|
In 1998, the Campaign for Family Farms initiated a national petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the mandatory pork checkoff should be ended. That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August and September of 2000 in which more than 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53% to 47% to terminate the program. Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program.
In February 2001, newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman reversed Secretary Glickman's decision ordering the continuation of the pork checkoff. This action led to the lawsuit brought by the Campaign for Family Farms and several individual hog farmers, which includes claims that the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog farmers' First Amendment rights.
On October 25, 2002, United States District Court Judge Richard Enslen ruled the pork checkoff was "unconstitutional and rotten," and ordered that it be terminated within 30 days. That order has been stayed pending appeals filed by the government, the National Pork Producers Council, and certain state pork associations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Judge Enslen's decision on October 22, 2003. The government petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and the beef checkoff case. On May 24, 2004, the Supreme Court granted review of the beef checkoff case and, on May 23, 2005 ruled that the beef checkoff did not violate the First Amendment. That decision can be found at 544 U.S. 550.
USDA Administrative Petition
Amended Petition Requesting Halt to Expenditure of $6 Million in Pork Checkoff Funds for an Environmental Protection Agency "Research Study" (May 5, 2005)
Pursuant to the Pork Act, Petition Requesting Halt to Expenditure
of $6 Million in Pork Checkoff Funds for an Environmental
Protection Agency "Research Study" (March 2, 2005)
Back to Top
Court Documents
Defendant-Intervenors/Cross-Complainants' Supplemental Answer and Amended First Supplemental Cross-Claim, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Jan. 18, 2002)
District Court Opinion, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Oct. 25, 2002)
CFF Final Brief for the Appellees, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Feb. 6, 2003)
Court of Appeals Opinion, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Oct. 22, 2003)
MPPA Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court (Jan. 2004)
USDA Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court (Feb. 2004)
CFF Respondents' Brief in Opposition, U.S. Supreme Court (April 19, 2004)
USDA Reply Brief for the Petitioners, U.S. Supreme Court (May 2004)
CFF and 49 Family Farm and Ranch Organizations Amici Curiae Brief, U.S. Supreme Court (Oct. 15, 2004)
Back to Top
Press Releases
Judge Tells National Pork Board: No Checkoff Funds for Factory Farm Pollution Immunity Program (11/2/06)
Campaign for Family Farms Dismisses Mandatory Pork Checkoff Lawsuit, Vows to Continue Work to Oppose Corporate Consolidation in the Livestock Industry (6/15/06)
Campaign for Family Farms statement on today's U.S.Supreme Court ruling on the mandatory beef checkoff case (5/23/05)
FLAG Files USDA Administrative Petition Urging USDA to Stop National Pork Board from Spending $6 Million in Pork Checkoff Funds for EPA Safe Harbor "Study" (3/3/05)
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Mandatory Checkoff Program (12/8/04)
FLAG files Friend of the Court Brief Urging an End to the Beef Checkoff (10/18/04)
Supreme Court Decides To Hear Arguments on Mandatory Beef Checkoff Program (5/24/04)
FLAG Files Response with Supreme Court Urging End to Pork Checkoff (4/20/04)
Sixth Circuit: Pork Checkoff is Unconstitutional! (10/22/03)
FLAG Files Comments on Proposed Rule for Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program (5/12/03)
Oral Arguments Heard in Sixth Circuit on Constitutionality of Mandatory Pork Checkoff (3/14/03)
FLAG to Represent CFF in Defending Court Ruling That Mandatory Pork Checkoff Is Unconstitutional (2/27/03)
Pork Checkoff Is Unconstitutional! (10/28/02)
Hog Farmers End Mandatory Pork Checkoff (1/11/01)
Back to Top
News Release
For Immediate Release: November 2, 2006
For More Information:
Mark McDowell, hog farmer, Hampton IA, 641-425-1478
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement office, 515-282-0484
Rich Smith, hog farmer, Wilmont MN, 507-926-5287
Land Stewardship Project office , 612-722-6377
Missouri Rural Crisis Center office, 573-449-1336
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana office, 812-346-1311
Illinois Stewardship Alliance office, 217-498-9707
Jess Anna Speier, Farmers’ Legal Action Group, 651-223-5400
Judge Tells National Pork Board: No Checkoff Funds for Factory Farm Pollution Immunity Program
WASHINGTON, D.C. – An Administrative Law Judge ordered the National Pork Board not to use of mandatory pork checkoff funds to pay for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Consent Agreement providing factory farms with safe harbor from prosecution for certain air pollution violations. In his ruling, Judge Davenport wrote that the use of checkoff funds for the agreement “contravenes public policy and is not in accordance with law.” The ruling came as a result of a petition filed by the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) in 2005 urging USDA to immediately halt the use of checkoff dollars for the program. CFF charged that helping factory farms pay to enroll in the safe harbor agreement was an illegal use of checkoff funds.
The safe harbor agreement grants immunity from EPA enforcement actions for certain air pollution violations to factory farms that sign up for an air quality study. That protection from prosecution could last for several years for all of the over 1800 hog operations for which EPA approved agreements, even though EPA’s notice indicates that only approximately 6 hog farms actually will be monitored under the study . The National Pork Board committed $6 million of mandatory checkoff funds over two years to help pay for the immunity program. These funds were to be used to pay the “research” fee for hog farms signing up for the study.
