Given the lack of trade agreements and ongoing tariff tussles, it has been extremely frustrating for farmers to see international markets decimated before their eyes.

Those markets were built over the last few decades with money from farmers’ checks.

Since government mandatory checkoff programs were introduced in the 1980s, farmers nation-wide have poured billions of dollars into marketing, education and research for their raw products.

Nationally, each commodity can point to advertising efforts that resonated with U.S consumers. Dairy had a few winners — its milk mustache campaign, “Got milk?” and “Milk — It does a body good.” Actor Sam Elliot drawled “Beef — It’s what’s for dinner.” Pig producers showed their colors with “Pork — The other white meat.”

Internationally, all groups have been busy promoting U.S. farm products via trade mission trips.

However much these efforts help us feel good about doing something to sell what farmers produce, are they still cost-effective and relevant to today? Have checks and balances on the business conducted by commodity staffs and elected farmer boards been thorough enough?

At the risk of raising the ire of many, I raise these questions after reading a Sept. 4 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigative story on Dairy Management Inc. and how the non-profit allocates an annual $160 million budget. DMI is the dairy industry’s national promotion program funded by checkoff fees. The story pointed out:

Collection of farmer fees and expenditures of big dollars deserves a robust review, especially since some checkoff assessments have been on auto-pilot since commencing.

Dairy, specifically, calls for a 15-cent per cwt assessment. Ten cents is sent to DMI for national efforts, while a nickel stays in state for local promotion and research. All dairy farmers pay into the checkoff except organic producers who are exempt from the national assessment. There is no opt-out option for dairy.

That said, five commodity groups in Minnesota allow farmers to request checkoff fee refunds from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. They are corn, dry edible beans, potatoes grown in Area Two, sunflowers and turkeys. You can learn more online from MDA's website.

The investigative story noted that the checkoffs withstood a legal challenge in 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they were protected “government speech.” The story also notes that bills to reform checkoff programs and increase transparency have languished in the Senate.

I know commodity research and promotion programs have provided solid investments in their respective raw products to bring new manufactured products to market and to help educate consumers about nutrition. Those efforts deserve acknowledgement and thanks.

At the same time, farmer board members need to keep asking questions and respectfully challenge directions and expenditures that seem extravagant. Those checkoff dollars deserve to be wisely invested.