreement terms.

2 Imports of this product from Jordan and enter under this HTS subheading. Duties applying to imports from Jordan are given in subchapter 9 of chapter 99 of

the HTS. 

3 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk and cream, not concentrated or sweetened of fat

content exceeding 1 percent but not exceeding 6 percent (schedule B subheading 0401.20.0000) was $12.1 million in 2002.

4 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened in powder,

granules or other solid forms of fat content not exceeding 1.5 percent (schedule B subheading 0402.10.0000) was $114.5 million in 2002.

5 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened in powder,

granules or other solid forms of fat content not exceeding 1.5 percent and not containing added sugar or other sweetening (schedule B subheading 0402.21.0000)

was $31.4 million in 2002.

6 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened in powder,

granules or other solid forms of fat content not exceeding 1.5 percent (schedule B subheading 0402.29.0000) was $13.4 million in 2002.

7 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened in powder, not

in granules or other solid forms of fat content not exceeding 1.5 percent and not containing added sugar or other sweetening (schedule B subheading

0402.91.0000) was $4.6 million in 2002.

8 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of modified whey other than whey protein concentrates

(schedule B subheading 0404.10.0850) was $6.8 million in 2002.

9 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of dried whey (schedule B subheading 0404.10.4000) was

$84.1 million in 2002.

10 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of milk protein concentrates and products consisting of natural

milk constituents (schedule B subheading 0404.90.0000) was $4.9 million in 2002.

11 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. Further, Schedule B subheadings for 2106.90 does not break out dairy products.

Therefore, there is no meaningful schedule B data that has a concordance with these import HTS subheadings.

12 The value of U.S. exports is not available for this individual HTS subheading. However, exports of casein (schedule B subheading 3501.10.0000) was

$2.3 million in 2002.Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

APPENDIX H

TECHNICAL MODELING

 1

 As discussed fully in chapter 5, returns (economic rents) resulting from U.S. and EU policy

generated from U.S. imports of a low-protein, blended MPC from the EU, provided substantial

incentives to trade during 1998-2000. These returns are defined by the term, “net potential

revenue.”

 2

 Thomas Cox and Jean-Paul Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis of Price Discrimination and

Domestic Policy Reform in the U.S. Dairy Sector,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

(Feb. 2001), vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 89-106; Dr. Thomas Cox, interview by USITC staff, July 29, 2003.

 3

 Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, Jean-Paul Chavas, Thomas Cox, and Vincent Requillart, “EU

Dairy Policy Reform and Future WTO Negotiations: A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis,” Journal of

Agricultural Economics vol. 53, No. 2 (July 2002), pp. 235-240.

 4

 Yong Zhu, Thomas Cox, and Jean-Paul Chavas, “An Economic Analysis of the Effects of the

Uruguay Round Agreement and Full Trade Liberalization on the World Dairy Sector,” Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47 (1999), pp. 187-200.

 5

 Thomas Cox, Jonathan Coleman, Jean-Paul Chavas, and Yong Zhu, “An Economic Analysis

of the Effects on the World Dairy Sector of Extending Uruguay Round Agreement to 2005,”

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47 (1999), pp. 169-183.

 6

 Karl Meilke, Rahkal Sarker, and Danny Le Roy, “The Potential for Increased Trade in Milk

and Dairy Products Between Canada and the United States Under Trade Liberalization,” Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46 (1998), pp. 149-169.

H-3

Technical Modeling: Overview

This technical appendix includes two sections. First is a summary of the vector

autogregression (VAR) modeling analysis that establishes the existence of a statistically

significant relationship among monthly U.S. imports of milk proteins concentrates (MPCs)

under HTS Chapter 4 from the EU (hereinafter, MPC 4 imports) and net potential revenue

presented in chapter 5 of this report. This first component tests the findings and opinions

uncovered in fieldwork that net potential revenue1

 influences MPC 4 imports. This is done

by specifying a monthly econometric time series model of these two variables and

demonstrating the model’s strong statistical evidence that this relationship exists. More

specifically, this section includes a specification summary of the VAR model; an analysis

of the estimated VAR model’s diagnostic evidence to establish the VAR model’s

appropriateness as a model choice and to demonstrate the statistical strength of the model’s

causal relationship between net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports; and, a summary of

VAR econometric results that illuminate the dynamic nature of the statistically strong

relationship between net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports.

The second section of this appendix is a review of directly relevant literature. Over the last

two decades, there has been a plethora of published research with empirical and econometric

modeling of dairy policy issues. Much of this literature is not directly relevant to the

modeling of U.S. markets for imports of MPCs, casein, and caseinates. To limit this literature

review to relevant literature, only four studies are reviewed here. These four studies attempt

to directly model U.S. markets for MPC, casein, and caseinate imports (hereinafter MCC

imports). 

Two other groups of literature were considered, but not reviewed. First, there are studies that

have not directly modeled MCC markets, but which appear adaptable to the direct modeling

of U.S. (or non-U.S.) markets for MCC imports: Cox and Chavas;2

 Bouamra-Mechemache,

Chavas, Cox, and Requillart;3

 Zhu, Cox, and Chavas;4 Cox, Coleman, Chavas, and Zhu;5 and

Meilke, Sarker, and Le Roy.6

 Second, there are a number of nonempirical and primarily

descriptive inquiries about MCC-related markets: USITC, Section 22 Investigation No. 22-
 7

 U.S. International Trade Commission, “Casein, Mixtures in Chief Value of Casein, and

Lactalbumin,” Report to the President on Investigation No. 22-44 Under Section 22 of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act, USITC publication No. 1217 (Jan. 1982).

 8

 U.S. International Trade Commission, “Casein and its Impact on the Domestic Dairy

Industry,” Report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of

Representatives on Investigation No.332-105 Under Section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

Amended, USITC publication No. 1025 (Dec. 1979).

 9

 USDA, ERS, Casein and Lactalbumin Imports: An Economic and Policy Perspective,

Economics and Statistics Service Staff Report No. AGESS810521 (1982).

 10 USDA, ERS, Effects of Casein Imports, Staff Report No. AGES860321 (Washington, DC: 

USDA/ERS, Apr. 1986).

 11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and

Regulation of Ultra-filtered Milk, GAO–1-326 (Mar. 2001).

 12 Sparks Companies, Inc. Imports of MPCs, Casein, and Caseinates and Market Impacts: A

Special Study for the U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (McLean, VA: Sparks Companies,

May, 2003).

 13 European Dairy Association, selected EU milk protein processors/members, interviews by

USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

H-4

44;7 USITC, Investigation. No. 332-105 (1979);8 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS)

(1982);9

 USDA, ERS (1986);10 U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO);11 and Sparks

Companies, Inc.12

Vector Autoregression Modeling Analysis of Monthly Net

Potential Revenue and MPC 4 Imports

Chapter 5 develops a relationship among monthly MPC 4 imports and net potential revenue

during the 1998-2002 period. This section’s aim is to specify a model incorporating a causal

relationship among net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports; to provide diagnostic evidence

that the model and underlying relationship is statistically sound; and to then provide model

results and analysis to illuminate the dynamic nature of this statistically strong relationship.

Vector Autoregression Model: Specification Issues

The two series, net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports, were estimated as a VAR model

for two reasons. First, field work findings13 suggest that net potential revenue drives U.S.

MPC 4 imports from the EU. And second, statistical evidence emerged that these two

variables are likely stationary in levels.

When a vector system of individually nonstationary variables moves in tandem in a

stationary manner, the variables are said to be cointegrated and should be estimated as a
 14 See Soren Johansen, and Katarina Juselius, “Maximum Likelihood and Inference on

Cointegration: With Applications to the Demand for Money,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and

Statistics, vol. 52 (1990), pp. 169-10; Soren Johansen, and Katarina Juselius, “Testing Structural

Hypotheses in Multivariate Cointegration Analysis of the PPP and UIP for UK,” Journal of

Econometrics, vol. 53 (1992), pp. 103-25.

 15 Following recommendations of Harris and of Kwiatowski et al., ADF IJ tests were conducted

at weaker levels of statistical significance ranging from 10 percent to 20 percent, rather than at the

5 percent or 1 percent levels because of well-known ADF test problems in generating results

biased towards nonstationarity when, as in this study, samples are finite and/or when an otherwise

stationary variable has a unit root approaching unity and is “almost nonstationary.” As noted by

these researchers, and summarized by Babula, Bessler, and Payne, in cases where variables such as

net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports are represented by finite samples and are “almost

stationary,” these variables should be treated as stationary and should not be differenced. As a

result, 10 percent to 20 percent significance levels were chosen for the ADF tests to avoid an

excessive tendency or bias of ADF tests to suggest that the variables are nonstationary. Following

Kwiatowski et al.’s recommendations, and Babula, Bessler, and Payne’s recent procedures, the

KPSS stationarity test (with a null hypothesis of stationarity rather than the ADF null of

nonstationarity) was used as supplemental evidence when ADF test results suggested stationarity

at the weaker 10 percent or 20 percent significance levels. See Richard Harris. Cointegration

Analysis in Econometric Modeling (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1994), pp. 24-27;

Denis Kwiatowski, Peter Phillips, Peter Schmidt, and Yongcheoul Shin, “Testing the Null

Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of a Unit Root: How Sure Are We that

Economic Time Series Have a Unit Root?”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 54 (1992), pp. 159-78;

Ronald Babula, David Bessler, and Warren Payne, “Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. WheatRelated Markets: Applying Directed Acyclic Graphs to a Time Series Model,” Journal of

Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 36, No. 1 (2004), pp. 5-6.