“The administrative law judge found that the per farm ‘research’ fee was part of the cost of obtaining the EPA’s agreement not to sue participating pork producers for certain past and on-going violations of federal environmental laws. He ruled that the use of any of the $6 million of checkoff funds obligated for this project to pay these fees was ‘contrary to public policy and not in accordance with law,’” said Jess Anna Speier, Staff Attorney with Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc., attorneys for CFF.
The National Pork Board’s attempt to support the safe harbor for factory farms by spending $6 million collected from hog farmers angered independent livestock producers.
“We’re glad the judge agreed with us,” said Mark McDowell, a hog producer from Hampton, Iowa, and a member of CFF and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI). “The Pork Board’s attempt to spend our hard-earned dollars to buy immunity from pollution laws for factory farms is just wrong.”
“Factory farms should pay for the problems they create -- like water pollution and hazardous air emissions -- themselves,” said Rich Smith, a hog producer from Wilmont, Minn., and a member of CFF and the Land Stewardship
Project (LSP). “These huge operations shouldn't be protected with money collected from farmers like me, delivered to them through the pork checkoff, like the National Pork Board wanted to do. This is a good decision -- and the case highlights another good reason why we shouldn't have mandatory checkoffs.”
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies supporting independent family farmers. CFF led the fight to end the mandatory pork checkoff.
CFF members groups include: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the Land Stewardship Project (MN), Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, and the Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) is the legal representative of CFF.
View the Decision and Order (PDF format)
Back to Top
News Release
For Release June 15, 2006
For More Information:
Paul Sobocinski, Land Stewardship Project/CFF hog farmer, Wabasso MN 507-430-1509
Jim Joens, Land Stewardship Project/CFF hog farmer, Worthington MN 507-926-5957
Rhonda Perry , Missouri Rural Crisis Center/CFF hog farmer, Armstrong MO 573-449-1336
Susan Stokes , Farmers’ Legal Action Group, St. Paul MN 651-223-5400
Campaign for Family Farms Dismisses Mandatory Pork Checkoff Lawsuit, Vows to Continue Work to Oppose Corporate Consolidation in the Livestock Industry
MINNEAPOLIS , Minn. – Today the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) dismissed its lawsuit challenging the mandatory pork checkoff program for violating producers’ rights to free speech.
The CFF won rulings at the federal, district and appellate court levels that the mandatory pork checkoff program violated pork producers’ rights to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case challenging the mandatory beef checkoff and put CFF’s challenge to the mandatory pork checkoff on hold pending the decision in the beef case. On May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the mandatory beef checkoff is government speech and therefore forcing producers to pay for it does not violate their constitutional rights to free speech. The Supreme Court sent the pork checkoff case back to the lower court to take action according to its decision in the beef checkoff case.
“The Campaign for Family Farms pursued every legal avenue available to end the mandatory pork checkoff, from the petition drive and producer referendum to litigating all the way up to the Supreme Court and even trying to reach a settlement with USDA,” said Rhonda Perry a hog farmer with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and CFF. “But the Supreme Court’s ruling left independent family farm hog producers very few legal options to continue their legal challenge and the Campaign for Family Farms has decided to dedicate its resources to helping independent family farmers in other ways.”
“We continue to oppose the mandatory pork checkoff and mandatory checkoffs in general because they are unjust taxes for programs that work against the interests of independent family farmers. Independent family farm hog producers must pay into this program even though it has failed to meet their needs, and in fact our checkoff dollars are being used to support factory farm expansion and corporate consolidation in the hog industry,” said Paul Sobocinski a hog farmer with the Land Stewardship Project and CFF. “The Campaign for Family Farms is continuing to fight factory farms and corporate consolidation and work for independent family farms and a healthy environment by focusing our efforts on the 2007 Farm Bill.”
CFF is fighting for significant reform of U.S. farm policy – reform that is good for family farms, rural communities, and the environment. The three planks to the CFF’s Farm Bill platform are:
- Significant commodity policy reform
- Improved conservation programming, including strengthening the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and reforming the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
- “New Farm Initiative” for beginning farmers and farmers growing for local and regional markets
The Campaign for Family Farms began work to end the mandatory pork checkoff through the courts only after the results of the fall 2000 hog farmer referendum on the checkoff were thrown out in a deal cut by the National Pork Board and the USDA. Even though the USDA conducted the referendum and hog farmers voted 53 percent to 47 percent in favor of ending the mandatory pork checkoff, the results were ignored and the collections continued. The deal struck between the Pork Board and the USDA required some modifications to the NPB’s operations in exchange for keeping the producer assessment system intact.
“Clearly we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that checkoffs are government speech. Mandatory checkoff programs have always been represented as producer-run and -controlled programs and the Court’s ruling flies in the face of that representation,” said Jim Joens, a hog farmer with the Land Stewardship Project and CFF, “We decided to dismiss our case because we believe the reforms we seek cannot now be achieved through the courts. The Campaign for Family Farms is now focusing its work to decrease corporate consolidation in the hog industry and increase opportunities for independent livestock producers via the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill.”
Sobocinski added, “We want to thank all of the producers that have worked so hard on this effort – including gathering 19,000 hog farmer signatures to force a vote, winning the referendum to end the program, and supporting our legal case – to bring justice and democracy to this failed program. The decision to dismiss our case was a difficult one, but we believe our efforts to help independent family hog producers will be most effective by focusing on shaping the next farm bill. We invite all the farmers who worked to end the checkoff to join with the CFF on making the Farm Bill respond to the needs of family farmers.”
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies supporting independent family farmers.
CFF member groups include: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, the Land Stewardship Project ( Minn.), Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, and the Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the checkoff lawsuit.
