Agricultural Commodity Checkoff Programs — Beef, Dairy, Pork, and Generic Promotion

"Beef. It's What's for Dinner." "Pork. The Other White Meat." and many generic food-industry campaigns were funded through mandatory federal checkoff programs. These programs assess producers, importers, and sometimes handlers based on sales volume or commodity value, then pool those funds for research, promotion, consumer information, and market-development activities. Agricultural commodity checkoff programs are a distinctive form of federally supervised industry self-funding: the money does not come from general tax revenue, but participation is mandatory once a commodity is covered by a federal order. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service oversees the boards and orders that administer these programs. These programs operate alongside the broader Farm Bill Commodity Programs and USDA Farm Loans that shape agricultural economics, and they share infrastructure with the Agricultural Marketing Orders system USDA uses to regulate handling and minimum prices. Their constitutionality has been challenged repeatedly under the First Amendment Speech Clause, and the Supreme Court upheld the beef checkoff in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), treating USDA-supervised generic promotion as government speech rather than compelled private speech.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 7 U.S.C. § 4501 — Dairy promotion policy: authorizes a coordinated national dairy promotion and research program.
• 7 U.S.C. § 2901 — Beef promotion policy: authorizes the beef research and promotion framework later implemented through the beef checkoff order.
• 7 U.S.C. § 4801 — Pork promotion policy: authorizes a national pork promotion, research, and consumer information program.
• 7 U.S.C. § 6301 — Soybean promotion policy: authorizes a coordinated soybean promotion and research program.
• 7 U.S.C. § 2701 — Egg research and consumer information policy: authorizes the American Egg Board program.
• 7 U.S.C. § 4603 — Honey research and promotion orders: requires the Secretary to issue honey promotion, research, consumer education, and industry information orders.
• 7 U.S.C. § 2101 — Cotton research and promotion policy: authorizes the Cotton Board and related research and promotion structure.
• 7 U.S.C. § 6101 — Mushroom promotion policy: authorizes the national mushroom promotion, research, and consumer information program.
• 7 U.S.C. § 4301 — Floral research and consumer information policy: authorizes floral promotion orders in statute, even though the best-known active AMS checkoff boards are in other commodity categories.

How It Works

Once a commodity is covered by a federal order, assessments are mandatory — producers, importers, and first handlers cannot opt out because they dislike the message or campaign. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service supervises every program: AMS reviews board budgets, approves board nominations, administers referenda, and monitors compliance. This centralized federal oversight is the key reason the Supreme Court upheld the beef checkoff in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005) — treating USDA-supervised generic promotion as government speech rather than compelled private speech, which would trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Assessment structures and exemption rules are not uniform across programs: each commodity has its own authorizing statute and order with distinct per-unit rates (per head, per pound, per hundredweight, or percentage of value), voting thresholds for referenda, exemption categories, and termination procedures.

How Checkoff Programs Work

A commodity checkoff program is a mandatory assessment imposed on every sale of a covered commodity. Every cattle seller pays $1 per head; every hundredweight of milk marketed generates 15 cents; every pound of soybeans sold triggers a half-cent assessment. These amounts are collected by first handlers (slaughterhouses, dairy processors, grain elevators) who remit the funds to a USDA-supervised board.

The promotion boards — organizations like the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board, and the National Pork Board — operate under USDA oversight. The Secretary of Agriculture appoints board members from nominations submitted through industry channels, and major program actions are subject to federal review. That degree of federal control is what supports the government's position that the resulting advertising is "government speech." USDA's authority to police anti-competitive behavior by those same first handlers comes from a separate regime — see Packers and Stockyards Act.

Checkoff funds support research, consumer education, advertising campaigns, industry information, and export or market-development work — all generic commodity promotion rather than brand-specific advertising. Some famous slogans are associated with checkoff-funded work, but state-level programs and private contractor relationships can overlap with federal promotion in ways that make simple one-line attribution misleading.

Many programs were authorized through a referendum or similar industry-voting process, and some can later be challenged, continued, or terminated through producer petitions and votes. Organic producers and some smaller producers have long argued that mandatory assessments can unfairly fund messages or production models they do not support.

The Dairy Checkoff in Detail

The dairy checkoff is one of the oldest and most scrutinized commodity promotion programs. At 15 cents per hundredweight, a large dairy operation producing 10 million pounds of milk annually pays about $15,000 per year in federal dairy assessments, before any separate state-level assessments.

The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board funds nutrition education, school-related promotion, foodservice marketing, research, and export-development work. Dairy Management Inc. plays a central role in carrying out parts of that promotional strategy under the broader dairy checkoff structure, which is one reason the dairy program has drawn recurring oversight and conflict-of-interest scrutiny.

