Food libel laws

Last updated

All copies of the environmental book Green Illusions sold in the United States were self-censored due to concerns about food libel laws that enable the damages to be awarded when a court rules that someone has made libelous statements about a food product. Censored section of Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner.jpg
All copies of the environmental book Green Illusions sold in the United States were self-censored due to concerns about food libel laws that enable the damages to be awarded when a court rules that someone has made libelous statements about a food product.

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are the following: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. [1] [ needs update? ] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome. [2]

Contents

These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued. [2]

An example of the situation is the New York Times reporting about "facts from a study showing the amounts of lead found in over-the-counter calcium supplements" being censored. [3]

Origins

On February 26, 1989, CBS News' 60 Minutes aired a segment entitled "'A' is for Apple," in which 60 Minutes anchors investigated a report published by the Natural Resources Defense Council on the safety of daminozide, a growth regulator used on apples to preserve their freshness. The NRDC, and 60 Minutes along with them, claimed that daminozide, sold under the brand name Alar, was carcinogenic, especially when consumed by children. [4] According to the report, Alar remained in apple skin even after processing, meaning that not only raw apples, but also apple products, like apple juice and apple sauce, could pose health risks. [5]

Immediately after the segment aired, consumers panicked and apple sales declined by nearly 60% nationwide. Growers reported revenue losses of $100M as a result. [4] Seeking recompense, eleven Washington State apple growers banded together to sue CBS for trade libel: the intentional publication of false information about a product. Trade libel laws stipulate that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, meaning that the growers needed to prove in court by "the preponderance of the evidence" that 60 Minutes' claims about daminozide's carcinogenicity were dubious in order for the jury to decide in their favor. [6] The growers failed to do so, and their case was dismissed as a result. [7] In response, lobbyists affiliated with the agricultural industry began to campaign for stricter trade libel laws specific to agricultural products. They argued that agricultural products deserved special protections because of their perishability: they might spoil before the truth of claims regarding their safety had been verified. As a result, thirteen states adopted food libel laws, which offer larger settlement sums than regular trade libel laws and, unlike trade libel laws, often place the burden of proof on a case's defendant, rather than its plaintiff. [8]

The Economist reported that "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) eventually decided that Alar was indeed a carcinogen." [9]

Notable cases

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey

In 1998, television talk-show host Oprah Winfrey and one of her guests, Howard Lyman, were involved in a lawsuit, commonly referred to as the Amarillo, Texas, beef trial, surrounding the Texas version of a food libel law known as the False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act of 1995. The words "Cows are herbivores. They shouldn't be eating other cows ... It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger." [10] were attributed to Winfrey as part of a 1996 episode of her show. It was accused that the two made disparaging comments about beef in relation to mad cow disease. Although they were not the first people to be sued using this type of legal action, this case created a media sensation.

In a normal U.S. libel suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. Under the Texas food disparagement law under which Winfrey and Lyman were sued, the plaintiffs—in this case, beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders—had to convince the jury that Lyman's statements on Winfrey's show were not "based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data." [11] As a basis for the damages sought in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs noted that cattle futures dropped 10 percent the day after the episode, and that beef prices fell from 62 cents to 55 cents per pound. [12] Engler's attorneys argued that the rancher lost $6.7 million, and the plaintiffs sought to recoup total losses of more than $12 million. [13]

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen. [14] However, Winfrey no longer speaks publicly on the issue, and declines to make videotapes of the original interview available to inquiring journalists. [15]

Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News (Pink Slime case)

On March 7, 2012, ABC News aired a segment dedicated to investigating a beef product called lean finely textured beef (LFTB) sold by the South Dakota beef company Beef Products, Inc (BPI). ABC News correspondents, including Diane Sawyer, reported on a whistleblower's claim that BPI's LFTB was used as a filler in the ground beef sold by many American beef companies, as a way of cutting costs. According to the unknown whistleblower and ABC News, BPI's LFTB was derived from beef trimmings sprayed with ammonia, and resembled "pink slime". [16] Throughout March and April, ABC News continued to run segments and publish articles about BPI's LFTB, including publishing updates on the company's financial losses after the original segment's airing. [16]