Back to Top
News Release
For Release May 23, 2005
For More Information:
Larry Ginter, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (641) 493-2493
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement office (515) 282-0484
Jim Joens, Land Stewardship Project/MN (507) 926-5957
Rich Smith, Land Stewardship Project/MN (507) 926-5287
Land Stewardship Project office (612) 722-6377
Rhonda Perry, Missouri Rural Crisis Center (573) 449-1336
Citizens Action Coalition/Indiana (812) 350-4481
Illinois Stewardship Alliance(217) 498-9707
Susan Stokes, Farmers' Legal Action Group (651) 223-5400
Campaign for Family Farms statement on today’s U.S.Supreme Court ruling on the mandatory beef checkoff case
The Campaign for Family Farms is outraged that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of USDA in the challenge against the mandatory beef checkoff, holding that the beef checkoff program is “government speech.” Mandatory checkoff programs tax producers to subsidize industrial agriculture to the detriment of family farmers, which is why the Campaign for Family Farms oppose these programs.
Mandatory checkoff programs have always been represented as producer-run and -controlled programs. This ruling flies in the face of that representation and says that these programs are nothing more than another government tax that targets a specific group of people.
The mandatory pork checkoff case is pending. The pork case includes a claim on freedom of association on which the court was silent in today’s decision. This is an issue we will pursue as we explore our legal options regarding the mandatory pork checkoff case.
Based on today’s ruling, it is clear that the Supreme Court is out of touch with how mandatory checkoff programs actually operate.
The Campaign for Family Farms will continue to fight for independent family farmers and against the corporate concentration that is fueled by these mandatory checkoff programs.
NOTE: Hog farmers available for interviews.
Hog farmer spokespersons for the Campaign for Family Farms will be available for interviews and can be reached at the phone numbers listed above.
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies supporting independent family farmers.
CFF members groups include: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, The Land Stewardship Project (MN), Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, and the Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the checkoff lawsuit.
View the Supreme Court decision (PDF format)
Back to Top
News Release
For Release: March 3, 2005
For More Information:
Rich Smith, hog farmer, Wilmont, MN 507-926-5287
Land Stewardship Project office 612-722-6377
Mark McDowell, hog farmer, Hampton, IA 641-456-4624
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement office 515-282-0484
Susan Stokes, Attorney, Farmers' Legal Action Group 651-223-5400
Missouri Rural Crisis Center office 573-449-1336
Citizen's Action Coalition of Indiana office 812-346-1311
Illinois Stewardship Alliance office 217-498-9707
Campaign for Family Farms Tells USDA:
'No checkoff funds for factory farm pollution immunity program'
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Campaign for Family Farms filed a petition yesterday with the USDA urging that Secretary Johanns immediately halt the use of mandatory checkoff funds to pay for the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Harbor Agreement with factory farms.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Harbor Agreement would grant factory farms who sign up for an air quality study, immunity from air pollution violations for up to seven years. The National Pork Board (NPB) has committed $6 million of mandatory checkoff funds over two years to help pay for the immunity program.
According to the Campaign for Family Farms (CFFE), the Safe Harbor Agreement is riddled with problems, including:
Only 28 factory farms will submit monitoring data for the study, yet potentially thousands of industrial livestock operations will receive air pollution immunity status for up to seven years. Of those factory farms, only five factory hog farms will be monitored.
Factory farm corporations and commodity groups like the National Pork Producers Council will control all major aspects of the "study" including the monitoring, equipment, funding, and oversight.
State agencies and citizens may be prevented from applying federally enforceable state laws, including Clean Air Act provisions to polluting factory farms.
Mandatory checkoff programs provide funding for the Safe Harbor deal, despite possible termination of the programs any day by the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the mandatory beef checkoff.
The Safe Harbor Agreement and the decision of the National Pork Board to support it by spending $6 million collected from hog farmers angered independent livestock producers.
"Spending our hard earned dollars to buy immunity from pollution laws for factory farms is just another reason why the mandatory pork checkoff must end," said Mark McDowell, a hog producer from Hampton, Iowa, and a member of CFF and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "This misuse of funds is a raw deal for independent pork producers, rural communities, and the environment."
The checkoff money committed by the National Pork Board will be used to pay the enrollment fees of factory farms who participate in the so-called study. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision on the constitutionality of mandatory commodity checkoffs in the coming weeks. The Court's decision could terminate the unpopular programs within 30 days of their ruling, so the National Pork Board should not be entering into two-year commitments to fund the Safe Harbor Agreement, say CFF members. In recent years federal and appellate courts have ruled that the mandatory pork and beef checkoff programs are unconstitutional.
In their petition the Campaign for Family Farms is critical of the sweeping authority that the EPA wants to pass off to study participants who have a vested interest in the results. The Campaign for Family Farms also filed yesterday written comments with EPA questioning the agency's authority to grant factory farms immunity from environmental laws.
"The EPA has given almost complete authority over the study to commodity groups and corporations, who have no incentive whatsoever to conduct a comprehensive, thorough, or accurate study," said Rich Smith, a hog producer from Wilmont, Minn., and a member of CFF and Land Stewardship Project. "Paying for this corporate-government scheme with my checkoff dollars is an outrage."
Susan Stokes, an attorney with the Farmers' Legal Action Group who filed the petition on behalf of the Campaign added, "This deal gives all factory farms amnesty for their air pollution in exchange for data from a handful of operations. EPA already has the authority to collect all the air quality data it needs for the study without handing out blanket pardons to factory farms across the country."