State-level dairy promotion programs layer on top of the federal checkoff. California dairy farmers, for example, fund both the federal National Dairy Promotion and Research Board and the California Milk Processor Board, which developed the "Got Milk?" campaign separately.

Constitutional Controversy

The mandatory nature of checkoff assessments has generated persistent constitutional challenges. Producers who disagree with the generic message — organic beef producers who object to promoting conventional beef; independent ranchers who believe the checkoff benefits large processors more than them; pork producers who fund campaigns for competitors' products — have challenged the programs as compelled speech under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court addressed this in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), upholding the beef checkoff. The Court ruled 6-3 that the beef checkoff constitutes "government speech" — the government is speaking, not compelling private parties to speak — and that the government is free to tax and spend on speech it chooses, even unpopular speech, without First Amendment restriction. The Court's reasoning depended on the USDA's control over the program's message.

Subsequent challenges have tested whether the government's control is genuine. In United States v. United Foods (2001), the Supreme Court invalidated a mushroom-promotion scheme under a compelled-speech theory. Johanns later narrowed the path for those challenges by emphasizing the degree of federal control over the beef program's message. Since then, litigation has often focused on whether a specific program is truly government-directed or is instead acting too independently or too closely with private trade associations.

How It Affects You

If you are a farmer or rancher in a covered commodity: Your first handler — the slaughterhouse, dairy processor, grain elevator, or packing plant you sell to — withholds checkoff assessments directly from your payment before you receive it. You do not write a check; the deduction happens at the point of sale. The amounts sound small but accumulate across a season:

• Beef: $1 per head on every cattle sale. A rancher selling 300 head annually pays $300 in federal checkoff, plus any state beef promotion assessment.
• Dairy: 15 cents per hundredweight of milk marketed. A 200-cow dairy producing 5 million pounds annually pays about $7,500 per year to the federal checkoff, before state-level assessments.
• Pork: 0.35% of market value (effective January 1, 2023). At a $170 live-hog market price on a 250-lb hog, that's roughly 60 cents per head — about $600 per year for a 1,000-head operation.
• Soybeans: 0.5% of the net market price. At $12/bushel on a 20,000-bushel crop, the annual checkoff is roughly $1,200.

You cannot opt out. The federal checkoff is mandatory once a commodity is covered by a federal order. Even if you object to the campaign's messaging, prefer to market your product differently, or believe generic promotion benefits large processors more than small producers, you pay. The Supreme Court upheld this structure in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005) on a 6-3 vote, ruling that checkoff promotion constitutes "government speech" — the government is the one speaking, not compelling private parties to speak — and individuals cannot invoke the First Amendment to block the government from spending on its own message.

Organic producers have the strongest argument for separate treatment. Several programs exempt certified organic operations from checkoff assessments, or authorize separate organic checkoff activity. Coverage varies by program and order: the dairy program has distinct organic provisions; beef exemptions for organic producers have been a recurring policy and legal dispute. Verify your commodity's specific order with your state extension service or USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service at ams.usda.gov before assuming your certified-organic status exempts you.

Referenda and termination petitions exist in most program statutes as a theoretical check on mandatory assessments — producers can petition USDA for a referendum on whether to continue the program. In practice, referenda are rare and the thresholds for triggering them are high. The 2024 soybean referendum request failed to meet the statutory threshold. If you want to engage on program policy, the most direct paths are commodity board elections (for programs where boards accept nominations from the industry) and public comment on proposed USDA rule changes published in the Federal Register at regulations.gov.

If you are a consumer: The most recognizable checkoff-funded campaigns — "Beef. It's What's for Dinner," "Pork. The Other White Meat," and "The Incredible Edible Egg" — originated with checkoff-program spending, though the relationship between board spending and specific slogans involves layers of contracts, state programs, and private licensing. What is clear is that checkoff-funded generic promotion surrounds you: nutrition handouts in school cafeterias, recipe inserts at grocery stores, foodservice training materials at chain restaurants, and digital health content affiliated with industry boards. The programs are designed to increase overall demand for the commodity — not to help you compare brands, production methods, or different proteins. They are funded by mandatory industry assessments under USDA supervision.

If you want to know whether a nutrition resource, campaign, or "health information" piece you encounter is checkoff-funded, look for board attribution. Content from the National Dairy Council, Cattlemen's Beef Board, National Pork Board, or American Egg Board is checkoff-funded. These boards operate under USDA supervision and cannot legally promote individual brands — but they can and do position their commodity favorably against competing foods and dietary patterns.

