Two Beef Checkoffs?

[Faster horses]

OT posted this on Bull Session. I thought I would move it here so more
people would read it. It's pretty important, at least I think so.


Time for Two Beef Checkoffs?


Thursday, October 02, 2014/Categories: General News, Today's Top 5, Livestock Markets, Federal News, Farm Bill , USDA - United States Department of Agriculture, Organizations, Cattle, Ag Issues



Time for Two Beef Checkoffs?
Secretary Vilsack announced this week that he is setting plans in motion for a second beef checkoff.

Time for two beef checkoff programs? As far-fetched as it sounds, that could be the reality in just over a year.

Scott George is the immediate past president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Northern Ag Network spoke with him Thursday morning. He let us know that on Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack assembled a meeting of the Beef Checkoff Working Group in which eight of the 11 organizations in that group were represented.

In those discussions, George told us the Secretary announced that he was going to implement a new checkoff program for beef by January of 2016. He said the program was going to be operated under the 1996 Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act (generally known as the General Commodities Program). The new checkoff program, according to Secretary Vilsack, would be separate from the existing Beef Checkoff, and would be up for a referendum in three years.

While there are still a lot of details to be made clear and all changes will be open for public comment, this means that there could be two checkoffs for the cattle industry running simultaneously.

According to George, three groups were not in attendance at that meeting. Two, he knows, were not invited. Those were the Federation of State Beef Councils and the Cattlemen's Beef Board.


© Northern Ag Network 2014
Haylie Shipp

 

[Red Barn Angus]

What authority does Vilsack have to set up another check off and not have a referendum for three years? Does this mean he plans to manage our money? Or is this a government tax on our cattle business? I know I sound negative but I don't trust the government one bit.

 

[Anonymous]

What authority does Vilsack have to set up another check off and not have a referendum for three years? Does this mean he plans to manage our money? Or is this a government tax on our cattle business? I know I sound negative but I don't trust the government one bit.

In a media advisory, NCBA said Vilsack's statements "threaten the success of the current beef checkoff," but in the telephone press conference, the officials credited Vilsack with wanting to find a way for the industry to get more money for promotion and research.

For three years, representatives of beef and farm groups have been trying to reach agreement to raise the beef checkoff from the $1 paid each time an animal is sold to $2, and to make changes that would satisfy complaints that the checkoff has been dominated by the NCBA, a free-trade oriented organization with which some other cattle and general farm groups have ideological differences.

If the beef checkoff is to be changed under the 1985 act that created it, Congress would have to make the changes.

Vilsack can use his executive authority under a 1996 generic checkoff act to create a new checkoff and some time later hold a referendum for producers to approve it. The new checkoff would be subject to the public comment process and would go into effect in 2016, Vilsack said, according to NCBA. At some point in the future, the two checkoffs might be mingled, the NCBA official said.

- See more at: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24193/group/Agribusiness/#sthash.6zjQ48MV.uwfAgenM.dpuf

The way I understand it- Vilsack and most all producers believe the Beef Checkoff tax should be raised to better promote beef-- BUT this takes Congressional action to do with the current checkoff tax..

And with the disagreements and misuse questions with NCBA's current control of the Checkoff splitting cattlemen and cattlemens organizations - and the bipartisan dysfunction of Congress that does not seem in any way likely...

But under the law Vilsack can set up a new Checkoff- that does not have the NCBA control without Congressional approval- but it would need a referendum vote of producers within 3 years... Personally I believe if the NCBA was totally removed from the picture and that improprieties appearance/issue removed-- a beef checkoff raise would pass a referendum vote of the producers- BUT I don't believe it will if NCBA has anything to do with it...

The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for overseeing the formation of checkoff organizations under the authority of the Commodity, Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004671

It appears as tho this request of the Secretary has some producer backing...

36 Groups Urge Ag Secretary to Enforce Beef Checkoff Program's Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest; Urge Other Reforms


September 11, 2014




Washington, DC – In the wake of this weekend's announcement by the National Farmers Union (NFU) that it was withdrawing from the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group (working group), 36 organizations sent a joint letter today to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging him to immediately implement their recommendations for eliminating the conflicts of interest from the Beef Checkoff Program.

For over four years, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) ignored the Secretary's direct warning about the need for checkoff integrity, which would include, for example, the independence of the Federation of State Beef Councils (Federation). During that entire time the Secretary waited while industry groups self-selected participants to work harmoniously with the NCBA to develop a plan for reforming the Beef Checkoff Program so it would operate as the law intended and so the interests of all producers and importers are supported, not just the interests of NCBA members.