 16 Richard Harris. Cointegration Analysis, pp. 24-27; Denis Kwiatowski, et al. “Testing the

Null Hypothesis of Stationarity,” pp. 159-78; Ronald Babula, David Bessler, and Warren Payne,

“Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. Wheat-Related Markets,” pp. 5-6.

H-5

vector error correction, or VEC model.14 These two variables were posited as a monthly

VAR model, and not a cointegrated (VEC) model, because evidence suggested that the two

variables were stationary in levels, thereby precluding the need for a cointegration or vector

error correction model. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) IJ tests and the stationarity test of

Kwiatowski et. al. (hereinafter, KPSS test) were conducted on the levels of the two

endogenous variables and suggested that the variables were likely stationary in levels.15 The

net potential revenue variable and MPC 4 import variables generated ADF IJ values ranging

from -2.3 and -2.4, which suggests that evidence is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of

nonstationarity (see footnote 15). And as supplemental evidence, KPSS tests were conducted

on these two variables. Because the following KPSS test values fall below the critical values

of 0.176 (5 percent significance level) and 0.216 (1 percent significance level), evidence

from KPSS tests at both the 1 percent and 5 percent significance levels was insufficient to

reject the null hypotheses that both variables were stationary: 0.14 for net potential revenue

and 0.135 for MPC 4 imports. As a result, and following the recommendations and

procedures of Harris; Kwiatowski, et. al.; and Babula, Bessler, and Payne, net potential

revenue and MPC 4 imports were treated as stationary, thereby justifying their estimation

as a VAR.16 Consequently, the issue of cointegration is precluded as a valid concern and

there is no need to model the two variables as a VEC model.
 17 Chapter 5 defines the sources and calculation methods for the net potential revenue data. The

MPC 4 imports are the U.S. imports of milk proteins under Chapter 4 of the HTS, and are from the

U.S. Department of Commerce. Throughout, monthly dates are denoted numerically, with the

digits 1 through 12 right of the colon denoting the months of January through December,

respectively.

 18 George Tiao and George Box, “Modeling Multiple Time Series: With Applications,”

Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 76 (1978), pp. 802-16.

 19 Ronald Babula and Karl Rich, “Time Series Analysis of the U.S. Durum Wheat and Pasta

Markets,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, vol. 32, No. 2 (2001), pp. 7-9; Ronald Babula,

David Bessler, and Warren Payne, “Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. Wheat-Related 

Markets,” pp. 4-5.

H-6

Monthly net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports were located for 1997:07-2003:03.17 The

VAR model was estimated over the 1998:01-2003:03 period, to permit six observations to

be “saved” to implement the lag search procedures of Tiao and Box, which suggested a

six-lag order.18 As a result, the VAR model of net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports is

as follows:

(H.1) POTREV(t) = a0 + a(s, t-1)*POTREV(t-1) + . . . + a(s, t-6)*POTREV(t-6)

 + a(m, t-1)*MPC 4(t-1) + . . . . + a(m, t-6)*MPC 4(t-6) + R(s,t)

(H.2) MPC 4(t) = b0 + b(s, t-1)*POTREV(t-1) + . . . + b(s, t-6)*POTREV(t-6)

 + b(m, t-1)*MPC 4(t-1) + . . . . + b(m, t-6)*MPC 4(t-6) + R(m, t)

Above, POTREV and MPC 4 represent net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports,

respectively, with the parenthetical t referring to the current period-t value, and the

parenthetical (t-1) through (t-6) terms referring to the six lags. The a and b terms refer to the

estimated regression coefficients on the net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports,

respectively, and the parenthetical terms on these coefficients refer as follows: s and m refer

to coefficients on POTREV and MPC 4 in each equation, and the t-i, where i = 1, . . . 6,

refers to the lagged values. R(s,t) and R(m,t) refer to the white noise residuals on the

POTREV and MPC 4 equations, respectively. The nought-subscripted coefficients refer to

the intercept estimates.

Following recent commodity-based VAR econometric studies, a number of binary variables

were also included in each of the two equations.19 Eleven seasonal binary variables were

included to capture seasonal effects, while a binary variable defined for April 2000 and

ensuing observations was included to account for the establishment of effective reduction

coefficients.

Diagnostic Evidence of Adequate Vector Autogression Model

Specification

Following recent VAR econometric research, Ljung-Box portmanteau and Dickey-Fuller

(DF) tests were applied to the estimated residuals of each VAR equation, and evidence

strongly suggested that the estimated VAR above has been adequately specified by literatureestablished standards, rendering credence to the hypothesized causal relationship from
 20 Ronald Babula and Karl Rich, “Time Series Analysis of the U.S. Durum and Pasta Markets,”

p. 7; Ronald Babula, David Bessler, and Warren Payne, “Dynamic Relationships Among U.S.

Wheat-Related Markets,” p. 6.

 21 A summary of the Ljung-Box portmanteau test is provided in C.W.J. Granger and Paul

Newbold, Forecasting Time Series (New York: Academic Press, 1986), pp. 99-101.

 22 For the recommendation, see C.W.J. Granger and Paul Newbold, Forecasting Time Series,

pp. 99-101. For recent application of the Ljung-Box and DF tests to discern model adequacy of

VAR econometric studies of U.S. commodity-based markets, see Ronald Babula and Karl Rich,

“Time Series Analysis of the U.S. Durum and Pasta Markets,” p. 7; Ronald Babula, David Bessler,

and Warren Payne, “Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. Wheat-Related Markets,” p. 7.

 23 The well-known Chow test procedure is summarized in Peter Kennedy, A Guide to

Econometrics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1985), p. 87.

H-7

POTREV to MPC 4.20 Ljung-Box portmanteau, or Q-values, test the hypothesis that an

equation is adequately specified.21 Since the following VAR equation Q-values fall far below

the critical chi-square value (15 degrees of freedom) of 30.58, evidence at the 1 percent

significance level was insufficient for both equations to reject the null hypothesis of model

adequacy: 12.8 for POTREV and 27.3 for MPC 4. Following Granger and Newbold’s

recommendation that one not rely exclusively on portmanteau tests to discern time series

model adequacy, DF IJ tests were conducted on the two VAR equations’ estimated residuals,

with stationary residuals suggesting model adequacy.22 Given the pseudo-t values of -7.7 for

SHREV and -8.3 for MPC 4 imports, evidence at the 1 percent and 5 percent significance

levels strongly rejected the null hypotheses that each equation’s residuals were

nonstationary, having led to the conclusion that the model equations have likely been

adequately specified. These diagnostics strongly support the existence of the modeled

relationship among net potential revenue and MPC 4 imports.

As well, evidence suggested that the VAR equations did not experience structural change,

such that the estimated coefficients were likely time-invariant and not subject to structural

change. Chow tests of structural change were conducted for two junctures in each equation:

March 2000 to account for the establishment of the first effective EU reduction coefficient

for export refunds and July 2000 to account for the ending of EU WTO carryover

commitments on export refunds (see chapter 5 of this report). The Chow test procedure tests

the null hypothesis that there was no structural change at a chosen date or juncture (here

March 2000 and July 2000).23 The critical F-values for tests of structural change at both dates

(degrees of freedom 24/15) were 3.29 at the 1 percent and 2.29 at the 5 percent significance

levels. Since the following Chow test values were far below the critical F-values at both

levels of significance, evidence at the 1 and 5 percent significance levels was insufficient to

reject the null hypotheses that either the net potential revenue or MPC 4 import equation was

subject to structural change at either March or July 2000: 0.40 for POTREV and 1.2 for

MPC 4 for the March 2000 tests; and 0.4 for POTEV and 1.3 for MPC 4 for the July 2000

tests. 

Analysis of Forecast Error Variance Decompositions

Analysis of decompositions of forecast error variance (FEV) is a well-known tool of VAR

econometrics for discerning relationships among the two modeled VAR variables. Closely

related to Granger causality analysis, FEV decompositions also provide evidence concerning

the simple existence of a causal relationship among two variables, here POTREV and MPC
 24 David Bessler, “An Analysis of Dynamic Economic Relationships: An Application to the

U.S. Hog Market,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32 (1984), p. 111.