If you work in food policy, nutrition, or public health: The structural tension in the federal checkoff system is real and well-documented. USDA simultaneously issues the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (co-published with HHS every 5 years) — which generally recommend limiting red meat and saturated fat — and administers the commodity checkoff programs that fund promotion campaigns for beef, pork, and dairy. The 2010, 2015, and 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines processes each faced industry pressure and scientific debate about recommendations on red meat consumption; checkoff-funded research and industry lobbying have been part of those debates.

The structural conflict also surfaces in USDA's dual role under the Packers and Stockyards Act: USDA is supposed to police anti-competitive behavior by large meatpackers and processors who are also the first handlers remitting checkoff funds. The Government Accountability Office and investigative reporting have documented overlap between checkoff-funded board activities and the commercial interests of large processors — which are not the same as the interests of the small-scale producers who actually pay the assessments.

For researchers and advocates: USDA's AMS publishes annual financial statements for each research and promotion board at ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotion. The full text of each federal order, referendum records, and board meeting minutes are public record and searchable through the Federal Register and AMS's program pages.

State Variations

Many states have their own commodity promotion or checkoff-style programs layered on top of the federal programs. Producers in some commodities may therefore face both federal and state assessments.

Implementing Regulations

• 7 CFR Part 1150 — Dairy Promotion and Research Order, implementing the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. §§ 4501–4514):

  • Board structure: the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board has 36 U.S. milk producers appointed by the Secretary, organized across 12 geographic regions; seat allocation by region: Region 1 — 2 seats, Region 2 — 7 seats, Region 3 — 2 seats, Region 4 — 4 seats, Region 5 — 2 seats, Region 6 — 5 seats, Region 7 — 2 seats, Region 8 — 2 seats, Region 9 — 3 seats, Region 10 — 2 seats, Region 11 — 2 seats, Region 12 — 3 seats; plus additional importer members; the Board must maintain an executive committee that equally represents each U.S. milk-producing region and importers (§§ 1150.131–1150.140); 3-year terms ending October 31; members serve without compensation, reimbursed for expenses with per diem if the Secretary approves
  • Assessment: $0.15 per hundredweight (15¢/cwt) of milk — collected by handlers (persons who pay producers for milk) at the point of sale; if a producer sells milk directly to consumers or through their own retail operations, the producer self-remits (§ 1150.152); assessment funds are remitted to the Board; the Board covers fluid milk AND all dairy products (butter, cheese, yogurt, cream)
  • Qualified state programs: existing state and regional dairy promotion, research, or nutrition education programs may be certified by the Secretary as "qualified programs" (§ 1150.153); certified programs receive credit against producer assessment obligations, allowing state programs to coordinate with and receive a share of the national assessment rather than stacking on top of it; importers may also receive credit through certified programs
  • Records and reporting: handlers and direct-selling producers must report amounts covered, payments made, and reasons for discrepancies when remitting; records must be retained for at least 2 years after the applicable fiscal period and are subject to Board and Secretary inspection (§§ 1150.171–1150.172)

  The dairy checkoff, established in 1983 under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act, predates the generic 1996 Commodity Promotion Act that governs most other commodity checkoffs. Its 12-region structure reflects the geographic spread of U.S. dairy production, from the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Minnesota) and Northeast (New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont) to the rapidly expanding Western operations (California, Idaho, New Mexico). The program is the source of the "Got Milk?" campaign (created by the California fluid milk board but adopted nationally) and the dairy three-a-day nutritional messaging. Unlike most checkoffs, the dairy program explicitly covers fluid milk promotion as well as cheese, butter, yogurt, and other value-added products through the same 15¢/cwt assessment.

• 7 CFR Part 1260 — Beef Promotion and Research Order (84 sections, Subparts A–D — the complete regulatory framework for the $1/head cattle checkoff). Key mechanics:

  • § 1260.310 — Assessment rate: producers pay $1.00 per head of cattle sold; if multiple producers share a sale each pays their proportionate share; if the collecting person fails to collect, the producer remains directly liable
  • § 1260.311 — Collection mechanism: anyone who pays producers for cattle (buyers, auction houses, first handlers) must collect and remit the $1.00 per head at the point of payment; sellers who market their own cattle as beef directly to consumers or retailers must self-remit
  • § 1260.312 — Remittance: collected assessments go to the Qualified State Beef Council in the state where the sale occurs; if the state has no qualified council, funds go directly to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board; monthly reporting required on separate forms for each calendar month
  • § 1260.313 — Receipt obligation: every collecting person must give producers a written receipt showing the collector's name and address, producer's name, number of cattle sold, total assessment paid, and date
  • § 1260.314 — Non-producer exemption: the assessment does not apply when the seller certifies they are a non-producer (commission agent, pass-through buyer who resold within 10 days and did not profit from the cattle's value)
  • § 1260.302 — Organic exemption: producers with a valid NOP organic certificate may claim exemption from checkoff assessments on products labeled "organic" or "100 percent organic" by filing Form AMS-15; the exemption covers all certified organic product even if the same producer also sells conventional cattle
  • § 1260.315 — Qualified State Beef Councils: 43 state beef promotion groups are approved; examples include the California Beef Council, Texas Beef Council, Washington State Beef Commission, and Wyoming Beef Council; state councils receive the initial remittance and forward a portion to the national Cattlemen's Board per the federation agreement
  • Subpart D — Certification and Nomination Procedures: governs how industry organizations nominate board members to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board; only organizations certified as "eligible organizations" by the Secretary may submit nominations; qualified State beef councils play a central role in nominating producer-representatives from their states

