Grassroots Farmers Rebuff "Robin
Hood in Reverse" Proposal
from Corporate Lobby Group
If the OTA is successful in convincing the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, that there is widespread support for their proposal, the check-off would be put to a vote of organic stakeholders requiring approval by two-thirds of organic farmers and other industry participants. However, the recent Farmers Union vote, in Wisconsin, casts doubt over whether widespread support truly exists in the farming community.
"The OTA has invested heavily in a national publicity campaign to convince farmers of the merits of their proposal," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. "It's a hard sell because professional agriculturalists have plenty of experience with mandatory check-offs in other commodities where university research has illustrated that when there has been any economic value at all it has accrued to processors rather than farmers."
Other research and promotional programs, with popular themes such as The Incredible Edible Egg or The Other White Meat, have not proved efficacious in producing increased revenues to farmers.
The proposed organic check-off, which is formally known as the Organic Research and Promotion Program, was developed over the past few years. Many organic farmers believe that the OTA, funded and controlled by major agribusinesses with investments in organics such as General Mills, Smucker's, Kellogg's and WhiteWave, do not represent their views, but instead mainly caters to the needs of the organic processed food and marketing sectors.
According to certified organic farmer and Wisconsin Farmers Union member, Tony Schultz, "The organic check-off, like all other commodity check-off programs, is a tax imposed by the industry on farmers."
That tax, he suggested, is there to benefit food processing interests, rather than farmers. He added that, "Not only are check-off programs not proven to work, or provide benefits to farmers, they also have a history of corruption and malfeasance."
The 2014 Farm Bill passed by Congress gives the USDA the authorization to consider and hold a vote on the organic check-off, if the OTA submits a proposal. It took congressional action to change the law because, previously, all check-offs applied only to "commodity-specific" programs (promoting, for example, almonds, raisins, cranberries or milk).
"This law passed Congress based on a series of outright lies by the OTA," said Kastel. "During the run-up to the farm bill, congressional staffers repeatedly told me that OTA lobbyists had represented to them that their proposal had 'unanimous support in the organic industry.' The recent vote by Farmers Union delegates, in an organic-rich state, proves the OTA's representations were patently false."
The OTA has invested heavily in campaigning for what could be a lucrative revenue stream for promoting organics to consumers. In 2013 they hired the well-connected Washington lobbying and public relations firm, the Podesta Group, to help design a campaign to win support amongst organic industry participants. The OTA has held listening sessions throughout the country on the proposal, mailed multiple times to every organic farmer, and even used telemarketers and robocalls in their efforts -- a tactical approach that didn't play well in rural America.
The Farmers Union vote in late January had to be a disappointment to Organic Valley, a La Farge, Wisconsin-based farmer-owned cooperative that is nearing $1 billion in annual revenue.
Organic Valley's chief executive, George Siemon, a perennial leader at the OTA, has overtly endorsed their proposal, and the co-op's chief legal counsel was recently elected chair of the Organic Trade Association's Board of Directors after serving on the OTA's check-off promotional committee.
Prior to the vote by Farmers Union delegates a panel discussion took place featuring an Organic Valley policy staffer, Doran Holm, and organic farmer Tony Schultz.
"Although in every one of the OTA's listening sessions the majority of organic producers have signaled that they are clearly against the check-off, that has not deterred the industry's preeminent lobby group, and its powerful members, from continuing to push their proposal," Cornucopia's Kastel added.
"We are up against some of the most powerful forces in the food industry and while they want to marginalize the voices of family farmers, in their effort to control this industry, they still want us to pay for their promotion efforts," stated Jim Goodman, a veteran organic dairyman, and board member of Family Farm Defenders, another farmer-led organization that formally opposes the OTA proposal. "They don't want our voices or our input, they just want us to pay. Farmers have never seen any benefit from commodity check-offs and this one will be no different."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).