By Meghan Sheldrake

One of the most important issues in the food industry today is the use of libel law in that sector, hence “veggie” libel laws.  Companies are unconstitutionally suppressing legitimate critics of their business practices and in the process costing innocent people money, as well as endangering public health.  Libel laws should not be used to protect food industries from critics.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares that, “ Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”(U.S. Constitution). This amendment is fundamental to our free society.  However, 13 states currently have libel laws that violate this right, especially when applied to issues of public interest, such as the food industry.  These laws allow food companies to sue individuals/organizations for damage to their business caused by “false information," including scientific hypotheses, even if the defendant was not malicious but purely negligent.  In fact, in 1992, the draft of the current legislation in 13 states, intended to protect the food industries’ interests, “…was first unveiled to the U.S. Attorney General, he recommended major changes lest the law impinge of First Amendment rights.” (Civil Liberties Defense Center).  Suing for libel in matters related to the food industry is blatantly unconstitutional.

Besides violating First Amendment rights, “veggie” libel cases cost defendants money even if the lawsuit doesn’t succeed.  For example, in 1996, Oprah Winfrey was sued for libel by the Texas Beef Group because of a segment of her show on Mad Cow Disease.  However, as the film Food, Inc. describes, “After six years of litigation, and over $1 million in legal fees, Oprah…won the lawsuit.” (Kenner, R., Food, Inc., 2008).  Not everyone has the money to go through six years of litigation to prove their innocence, however, and may be forced to settle out of court even if they did not commit libel.  Even more disturbing, Eric Schlosser believes companies “may sue, even though they know they can’t win, just to send a message.”  If Schlosser is right, defendants are being forced to pay legal fees, or settle, when no party involved thinks them guilty of libel.

Finally, libel laws should not be applied to the food industry so as not to scare critics out of presenting information essential to public health.  In 1989, a 60 minute episode called “A” is for Apple was aired on CBS, it  “…focused on the NRDC’s finding that Alar [a pesticide formerly put on apples] is a dangerous carcinogen, capable of exposing millions of apple-eating children to cancer risk later in life…” (Civil Liberties Defense Center).  After this episode aired, the nation panicked and Uniroyal Chemical Co. stopped selling Alar.  Not surprisingly, CBS was sued, but the case was quickly dismissed because this was before the 1992 libel law changes.  “A” is for Apple brought forth serious health concerns without CBS being at much risk of being found guilty of libel.  However, current libel laws give today’s heroes trying to protect the nations children a lot more to worry about.

Despite the evidence that applying libel laws to the food industry is harmful in many ways, the food industry continues to cite them.  Companies argue that libel laws protect them from false allegations that may harm their business.  However, companies do not need a law to protect them.  They are capable of releasing statements to the press proving the erroneousness of allegations without dragging the justice system into it.

In this country we have a “…commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).  Current use of libel laws compromise this commitment by violating the First Amendment and prove how important it is by costing innocent people money and jeopardizing public health.  Libel laws should not be used in relation to critics of the food industry.  No more “veggie” libel laws, just libel laws.