 25 David Bessler, “An Analysis of Dynamic Economic Relationships,” p. 111; Ronald Babula

and Karl Rich, “Time Series Analysis of the U.S. Durum and Pasta Markets,” pp. 14-15; Ronald

Babula, David Bessler, and Warren Payne, “Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. Wheat-Related 

Markets,” pp. 15-17.

 26 Christopher Sims, “Macroeconomics and Reality,” Econometrica, vol. 48 (1998), pp. 1-48;

David Bessler, “An Analysis of Dynamic Economic Relationships,” p. 111.

 27 David Bessler, “An Analysis of Dynamic Economic Relationships,” p. 112; David Bessler

and D. Akleman, “Farm Prices, Retail Prices, and Directed Graphs: Results for Pork and Beef,”

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 80, No. 5 (1998), pp. 1144-49.

 28 Ibid., p. 111.

 29 European Dairy Association, selected EU milk protein processors/members, interviews by

USITC staff, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 15, 2003.

 30 Given the fieldwork findings just noted and the simplicity of the two-variable VAR, there

was no apparent need to explore alternative methods of ordering variables in contemporaneous

time. These include structural VAR modeling orderings developed by Bernanke and orderings

based on analysis of directed acyclic graphs developed by David Bessler and D. Akleman. See

Benjamin Bernanke, “Alternative Explanations of Money-Income Correlation,” CarnegieRochester Conference Series on Public Policy, vol. 25 (1986), pp. 183-99; David Bessler and

D. Akleman, “Farm Prices, Retail Prices, and Directed Graphs,” pp. 1144-1146. A summary of

these two alternative methods is provided in Ronald Babula, David Bessler, and Warren Payne,

“Dynamic Relationships Among U.S. Wheat-Related Markets,” pp. 8-9.

H-8

4.24 However, analysis of FEV decompositions goes further than Granger causality tests: a

modeled endogenous variable’s FEV is attributed at alternative time horizons to shocks in

each modeled endogenous variable (including itself), and not only provides evidence of the

existence of a relationship among two variables, but illuminates the strength and dynamic

timing of such a relationship.25 We provide the FEV decompositions at alternative monthly

time horizons for MPC 4 imports, as estimated in the above VAR model. These provide the

percentage of MPC 4 variation attributable to movements in net potential revenue and to

movements in itself. 

Sims and Bessler noted that for a VAR model to generate reliable FEV decompositions, one

must fully account for both serial correlation (causal relationships over time) and

contemporaneous correlations (causal relationships in current time) among a VAR model’s

endogenous variables.26 Bessler and Bessler and Akleman noted that a VAR typically

accounts for serial causality or correlations over time via the chosen lag structure, but says

little about contemporaneously correlated current errors or causality relations.27 A common

and traditional way to handle such contemporaneous correlations has been to impose a

Choleski decomposition, whereby one imposes a theoretically based Wold causal ordering

on the variance/covariance matrix of the estimated VAR.28 Given that there are only two

variables comprising the VAR model (POTREV and MPC 4), the choice of orderings was

straightforward: POTREV causes MPC 4 or MPC 4 causes POTREV in contemporaneous

time. Evidence from EU fieldwork clearly suggested that POTREV has been influencing

U.S. MPC 4 imports both in contemporaneous time and over time.29 As a result, the chosen

ordering of the two-variable VAR was that POTREV causes MPC 4, with no apparent need

to pursue other other alternative ways of ordering systems of endogenous VAR variables in

contemporaneous time.30
 31 Note that this 28 percent is not the coefficient of determination or r-square value used to

summarize the percent of the dependent variable’s total variation explained collectively by the

equations regressors.

H-9

The well-specified VAR model above clearly establishes evidence supporting the fieldwork

findings that there is a strong statistical relationship among net potential revenue and MPC

4 imports. The FEV decomposition patterns in table H-1 emerged.

Table H-1

Forecast error variance (FEV) decompositions of U.S. MPC 4 imports

Monthly horizon

Percent explanation of MPC 4 variation

from POTREV movements

Percent explanation of MPC 4

variation from own-variation

Month 1 3.60 96.4

Month 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.48 90.52

Month 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.93 90.07

Month 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.82 82.18

Month 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.00 83.00

Month 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.17 79.83

Month 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.45 76.55

Month 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.05 71.95

Source: Compiled by Commission from estimations of the VAR model.

A number of points are noted. First, FEV decompositions suggest that up to about 28 percent

of MPC 4 imports’ variation is driven or attributable to movements in net potential revenue

by the 18-month horizon.31 Second, there is a gradual unfolding of this POTREV influence

on MPC 4 imports. More specifically, movements in net potential revenue have MPC 4

influences that are initially negligible (3.6 percent at the month-1 horizon), gain in strength

through month-6 where they explain up to 17 percent or 18 percent of MPC 4 variation, and

ultimately explain about 28 percent of the variation in MPC 4 imports. Pronounced

POTREV-induced effects on MPC 4 imports take a few months to arise.

Review of Studies Directly Modeling MPC and

Casein-Related Product Markets and Effects

Burke and Cox (2003, ongoing)

Burke and Cox built a mathematical program that directly models U.S. markets for MPCs,

casein, and caseinates (hereafter, U.S. milk protein imports) and the effects of such imports
 32 University of Wisconsin dairy economists, interviews by USITC staff, Madison, WI,

Aug. 19, 2001; telephone conversation with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy

economist, Sept. 22, 2003.

 33 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal: Assessing

the Impacts of Off-Shore Dairy-Based Ingredients on the U.S. Dairy Sector,” unpublished and

undated paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI,

received by Commission staff on Sept. 30, 2003; University of Wisconsin dairy economists,

interviews with USITC staff, Madison, WI, Aug. 19, 2001; telephone conversation with Dr.

Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist, Sept. 22 and Oct. 1, 2003.

 34 Thomas Cox and Jean-Paul Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis of Price Discrimination and

Domestic Policy Reform in the U.S. Dairy Sector,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

vol. 83, No. 1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 89-106.

 35 Ibid., pp. 89-90; Dr. Thomas Cox, interview by USITC staff, July 29, 2003.

 36 T. Takayama and George Judge. Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models

(Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland, 1971).

 37 Paul Samuelson, “Spatial Price Equilibrium and Linear Programming,” American Economic

Review, vol. 42 (June 1952), pp. 283-303.

 38 Thomas Cox and Jean-Paul Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis,” pp. 89-90; and Dr. Thomas

Cox, interview by USITC staff, July 29, 2003. See also Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, Jean-Paul

Chavas, Thomas Cox, and Vincent Requillart, “EU Dairy Policy Reform and Future WTO

Negotiations: A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis,” Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 53, No. 2

(July 2002), pp. 338-40.

 39 The nine dairy products include fluid milk, soft products, American cheese, Italian cheese,

other cheese, SMP, butter, frozen products, and a residual “other” category. Thomas Cox, and

Jean-Paul Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis,” pp. 89-90; Dr. Thomas Cox, interview by USITC

staff, July 29, 2003.

H-10

on the U.S. dairy industry.32 Burke and Cox33 combined two models: the U.S. dairy sector

Interregional Competition Model (IRCM) developed by Cox and Chavas34 (detailed in the

next section) with another model of a representative cheese making process (that is, a

representative cheese vat) recently developed at the University of Wisconsin (UW) and

called the U.S. Dairy Processing Sector Optimal Component Allocation Model (or OCAM

model). The IRCM model, when combined with OCAM, updates and in some ways expands

and aggregates the ICRM model (hereinafter denoted the IRCM-new model).

Model component 1, Cox-Chavas ICRM model: current and proposed

Cox and Chavas35 built a mathematical programming model of the U.S. dairy industry based

on the work of Takayama and Judge,36 and of Samuelson37 (hereinafter,

Samuelson/Takayama/Judge framework). They claim to have extended this

Samuelson/Takayama/Judge framework in two ways: (1) they investigated the interregional

allocation and pricing of dairy products, based on the allocation and pricing of three milk

components (protein, fat, and other solids) involved in dairy product transformation, and

(2) modeled the 12 U.S. subregional markets subject to federal or California milk marketing

order regimes. In their model, Leontief-type milk component input proportions are assumed

and the demands in the welfare measure and the milk supply cost measure are defined in

terms of the three milk components.38 Two types of dairy products are defined in terms of

the three components by Leontief coefficients: a single primary or intermediate product, raw

milk, used as an ingredient input for further dairy processing, and nine final or processed

dairy products. There are 12 U.S. regions (California and 11 FMMO regions).39 The

comparative static model simulates postulated policy changes and results are compared with

those of a baseline scenario. The 1995 baseline includes 1995 U.S. dairy market conditions,
 40 Federal MMO prices are included for class I (fluid) milk, class II (soft and frozen products),

class III (cheese), and class IV (SMP). California MMO prices are included for class 1 (fluid)

milk, class II (soft products), class III (frozen products), and class IV. Thomas Cox, and Jean-Paul

Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis,” p. 90; Dr. Thomas Cox, interview by USITC staff, July 29,

2003.

