Veggie Libel Laws Ag-Gag

<h2>=</h2><div>see eco-terrorism</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>see reddit henry corp 3 22? on ~ indiana?</div><div><div>=</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/smithfield-right-to-rescue-precedent/">
</a></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/smithfield-right-to-rescue-precedent/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/smithfield-right-to-rescue-precedent/</a></div><div>no lnx</div><div>Acquittal of activists who saved dying piglets from Smithfield Foods sets 'right to rescue' precedent</div><div>
</div><div> Kenny Stancil and Common Dreams October 09, 2022</div><div>   </div><div>
</div><div>Opponents of factory farms and animal cruelty celebrated Saturday night when jurors acquitted two activists who were each facing up to five-and-a-half years in prison on felony burglary and theft charges stemming from the 2017 removal of a pair of sick piglets from a Smithfield Foods factory farm in Utah.</div><div>
</div><div>The not-guilty verdict—a landmark decision establishing the legal "right to rescue" distressed animals in need of care—is "the culmination of a more than five-year pursuit that multiple agencies, including the FBI and the Utah attorney general's office," The Intercept's Marina Bolotnikova reported.</div><div>
</div><div>As Bolotnikova noted, the case "began after the activists published undercover footage revealing gruesome conditions at Smithfield, the nation's largest pork producer," in violation of Utah's 2012 ag-gag law criminalizing the collection of evidence of animal abuse and other illegal activities on factory farms.</div><div>
</div><div>Wayne Hsiung and Paul Picklesimer, members of the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), rescued two dangerously underweight piglets, whom they named Lily and Lizzie, from Circle Four Farms in Beaver County in March 2017. The men took the piglets to receive emergency veterinary care and then transported them to an animal sanctuary in Colorado.</div><div>
</div><div>Cheers erupted in the courtroom on Saturday when Judge Jeffrey Wilcox announced the jury's unanimous decision to acquit both defendants following more than seven hours of deliberation. The trial had to be moved from Beaver County to neighboring Washington County after activists endured threats of violence and intimidation from local authorities, prompting a civil rights lawsuit.</div><div>
</div><div>"They just let a guy who walked into a factory farm and took two piglets out without the consent of Smithfield walk out of the courtroom free," Hsiung, who co-founded DxE in 2013, told reporters outside the courthouse in St. George, Utah. "If it can happen in southern Utah, it can happen anywhere."</div><div>
</div><div>During his closing remarks to jurors, Hsiung, a former Northwestern Law visiting professor who represented himself at trial, said: "I don't actually want you to acquit us on a legal technicality. I want you to acquit us as a matter of conscience. There's a big difference between stealing and rescue."</div><div>
</div><div>If you help establish the "right to rescue," Hsiung told the jury, "companies will be a little more compassionate to creatures under their stewardship. Governments will be a little more open to animal cruelty complaints. And maybe just maybe, a baby pig like Lily won't have to starve to death on the floor of a factory farm."</div><div>
</div><div>"We all have a duty to be kind," said Hsiung. "And your decision today, if you make a good one, will make the world a little bit of a kinder place, even for a baby pig of a factory farm."</div><div>
</div><div>As DxE pointed out in a statement:</div><div>
</div><div>A most unlikely character witness, Rick Pitman, testified in support of the defendants Friday. Pitman is the owner of Norbest, a turkey farming company in Utah, which Hsiung and Picklesimer previously investigated and were charged for, before striking up a friendship and annual Thanksgiving turkey rescue tradition.</div><div>During cross-examination, Assistant Utah Attorney General Janise Macanas asked Pitman if Hsiung's actions had caused him financial harm. Pitman replied, 'There's a difference between stealing a turkey and rescuing a turkey who is suffering.'</div><div>
</div><div>The case had been criticized by legal scholars as unconstitutional and politically motivated, given Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes' possible financial ties to Smithfield.</div><div>
</div><div>"State and federal authorities have consistently shielded factory farms from transparency and accountability," said Matthew Strugar, an attorney who has been involved in every successful effort to overturn "ag-gag" statutes in the United States. "In nearly two decades of legal work, this case is one of the most egregious I've seen, in terms of denying defendants' constitutional right to a rigorous defense."</div><div>
</div><div>Although Hsiung and Picklesimer "documented dead and dying piglets in piles of feces and blood and claim the two piglets they removed were injured, sick, and starving," DxE noted, Wilcox ruled in February that "video of the rescue—and any evidence of the condition of the animals—is barred because it might arouse 'horror' in the jury."</div><div>
</div><div>As Bolotnikova explained Saturday, citing previous reporting by The Intercept, the FBI in August 2017 "chased the piglets across state lines and raided the sanctuary where they were living, bringing with them veterinarians who sliced off a piece of Lizzie's ear to perform a DNA test and confirm that she was the property of Smithfield Foods. (The animals were not removed from the sanctuary, and still live there to this day.)"</div><div>
</div><div>"Prosecutors alleged that the baby pigs, who were barely a week old when the activists removed them, were worth $42.20 each, or $84.40 in total, to Smithfield," Bolotnikova reported. "The U.S.-based pork producer is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based pork company WH Group, which reported $24 billion of revenue in 2019."</div><div>
</div><div>Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC Hastings Law who testified in favor of the activists, told The Intercept that "Smithfield has an enormous amount of financial interests that are wrapped up in this."</div><div>
</div><div>"They have an enormous amount to lose if this trial becomes public, and they cannot afford, or maybe they think they cannot afford, to give an inch to these people," said Aviram.</div><div>
</div><div>The pig rescue occurred during a DxE investigation to uncover whether Smithfield had followed through on its pledge to stop using two-foot by seven-foot gestation crates that make it impossible for pregnant pigs to turn around.</div><div>
</div><div>Hsiung, Picklesimer, and three others who pleaded out of the case discovered rows of pregnant pigs confined to such cages despite the company's promise to swear off of them. Evidence from the probe has been used in a lawsuit against Smithfield for misleading consumers, and it sparked nationwide protests against Costco, one of Smithfield's major buyers.</div><div>
</div><div>The animal rights activists also found "a facility packed with farrowing crates—similar to gestation crates, but with just enough additional room to fit nursing piglets—where female pigs are moved when they're ready to give birth," The Intercept noted. "The group found dead and rotting piglets inside the facility, as well as visibly ill and injured ones like Lily and Lizzie."</div><div>
</div><div>"A key part of the defense's case was that the piglets were on the verge of death when Hsiung and Picklesimer took them, and Smithfield routinely throws sick or dead animals away," the news outlet noted. "Had the animals remained in the company's possession, the defense argued, they would have been worthless."</div><div>
</div><div>By setting a "right to rescue" precedent, the activists' major victory against a multi-billion dollar industry could have far-reaching implications.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is huge. On many levels," Bolotnikova tweeted. "And it shows a hell of a lot about how out-of-touch red-state prosecutors and politicians are from the people they represent."</div><div>
</div><div>The U.S. Supreme Court, she added, will soon hear arguments over California's ban on gestation crates, which "were on trial in this case even though the judge didn't want them to be."</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div><div>=</div><div>a bunch of recent ag-gag wins but wonder if cd be possible in near future w/ mcconn stacking</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/judges-strike-down-ag-gag-laws-for-violating-the-first-amendment/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/judges-strike-down-ag-gag-laws-for-violating-the-first-amendment/</a></div><div>=</div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/these-laws-are-chipping-away-at-democracy-around-the-world/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/these-laws-are-chipping-away-at-democracy-around-the-world/</a>hmmn, maybe miscat?<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chrystie-flournoy-swiney-702313" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Chrystie Flournoy Swiney</a>, <div class="p1_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Democracy seemed ascendant after the rivalry between communist and democratic states subsided in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. As <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/11/10/7185945/berlin-wall-anniversary" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">elected governments</a> replaced many toppled totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the number of <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/democracy" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">democracies rose</a>.<div class="p2_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="alt_ad_block" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="teadsNative" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Yet with rare exceptions, <a href="https://www.historytoday.com/waves-authoritarianism" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">authoritarian leadership and other undemocratic governments</a> have been the norm throughout human history. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that democracy seems to be <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019/democracy-in-retreat" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">losing ground</a> after its post-1991 surge. The rise of <a href="https://theconversation.com/autocracies-that-look-like-democracies-are-a-threat-across-the-globe-110957" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Recep Tayyip Erdoğan</a> in Turkey, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-viktor-orban-degraded-hungarys-weak-democracy-109046" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Viktor Orbán</a> in Hungary, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/20/jair-bolsonaro-says-brazilians-still-dont-know-what-dictatorship-is" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Jair Bolsonaro</a> in Brazil, and Donald Trump in the U.S. are among the most visible examples.<div class="p3_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As a human rights attorney <a href="https://chrystieswiney.georgetown.domains/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">completing my Ph.D. in international relations</a>, I’m researching why democracy appears to be declining around the globe. In addition to the growing number of far-right, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/431646-national-security-experts-warn-of-rise-in-authoritarianism-efforts" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">authoritarian-leaning leaders</a> who certainly bear responsibility, lawmakers in historically strong democracies are proposing and passing legislation that adds new layers of red tape, restricts access to foreign financial support, and makes it <a href="https://www.openglobalrights.org/closing-space-for-civil-society/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">harder and riskier to engage in peaceful protests</a>.<div class="p4_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">From <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-ngos-crackdown/india-uses-foreign-funding-law-to-harass-charities-rights-groups-idUSKBN134056" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">India</a> to <a href="https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/polish-prime-minister-signs-restrictive-anti-ngo-law" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Poland</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/israel-passes-law-to-force-ngos-to-reveal-foreign-funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Israel</a>, legislators are limiting the freedom of independent nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/what-is-civil-society/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Many of these groups</a> are responsible for holding governments to account, standing up for minority rights and providing services to the indigent, among other critical roles.<div class="p5_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">New restrictions</h2><a href="https://www.openglobalrights.org/undemocratic-civil-society-laws-are-appearing-in-democracies-too/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">My research</a> focuses on the spread of undemocratic civil society laws in historically democratic states. These laws include bills that impose new restrictions on forming, operating and funding civil society organizations. They are limiting the activities of charities, watchdog organizations, protest movements and nonprofit service providers, such as <a href="https://rewire.news/article/2019/02/22/trump-administration-releases-final-text-of-domestic-gag-rule-restriction-on-title-x/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">health care clinics</a> depended on by people lacking access to affordable health care.<div class="p6_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="alt_ad_block" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For nearly a decade I’ve tracked and documented the spread of these laws. By my count, at least 58 percent of the world’s strongest democracies have adopted at least one restrictive civil society law since 1990. Counting proposed laws, another 5 percent are in this growing category.