Introduction
Consumers, producers, and policymakers alike are increasingly concerned about food affordability and the factors driving costs throughout the agricultural supply chain. One often-overlooked contributor is a network of federally authorized commodity programs, also known as checkoffs. Once established for a given commodity, these organizations impose mandatory assessments on producers amounting to nearly $990 million last year; these are costs that ultimately affect consumer prices.
Although these checkoff assessments are not technically taxes, they are akin to taxes. Producers are required to pay them under federal law and can be subject to fines and penalties enforceable by the federal government for failure to comply.
The fees producers are compelled to pay are then used to fund commodity-specific research and development. However, concerns regarding transparency and oversight have led some producers and lawmakers to question how these funds are spent. In fact, a lawsuit was just filed last week by independent farmers in Wisconsin against the dairy checkoff because of how it is spending the fees farmers are forced to pay.
To address these concerns, lawmakers have proposed the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act to increase spending transparency and strengthen accountability for checkoff programs. The proposal has drawn support from an unusually broad coalition across the ideological spectrum, including Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). That broad support underscores how concerns about mandatory assessments and weak oversight cut across traditional ideological lines.
How Federal Checkoff Programs Operate
Checkoff programs are federally authorized commodity promotion programs that fund research, marketing, and consumer information campaigns without reference to specific brands. Some of the most recognizable checkoff advertising campaigns include “Got Milk?”, “Beef. It’s What's for Dinner”, and “Pork. The Other White Meat.”
To fund these activities, producers are required to pay mandatory assessments, with limited ability to opt-out. These assessments fund activities authorized under each program’s governing statute and regulations.
The first modern federal checkoff program dates back to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966. The legislation authorized mandatory producer assessments and included referendum procedures to allow producers to vote on the continuation of the program. After several other laws enacted stand alone checkoff programs over the decades, the Commodity, Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 gave standardized authority to the USDA to establish and oversee new checkoff programs.
Federal checkoff programs vary by commodity in how assessments are collected. In many cases, the first purchaser collects the assessment from producers; however, the cost of the assessment is ultimately the burden of the producer. The collected assessments are then remitted to the appropriate commodity boards according to the established structure for each federally authorized program.
Commodity boards may use checkoff funds for research, promotion, consumer education, and marketing, but they are prohibited from using those funds for lobbying or influencing government policy. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) serves as the primary oversight agency, reviewing expenditures and ensuring compliance with federal law.
Current Checkoff Programs and Recent Developments
There are currently 21 active commodity checkoff programs covering eggs, lamb, pecans, beef, Christmas trees, cotton, fluid milk, Hass avocados, blueberries, mushrooms, dairy, honey, mangoes, peanuts, pork, potatoes, watermelon, popcorn, softwood lumber, sorghum, and soybeans.
The table below displays the estimated assessment revenue generated by each federal commodity checkoff program during FY 2025. Revenue collections vary significantly across commodities with dairy, soybeans, and cotton accounting for the largest share of assessments. Combined, the 22 federal commodities in 2025 generated $989.9 million.
Federal Checkoff Program Assessment Revenue (FY 2025) | |
Commodity | Estimated Assessment Revenue (Millions) |
Dairy | $376.6 |
Soybeans | $114.5 |
Pork | $88.0 |
Cotton | $82.7 |
Fluid Milk | $76.2 |
Haas Avocado | $75.0 |
Beef | $42.0 |
Eggs | $23.1 |
Softwood Lumber | $17.2 |
Potato | $15.7 |
Blueberries | $12.4 |
Peanut | $10.8 |
Pecans | $9.2 |
Mango | $9.1 |
Sorghum | $8.5 |
Honey | $7.5 |
Watermelon | $5.3 |
Paper and Packaging* | $5.3 |
Mushroom | $5.0 |
Lamb | $3.5 |
Christmas Trees | $1.6 |
Popcorn | $0.7 |
Total | $989.8 |
*The Paper and Packaging Checkoff Disbanded July 2025. | |
There is one fewer checkoff since NTUF last reviewed these programs in 2024. In a referendum held in 2025, the paper and packaging industry voted by 75.53% to terminate its checkoff program, eliminating what previously was a 35-cent fee per ton. Industry leaders cited growing reluctance to fund additional marketing expenditures in the post-COVID era.
One checkoff program is currently under review by its members. The Real Christmas Tree Board also held a referendum from May 22 through June 2, on its current assessment of 15 cents per tree. Results are expected later this month, with previous votes at 51% and 55% respectively. Adam Michel of the CATO Institute wrote about the controversy this checkoff program received when first proposed in 2011 under the Obama Administration. However, after receiving bipartisan backlash, the program was ultimately included in the 2014 farm bill.