  The beef checkoff's two-tier structure is worth understanding: most of the $1/head initially goes to the Qualified State Beef Council in the collection state, which retains a share for in-state beef promotion and remits the national share to the Cattlemen's Board. The Board and the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (composed of state council and Cattlemen's Board representatives) then allocate national funds to research, consumer information, industry information, and export development. This two-tier split — state councils first, national board second — is why "Beef. It's What's for Dinner" is properly attributed to the national program while individual state councils run separate campaigns.

• 7 CFR Part 1230 — Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (110 sections — the National Pork Board checkoff program under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4801–4819). The pork checkoff has a distinctive two-tier governance structure: a National Pork Producers Delegate Body and a separate National Pork Board.

  Assessment mechanics (§§ 1230.112–1230.113): Every producer marketing a porcine animal (feeder pig, market hog, or breeding pig) pays 0.35% of market value — calculated as the sale price for sold animals, or the most recent annual seven-market average for barrows and gilts for producer-slaughtered hogs. Buyers (packers, auction markets, dealers) collect the assessment from sellers at the point of purchase; if a buyer fails to collect, the seller remains directly liable. Payment is due to the National Pork Board by the 15th of the following month if monthly assessments total $25 or more; smaller producers may aggregate to quarterly remittance.

  Import assessments (§ 1230.110): Importers pay 0.35% of Customs Entered Value for live porcine animals. Imported pork and pork products are assessed by weight: 0.15–0.25 cents per pound depending on HTS code (fresh/chilled/frozen pork at varying rates; offal, sausages, and prepared products at specified per-pound fees). Importers apply for organic exemptions the same way domestic producers do — Form AMS-15, renewed annually by January 1.

  Organic exemption (§ 1230.102): Producers and importers with a valid NOP organic certificate are exempt from assessments on products labeled "organic" or "100 percent organic." The exemption requires an initial filing on Form AMS-15, then annual re-filing by January 1; the Board issues a Certificate of Exemption within 30 days. Importers must enter their exemption certificate number on Customs entry forms; previously collected assessments on exempt organic product may be refunded on request.

  Delegate Body structure (§ 1230.30): A National Pork Producers Delegate Body is composed of producers and importers appointed by the Secretary. Each state gets at least two producer members; additional members are allocated by "shares" — one share per $1,000 of net assessments collected from that state (rounded to nearest $1,000). A state with over 300 but fewer than 601 shares gets three producer delegates; over 600 but fewer than 1,001 shares gets four; and one more for each additional 300 shares. Importers get three base members plus proportional additions by importer shares. Producer nominations must follow state association election procedures open to all current-assessment-paying producers; the Secretary appoints from nominations. The Delegate Body meets annually, recommends the assessment rate, and allocates the percentage of net assessments each State Pork Association receives from the funds generated in that state.

  National Pork Board (§§ 1230.50–1230.58): The Board has 15 members — producers from at least 12 different states and any importers — appointed by the Secretary from Delegate Body nominations. Three-year terms, renewable once; no member may serve more than seven years total. The Board must approve a national program of promotion, research, and consumer information; all plans and budgets require Secretary approval before taking effect. The Board may operate programs directly or through contracts, but must conduct a CPA audit annually and publish a report to producers and importers. The Board may invest assessment funds only in U.S. government obligations, state/local general-obligation bonds, interest-bearing bank accounts, or federally guaranteed instruments.

  State association allocation: After the Delegate Body sets the allocation percentage, State Pork Associations (§ 1230.25 — the recognized producer organization in each state) receive their share of assessments collected on hogs marketed in their state. State associations with under $30,000 in annual assessments may use unaudited financial statements (§ 1230.115); a CPA audit is required at least every five years regardless of size.

  The pork checkoff generated the "The Other White Meat" campaign (launched 1987) — one of the most successful commodity promotion campaigns in history, credited with repositioning pork as a health-conscious alternative to beef during the low-fat diet era. The National Pork Board's current campaigns emphasize protein content and global culinary versatility. The Board's two-tier structure — with a Delegate Body setting allocation and a Board running programs — reflects a compromise in the 1985 Act between producer representatives who wanted state-level control of promotion funds and industry advocates for a centralized national program.