On September 12, 2012, BPI sued ABC News for food disparagement under South Dakota's food libel legislation. They claimed that ABC News falsely portrayed their product, lean finely textured beef, as unfit for human consumption. BPI also claimed that ABC News' disparaging content led to serious financial damages for BPI. By their report, sales of BPI's LFTB dropped from five million to two million pounds per week, prompting the closure of three out of four production facilities and the lay-off of 700 employees. ABC News responded by calling for the case to be dismissed, arguing that it was within ABC News' First Amendment rights to investigate matters of possible concern to their viewers. [17]

The case went to trial in June, 2017. Under South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, BPI could have received as much as $5.7 billion in statutory trebled damages were ABC News found liable. [18] [19] After the case had been tried for only three out of the expected eight weeks, ABC News and BPI reached a settlement of $177 million. At the time, this was the largest settlement recorded for a media defamation case. The terms of the settlement were not released. [20]

Criticism

Food libel laws have faced opposition from free speech defenders, who argue that they restrict speech about agricultural products to a degree which is unconstitutional. [5] [21] Of particular concern is that some states' food libel laws seem to violate the "of or concerning" precedent which was established in the Supreme Court's 1964 decision on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . [5] Sullivan, the commissioner of the Montgomery, Alabama, police department, filed suit against the New York Times after the paper ran an advertisement paid for by a civil rights group which criticized the Montgomery police department's treatment of civil rights protestors. [22] The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the New York Times was supported in part by their argument that the advertisement was not explicitly "of or concerning" Sullivan, and so did not constitute libelous speech. [5] Food libel legislation which defines disparagement of perishable agricultural products as any false statement that implies a product is unsafe, like the legislation present in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and South Dakota, has been thought by some commentators to contradict this "of or concerning" element. [5] [21] Such legislation might allow speech involved in marketing campaigns, like those that tout organic products as superior to their non-organic competitors, to be construed as implying the impurity or poor quality of certain products, and thereby potentially illegal. [5] States which broadly define the parties who are eligible to sue under food libel laws have also come under criticism for disregarding the "of or concerning" element. Critics' argument is that defaming speech about an agricultural product is not explicitly "of or concerning" parties only tangentially related to that product, like its transporters or marketers, meaning that those parties should not be able to file suit if the product is disparaged. [5]

Food libel laws have also been criticized for their non-traditional placement of the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. In both defamation and trade disparagement legislation, plaintiffs are tasked with proving to the court that the speech in question is false. In food libel legislation present in all but two of the states which have food libel laws on their books, defendants are tasked with proving to the courts that their statements about the agricultural product in question are true. This is done by presenting scientific evidence to support the claims made about product safety and enlisting expert witnesses to substantiate those claims. [21] Because these steps are so costly, there is concern that only very wealthy defendants would be able to muster a defense against a food disparagement claim. [5]

For reasons such as those described above, food libel laws and cases filed under them have been accused by online commentators and civil liberties activism groups, such as the Civil Liberties Defense Center, for propagating a chilling effect. [8] [23] In a legal context, the "chilling effect" describes the phenomenon by which speech on a certain subject is indirectly curtailed by the passage of laws. [5] Journalists have reported that simply the risk of legal retaliation for writing about food safety issues has stopped them from doing so. Smaller publishers, without the financial means to mount a defense should the producer of a food product oppose an author's commentary on it, have significantly revised or even canceled potentially liable books. Robert Hatherill's Eat to Beat Cancer and Britt Bailey's Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food are notable examples of this practice. [24] The former was subject to extensive editing by its publisher—whole sections related to links between meat and cancer were deleted—and the latter was canceled entirely after its publisher received a letter from Monsanto warning of a possible suit. [5] Ozzie Zehner self-censored his Green Illusions , an analysis of the detrimental effects of certain environmental protection initiatives, because it included criticism of agribusiness. [25] In the introduction to the book's chapter on consumption, Zehner wrote, "So-called food disparagement laws (also known as "veggie libel laws") enable the food industry to sue journalists, writers, and other people who criticize their products, often placing the burden of proof on the defendant...Unlike Winfrey, I do not have the financial resources to defend myself in such a suit, and as a result you and other readers will be cheated out of the whole story," referencing the Texas Beef Group v. Oprah Winfrey case. [26]

