Page 92 - Fall2020

the RAMP UP Act would help a few small-scale ads and educational programs for dieticians.
processors, it is unlikely to increase significantly In the case of beef, producers pay a dollar per head when a cow is
the number of small-scale slaughterhouses avail- sold. In 2019, the Beef Checkoff’s assessments totaled nearly 43 mil-
able for farmers who wish to sell their meat. lion dollars. Where does all that money go? The first purpose is generic
WAPF has never used an auto-email system marketing, such as the “Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner” advertisements.
for sending messages to legislators because they Much of the money also goes into the pockets of private entities who
don’t work to influence legislators (although supposedly use it to do promotion and research.
they do work well to get people onto email lists, Why does this matter to WAPF farmers who are raising grass-fed beef
which can then be used for fundraising). Instead, and the consumers who buy from them? Many of our farmers don’t pay
we provide talking points and encourage people the Checkoff tax because they fly under the radar; but the Checkoff is still
to place calls or send personalized emails using a major problem for us all. First, the way these programs are structured
those talking points as a framework; such calls means that tens of millions of dollars per year are used to promote the
and emails have a far greater impact than form belief that all meat (or milk or eggs) is alike and it doesn’t matter how it is
letters ever can. And now we need to use even raised, undermining both consumers’ health and farmers’ profit margins.
more effective tactics. The only thing likely to Second, millions of dollars each year flow into the pockets of entities who
change the minds of the legislators who have actively work to support the interest of multinational meatpackers at the
not yet signed on to the PRIME Act are truly expense of family farmers. More on both these issues below.
personal stories that provide a simple, clear R-CALF’s lawsuit challenged the Beef Checkoff in Montana on First
statement of why this issue is important to the Amendment grounds. The core argument was that although the federal
constituent contacting them. government mandates all ranchers pay the tax, the government fails to
Please take a moment to write a from- regulate properly how that money is spent. In Montana, the government
scratch letter of your own about why the PRIME turns over half the money collected to the private Montana Beef Council.
Act matters to you. It doesn’t have to be long, This private entity favors multinational corporations over independent
just entirely in your own words. Be as specific as ranchers. For example, the Montana Beef Council has used the Checkoff
possible about how the lack of accessible, afford- money to advertise for the fast-food chain Wendy’s, which does not com-
able slaughterhouses affects you, your family or mit to buying meat from Montana or even U.S. ranchers. The lawsuit thus
your business. An easy way to send the message contended that the Checkoff is a form of compelled speech.
is using fiscalnote.com/find-your-legislator, R-CALF won the first round in trial court in 2018. The court recog-
which will allow you to send the same message nized that the movement of Checkoff funds amounts to a “shell game”
to all your federally elected officials (but with in which producers’ money is moved from one account to another, then
no pre-written form letter). We must keep up another, where it ultimately is used at the discretion of unaccountable
the fight to get this important bill passed. private parties. R-CALF expanded the lawsuit to seek a halt to Checkoff
funds in more than a dozen other states. USDA then sought to sidestep
CHECKOFF LAWSUIT responsibility for its mishandling of the program by entering into “Memo-
What about the third branch of our govern- randums of Understanding” with the private state beef councils. This
ment, the judiciary? There are possible signs stratagem worked, and the trial court dismissed R-CALF’s case; it is now
of progress on that front as well, in a lawsuit on appeal to the Ninth Circuit based on the inadequacy of the MOUs. R-
brought against the Beef Checkoff by R-CALF CALF has also filed a new lawsuit directly challenging the MOUs on the
USA. grounds that they changed the legal framework for the Checkoff without
The “Checkoffs” are programs established going through the proper administrative procedures.
by federal statute under which producers must Returning to why the Checkoff is a problem and this lawsuit is
pay a fee for each unit of production – essen- important: generic advertising misleads consumers and hurts specialty
tially, a tax on farmers’ and ranchers’ produc- producers. Reduced product differentiation convinces consumers that
tion. There are currently 21 federal Checkoffs, “beef is beef” and one producer’s cattle are substantially the same as any
the best known of which are the beef, pork, and others. This can harm higher-quality producers while benefiting lower-
dairy Checkoffs. Past Wise Traditions journal quality ones.
articles have discussed some of the abuses of the Not only is generic marketing problematic in general, but the Beef
Dairy Checkoff, which forces raw milk farmers Checkoff’s messaging is particularly harmful. The Checkoff seeks to
to pay this tax, and then uses its funds to dispar- convince American consumers that all beef products offer the same,
age raw milk’s safety through its website, radio consistent set of qualities and benefits. The National Cattlemens Beef
90 Wise Traditions FALL 2020