The checkoff debate:
Supreme Court hears beef over ad campaign

Washington, D.C., December 8, 2004, Gina Holland, Associated Press via A food fight broke out at the U.S. Supreme Court today, with justices considering whether the government can force farmers and ranchers to pay for ad campaigns with catchy phrases like "Beef: It's what's for dinner" and billboards featuring milk mustaches on celebrities.

Some ranchers are challenging the multimillion-dollar beef promotion program, saying they shouldn't have to pay for ads they disagree with.

The eventual ruling could jeopardize more than 100 federal and state campaigns for other products - eggs, mangoes, popcorn and even alligators.

The programs are billed as a way to help farmers of all sizes with generic ads, but they have fared poorly in courts.

Lower courts have already struck down the "Got Milk?" dairy promotion, advertisements calling pork "the other white meat," and the beef program.

Attorney Gregory Garre, representing cattlemen who support the beef campaign, told justices the whole industry has benefited from increased exports to other countries and consumer education.

"The part that's good can't save the whole thing," Justice Antonin Scalia said. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, "There is something offensive" about forcing ranchers to pay for ads they do not support.

Still, the court seemed divided on how to settle the case.

"Every time we pay general taxes we're supporting government speech we may not agree with," Scalia said.

Some justices also seemed concerned that a ruling against the government would hurt efforts to force cigarette makers to pay for ads warning about the dangers of smoking.

"The ultimate beneficiary of the advertising is the consumer," Bush administration lawyer Edwin Kneedler said, defending the beef campaign.

He said the government believes beef should be part of Americans' diets, and formed the program to help small farmers who could not mount a national campaign on their own.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and several other court members appeared skeptical of claims the beef program was government speech, giving the cattle ranchers no right to challenge it. She said government public health experts would not encourage people to eat lots of red meat.

Beef producers are required to pay a $1 per-head fee on cattle sold in the United States, which generates more than $80 million a year for ads, research and educational programs on mad cow disease.

Federal officials oversee how the money is spent. Producers get back $5.67 for every dollar they contribute in increased prices because of the program, supporters contend.

However, Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, representing ranchers who oppose the program, said the money never makes it to the 850,000 individual cattle producers. Instead, he said, restaurants, grocery stores and slaughterhouses get the benefits.

Tribe said the ad campaign is intended to help, but "the road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

The government was sued by ranchers who sell cattle in South Dakota and Montana. They won an appeals court ruling that found the 20-year-old program violated the First Amendment.

The federal government and Nebraska cattlemen appealed to the high court, which has dealt before with questions about government authority to force farmers into joint programs.

In 1997, the court upheld advertising programs for California fruit. But in 2001, justices struck down a mandatory campaign for the mushroom industry. The court has never decided, however, if such programs are government speech. Many groups and 34 states are supporting the government. Justices were told that in California alone, 48 mandatory programs are used to promote produce like grapes and lettuce.

The federal government has 17 research and promotion programs, for blueberries, beef, cotton, dairy, eggs, milk, Hass avocados, honey, lamb, mangoes, mushrooms, peanuts, popcorn, pork, potatoes, soybeans and watermelons.

The cases are Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164, and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165.

Recent news and research

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Stay Up-to-Date –
Sign up for our Newsletter changes daily! Don't miss out on the latest interactive features, columns and news. Sign up now for our monthly e-newsletter and stay connected.


•Free the meat markets! End packer ownership and stop closed-door deals

• Support Saskatchewan farmers in efforts to block GM wheat

• Stop budget cuts to conservation programs--the one's that help you pay for environmentally sound farming practices!

Share Your Stories

Are you a farmer? A consumer? Whatever story you have to tell, let it be an inspiration to others.
Share it with us now...

T H E    N E W    F A R M – R E G E N E R A T I V E    A G R I C U L T U R E    W O R L D W I D E