Correspondingly, food libel cases have been alleged to be strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). [27] In general, a SLAPP is a defamation or libel suit whose primary purpose is to silence the speaker and intimidate others from engaging in similar speech. [28] In the specific context of food libel, the implication of the term is that agricultural companies sue under food libel laws in hopes of disincentivizing other potential critics lest they too be subjugated to a costly and inconvenient legal battle, rather than to necessarily win the case and recoup the costs of a damaged reputation. [8] Complicating matters, twenty-nine states currently have statutes intended to prevent against the filing of SLAPP suits, including nine of the thirteen states with food libel laws. [29] [27]

In media

Public awareness of food libel laws and their impacts rose after the airing of Robert Kenner's 2008 documentary Food Inc ., which attempted to investigate the commercial production of food. [5] The documentary featured a scene in which Robert Kenner interviewed Barbara Kowalcyk, a scientist and food-safety activist whose son had died after eating a hamburger contaminated with E. coli . When Kenner asks Kowalcyk how her eating habits have changed after her son's death, she replies that she is unable to discuss the subject because doing so might open her up to a lawsuit under food libel legislation. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daminozide</span> Chemical compound

Daminozide, also known as aminozide, Alar, Kylar, SADH, B-995, B-nine, and DMASA, is a plant growth regulator. It was produced in the U.S. by the Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc,, which registered daminozide for use on fruits intended for human consumption in 1963. In addition to apples and ornamental plants, they also registered it for use on cherries, peaches, pears, Concord grapes, tomato transplants, and peanut vines. Alar was first approved for use in the U.S. in 1963. It was primarily used on apples until 1989, when the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew it after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning it based on concerns about cancer risks to consumers.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advanced meat recovery</span> Process of maximizing removal of meat from a carcass

Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse deboning process by which the last traces of skeletal muscle meat are removed from animal bones after the primal cuts have been carved off manually. The machinery used in this process separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs. Unlike mechanically separated meat, AMR meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand.

Ground beef, minced beef or beef mince is beef that has been finely chopped with a knife, meat grinder, mincer or mincing machine. It is used in many recipes including hamburgers, bolognese sauce, meatloaf, meatballs and kofta.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian defamation law</span> Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MonaVie</span> Multi-level marketing company

MonaVie is a defunct, American multi-level marketing company that manufactured and distributed products made from blended fruit juice concentrates, powders, and purées. The company was the subject of several controversies. Health claims for its products had not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities, and its chairman had been previously involved in false health claims concerning another beverage company. According to Forbes, MonaVie's business plan resembled a pyramid scheme. In 2015, the company defaulted on a US$182 million loan and went into foreclosure. Florida-based Jeunesse Global took over MonaVie’s assets when it purchased the note for $15 million.

<i>Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.</i>

Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co., 231 Mass. 65, 120 N.E. 407 (1918), is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability.

Beef Products Inc. (BPI) is an American meat processing company based in Dakota Dunes, South Dakota. Prior to high media visibility of its products, it was a major supplier to fast food chains, groceries and school lunch programs. It had three additional plants, which closed in 2012.

<i>Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.</i>

Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp., 93 Utah 414 (1937), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Utah where the court modified a contract to avoid an unconscionable result.

Arthur Alan Wolk is an American attorney and author. He is the founding partner of The Wolk Law Firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which specializes in aviation law and air crash litigation for plaintiffs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pink slime</span> Meat by-product

Pink slime is a meat by-product used as a food additive to ground beef and beef-based processed meats, as a filler, or to reduce the overall fat content of ground beef. As part of the production process, heat and centrifuges remove the fat from the meat in beef trimmings. The resulting paste, without the fat, is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria. In 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the product for limited human consumption. The product, when prepared using ammonia gas, is banned for human consumption in the European Union and Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles L. Babcock</span> American attorney

Charles L. "Chip" Babcock is an American attorney with the Texas-based law firm Jackson Walker L.L.P. He is best known for serving as lead litigator for Oprah Winfrey in several cases, including a 1998 lawsuit regarding an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show about mad cow disease. He is a graduate of Brown University and the Boston University School of Law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mindy Brashears</span> American civil servant (born 1970)

