Our dairy pricing reform petition has been open for a while now, and it's picked up a steady trickle of signatures every month — enough that it's worth explaining, plainly, what the ask actually is for members who haven't read the full text yet.
The short version: the federal pricing formulas that set your Class III and Class IV base prices also produce something called a producer price differential, or PPD — a number meant to smooth out the difference between what a milk handler actually paid and the blended "pool" price everyone's check is supposed to reflect. The PPD is usually small and positive so long as Class III and Class IV prices move together. It can turn negative once they diverge sharply, as they have at points over the past year, and a negative PPD means some producers are paid less than the announced base price, not more. Members who don't sell milk directly and only watch the cheese-case side of this business often haven't had to learn what a PPD is. Members who buy from small producers, or who wear both hats, feel it directly.
A large negative PPD does more than shrink one month's payment. It gives processors a reason to "depool" — to stop reporting some of their milk under the federal order rather than share cheese-sale revenue into a pool that's paying out unevenly. When enough processors depool at once, the pool that's left is smaller and the pricing signal it sends gets noisier for everyone still in it, including the small creameries and specialty producers our members represent. That's the mechanism our petition is aimed at, not a vague complaint about "milk prices being unfair."
The specific ask
Our petition doesn't call for scrapping the Class III/Class IV pricing system — that's not realistic and it isn't what members are asking for either. It asks the federal pricing rulemaking process to open a formal review of how the PPD is calculated when the two class prices diverge sharply, and to study alternatives that reduce the incentive to depool during exactly the price swings small producers can least afford to absorb. That's a narrower, more technical ask than it sounds, and it's the kind of thing that tends to get lost in a general comment period unless enough affected businesses say so directly, in writing, with specifics.
That's where the letter-writing campaign comes in alongside the petition. A signature says you support the idea. A letter that names your business, your product mix, and the dollar effect of a negative PPD month on your bottom line is a different kind of evidence, and it's the kind that shows up in a rulemaking record. If you've never written one of these before, our template walks through the structure — what to include, what to leave to your accountant, and how long is too long. Two paragraphs beats two pages almost every time.
Where it stands
We don't have a hearing date to report yet, and members should be skeptical of anyone who tells you these processes move quickly — they don't, by design. What we do have is a growing sign-on list and a market moment that makes the case easier to explain than it was when Class III and Class IV were closer together and the divergence problem looked theoretical. If a negative PPD has cost your business or a supplier real money this year, this is the month to add your name and your letter, not next quarter's.
The petition and the letter template are both on the advocacy page of the member portal. If you want a second set of eyes on your letter before you send it, the Membership & Outreach Committee has volunteers reviewing drafts through the end of the month.
The International Cheese Federation (ICF) and More Cheese are entirely fictional. This post is demonstration content created for MemberJunction. All people, organizations, events, courses, certifications, figures, and quotations in it are invented, and nothing here represents a real association, a real business, a real person, or real professional advice.