December 17, 2014
www.gfb.org
Vol. 32 No. 50
GFB SUBMITS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED BEEF CHECKOFF CHANGES Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB) submitted comments on the USDA’s proposed companion beef checkoff on Dec. 10. The companion checkoff, which would be operated under the Commodity, Promotion and Information Act of 1996, would be established in addition to the current National Beef Checkoff, which was authorized under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985. While recognizing that the current assessment does not adequately fund needed programs as it did in 1985, GFB President Zippy Duvall expressed two key concerns. First, administrative costs under the 1996 law are allowed to be as high as 15 percent, while the 1985 law governing the current checkoff limits administrative costs to five percent. Under the current setup, “Producers benefit from actual beef promotion, not administrative costs,” Duvall wrote. Second, he urged the USDA to hold a producer referendum before establishing the second checkoff. “Producers should not have money withheld from their checks without first having an opportunity to weigh in on the checkoff's value to them,” Duvall wrote. In late September Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced his intention to form the new beef checkoff. This came after a working group of beef industry stakeholders failed to come to an agreement to increase the beef assessment, which is currently $1 per head of cattle, the same as it was when the checkoff was established. The USDA’s Federal Register Notice about the second checkoff included more than 20 questions to be addressed during the comment period, most dealing with how the new checkoff would be structured and funded. GFB supports the current National Beef Checkoff and an increase in the assessment to as much as $2 per head. In the comments Duvall wrote that the current National Beef Checkoff has served producers well, increasing domestic and international demand for beef. Duvall recommended that if the new beef checkoff is established, it should be structured the same way the current one is structured, with board members to be nominated by state cattle associations and state general farm organizations, with representation to come from those who are assessed, dairymen and beef importers. He also suggested a smaller operating committee to handle budget matters.