How Oprah was sued for distinguishing burgers

 

In December 1997 Oprah Winfrey, The American Talk Show Host, and Howard Lyman, a former cattle farmer and then the director of eating a human society with the Curios Campaign, was sued by the Federal District Court in Texas on accusation of underestimated beef. The lawsuit, which grew from the 1996 segment of the Oprah Winfrey event called "dangerous food," the burial debate and occasionally humor in the press about whether it is possible to slander hamburgers. Although Winfrey and Lyman finally won in court, the laws where the lawsuit was brought, a fake decline in food products that were easily damaged (1995), remained in books in Texas, as well as similar laws in 12 other states. Known as laws lack food, food-food-food, or "veggie-libel", this law is designed to enable agricultural and food companies to prevent candidates for critics to instill the safety of their products. They continue to serve that purpose today.

"Oprah" case

"Dangerous food," which was broadcast on April 16, 1996, featured discussions by Winfrey and guests about the possibility that beef cattle in the United States or would be infected with the cows (BSE) spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as "crazy cattle disease." Less than one The month before broadcast, the British health authority has concluded that consumption of animal tissue (especially neural networks) is contaminated with pathogenous proteins that cause BSE in cattle responsible for rash cases in the UK new version of Creuzfeldt- Jakob (CJD), fatal degenerative brain disease human. During the discussion, Lyman argued that the risk in the United States BSE epidemic, and the CJD outbreak that has significant, because the widespread practice adds animal parts "consisting of basic networks and bone bones, sheep, goats, pigs, birds, and other animals - animal feed as a cheap source of protein. worry, Winfrey asked his attendees, "Now, doesn't it concern you all a little there, hear that? Just stopped me because of eating another burger. I quit. "

In June 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), quoted concerns over the possibility of a BSE outbreak in the United States, announcing a ban on the use of beef provided and the sheep produced for cattle and sheep. In fact, in December 1997, a group of livestock industry executives led by Paul Engler, owner of Cactus Feeders, Inc., filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, accusing an underestimated statement about Winfrey and Lyman at the event costing them $ 10.3 million in a lost business. The lawsuit specifically accused Winfrey and Lyman with false captivity of easy-to-damaged food products, business shortages, defamation, defeat, and negligence. Under the law shortage of Texas food, people are responsible for "appropriate damage and assistance" if they disseminate information that states or implies that food products that are easily damaged are not safe for public consumption, provided that information is wrong and people - People know or these people should know that it's wrong. The law defines "wrong" as not based on "reasonable scientific investigations and reliability, facts, or data." The law does not make provisions for damage or assistance for the defendant if the lawsuit is submitted against it it does not work.

After the jury decided to support it on February 28, 1998, Winfrey emerged from the courthouse in Amarillo and stated to the national television audience, "free speech is not only alive, it's rock!" Even though the results must be a victory for freedom of speech, it is legally not a consequence because most of the audience is assumed. Because Texas food captivity law is considered to not apply to this case (although the best efforts of the Plaintiff's lawyer, livestock are considered not enough "easily damaged," because of the demanding law), the law was not affected by the verdict. Then there were several failed attempts in the legislature of the state of Texas to revoke it. In this case the "Oprah case" is not a total loss for the Plaintiff or for agriculture and the food industry in general. Indeed, it is arguably the benefits for them, because it is useful to show a broad audience that anyone who questioned the security of food products that are easily damaged in public forums can face very expensive litigation.

Aged Cases and Discovery of Breeding Law

As Lawrence Soley Well the document in his book Food Inc. (2002), the adoption of the food decline in 13 states in the 1990s was a direct result of a suit filed against the CBS network for the 1989 documentary report, "A is for Apple," in the 60 minute television news program. The report, relying on studies by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), stressed that many children in the United States are at risk of developing cancer in the day Because the significant proportion of apples planted in the country is sprayed with a Daminozide (commonly known as Alar Trade), a growth regulator known as strong carcinogens. Children in danger greater than adults, according to the report, because they consume more food per unit of weight and because they maintain more food they eat, among other factors.

The economic impact of reports about Apple Washington farmers can be predicted to destroy. In 1991 farmers filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, charging CBS and NRDC with defamation. But district court judges, while noting that "Apple has not received a bad press since Genesis," the defendant's movement was given to dismissal because farmers did not provide evidence to show that the accusation in the report was wrong. In 1995, a team of appeals confirmed the decision of the District Court, agreed that "farmers failed to improve the original material problems regarding broadcast falsehood."

Aged cases are a wake up call to agricultural companies and food. It makes the plains that their financial interests can be seriously disadvantaged by criticism of their products with public interests and consumer advocates. The product of the product difference provides insufficient protection because it places the proof of the company's plaintiff to show that the defendant's criticism is wrong. What the company needs, as Soley shows, is a kind of new period of time in which the burden of proof will lie with the defendant, requires them to prove that their statement is true. Because the suit brought based on the law will be much easier for companies to win, the law will effectively prevent all but the richest potential critics to speak.