In early August, the self-selected participants of the working group proposed changes that would double the beef checkoff assessment and make certain procedural modifications to the program. It was this proposal that the NFU found so objectionable that it voted to withdraw itself from the group.

"The Secretary had suggested that if the industry groups could not come to an agreement, then he would take unilateral action to fix the broken checkoff program," said Fred Stokes, spokesman for the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) that is a signatory to the letter.

Stokes said NFU's withdrawal demonstrates there is no agreement even among the self-selected industry groups.

"Our joint letter is intended to provide the Secretary with a much better alternative that will immediately address the most egregious problems with our current checkoff program," said R-CALF USA Beef Checkoff Committee Chair Joe Pongratz.

The joint letter states that the two most offensive and glaring conflicts of interest in the Beef Checkoff Program are that the decision-making Federation is "housed, administered, owned and controlled" by the NCBA and that checkoff funds strengthen the NCBA's advocacy efforts because they offset, "if not directly subsidize," the NCBA's administrative costs. The letter refers to this offset as cross-subsidization.

The joint letter calls the working group's proposal "unacceptable," and urges Vilsack to:

Enforce the prohibition against conflicts of interest in contracting and all other decision-making operations of the Beef Checkoff Program

Enforce a prohibition against contracting with organizations that engage in policy-oriented activities.

Require a legally independent Federation, without affiliation to NCBA or any other private entity.

"The Beef Checkoff Program was never intended as a vehicle to strengthen the political voice of NCBA or any other policy organization above the voices of any other organization or above the collective voice of the producers funding the program," the joint letter states.

Organizations making the request of Secretary Vilsack include: American Agriculture Movement; American Grassfed Assn.; Ashtbaula Geauga Lake Counties Farmers Union (OH); Buckeye Quality Beef Assn.; California Farmers Union; Cattle Producers of Louisiana; Cattle Producers of Washington; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Assn.; Dakota Rural Action; Family Farm Defenders; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; International Texas Longhorn Assn.; Intertribal Agriculture Council; Land Stewardship Project; Missouri Farmers Union; Missouri Rural Crisis Center; Missouri's Best Beef Co-Operative; Murray County, Oklahoma, Independent Cattlemen's Assn.; National Association of Farm Animal Welfare; National Family Farm Coalition; National Hmong American Farmers; National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Assn.; Nebraska Farmers Union; Nevada Live Stock Assn.; Northern Plains Resource Council; Ohio Farmers Union; Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM); Powder River Basin Resource Council; R-CALF USA; Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Socially Responsible Agricultural Project; South Dakota Stockgrowers Assn.; and, Western Organization of Resource Councils.

 

[rancherfred]

The NFU has never seen an expansion of govt. that they didn't like. If they are supporting this, it has to be a horrible idea.

I am pretty sure that the info you are peddling about the NCBA controlling the checkoff is incorrect, but then you probably already knew that.

 

[Brad S]

After Fred's post I looked at that long list with some detail. Fred is right about NFU, many of the other groups are more formed after Gompers than Hayek.

 

[mrj]

Even a quick glance at that list shows Some groups spending lots of money to fight 'conventional'/'big'/'corporate' Ag, in which if us building up ranching over the past 100+ years currently practice. An accurate definition of it is Animal Science based care of animals, imo.

Most of the really GOOD old cowboys I knew would be rotating pretty fast in their graves to think of their descendants following the likes of Food and Water Watch, or the various 'Resource Councils', including Dakota Rural Action and others.

Then there are the primary organizations which worked against passage of the Beef Checkoff.........and filed suit against it and performed various other acts to attempt to kill it after it was passed and continues to enjoy strong support in various polls required by government for it to continue. National F.U., R-Calf, and OCM.

Not much positive thought in any of them, in fact they seem downright dependent upon 'crises' to continue pulling in donations from their members. And if one doesn't show up on its own they manufacture one, usually with NCBA as the bogeyman other producers need to stop from ruining our good cattle markets.

Totally ignored is the great work the separate Federation of State Beef Councils and the contract work NCBA does for the Checkoff which has created better value, modern cuts from 'old' cuts of beef, not to mention all the work from day one of the legislated Beef Checkoff.

Anyone who cares to find out what is really done with the Beef Checkoff dollars can look it up on www.beefusa, or if that is too much work, or you want to talk to a person, call your state Beef Industry Council and talk to the director, or a knowledgeable staff person.

mrj