<div class="p7_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I’m not talking about similar legislation passed in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2014.903854" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">non-democratic</a> and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/hungarys-anti-foreign-ngo-law/530121/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">weakly democratic</a> states like <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/russia-four-years-of-putins-foreign-agents-law-to-shackle-and-silence-ngos/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Russia</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/02/egypt-new-law-will-crush-civil-society" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Egypt</a> and <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/turkey-government-crackdown-suffocating-civil-society-through-deliberate-climate-of-fear/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Turkey</a>. These laws are also <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/22/how-state-restrictions-are-reshaping-civic-space-around-world-pub-70049" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">problematic and troublesome</a> for global civil society, but are not the primary focus of my research.<div class="p8_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Consider what happened after <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/daria-skibo/five-years-of-russia-s-foreign-agent-law" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Russia enacted a law</a> in 2012 that requires all nonprofits wishing to receive any amount of foreign donations and that are engaged in what the government defines as political activities to register as “foreign agents” – a toxic term in the Russian context.<div class="p9_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Since then, elected politicians have passed measures with similar objectives in countries with democratic governments, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/israel-passes-law-to-force-ngos-to-reveal-foreign-funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Israel</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/08/india-foreign-funding-law-used-harass-25-groups" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">India</a>, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-austrian-islam-law-bans-foreign-funding-islamic-groups-309753" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Austria</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/hungarys-anti-foreign-ngo-law/530121/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Hungary</a> and <a href="https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/polish-prime-minister-signs-restrictive-anti-ngo-law" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Poland</a>.<div class="p10_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><figure class="align-center zoomable" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</figure><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In trouble</h2><a href="https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Democracy experts</a> like the independent watchdog <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019/democracy-in-retreat" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Freedom House</a> <a href="https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">generally agree</a> that <a href="https://www.v-dem.net/en/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">democracy is in trouble</a> around the world. They no longer debate whether democracy is imperiled, but by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/03/one-third-of-the-worlds-population-lives-in-a-declining-democracy-that-includes-americans/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">how much and whether it’s reversible</a>.<div class="p11_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-populist-challenge-to-liberal-democracy/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Democracy scholars</a>, such as <a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-populist-challenge-to-liberal-democracy/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">William Galston</a> at the Brookings Institution – a centrist think tank, political scientist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/shock-system-liberal-democracy-populism" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Yascha Mounk</a> and columnists like <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/chris-reeves/2018/01/10/nyts-kristof-trump-scientifically-proven-threat-democracy" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Nicholas Kristof</a> tend to focus on the rise of populist and far-right leaders when explaining global democratic decay.<div class="p12_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But in democracies, the law, not the president or prime minister, is critical to maintaining the pillars and foundations upon which democracy rests. That is why I consider an <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/austria-law-on-islam_n_6754012.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Austrian law</a> that curbs access to foreign funding to all Muslim organizations so troubling.<div class="p13_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I’m also concerned about a <a href="https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/polish-prime-minister-signs-restrictive-anti-ngo-law" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Polish law</a> that consolidates all power over nongovernmental organization funding, whether foreign or domestic, into the hands of a single individual appointed by its prime minister. And I find a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/hungarys-anti-foreign-ngo-law/530121/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Hungarian law</a>, which requires nongovernmental organizations that get more than $28,000 of their funds from other countries to label themselves as funded from abroad on all of their publications, worrisome.<div class="p14_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">When laws are passed that undermine democracy’s critical foundations, democracy weakens. Laws restricting the independence and strength of nonprofits are one example of this.[dynamic list ]<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">United States</h2>Restrictive laws are even appearing here in the United States, so far only at the state rather than the federal level – aside from a handful of <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/restricted-access/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">obscure measures</a>. These laws are designed to curb what nonprofits and activists can do.<div class="p17_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For example, over the past decade, more than half of all states have introduced so-called “<a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-ag-gag-laws" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">ag-gag laws</a>,” measures designed to silence whistleblowers who reveal animal abuses on industrial farms. However, the U.S. system of checks and balances is slowing and reversing their impact. <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/court-rules-ag-gag-law-criminalizing-undercover-reporting-violates" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">American courts</a> are finding many of these laws to be in violation of the Constitution.<div class="p18_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">At the same time, ag-gag laws remain on the books in at least <a href="https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">seven states</a>.<div class="p19_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><figure class="align-center zoomable" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267406/original/file-20190403-177190-w5v3dl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: top; height: auto;" /></a><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Initiatives at the state and federal level since November 2016 that aim to restrict the rights of Americans to protest are all over the map. <a class="source" href="https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL)</a>, <a class="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">CC BY-SA</a>]</figcaption><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</figcaption><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</figcaption></figure>Similarly, since November 2016, legislators in 35 states have considered more than <a href="https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">91 bills</a> designed to restrict protest activities. For example, a <a href="https://www.icnl.org/news/2018/Global%20Trends%20October%202018%20final.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">growing number of states</a>, including Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio and Washington have introduced harsh new criminal penalties for protesters who wear hooded jackets or otherwise disguise their identities while protesting. What’s more, states, including Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas, have proposed <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/legislation-protects-drivers-injure-protesters/index.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">laws shielding motorists from liability</a> if they end up injuring or killing protesters who block traffic.<div class="p20_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Few of these anti-protest measures, <a href="https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">only 11 of 91 considered</a>, have been enacted. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-dakota-pipeline-protest-law-worries-native-american-activists-aclu-n989191" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Legal challenges</a> could topple many if not all of them. But these measures do, in my view, have the potential to erode American democracy.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113089/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: top; height: auto; outline: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; border: none !important; max-width: 1px !important; box-shadow: none !important; max-height: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" /><div class="p21_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chrystie-flournoy-swiney-702313" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Chrystie Flournoy Swiney</a>, Doctoral Fellow at Georgetown and Human Rights Attorney, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/georgetown-university-1239" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Georgetown University</a><div class="p22_23" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/laws-are-chipping-away-at-democracy-around-the-world-113089" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">original article</a>.
<div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div>AETA 2006 Inhofe Feinstein</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act</a></div><div>=</div><div>Captured by <a href="http://www.burgerkingcruelty.com/more-information.php" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">undercover investigators</a> and released in 2012, the above video depicts a disturbing scene inside a large Idaho dairy facility. We see workers committing various acts of violence against cows: kicking and punching them, beating them with rods, twisting their tails, and, most graphically, wrapping a chain around the neck of a downed cow and dragging it with a tractor. The exposed dairy <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/us/idaho-dairy-animal-abuse/" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">promptly fired five workers in the aftermath</a>, but behind the scenes, Idaho's <a href="http://www.capitalpress.com/Dairy/20141103/dairy-industry-major-driver-in-idahos-economy" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">$6.6 billion dairy industry</a>quietly began working with its friends in the state legislature on a different response, according to US District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill.In a <a href="http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/8-3-2015-ALDF-decision-ag-gag.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">decision</a> released Monday, Winmill wrote that the Idaho Dairymen's Association "responded to the negative publicity by drafting and sponsoring" a bill that criminalizes the "types of undercover investigations that exposed the [violent] activities." Known as ag gag legislation—check out Ted Genoways' must-readMother Jones <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/ag-gag-laws-mowmar-farms" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">piece</a> on the phenomenon—it <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/governor-otter-should-reconsider-idaho-ag-gag-bill-says-chobani-founder/#.VcEoLRNVikp" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sailed through the Idaho Legislature</a> and became a law in 2014.<center class="ebz_native_center" style="line-height: 25px; overflow: hidden; height: 0px; margin: auto; width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="text-align: left; padding-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 5px;"><div id="ebzNative" /></div></center>Winmill declared the law unconstitutional in his decision, stating that its only purpose is to "limit and punish those who speak out on topics relating to the agricultural industry, striking at the heart of important First Amendment values." Moreover, the judge ruled, the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, "as well as preemption claims under three different federal statutes." Ouch.According to <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/08/federal-judge-in-boise-strikes-down-idahos-new-ag-gag-law/#.VcEoyRNVikp" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Food Safety News</a>, seven other states have similar ag gag laws on the books. "This ruling is so clear, so definitive, so sweeping," Leslie Brueckner, senior attorney for Public Justice (co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case), <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/04/3687617/idaho-ag-gag-law-unconstitutional/" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">told</a>ThinkProgress. "We couldn't ask for a better building block in terms of striking these laws down in other states."</div><div>=</div><div>And now a pair of anticlimactic updates: Last week <a href="http://grist.org/food/a-republican-governor-just-bucked-his-party-to-veto-an-ag-gag-law/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">North Carolina’s Republican governor vetoed</a> a law targeting agricultural whistleblowers, but this week his party<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0604/N.C.-lawmakers-override-ag-gag-bill-veto-Will-law-silence-whistle-blowers" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">overruled that veto</a>.And last month <a href="http://grist.org/food/can-these-shareholders-curb-deforestation/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">I wrote</a> that Bunge shareholders had the opportunity to push the company to a more aggressive position in ending deforestation. What happened? The <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/e/150521/bg8-k.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">shareholders said no</a>.</div>