 41 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal,”

University of Wisconsin dairy economists, interview with USITC staff, Madison, WI, Aug. 19,

2003; telephone conversations with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist,

Sept. 22 and Oct. 1, 2003.

 42 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal,”

Wisconsin dairy economists, interview with USITC staff, Madison, WI, Aug. 19, 2001; telephone

conversation with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist, Sept. 22 and Oct. 1,

2003. See Thomas Cox and Jean-Paul. Chavas, “An Interregional Analysis,” pp. 89-90.

 43 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal.” 

 44 Ibid.

H-11

CCC minimum dairy product price floors, and Federal and California MMO pricing (via

price wedges).40 

Burke and Cox41 made a number of alterations to this Cox-Chavas IRCM component of the

IRCM-new model. The IRCM-new model calibrates to a 2002 baseline; the 12 U.S.

subregions based on MMO regimes are aggregated into a single region; the 3 intermediate

products are expanded to 5 (fat, casein protein, whey protein, lactose, and other solids); and

the 9 processed dairy products are expanded to 15.42

Model Component No. 2, the Optimal Component Allocation Model or OCAM43

Burke and Cox noted that the Cox-Chavas IRCM component did not address the

substitutability issue among domestically sourced and imported milk components: whether

they are perfect substitutes, completely nonsubstitutable, or imperfectly substitutable. This

is because the Cox-Chavas model lacks a representative cheese vat or production process that

accounts for MPC’s unique nature and its effect on the cheese-making process and the

process’ generation of whey and lactose byproducts. Burke and Cox note that cheese makers

face a natural constraint on permitted levels of lactose in cheese which is binding when nonMPC milk components are used (e.g., SMP). They further note that when MPC, with its

relatively lower levels of lactose, are used in the cheese vat, the natural constraint of lactose

for the process is partly relaxed: cheese yields rise and the cheese output’s functionality is

enhanced.44 Consequently, Burke and Cox incorporate the recently developed OCAM model

into the aggregated, expanded, and updated Cox-Chavas framework to render the IRCM-new

model. With its endogenization of the cheese vat’s natural lactose constraint, IRCM-new

reflects MPC’s comparative advantage over domestically sourced milk components in terms

of higher yields and functionality and lower lactose content. Such is done by minimizing

costs of allocation of milk components across dairy processes to satisfy dairy production

constraints and final demand for each envisioned dairy product.

Currently, the OCAM model processes milk components into the following products which

include both directly consumed processed products as well as intermediate outputs used in

processing of products:
 45 Ibid.

 46 All equations, definition of terms and explanations are provided by Joseph Burke and

Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal,” USITC staff telephone

communication with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist and author of

proposal, Oct. 1, 2003.

 47 Ibid.

H-12

processed cheese condensed whole milk caseinates

farm milk condensed skim milk whey fat

fluid milk ultrafiltered milk whey casein

skim milk milk protein concentratewhey protein

whole milk powder soft products lactose

cream frozen products whey minerals

butter natural cheese whey water

buttermilk casein

The OCAM component treats the production of soft products, frozen products, and natural

cheese as optimization processes that select the most cost-effective method of production

given relative component/ingredient prices and technological/nutrient mass balance

constraints.45 

There are three kinds of OCAM milk component equations:

Milk component supply:46 ak *qm + 3i *ik *Fimp *IMPi

 + 3i (ik*Fi,dom *INTi , where

qm = farm milk with average composition, 

IMPi

 = imports of the ith dairy based ingredient commodity (whole milk, powder,

skim milk powder, condensed whole milk, condensed skim milk, milk protein

concentrates (EU 7 non-EU), casein, caseinates, and whey products) with average

composition *ik of the kth component (delta=imported MPC protein content), and

Fi,imp or the percent utilization level of imported dairy based ingredients by the dairy

industry (as opposed to nondairy sectors);

INT i = usage of the ith domestically sourced intermediate commodity (whole milk

powder, skim milk powder, condensed whole milk, condensed skim milk, and whey

products) with average composition (ik of the kth component, and Fi,dom or percent

utilization (by dairy industry) of domestically sourced dairy based ingredients.

k = 1 ... 5 components; i = 1, . . . ,23 products; subscript “m” refers to milk as

opposed to commodities or “c.” 

Milk component usage or demand/utilization:

47 3ik 0ik * qci + WHEYLOSSk , where

qci = production of ith dairy product with average composition 0ik of the kth

component.
 48 All equations, definition of terms and explanations are provided by Joseph Burke and

Thomas Cox, “University of Wisconsin-Madison/ITC Proposal,” and USITC staff telephone

communication with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist and author of

proposal, Oct. 1, 2003.

 49 Wisconsin dairy economists, interview with USITC staff, Madison, WI, Aug. 19, 2001;

telephone conversation with Dr. Thomas Cox, University of Wisconsin dairy economist, Sept. 22,

2003.

 50 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Executive Summary,” pp. 1-6.

 51 Whole milk, skim milk, butter, cheese, SMP, condensed skim milk, buttermilk, soft products,

and frozen products.

H-13

WHEYLOSSk = implied whey loss of the kth component associated with the cheese

processing profile, implied by USDA dairy product production data, ADPA

intermediate product utilization, and an aggregate component balance worksheet.

k = 1, . . . ,5 components; i = 1, . . . , 23 products; and “c” refers to the product rather

than to “m” or milk.

Nutrient balance equations:

48 milk component availability must be greater than/equal to milk

component utilization for each of k = 1, . . .,5 components.

Comments on the resulting IRCM-new model

Trade (imports and exports) is exogenous.49 Two milk protein exporters supply the U.S.

market: the EU and non-EU. Burke and Cox’s primal programming model generates

otherwise unknown trade flows through an interative series of calibrations. In these iterative

calibrations, equation intercepts are adjusted to ultimately replicate NASS prices as the

Lagrangian multipliers or shadow prices on linear trade flow constraints. Such NASS price

multipliers are formulas based on quantities and prices of the basic four milk components.

IRCM-new model simulations

Burke and Cox use their model (IRCM-new model) to conduct five experiments or scenarios

that focus on the U.S. market effects of the elimination of MPC imports (scenarios 1 and 2),

unlimited MPC imports with relaxation of standards of identity of cheese making (scenario

4), and implementation of two butter/powder tilts (scenarios 3 and 5).50 Focus is placed on

a number of market variables: market prices and commercial disappearance levels for an

array of dairy products,51 farm milk price, milk supply, farm revenue, and CCC purchases

of SMP.
 52 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox define “cheese proteins” as those gleaned from SMP and

MPC (primarily casein), and these exclude whey stream products. Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox

define “noncheese proteins” as those which are not used in cheese making, and include whey

stream products. See Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Summary of the Impact of MPC Imports on

Farm-Gate Milk Prices and CCC Purchases of Dry Milk, 12/11/03-2/16/04,” unpublished paper,

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin -Madison (undated

but received by Commission staff, Feb. 27, 2004), p. 14. Also see Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox,

“Executive Summary,” pp. 1-6.

 53 See Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Summary of the Impact of MPC Imports on Farm-Gate

Milk Prices and CCC Purchases of Dry Milk, 12/11/03-2/16/04,” p. 14. Also see Joseph Burke and

Thomas Cox, “Executive Summary,” pp. 1-6.

 54 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Executive Summary,” pp. 2 and 5.

 55 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox acknowledge that this assumption of a perfectly elastic MPC

supply may be unrealistic, and is made to provide an extreme upper bound of impacts from CCC

SMP purchases. See Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Executive Summary,” p. 3.

 56 Joseph Burke and Thomas Cox, “Executive Summary,” pp. 2 and 5-6.

 57 Ibid., pp. 2 and 5.

 58 Ibid.

 59 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

 60 Ibid.

H-14

Burke and Cox’s first two scenarios simulate elimination of U.S. MPC imports under two

extreme assumptions of substitutability of cheese/noncheese proteins:52 where noncheese

proteins and cheese proteins are fully/perfectly substitutable, to render a low-effect

experiment, and where cheese and noncheese proteins are completely nonsubstitutable, to

render a high-effects experiment of MPC import elimination.53 Import elimination under both

import-eliminating settings resulted in negligible increases (0.1 percent or less) on farm milk

price, milk supply, and farm revenue; led to declines in CCC purchases of from 180 million

to 580 million pounds (or declines of 22 percent to 70 percent); and had negligible effects

on prices and commercial disappearance of U.S. dairy products.54 

Burke and Cox’s fourth scenario examines the market effects of unlimited MPC imports

while assuming a full liberalization of FDA domestic cheese standards to permit MPC use

in all production. They assume a perfectly elastic world MPC supply such that the U.S.

sector can fully satisfy MPC demand at a world protein price equivalent of $0.70 per

pound.55 While MPC imports rise substantially (a ten-fold increase); there are no changes in

farm milk price, milk supply, and farm revenue. However, CCC purchases of SMP escalate

to 2.6 billion pounds or by 219 percent.56 A number of U.S. dairy product price changes

emerge: increases of 1 percent to 2 percent for soft and frozen products and for butter, and

declines of no more than 3.0 percent for skim milk, SMP, and cheese.57 Commercial

disappearance levels are largely unchanged, by less than a percent.58

Burke and Cox simulated two scenarios (3 and 5) that mimic the implementation of two tilts:

where the CCC decreases its SMP price and raises its butter price so as to maintain the 2002

milk support price of $9.90 per cwt.59 The two tilt levels include a mild tilt where the CCC

support price for SMP falls to $0.80 per pound and a more pronounced one where the CCC

SMP support price falls to $0.70 per pound. These tilts have rather noticeable market impacts

relative to those generated by the IRCM-new model in the three other scenarios. Burke and

Cox note that (1) the effects of the mild tilt would likely be largely offset by the 2002 Farm

Bill’s Milk Income Loss Contracts (MILC) program, and (2) simulating the more

pronounced tilt is equivalent to eliminating the CCC dairy price support program.60 A

number of model-proscribed market effects emerged under the two tilts: declines in farm
 61 Ibid., pp. 1-2 and 5-6.