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies supporting independent family farmers. CFF has led the fight to end the mandatory pork checkoff.
CFF members groups include: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, The Land Stewardship Project (MN), Citizen's Action Coalition of Indiana, and the Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the checkoff lawsuit.
View Administrative Petition (3/2/05)
Back to Top
 News Release
For Release: December 8, 2004
For More Informaton:
Larry Ginter, Iowa CCI
Rich Smith and Jim Joens, Land Stewardship Project
Rhonda Perry, Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Paul Gebhart, Illinois Stewardship Alliance
Jolinda Buchanan, Citizens Action Coalition/Indiana
Susan Stokes, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Mandatory Checkoff Program Today Midwestern hog farmers attend hearing
Washington, DC - The Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory beef checkoff program today. The decision, expected in the spring of 2005, will likely determine the fate of the mandatory pork checkoff. Midwestern hog farmers with the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF), which is a named plaintiff in the mandatory pork checkoff case, attended today's hearing.
"Hog farmers are sick and tired of paying into a system that promotes factory farms and industrial agriculture over independent producers," said Rhonda Perry, a Missouri hog farmer and member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "Mandatory checkoffs have been fueling the demise of family farms."
"We have fought long and hard to end the mandatory pork checkoff," said independent Minnesota hog farmer Rich Smith, member of the Land Stewardship Project. "We won the referendum and two federal court decisions. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold these decisions and terminate the mandatory checkoffs once and for all."
In 1998, the CFF initiated what has become a national movement against mandatory commodity checkoffs with a petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should be ended. That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August-September 2000 in which over 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53% to 47% to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff. Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, the then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program. Hog farmers have paid more than $170 million into the pork checkoff since Secretary Glickman announced the results of the referendum, and will continue to be forced to pay into the checkoff until the Supreme Court makes its final decision in early 2005.
However, in a move which outraged hog farmers around the country and various members of Congress, the newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman cut a backroom deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February 2001 which led to throwing out the results of a democratic vote and forcing hog farmers to continue paying into the checkoff program. This action led to CFF's lawsuit against the USDA, which specifically claimed the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on the First Amendment.
In ruling the pork checkoff unconstitutional in October 2003, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the pork checkoff "compels [hog farmers] to express a message with which they do not agree," and struck down the entire Pork Act. Federal District Court Judge Richard Enslen ruled in October 2002 that the pork checkoff forces hog farmers to pay into a program that they believe is contrary to their interests because it supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry. The checkoff, therefore, is "unconstitutional and rotten," Judge Enslen ruled.
"We've come here to fight the commodity groups which are nothing but the mouthpieces for corporate agriculture," said Iowa farmer Larry Ginter, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "We will defeat the mandatory checkoffs, and in doing so, we'll begin to reclaim American agriculture for family farmers and the American public."
Back to Top
News Release
For Release: October 18, 2004
For more Information:
Land Stewardship Project: 612-722-6377
Missouri Rural Crisis Center: 573-449-1336
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement: 515-282-0484
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana: 317-423-7108
Illinois Stewardship Alliance: 217-498-9707
Farmers' Legal Action Group: 651-223-5400
50 Farm Groups tell Supreme Court: Terminate Mandatory Checkoffs
Campaign for Family Farms, joined by farm groups from across the country, files friend of court brief supporting termination of unconstitutional mandatory beef checkoff
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Campaign for Family Farms (CFF), joined by 49 farm groups with members in all 50 states, filed an amici curiae (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today asking the high court to uphold lower court decisions that found the mandatory beef checkoff unconstitutional and terminated the program. The Supreme Court's decision will likely decide the future of many unpopular checkoff programs, including the mandatory pork checkoff.
Disregarding lower court rulings on the pork and beef checkoff, the Bush Administration opted to petition the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of mandatory checkoffs. By pursuing every legal option to preserve both the mandatory pork and beef checkoffs, the Bush Administration has forced farmers to continue paying the non-refundable assessments. If the Bush Administration had not appealed these cases, the mandatory pork and beef checkoffs would have ended years ago.
"President Bush keeps telling us he's against taxes, but these mandatory checkoffs keep rolling along, propped up by this drawn out legal battle being waged by his administration," said Jim Joens, a Wilmont, Minn., hog farmer and CFF spokesperson .
Joens is part of a lawsuit brought by independent family farmers and the CFF to end the mandatory pork checkoff. Farmers initiated the lawsuit when the Bush Administration cut a backroom deal with the National Pork Producers Council to continue the program after a nationwide referendum of hog farmers voted to terminate the fee. Hog farmers have paid approximately $187 million into the pork checkoff since Secretary of Agriculture Glickman announced the results of the referendum in January of 2001.
"We fully support the beef checkoff challenge," said Rhodes Iowa farmer Larry Ginter, a CFF spokesperson. "At the request of the Bush Administration, the Supreme Court decided not to hear hog farmers' legal challenge to the checkoff, but through the amici brief we are adding our voices to support independent cattle farmers and ranchers in this important case." The Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Livestock Marketing Association today filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the mandatory beef checkoff.
In 2002, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled the beef checkoff violated cattle producers' First Amendment rights by compelling them to pay for speech with which they disagreed. In 2003, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Kornmann's decision. In February 2004 the Bush Administration asked the Supreme Court to review the decision; in May, the Court agreed.
Independent hog farmers and the Campaign for Family Farms began their challenge to the mandatory pork checkoff in 1998, when the CFF initiated a national petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should be ended. That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August-September 2000 in which over 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53 percent to 47 percent to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff. Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, the then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program.
