Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (May 6, 2016)
4C THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, MAY 6, 2016 PARTING SHOT FROM KIM ROSE ADAMS/SPECIAL TO THE DAILY ASTORIAN A weekly snapshot from The Daily Astorian and Chinook Observer photographers Oyster shells piled high at Nahcotta, Washington. ODDITY FOOD FIGHT Ag groups seek exemption from scrutiny By CANDICE CHOI and MARY CLARE JALONICK Associated Press NEW YORK — Congress is push- ing the Agriculture Department to exempt the groups behind promotional campaigns like “The Incredible, Edible Egg” and “Pork, the Other White Meat” from public scrutiny of their internal operations despite recent controversy. The push comes after organiza- tions representing eggs, pork, potatoes and even Christmas trees pressed for an exception from the federal Freedom of Information Act for programs that promote agricultural products. A pro- vision supporting their push was part of spending legislation approved by a House panel last month. The familiar campaigns are over- seen by USDA but paid for by the industries that vote to organize them. In a non-binding report accompanying the agriculture spending bill, the House Appropriations Committee urged USDA to recognize that the campaigns are “not agencies of the federal govern- ment” and therefore should not be sub- ject to information requests required by federal FOIA laws. Eggless mayonnaise The move comes after some so-called “checkoff” programs have been dogged by controversy. Last year, The Associated Press reported that the American Egg Board tried to stop the sale of an eggless mayonnaise alter- native at Whole Foods, based on doc- uments obtained through a public records request. The head of the egg board subse- quently stepped down and the USDA launched an investigation into the board’s activities, saying it does not condone “efforts to limit competing products in commerce.” In April, a group of 14 trade asso- ciations sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Rob- ert Aderholt, R-Ala., chairman of the House Appropriations agriculture sub- committee, and U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., the subcommittee’s top Dem- ocrat, asking them to urge USDA to recognize that the promotional pro- grams are not subject to public records requests. The rationale was that the programs are funded by producers, according to a copy of a letter obtained by the AP. The House Appropriations Com- mittee approved the legislation in April, including the report language urging USDA to recognize the pro- grams are not subject to FOIA. Con- gress often uses such non-bind- ing directions to put a department on notice that lawmakers will push back if oficials ignore them. A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Mon- day that the panel has no comment. Not just eggs The industry associations that signed a letter seeking FOIA exemption include the American Mushroom Insti- tute, the National Potato Council, the National Christmas Tree Association, the National Watermelon Association and the United Egg Producers. The letter was not signed by the checkoff programs themselves, such as the American Egg Board and the U.S. Potato Board, which are not supposed to engage in lobbying. “The American Egg Board had no role or involvement in the request by trade organizations for an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act,” wrote Kevin Burkum, an egg board representative. Details of the letter were irst reported last week by Capital Press. The push underscores the gray area occupied by the checkoff programs, which have operated with little oversight. The checkoff programs were established by the government at the industry’s urging as a way to collect mandatory fees from producers for promotional efforts. That has resulted in considerable marketing muscle for agricultural products. Last year, the egg board had revenue of more than $22 million; the pork board’s revenue topped $98 million in 2014. Generic promotion The catch is that these programs are subject to government oversight to ensure they stick to generic promotion, and avoid lobbying that some produc- Creative Commons The Incredible, Edible Egg. ers might not agree with. Still, the programs’ activities have been challenged in court. In 2008, a judge barred the egg board from spend- ing money to campaign on a proposi- tion in California. In 2012, the Humane Society sued the USDA over allega- tions that the National Pork Board cut a deal to improperly funnel money to a pork industry association that lob- bies lawmakers, a case that remains unresolved. In 2012, USDA’s inspector gen- eral issued a report saying departmen- tal oversight should be improved. Spe- ciically, the audit said USDA should better detect the misuse of board check- off funds and gather more information from the boards to assess their activities. The report cited examples of improper employee bonuses and travel expenses. Chase Adams, a spokesman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said he did not know if public records requests with the checkoff program have been increasing but said it is an issue “we’ve been cognizant of.” Adams said the associations believe the money that producers contribute to the checkoff programs is intended for research and promotion, not carrying out FOIA requests. “It’s really pretty cut and dry,” Adams said. Not everyone agrees. ‘Government speech’ Matthew Penzer, special counsel to the Humane Society, says the groups are “trying to have it both ways” by saying the boards should not be subject to records laws, even though they rely on government authority for the man- datory collection of fees. “The only thing that makes them constitutional is that they’re govern- ment programs,” Penzer said. Penzer pointed to a Supreme Court decision in 2005 that upheld the boards’ collection of fees from produc- ers as being protected as “government speech.” Now available in the The Daily Astorian and Chinook Observer For more information call 503-325-3211 crbizjou rn a l.com