 62 Ibid.

 63 Ibid., p. 5.

 64 Ibid., pp. 1-2 and 5-6.

 65 Ibid.

 66 Ibid.

 67 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, Market Impacts of Milk Trade Policy: Brief Model

Description,” unpublished paper, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY, Sept. 25, 2003; Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the

Market Impacts of Dairy Protein Trade Policy: Comments on Current Status,” unpublished

summary of project status, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003; Cornell University dairy economists, interviews with

USITC staff, Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003; telephone conversations with Dr. Charles Nicholson,

Cornell University dairy economist, Sept. 15 and 16, 2003.

 68 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Market Impacts of Milk Trade Policy,” Sept. 2003;

P. Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the Market Impacts,” July 2003; Cornell University

dairy economists, interviews with USITC staff, Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003; telephone conversations

with Dr. Charles Nicholson, Cornell University dairy economist, Sept. 15, 16, and 22, 2003.

 69 Ibid.

 70 Ibid.

H-15

milk price of from 2 percent to 4 percent, declines in milk supply of from 1.0 percent to

nearly 2 percent, and declines in farm revenue of from 3 percent to 6 percent.61 Tilt-induced

effects on CCC purchases of SMP were particularly noteworthy: a decline of 254 million

pounds or 31 percent under the mild tilt to a decline of 673 million pounds or 81 percent

under the more pronounced tilt.62 Generally speaking, the model suggests that market effects

are about double for the pronounced tilt relative to effects under the milder tilt. Burke and

Cox suggest that U.S. imports of MPC disappear when the pronounced tilt is implemented.63

As well, model results suggested several notable ranges of tilt-induced price increases of

12 percent to 24 percent for cheese, 8 percent to 15 percent for soft products, and 5 percent

to 9 percent for frozen products.64 Noted ranges of tilt-induced price declines included

13 percent to 26 percent for skim milk, 12 percent to 23 percent for SMP, and 8 percent to

16 percent for buttermilk.65 The more notable ranges of tilt-induced changes in commercial

disappearance included: increases of 13 percent to 25 percent for buttermilk and 9 percent

to 18 percent for SMP, and decreases of 3 percent to 6 percent for butter and for soft

products.66

Bishop and Nicholson (2003, ongoing)

Having built a mathematical programming model along the lines of

Samuelson/Takayama/Judge, Bishop and Nicholson67 claim to extend the product and detail

levels characterizing many U.S. dairy models.68 Their model accounts for shipments of one

dairy plant to another and of one region to another to permit an assessment of proposed

alternative policies for the milk protein product complex.69 Such alternative policy levels

include quota, tariff, and domestic subsidies for milk protein product imports. The model

focuses on assessing not only how changes in such alternative policies affect milk protein

product imports, but also how the alternative policy changes indirectly influence more

traditional U.S. dairy product markets.70 Bishop and Nicholson incorporate an accounting

and balance of three milk components (milk fat, milk protein, and other milk solids) into

their framework and link changes in alternative dairy protein policies with a reallocation of

the remaining two milk components, so as to render influences on both the traditional dairy
 71 Ibid.

 72 Ibid.

 73 Ibid.

 74 Ibid.

 75 Ibid.

 76 More specifically, NLP solvers with NLP models with a high number of linearities are unable

to exploit second-order information, while a mixed complementarity problem solved with GAMS

can use such information. Such second-order information is reportedly needed to more easily solve

the problem, permits one to avoid imposing excessive constraints and/or bounds on variables in

order to narrow the domain over which the model is able to locate a solution. See Phillip Bishop

and Charles Nicholson, “Market Impacts.”

 77 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Market Impacts,” Sept. 2003; Bishop and Nicholson,

“Assessing the Market Impacts,” July 2003; Cornell University dairy economists, interviews with

USITC staff, July 21, 2003; telephone conversations with Dr. Charles Nicholson, Cornell

University dairy economist, Sept. 15 , 16, and 22, 2003.

H-16

and milk protein product markets.71 Their working hypothesis is that U.S. dairy protein

imports do not simply displace domestic SMP use, and that there may be import-induced

impacts from reallocation of the other two milk components (milk fat, other solids) from

changes in such alternative policy changes for imported dairy proteins.72 

A model solution requires that prices in one market are explicitly linked to prices in another

as a strict equality for cases of nonzero physical product flows between two markets.73 And

conversely for cases of where such physical stock flows are zero, a price linkage between

the two markets is expressed as a strict inequality. While a typical

Samuelson/Takayama/Judge model with a quadratic objective function and linear constraints

is solvable as a quadratic program, Bishop and Nicholson built a model with a key departure

from this well-known framework. Bishop and Nicholson’s model is a nonlinear

programming model defined as a mixed complementarity problem where both of the

following are simultaneously constrained: the primal values explicitly modeling physical

quantities and the dual variables such as the monetarily valued Langrangian multipliers (or

shadow prices) on trade flow constraints.74 They offer two primary reasons for this

departure.75 

• First, ad valorem tariffs are easily incorporated; and there is no need to

solve a sequence of model runs containing specific tariffs while iterating

towards a desired solution.

• Bishop and Nicholson’s framework is highly nonlinear, and a high

number of such nonlinearities makes NLP solutions burdensome.76

Bishop and Nicholson note that the joint-input and multiple product nature of the dairy

processing industry necessitates the disaggregation of all products into milk components

(milk protein, fat, and other solids), as well as the imposition of a component accounting

balance or accounting system on the model.77 They note that many models impose such a

balance regionally, and through the use of Leontief fixed proportion coefficients.

However, Bishop and Nicholson extend this balance beyond the regional level, and balance

component use at the plant levels. They note that a component balance at only the regional

level may overstate the flexibility of component uses because constraints on how

intermediate products move into processing cycles so often encountered in the real world are
 78 Ibid.

 79 Ibid.

 80 Ibid.

 81 The 15 final products include: fluid milk, high solids fluid milk, ice cream, yogurt, cottage

cheese, cheddar cheese, other cheese, dry whey products, butter, SMP, evaporated/condensed/dry

products, casein, caseinate, MPC90, MPC 35. Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Market

Impacts of Milk Trade Policy,” Sept. 2003; Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the

Market Impacts,” July 2003; Cornell University dairy economists, interview with USITC staff,

Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003; telephone conversations with Dr. Charles Nicholson, Cornell

University dairy economist, Sept. 15 , 16, and 22, 2003.

 82 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the Market Impacts,” July 2003; Cornell

University dairy economists, interviews with USITC staff, Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003; telephone

conversations with Dr. Charles Nicholson, Cornell University dairy economist, Sept. 15 and 16,

2003.

 83 The 11 imported products include ice cream, cheddar cheese, other cheese, dry whey

products, butter, SMP, evaporated/condensed/dry products, casein, caseinate, MPC 35, and MPC

4. Exports include ice cream, cheddar cheese, other cheese, dry whey products, butter, SMP, and

evaporated/condensed/dry products. Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Market Impacts,”

Sept. 2003; Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, “Assessing the Market Impacts,“ July 2003;

Cornell University dairy economists, interviews with USITC staff, Ithaca, NY, July 21, 2003;

telephone conversations with Dr. Charles Nicholson, Cornell University dairy economist, Sept.

2003. Charles Nicholson and Phillip Bishop, U.S. Dairy Product Trade: Modeling Approaches

and the Impact of New Product Formulations. Final report for NRZ Grant No. 2001-35400-10249,

Cornell Program on Dairy market and Policy, Department of Applied Economics and

Management, Cornell University (Mar. 2004), p. 94.

 84 Phillip Bishop and Charles Nicholson, July 2003; USITC staff field notes of meetings with

Cornell University dairy economists, July 21, 2003; telephone conversations with Dr. Charles

Nicholson, Cornell University dairy economist, Sept. 15 and 16, 2003.

