Beef Checkoff

Seminar Seeks to Ease Red Meat Trade Obstacles in Colombia

Tue, 27 Aug 2024 16:54:22 GMT

With support from the National Pork Board and the Beef Checkoff Program, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) recently joined USDA staff in meetings with Colombian officials designed to build a better understanding of the industry both in the U.S. and Colombia, according to a USMEF release. The seminar was an effort to build better relationships and ease red meat export challenges that have risen recently. In April, Columbia banned imports of beef from states where highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) has been detected in dairy cows.

U.S. officials gave a farm-to-fork view of the U.S. livestock industry, explaining the extensive safeguards that are in place to ensure food safety in the U.S., including mandatory Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements.

“The difference between Colombia and the U.S. is that Colombia has very few federally inspected plants, and in our country almost every, and especially every large plant, is federally inspected,” says USMEF Director of Export Services Courtney Heller. “And the infrastructure is very large and very effective. Another key difference between our industries is HACCP is not mandatory in many countries, including Colombia, but in the U.S., if you’re federally inspected, every facility is mandatorily using HACCP as part of their day-to-day operations”

Colombia is a major destination for U.S. pork, with exports racing to record pace in 2024. Through the first half of the year, shipments jumped 33% from a year ago to nearly 57,000 metric tons, while value soared 44% to $157.4 million. Beef exports to Colombia posted a strong first quarter but have struggled since HPAI-related restrictions were imposed this spring. First-half beef exports fell 22% year-over-year to 2,224 metric tons, valued at $13.4 million (down 13%).

Seminar participants included regulatory officials, port inspectors and others involved in the import process. Both sides have expressed interest in continuing the seminar on an annual basis.

U.S. House Votes to Reject Attack on Checkoffs

Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:18:48 GMT

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected an attack on federal commodity checkoff programs. Two Republican proponents argued the famer-funded research and promotion programs fail to fully disclose how the revenue is spent by the programs and they sought to have USDA barred from operating the programs.

GOP Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana and Tom Massie of Kentucky led the attack on checkoff programs, but their efforts convinced only 13% of their colleagues as the amendment failed 49-377.

The House also rejected an amendment that would bar USDA from requiring electronic tracking of cattle.

Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., sought to bar USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from requiring electronic IDs for cattle and bison. That amendment failed, 97-336.

Speaking to defend the checkoffs and the animal ID plan, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., argued the anti-checkoff proposal was led by animal rights activists that ultimately want to reduce consumption of animal products.

“These programs are voluntarily created by producers, for producers, and they don’t receive taxpayer dollars for any of their activities, or for USDA oversight of their activities,” Thompson said.

Regarding the animal ID plan, Thompson said that “traceability resources are paramount when dealing with an animal disease outbreak.”

Cattlemen Praise Congressional Resolution Supporting Beef Checkoff

Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:28:37 GMT

Cattle industry leaders on Thursday (July 13) praised the introduction of a bipartisan congressional resolution recognizing the importance of commodity checkoff programs, including the Beef Checkoff.

“As a cattle producer who invests in the Beef Checkoff, I know how important this program is to the continued success of America’s cattlemen and cattlewomen. The Beef Checkoff was created by cattle producers, is run by cattle producers, and provides immense benefit to cattle producers,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Todd Wilkinson, a South Dakota cattle producer. “I am proud of Representative Barry Moore (R-AL) for leading this resolution and standing with cattle producers to recognize the importance of checkoff programs. I hope more members of Congress listen to farmers and ranchers and reject animal rights activist-led proposals like the OFF Act that undermine producer control of checkoffs.”

Every time cattle are sold in the U.S., $1 from the sale goes to support the Beef Checkoff. These investments are collected by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB), a producer-led organization overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each year, industry organizations, research institutions, and land grant universities develop proposals focused on strengthening beef demand through research, consumer education, marketing, and promotion efforts. The cattlemen and cattlewomen that volunteer their time to serve on the Beef Board, as appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, determine which proposals to fund. The organizations that receive funding become contractors to the Beef Checkoff and undergo regular audits to ensure the judicious use of producer dollars and compliance to the program.