• 7 CFR Part 1220 — Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information, implementing the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (subtitle E of title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act; 7 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6311):

  • United Soybean Board (§§ 1220.201–1220.215): the Board comprises representatives from 31 geographic units — states or state groups — appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by the Qualified State Soybean Board in each state (the single certified state soybean promotion entity); 3-year terms with one-third rotating off annually; majority quorum; in-person roll-call voting when requested; Board must meet at least 3 times per year; members serve without pay, reimbursed for necessary expenses; the Board may form a Soybean Program Coordinating Committee (15 members — 10 Board-appointed, 5 from the Cooperator organization) to help develop and coordinate programs
  • Assessment (§ 1220.223): 0.5% of the net market price of soybeans; the "first purchaser" (first buyer from the producer) collects and remits the assessment; producers who process their own soybeans must pay 0.5% on the net market value; de minimis exemption for producers planting fewer than 25 acres of soybeans; first purchasers must maintain records for 2 years after the fiscal period covered
  • Qualified State Soybean Boards (§ 1220.228): each state designates one state-level soybean promotion board that can receive a portion of the federal assessment to fund state-level programs; this pass-through mechanism allows producers in high-production states to direct some of their checkoff money to state-level research and extension priorities while satisfying the federal assessment obligation; the state board must operate programs aligned with the national program objectives
  • Cooperator Organization (§ 1220.107): the American Soybean Association is designated as the cooperator organization responsible for foreign market development — using Board funds to expand export demand for U.S. soybeans and soybean products in international markets; the Board contracts with the Cooperator for these activities under USDA oversight
  • No lobbying (§ 1220.229): assessment funds may not be used to influence actions or policies of any U.S., foreign, state, or local government; exceptions are narrow: the Board may use funds to recommend changes to the Soybean Order itself, to respond to governmental requests for information, and to defend the program in litigation

  The United Soybean Board (USB) — which markets under the "Powered by Soy" brand — funds research on soybean oil functionality, protein applications, animal nutrition, biodiesel (soy-based biodiesel), and sustainability. USB's international programs through the American Soybean Association work to grow soybean demand in markets like Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The 2024 referendum attempt — when producers sought a vote on continuing the Order — failed to reach the statutory threshold, and the program continues unchanged.

• 7 CFR Part 1250 — Egg Research and Promotion Order (73 sections across 3 subparts — the regulatory framework for the American Egg Board (AEB) checkoff program under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, Pub. L. 93-428):

  • Order provisions (Subpart — Egg Research and Promotion Order, 43 sections): the American Egg Board governs the program; assessment is collected at $0.10 per 30-dozen case of commercial eggs sold (§ 1250.361); handlers (§ 1250.309) — persons who receive eggs from a producer and process, pack, or sell them — are the collection mechanism; the Order covers the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia (§ 1250.308); fiscal year is the calendar year, though the Board may adopt a different budget cycle with USDA approval (§ 1250.303); importers of commercial eggs pay assessments at the same rate as domestic producers to prevent free-riding
  • Rules and Regulations (Subpart, 22 sections): assessment reporting and remittance deadlines; records that handlers must maintain; exemptions for very small producers and for eggs not destined for commercial sale; Board audit rights
  • Referendum Procedures (Subpart, 8 sections): to establish, continue, suspend, or terminate the Order, USDA must conduct a producer referendum (§ 1250.200); one-producer/one-vote regardless of flock size; referendum agents conduct the vote under the Administrator's supervision; ballots and individual voting choices are kept confidential (§ 1250.207)

  The AEB is the source of "The Incredible Edible Egg" campaign and extensive nutritional research positioning eggs as a protein source. Under Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), the Supreme Court held that government-controlled generic commodity promotion is government speech — producers cannot use First Amendment claims to escape mandatory assessment payments where USDA controls the message. The egg checkoff program has operated continuously since the 1970s under this framework.