H-17

ignored.78 Bishop and Nicholson contend that this component balancing at both the region

and plant levels goes further than many dairy models.79 As well, they assume a nonlinear

function that represents production rather than the constant Leontief proportions of many

studies and explicitly incorporate the use of intermediate products. Consequently, after raw

milk is shipped to plants and separated into skim and cream, Bishop and Nicholson’s model

uses it in one of three ways: (1) shipped, as is, between plants, (2) used to produce

intermediate products, which are in turn shipped to other plants, or (3) used by itself or

combined into other final products.80

Their mathematical model calibrates to a 2001 baseline, and has 15 final dairy products,

including separate demand and supply relationships for casein, caseinate, HTS Chapter 4

MPCs (MPC 4), and Chapter 35 MPCs (MPC 35).81 There are seven intermediate or

interplant products: SMP, cream, skim milk, ice cream mix, fluid whey, buttermilk, and

MPC 4.82 There are 11 imported products, including separate imports of casein, caseinates,

MPC 4, and MPC 35, as well as 7 export products.83 There are two U.S. regions: California

and the rest of the United States. Yield functions appear to be based on textbook equations

concerning the physical process of separating cream and skim in a typical dairy plant, and

imports and exports are endogenous.84
 85 Charles Nicholson and Phillip Bishop, U.S. Dairy Product Trade, Mar. 2004; as well

additional information was provided to USITC staff in a Mar. 2, 2004 telephone communication

with Charles Nicholson and Phillip Bishop, Department of Applied Economics and Management,

Cornell University.

 86 Ibid

 87 Ibid., pp. 110-11.

 88 Ibid.

 89 Ibid., p. 116. 

 90 Ibid., pp. 111 and 118.

 91 Ibid., p. 111.

 92 Ibid.

H-18

Nicholson and Bishop have provided detailed results of one simulation (compared against

a 2001 baseline of U.S. dairy market conditions).85 The simulation eliminates U.S. imports

of MPCs entering only under Chapter 4 of the HTS (MPC 4); U.S. MPC imports under HTS

Chapter 35 are not part of the experiment.86 The simulation involves elimination of U.S.

MPC 4 imports under two protein substitutability assumptions: (1) U.S. dairy demanders

of milk protein consider MPC 4 and domestic dairy proteins (particularly SMP) as perfect

substitutes, and (2) other nondairy users of milk protein have no available substitute protein

for the MPC 4 imports, such that import restrictions result in domestic MPC production.87

Nicholson and Bishop provided results for both California and the rest of the United States,

with the U.S. results emphasized here. Market impacts of eliminating U.S. MPC 4 imports

are mild.

Nicholson and Bishop’s findings suggest that eliminating MPC 4 imports results in an

increase of 0.4 percent (6 cents per cwt) in U.S. farm milk price.88 Milk production would

rise 0.1 percent or 200 million pounds, as more milk is required to service the emergent U.S.

domestic production of MPC 4.89 As SMP production drops by 34 million pounds, CCC

purchases of SMP also decline by a similar amount, or by nearly 13 percent, and result in a

$34 million Federal outlay savings.90 Reflecting the importance of capturing firm-level and

region-level balances of milk components, as well as capturing the market impacts from

allocation of nonprotein milk components, there is some downward pressure on the price of

butter: the commencement of U.S. MPC production raises demand for raw milk, generates

by-product production of fat and whey products, and leads to a 21 million pound rise in

butter production and a 4 percent decline in butter price.91 U.S. prices rise for cheeses

(0.7 percent to 1.2 percent) and fall for certain evaporated and condensed milk products

(1.8 percent). U.S. production levels for most final dairy products change by less than

0.5 percent, but do manage to rise 1.6 percent for butter and fall 4 percent for SMP.92
 93 As well, Daniel Sumner, Bradley Rickard, and Joseph Balagtas (BRS) built a model which

discerned the economic effects of imports of milk protein concentrates or MPCs, casein, and

caseinates (MCCs) on production, prices and incomes of U.S. dairy producers. The BRS model is

a locally log-linear percent change, partial equilibrum specification. Because the BRS model, a

potentially usable one in this investigation, was published without any simulation results, the

model was not reviewed here. See, Joseph Balagtas, Bradley Rickard, and Daniel Sumner, “The

Effects of Proposed Milk Protein Concentrate and Casein Imports on the U.S. Dairy Industry,”

selected paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Agricultural Economics Association,

Long Beach, CA, July 28-31, 2002.

 94 Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported Milk Protein Concentrate on the

U.S. Dairy Situation,” Unpublished paper prepared for submission to the U.S. International Trade

Commission as background for the Section 332 Investigation and Commission Hearing on

Dec. 11, 2003 (Dec. 1, 2003); posthearing submission to the Commission on behalf of the Dairy

Companies Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23, 2003; e-mail to Commission staff from Dr.

Daniel Sumner, Jan. 13, 2004.

 95 Note that the U.S. milk protein imports that are modeled correspond with those entering

under the following HTS lines: 04049010, 35011010, 35011050, and 35019060. Daniel Sumner

and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported MPC,” Dec. 2003, p. 9.

 96 Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported MPC,” Dec. 2003, p. 7.

 97 Ibid., p. 7; posthearing submission to the Commission on behalf of the Dairy Companies

Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23, 2003, pp. 22-26; e-mail to USITC staff from Dr. Daniel

Sumner, Jan. 13, 2004.

 98 Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported MPC,” Dec. 2003, p. 25.

 99 Ibid., pp. 9-12.

 100 Ibid., pp. 7-8 and 18.

H-19

Sumner and Balagtas (2003)93

Sumner and Balagtas94 examined the effects of imported milk protein95 on the U.S. dairy

industry with a focus on the protein imports’ effect on the U.S. all-milk price received by

farmers (hereinafter, U.S. farm milk price).96 Sumner and Balagtas summarize the market

relationships of milk and dairy-based products, identify key market parameters driving these

markets, and then specify a partial equilibrium comparative static model of these

relationships for the 1999-2002 base period.97 The model focuses on an “intermediate” time

horizon of 3 to 5 years,98 and estimates the impact on the U.S. dairy market and U.S. farm

milk price resulting from a series of declines (12.5 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent) in

the availability of imported milk proteins against unfettered imports of such milk proteins

during the 1999-2002 base period.99 Their estimated effects on the U.S. dairy market were

generally mild. Depending on the degree of substitutability assumed among domestic and

imported proteins, Sumner and Balagtas estimated that a 25 percent decline in imported milk

proteins would generate a U.S. farm milk price increase of from 0.1-0.3 percent; a rise in U.S

milk quantity of from 0.04 percent to 0.1 percent; price increases for total milk protein

ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 percent; and increases in mild farm revenues ranging from

0.2 percent to close to a percent.100 Given the model’s linearity, results for the simulated

declines of 12.5 percent and 50 percent in imports are directly proportional with the above

results and are not summarized here.
 101 Ibid., p. 13; posthearing submission to the Commission on behalf of the Dairy Companies

Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23, 2003, pp. 22-26; e-mail to USITC staff from Dr. Daniel

Sumner, Jan. 13, 2004.

 102 Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported MPC,” Dec. 2003, p. 12.

 103 Ibid., p. 12.

 104 Ibid., p. 13; posthearing submission to the Commission on behalf of the Dairy Companies

Association of New Zealand, Dec. 23, 2003, pp. 22-26; e-mail to USITC staff from Dr. Daniel

Sumner, Jan. 13, 2004.

 105 Commission staff from Dr. Daniel Sumner, Jan. 13, 2004. For the Gardner’s modeling

approach, see Bruce Gardner. The Economics of Agricultural Policies (New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company, 1988), ch. 3.

 106 Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas. “Effects of Imported MPC,” Dec. 2003, pp. 13 and

23-27.

 107 Ibid., pp. 22-27.

 108 Ibid., pp. 22-26.

H-20

Sumner and Balagtas’ model

There are three multiproduct aggregates or “composites”: all foreign milk proteins imported

under HTS Chapters 4 and 35 into a single import composite, all U.S. domestic dairy

products into a single domestic protein composite, and a single U.S. domestic dairy output.101

They impose a system of milk component accounting where the domestic and imported

composites are defined with respect to two common denominators or milk components: milk

protein and nonprotein milk solids (hereinafter, protein and nonprotein solids), which are

considered minimally substitutable in production.102 They claim that this system of milk

component accounting links the aggregated domestic products, aggregated imported protein

composites, and ultimately the total U.S. farm milk price.103 

Sumner and Balagtas indicate that their model captures major dairy policies and market

features, as well as capturing the effects of U.S. protein imports.104 They chose Gardner’s

model framework in order to focus on relationships along the vertical chain from the dairy

farm to consumers.105 The model is a log-linear (percentage change) specification of supply

and demand for raw milk and milk components.106 The model’s results are highly influenced

by the choice of two particular parameters: the elasticity of substitution among imported and

domestic milk protein composites and the share of the U.S. total protein market accounted

for by the imported protein composite.107 The larger (smaller) the values of the substitution

elasticity and the import market share, the greater (smaller) the effect on U.S. farm milk price

that would arise from some change in imported milk protein supply imposed on the model.