<div>

===

<a href="http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-04-06-monsanto-cash-helped-fund-bill-to-stifle-whistleblowers-in-iowa/">http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-04-06-monsanto-cash-helped-fund-bill-to-stifle-whistleblowers-in-iowa/</a>

<h1 class="headline" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.2em;">Monsanto cash helped fund bill to stifle whistleblowers in Iowa</h1>

By <a href="http://grist.org/author/tom-laskawy/" title="Posts by Tom Laskawy" class="url fn" rel="author" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">Tom Laskawy</a>

</header>

<span class="media mediaItem alignright" style="border: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 20px 15px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; float: right; max-width: 100%; line-height: 16px; display: block;">.<a href="http://grist.org/sustainable-food/2011-03-31-reversing-roles-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-seeds" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Speaking of Monsanto</a>, it turns out they are playing a role in <a href="http://grist.org/factory-farms/2011-03-14-another-week-another-attempt-to-stop-animal-abuse-whistleblowers" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Iowa’s proposed anti-whistleblower bill</a> — a bill focused primarily on agriculture. Should the bill pass, it will become illegal to produce undercover videos at various types of agricultural facilities (as well as to get a job at a facility with the express intent of producing a video). Sarah Damian of the Government Accountability Project, a “whistleblower advocacy organization,” observes over at the <a href="http://foodwhistleblower.org/blog/170-monsanto-lobbies-for-iowa-bill-targeting-ag-whistleblowers" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Food Integrity Campaign’s blog</a> that Monsanto has been throwing lobbying dollars behind Iowa’s effort to draw a steel curtain around food production. And not without reason:

… <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/iowa.aspx" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country</a>, with more than 25 offices. The company is heavily invested in the bill’s outcome because “crop operations” are also covered, which would apply to Monsanto’s seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants and research facilities throughout Iowa. The biotech and crop chemical giant wouldn’t want any undercover videos produced on its clock, apparently.

That’s a bit ironic, however, given the fact that <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/save-our-seeds/corporate-control-and-seed-monopolies/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Monsanto investigators are notorious for trespassing</a> on farmers’ property and going to extreme measures to produce evidence of seed patent infringement, including posing as land mappers or even joining a local Alcohol Anonymous group to gain the farmers’ trust and gain video access to their fields. Talk about undercover.

</blockquote>

And don’t think that Monsanto hasn’t planned ahead. According to Damian, there are provisions in the bill that would allow Monsanto to continue snooping around farmers’ fields in its ongoing search for so-called “seed thieves” aka “<a href="http://grist.org/sustainable-food/2011-03-31-reversing-roles-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-seeds" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">patent infringers</a>.”

Despite occasional setbacks and even <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/04/05/farm-boom-benefit-monsanto-sales-new-seed-uncertain/#ixzz1IgjfrJ00" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">uncertainty in the marketplace</a>, let it not be said that Monsanto has lost its taste for playing the heavy.

</section>

</div>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/idaho-ag-gag-law_n_4877042.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/idaho-ag-gag-law_n_4877042.html</a>

Idaho (AP) — Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill Friday that imposes jail time and fines against people who secretly film animal abuse at Idaho's agricultural facilities.

Otter inked the new law swiftly, just two days after it cleared its final legislative hurdle in the House.

The bill came in response to videos released by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals showing workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping, dragging and sexually abusing cows in 2012.

Idaho's $2.5 billion dairy industry complained the group used its videos not to curb abuse, but to unfairly hurt Bettencourt's business. Bettencourt operates dairies at numerous locations that include more than 60,000 cows and is one of the largest dairy companies in the U.S.

Otter, a rancher, said the measure will help make agriculture producers more secure in their property and their livelihood.

"My signature today reflects my confidence in their desire to responsibly act in the best interest of the animals on which that livelihood depends," Otter wrote in a statement. "No animals rights organization cares more or has more at stake than Idaho farmers and ranchers do in ensuring that their animals are healthy, well-treated and productive."

Utah, Idaho's neighbor to the south, has a similar law. It's being challenged in federal court on grounds that, among other things, it infringes upon activists' free speech rights to expose cruelty.

Under Idaho's measure that was branded by its foes as an "ag gag bill," people caught surreptitiously filming agricultural operations face up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

It prohibits making audio or video recordings of such operations without first getting permission, and criminalizes obtaining records from agricultural operations by force or misrepresentation. Lying on an employment application for such a farm is also outlawed.

In the Legislature, Democrats opposed the bill on grounds that it makes Idaho's agriculture industry seem like it's hiding something.

Mercy For Animals immediately decried Otter's signature Friday, saying that it transforms Idaho into "a safe haven for animal abuse."

"Gov. Otter has failed Idaho and the American people," said the group's executive director, Nathan Runkle. "By signing this bill into law, he has sided with those who seek to keep Idaho's corrupt factory farming practices hidden from public view and created a safe haven for animal abuse and other criminal activity in the state."

Bob Naerebout, who heads the Idaho Dairymen's Association that promoted the measure, said Runkle has it wrong.

Naerebout contends Mercy For Animals unfairly sought to persuade Bettencourt's customers to stop buying its milk products — even after the farm's owner, Luis Bettencourt, fired five workers filmed mistreating cows and cooperated with their prosecution.

"The purpose of the bill was not to hide anything, the purpose of the bill was to address those who get on agriculture operations under false pretenses, with a predetermination to cause injury and economic harm," Naerebout said. "The dairy producers of Idaho — and dairy producers across this nation — take extremely good care of their cattle."

In the wake of the abuse, the University of Idaho Extension, along with the College of Southern Idaho, worked with the dairy industry to offer a program to help teach dairy workers about proper animal care, milking, calf raising and feeding dairy animals.

At least one of the Bettencourt workers pictured in the Mercy For Animals video pleaded guilty to misdemeanor animal cruelty and spent time in jail

===

will p

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has an excellent article in their magazine, The News Media and the Law, about efforts by Big Ag to criminalize photography and video of factory farms, and what this means for journalists.

I’m part of a lawsuit challenging Utah’s ag-gag law, along with Amy Meyer (the first person prosecuted under ag-gag), PETA, and others.

As <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2013/ag-gag-efforts-face-setback#sthash.N8gm2cfm.dpuf" target="_blank" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">Jeff Zalesin writes in his piece</a>: <a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/reporters-committee-freedom-of-the-press-ag-gag/7362/#more-7362" class="more-link" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">[click to continue…]</a>

==

<div>

<div class="byline environment"><a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/ocean-robbins">Ocean Robbins</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Unbelievable Ways Companies Are Trying to Keep You From Seeing Where Your Meat Comes From</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date">August 9, 2013  |  </div>

Amy Meyer wanted to see for herself where her food was coming from. But in the state of Utah, she discovered, that was against the law.

On February 8, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56240592-78/case-meyer-law-gag.html.csp" target="_hplink">Meyer drove</a> [3] to Dale Smith Meatpacking Company in Draper City, Utah, and took a look from the side of the road. She gasped as she peered through the barbed wire fence and saw what appeared to be a sick cow being treated like rubble as it was carried in a tractor. So she did what many people would do in this day and age. She got out her smartphone to begin recording.

For this, Meyer was arrested and prosecuted under Utah's new "ag-gag" law.

It turns out that similar laws are now in place not just in Utah, but also in Kansas, Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri. And many other states are considering similar legislation.

The goal of these laws, it would appear, is to keep consumers from seeing where modern meat really comes from. Considering that <a href="http://www.aspca.org/about-us/press-releases/aspca-research-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-support-investigations-expose" target="_hplink">94 percent of the American public</a> [4] believes that animals raised for food should be free from abuse and cruelty, the modern meat industry has some good reasons to fear the public finding out that Old MacDonald's farm isn't so happy these days.

Charges against Meyer were subsequently <a href="http://news.msn.com/us/nations-first-ag-gag-prosecution-dismissed-in-utah" target="hplink">dropped</a> [5], but Utah's law is still on the books. And now Amy Meyer is joining with award-winning author Will Potter and a team of organizations in <a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/utah-ag-gag-lawsuit-filed/7197/" target="hplink">filing a lawsuit</a> [6] challenging her state's controversial law in the courts.

Soon thereafter, in Kansas on June 28th, a photographer working for a publication not generally seen as promoting a radical agenda, National Geographic, was <a href="http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nat--Geographic-photog-arrested-in-GC" target="_hplink">arrested and briefly jailed</a> [7] after taking aerial pictures of a feedlot for a series on food issues to be published some time next year.

George Steinmetz has taken award-winning photos in many dangerous situations, including a series depicting post-Gaddafi Libya. But it was his photographs of U.S. feedlots, taken from a paraglider in an area with <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/national-geographic-photographer-arrested-taking-photos-kansas-feedlot-194419678.html" target="_hplink">hundreds of thousands of cattle</a> [8], that got him put behind bars.

