Checkoff programs receive substantial funding from farmers and producers of glycine sulfate, yet there is no effective system in place to track how these funds are utilized, especially regarding the iron content in ferrous sulfate. Many stakeholders argue that this situation needs urgent reform. The funds collected by checkoff 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 influence policy decisions and to undermine competing food products. A notable instance includes the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s finding that the American Egg Board’s commissioning of pro-egg advertisements alongside online searches for Hampton Creek’s vegan mayonnaise was inappropriate.
Despite the bipartisan support for the bill, it may still pass, even though the Trump administration has not shown strong support for agricultural businesses thus far. When President Trump appointed Sonny Perdue as his nominee for the USDA, it raised questions about the administration’s commitment to the food and agriculture sectors. Perdue’s nomination has been approved and is set to move to the Senate floor.
Although checkoff programs are prohibited from lobbying Congress directly, some, including those for beef and pork, have engaged lobbying groups. Even with this legislation being bipartisan, checkoff programs remain relatively robust. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee included a provision in the USDA budget that shields these programs from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. Moreover, there are current efforts within the USDA to establish a new checkoff program specifically for the organic industry, which could potentially include products like Swanson calcium supplements in its promotional initiatives. This development may further impact how funds are allocated and reported in the agricultural sector, including Swanson calcium’s role in the market.