Throughout, “E” is a percent change operator such that EX means the change in X divided

by X. Since the model is presented entirely in percent changes, the following discussion

eliminates “percent change” from variable definitions for ease of expression. For example,

U.S. demand for raw milk is understood to be the percentage change in the U.S. demand for

raw milk in the ensuing equations. 

The demands are specified in price-dependent form. The 12 equations summarizing the

model are taken from Sumner and Balagtas.108 The U.S. supply for raw milk, Qm in equation

1-, depends on the U.S. farm milk price, Pm, and the price elasticity of raw milk supply, ,.

(1) EQm = ,*EPm

The supplies of the domestic milk protein composite, (Qu in equation 2), and the supply of

nonprotein solids, (Qs in equation 3), are obtained by multiplying the supply of raw milk
 109 More specifically, vu = (1-si

 )*(Pu/Pr) and vi = si*(Pu/Pr). The si is the quantity of imported

protein of the U.S. total protein market, while Pu, and Pr

 are the prices of the domestic and total

milk protein composites, respectively. Daniel Sumner and Joseph Balagtas, “Effects of Imported

MPC,” Dec. 2003, pp. 24-25

 110 More specifically, vu = (1-s)*(Ps/Pr

) and vs = s*(Ps/Pr). The s is the quantity share of

nonprotein solids of total component usage, and (1-s) is the analogous share of the milk protein

component. Ibid., p. 24.

 111 More specifically, *u = u*(Pu/Pm) and *s = s*(Ps/Pm), where u and s are the component

contents of domestic protein and nonprotein solids per hundredweight of raw milk. Ibid.,

pp. 22-24.

H-21

times the respective factor reflecting the component content per hundred weight raw milk,

u for domestic milk protein and s for nonprotein milk solids. 

(2) EQu = u*EQm

(3) EQs = s*EQm

The exogenous policy lever, 2, is the percentage change in foreign milk protein imports,

essentially making the supply of the foreign milk protein composite, equation 4, exogenous.

The 2 is the variable that is shocked to simulate changes in U.S. milk protein imports:

(4) EQi

 = 2

The supply of total milk protein (Qr in equation 5) is the weighted sum of all domestic and

imported milk protein composites, Qu, and Qi

. The domestic and imported protein

composites are weighted by vu and vi

, respectively, the cost shares of imported and domestic

protein for aggregate protein:109

(5) EQr = vu*EQr +vi*EQi

The supply of the domestically produced dairy product aggregate or composite in equation

6, Qx, is a weighted sum of both milk component supplies: Qr

, or the total milk protein

supplied, and Qs , the supply of nonprotein solids. The supplies of the two milk components

are each weighted by its share of the value of wholesale dairy products (vr

 for protein and

vs for nonprotein solids).110

(6) EQx = vr*EQr + vs*EQs

The price-dependent demand for raw milk (Pm in equation 7) is determined by the prices of

domestic protein, Pu, and of nonprotein solids, Ps, where each component is weighted by its

value share of the price of raw milk (*u for domestic protein, *s for nonprotein solids).111

(7) EPm = *u*EPu + *s*EPs

The demand for domestic protein (represented by domestic protein price, Pu in equation 8)

is dependent on the price of the total protein component, and the quantities supplied of

domestic protein and nonprotein solids. The latter two quantities supplied are weighted by

the previously defined imported protein composite share of the total U.S. protein market, vi

, and by the elasticity of substitution of the imported and domestic protein composites, Fui.
 112 At the hearing and in posthearing brief requests, there were repeated instances where

Sumner and Balagtas’ assumptions about substitutability among differently sources proteins were

challenged. See Daniel Sumner, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University

of California, Davis, testimony before the USITC hearing, Dec. 11, 2003, pp. 395-98. Posthearing

submission to the Commission on behalf of the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand,

Dec. 23, 2003.

H-22

(8) EPu = EPr - (vi/Fui)*EQu + (vi/Fui)*EQi

The demand for the imported milk protein composite, reflected by Pi

 in equation 9, is

dependent on the price of the total protein component, as well as the quantities supplied of

the two components, domestic protein and imported protein. The latter two supplies are

weighted by the previously defined vu or the domestic protein composite’s cost share of the

total protein market, as well as by the substitution elasticity of the imported and domestic

protein composites.

(9) EPi

 = EPr + (vu/Fui)*EQu + (vu/Fui)*EQi

The demand for total protein (Pr in equation 10), depends on demand for the U.S. dairy

output composite, as well as the weighted supplies of both components, total milk protein

and nonprotein solids, each weighted by nonprotein solids’ share of the wholesale value of

dairy products, vs, and by the elasticity of substitution among both milk components, Frs.

(10) EPr

 = EPx + (vs/Frs )*EQr + (vs/Frs )*EQs

The demand for nonprotein solids (Ps in equation 11), is similar to the demand for total

protein above, in that it is dependent on the demand for the U.S. dairy output composite, as

well as by the supplies of both components, here weighted by the total protein component’s

share of the value of dairy products, vr

, and by the elasticitity of substitution among the two

components, Frs.

(11) EPs = EPx + (vr

/Frs )*EQr + (vr/Frs )*EQs

And finally, equation 12 provides the price-dependent demand for the U.S. dairy output

composite as dependent on the supply of the composite, Qx, times the inverse of the

own-price demand elasticity, 1/0.

(12) EPx = (1/0)*EQx

Critical Analysis of the Sumner and Balagtas model

Sumner and Balagtas aggregate all of the U.S. proteins into one aggregate composite protein

product as if they are perfectly substitutable and all foreign proteins (MPC, casein, caseinate)

into a non-US aggregate composite, and then assume the two composites to be imperfect

substitutes. They made this assumption of imperfect substitutability without offering

evidential foundation. Insofar as each composite spans a varied array of milk protein

products that are delivered into component equivalent common denominators, Sumner and

Balagtas need to explain in more detail their assumption that the domestically produced and

imported composites are imperfectly substitutable.112
 113 Kenneth Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports: The Case of Milk Protein Concentrates,”

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, vol. 31, No. 2 (2002), pp. 254-55.

 114 Ibid., pp. 248-49.

 115 Kenneth Bailey justifies the exclusion of the cheese market by noting that over the

1996.I-2000.IV period, Federal purchases of cheese were limited. Kenneth Bailey, “Implications

of Dairy Imports,” pp. 253-54.

 116 Kenneth Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports,” pp. 253-54.

 117 Ibid., pp. 255-56.

 118 Ibid., pp. 256-57.

H-23

Bailey (2002)

Bailey113 attempts to test two hypotheses. The first hyposthesis is if the combination of

relaxed import restrictions, low world protein prices, and high levels of U.S. support of the

SMP price incite the rapidly escalating volumes of U.S. MPC imports (MPC 4 and MPC 35

for milk protein imported into the United States under HTS Chapters 4 and 35 respectively).

The second hypothesis is whether increased imports of MPC displace domestic use of SMP

and raises Federal SMP purchases. His analysis unfolds in several stages. First, Bailey

summarizes the trends of increasing U.S. MPC imports since the mid-1990s.114 He then

provides a detailed graphical analysis of how, under the assumption of perfect

substitutability of MPC products with domestically produced SMP and cheese, increased

U.S. MPC imports influence the price and quantities of U.S. protein, U.S. cheese, and U.S.

SMP, as well as levels of Federal purchases of cheese and SMP. The conceptual model has

three subsectors: domestic U.S. milk protein market, wholesale U.S. cheese market, and

wholesale market for SMP. 

Bailey noticeably simplifies his three-sector conceptual model into a quarterly econometric

model estimated over the 1990.I -2000.IV period. He exogenizes the farm price for milk,

excludes the supply sides of all subsectors, and excludes the cheese market.115 What results

is a two-subsector demand model of three equations: U.S. wholesale SMP demand and

separate U.S. import demands for MPC 4 and MPC 35 products.116

The econometrically estimated model of SMP, MPC 4, and MPC 35 demands is simulated

under two experiments: (1) a substantial rise in the world price of milk protein, and (2) a

substantial reduction of the CCC purchase price for SMP.117 The model focuses on how each

of these two shocks influence demands for domestic SMP, imported MPCs, and the levels

and outlays on the Federal support program for SMP.118 

Econometric specification

The demands for SMP, MPC 4, and MPC 35 were estimated in natural logarithms rendering

the coefficient estimates as elasticities. All demands include an intercept, have three seasonal

quarterly binary variables, and are measured on a per capita basis. All price and income

arguments are deflated by the all-items consumer price index. Relevant information on

principal regressors, coefficient estimates, and diagnostics is provided in table H-2.
 119 Readers interested in the exact data sources are referred to the article. See Kenneth Bailey,

“Implications of Dairy Imports,” pp. 254-55.

