Checkoff Reforms Shouldn't Stop with Dairy

The Trump administration recently took an important step toward refocusing agricultural checkoff programs on their original mission. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced the end of support for Dairy Checkoff funding tied to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives, including greenhouse gas and net-zero targets. This action displays the administration’s commitment to ensuring producer-funded programs are focused on promoting American agriculture over environmental mandates.

The Beef Checkoff was incorporated into the 1985 farm bill to promote American beef through marketing and research. Producers and beef importers are required to pay $1 per head on all cattle sales to support the program. Its notable successes include the 1992 “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” campaign, voiced by Sam Elliott, and research that identified pathogens such as E. coli across the cattle and beef production system, leading to safety controls that helped prevent contamination. These achievements demonstrate the potential of the Beef Checkoff program, and ranchers are hopeful that a renewed focus on promoting beef could better serve their interests.

In recent years, ranchers have called for greater transparency in how their mandatory Beef Checkoff dollars are spent. The Beef Checkoff website says each dollar is split evenly between state beef councils and the national office. However, some ranchers are concerned that their money supports educational programs they believe misrepresent their industry. According to the Beef Board, Beef Checkoff funds are used to produce education materials to teach nearly 1.2 million students about topics including sustainability, methane emissions, greenhouse gases, and the carbon footprint of beef production. For ranchers, this raises questions about why their mandatory Checkoff dollars are being used to emphasize the industry’s environmental footprint rather than promote the beef they produce. Ranching is a cornerstone of American agriculture, supporting rural economies while providing consumers with a nutrient-rich source of protein. Rather than funding lessons that may discourage future consumers from choosing beef, ranchers argue those dollars should be redirected to promote beef’s nutritional value, and strengthen demand for the product they raise.

The administration’s recent action on ESG initiatives within agricultural Checkoff programs is a positive step toward addressing these concerns. Now, USDA has an opportunity to continue that momentum by examining the methane and environmental curriculum funded through the Beef Checkoff. Ensuring mandatory Checkoff dollars remain focused on promoting American beef would reinforce the program’s original mission while supporting the ranchers who pay into it.