A new checkoff may be established soon. USDA is reviewing a proposed olive oil checkoff, which was submitted in December 2024. If approved, this would impose an assessment of 8 cents per gallon.
Mandatory Assessments Require Meaningful Oversight
Scrutiny of checkoff programs has increased in recent years following investigations and audits that have identified weak oversight, questionable expenditures, the use of checkoff-funded resources for lobbying, and inadequate producer representation in referendum votes. Because checkoff assessments are mandatory and enforceable under federal law, producers and taxpayers deserve assurance that funds are used only for authorized purposes and not diverted toward lobbying or other activities outside the scope of the programs.
These concerns are especially important because the legal defense of mandatory checkoff programs has depended in part on federal oversight. For example, in a 6–3 decision in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory checkoff programs do not violate the First Amendment, based on the principle that the advertising funded by the checkoff program constituted government speech rather than private speech. In that case, USDA argued that AMS preapproved budgets, plans, projects, and even “every word” in promotional messages issued by the beef board. Subsequent reviews, however, raised questions about whether that level of oversight is consistently maintained in practice.
A 2017 Government Accountability Office review found weaknesses in AMS oversight of commodity boards. The review found that AMS reviewed subcontracts for only one of the eight checkoff programs examined, despite the fact that subcontract review can help ensure funds are used appropriately. GAO also identified transparency concerns, noting that only four of the eight programs made key documents including budget summaries and effectiveness evaluations available online. In response, GAO issued five recommendations to strengthen AMS oversight, all of which have since been implemented.
More recent examples have added to concerns over whether checkoff funds are being used appropriately. For example, a 2025 independent investigation found that the North Dakota Soybean Council illegally spent $85,000 of checkoff funds for lobbying, without USDA approval. In another instance, the Missouri Soybean Association funded fellowship programs that trained participants in lobbying. The soybean industry received $12 billion in bailouts in 2025. These examples are particularly concerning because checkoff funds are supposed to be used for research, promotion, and consumer information and not to influence government policy.
As noted above, recent litigation highlights continued concerns about whether checkoff funds are being used for the purposes that producers support. Three Wisconsin farmers filed a lawsuit against the federal government for mandatory dairy checkoff fees alleging that their funds are being used to support social and governmental priorities that they do not support. Because the dairy board is the largest of the federal checkoff programs, the lawsuit could draw broader attention to the legal and accountability questions surrounding mandatory producer assessments.
Beyond questions about how checkoff funds are used, producer participation in checkoff governance can also be limited. In most instances, referendums on the continued administration of a checkoff program are required to be held every five years, and furthermore require distributed representation. Under the United Soybean Board (USB), a referendum request requires 10% of all growers to submit valid forms with no more than 20% of total petitions from the same state. When the USB’s referendum was held in 2019, only 708 valid petitions were received, representing only 0.13% of all soybean farmers. In 2024 only 207 producers submitted valid petitions, representing 0.0005% of all farmers.
These low participation figures raise concern about whether the producers are sufficiently aware of, or able to participate meaningfully in, checkoff governance. Assessments are typically collected automatically at the point of sale, yet producers must opt-in to receive a referendum ballot. This process may limit participation and raises concerns about whether producers are sufficiently informed.
Reforming Checkoff Governance and Accountability
To address the lack of transparency in checkoff spending and poor oversight, the bipartisan Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act (S.1848/H.R.3516) was reintroduced in 2025. The Senate bill was sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) along with cosponsors Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rand Paul (R-KY), and John Fetterman (D-PA). The House bill was sponsored by Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) with cosponsor Dina Titus (D-NV).
This legislation takes a step toward increasing transparency and seeks to ban checkoff programs from contracting with organizations which actively engage in influencing government decisions, define and prevent conflicts of interest between government spending and lobbying, force public disclosures of spending, and require federal audits.
However, Congress may have other opportunities to advance reform of checkoffs. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act (H.R.7576) recently passed the House and is expected to continue to have additional markups in the Senate. As Congress continues to refine the Farm Bill, it could provide a legislative vehicle for future reforms aimed at increasing transparency and oversight of commodity boards while supporting producer choice.
Conclusion
The effects of poor transparency extend beyond just direct outcomes, and the trust of governmental institutions is essential for a developed society and democracy. By increasing transparency and strengthening oversight, Congress can improve accountability within the checkoff program while ensuring producers have confidence in how their assessments are spent.