Cattlemen’s Club

Critics say APHIS is too cozy with livestock producers

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Total elimination of brucellosis: For decades, that’s been the goal of the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA), a private, nonprofit organization of livestock producers, state veterinarians, and livestock bureaucrats. Every year, the group delivers its recommendations to the USDA’s APHIS on how best to eradicate the disease.

But critics say the relationship is cozier than just an annual policy paper, and that it gives cattlemen privileged access to the federal agency.

USAHA claims in its literature that it “serves as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” while APHIS acknowledges that it works closely with “industry experts, including the Brucellosis Committee of the USAHA.”

Too closely, says D.J. Schubert, a wildlife biologist with the Fund for Animals, who believes USAHA and APHIS are entangled in a conflict of interest. Eleven members of USAHA’s brucellosis committee are APHIS employees, all of them in the agency’s Veterinary Services division, which is responsible for implementing the national Brucellosis Eradication Program.

“There’s a conflict of interest because USDA employees are voting in support of resolutions that ultimately they will act on,” contends Schubert. “These are the people who dictate brucellosis policy for USDA.”

The agency admits the charge might be valid. “We’re currently reviewing our policy—there could possibly be a conflict there,” says APHIS spokesman Patrick Collins. “We need to get a good answer and we don’t have a good answer right now.”

Then there’s the matter of secrecy. Although USAHA makes recommendations on public policy with the assistance of goverment employees, its meetings are not open to the public. The Fund for Animals has questioned the legality of USAHA’s tight relationship with APHIS, charging that the association acts as a de facto federal advisory committee that consults with the agency on public policy and therefore is subject to federal open-meeting and record-keeping laws.

“There’s no question that USAHA acts as an advisory committee to the USDA,” says Schubert. “It’s a relationship that violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act and allows special interests and state vets to have a privileged relationship with a federal agency that regulates agricultural policy.”

This charge APHIS denies; the agency insists that USAHA is an independent organization and that federal advisory committee regulations do not apply.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend