Agriculture received great news from the Supreme Court this week “Because the Beef Checkoff funds the Government’s own speech, it is not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge”. While the ruling is not a carte blanche for all producer-funded programs, the decision is a very positive sign. As a lifelong agriculturist, I believe check-offs are an excellent tool in uniting our industry to both educate consumers about different ag commodities and increase consumption.
Yet, a Dr. Seuss-like quip came to mind after hearing the news that check-offs were upheld by the Supreme Court. “How now, brown cow?” How do we make the most of the check-off programs? The results are impressive; increased awareness of pork “the other white meat”, growing support of ethanol/biodiesels, and improved consumption of dairy products. I know many talented professionals who work very hard in producer-funded programs and consistently hear them talk about how checkoffs need to do even more.
We can make the most of that brown cow by bringing the various groups together on topics of common interest such as education, leadership, and advocacy. Here’s a radical idea for our independent-minded industry: commodity and promotional groups pool their expertise on an issue they can all agree on, such as developing curriculum or programs for elementary school teachers.
Rather than having Food for America, Ag in the Classroom, soy crayons, and animals go to school (all good programs in their own right), agriculture could develop curricula encompassing all levels of the food chain. Besides the obvious advantages of producing more well-rounded material and having a larger distribution network, there would be greater funding to improve the mass appeal of the curriculum to students and teacher alike.
What if we then moved to working together more complex programs such as leadership development? I’ve had the privilege of speaking for several of the leadership programs in agriculture and see the training wheel frequently re-created. Leadership in agriculture has to be about influencing change, whether you’re growing beans, raising hogs, selling food or marketing fertilizers. Many commodity and agricultural leadership programs would benefit from each other if one group specialized in media relations, another in agricultural advocacy, and yet another focused on core teamwork skills – and they all shared their expertise with each other.
Sure, it’s tough to get together on legislative issues. Let’s start with smaller, more agreeable projects. After all, we have PETA targeting kids in the classroom, the organic movement putting out a catchy “Store Wars” video attracting attention across the internet, and a variety of other groups working diligently against modern agriculture. Is it really too much to ask to look for areas of unity when we’re getting beat up by those against modern production practices?
The diversity of the agrifood system is our greatest strength and our greatest downfall. The reality is that all parts of agriculture are connected. How can we act upon this reality? Feel free to e-mail me (mpk@mpk.info) with your opinion.