Food libel laws
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
Food libel laws, also known as "food disparagement laws", "veggie libel laws", or "veggie hate laws", are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food industry interests to sue their critics for libel.
In 1996, television talk-show hostess Oprah Winfrey and one of her guests, Howard Lyman, were involved in a famous lawsuit surrounding the Texas version of this law. Although they were not the first people to be sued using this type of legal action, this case created a media sensation and is the example most people associate with food libel litigation[citation needed].
These laws vary greatly from state to state, but they 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 weaker standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits.
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 — simply had to convince the jury that Lyman's statements on Winfrey's show deviated from "reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data." Other states' food disparagement laws follow a similarly reduced standard of evidence.
One obvious trouble with such a law is that two reasonable, reliable scientists may not always agree.[citation needed] The subject that Engler and Cactus Feeders were suing Winfrey and Lyman over was BSE, which has seen respected, reliable researchers reach quite different conclusions.[citation needed] Such a law partially shifts the burden of proof from the accuser.[citation needed]
Winfrey and Lyman won their case in 1998. However, the lawsuit also had the effect of silencing Winfrey. She stopped speaking on the issue, going so far as to decline to make videotapes of the original interview available to enquiring journalists (Rampton and Stauber, 1997 – p. 192).
Proponents of food disparagement laws[who?] often cite the Alar "scare" as proof of the necessity of such laws, as farmers' protection against a loose-lipped public. In the Alar incident, a CBS report on a carcinogenic but widely used apple agrichemical led to a brief slump in the apple market and a ban on the chemical. Apple growers subsequently sued CBS under existing libel laws and lost. "Never again — not another Alar" became a rallying cry for the food industry.[citation needed]
See also
External links
- Chilling effect of laws -- at CSPI
- Existing laws by state -- at CSPI
- Pro-food disparagement laws editorial
References
- Rampton and Stauber. Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here? Madison, WI: Common Courage Press, 1997.