“The Beef Checkoff might be most well-known for the Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner. campaign, but the Checkoff’s benefits go far beyond advertising. Checkoff-funded programs have led to the development of new cuts of beef and strengthened consumer trust in the cattle industry’s animal welfare and sustainability,” said NCBA Policy Division Chairman Gene Copenhaver, a Virginia cattle producer. “The Checkoff has made sure that beef is at the center of Americans’ dinner plates for generations while providing a strong return on investment to cattle producers. I am proud to pay into the Checkoff and know that this collective effort does way more for my operation and this industry than I could do own my own.”

View the resolution here .

Checkoff Reform Legislation Reintroduced by Presidential Candidates

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:23:25 GMT

A bill seeking to limit the use of agricultural checkoff funds has been reintroduced in the Senate and it has the backing of several current or former presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle.

The Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act of 2019 was reintroduced on March 28, by U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) after the same legislation failed to make its way in to the farm bill during the 2018 mark up.

The OFF Act would put in place financial restrictions and transparency for USDA’s agricultural checkoffs that aim to reform how the programs operate.

Booker, who is currently seeking the Democratic nomination for president, and Lee, both supported the OFF Act in 2018. At that time, the bill was co-sponsored by former 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is also running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Paul and Warren have returned to co-sponsor the OFF Act again in 2019.

The Senators argue that checkoff funds are being improperly used by contractors , such as National Pork Producers Council, American Soybean Association or the National Corn Growers Association, to lobby against legislation that might benefit other segments of agriculture.

“Checkoff programs force farmers to pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests,” Lee says. “On top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. The Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act is common sense reform that would help farmers see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used against them.”

“Federal checkoff programs need to start working again for the family farmers and ranchers who are required to pay into them,” Booker says. “This bipartisan legislation will bring much needed reforms by prohibiting conflicts of interest and anti-competitive practices, and requiring more transparency in these programs.”

The 2018 version of the OFF Act and a similar bill tracing back to 2016 had the support of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) , but the animal rights group has not voiced any support for the bill thus far.

The OFF Act does have the backing of another Washington, D.C.-based animal rights group, Animal Wellness Action, along with several agriculture organizations that would like to see drastic changes made to the way checkoffs operate.

“USDA’s checkoff programs must be held accountable, and family farmers have a right to know where their hard-earned dollars are going,” says Marty Irby, executive director at Animal Wellness Action. “We applaud Senators Booker and Lee for introducing the OFF Act to curb the use funds to lobby for policies harmful to family farmers, and animal protection.”

“I don’t want my hard-earned dollars funneled to a quasi-governmental organization that works against my best interest and represents industrial agriculture’s continued movement toward the monopolization of farming,” says Will Harris, president of the American Grassfed Association. “We’ve farmed the same land in Georgia since 1855, and I want to ensure that future generations are able to continue to do the same.”

“It’s crisis time in agriculture where every penny counts,” says Mike Eby, chairman of the National Dairy Producers Organization. “If farmers are going to be forced to fund checkoff programs’ ‘government speech,’ the very least farmers should expect is legitimate oversight and a system of checks and balances for all commodity checkoffs, and the OFF Act does just that.”

In its support of the 2019 version of the OFF Act, Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) argues that USDA has not been doing its due diligence for oversight to manage the relationships between checkoff boards and lobbying organizations.

“The over $850 million these programs take from farmers each year have become the cash cow for organizations that work against fair competition and market transparency. So long as checkoff funds remain hidden from accountability and in the hands of trade and lobbying groups, independent family agriculture is in peril of being wiped from the face of the countryside. It is imperative this legislation be passed and signed into law,” says OCM founding member Fred Stokes.

There are agriculture industry associations that don’t support the move because checkoff programs are already under the supervision and guidance of USDA.

In a statement to Farm Journal, National Milk Producers Federation president and CEO Jim Mulhern shares he doesn’t believe the OFF Act is necessary.

“Checkoff programs provide valuable services for U.S. farmers, allowing them to pool resources for research and promotion that has helped make the U.S. the world’s biggest farm exporter and its leading agricultural producer. USDA is already required to provide oversight of checkoff programs to ensure fiscal responsibility, and fair treatment of participating stakeholders,” Mulhern says.