Therefore, in 1992 the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), a lobby group for the animal feed industry and pet food, renting Washington, DC, law firms to compile the model of food destruction, which Afia and other industries the group was then promoted into legislators Countries throughout the country. Most laws are finally adopted using verbal formulas contained in the model, including several variants of the provisions that an underestimated statement can be considered wrong if not based on "scientific investigations, facts, or data that makes sense and reliable."

Constitutional and Public Policy Problems

In 1992, the Idaho General Prosecutor General issued a constitutionality assessment of the proposed food deficiency law and was considered in the Legislative State of Idaho. He noted that the new law departed from an established period of time in at least three other significant respect: (1) Hatred requirements - Make a false statement with knowledge about his falsehood or in neglecting the truth or reckless falsehood - replaced with standard negligence Much weaker - making a statement that the defendant knew or "already knew" was wrong; (2) The speech category that can be followed up is expanded from a false statement of facts with "information," which has the potential to include theories and scientific ideas on health and safety problems; and (3) the requirement that the statement of underestimating "from and about" (specifically about) the plaintiff product, rather than about the category of general products, such as apples or beef, dropped. The Attorney General concludes that each of these three innovations might make the law is not constitutional, and therefore he recommends drastic changes, which are mostly adopted in the final law.

Meanwhile, the legislature of 12 other countries, detects constitutional deficiencies, basically adopting laws such as Afia models. Indeed, some legislatures introduce their own unconstitutional provisions that are doubtful. These include: giving standing to demand not only for food producers that are underestimated but also for every person or commercial entity in "whole chains of farmers to consumers" (Georgia); Allowing "differences" to register not only for food products but also for "agricultural and management practices that are generally accepted" (South Dakota); allow the Plaintiff to collect actual penalties and damage three times greater than the actual loss (Ohio and South Dakota); And, it's unique, making a watings of food criminals rather than civil violations, who need food differences to be demanded by the state (Colorado). None of them defines the term "request," "fact," and "data" or the term "reasonable" and "reliable." Thus inherently it is not clear the standard of evidence that must be fulfilled by the defendant. However, in practice, the Plaintiff tends to interpret these terms in such a way that the statement suspected of underestimating cannot be based on reasonable and reliable scientific evidence unless more evidence has supported it. This interpretation will be counted as one of the new scientific hypotheses that contradict the views set. However, the debate about public health and safety problems almost always regard questions that do not have full and conclusive scientific answers.

Only a few of the food arrangements submitted since the adoption of the law in the 1990s, the most famous is the 2012 action against the ABC network by Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), a manufacturer of "Lean Lean) based in South Dakota. Fine textured beef," known as "pink mucus." The lawsuit alleged that the news report broadcast by ABC incorrectly suggested that BPI products, which consisted of the rest -Sisa fat ammonia who is processed with cattle that have been plunged ("decoration"), unhealthy and unsafe. (The term "Slime Pink" was created in 2002 by a microbiologist at the US Department of Agriculture, which questioned its use that was not labeled as an ingredient in beef.) When the lawsuit was submitted, beef that contains red discharge is being used. With the main fast food chains such as McDonald's and Burger King and are being served in lunch at school throughout the United States. Although claimed economic damage of $ 1.9 billion, BPI could demand three times that number, or $ 5.7 billion, under the Brake Law Demolition of South Agricultural Products. Instead, in 2017 ABC agreed to complete a suit for an unexpected amount, even though he continued to insist that the reporting was accurate, and it did not apologize.

Although there is no claims of food arrests that have been in court, that fact does not mean that the law is not used or that they do not serve their purpose. Both cases of Oprah and pink mucus kasing are good illustrations of this point. To avoid expensive litigation faced by Oprah and ABC, many journalists and publishers are now avoiding stories about food security problems or approaching them in a careful way, and many activists no longer talk to forcibly or as public as they have done. , Smaller publishers have been led to rewrite or eliminate potentially filed materials from books and to cancel several books at all, sometimes after receiving a threatening letter from corporate lawyers. It should be noted that, if this law applies to the previous decade, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906) and Silent Spring Rachel Carson (1962) may never be published. Meanwhile, their agricultural and food and lobbyists continue to encourage adoption of food shortages in countries that do not have it and even in the state where they have been rejected.

As much as the potential for the defendant of the food of the food has been shown, if this law is permitted to stand there is no reason to assumeThat similar laws will not be created to protect other industries - if there are things like that as a fake food, why is there a car appearance, underestimated furniture, or lack of shoes? We can face the future in which criticism of public interest in the product or practice of a legal corporation can be followed up or illegal. That is indeed a gloomy prospect.