Kansas has its own "ag-gag bill," called the "<a href="http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_47/Article_18/47-1827.html" target="_hplink">Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act</a> [9]." This law makes it illegal to "enter an animal facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera or by any other means."

Apparently, the feedlot executives may have <a href="http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nat--Geographic-photog-arrested-in-GC" target="_hplink">considered paragliding</a> [7] to be a form of illegal entry, and they wanted Steinmetz to feel the force of the law. Industry officials said they believe his actions represent a "food security issue." Steinmetz had also parked and taken off from private property, so "trespassing" is central to the charge he now faces. But do you really think he'd have been arrested for parking there had he merely stopped to read a book?

The spread of ag-gag bills is alarming for many reasons. Aside from exposing specific incidents of animal abuse, undercover videos have also <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/ag-gag-public-health/" target="_hplink">drawn attention</a> [10] to industry practices such as housing chickens in cramped battery cages that hasten the sickening of birds and the spread of salmonella.

Elizabeth Holmes, an attorney with the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, comments: "The reason these are public health issues, and not just animal rights issues, is that those unsanitary conditions provide breeding grounds (for disease)."

Holmes has a point. Keeping animals alive in wretched conditions requires the use of massive amounts of pharmaceutical drugs. Nearly <a href="http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/record-high-antibiotic-sales-for-meat-and-poultry-production-85899449119" target="_hplink">80 percent</a> [11] of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to animals, not people. The antibiotic overuse that allows meat producers to keep animals in filth and misery is spawning drug-resistant superbugs.

Earlier this year, an <a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/superbugs/" target="_hplink">Environmental Working Group study</a> [12] found antibiotic resistant "super bugs" on 81 percent of the ground turkey and 55 percent of the ground beef in America's supermarkets.

With antibiotic resistant bacteria costing us more than <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antibiotic-resistant-infections-cost-the-us-healthcare-system-in-excess-of-20-billion-annually-64727562.html" target="hplink">$55 billion</a> [13] and killing <a href="http://www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/antibioticresist.html" target="hplink">tens of thousands</a> [14] of people each year, you could even argue that today's factory farms have become a form of biological weapons factory.

But don't we have meat inspectors who monitor animal treatment? Isn't it their job to insure that the laws against excessive animal cruelty to animals, however weak they may be, are enforced? Aren't they being paid to look out for the public interest?

Unfortunately, thanks to the weight of agribusiness interests, even USDA meat inspectors don't always feel free to protect animals or public health.

After 29 years as a USDA meat inspector, Jim Schrier was <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/28/4320072/animal-abuse-persists-at-some.html" target="hplink">recently stationed</a> [15] at a Tyson Foods slaughter facility in Iowa where he reported clear humane handling violations to his supervisor. That's what he was supposed to do -- report the violations to his superior in the chain of command. But when Schrier presented his concerns, the supervisor reportedly <a href="http://www.foodwhistleblower.org/the-lifecycle-of-food/life-on-the-farm/inhumane-handling/jim-schrier" target="hplink">became very angry</a> [16], and a week later required Jim to work at another facility 120 miles away. Then the USDA reassigned Jim permanently to a plant in another state.

In what looks an awful lot like a form of whistleblower retaliation, after 29 years of service, Schrier must now choose between his job, and his family.

When Jim's wife, Tammy, <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/help-a-meat-inspector-punished-for-reporting-inhumane-conditions" target="_hplink">launched a petition on change.org</a> [17] exposing this story and calling for Jim Schrier to get his old job back, some of the first signers were other employees who had worked at the same plant and who corroborated Schrier's findings. Instead of being punished, they said, he should be rewarded and the whole plant should be inspected.

The significance of all this is huge. The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html" target="_hplink">first amendment</a> [18] to the United States constitution states: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." There are serious questions about whether ag-gag bills, and retaliation against whistleblowers like Jim Schrier, are even constitutional. But whatever the courts decide, we are already paying a terrible price for the climate of repression they institutionalize.

Shutting up people like Amy Meyer, George Steinmetz, and Jim Schrier makes it hard for any of us to know where our food comes from. Shutting them up also allows the meat industry to get away with treating animals terribly, and with jeopardizing public health by breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. But there's more.

Tyrants of all stripes thrive in the darkness. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate."

If journalists and whistleblowers aren't allowed to speak the truth, we're going to have an awfully hard time retaining any semblance of a functioning democracy.

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/whats-the-real-price-of-a_b_3705201.html">This story</a> [19] first appeared on the Huffington Post.

</div>

<div class="tags" style=" text-align: left;">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/agriculture" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">agriculture</a> [22],</div>

</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="text-align: left;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/unbelievable-ways-companies-are-trying-keep-you-seeing-where-your-meat-comes">http://www.alternet.org/food/unbelievable-ways-companies-are-trying-keep-you-seeing-where-your-meat-comes</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/ocean-robbins

[3] http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56240592-78/case-meyer-law-gag.html.csp

[4] http://www.aspca.org/about-us/press-releases/aspca-research-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-support-investigations-expose

[5] http://news.msn.com/us/nations-first-ag-gag-prosecution-dismissed-in-utah

[6] http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/utah-ag-gag-lawsuit-filed/7197/

[7] http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nat--Geographic-photog-arrested-in-GC

[8] http://news.yahoo.com/national-geographic-photographer-arrested-taking-photos-kansas-feedlot-194419678.html

[9] http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_47/Article_18/47-1827.html

[10] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/ag-gag-public-health/

[11] http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/record-high-antibiotic-sales-for-meat-and-poultry-production-85899449119

[12] http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/superbugs/

[13] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antibiotic-resistant-infections-cost-the-us-healthcare-system-in-excess-of-20-billion-annually-64727562.html

[14] http://www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/antibioticresist.html

[15] http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/28/4320072/animal-abuse-persists-at-some.html

[16] http://www.foodwhistleblower.org/the-lifecycle-of-food/life-on-the-farm/inhumane-handling/jim-schrier

[17] http://www.change.org/petitions/help-a-meat-inspector-punished-for-reporting-inhumane-conditions

[18] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[19] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/whats-the-real-price-of-a_b_3705201.html

[20] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0

[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/meat-0

[22] http://www.alternet.org/tags/agriculture

[23] http://www.alternet.org/tags/ag-gag-0

[24] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

</div>

cmd;

<h2>Average Americans Pay the Price</h2>

The ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force has not only promoted anti-environmental bills, but also legislation to help industrial farms escape public accountability -- which would prevent a 21st Century Upton Sinclair from going undercover and creating a documentary work like The Jungle, which led to a new wave of food safety regulations in the early 1900s.

ALEC's "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" was the ideological ancestor for "ag-gag" laws, introduced in nine states in 2013 to quash the First Amendment rights of reporters, investigators and videographers by making it harder for them to document issues with food safety and animal cruelty. The bills take many forms, but generally make it a crime to shoot video of a farm or slaughterhouse, or to apply for employment at these facilities under "false pretenses."

Modern-day Upton Sinclairs have been using similar techniques as The Jungle's author to document food safety issues -- Sinclair <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/media/2006/01/jungle-100" target="_blank">got a job at a Chicago slaughterhouse</a> under false pretenses so he could write his book -- but are using 21st Century tools.

In 2007, for example, an undercover video investigation by the Humane Society showed sick “downer” cows -- which are banned from human consumption because they were implicated in the spread of mad cow disease -- being pushed towards slaughter with forklifts and cattle prods, leading to the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

The ALEC-influenced "ag-gag" bills seek to criminalize this type of investigation.

In March of this year, ALEC spokesman Bill Meierling defended the laws, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/bills-seek-end-farm-animal-184009654.html" target="_blank">telling the Associated Press</a>, "at the end of the day it's about personal property rights or the individual right to privacy."

Utah <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53758916-90/animal-bill-brown-farm.html.csp" target="blank">passed an ag-gag law in 2012</a>, which led to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56235040-78/meyer-gollan-utah-operation.html.csp" target="blank">charges</a> against a young woman named Amy Meyer, who did nothing else besides film the outside of a slaughterhouse from public land. Meyer regularly passed the slaughterhouse on her way to volunteer at an animal sanctuary, and began filming when she witnessed what appeared to be animal cruelty with possible public health repurcussions: a sick (but still living) cow being carried away from the building on a tractor. The slaughterhouse owner asserted that she had trespassed, despite there being no damage to the barbed wire fence surrounding his property.

"This was the first time anyone has been charged under the ag-gag law," Meyer told CMD. "But as long as these ag-gag laws are around, this won't be the last prosecution, unfortunately."

Less than 24 hours after journalist Will Potter publicized her story -- but months after she was first charged -- the prosecution dropped its case against Meyer.

"The only purpose [of ag-gag laws] is to punish investigators who expose animal cruelty and journalists who report on the ag industry," she said. "These laws are intended to keep consumers in dark and shield factory farms from scrutiny."

As written, the ALEC model bill could also criminalize environmental civil disobedience, such as when activists "obstruct" the business operations of a logging or mining facility through tree-sits or road blockades. A bill reflecting these provisions <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/new-laws-would-make-protesting-environmental-devastation-terrorism" target="_blank">was introduced in Oregon this year</a> to outlaw most civil disobedience against logging operations.

==

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Animal-welfare activists filed a lawsuit Monday to overturn a Utah law that prohibits undercover filming while trespassing at farm operations, saying it restricts free expression.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the legal action in federal court in Salt Lake City.