However, in a move that outraged hog farmers around the country, newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman cut a backroom deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February 2001, which led to the throwing out of the results of the democratic vote, forcing hog farmers to continue paying into the checkoff program. This action led to CFF's lawsuit against the USDA, which specifically claimed the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on the First Amendment.
In ruling the pork checkoff unconstitutional in October 2003, the Sixth Circuit Court found that the pork checkoff "compels [hog farmers] to express a message with which they do not agree," and struck down the entire Pork Act. Federal District Court Judge Richard Enslen ruled in October 2002 that the pork checkoff forces hog farmers to pay into a program that they believe is contrary to their interests because it supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry. The checkoff, therefore, is "unconstitutional and rotten," Judge Enslen ruled.
"Independent livestock farmers and ranchers have a very strong case," said Susan Stokes, legal director for Farmers' Legal Action Group and attorney for the CFF. "With four unanimous lower court rulings, we are confident that justice will prevail and both the pork and beef mandatory checkoffs will be terminated soon."
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the mandatory beef checkoff on December 8, with a decision in early 2005.
Back to Top
News Release
For Release: May 24, 2004
For more Information:
Iowa CCI, 515-282-0484
Land Stewardship Project/MN, 612-22-6377
Missouri Rural Crisis Center, 573-449-1336
Citizens' Action Coalition/Indiana, 812-350-4481
Illinois Stewardship Alliance, 217-498-9707
Farmers' Legal Action Group, 651-223-5400
Supreme Court Decides To Hear Arguments on Mandatory Beef Checkoff Program
Washington,DC - The Supreme Court decided today to hear the case challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory beef checkoff program. The Supreme Court's decision on the mandatory beef checkoff program is expected to determine the finality of both the beef and the pork checkoff programs.
"We fully support the challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory beef check-off program," said independent Minnesota hog farmer Jim Joens, a named party in the case. "It is unfortunate the Bush Administration has continued the lengthy and costly appeal process in this case," he continued. "Both the pork and beef mandatory checkoff programs have lower court rulings agreeing.It is time for the programs to end now. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree and rule to terminate both unconstitutional programs," Joens concluded.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the mandatory mushroom checkoff was unconstitutional and violated producers' First Amendment rights.In 1998, the CFF initiated a national petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should be ended. That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August-September 2000 in which over 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53% to 47% to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff.Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, the then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program.
However, in a move which outraged hog farmers around the country and
various members of Congress, the newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman cut a backroom deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February 2001 which led to throwing out the results of a democratic vote and forcing hog farmers to continue paying into the checkoff program. This action led to CFF's lawsuit against the USDA, which specifically claimed the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on the First Amendment. Hog farmers have paid more than $170 million into the pork checkoff since Secretary Glickman announced the results of the referendum, and will continue to be forced to pay into the checkoff until the Supreme Court makes its final decision in early 2005.
In ruling the pork checkoff unconstitutional in October 2003, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the pork checkoff "compels [hog farmers] to express a message with which they do not agree," and struck down the entire Pork Act. Federal District Court Judge Richard Enslen ruled in October 2002 that the pork checkoff forces hog farmers to pay into a program that they believe is contrary to their interests because it supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry. The checkoff, therefore, is "unconstitutional and rotten," Judge Enslen ruled.
"We do think it is very unfortunate that the Bush Administration
specifically asked the Court not to hear the pork checkoff case, and that
the Court concurred," said Iowa farmer Larry Ginter, a named party in the pork case.
"But we are confident that justice will prevail and both the beef and pork checkoff programs will be terminated."
Susan Stokes, legal director for Farmers' Legal Action Group and attorney
for the Campaign for Family Farms, added, "We will make sure hog farmers'
voices are heard by the Supreme Court by filing a friend of the court brief."
Back to Top
News Release
For Release: April 20, 2004
For More Information:
Susan Stokes, FLAG 651-223-5400
FLAG Files Response with Supreme Court Urging End to Pork Checkoff
Washington, DC: Farmers' Legal Action Group, on behalf of the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF), filed an opposition to the petitions for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court yesterday. CFF is asking the Court not to hear the pork checkoff case and effectively end the checkoff. USDA and six state pork associations have asked the Supreme Court accept review and reverse the decision of the Sixth Court of Appeals declaring the pork checkoff unconstitutional.
Independent hog farmers and the Campaign for Family Farms have since 1998 argued through petition drives, a vote and a lawsuit that the pork checkoff forces independent farmers to support a system that hurts them.
October 25, 2002 U.S. District Court Judge Richard Enslen ruled in Federal District Court in Michigan that the checkoff was unconstitutional. Judge Enslen agreed with the independent hog producers and CFF that the mandatory pork checkoff violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on hog producers' right to free speech by forcing them to pay into a program that supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry, and is detrimental to their interests. Judge Enslen declared that the pork checkoff was "unconstitutional and rotten."
October 22, 2003 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Richard Enslen's ruling that the mandatory pork checkoff program is unconstitutional and should end. In ruling the pork checkoff unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit rejected USDA's novel argument that the pork checkoff is a government program. The court found that the pork checkoff "compels [hog farmers] to express a message with which they do not agree," and struck down the entire Pork Act.
USDA and the six state pork associations sought and obtained a stay of that ruling pending the Supreme Court's decision. USDA is also appealing the Eighth Circuit of Appeals ruling that the beef checkoff is likewise unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will consider the petitions in both cases on May 13. The announcement saying whether or not the Supreme Court will agree to hear the pork checkoff case, the beef checkoff case, or both of the cases is expected on Monday, May 17.
