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