The Utah law makes it a misdemeanor to trespass on private property to record images or sounds of a livestock operation.

Supporters of the law say it's intended to protect property rights.

"It has nothing to do with animals — it's people trespassing on farms" to make recordings, said state Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, a cattle operator who also breeds race horses. "If people can sneak onto anybody's property, then we don't have any rights."

The groups behind the lawsuit have the backing of attorneys at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law and constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinksy of the University of California at Irvine.

"The Utah law is very much directed at restricting speech, and especially particular messages," Chemerinksy said. "This is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits."...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/utah-ag-gag_n_3636036.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

===

<div class="print-breadcrumb"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/">Home</a> > Bill Moyers: Outrageous Bill Known As “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” Seeks to Silence Big-Ag Whistleblowers (VIDEO)</div>

<div class="byline rights">Bill Moyers / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/bill-moyers-0">Bill Moyers</a> [1]</div>

<h1 class="node-title">Bill Moyers: Outrageous Bill Known As “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” Seeks to Silence Big-Ag Whistleblowers (VIDEO)</h1>

</div>

Muckrakers and activists have been working to expose the brutality of industrialized meat production since Upton Sinclair’s writing of The Jungle in 1906. But an <a href="http://billmoyers.com/segment/united-states-of-alec/">ALEC</a> [2]model bill known as “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” would make it a crime to film at animal facilities — such as factory farms or slaughterhouses — with the intent to “defame the facility or its owner.” So-called “ag-gag” laws that appear inspired by the ALEC model have been passed in several states. This report, produced by <a href="http://www.okapiproductions.com/">Okapi Productions, LLC </a> [3] and the Schumann Media Center, Inc. looks at the effect of these laws on both our food supply and our freedom of speech.

pend in 2 state, incl N Car ; propsed in 13 half are ALEC pased in 4-5?

===

<a data-xslt="http" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/usa-iowa-agriculture-idUSL2E8E605920120306">Iowa Gov. Terry Brandstad (R) signed a law</a> this month, backed by the farm lobby, that makes it a crime to pose as an employee or use other methods of misrepresentation to get access to operations in an attempt to expose animal cruelty. Utah passed a similar bill, nicknamed an <a data-xslt="http" href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53684910-90/activists-animal-bill-farm.html.csp">“ag-gag” law</a>, on Wednesday. Last month, Victor VanOrden, an activist in his mid-20s, received the maximum sentence of five years in prison under a separate Iowa law for attempting to <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.furcommission.com/victory-in-sioux-city/">free minks</a> from one of the state’s fur farms.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-eco-terrorism-wanes-governments-still-target-activist-groups-seen-as-threat/2012/02/28/gIQAA4Ay3R_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-eco-terrorism-wanes-governments-still-target-activist-groups-seen-as-threat/2012/02/28/gIQAA4Ay3R_story.html</a>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws</a>

===

<a href="http://grist.org/natural-gas/for-pennsylvanias-doctors-a-gag-order-on-fracking-chemicals/">http://grist.org/natural-gas/for-pennsylvanias-doctors-a-gag-order-on-fracking-chemicals/</a>

<h1 class="headline">For Pennsylvania’s doctors, a gag order on fracking chemicals</h1>

By <a href="http://grist.org/author/kate-sheppard/" title="Posts by Kate Sheppard">Kate Sheppard</a>

Under a new law, doctors in Pennsylvania can access information about chemicals used in natural gas extraction—but they won’t be able to share it with their patients. A provision buried in <a href="http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/2012/0/0013..HTM">a law passed</a> last month is drawing scrutiny from the public health and environmental community, who argue that it will “gag” doctors who want to raise concerns related to oil and gas extraction with the people they treat and the general public.

Pennsylvania is at the forefront in the debate over “fracking,” the process by which a high-pressure mixture of chemicals, sand, and water are blasted into rock to tap into the gas. Recent discoveries of great reserves in the Marcellus Shale region of the state <a href="http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/fracking-pennsylvania-susquehanna-county" target="_blank">prompted a rush to development</a>, as have advancements in fracking technologies. But with those changes have come a number of concerns from citizens about potential environmental and health impacts from natural gas drilling.

<h2>Power to the Plaintiffs</h2>

Holt complained that current libel law "has been a major stumbling block to the progress of a lawsuit brought by the Washington Apple Growers against the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Resources_Defense_Council" title="National Resources Defense Council" class="mw-redirect">National Resources Defense Council</a>, perpetrators of the Alar scare. The growers initially filed suit in Yakima County (WA) Superior Court; but . . . the growers lost their case." (See our related story about the Alar case on page 10.) Fortunately, he added, "agribusiness is now fighting back, shepherding what are known as 'agricultural product disparagement laws' through state legislatures. . . . On the national level, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture wants similar provisions to be included in the 1995 farm bill."

The drive has been spearheaded by the nonprofit, tax-exempt <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_Industry_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Animal Industry Foundation (page does not exist)">Animal Industry Foundation</a> (AIF), which calls itself "animal agriculture's collective voice on food animal production, its effect on diet and environment, and its contributions to our quality of life."

AIF's corporate funders include the powerhouse <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller" title="Burson-Marsteller">Burson-Marsteller</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hill%26_Knowlton" title="Hill & Knowlton">Hill & Knowlton</a> PR firms. Its trustees include a who's-who list of meat industry lobby and trade associations: the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Farm_Bureau_Federation" title="American Farm Bureau Federation">American Farm Bureau Federation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Feed_Industry_Association" title="American Feed Industry Association">American Feed Industry Association</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Sheep_Industry&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="American Sheep Industry (page does not exist)">American Sheep Industry</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Society_of_Animal_Science&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="American Society of Animal Science (page does not exist)">American Society of Animal Science</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Veal_Association&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="American Veal Association (page does not exist)">American Veal Association</a>., <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Broiler_Council&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Broiler Council (page does not exist)">National Broiler Council</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Cattlemen%27s_Beef_Association" title="National Cattlemen's Beef Association">National Cattlemen's Beef Association</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Milk_Producers_Federation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Milk Producers Federation (page does not exist)">National Milk Producers Federation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Pork_Producers_Council" title="National Pork Producers Council">National Pork Producers Council</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Turkey_Federation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Turkey Federation (page does not exist)">National Turkey Federation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southeastern_Poultry%26_Egg_Association&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association (page does not exist)">Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_Egg_Producers&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="United Egg Producers (page does not exist)">United Egg Producers</a>.

"The model for these statutes was developed by the American Feed Industry Association," boasts an AIF newsletter. "If you'd like a copy of the model state legislation, please contact in writing Steve Kopperud at AFIA." AIF in fact shares the same address, phone and staff as AFIA--the American Feed Industry Association, a "national trade association representing the manufacturers of more than 70 percent of the primary formula livestock and poultry feed sold annually."

In a letter to Consumer Reports, Kopperud has defended the industry's rationale behind food disparagement laws, claiming that they "do not repress free speech, but rather compel a speaker to think twice about opportunistic or false statements and the damage such rhetoric can do. . . . Food disparagement laws, as tools to make more honest our national discussion of food safety, are the ultimate consumer protection."

The AIF speaks more bluntly in literature aimed at farmers: "Animal rights activists . . . threaten the survival of today's farmers and ranchers. . . . It's time to fight back! . . . through advertising, elementary school programs, publications and videos, news media outreach and public opinion research."

Rather than push for legislation at the national level, the food industry has worked quietly state-by-state while avoiding a controversial national debate. So far, thirteen state legislatures have approved product disparagement laws--Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. Other states are considering similar measures....[some lost? eg?]

oprah sued by beef <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot" title="Feedlot">feedlot</a> operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders

<div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>

<div id="jump-to-nav" class="mw-jump">Jump to: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#mw-head">navigation</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#p-search">search</a></div>

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in 13 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">U.S.</a> states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel" title="Libel" class="mw-redirect">libel</a>. These 13 states include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama" title="Alabama">Alabama</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona" title="Arizona">Arizona</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado" title="Colorado">Colorado</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida" title="Florida">Florida</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%28U.S.state%29" title="Georgia (U.S. state)">Georgia</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho" title="Idaho">Idaho</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana" title="Louisiana">Louisiana</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi" title="Mississippi">Mississippi</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota" title="North Dakota">North Dakota</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio" title="Ohio">Ohio</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma" title="Oklahoma">Oklahoma</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota" title="South Dakota">South Dakota</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="Texas">Texas</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-0">[1]</a>

<div class="thumbinner" style=" width: 182px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload?wpDestFile=Foodlibelmap.png" class="new" title="File:Foodlibelmap.png">File:Foodlibelmap.png</a>

13 states with food libel laws in place.

</div>

Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff" title="Plaintiff">plaintiffs</a> alone,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-1">[2]</a> regardless of the case's outcome.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#History">1 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#McLibel_case">2 McLibel case</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#References">4 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#External_links">5 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>History</h2>

In 1998, television talk-show host <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey" title="Oprah Winfrey">Oprah Winfrey</a> and one of her guests, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lyman" title="Howard Lyman">Howard Lyman</a>, were involved in a lawsuit surrounding the Texas version of a food libel law known as the False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act of 1995, for a 1996 episode of her show in which the two made disparaging comments about beef in relation to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow" title="Mad cow" class="mw-redirect">mad cow</a> scare. 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.

