Friday, September 10, 2021
CapitalPress.com 7
Cattle producers have
beef with 35-year-old
marketing campaign
‘Beef. It’s what’s for dinner’ is one of the
nation’s most iconic checkoff slogans
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press File
A plant manager walks through rows of carcasses at a meat processing facility. The USDA is considering how to
create more competition among processors.
Groups diff er on expanding processing capacity
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
In mid-June, USDA
announced it would invest
$500 million to support new
entrants in the meat and
poultry processing indus-
tries to expand capacity
through grants, loans and
technical assistance.
But
the
question
remained: How can the
department best create more
processing plants? The
answer depends on who you
ask.
Fueled by the pandemic,
the initiative was in response
to President Joe Biden’s
executive order to restore
market competition through-
out the U.S. economy.
USDA’s comment period
on how to improve process-
ing infrastructure closed
Aug. 30.
Recommendations from
the National Association of
State Departments of Agri-
culture focused on fl exi-
ble funding for solutions
to workforce shortages and
processing
infrastructure
investments for small to
mid-sized facilities.
NASDA, whose mem-
bers do state meat and poul-
try inspections, said those
things are critical to ensuring
the U.S. food system is built
to handle future challenges.
Nationwide,
NASDA
members report small estab-
lishments are facing sig-
nifi cant challenges with
shortages of inspectors and
workers. They also report
high investment costs and
outdated facilities as a pri-
mary concern for smaller
processors.
“We must do all we can
to support our small estab-
lishments and invest in their
ability to stand on their own
into the future,” said Barb
Glenn, the association’s
CEO.
The North American
Meat Institute, however,
cautioned against trying
to fi x something that isn’t
broken.
“The pandemic that
began in 2020 and continues
today may be the ultimate
black swan. But its occur-
rence does not automatically
mean the system needs to be
torn down and rebuilt,” said
Mark Dopp, Meat Institute
COO.
The Meat Institute said
the industry fared reason-
ably well in the extraor-
dinary circumstances of a
2019 fi re at a Tyson plant in
Kansas, the recent cyberse-
curity attack on JBS and the
COVID-19 pandemic.
“Before trying to ‘fi x’
something, it is prudent to
look back and acknowledge
the benefi ts that fl ow from
the system as it exists,” it
said in its comments.
Americans spend less
of their disposable income
— 9.5% in 2019 — on
food than any other coun-
try in the world, attribut-
able largely to effi ciencies
that allow food processors
to off er food to consumers
at lower prices, it said.
The Meat Institute also
supplied data to show the
concentration ratio of the
Big 4 meatpackers has not
changed meaningfully in
more than 25 years and that
concentration has not pre-
cluded profi ts to the cow-
calf and feedlot sectors.
In addition, it’s not just a
matter of capacity, the insti-
tute said. Livestock inven-
tories and the ability to uti-
lize capacity to process
inventories aff ect markets.
The pandemic limited
processing due to reduced
labor and government inter-
vention that closed some
plants at a time when live-
stock numbers were high,
the Meat Institute said.
The calls for more
capacity need to come with
answers as to who will fund
it, who will staff it and will
there be enough livestock in
years to come, it said.
“Adding more capacity
for the sake of capacity may
be shortsighted,” the Meat
Institute said.
As for calls for smaller,
regional plants to build
resiliency, the Meat Insti-
tute referenced a Rabo-
bank report saying that
strategy is unlikely to work
and adding capacity must
be driven by long-run
economics.
In addition the call for
more capacity ignores the
fundamental problem of
labor shortage, it said.
To view all the comments
submitted to USDA, got to:
www.regulations.gov.
Oregon Ag Prayer Breakfast
Sept. 21 @ 8 am
www.OAgPB.com
S253067-1
BELLE PLAINE, Kan.
— Cattle producers for
35 years have been bank-
rolling one of the nation’s
most iconic marketing cam-
paigns, but now many want
to end the program that cre-
ated the “Beef. It’s What’s
for Dinner” slogan.
What’s the ranchers’
beef? It’s that their man-
datory fee of $1 per head
of cattle sold is not specifi -
cally promoting American
beef at a time when imports
are fl ooding the market and
plant-based, “fake meat”
products are proliferating in
grocery stores.
“The American con-
sumer is deceived at the
meat counter and our check-
off funds do not do any-
thing to help create clarity or
answer the question of where
was that sirloin born, raised
and harvested,” said Kar-
ina Jones, a Nebraska cat-
tle rancher and fi eld director
for the R-CALF USA trade
group that is seeking to end
the checkoff .
