Sep 4, 2015 4 min read

WASHINGTON – The slogans are familiar: “The Incredible Edible Egg,” “Pork: The Other White Meat” and “Got Milk?”

They’ve been part of promotional campaigns overseen by the Agriculture Department and paid for by the industries that vote to organize them. But while the idea is simple – industry-wide promotional campaigns at no cost to the government – they’ve often generated controversy, been misunderstood and, at times, operated with little oversight.

The egg industry is the latest to draw scrutiny for its promotional board after it appears to have waged a campaign to hurt sales of an eggless imitation mayonnaise. According to email documents provided to the Associated Press, the American Egg Board tried to prevent Whole Foods grocery stores from selling Hampton Creek’s Just Mayo spread and engaged in other efforts to counter the brand.

According to the documents, American Egg Board CEO Joanne Ivy emailed a consultant in 2013 saying she would accept his offer “to make that phone call to keep Just Mayo off Whole Foods shelves.” Whole Foods still sells the product.

USDA spokesman Sam Jones-Ellard said the department is looking into the documents and “does not condone any efforts to limit competing products in commerce.” He didn’t say whether the USDA would take action, and it’s unclear whether the egg board’s communications would violate the law.

By law, USDA is tasked with making sure the quasi-government boards stay away from disparaging other commodities and from campaigning for legislation or regulation. The idea is the campaigns stay promotional, not negative.

There are about 20 other programs – also known as “checkoffs” – from Mushroom Council to National Christmas Tree Promotion Board. USDA’s oversight includes ensuring fiscal responsibility, program efficiency and fair treatment for all sectors of the industries that form boards.

In 2012, USDA’s inspector general issued a report saying departmental oversight should be improved. Specifically, the audit said USDA should better detect the misuse of board checkoff funds and gather more information from the boards to assess their activities. The report cited examples of improper employee bonuses and travel expenses. The USDA said it would make improvements.

Some programs have been challenged in court. In 2008, a judge barred the egg board from spending money to campaign on a proposition in California. And the USDA is currently defending itself in a federal lawsuit that alleges the National Pork Board cut a deal to help fund a non-governmental pork association that lobbies lawmakers.

The groups’ association with the government also made them vulnerable to political attacks. In 2011, the White House delayed a decision to approve a Christmas tree promotion program after conservatives accused the Agriculture Department of a Christmas tree tax – even though the program would have been paid for by industry and the National Christmas Tree Association said it wouldn’t have an impact on prices. The program eventually went into effect after congressional action in 2014.

The organic industry faced similar political criticism as it sets up its own promotion program with the USDA. Some farm-state members of Congress opposed an organic checkoff, arguing you can’t promote organic agriculture without disparaging conventional agriculture.

Laura Batcha, head of the Organic Trade Association, said the group is mindful of previous problems as it has worked over the past several years to create a checkoff program. The organic industry is hoping a board will help consumers understand what the term means.

Producers were especially concerned about marketplace confusion, including the common use of the word “natural” on food packages, which can be confused with organic.

Other industries similarly hoped to boost consumer perception.

National Pork Board CEO Chris Hodges said in the 30 years since the board was founded, the industry saw large growth in exports and increased consumer demand. He said research funded by the board helped U.S. pork producers keep their animals healthier and made business more efficient.

Hodges said his group is in close touch with the USDA and department officials are directly involved with its decisions.

Hampton Creek CEO Josh Tetrick maintained USDA oversight of the boards is lax, and has called for a congressional investigation.

In the emails, one egg board executive appeared to joke about having Tetrick killed.

Tetrick’s company, which markets itself as promoting healthier eating, provided the documents to the AP after they were obtained on a public records request by Ryan Noah Shapiro, a Freedom of Information Act expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“There needs to be a lot more oversight in how these programs are run, because they have a real impact on how people eat,” Tetrick said.