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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

In a normal U.S. libel suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. Under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="Texas">Texas</a> food disparagement law under which Winfrey and Lyman were sued, the plaintiffs — in this case, beef <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot" title="Feedlot">feedlot</a> 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-4">[5]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-5">[6]</a> Engler's attorneys argued that the rancher lost $6.7 million, and the plaintiffs sought to recoup total losses of more than $12 million.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-6">[7]</a>

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen

===

narain: When TV show host, Oprah Winfrey discussed the mad-cow disease on her show and said that the fears of the disease “just stopped me cold from eating another burger”, she was sued for defaming cattle. It took her four years and over $ 1 million to be vindicated in court.

[Cactus Feeders founder and chairman Paul Engler may operate one of the world's largest cattle feedlot businesses, but he was no match for Oprah Winfrey. Cactus Feeders operates 10 feedlots with a capacity of some 520,000 head of cattle, which it beefs up and sells to meat packers. The company's feedyards are located in Texas and Kansas. It also provides market analysis, marketing services, Cactus Feeders offers financing for its rancher/suppliers. Oh, and about Oprah, Engler and other cattle ranchers unsuccessfully sued Winfrey and a guest after a 1996 broadcast of Winfrey's TV program, The Oprah Show, disparaged the beef industry..<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-7">[8]</a> However, Winfrey no longer speaks publicly on the issue, going so far as to decline to make videotapes of the original interview available to enquiring journalists.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

<h2>McLibel case</h2>

A long-running legal case in Britain is an example of the application of food libel principles to existing law. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Restaurants_v_Morris%26_Steel" title="McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel" class="mw-redirect">McDonald's Restaurants versus Morris & Steel</a> (also known as the "McLibel case") was an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England" title="England">English</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit" title="Lawsuit">lawsuit</a> filed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s" title="McDonald's">McDonald's Corporation</a> against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism" title="Environmentalism">environmental</a> activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. The original case lasted ten years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-9">[10]</a> A feature-length documentary film, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel%28film%29" title="McLibel (film)">McLibel</a>, was created about the case by filmmaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franny_Armstrong" title="Franny Armstrong">Franny Armstrong</a>.

Although McDonald's won two <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28law%29" title="Hearing (law)">hearings</a> of the case in English court, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-10">[11]</a> that it was awarded by the courts. Since then, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights" title="European Court of Human Rights">European Court of Human Rights</a> (ECHR) has ruled that the trial violated Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) because the defendants had been refused legal aid and had only been represented by volunteer lawyers, and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" title="European Convention on Human Rights">Convention on Human Rights</a>, again because the defendants had been refused legal aid, and awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_note-11">[12]</a> (McDonald's itself was not a defendant in this appeal.) On February 15, 2005, the pair's 20-year battle with McDonald's came to an end with this judgment.

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28term%29" title="Chilling effect (term)" class="mw-redirect">Chilling effect</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-0">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm">http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-1">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Veggie_Libel.html">http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Veggie_Libel.html</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-2">^{</a></span}> Collins, Ronald (1998-03-23). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/candm.htm">"Veggie-Libel Law Still Poses a Threat"</a>. Retrieved 2009-12-28.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-3">^{</a></span}> Collins, Ronald (1998-03-23). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/candm.htm">"Veggie-Libel Law Still Poses a Threat"</a>. Retrieved 2009-12-28.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-4">^{</a></span}> V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 96.003, accessible at <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf">http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-5">^{</a></span}> Jennings, Marianne M. (2005). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mS38Lo5VVjMC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=%22veggie+libel+laws%22+global#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment</a>. Cengage Learning. p. 377. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-324-20488-9" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-324-20488-9">978-0-324-20488-9</a>. Retrieved 2009-12-28.</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-6">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/20/oprah.update/">"Court shares light moment during Oprah jury selection"</a>. CNN. 1998-01-20. Retrieved 2009-12-27.</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-7">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://medialibel.org/cases-conflicts/tv/oprah.html">"Texas Cattlemen v. Oprah Winfrey"</a>. MediaLibel.org. Retrieved 2009-12-28.</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-8">^{</a></span}> Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here?. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison,_WI" title="Madison, WI" class="mw-redirect">Madison, WI</a>: Common Courage Press. pp. 192. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-56751-111-2" title="Special:BookSources/1-56751-111-2">1-56751-111-2</a>.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-9">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/820786.stm">"McLibel pair get police payout"</a>. BBC. 2000-07-05. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3632944.stm">"'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid"</a>. BBC. 2004-09-07.</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-10">^{</a></span}> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/071997/biz_mclibel.html">"McDonald's lets McLibel case rest"</a>. AP. 1997-07-19.</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#cite_ref-11">^{</a></span}> Press release issued by the Registrar. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=801399&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649">Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom</a>" The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights" title="European Court of Human Rights">European Court of Human Rights</a>, 15 February 2005. Received 1 September 2008.</li>

</ol>

</div>

<h2>External links</h2>

<ul>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/signal-interference/">"Signal Interference Group Project: Talking About Food"</a>. August 2010.</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/dining/07lega.html?ex=1332129600&en=293e3239f8adc627&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">"Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer"</a>. New York Times. March 7, 2007</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E2DC1330F932A35755C0A96F958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all">"Farmers' Right to Sue Grows, Raising Debate on Food Safety"</a>. New York Times. June 1. 1999.</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7DB163BF93AA35754C0A967958260">"Apple growers bruised and bitter after alar scare"</a>. New York Times. July 9, 1991.</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/winorloss.htm">Chilling effect of laws</a> from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest" title="Center for Science in the Public Interest">Center for Science in the Public Interest</a></li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm">Existing laws by state</a> Center for Science in the Public Interest.</li>

</ul>

</div>

<a href="http://sideshow.me.uk/saug05.htm#191847">Avedon Carol</a> links to an essay by Molly Ivins about <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/24293/">SLAPP suits</a> and how corporations and even government use them to muzzle free speech and curtail Americans’ right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

SLAPP suits (for “strategic lawsuits against public participation”) are a serious menace to free speech. The latest example is a real prize: The Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has already spent $10 million defending itself against a lawsuit filed by Isuzu Motors Ltd. because, eight years earlier, Consumer Reports rated the Isuzu Trooper “not acceptable” for safety reasons. And the case has not yet reached trial.

And that is the real menace of SLAPP suits. It’s not that corporations win them, but that they cost critics so much money that the critics are silenced — and so is everyone else who even thinks about raising some question about a corporate product or practice.

Isuzu claims that CU’s reports are “not scientific or credible,” but the company’s internal memos state that the “lawsuit is a PR tool” and “when attacked, CU will probably shut up.” According to a study by two University of Denver law professors, “Americans by the thousands are being sued, simply for exercising the right to speak out on public issues, such as health and safety.”

</blockquote>

Ivins points out that Consumers Union, with its deep pockets and lack of corporate advertising, is both financially and strategically in a much better position to handle this kind of lawsuit than an individual or small business would be.

Yet, increasingly, it’s individuals and small businesses or community groups who are being sued by corporations or by the government — simply for exercising their right to speak freely, their right to complain (petition the government for redress of grievances), or both. Here are <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/slapp.html">some examples</a>, from PR Watch:

<ul>

<li>In Las Vegas, a local doctor was sued over his allegations that a city hospital violated the state’s hospital cost containment law.</li>

<li>In Baltimore, members of a local community group faced a $52 million lawsuit after circulating a letter questioning the property-buying practices of a local housing developer.</li>

<li>In West Virginia, an environmental activist faced a $200,000 lawsuit for criticizing a coal mining company’s activities that were poisoning a local river.</li>

<li>In Pennsylvania, a farmer was sued after testifying to his township supervisors that a low-flying helicopter owned by a local landfill operator caused a stampede that killed several of his cows.</li>

<li>In Washington state, a homeowner found that she couldn’t get a mortgage because her real estate company had failed to pay taxes owed on her house. She uncovered hundreds of similar cases, and the company was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes. In retaliation, it dragged her through six years of legal harassment before a jury finally found her innocent of slander.</li>

<li>In Rhode Island, a resident of North Kingstown wrote a letter complaining about contamination of the local drinking water from a nearby landfill and spent the next five years defending herself against the landfill owner’s attorneys, who charged her with “defamation” and “interference with prospective business contracts.”</li>

<li>In South Carolina, an animal rights activist was sued for $4 million after writing a letter to an obscure research journal protesting an Austrian company’s plans to use chimpanzees in hepatitis research.</li>

<li>In Missouri, a high school English teacher was hit with a $1 million libel suit after complaining to a weekly newspaper that an incinerator burning hospital waste was a health hazard.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Again, these lawsuits are not being filed on the merits. Most of the time the plaintiffs don’t necessarily expect to win the suit. The point is to drag the case out as long as possible until the defendant’s financial and emotional resources are exhausted. Even if the defendant does not drop the case, or wins the case, it’s still a victory for the filer of the lawsuit, because of its chilling effect on others, who see what happens when they speak out or write a letter to the editor. Corporations are using their vast amounts of money, armies of well-paid attorneys, and government connections as an uber-advantage to destroy anyone from saying anything negative about their products or services.

<a href="http://libertystreet.wordpress.com/2005/08/20/slapping-down-the-first-amendment/">http://libertystreet.wordpress.com/2005/08/20/slapping-down-the-first-amendment/</a>

==

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Oprah Winfrey and mad cows</h1>

This article was first published as "<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q1/oprah.html" class="external text" title="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q1/oprah.html" rel="nofollow">One Hundred Percent All Beef Baloney: Lessons from the Oprah Trial</a>", PR Watch, volume 3, number 1, First Quarter 1996. The original article was authored by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber and is used here with permission. As with all SourceWatch articles, feel free to edit and revise.