Opponents of the beef
checkoff program, which
was established by federal
law in 1986, are urging cat-
tle producers to a sign a peti-
tion calling for a referen-
dum vote on terminating the
program.
Agriculture
Secretary
Tom Vilsack last month
granted an extension until
Oct. 3 for them to collect the
required signatures due to
the coronavirus pandemic.
Petition supporters argue
the beef checkoff is a gov-
ernment-mandated assess-
ment to fund government
speech. Beef checkoff
funds by law cannot be
used to advertise against
other meats such as pork
or chicken, nor can they
be used for lobbying. But
they complain much of the
money nonetheless props
up lobbying groups such
as the National Cattle-
men’s Beef Association that
oppose mandatory coun-
try-of-origin labels.
They also point out that
today’s U.S. cattle industry
is radically diff erent than it
was when the checkoff pro-
gram was put into place,
with more imported beef
and greater meatpacker
concentration.
“Now we are paying
the advertising bill for four
major meatpacking plants
that are able to import beef
and source it from cheaper
countries and fool our con-
sumers,” Jones said.
The petition has created
a schism in the livestock
industry between those who
support the checkoff and
those who don’t.
Since 1966, Congress
has authorized indus-
try-funded research and
promotion boards to help
agricultural producers pool
resources and develop new
markets. USDA’s Agricul-
tural Marketing Service
now provides oversight for
22 such commodity pro-
grams, according to its
website.
The mandatory nature
of the various commod-
ity checkoff programs has
been controversial, spark-
ing thousands of lawsuits
over the years. Three cases
reached the U.S. Supreme
Court with mixed out-
comes, Kaiser said.
The nation’s highest
court ruled in 1997 in a case
by fruit tree farmers that
commodity advertising was
constitutional because it
was a part of a broader reg-
ulatory program. But four
years later, the Supreme
Court ruled a federally man-
dated mushroom advertis-
ing program was not part of
a larger regulatory program
and was therefore unconsti-
tutional as compelled pri-
vate speech. And in 2005,
the Supreme Court found
the beef checkoff program
was constitutional on gov-
ernment speech grounds.
This is not the fi rst time
critics of the beef check-
off program have tried to
wrangle enough signatures
on a petition. The Agricul-
tural Marketing Service
received a petition from cat-
tle producers in 1999 and
determined the signatures
fell short of the required
number.
It takes the petition sig-
natures of 10% of the
nation’s cattle producers
— in this case 88,269 valid
signatures — to put the
issue before the agriculture
secretary. Any cattle pro-
ducer who has owned, sold
or purchased cattle from
July 2, 2020 through July
1, 2021 is eligible to sign
the petition. Vilsack would
then decide whether to hold
a referendum on ending the
program.
So far, checkoff oppo-
nents have gathered around
30,000 signatures, Jones
said.
Kansas rancher Steve
Stratford, one of the people
who initiated the petition,
said meatpackers — who
do not pay into the check-
off program — are the ones
whose profi t margin has
increased while the check-
off has been in existence.
“Long story short: The
person that is paying the
dollar is not the one reap-
ing the benefi ts of better
demand and higher beef
prices,” Stratford said.
But Greg Hanes, the
chief executive offi cer of
the beef board that runs the
checkoff program, said that
when it was established
there was a “conscientious
decision” not to have the
packers participate so that it
is driven by producers. He
noted that market dynamics
are always changing and, at
times, the packers are doing
better than producers and
sometimes producers are
doing better than packers.
Hanes defended the
checkoff , saying that it is
especially important for
research in nutrition and that
without the program con-
sumers don’t get informa-
tion on the benefi ts of beef.
S260666-1
WE SPECIALIZE IN BULK BAGS!
BAGS:
• Seed Bags
• Fertilizer Bags
• Feed Bags
• Potato Bags
• Printed Bags
• Plain Bags
• Bulk Bags
• Totes
• Woven Polypropylene
• Bopp
• Polyethylene
• Pocket Bags
• Roll Stock & More!
S258354-1
By ROXANA HEGEMAN
Associated Press
HAY PRESS SUPPORT:
• Hay Sleeves
• Strap
• Totes
• Printed or Plain
• Stretch Film
(ALL GAUGES)
WAREHOUSE
PACKAGING:
• Stretch Film
• Pallet Sheets
• Pallet Covers
LOCATIONS:
Albany, Oregon (MAIN OFFICE)
Ellensburg, Washington
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Phone: 855-928-3856
Fax: 541-497-6262
info@westernpackaging.com
.......................................................
CUSTOMER SERVICE
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!
w w w. w e s t e r n p a c k a g i n g. c o m
S214640-1