Something about the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act seems, well, off.

The OFF Act was introduced in Congress back in February with the stated goal of establishing “restrictions and requirements for checkoff programs overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” However, the restrictions and requirements outlined by the bill already exist in the current checkoff structure. 

So, with all the redundancy of the OFF Act, what is the real thrust of this Congressional proposal? The coalition formed in support of the act gives a hint to what is really at its core: a foot in the door for animal activist groups to slowly force livestock producers out of business.

Among the most vocal supporters of the OFF Act are Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a noted animal rights activist, and groups like Mercy for Animals whose mission statement reads, “Our mission is to end industrial animal agriculture by constructing a just and sustainable food system.”

As pushes for a plant-based diet continue to abound, it is important to keep in mind that agriculture is a holistic system. In the system animal rights activists envision, everyone would eat an organic, plant-based diet. However, without animal production, there is no organic produce production. And a plant-based diet is not a diet free from the killing of animals; it’s a diet filled with deaths wasted if we don’t consume the ungulates and birds killed to protect produce during its growth.

The OFF Act is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it is time to put a stop to it. Anyone is who not satisfied with the checkoff system should delve more deeply into it before pointing fingers. It is a system operated by producers, for producers, for better marketing and research toward improving the products being marketed.

Checkoff programs are promotional and research organizations paid for by commodity producers through the sale of their goods including eggs, beef, Christmas trees, and many more items. The funds directed toward these organizations are taken directly from the producer or grower at the time of sale.

You’ve probably heard checkoff slogans without even knowing that is what they were. “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner,” “Got milk?” or “Pork. The other white meat” are great examples of checkoff slogans used to market a product. Checkoffs do more than market commodities though. Checkoff dollars also fund research about everything from the nutritional benefits of a particular commodity to how soil content can affect growth of a product.

The current checkoff system is administered by the USDA but each checkoff program is governed by people directly involved in the production of the commodity. In the cattle industry, it is the Cattlemen’s Beef Board; for the Christmas tree industry it is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board.

The following are goals of the OFF Act: “prohibits boards established to carry out a checkoff program or a USDA order issued under the checkoff program from entering into a contract or agreement to carry out program activities with a party that engages in activities to influence government policy or action that relates to agriculture.” Board members or checkoff employees are also prohibited from engaging in any “act that may involve a conflict of interest; anticompetitive activity; unfair or deceptive acts or practices; or act that may be disparaging to, or in any way negatively portray, another agricultural commodity or product.” The act would also require checkoffs to publish their budgets and disbursements of funds. Annual audits of the finances of each checkoff would also be mandatory.

The OFF Act seeks to prohibit “activities to influence government policy or action that relates to agriculture.” However, all the research and promotion boards in checkoff are already prohibited from using grower dollars to pay lobbyists. It is easy to mistake lobbying organizations – the National Association of Wheat Growers or the National Pork Producers Council – for checkoff boards. 

Just as the name suggests, the goal of checkoffs is research and promotion. The goal of lobby organizations like pork producers is, “We advocate for the social, environmental, and economic sustainability of U.S. pork producers and their partners by fighting for reasonable public policy, defending our freedom to operate and expanding access to global markets.”

The OFF Act would require checkoffs to publish their budgets and expenditures. Checkoffs are already required to submit those documents to the USDA and are publicly available. More specifically, checkoffs are required to do the following by the USDA:

“Boards shall submit to AMS for review financial statements or reports for each accounting period (monthly or quarterly) for proper accountability of funds collected and expended. The financial statements will consist of (1) a financial position (balance sheet), and (2) a statement of activities (i.e., assessment revenues and expenditures; budget and actual) including a comparison of actual results to budget, and (3) the overall change in net assets for the reporting period, including unexpended budget for all budget line items and operational budget expenses. For example, a budget vs. expenditures, vs. unexpended balance.”

Finally, the OFF Act would also like to see an institution of ethics conduct monitoring for the checkoffs. However, checkoffs are already required to do that, too. The Code of Ethics under the Guidelines for AMS Oversight of Commodity Research and Promotion Programs begins with the following:

“Ethics. Service on and the operation of the Federal boards is a public trust, requiring members and employees to place the appropriate legislative authority and ethical principles above private gain. Each board will develop a Code of Ethics and distribute it annually to board members and staff. Each board, with the assistance of AMS, will also develop Disclosure Statements and Conflict of Interest Statements that will be signed and submitted by each board employee annually and by each board member prior to appointment to the board and annually thereafter.” (Pg. 28)

People unfamiliar with food production can be forgiven for not knowing about checkoff programs. However, when Congress entertains trying to change a producer-funded and producer-guided program, it should know what rules currently exist before attempting to “fix” those rules.

But, in the case of the OFF Act, a fix of the checkoff program is simply a means to disguise the real effort behind it: ending animal agriculture by inserting animal activists into the regulatory mix. Specifically, enforcement of duplicative rules by groups of people staunchly opposed to checkoffs and to the raising of animals for meat.