 120 Ibid., pp. 254-56.

 121 Ibid., pp. 254-55.

 122 Ibid.

H-24

Table H-2

Bailey’s SUR-Estimated Econometric Results (with t-statistics parenthesized)

Regressor

Nonfat dry

milk demand

MPC 4

import demand

MPC 35

import demand

SMP price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.44

(-0.8)

+5.7

(+6.2)

+0.83

(+0.8)

Cheese price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.83

(+2.4)

not included not included

Per capita income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +1.6

(+1.9)

+20.3

(+2.7)

+8.4

(+3.5)

Trend-squared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not included +0.0002

(+1.0)

not included

International protein price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.6

(+2.5)

-0.3

(-1.0)

+0.21

(+0.4)

Lag 1(international protein price) . . . . . . . . . . not included -0.3

(-2.1)

-0.39

(-1.6)

Lag 2(international protein price) . . . . . . . . . . not included -0.3

(-2.0)

-1.0

(-1.5)

Lag 3(international protein price) . . . . . . . . . . not included -0.36

(-1.1)

not included

First-order autoregressive error

correction term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . included not included included

R-square value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.44 0.92 0.72

Notes.—Data definitions and sources are detailed in this table source, to which interested readers are referred. 

Given that all series were estimated in natural logarithms, the estimated coefficients may be considered

elasticities. It is not clear that the econometric results generated on the first-order autoregressive error correction

term were valid, and consequently, they are not included aside from mention of the term’s inclusion or exclusion.

Source: Kenneth Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports: The Case of Milk Protein Concentrates,” Agricultural and

Resource Economics Review, vol. 31, no. 2 (2003) pp. 248-59.

The own-price of MPC imports is taken as an international milk protein price, which is

assumed to be the North Europe price of SMP.119 As well, the MPC 4 and MPC 35 import

demand equations share this same, identical international milk protein price as own-price.

To account for contemporaneous correlation, Bailey estimated the equations as a threeequation seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) system.120 Because of allegedly high levels

of price risk, Bailey included both current and lagged values of own-price in the MPC 4 and

MPC 35 demands. Bailey included a first-order autoregressive error correction term in the

demands for SMP and MPC 35.121 A squared time trend to account for rapid development

of MPC ultrafiltration technology is included in the MPC 4, but not the MPC 35, equation.122
 123 Ibid.

 124 Perhaps the sizeable differences in Bailey’s three R-square values are driven by

inclusion/exclusion of lagged price variables. 

 125 Ibid.

 126 Ibid.

 127 Kenneth Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports,” pp. 255-57. Bailey’s validation involved

comparing fitted and observed values of relevant variables.

 128 Ibid., p. 256.

 129 Ibid.

 130 Ibid., pp. 256-57.

 131 Ibid.

H-25

Summary of econometric results

Bailey’s123 wholesale demand for SMP emerged with a likely inadequate goodness of fit

level, as reflected by an R-square of 0.44.124 The SMP estimation generated an insignificant

but correctly signed coefficient on own-price; coefficients on cheese and the international

milk protein price proxy that were significant and positive suggesting a relationship of

substitutability with SMP for both products; and a significant and positive income elasticity

of 1.6. MPC 4 demand emerged with an adequate R-square of 0.92, and generated a

significant and positively signed SMP price coefficient suggesting substitutability with SMP;

a positive and significant income elasticity of 20.3 that intuitively seems excessively elastic;

and a series of four negative coefficients of varying statistical significance on current and

lagged own-price values.125 MPC 35 demand has a moderate goodness of fit level, given its

R-square value of 0.72. The estimation generated a positive but insignificant coefficient on

SMP price suggesting MPC 35/SMP substitutability; a significant and positive income

elasticity of 8.4 that far exceeds unity; and three insignificant coefficients of inconsistent and

alternating signs on current and two lagged values of own-price.126

Simulation of Bailey’s econometrically estimated model

Bailey validated the econometrically estimated model over the 1991.I – 2000.IV period.127

Although he acknowledged that the model simulations generated large errors from observed

values, he concluded, without explanation, that the general levels of statistical significance

achieved by the coefficient estimates rendered the model adequate for simulation purposes.128

He simulated two experiments over the 1996.I-2000.IV period: 129

Experiment 1: Impose a substantial rise in world milk protein price to 99 cents per pound.

Experiment 2: Impose a decline in the CCC purchase price of SMP to 80 cents per pound.

The quarterly simulation results are changing from baseline levels and are summarized here

as ranges of changes from base levels. In experiment 1, raising the proxy for the world milk

protein price to 99 cents per pound would have resulted in quarterly increases of U.S. SMP

use of from 10 percent to 42 percent, as quarterly MPC imports fell from 14 percent to

51 percent over the 1997.I-2000.II portion of the simulation period.130 Over the entire 1996.I2000.IV simulation period, as quarterly U.S. usage of SMP rose, U.S. quarterly CCC

purchases of SMP would have dropped similarly, such that U.S. purchases of SMP would

have fallen by more than 800 million pounds which translates into more than $800 million

in program outlay savings.131
 132 Ibid.

 133 Ibid.

 134 C.W.J. Granger and Paul Newbold. Forecasting Economic Time Series (New York,

Academic Press, 1986), pp. 1-2.

 135 Kenneth Bailey, “Implications of Dairy Imports,” p. 255.

 136 Ibid.

H-26

In experiment 2, reducing the CCC market price to $0.80 per pound would have increased

quarterly market prices from 14 percent to 35 percent; quarterly SMP use would have risen

from 7 percent to 21 percent; and quarterly U.S. imports of MPCs would have declined

substantially over the entire 1996.I-2000.IV simulation period.132 Over the same period, the

CCC would have purchased 555 million less pounds of SMP for a $572 million savings in

program outlays.133

Critical analysis of Bailey’s results

No evidence on the stationarity properties of the modeled data series was provided, and as

a result, the modeled series may not be stationary and ergodic, and may violate the basic

conditions of regression arising from constant means and variances through time (see

Granger and Newbold).134 As well, there is little or no analysis of goodness of fit, other than

some brief comments on R-square values, two of which are far below 90 percent and reflect

inadequate or moderate goodness of fit levels. 

All three equations have clearly collinear regressors, particularly among the current and

lagged own-price values in the two import demands. Bailey fails to mention the potentially

severe collinearity of regressors, which may compromise the ability to discern if the

coefficients are statistically significant, and compromise the interpretability of single

elasticities or coefficient estimates. Much of Bailey’s analysis may consequently be of

questionable validity. 

As well, Bailey may have inappropriately accounted for serially correlated residuals of the

three estimated equations with the addition of what he calls a first-order autoregressive error

correction term.135 His chosen method for incorporating information on serially correlated

errors has not been frequently used in the literature, and it further exacerbates inference

problems by including another variable that is interrelated with sets of already highly

collinear regressors. Without explaining, Baily ignores a number of well-known system-wide

procedures that adjust the estimated residuals to utilize information on serial correlation in

SUR (and other) models (e.g., Cochrane-Orcutt methods with a system-wide rho estimate).

Bailey does not justify or support his contention that despite the marginal or submarginal

levels of goodness of fit of the SMP and MPC 35 equations (R-square values of 0.44 and

0.72, respectively) these equation estimates were adequate for simulation purposes.136

Bailey chose the exact same price proxy as own-price for both equations, guaranteeing a

lower goodness of fit level for one import demand over the other, unless they encompass the

very similar or the same product baskets, in which case there should not be two separate

demand estimations. As well, there is a question over the appropriateness of having chosen

the North Europe price of SMP – a product heavily benefitting from EU subsidies and

subject to stringent U.S. TRQ measures – for MPCs, a product whose imports are subject to

little or no levels of U.S. protection.
 137 Ibid.

 138 Ibid., p. 254.

 139 Ibid., p. 255

 140 Ibid., pp. 255-56.

H-27

Bailey justifies the decision not to endogenously model, but rather exogenizes the farm price

of milk because current milk supply is a function of previous year’s price, and the analysis

focuses on the current year.137 But this does not preclude Bailey’s modeling of both import

demands as a function of lagged own-price: up to two lagged values in the MPC 35 equation

and up to 3 lagged values in the MPC 4 equation.138 Further, Bailey does not clearly justify

inclusion of current and multiple lagged values of own-price in the two import demands,

other than a reference to high levels of price risk associated with MPC imports.139

Bailey mentions that parameter values achieved adequate levels of statistical significance to

justify their use in simulations without mentioning (1) that an important subset of the

coefficients may be insignificant; (2) the high regressor collinearity, and (3) the poor or

marginal goodness of fit levels of two of the three equations. As well, Bailey acknowledges

that there were noticeable problems with simulation errors of the estimated endogenous

variables from observed baseline values.140