The effort by independent hog farmers to end the mandatory pork checkoff began in April 1998, when the Campaign for Family Farms launched a petition drive that succeeded in generating more than 19,000 hog farmer signatures calling for a referendum to end the mandatory checkoff. In August and September 2000, hog farmers voted to end the pork checkoff by a 53% to 47% margin in a nationwide referendum conducted by USDA, which was announced by USDA on January 11, 2001.
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups that are leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies that support independent family farmers. CFF member groups include the Land Stewardship Project (Minnesota), Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the lawsuit.
View the Response (PDF format)
Back to Top
News Release
For immediate release: October 22, 2003
For more information:
Mark McDowell, IA (641)456-4624
Jim Joens, MN (507)360-2211
Rhonda Perry, MO (573)449-1336
Susan Stokes & David Moeller, FLAG (651)223-5400
Court Rules Pork Checkoff Unconstitutional
Checkoff's Days are Numbered
CINCINNATI, Ohio— The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge's ruling that the mandatory pork checkoff program is unconstitutional and should end.Hog farmers climbed off their combines this morning to call on USDA and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) to stop delaying the inevitable and end the pork checkoff now. This ruling supports the contention of the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF), which since 1998 has argued through petition drives, a vote and a lawsuit that the pork checkoff forces independent farmers to support a system that hurts them.
"Hog farmers voted it down, now two federal courts have decided the mandatory pork checkoff is unconstitutional and is entirely invalidated," said Hampton hog farmer Mark McDowell, an Iowa CCI member and CFF spokes person. "This is a big victory for family farmers and for democracy in America."
In ruling the pork checkoff unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit rejected USDA's novel argument that the pork checkoff is a government program. The court found that the pork checkoff "compels [hog farmers] to express a message with which they do not agree," and struck down the entire Pork Act.
Susan Stokes, legal director for Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) and attorney for the Campaign for Family Farms, said, "This decision is vindication of the rights of independent hog farmers, who have been fighting this illegitimate and unconstitutional checkoff for more than five years."
"This is a huge victory for independent family farmers," said Rhonda Perry, a hog farmer member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and CFF spokesperson. "The pork checkoff has forced family farmers to pay into a program that supports corporate concentration, industrialization and the factory farm system of livestock production, which drives family farmers out of business. The end of the checkoff is long overdue."
Although the ruling invalidates the pork checkoff, farmers expressed concern Wednesday that the NPPC and the USDA will use the courts to delay the end of the program and continue collecting millions of dollars in checkoff fees.
"There is absolutely no reason to keep collecting the checkoff fees — USDA and NPPC should not ask for a stay, should not keep delaying, and should quit collecting our money and let justice prevail. It's over." said Minnesota hog farmer Jim Joens, a member of the Land Stewardship Project and CFF spokesperson.
The pork checkoff program was started in 1986 after Congress passed a law mandating that hog farmers pay into the fund. It generates about $45-$50 million annually. Money collected under the program goes to the National Pork Board. Prior to July 2001, most of that money ended up in the coffers of the National Pork Producers Council.
The mandatory pork checkoff has been controversial among hog farmers for many years.In 1998, the Campaign for Family Farms initiated a national petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should be ended.That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August-September 2000 in which over 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53% to 47% to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff.Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program.
However, in a move that shocked hog farmers, the industry and various members of Congress, President Bush's newly appointed Ag Secretary Ann Veneman cut a back room deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February 2001 to throw out the results of the democratic vote and force hog farmers to keep paying the checkoff.This action led to the Campaign's lawsuit against USDA, which includes a specific claim that the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on the First Amendment.
"It is time for the USDA to wave the white flag on Pork the Other White Meat", stated David Moeller, staff attorney for Farmers' Legal Action Group.
The Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) is a coalition of farm and rural groups that are leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies that support independent family farmers. The Sixth Circuit recognized that CFF is devoted to "ensuring the continued existence of family farms, particularly hog farms".CFF member groups include Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Land Stewardship Project, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Illinois Stewardship Alliance and Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana.Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the lawsuit.
View the Ruling. (PDF format)
Update on Checkoff Litigation by Susan E. Stokes (October 2003)
Campaign for Family Farms Sixth Circuit Appellate Brief (February 2003)
Back to Top
On May 12, 2003, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the Campaign for Family Farms to the Agricultural Marketing Service regarding a proposed rule to implement a new information collection process for remitters of the pork checkoff.
Back to Top
News Release
For Release: March 14, 2003
For more information:
Susan Stokes, Farmers' Legal Action Group: 651-223-5400
Mike McMahon, Land Stewardship Project: 612-722-6377
Oral Arguments Heard in Sixth Circuit on Constitutionality of Mandatory Pork Checkoff
CINCINNATI - Oral arguments on the constitutionality of the mandatory pork checkoff were heard today in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the National Pork Producers Council are appealing a decision from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Enslen who ruled in favor of the Campaign for Family Farms and individual hog farmers that the mandatory pork checkoff infringes on hog farmers' right to free speech. Judge Enslen ruled that the checkoff forces hog farmers to pay into a program that they believe is contrary to their interests because it supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry. The checkoff, therefore, is "unconstitutional and rotten," Judge Enslen ruled.