• 7 CFR Part 1205 — Cotton Research and Promotion Order and Regulations, implementing the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 (7 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2118 — one of the oldest commodity checkoff programs, predating the generic framework by 30 years):

  • Cotton Board governance (§§ 1205.322–1205.332): the Board comprises producer members (one per cotton-producing state) plus importer members (allocated based on import volume); the Secretary appoints members from nominations submitted by certified Cotton-Producer and Cotton-Importer organizations; 3-year terms; majority quorum; in-person voting; members serve without pay but are reimbursed for reasonable expenses (§ 1205.330); the Board must repay USDA up to $300,000 for referendum costs (§ 1205.334)
  • Production regions (§ 1205.319): cotton-producing states are grouped into four geographic regions — Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia); Midsouth (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri-Illinois, Tennessee); Southwest (Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas); Far West (Arizona, California-Nevada)
  • Assessment structure (§§ 1205.510–1205.516): dual-rate system — producers pay $1 per bale of Upland cotton harvested plus a supplemental assessment of 0.5% of the bale's value; the $1/bale is collected by the gin (the "collecting handler") at first payment or credit to the producer; the 0.5% supplemental is collected by the first handler who buys the cotton; importers pay both rates through U.S. Customs Service on the cotton-equivalent value of imported cotton and cotton-containing goods; collecting handlers must remit monthly with reports postmarked within 10 days of month-end (§ 1205.516)
  • Importer reimbursement (§ 1205.520, § 1205.336): importers who paid the assessment on cotton that turns out to be U.S.-grown cotton or non-Upland cotton can claim reimbursement from the Cotton Board; requires written request and a completed reimbursement form; addresses situations where cotton-content determination was made on imported goods that included both U.S. and foreign fiber
  • Organic exemption (§ 1205.519): producers with a valid National Organic Program (NOP) certificate are exempt from assessments on certified organic or "100 percent organic" cotton; exemption covers only the certified portion
  • Gin records (§§ 1205.530–1205.532): each U.S. cotton gin must file an annual report to the Cotton Board listing each producer's name, address, and bale count; handlers and importers must retain all supporting records for 2 years after the marketing year
  • No lobbying (§ 1205.337): assessment funds may not be used to influence governmental action; the only exception is that funds may be used to recommend changes to the Cotton Order itself

  The Cotton Board — which operates under the umbrella organization Cotton Incorporated — has funded decades of market research and promotion including the "The Fabric of Our Lives" campaign. The dual $1/bale + 0.5% value structure generates assessments that scale with both volume and price, so producers bear more program cost in high-price years. The Cotton Board administers its promotional programs under USDA oversight, contracting with research institutions and market development organizations to expand domestic and international cotton demand.

• 7 CFR Part 1209 — Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order, implementing the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6112):

  • Coverage (§ 1209.11): all cultivated mushrooms grown in the U.S. or imported and sold fresh; excludes commercially marinated, canned, frozen, and other processed mushroom products — the Order covers the fresh market only
  • Mushroom Council (§§ 1209.30–1209.36): 4 to 9 members appointed by the Secretary; most members are producers from three geographic production regions (Region 1: all states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico not in Regions 2 or 3; Regions 2 and 3 cover the primary growing states, which can be redivided); if U.S. mushroom imports average at least 50 million lbs/year, importers receive additional seats proportional to import volumes; 3-year terms; quorum is a majority of members; no compensation, reasonable expenses reimbursed; members must serve their full region and may not be drawn exclusively from any one producer
  • Assessments (§§ 1209.51–1209.52): collected at $0.0075 per pound (rate as of October 1, 2025) on all fresh mushrooms sold in the U.S. market; first handlers and direct sellers collect and remit monthly; exemption for producers or importers averaging 500,000 lbs/year or less (annual application required); mushrooms grown in the U.S. and exported are exempt; budget must be submitted to USDA at least 60 days before the fiscal year (§ 1209.50); no lobbying prohibition (§ 1209.53)
  • Referendum (§ 1209.71): Secretary must hold a continuation referendum 5 years after program start; thereafter, 10% of eligible producers or importers may petition for a referendum; referendum can result in continuation, suspension, or termination; if terminated, up to five trustees appointed by Secretary wind down Council affairs (§ 1209.72)

• 7 CFR Part 1160 — Fluid Milk Promotion Program, implementing the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. §§ 6401–6417 — a processor-side checkoff distinct from the dairy producer checkoff under Part 1150; the two programs operate in parallel):

  • National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board: 20 members — 15 from specific geographic regions and 5 at-large, appointed by the Secretary from nominations; members serve 3-year terms; quorum is a majority of members; decisions require a majority vote of those present; members serve without pay but are reimbursed for necessary expenses (§ 1160.206–207)
  • Assessment: $0.20 per hundredweight (cwt) of fluid milk products processed and sold in consumer-size packages in the U.S. (§ 1160.211); fluid milk processors who sell directly to consumers also pay unless specifically exempted; small processor exemption for those processing and selling 3,000 cwt/month or less
  • Programs: consumer education and advertising (§ 1160.111) — programs using public relations, ads, and other tools to promote fluid milk — and research including market studies, product characteristics, and development of new products (§ 1160.112)
  • Reserve fund cap: after the first year, the Board may not use more than 5% of assessments for reserve purposes in any later fiscal period (§ 1160.210)
  • No lobbying: assessment funds may not be used to influence government policy or actions (§ 1160.212)
  • Note on "Got Milk?": the iconic campaign was created and owned by the California Milk Processor Board (state program); the national fluid milk program (Part 1160) runs parallel generic promotion under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act rather than the California state program