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows">1 Oprah Winfrey and mad cows</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#The_Myth_of_the_Oprah_Cult">2 The Myth of the Oprah Cult</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#Did_Oprah_Cause_Cattle_Prices_to_Fall.3F">3 Did Oprah Cause Cattle Prices to Fall?</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#The_True_Enemy_of_Small_Farmers">4 The True Enemy of Small Farmers</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#Was_the_Oprah_Program_Fair.3F">5 Was the Oprah Program Fair?</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#Is_This_Really_Censorship.3F">6 Is This Really Censorship?</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#There_Was_Never_a_Problem.2C_and_Anyway.2C_We_Fixed_It">7 There Was Never a Problem, and Anyway, We Fixed It</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows#External_links">8 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Oprah Winfrey and mad cows</h2>

If you're trying to make sense of the recent "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Food_disparagement&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Food disparagement (page does not exist)">food disparagement</a>" lawsuit by Texas beef producers against <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey" title="Oprah Winfrey">Oprah Winfrey</a>, it might help to remember Connie Grieg's moment of terror on the evening of April 23, 1996.

The date was one week after the now-famous program in which Oprah had allowed a debate between <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gary_Weber&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Gary Weber (page does not exist)">Gary Weber</a> of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Cattlemen%27s_Beef_Association" title="National Cattlemen's Beef Association">National Cattlemen's Beef Association</a> (NCBA) and vegetarian activist <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Howard_Lyman&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Howard Lyman (page does not exist)">Howard Lyman</a>.<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/lyman.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/lyman.html" rel="nofollow">[1]</a> Lyman had easily won the argument, horrifying Oprah and her audience with vivid details about cannibalistic animal-feeding practices and their link to England's outbreak of mad cow disease. Angry, the cattlemen had responded by pulling $600,000 dollars in advertising from Oprah's network and were already threatening legal action.

Under pressure, Oprah had taken the extraordinary step of inviting the cattlemen to make a second appearance, this time all by themselves. Weber would come back for a second time, and Connie Grieg -- an Iowa cattle producer -- would join him.

"This time, we agreed to a live show with no editing. Oprah also agreed not to have an opposing viewpoint," Grieg explained to Beef magazine, an industry trade publication.

The program itself went smoothly, exactly as planned. Weber reprised his role as "expert," while Oprah muttered apologies through what seemed like gritted teeth. Grieg, who had received intensive media training plus two hours of coaching the night before from NCBA staffers, played the role of a safety-conscious, lovable family farmer.

The moment of terror, when it came, did not occur on the Oprah show. It came later that evening, when Grieg celebrated by taking the family out to eat at a seafood restaurant. "We walked in, the hostess looked at us and asked: 'Hey, weren't you on 'Oprah' today?'" Grieg said. "I started to stammer."

She had been caught, she realized. Caught, in public--eating seafood.

After an awkward moment, Grieg managed to regain her composure and "explained that we eat beef every day and just felt like a change."

Of course, no one really eats beef every day, not even a dedicated propagandist for the NCBA. Grieg's hastily-improvised cover story speaks volumes, however, about the beef industry's preoccupation with image over substance and its fantasy-view of American eating habits.

Whatever was said about <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mad_cow_disease" title="Mad cow disease">mad cow disease</a> on the Oprah show, the most terrifying moment for the industry came when Oprah said that she had been "stopped cold from eating another burger." This surfaced clearly during the trial when Bill O'Brien, head of the Texas Cattle Producers, explained on the witness stand why Oprah's follow-up show with Weber and Grieg was "too little, too late" to atone for the first show.

"I don't think it repaired the damage," O'Brien said. "She didn't go on the program and eat a hamburger before the world."

From this perspective, the dangers specific to mad cow disease, or for that matter Howard Lyman's description of animal-feeding practices -- or, for that matter, the First Amendment -- are mere details to be swatted away like flies, an attitude which shows through repeatedly in the beef industry's handling of the PR problems posed by the Oprah trial.

With respect to the issue of mad cow disease itself, the cattlemen pursued a strategy of simple evasion. Their message to the media was that they were willing to discuss the question of whether the trial infringed upon the First Amendment, but they did not want to be dragged into a discussion of whether mad cow disease (known technically as "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (page does not exist)">bovine spongiform encephalopathy</a>" or BSE) posed any problems in the United States.

In his eagerness to avoid the subject, NCBA president-elect <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clark_Winningham&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Clark Winningham (page does not exist)">Clark Winningham</a> even claimed on January 9, 1998 that he was under court order not to comment about the Oprah trial. "Wish I could," he said.

Three days later, Winningham lifted his self-imposed gag order and spoke freely to reporters. "Our fear is that the trial revives the issue of BSE in the minds of the consumer again," he said. "The fact that she is moving the show has become a news item, and it will give her a lot of free publicity, but that hurts us because mad cow disease gets pushed out in the headlines again."

<h2>The Myth of the Oprah Cult</h2>

A sexist subtext ran through discussions of the Oprah trial. In Amarillo, bumper stickers and T-shirts sported the slogan, "The only mad cow in America is Oprah."

A common theme in discussions of the Oprah program was the notion that Oprah's popularity gave her some kind of improper influence over the mindless female multitudes that constitute her audience. As evidence of her hypnotic powers, commentators noted that an endorsement by Oprah's book club can frequently propel an author to the top of the bestseller list.

One caller to KGNC, an Amarillo radio talk show, described Oprah's audience as "the uneducated portion of our population" and hoped the cattle feeders would "get Oprah for every penny. . . . They are not looking for money, but they can build war chests to get after other people that pull this stuff."

Winfrey "should have her mouth taped," opined one commentatator, because "she's on national television speaking to all those who have nothing more to do than listen to her and accepting her words as the gospel."

"A video of the Oprah segment suggests the lynch-mob character of TV talk shows," commented <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media" title="Accuracy in Media">Accuracy in Media</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reed_Irvine" title="Reed Irvine">Reed Irvine</a>'s right-wing <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think-tank&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Think-tank (page does not exist)">think-tank</a>. "Audiences are made up of persons who know nothing other than the canned story fed to them by the host or hostess." AIM complained that more than 70% of Oprah's "vast afternoon audience . . . are women, who do the bulk of grocery shopping in America."

Will Hueston, the USDA official who appeared on Oprah's mad cow segment, used similar language during his courtroom testimony, complaining of a "lynch mob mentality" because he had heard people in the studio audience whispering that "You can't trust the government."

(In one of the most bizarre moments of the trial, Winfrey's attorney reminded Hueston that "lynch mob" was a term referring to the use of clubs, nooses and torches against black slaves. Under cross-examination, Hueston burst into tears, apologized to Winfrey, and attempted to portray himself as a civil rights worker who had been persecuted as a child for having black friends.)

Bill Maher, host of the "Politically Incorrect" talk show, added another sexist touch by speculating about whether the success of Oprah's book endorsements proves that women are more "sheeplike" than men. Ironically, his comment came after the media's lemming-like, single-minded obsession with President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had virtually eliminated any further news coverage of the Oprah trial.

Actually, anyone who bothered to examine Winfrey's book club would find a very different picture. Many observers have noted that her book selections are of consistently high caliber, and her readers are a far cry from the stereotype of dumb housewives who hang on Oprah's every word. Some of them have formed an internet-based reading club, which features literate, independent-minded discussions of the books and their authors. While Oprah was on trial in Texas, members of the group in fact were busily airing some blunt criticisms of her recent book selections.

"With so many other wonderful authors out there, it would really be a disappointment to me if she went with a second Morrison book, no matter how good it is," commented one reader. "It's great that some people who may never have read Morrison did so when Song of Solomon was the choice. But now it's like Oprah's pushing her down people's throats. . . . This will be the second month in a row I have personally questioned her choices."

"Sounds as if it's going to be A-OK to delete the 'Oprah' from the club title," added another. "Also sounding as if we are generally unhappy with recent Oprah picks. Maybe after a few more of her 'non-picks' we can just pick our own."

<h2>Did Oprah Cause Cattle Prices to Fall?</h2>

It is worth noting that the fall in cattle futures occurred on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, not in grocery stores. There is no evidence suggesting that consumer beef-buying habits even flickered as a result of the Oprah show. The people who "panicked" were not gaga housewives with curlers in their hair. If we want to deal in stereotypes, they were cellphone-toting, BMW-driving, yuppie commodity traders.

The Oprah show on mad cow disease came at a time when drought, high feed prices and oversupply were crippling cattlemen. It also came less than a month after the British government reversed a decade of denial and publicly admitted for the first time that contaminated beef was the "most likely explanation" for 10 human deaths from a disease that has come to be called "new variant <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Creutzfeldt-Jakob_Disease" title="Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease">Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease</a>."

The Oprah show's impact on beef prices therefore cannot be easily separated from a series of other factors, including the impact of other mad cow-related news coverage. Tim Brennan, a futures trader who testified against Oprah during the trial, admitted in fact that he placed his "sell" order before he had even seen the show, based solely on the fact that mad cow disease would be discussed at all.

"You think Oprah ought to pay $10 million because you thought what she said would stop housewives from buying hamburgers?" asked defense lawyer Charles Babcock.

"This is true," Brennan replied.