"Today we fought for our rights again in court," said Missouri hog farmer Rhonda Perry, a member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and a spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms. "We're going to see this through. Hog farmers should not be forced to pay into a mandatory checkoff that supports Smithfield, Cargill, and Hormel, and hurts independent family farmers. We believe justice will be served and this unfair and failed pork checkoff will be ended because it is unconstitutional."
Susan Stokes, legal director for Farmers' Legal Action Group and attorney for the Campaign for Family Farms, said, "This appeal is just one of many hurdles that these hog farmers have had to overcome in order to terminate the checkoff, and they've been vindicated every step of the way . Judge Enslen's opinion is well-reasoned and correct. We hope the Court of Appeals will affirm his decision so that the rights of hog farmers will once again be vindicated."
The effort by independent hog farmers to end the mandatory pork checkoff began in April 1998, when the Campaign for Family Farms launched a petition drive that succeeded in generating more than 19,000 hog farmer signatures calling for a referendum to end the mandatory checkoff. In August and September 2000, hog farmers voted to end the pork checkoff by a 53% to 47% margin in a nationwide referendum conducted by USDA, which was announced by USDA on January 11, 2001. At that point, Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture in the Clinton Administration, ordered the termination of the mandatory pork checkoff. Then, in a move that shocked hog farmers and other citizens across the country, new Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman threw out the results of the hog farmers' vote shortly after the start of the Bush Administration, and continued to require hog farmers to pay the fee that they had voted out.
"I'm looking to the courts to do justice for hog farmers, because there is no justice in the pork checkoff," said Minnesota hog farmer Jim Joens, a member of the Land Stewardship Project and a spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms. "I sold hogs on Friday last week, and had to pay the checkoff to the National Pork Board again, despite the fact that hog farmers voted to end it and a federal judge ruled it was unconstitutional. As far as I am concerned, the mandatory pork checkoff has put independent hog farmers in harm's way and created a misperception of who hog farmers are and what we stand for. It's got to end."
Since November 25, 2002, when Judge Enslen's ruling to cease collection of the pork checkoff would have gone into effect, approximately $12,286,000 has been collected from American hog farmers. A staggering $113,664,000 has been collected by the discredited pork checkoff since the hog farmers' vote to terminate it in the nationwide referendum was announced in January 2001. The mandatory fee is assessed on every hog sold in the United States, at a rate of 40 cents per $100 of sale value.
"It's nothing short of tyrannical to continue to force hog farmers to pay millions of dollars into a program that ultimately leads to their demise," said Iowa farmer Larry Ginter, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and a spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms. "The pork checkoff helps factory farms, not family farms, and it is time for it to end."
The Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) is a coalition of farm and rural groups that are leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies that support independent family farmers. CFF member groups include the Land Stewardship Project (Minnesota), Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the lawsuit.
Back to Top
For more information:
Susan Stokes, Legal Director, FLAG, 651-223-5400
Mark Schultz, Land Stewardship Project (Minnesota): 612-722-6377
Rhonda Perry, Missouri Rural Crisis Center: 573-449-1336
Kari Carney, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement: 515-282-0484
Martin King, Illinois Stewardship Alliance: 217-498-9707
FLAG to Represent CFF in Defending Court Ruling That Mandatory Pork Checkoff Is Unconstitutional
Who: Campaign for Family Farms vs. National Pork Producers Council & USDA
What: Oral arguments on constitutionality of mandatory pork checkoff
Where: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 100 E. Fifth Street, Cincinnati, OH.
When: 9:00 a.m., Friday, March 14, 2003
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of the mandatory pork checkoff will be heard on March 14, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio. The proceedings will be held at the Potter Stewart Courthouse (100 E. Fifth Street) and begin at 9:00 a.m.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the National Pork Producers Council are appealing a decision from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Enslen who ruled in favor of the Campaign for Family Farms and individual hog farmers that the mandatory pork checkoff violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on hog producers' right to free speech by forcing them to pay into a program that supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry, and is detrimental to their interests.
This case could have far reaching impacts on the mandatory commodity checkoffs that are common throughout production agriculture.
The Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) is a coalition of farm and rural groups that are leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies that support independent family farmers. CFF member groups include Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Land Stewardship Project, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the lawsuit.
The Campaign for Family Farms and their attorneys from the Farmers' Legal Action Group will be available to speak with reporters following the hearing. For more information and background on the case, or to schedule an interview with the hog farmers who are challenging the checkoff, please contact the persons above.
Back to Top
News Release
For immediate release: October 28, 2002
Campaign for Family Farms
2002 Forest Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50311
Phone: 515-282-0484
Fax: 515-283-0031
For more information:
Dale Leslein, IA (563)588-0657
Paul Sobocinski, MN (507)342-2323
Rhonda Perry, MO (573/449-1336)
Susan Stokes, FLAG (651)223-5400
Pork Checkoff Is Unconstitutional!
Hog farmers are applauding Friday's ruling by a Federal Judge in Michigan that the mandatory pork checkoff program is unconstitutional and should be terminated within 30 days. This ruling which was made by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michagan is in response to a lawsuit filed by the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) claiming that the checkoff was unconstitutional.
"We're elated. Christmas came early this year!" said Dale Leslein, a hog farmer member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and a CFF spokesperson. "We've been fighting hard to end the mandatory pork checkoff because it does not represent the interests of independent hog farmers. It is time for it to end."
In Friday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Enslen said that through the pork checkoff program, "the government has been made tyrannical by forcing men and women to pay for messages they detest. Such a system is at the bottom unconstitutional and rotten."
Judge Enslen agreed with the Campaign for Family Farms arguments that the mandatory pork checkoff violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on hog producers' right to free speech by forcing them to pay into a program that supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the industry, and is detrimental to their interests.