• 7 CFR Part 1207 — Potato Research and Promotion Plan, implementing the Potato Research and Promotion Act of 1971 (7 U.S.C. §§ 2611–2627 — one of the earliest commodity-specific checkoff statutes, predating the generic 1996 framework):

  • National Potato Promotion Board: producers (5+ acres), importers, and one public member; membership allocated by state based on average production over the prior 3 years; 3-year terms starting March 1 (staggered so roughly one-third expire each year); members serve without pay, reimbursed for reasonable Board-duty expenses (§ 1207.326)
  • Voting structure: each state (or designated district/group of states) with a Board member receives at least 1 vote, plus 1 additional vote per 1 million hundredweight of production; importer members receive 1 vote per 1 million hundredweight of imports (§ 1207.325, § 1207.505); annual Administrative Committee drawn from Board members to handle routine operations
  • Assessment: $0.03 per hundredweight (cwt) on potatoes grown by producers with 5 or more acres; producers with fewer than 5 acres are exempt; imported table-stock potatoes, seed potatoes, and frozen or processed potatoes for consumption are also assessed at the same rate (§ 1207.510); fees applied to the use of each lot — handlers without use records are assessed on the entire lot
  • Programs: ongoing research, product development, advertising, and promotion to maintain and develop domestic and export potato markets (§ 1207.506); the Board must reimburse USDA for administrative costs incurred in overseeing the program (§ 1207.508)
  • Fiscal year: July 1 through June 30; the Secretary may approve an alternative 12-month period (§ 1207.310)
  • Eligibility: "potatoes" means any variety of Irish potatoes grown in the U.S. or imported; producers must own or share the financial risk in the crop on 5+ acres; handlers (graders, packers, processors, sellers) collect the assessment; common carriers are excluded

• 7 CFR Part 1200 — Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Proceedings Under Research, Promotion, and Information Programs: the procedural framework that governs how checkoff program orders are established, amended, and challenged — the enforcement backbone that sits behind every commodity-specific order in Parts 1150–1260. Three subparts govern distinct types of proceedings:

  • Subpart A (§§ 1200.1–1200.20) — Order establishment and amendment proceedings: how USDA conducts the rulemaking hearings required before a new checkoff program order can take effect; any affected person or a certified producers' organization may propose a new order (§1200.3); the Secretary files a notice of hearing with a docket number (§1200.6); an administrative law judge presides, takes evidence, and compiles the record; after the hearing closes, the AMS Administrator files a recommended decision (§1200.13); parties have a set period to file exceptions; the Secretary reviews the full record and issues the final decision and order (§1200.15); the order does not become effective until the Secretary determines it will serve the Act's purposes and eligible producers have approved it in a referendum (§1200.16) — the two-step process that makes every checkoff program a creature of both regulation and democratic producer vote
  • Subpart B (§§ 1200.50–1200.52) — Petition proceedings (legal challenges to existing orders): any person "subject to" a checkoff order who believes the order or required action violates the applicable commodity statute may file a petition with the Secretary (§1200.52); the petition must describe the manner in which the petitioner is aggrieved; USDA assigns a docket number, appoints a presiding officer, and conducts a hearing; the proceeding is the administrative exhaustion requirement before a producer can seek judicial review of a checkoff program — the constitutional challenges to the beef and pork checkoffs (including Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)) proceeded through this petition pathway before reaching federal court
  • Subpart C (§§ 1200.100–1200.206) — Commodity Research, Promotion, and Information Act of 1996 (CRPIA) programs: the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 7411–7425) created a second statutory track for establishing commodity checkoffs that didn't fit the earlier commodity-specific statutes; any affected person, a producers' association, or the Secretary may propose an order (§1200.202); a referendum is discretionary rather than mandatory for initial establishment — the Secretary "may" conduct an initial referendum (§1200.203); the Administrator (not the Secretary) executes the final order under CRPIA (§1200.206); programs established under CRPIA include newer specialty-crop and value-added promotion programs

  Part 1200 governs the procedural machinery rather than the substantive assessment rates and program activities covered in commodity-specific Parts. But the procedures matter practically: an industry group seeking to challenge a checkoff program's expenditures on "anti-competitive" activities, or a minority of producers opposing a new program, must navigate Part 1200 procedures before their legal arguments reach federal court. The ex parte communications prohibition (§1200.18) — barring USDA officials involved in a proceeding from having private contacts with interested parties after a hearing notice issues — is particularly significant given the dual role USDA plays as both the supervising agency and the administrator of checkoff program boards.

