Pork council wants to know if mandatory ad campaign is constitutional

By The Associated Press

07.28.01

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has been asked to decide whether it's constitutional for the government to require hog producers to pay for the research and promotion program that advertises pork as "the other white meat."

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. United Foods that a similar program for the mushroom industry violated producers' free-speech rights.

In light of that decision, "We believe it is both pertinent and an efficient use of the court's resources to settle the constitutional question now," said Barb Determan, president of the National Pork Producers Council, on July 23. The council supports the program.

Before the Supreme Court ruled in the mushroom case, the government warned that the decision could threaten programs administered by the Agriculture Department for pork, beef, milk, eggs and cotton.

Hog farmers voted 15,951 to 14,396 in a referendum last year to kill the pork program, and the Clinton administration ordered the program shut down. But the Bush administration reversed that decision, saying the referendum process was flawed, and reached a settlement with the producers council to allow the program to continue.

The council is now asking U.S. District Judge Richard A. Enslen of Michigan to approve the settlement and rule that the program is constitutional.

Rhonda Perry, a Missouri producer who has led opposition to the program, said the judge should throw out the settlement and end the program. Raising the constitutionality question could delay a decision on the settlement, she said.

"The producers have spoken and this program should not exist, whether or not it's unconstitutional," Perry said.

The program is financed through a mandatory fee of 45 cents for every $100 of a pig's value when it is sold.

Last week, opponents of a similar program for beef announced that they would ask a federal judge in South Dakota to rule it was unconstitutional in light of the mushroom case.

Opponents say the beef and pork programs favor the interests of meatpackers and large-scale producers to the detriment of smaller farmers.

Update

Pork-checkoff program ruled 'unconstitutional, rotten'
Federal judge orders collections of mandatory fees for ads and promotion stopped.  10.29.02

Related

Beef ads challenged after ruling against mushroom promotions
Judge in pending lawsuit asks both sides to review case in light of Supreme Court’s decision, saying ‘advertising for beef may well be much like that for mushrooms.’  07.20.01

Beef Board can't force producers to fund generic ads
Federal judge orders halt to collections for checkoff program, which requires ranchers to pay a $1 per-head fee on cattle sold in the U.S. for beef promotion, research.  06.24.02

High court won't compel mushroom growers to fund generic ads
United Foods had argued that the government’s mandatory campaign forced the company to pay for ads that benefited competitors.  06.25.01

Judge hears beef over mandatory ad campaign
Cattlemen say promotion fee violates their free-speech rights, but Beef Board says ads are government speech not limited by the First Amendment.  01.17.02

These dairy farmers fed up with 'Got Milk?' promotion
Supreme Court has produced mixed bag of rulings on mandatory ad campaigns for food producers.  04.04.02

Court rulings put mandatory ad campaigns in jeopardy
Analysis Recent federal decisions striking down beef, mushroom promotions could signal legal trouble for other farmer-funded programs.  07.02.02