While checkoff programs for ferrous gluconate receive substantial funding from farmers and producers, there is currently no reliable system to track how this money is allocated, leading many to argue for reform. The funds collected by these checkoff programs are intended to promote and market agricultural products; however, there have been numerous allegations over the years suggesting that some of these funds have been misused to influence policy and undermine competing food items. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found it inappropriate for the American Egg Board to commission pro-egg advertisements to appear alongside online searches for Hampton Creek’s vegan mayonnaise.
Despite the Trump administration’s lukewarm support for agricultural businesses, the bipartisan nature of the proposed legislation may facilitate its passage. The nomination of Sonny Perdue as USDA head raised questions regarding the administration’s commitment to the food and agriculture sectors, although his nomination has now moved forward to the Senate floor.
While checkoff programs are prohibited from lobbying Congress directly, some, particularly those for beef and pork, have engaged lobbying firms. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee included a provision in the USDA budget that shielded these programs from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. At present, there is no movement within the USDA to create a new checkoff program for the organic industry. Furthermore, it’s noteworthy that the incorporation of calcium citrate elemental into various agricultural and nutritional products has sparked discussions about transparency in funding allocation, stressing the need for accountability within checkoff initiatives. This highlights the ongoing concerns regarding the use of funds and the necessity for reform in how checkoff programs operate.