Source: https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:31:01+00:00

Document:
But nearly forty years later, at the urging of major meat, dairy, and agricultural lobbyists, states have began adopting “food disparagement laws,” designed to make it easier for food producers to hold individuals liable for criticizing their products. Thirteen states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas) have adopted some form of these disparagement laws. Although they all differ slightly, these laws all lower the actual malice and falsity standard set out in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. They also allow the food business plaintiff to collect punitive damages and attorney’s fees against the defendant, in addition to any economic damages that stem from the defendant’s statements.
These food disparagement laws have come to be known as “veggie libel laws” because they have often been used against animal rights and vegetarian activists working to expose the harmful consequences of meat consumption. Celebrated talk show hostess Oprah Winfrey became a victim of a veggie libel suit when the Texas Beef Group sued her and former cattle rancher turned critic Howard Lyman, for doing a show on the dangers of Mad Cow Disease. As the Oprah case revealed, these laws chill the public’s right to engage in free speech by subjecting anyone wishing to speak out about food-product related issues (such as health risks, ethical implications, environmental impacts, etc.) to civil damages and legal costs. Imagine if such obstacles existed when Upton Sinclair was exposing the safety and health risks of slaughterhouses, or others were questioning the safety of using cocaine in Coca-Cola.
The apple industry was not forever tarnished, and sales of apples rebounded after Alar was removed from the market. However, the agricultural industry was scared: if just one television show could cause such devastating economic damage to the hitherto always-shiny apple, there was no telling what damage could be done to more controversial food products, like meat and dairy, under a similar spotlight. After the Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes case, the food industry realized that existing libel laws, which placed the burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff, were insufficient to protect them from modern product disparagement.
They eliminate and/or replace the actual malice / reckless disregard standard articulated in New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan with a weaker, negligence standard, meaning that the business need only prove the defendant was negligent in making false or disparaging statements.
Further deviating from the Supreme Court standard, the laws provide that people can be sued not just for “false statements of fact” but for any “false information,” a much broader category which could include, for example, scientific hypotheses and opinions.
The laws liberalize standing by eliminating the requirement that the alleged disparaging statement be “of and concerning” the business’ product. For example, if a person disparages beef as a whole, anyone involved in the beef industry could step forward as a potential plaintiff.
It was only a matter of time before someone would blunder into this trap. That someone was Oprah Winfrey.
In the end, the court sided with Winfrey and Lyman and granted summary judgment in their favor.(46) The judge noted that this was the court’s first opportunity to address and interpret a food disparagement suit, but because he found that the cattlemen did not provide sufficient evidence, he did not have to address the constitutionality of the law.(47) The judge found that cattle were not a “perishable food” under the law. Further, there was no evidence that Lyman and Winfrey had “knowingly” made false statements about the industry with the intent to disparage it.(49) The evidence suggested that although Lyman and Winfrey may have been hyperbolic in their discussion of Mad Cow Disease, there was no proof that they knew their information was false.(50) The judge dismissed the lawsuit, and Oprah declared outside the courthouse, “Free speech not only lives, it rocks!”(51) However, the lawsuit cast a shadow. Although Winfrey and Lyman were vindicated, they were still saddled with thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees.(52) Needless to say, not everyone can afford such a tab.
Food Disparagement laws are facially unconstitutional. They undermine basic First Amendment rights and threaten a reversion to the days before New York Times v. Sullivan when public discourse was constrained by fears of liability. The Civil Liberties Defense Center is committed to challenging food disparagement laws and defending people’s rights to raise questions and express criticism on issues of public concern.
1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
3. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F.Supp.2d 858, 862.
17. Lyman, Howard F. Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat. Scribner. New York. 1998.
18. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 682.
24. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 682.
29. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 683.
30. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F.Supp.2d 858, 861.
35. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 688.
36. Id. at 684 37. Id.
42. Id. It should be noted that the “record was set straight” one year later when the USDA ultimately banned the use of ruminant-to-ruminant feed supplements for cattle because of the risk of Mad Cow Disease, vindicating Lyman’s, not the cattlemen’s, concerns.
45. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Title 4, Section 96: False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products.
46. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F.Supp.2d 858, 864.
47. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 690.
48. Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F.Supp.2d 858, 863.
53. Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here? Madison, WI: Common Courage Press. pp. 192. ISBN 1567511112.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.