“Finally, current law already stipulates that checkoff dollars cannot legally be used for lobbying or influencing government policy or action of any kind. The legislation is a solution in search of a problem,” Mulhern adds

Last year, the OFF Act was defeated by a vote of 57 no votes to 38 yes votes to enter the farm bill in 2018. Five senators abstained. A similar version of the OFF Act did not make its way into the House farm bill , either.

After the OFF Act failed to make it into the farm bill in 2018, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff program, offered thanks to Senators who opposed the amendment .

At the time of the bill failing, NCBA’s past president Kevin Kester said “The rejection of this amendment is a win for America’s cattle producers, who voluntarily created and continue to overwhelmingly support the beef checkoff system. Legislation like the Lee-Booker amendment is largely pushed by militant vegans and extreme political organizations that essentially want to end animal agriculture.”

NCBA also voiced concerns regarding statements made by Sen. Warren while on the campaign trail this past week regarding topics like agriculture checkoffs .

“If Senator Warren’s goal is to help cattle farmers and ranchers, her policy proposals seriously miss the mark. The ideas she outlines are nothing more than recycled policies promoted by some of the leading opponents of animal agriculture. It is regrettable that Senator Warren would follow in the footsteps of groups like the Humane Society of the United States, who have launched unfounded attacks against the Beef Checkoff for years. Crippling the Beef Checkoff and resurrecting failed policies like mandatory country-of-origin labeling may be a dream for radical activists, but it would be a nightmare for cattle producers,” says Colin Woodall, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs.

The OFF Act is one of just a few attempts that are being made to revamp the checkoff system. There is currently an ongoing lawsuit led by Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) against the USDA that alleges checkoff funding goes towards private speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Also, Senators Lee and Paul introduced the Voluntary Check-Off Program Participation Act on March 28 that would make participation in checkoff programs voluntary at the national level.

“If farmers and ranchers want to get together and pool their resources to better promote their products, then that is the free market at its best,” Lee says. “But as soon as the power of the federal government is used to force people into a program they do not want to participate in, then that is crony capitalism at its worst.”

Livestock Traceability Implementation Leads NIAA Conference Agenda

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:09:55 GMT

“The NIAA Annual Conference is the one place where government, industry, and a variety of organizations and individuals will all come together to speak to the subject of Livestock Traceability,” says Mr. Chuck Adami, President & CEO, Equity Cooperative Livestock Association and panelist in the discussion titled Industry Perspective on Traceability, which will be featured during the Interactive Workshop, Traceability and the Real World.

The 2018 NIAA Annual Conference, themed Livestock Traceability: Opportunities for Animal Agriculture, will be held in Denver, Colorado at the Renaissance Stapleton Hotel, April 10th & 11th, with the follow–up Workshop on April 12th. “Other groups are working to promote traceability,” he says,” but not as cohesively as NIAA.”

It was at a recent 1 ½ day Forum on Livestock Traceability co–hosted by NIAA and USAHA, where Adami notes the USDA opened the doors for industry to ask how to go forward. “NIAA created this opportunity, and the next large step is coming from the NIAA Annual Conference where industry and government will get into the same room and ask what each other thinks,” says Adami.

Livestock Traceability has been an issue for a number of years. Federal and state governments set up traceability systems for livestock in the event of a disease outbreak. “A commitment to Livestock Traceability became heightened with the possibility of terrorists introducing disease which could create a devastating loss of a good portion of our herd,” says Adami.

During that period of time, interaction between government and groups seemed to have difficulty being able to come together as to the how and when of the process, according to Adami. The federal government developed a system and required its use during interstate transport. Then states made up rules on how to fit into the federal system, but that became what Adami calls a ‘hodgepodge’ for moving cattle across state lines, as requirements from one state to the next can be different. However, Adami says, while overall, the system is working effectively, it addresses only part of the problem.

The current catalyst is to try to improve traceability across animal agriculture, with the opening of trade with partners who require traceability to be in place. “The system we have does not completely meet those trade partner requirements,” says Adami, “so now we have both sides of the equation, tracking for diseases and the industry seeing the value in being able to export their animals.”