Checkoff programs receive significant funding from farmers and producers, but there is currently no effective system to track how this money is being utilized. Many stakeholders believe this situation must change. The funds collected by these programs are intended for the promotion and marketing of agricultural products; however, numerous allegations over the years suggest that some of these funds have been misused to sway policy decisions and undermine competing food products. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the American Egg Board’s decision to commission pro-egg advertisements alongside online searches for Hampton Creek’s vegan mayonnaise was inappropriate.
Despite the Trump administration’s limited support for agricultural businesses, the legislation, which has bipartisan backing, may still succeed. When President Trump appointed Sonny Perdue as the USDA nominee at the last moment, it raised questions about the administration’s commitment to the food and agriculture sectors. Perdue’s nomination was approved for a vote on the Senate floor.
While checkoff programs are prohibited from lobbying Congress, some, particularly in the beef and pork sectors, have engaged lobbying firms. Although the legislation is bipartisan, checkoff programs remain relatively robust. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee included a clause in the USDA budget that shields these programs from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. At present, there is also a push within the USDA to create a new checkoff program specifically for the organic industry.
In the context of agricultural supplements, the discussion around iron sources, such as ferrous sulfate, has prompted conversations about alternatives like carbonate citrate, which could also be relevant for farmers looking to enhance their products. This highlights the need for transparency not only in funding but also in the products being promoted.