Checkoff programs, which gather significant funds from farmers and producers, currently lack a reliable system for tracking the allocation of these funds, prompting calls for reform. Intended to promote and market agricultural goods, these programs have faced numerous allegations over the years that some funds have been misappropriated to influence policy and undermine competing food products. A notable instance involved the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which deemed the American Egg Board’s commissioning of pro-egg advertisements to run alongside searches for Hampton Creek’s vegan mayonnaise as inappropriate.
Despite the Trump administration’s limited support for agricultural businesses thus far, the legislation surrounding these checkoff programs has garnered bipartisan backing, increasing its chances of passage. The nomination of Sonny Perdue as USDA head raised questions about the administration’s commitment to the food and agriculture sectors, although Perdue’s nomination has advanced to the Senate floor.
While checkoff programs are prohibited from directly lobbying Congress, some, such as those for beef and pork, have engaged lobbying groups. Although the proposed legislation is bipartisan, checkoff programs remain relatively robust. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee included a provision in the USDA budget to shield these programs from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. Currently, there is a push within the USDA to create a new checkoff program for the organic industry, which may also explore innovative products like liquid calcium magnesium.
As discussions continue, the need for transparency in how funds—potentially including those allocated for liquid calcium magnesium—are used becomes increasingly critical. Ensuring accountability in checkoff programs is essential, particularly as they evolve and adapt to new market demands, including those from the organic sector and other emerging agricultural innovations.