| ||||
|
|
Voluntary checkoffs should keep the best of the mandatory programs
By Cheryl Stubbendieck
Nebraska Farm Bureau vice president/public relations.
Farm Bureau and others who recognize the importance of commodity checkoffs are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will not find the mandatory beef checkoff unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments Dec. 8 and is expected to decide the constitutionality issue by spring. Whatever it decides will have impacts for all similar commodity checkoff programs.
Jan Lyons, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, stated the need for the checkoff program succinctly in remarks Dec. 9 to the Iowa Cattlemen's Association: "If there is no demand for our end product, there is no need for calves. We don't need the cattle. The case that I make to you is that it (the checkoff) has had a great impact on your present and your future." She cited beef safety and beef nutrition programs, as well as the "Beef, It's What's for Dinner" promotional campaign as examples of crucial checkoff-funded programs.
Perhaps most importantly, the producer-funded checkoff helped the cattle industry develop a response plan after that single BSE case was found in Washington State last December. That plan played a major part in the successful effort to maintain consumer confidence in U.S. beef.
Very simply, the needs served by the beef checkoff and other checkoff programs will not go away if mandatory checkoff programs are eliminated. With that thought in mind, delegates to Nebraska Farm Bureau's convention earlier this month approved a contingency plan for a voluntary state program in case the court rules against the national beef checkoff.
For a program to be voluntary, producers must have the opportunity to opt out, either by receiving a refund or by not paying in the first place. Checkoff proponents prefer the refund approach. All producers of a commodity benefit from checkoff-funded programs for that commodity, whether they help to fund them or not. It seems reasonable to require some effort on the part of nonparticipants--applying for a refund--rather than allowing them to say "No, thank you", at the point where the checkoff is collected. Refunds, however, should be made on a timely basis.
With a voluntary program, there doesn't need to be provisions for a producer referendum on whether or not to have a program. If you disapprove, you just opt out. But two prominent provisions from existing checkoffs should be retained. Checkoff board members--who decide how funds are to be spent--should continue to be elected by producers, rather than appointed by the governor. There needs to be accountability to the people who pay the checkoff.
In addition, the prohibition against using checkoff funds for lobbying should continue. It can be argued that lobbying is a form of product promotion, but all producers of a commodity are not going to agree on how or what, exactly, to lobby. By keeping the focus on developing markets and new uses, and promoting the product to end-users, checkoffs can avoid problems they don't need.
Mandatory checkoffs are important to the future of the commodities they support. But if we can't continue to have them, we can at least learn some lessons from their success.
Date: 12/22/04
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com
 
| |||||||||||||||||||||
