Commodity checkoff program
In the United States, a commodity checkoff program collects funds though a checkoff mechanism, sometimes called checkoff dollars, from producers of a particular agricultural commodity and uses these funds to promote and do research on that particular commodity. The organizations must promote their commodity in a generic way, without reference to a particular producer. Checkoff programs attempt to improve the market position of the covered commodity by expanding markets, increasing demand, and developing new uses and markets.
The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for overseeing the formation of checkoff organizations under the authority of the Commodity, Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.
These organizations are responsible for familiar American advertising campaigns, including "Milk Does a Body Good," the Got Milk? milk moustache series, "Pork. The Other White Meat", "The Incredible, Edible Egg", and "Beef: It's What's for Dinner."
United States policy
Because individual producers of nearly homogeneous agricultural commodities cannot easily convince consumers to choose one egg or orange or a single cut of beef over another, they often have joined together in commodity promotion programs to use generic advertising in an effort to expand total demand for the commodity, with the objective of helping their own sales as well. Activities are intended to expand both domestic and export demand; examples include advertising, nutrition education, research to improve product quality and appeal, market research studies, and technical assistance. These activities are often self-funded through assessments on marketings – hence, the name check-off programs.
Congress has permitted producer groups to make checkoffs mandatory, and this aspect has generated legal challenges by some producers, who contend they must pay taxes for activities they would not underwrite voluntarily. The U.S. Supreme Court [in United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 412 (2001)] ruled that the mushroom check-off violated the Constitutional free speech provisions (First Amendment), creating uncertainty about the future of other check-offs. Since then, separate lower federal courts have ruled that various check-offs also are unconstitutional. However, on May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the beef check-off does not violate the First Amendment. In its decision, Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association (Nos. 03-1164 and 03-1165), a majority of the Court agreed with check-off defenders that the programs are in fact "government speech" (an issue that was not considered in the mushroom decision).
"Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns,"..."Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."
Most legal observers predict that this decision will be used to defend other challenges to check-offs.
Major checkoff organizations
- Almond Board of California
- American Egg Board
- American Lamb Board
- Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board
- Cattlemen’s Beef Board
- Christmas Tree Promotion Board
- Cotton Board
- Dairy Management Inc.
- Mohair Council of America
- Mushroom Council
- National Honey Board
- National Watermelon Promotion Board
- National Peanut Board
- National Pork Board
- National Processed Raspberry Council
- Popcorn Board
- U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council
- United Soybean Board
- United States Potato Board
This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service document "Report for Congress: Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition" by Jasper Womach.
- Greenhouse, Linda (May 24, 2005). "Justices Say All Ranchers Must Help Pay for Federal Ads". The New York Times. Retrieved September 2, 2011.
Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns," Justice Scalia said, adding, "Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech.