Beef Origin Labeling Accountability Act

— 291 — Department of Agriculture about the importance of sound science to inform the USDA’s work and respect for personal freedom and individual dietary choices, private property rights, and the rule of law. Taking these factors into account, below is a model USDA mission statement: To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans. OVERVIEW In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the legislation that created the USDA.4 The department had a very narrow mission focused on the dissemi- nation of information connected to agriculture and “to procure, propagate and distribute among the people new valuable seeds and plants.”5 During the last 160 years, the scope of the USDA’s work has expanded well beyond that narrow mis- sion—and well beyond agriculture itself. In addition to being a distributor of farm subsidies, the USDA runs the food stamp program and other food-related wel- fare programs and covers issues including conservation, biofuels, forestry, and rural programs. Based on the USDA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget summary, outlays are esti- mated at $261 billion: $221 billion for mandatory programs and $39 billion for discretionary programs.6 These outlays are broken down as follows: nutrition assis- tance (70 percent); farm, conservation, and commodity programs (14 percent); “all other,” which includes rural development, research, food safety, marketing and regulatory, and departmental management (11 percent); and forestry (5 percent).7 The USDA has provided a summary of its size, explaining, “Today, USDA is com- prised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices, with nearly 100,000 employees serving the American people at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad.”8 MAJOR PRIORITY ISSUES AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS For an incoming Administration, there are numerous issues that should be addressed at the USDA. This chapter identifies and discusses many of the most important issues. The initial issues discussed should be priority issues for the next Administration: Defend American Agriculture. It is deeply unfortunate that the first issue identified must be a willingness of the incoming Administration to defend Amer- ican agriculture, but this is precisely what the top priority for that Administration — 292 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise should be. As previously discussed, the Biden Administration is seeking to use the federal government to transform the American food system.9 The USDA web site explains: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), alongside Biden–Harris Administration leadership and the people of this great country, has embarked on another historic journey: transforming the food system as we know it— from farm to fork, and at every stage along the supply chain.10 The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID- 19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain—not to increase them. The Biden Administration’s centrally planned transformational effort mini- mizes the importance of efficient agricultural production and instead places issues such as climate change and equity front and center. The USDA’s Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2022–2026 identifies six strategic goals, the first three of which focus on issues such as climate change, renewable energy, and systemic racism. In the Secretary of Agriculture’s message, there is only one mention of affordable food— and nothing about efficient production and the incredible innovation and respect for the environment that already exists within the agricultural community.11 The Biden Administration’s USDA strongly supported12 the recent United Nations (U.N.) Food Systems Summit. According to the USDA: The stated goal of the Food Systems Summit was to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about foods within the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to meet the challenges of poverty, food security, malnutrition, population growth, climate change, and natural resource degradation.13 Not unlike those who oppose reliable and affordable energy production, there is a disdain, especially by some on the Left, for American agriculture and the food system.14 The Biden Administration’s vision of a federal government developing a plan that “fixes” agriculture and focuses on issues secondary to food production is very disturbing. A recent USDA-created program captures both the disrespect for American farmers and the Biden Administration’s effort to dictate agricultural practices. The USDA explained that it was concerned with farmers not transitioning to organic farming, and therefore announced that it will dedicate $300 million to

— 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations, — 307 — Department of Agriculture businesses, and other private entities to market and promote their products overseas. FAS should play a proactive and leading role to help open upmarkets for American farmers and ranchers. There are numerous barriers, such as sani- tary and phytosanitary measures, blocking American agricultural products from gaining access to foreign markets.111 However, FAS should not help businesses and industries promote their exports, something these businesses and industries can and should do on their own. The next Administration should: l Push legislation to repeal export promotion programs. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal market development programs like the Market Access Program and similar programs. Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology. Innovation is critical to agricultural production and the ability to meet future food needs. The next Admin- istration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use—especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science. One of the key innovations in agriculture is genetic engineering. According to the USDA, “[C]urrently, over 90 percent of U.S. corn, upland cotton, and soybeans are produced using GE [genet- ically engineered] varieties.”112 Despite the importance of agricultural biotechnology, in 2016, Congress passed a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food.113 This legislation was argu- ably just a means to try to provide a negative connotation to GE food. There are other challenges as well for agricultural biotechnology. For example, Mexico plans to ban the importation of U.S. genetically modified yellow corn.114 The next Administration should: l Counter scare tactics and remove obstacles. The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology. l Repeal the federal labeling mandate. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed. l Use all tools available to remove improper trade barriers against agricultural biotechnology. The USDA should work closely with the Office of the United States Trade Representative to remove improper barriers imposed by other countries to block U.S. agricultural goods.

— 317 — Department of Agriculture 104. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Specialty Crops Marketing Orders & Agreements,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/fv (accessed December 15, 2022). 105. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Commodities Covered by Marketing Orders,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/commodities (accessed March 18, 2023), and Elayne Allen and Darren Bakst, “How the Government Is Mandating Food Waste,” August 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/19/how-the-government-is-mandating-food-waste/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 106. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Beef Checkoff Program Petition Process,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotion/ beef/petition (accessed December 16, 2022); “Beef Producers: Do You Want to Vote on the Checkoff?” Beef Magazine, July 28, 2020, https://www.beefmagazine.com/marketing/beef-producers-do-you-want-vote- checkoff (accessed December 16, 2022); and Steve White, “Group Seeking Beef Checkoff Referendum Asks for Access to Producer Database,” Nebraska TV, May 4, 2021, https://nebraska.tv/news/ntvs-grow/group-seeking- beef-checkoff-referendum-asks-for-access-to-producer-database (accessed December 16, 2022). As reported, “There has not been a referendum of the mandatory National Beef Checkoff Program in 35 years.” 107. See, for example, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 213 (November 8, 2021), p. 61718, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-11-08/pdf/2021-24301.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Topics,” https://www.fas.usda.gov/topics (accessed December 15, 2022). 109. Ibid. 110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Market Access Program (MAP),” https://www.fas. usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map (accessed December 16, 2022). 111. To learn about trade barriers for food and agricultural products, see, for example, News release, “USTR Releases 2022 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,” Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 31, 2022, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2022/ march/ustr-releases-2022-national-trade-estimate-report-foreign-trade-barriers (accessed December 16, 2022). 112. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Recent Trends in GE Adoption,” September 14, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-u-s/recent- trends-in-ge-adoption/ (accessed December 15, 2022). 113. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Public Law 114–216. 114. Noi Mahoney, “Trade Dispute Arising Over Mexico’s Plan to Block Imports of Genetically Modified Corn,” Freight Waves, November 22, 2022, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trade-dispute-arising-over- mexicos-plan-to-block-imports-of-gm-corn (accessed December 15, 2022), and News release, “Grassley, Ernst, Urge USTR to Intervene In Mexico’s Ban on American Corn,” Office of Chuck Grassley, November 14, 2022, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-ernst-urge-ustr-to-intervene-in-mexicos-ban- on-american-corn (accessed December 15, 2022). 115. “The Federal Land Management Agencies,” Congressional Research Service In Focus, updated February 16, 2021, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10585.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 116. Ibid. 117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2023: Budget Justification, March 2022, p. 1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/30a-2023-FS.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 118. Forests and Rangelands, The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, April 2014, https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/ strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 119. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Unplanned Fires,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/ landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprd3804071 (accessed December 16, 2022). 120. See, for example, Sherry Devlin, “A Conversation with Jim Hubbard: Unplanned Wildfires Rule West’s Forests,” TreeSource, March 28, 2017, https://treesource.org/news/lands/jim-hubbard-forest-service-wildfires/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022).