Gil Gutknecht’s pork policy: working against family farmers
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006No, I’m not referring to all the legislative pork Gil’s been rubber stamping in Congress - I’m referring to the Other White Meat.
All hog producers have to pay a fee (or checkoff) every time they sell a hog - the vast majority of the funds go to the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). In 2000 family farmers realized that the NPPC had moved away from supporting independent producers and was instead lobbying for the concerns of large factory farms. They decided to call a referendum to end the checkoff (scroll down to “Farmers vote to end pork checkoff”): (emphasis added)
The NPPC tried everything to stop this vote, including getting its allies in Congress to authorize an investigation into how the decision to hold the referendum was made. They were hoping the investigation would cast doubt on how the signatures were collected and whether Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has the authority to call for a vote. U.S. Representative Gil Gutknecht was the only member of the Minnesota Congressional delegation to sign a letter requesting the investigation.
The result?
The investigation, which was conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO), backfired on the NPPC and its allies. The GAO found that USDA grossly mishandled the petition process, that Glickman did indeed have the authority to call for a vote, and that checkoff funds (not taxpayer dollars) must be used to pay for the checkoff referendum. In other words, we were right and the NPPC was wrong.
Why did Gutknecht side against family farmers and indepdenent producers?
The PAC of the NPPC has contributed $3,500 to Gutknecht’s campaign in this election cycle alone and $7,500 since 1999. Gutknecht’s connections to other large agri-business lobbies are well documented.
Recently, controversy regarding agricultural checkoffs have resurfaced:
Do you know where your thousands — and on a national scale, hundreds of millions — of federally-mandated, non-refundable checkoff dollars go?
It’s a question Bobby King, policy director of Minnesota’s Land Stewardship Project, asked when he viewed advertisements that attacked “anti-livestock activist groups” in the state on Minneapolis’ powerhouse WCCO TV station earlier this year.
The 30-second ads, says King, had an unmistakably political message. “To build the case that there’s a crisis in livestock production here,” he explains from his Twin Cities office, “because Minnesota law gives counties and townships authority over livestock facility siting.”
Since Gutknecht’s agriculture section on his campaign web site does not provide any substance, only Gutknecht himself can explain why he sided with big business over the family farm and independent producers.
UPDATE: WCCO’s Pat Kessler just released a thorough “Reality Check” on the upcoming checkoff controversy:
“Have you ever wondered what challenges Minnesota farmers face from anti-livestock activist groups?” the TV ad asks. “These groups operate by spreading misinformation and fear. They talk about local control, but it’s really a self serving, selective and arbitrary denial of business growth they’re after.”
This is MISLEADING. The ad, produced by WCCO-TV’s sales department, mixes phony newspaper headlines, a fake petition and protest photo, with one real image of a dead rat on a county commissioner’s door.It targets unspecified “anti-livestock” and “environmental activist groups” that the ad sponsor refused to identify for Reality Check.
The video is top notch and the article is full of additional references. The groups funding these ads want to frame the debate in their favor by stealing the cloak of rural populism. Don’t let them do it - get the facts for yourself.