Mindy Brashears is the former Under Secretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by a Senate vote on March 23, 2020 and concluded her service on January 20, 2021. Her responsibilities in this role included leading the nation's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and its team of over 10,000 food inspectors and scientists. She chaired the Codex Alimentarius Policy Committee, which made her the highest-ranking food safety official in the U.S. government during her tenure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special motion to strike</span> Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ "Food-Disparagement Laws: State Civil & Criminal Statutes". FoodSpeak. 19 March 1998. Archived from the original on 23 June 2016. Retrieved 31 December 2003.
  2. 1 2 Collins, Ronald (23 March 1998). "Veggie-Libel Law Still Poses a Threat" . Retrieved 28 December 2009.
  3. ↑ "Farmers' Right to Sue Grows, Raising Debate on Food Safety". The New York Times .
  4. 1 2 "All About Alar". NRDC. Retrieved 17 November 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Cain, Rita (Fall 2011). "Food, Inglorious Food: Food Safety, Food Libel and Free Speech". American Business Law Journal. SSRN   1905136.
  6. ↑ Mullins, Kathleen (Spring 2011). Oprah Winfrey v. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act (Honors thesis). State University of New York at Albany.
  7. ↑ Daniel, Cochran (2001). "State Agricultural Disparagement Statutes: Suing Chicken Little". dash.harvard.edu. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
  8. 1 2 3 "Choices Magazine Online". www.choicesmagazine.org. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
  9. ↑ "Agrivation". The Economist . 26 November 1994. p. 28.
  10. ↑ Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 688. "Veggie Libel Laws: Attempts At Silencing Animal Rights Advocates". 9 January 2012.
  11. ↑ V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 96.003, accessible at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf
  12. ↑ Jennings, Marianne M. (2005). Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. Cengage Learning. p. 377. ISBN   978-0-324-20488-9 . Retrieved 28 December 2009.
  13. ↑ "Court shares light moment during Oprah jury selection". CNN. 20 January 1998. Retrieved 27 December 2009.
  14. ↑ "Texas Cattlemen v. Oprah Winfrey". MediaLibel.org. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 28 December 2009.
  15. ↑ Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here?. Madison, WI: Common Courage Press. pp.  192. ISBN   1-56751-111-2.
  16. 1 2 ""Pink slime" or lean finely textured beef? Food defamation trial set to begin". The Denver Post. 5 June 2017. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  17. ↑ Nicole, Sasaki (Summer 2014). "Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News: (Pink) Slimy Enough to Determine the Constitutionality of Agricultural Disparagement Laws?" (PDF). Pace Environmental Law Review. 31: 771–802.
  18. ↑ "Trial Will Decide if ABC News Sullied a Company With 'Pink Slime'" . Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  19. ↑ "ABC News Braces for $5.7 Billion "Pink Slime" Trial in the Heart of Trump Country". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  20. ↑ Kludt, Tom. "Disney paying at least $177 million to settle 'pink slime' lawsuit". CNNMoney. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  21. 1 2 3 Brooklyn Law Review (11 June 2013). Forbidden Fruit. Maggie Caldwell (Mother Jones).
  22. ↑ "New York Times v. Sullivan Podcast". United States Courts. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  23. ↑ "Veggie Libel Laws: Attempts At Silencing Animal Rights Advocates | Civil Liberties Defense Center". cldc.org. 9 January 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  24. ↑ "Burger Bashing and Sirloin Slander – Advocacy for Animals". advocacy.britannica.com. 16 November 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
  25. ↑ Zeller, Tom Jr. (27 July 2012). "Ozzie Zehner's 'Green Illusions' Ruffles Feathers". Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  26. ↑ Zehner, Ozzie (2012). Green Illusions. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
  27. 1 2 Jonna, Jamil (9 January 2012). "Veggie Libel Laws: Attempts At Silencing Animal Rights Advocates". Civil Liberties Defense Center. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  28. ↑ Nader, Ralph (1996). No contest : corporate lawyers and the perversion of justice in America. Wesley J. Smith (1 ed.). New York: Random House. ISBN   0-679-42972-7. OCLC   33245805.
  29. ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Commentary". www.medialaw.org. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  30. ↑ Samaha, Leah. "Q&A: Food Inc. Director Robert Kenner on Monsanto, Obama, and Breakfast". HWD. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.