Susan Stokes, legal director for Farmers Legal Action Group stated "Judge Enslen's ruling is a well reasoned and strong opinion. We are confident that it will stand up to an appeal. This ruling grants justice to independent hog farmers across the country."
"The NPPC has tried to use every mechanism possible to delay the end of mandatory pork checkoff despite hog farmers vote to end it" said Minnesota hog farmer Paul Sobocinski, a member of the Land Stewardship Project and a CFF spokesperson. "Judge Enslen has now said the program is unconstitutional and ordered it to end in 30 days. NPPC and the government need to admit defeat and abide by hog farmers wishes once and for all. They need to end this failed program now."
"This is a huge victory for independent family farmers," states Rhonda Perry, a hog farmer member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and CFF spokesperson. "The pork checkoff has forced family farmers to pay into a program that supports corporate concentration, industrialization and the factory farm system of livestock production which drives family farmers out of business. The end of the checkoff is long overdue."
The pork checkoff program was started in 1986 after Congress passed a law mandating that hog farmers pay into the fund. It generates about $45-$50 million annually. Money collected under the program goes to the National Pork Board. In recent years, most of that money ended up in the coffers of the National Pork Producers Council.
The mandatory pork checkoff has been controversial among hog farmers for many years. In 1998, the Campaign for Family Farms initiated a national petition drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should be ended. That led to a vote conducted by the USDA in August-September 2000 in which over 30,000 U.S. hog producers voted 53% to 47% to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff. Following the announcement of the vote results in January 2001, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program.
However, in a move that shocked hog farmers, the industry and various members of Congress, newly appointed Ag Secretary Ann Veneman cut a back room deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February 2001 to throw out the results of the democratic vote and force hog farmers to keep paying the checkoff. This action led to the Campaign's lawsuit against USDA which includes a specific claim that the mandatory pork checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on the First Amendment.
The Campaign for Family Farms is a coalition of farm and rural groups that are leading the fight against the corporate takeover of the hog industry and working for policies that support independent family farmers. CFF member groups include Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Land Stewardship Project, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) represents CFF and the individual hog farmers in the lawsuit.
View the ruling . (PDF format)
Back to Top
For More Information:
Jim Joens, hog farmer, Wilmont, MN, 507-926-5957
Dale Leslein, hog farmer, Dubuque, IA, 319-588-0657
Rhonda Perry, hog farmer, Armstrong, MO, 573-449-1336
Phil Wright, hog farmer, Paris, IL, 217-884-2291
Hog Farmers End Mandatory Pork Checkoff
Independent producers vote down pork tax, Campaign for Family Farms prepares for next corporate target
Washington, D.C.— Hog farmer members of the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF), the coalition of state based farm groups who led the three and a half year effort to end the mandatory pork checkoff, are celebrating their huge victory over the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). Today, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman announced that hog producers voted to end the mandatory pork checkoff.
Hog farmers had plenty to celebrate as they beat the NPPC, which spent upwards of $4 million in an attempt to win the referendum. There were a total of 30,347 votes cast in the referendum. Of those votes, 15,951 (53 percent) were cast by producers who voted to end the mandatory pork checkoff while only 14,396 producers (47 percent) voted to continue the tax.
Hog producers say they voted to end the mandatory pork checkoff, a tax on every hog sold in the U.S. that generates roughly a million dollars a week for the NPPC, because it has been used to promote the interests of factory farms and corporate meatpackers and hasn't helped independent producers increase their bottom line. Over the course of the three-year campaign to end the checkoff, it has grown to signify more than ending an unsuccessful program.
"This referendum is about much more than ending an unfair tax. It's about farmers organizing and fighting back against corporate power and money. With the checkoff gone, the National Pork Producers Council won't be able to carry water for the agribusiness corporations while claiming to represent America's hog farmers," said Minnesota hog farmer Jim Joens, a member of the Land Stewardship Project and spokesperson for CFF. The Land Stewardship Project is a founding member of CFF.
"Family farmers are fighting back against the commodity groups that have sold them out and the corporate agriculture system that is trying to force them off their farms. We took down the NPPC and we're going after their corporate allies next," said Dubuque Iowa hog farmer Dale Leslein, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and a spokesperson for CFF.
Illinois hog farmer Phil Wright, a member of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance and CFF spokesperson added, "This is a hard fought victory won by American hog farmers. Throughout this campaign it was hog farmers who did the heavy lifting to make sure the referendum was held and it was hog farmers who voted to end the National Pork Producer Council's million dollar-a-week gravy train."
The victory for independent producers and the Campaign for Family Farms culminates a campaign that started in 1998 with a national petition drive of hog farmers. The Campaign for Family Farms submitted 19,043 signatures from hog farmers across the country to USDA in May 1999, forcing a referendum to end the mandatory pork checkoff. A year and three months later, hog farmers across the country voted at their county Farm Service Agency offices. The ballots were counted on November 29, 2000, and the results were not released until today.
"For years the NPPC has been using our money to represent the interests of corporate factory farms and meatpackers. We're sick and tired losing money hand over fist due to consolidation in the pork industry and the ill-conceived policies of the NPPC. It's been 16 weeks since we voted and that means we've had to fork over another $16 million. There is no justifiable reason to collect this tax one day longer. We demand that USDA stop the collection of checkoff payments immediately." said Missouri hog farmer Rhonda Perry, a member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms.
Back to Top
|
Join Email List
