USDA announces new beef promotion order, seeks input
November 07, 2014 | 04:42 PM
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who has expressed his frustration with a working group’s inability to come up with a consensus to improve the beef checkoff, announced today that USDA is proposing a new checkoff program for beef and beef products and that he is seeking input from the public to guide its development.
The Agricultural Marketing Service, which would be in charge of the new checkoff, is asking for the comments. Checkoffs require payments into a fund each time an animal is sold.
The new order would be in addition to the existing beef checkoff program under which sellers of beef animals pay a fee of $1 per-head for industry, education and research, the same amount that they paid in 1985 when Congress authorized the act.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which essentially runs the checkoff, wants to raise the fee but other groups with an interest in beef have opposed that move unless changes are made to the way it is run.
“Beef industry representatives agree that this important program needs more resources,” Vilsack said.
“USDA is stepping up at a critical juncture to help achieve the industry's goal. With this action we can boost research investments, increase beef exports, and encourage folks here at home to support American beef producers.”
The new order would be developed under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996. The proposed program would be in addition to the existing beef promotion and research program established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985.
Interested individuals and organizations are invited to provide their views concerning provisions that would be included in the new order. A referendum on an order established under the 1996 Act would be conducted within three years after assessments begin to determine whether beef producers favor the program and if it should continue. A second referendum would be held within seven years of the start of the program.
Interested parties have until Dec.10, 2014, to submit comments on any of the issues below, and comments should reference the appropriate heading:
Who should be assessed?
What should be the board structure?
▪ Who is eligible to serve?
▪ Should there be a relatively large delegate body appointed by the Secretary that would elect and recommend from within itself a smaller board?
▪ What should be the size of the board?
▪ What should be the term of office?
How should the board be selected?
▪ Who may nominate eligible candidates to serve?
▪ What should be the nomination and selection process?
What should be the powers and duties of the board?
Who has decision-making authority?
▪ Should funding decisions be made by the full board or a smaller body elected from within this board?
▪ Should funding decisions be made in conjunction with other organizations such as the Federation of State Beef Councils or the current Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board?
How should the assessment rate be determined?
▪ Should the assessment be a specified amount, a percent of value, or an amount determined by board?
▪ If a specified amount or a percent of value, should there be provisions for adjustments to the rate by the board, and without subsequent producer referendum?
▪ Should there be a de minimis exemption for certain size operations or classes of cattle or beef?
▪ Should there be temporary or permanent provisions for refunds of assessments?
How should assessments be collected?
▪ Should the States or the national board collect the assessment?
▪ Should be assessment be levied at all points of sale, at slaughter, or at some other time?
When should the referenda be conducted?
Details of the notice of inquiry will appear in Monday’s Federal Register.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which has been critical of NCBA’s management of the checkoff, praised Vilsack for making the announcement and said that its leaders “look forward to participating in the process and encourage all other beef producers and groups to embrace this opportunity.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson also praised the announcement.
“NFU looks forward to answering the questions that have been posed by USDA on the beef checkoff, as the current checkoff program is in need of major reform,” Johnson said in an email.
“Our comments are sure to focus on the need to separate NCBA’s control from the checkoff. The beef checkoff should be operated like the rest of the checkoff programs where the checkoff itself is not allowed to be controlled by policy organizations pushing political agendas.”
NCBA President Bob McCan, a Victoria, Texas, cattleman, said today that Vilsack’s proposal for a second beef checkoff “is duplicative and would only prove wasteful of producer dollars.”
“This plan by the USDA would consolidate greater authority in federal hands and effectively remove producer control from their promotion and research efforts. Therefore we remain opposed to the administration's checkoff."
The Agricultural Marketing Service, which would be in charge of the new checkoff, is asking for the comments. Checkoffs require payments into a fund each time an animal is sold.
The new order would be in addition to the existing beef checkoff program under which sellers of beef animals pay a fee of $1 per-head for industry, education and research, the same amount that they paid in 1985 when Congress authorized the act.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which essentially runs the checkoff, wants to raise the fee but other groups with an interest in beef have opposed that move unless changes are made to the way it is run.
“Beef industry representatives agree that this important program needs more resources,” Vilsack said.
“USDA is stepping up at a critical juncture to help achieve the industry's goal. With this action we can boost research investments, increase beef exports, and encourage folks here at home to support American beef producers.”
The new order would be developed under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996. The proposed program would be in addition to the existing beef promotion and research program established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985.
Interested individuals and organizations are invited to provide their views concerning provisions that would be included in the new order. A referendum on an order established under the 1996 Act would be conducted within three years after assessments begin to determine whether beef producers favor the program and if it should continue. A second referendum would be held within seven years of the start of the program.
Interested parties have until Dec.10, 2014, to submit comments on any of the issues below, and comments should reference the appropriate heading:
Who should be assessed?
What should be the board structure?
▪ Who is eligible to serve?
▪ Should there be a relatively large delegate body appointed by the Secretary that would elect and recommend from within itself a smaller board?
▪ What should be the size of the board?
▪ What should be the term of office?
How should the board be selected?
▪ Who may nominate eligible candidates to serve?
▪ What should be the nomination and selection process?
What should be the powers and duties of the board?
Who has decision-making authority?
▪ Should funding decisions be made by the full board or a smaller body elected from within this board?
▪ Should funding decisions be made in conjunction with other organizations such as the Federation of State Beef Councils or the current Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board?
How should the assessment rate be determined?
▪ Should the assessment be a specified amount, a percent of value, or an amount determined by board?
▪ If a specified amount or a percent of value, should there be provisions for adjustments to the rate by the board, and without subsequent producer referendum?
▪ Should there be a de minimis exemption for certain size operations or classes of cattle or beef?
▪ Should there be temporary or permanent provisions for refunds of assessments?
How should assessments be collected?
▪ Should the States or the national board collect the assessment?
▪ Should be assessment be levied at all points of sale, at slaughter, or at some other time?
When should the referenda be conducted?
Details of the notice of inquiry will appear in Monday’s Federal Register.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which has been critical of NCBA’s management of the checkoff, praised Vilsack for making the announcement and said that its leaders “look forward to participating in the process and encourage all other beef producers and groups to embrace this opportunity.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson also praised the announcement.
“NFU looks forward to answering the questions that have been posed by USDA on the beef checkoff, as the current checkoff program is in need of major reform,” Johnson said in an email.
“Our comments are sure to focus on the need to separate NCBA’s control from the checkoff. The beef checkoff should be operated like the rest of the checkoff programs where the checkoff itself is not allowed to be controlled by policy organizations pushing political agendas.”
NCBA President Bob McCan, a Victoria, Texas, cattleman, said today that Vilsack’s proposal for a second beef checkoff “is duplicative and would only prove wasteful of producer dollars.”
“This plan by the USDA would consolidate greater authority in federal hands and effectively remove producer control from their promotion and research efforts. Therefore we remain opposed to the administration's checkoff."