Non-USDA Checkoff: Commerce Department

Not all federal commodity checkoff programs live under USDA. Congress has occasionally authorized checkoffs for construction materials and other non-agricultural products under Commerce Department oversight:

• 15 CFR Part 1500 — Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Order, implementing the Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Act of 2018 (15 U.S.C. §§ 8701–8717, Pub. L. 115-254, enacted as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018) — a mandatory research, education, and generic promotion checkoff for concrete masonry units (concrete blocks, bricks, and related masonry products), administered by the Commerce Department's Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs (OUSEA) rather than USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service:

  • § 1500.40 — Board membership: a Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Board of 15 to 25 members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from nominations submitted by manufacturers; members must be concrete masonry unit manufacturers; employees of industry trade associations representing the concrete masonry or related industries may not serve as board members, and no board member may simultaneously serve as an officer of a national concrete masonry trade association board — a structural conflict-of-interest firewall absent from some agricultural checkoffs
  • § 1500.40(c) — Geographic regions: the U.S. is divided into geographic regions for program purposes, ensuring that board membership and program activities reflect the geographic spread of concrete masonry manufacturing
  • § 1500.51 — Assessments: assessments are collected on the first sale of concrete masonry units only (not on subsequent resales of the same units); the manufacturer who sells the units is responsible for collecting and remitting assessments no less than quarterly; the initial assessment rate is set pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 8705 (not to exceed $0.01 per unit); manufacturers must identify the total assessment amount on all sales receipts, invoices, and commercial documents
  • § 1500.60 — Programs and projects: the Board develops annual research, education, and promotion programs with objectives and performance metrics; programs may cover product research (structural applications, fire resistance, sustainability), consumer and professional education (architects, engineers, building officials), and generic promotion of concrete masonry products; all programs require Secretary of Commerce approval before taking effect
  • § 1500.70 — Reporting: manufacturers must periodically report to the Board the number and type of concrete masonry units manufactured and sold, units on which assessments were paid, and dates of assessment remittance; all reports are due 60 days after the end of each fiscal period
  • § 1500.80 — Secretary oversight: all fiscal matters, programs, rules, and other Board actions require Secretary of Commerce approval before taking effect — the same centralized federal oversight that distinguishes government-directed checkoff promotion from compelled private speech under Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005)
  • § 1500.81 — Referenda: the Order took effect after a manufacturer referendum requiring approval by a majority of voting manufacturers who also represent a majority of the machine cavities in operation — a dual threshold (by count and by production capacity) ensuring that the program reflects both the number of manufacturers and their manufacturing scale; subsequent referenda may be triggered by the Board or by petition of 25% of eligible manufacturers every 5 years beginning November 30, 2026

  The concrete masonry checkoff is notable as a non-agricultural, non-USDA checkoff program — an extension of the federal checkoff model to the construction materials industry. Concrete masonry units (CMUs, or concrete blocks) are a foundational construction material used in commercial, residential, and infrastructure construction; the program funds research on concrete masonry's structural, thermal, and environmental performance properties and generic promotion to architects, engineers, and building officials. The order took effect on December 18, 2021 following a 2021 manufacturer referendum (the Order itself was published at 86 FR 51437, September 2021), making it one of the newer federal checkoff programs in operation. Commerce subsequently streamlined the regulations in a February 27, 2026 rule (91 FR 11787). The Commerce Department's role is structurally parallel to USDA's role in agricultural checkoffs, including Secretary approval requirements for all substantive Board actions.

Pending Legislation

Proposals to reform or tighten checkoff-program transparency, conflicts rules, and producer opt-out rights periodically surface in farm-bill and agriculture-policy debates. As of April 8, 2026, the more durable current-law reality is that USDA continues to administer the federal checkoff structure and mandatory assessments continue to be collected under the active commodity orders.

Recent Developments

• Pork assessment rate remains lower than older summaries often state: USDA reduced the pork checkoff assessment rate to 0.35% of market value, effective January 1, 2023, replacing the older 0.40% rate and making older 0.45% descriptions clearly stale.
• Mushroom assessments increased in late 2025: USDA approved an increase in the mushroom assessment rate to $0.0075 per pound, effective October 1, 2025, for covered fresh-market mushrooms.
• Soybean referendum efforts did not trigger a national vote in 2024: USDA announced that a referendum on the Soybean Promotion and Research Order would not be conducted after the 2024 request process failed to meet the statutory threshold.
• AMS still actively manages board structure and referenda: USDA continued board appointment, reapportionment, and referendum administration work across active research and promotion programs through 2025 and 2026, underscoring that these programs remain live and federally supervised rather than merely historical artifacts.