Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called some of the groups involved with the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group into his office in Washington this past week and told them he was so frustrated with the current working group’s failure to reach an agreement that he has plans to start a second checkoff under the 1996 generic checkoff act. According to Forest Roberts, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Secretary announced his intentions to move forward in the near future with a "new, separate and supplemental beef checkoff." Roberts was in the meeting with the Secretary.
Also in the Secretary's office for that meeting was Immediate Past President of the NCBA, Wyoming Dairy farmer Scott George. George told the trade media in a teleconference on Friday afternoon that he was surprised at the announcement by the Secretary and that he was not supportive of a new separate checkoff that would be controlled more extensively by the Federal Goverment and would likely not be coordinated with the existing checkoff in building demand for the beef cattle producers of this country.George told reporters that "the working group is very much convinced that we need to keep working on improving the 1985 act." George adds
"The Secretary did tell us in the meeting, he said if you guys can all get togetherand come back in a few weeks or months with a proposal that you are all willing to support- he said I would probably stop moving forward with this idea."
George also told reporters that the Secretary told the groups earlier this year that he thought the Beef Checkoff was a great program and was very effective, but that more funds are needed.
Current President of the NCBA, Bob McCan was not at the meeting with Secretary, but did speak with reporters on the Conference Call- saying that NCBA has updated their state affiliates on the ideas of the Secretary- and that the initial feedback was not favorable and could be detrimental to the current successful beef checkoff- "they feel it is somewhat threatening. Certainly, it's attractive with another dollar, but that dollar could come with a whole lot of additional costs and a whole lot of risks to the whole program." McCan adds that "we just don't think it is necessary what he is recommending."
Click here to see more...