<h2>The True Enemy of Small Farmers</h2>

In their conflict with Oprah Winfrey, representatives of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association have attempted to portray themselves as "beleaguered family farmers" in a David vs. Goliath struggle against a powerful "media mogul."

Connie Grieg's appearance on the Oprah show, for example, was calculated to stress the "family farmer" theme. "I told them that our family didn't want to bring a new disease into our herd. We eat beef every day and want to keep it safe, too," Grieg said. "I think it helped that my son Joe and his wife, Jodie, were along for support. The audience could see that my family was there with me, and it showed family involvement in the operation."

In reality, the greatest irony in the Oprah trial is that the people suing Winfrey are themselves beneficiaries of a commodities trading system that has destroyed the livelihoods of many family farms.

Amarillo rancher Paul Engler, the lead plaintiff, is the world's largest cattle feedlot operator. His $650 million a year in sales has made him even richer than Oprah. He has been associated throughout his career with Iowa Beef Processors (now renamed as IBP Ltd.), a major beef supplier that has been investigated or prosecuted repeatedly for price-fixing and monopoly practices.

"Paul Engler as 'grandfather' of the formula pricing system in the cattle industry is no friend of the true cattle producer for what he has done to our pricing and production system," observes a cattleman quoted by A.V. Krebs, a long-time analyst of agricultural economics and author of Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness.

"Formula pricing," along with terms like "captive supplies" and "forward contracting," are phrases seldom heard or understood outside the meat industry. They refer to a cattle-buying system which pushes the envelope of legal activity and, for all practical purposes, amounts to monopoly price-fixing.

"Captive supplies" are cattle which are fed by meatpackers themselves or contracted from closely-allied sources like Engler. By keeping their packing plants full for days or weeks with captive supplies, meatpackers are able to force down the market price of cattle by simply not buying for long periods. This in turn enables them to "forward contract" for future purchases at "formula prices" which they dictate, again undercutting the open market.

These artificial price manipulations also provide system insiders like Engler with advance information about price fluctuations, enabling them to reap additional profits through market speculation in cattle futures.

During the month in which Oprah's controversial mad cow program aired, Engler was in fact the largest supplier of "captive supplies" to IBP Ltd. His role in keeping the market artificially low was dramatically illustrated on May 2, 1996, when IBP's sources of captive supplies ran out of inventory. In a matter of two hours, prices surged upward from $54 to $60 per hundredweight.

As Krebs observes, "This is not simply a case of a television talk show host pitted against a beset-upon cowboy with the white hat battling for 'truth, justice and the American way,' but one of corporate agribusiness's very own seeking to improve nothing more than his own 'bottom line.' "

<h2>Was the Oprah Program Fair?</h2>

Both in court and in the media, the NCBA sought to show that Oprah Winfrey deliberately aired false, sensationalized claims about food safety in order to boost ratings. Accuracy in Media described her as a "mistress of manipulation" whose mad cow segment "is a good illustration of how a TV show can hide falsity behind a facade of objectivity."

NCBA's Gary Weber, who appeared on Oprah's mad cow segment, told AIM that two of his most important statements on the Oprah show were edited out before the program aired: (1) "that the cattle industry adopted a voluntary ban on 'recycling' felled cattle as feed on March 29, 1996"; and (2) "that what is fed to cattle is not 'ground up' beef, as Lyman claimed, but a foodstuff that has been cooked at temperatures high enough to sterilize it."

It is true that Weber's mention of the "voluntary ban" did not make the final cut. As we document in Mad Cow USA, however, there is no reason to believe that the "voluntary ban" had any impact whatsoever on industry feeding practices. Aside from the fact that a "voluntary ban" is a contradiction in terms, Mad Cow USA quotes agricultural extension agents and feed salesmen who confirm that the practice of feeding rendered cattle back to cattle continued, and may even have increased, after the voluntary ban was declared.

And Weber's claim that rendered feed "has been cooked at temperatures high enough to sterilize it" can only be characterized as deliberately misleading. As Weber well knows, the infectious agent that causes mad cow disease is extraordinarily resistant to high temperatures and is capable of remaining infective even when heated to 720 degrees fahrenheit--more than twice the temperature used to "cook" rendered animal feed. Its ability to survive the rendering process is precisely what enabled mad cow disease to grow to epidemic levels in the British cattle population.

As evidence of the Oprah program's "sensationalistic" exaggerations, commentators frequently pointed to vegetarian activist Howard Lyman's claim that mad cow disease "could make AIDS look like the common cold."

But consider the context in which the show aired on April 16, 1996. Less than a month earlier, the British government had abruptly reversed a decade of denial by announcing that people were dying from a new variant strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and that mad cow disease was the most likely cause. The scientist who headed the U.K. government's Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, James Pattison, had even admitted that millions of people could already be incubating the disease, which is indetectable, incurable, always fatal and invisible for years or even decades before emerging as an Alzheimer's-like killer.

Or consider the conclusions of the Food and Drug Administration, which appeared nine months after the Oprah show, when FDA finally got around to publishing "proposed regulations" banning the practice of feeding cattle back to cattle.

"The data and information raise concern that BSE could occur in cattle in the United States," the FDA wrote, "and that if BSE does appear in this country, the causative agent could be transmitted and amplified through the feeding of processed ruminant protein to cattle, and could result in an epidemic."

Lyman, of course, used somewhat more colorful language. He called it "mad cow disease" instead of BSE. Instead of "processed ruminant protein," he talked about "feeding cows to cows." The bottom line, however, is that Lyman and Oprah Winfrey went on trial because they dared broadcast the same conclusions that the FDA itself would reach nine months later: Feeding cows back to cows is a dangerous, bad idea.

Lyman also accurately stated that England's epidemic was caused by the cannibalistic practice of feeding "ground-up" cows back to other cows through a practice known as "rendering." He was even correct when he stated that everything from house pets to highway roadkill went into the mix. The cattlemen might be forgiven for thinking that it is sensationalistic and in poor taste to discuss these gory matters, but the details themselves are accurate. Lyman had the right to say it, Oprah had the right to broadcast it and hamburger lovers have the right to know it.

As far as accuracy is concerned, Lyman's comments have aged better than comments made at the time by NCBA product safety director James Reagan. "There is no scientific evidence that says there is a relationship between BSE and that if you eat meat in Great Britain that you would develop CJD or BSE or whatever," Reagan said in a radio appearance aimed at rebutting the Oprah show. "Both of those are diseases of the central nervous system, but they are completely different."

Today, a solid scientific consensus has formed around the conclusion that James Reagan was dead wrong. Even the British beef industry has conceded that there is a link between mad cow disease and new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (nvCJD). If passing out false information is a crime, therefore, the cattlemen ought to be on trial themselves.

If the cattlemen believe that Oprah's program gave a one-sided perspective of things, they have an obvious remedy. They can publish and disseminate point-by-point critiques of Lyman's statements, pointing out fallacies or mitigating circumstances. They can challenge him to open public debates, and in defense of their positions they can afford to hire the best experts money can buy. After all, the meat industry already spends a hundred million dollars a year hawking its products; its opinions and promotions and celebrity spokespeople dominate the commercial airwaves.

Instead of going this route, however, the cattlemen chose to sue, taking advantage of the new "agricultural product disparagement laws" that food industry lobbyists have succeeded in pushing through 13 state legislatures over the course of the past six years. The lawsuit against Lyman and Oprah is the first test in court of these so-called "veggie libel laws," but as vehicles for censorship they have already succeeded brilliantly outside the courtroom.

<h2>Is This Really Censorship?</h2>

The Oprah show was both Lyman's first and last chance to take his message to a huge national audience. Since then, no other programs have been willing to touch him, for fear of facing a lawsuit themselves. There have been no exposés of industry feeding practices on 60 Minutes or even Geraldo. The "alternative" media has also been largely silent about the feeding practices that Lyman criticized and about the danger that mad cow-type diseases could emerge in the United States. The cumulative effect of all this silence has helped create the impression that there was indeed something improper or criminal about the Oprah show, that it went too far, that it was "irresponsible."

Of course, the media was there in full force on January 20 when Winfrey and Lyman walked into that Amarillo courtroom. Commentators discussed everything from her outfit to her upcoming roster of guests. Unfortunately, none of the participants in the trial -- neither Winfrey nor Lyman, nor their attorneys, witnesses or spokespeople -- could say a single public word themselves about any of the issues, due to a bizarre and stifling gag order imposed by Amarillo Judge Mary Lou Robinson.

The Oprah lawsuit forced open a public debate, for the first time, about the unconstitutional restrictions which "product disparagement laws" impose on our First Amendment rights of free speech and press. However, this debate largely ignored the subject which the lawsuit itself aimed to suppress: Are mad cow-type epidemics a risk in the United States, and is the meat industry engaged in dangerous feeding practices?

The standard line we heard when called by reporters was, "We want to talk about the First Amendment issues, but we don't want to get into the mad cow stuff." If this journalistic standard had been applied to O.J. Simpson, reporters would have been saying, "We want to talk about the issue of domestic violence, but we don't want to get into the question of whether he killed Nicole."

The meat industry and USDA, meanwhile, have been actively disseminating misleading reassurances to the public.

It is quite common, for example, to read news stories about the case which state blandly that "some scientists claim there is a link between mad cow disease and a disease in humans called CJD" even though the evidence for this link has become a solid scientific consensus. In England even the meat industry concedes this point, but in the U.S. media it is still routinely described as nothing but the opinion of "some scientists."

<h2>There Was Never a Problem, and Anyway, We Fixed It</h2>

And the misinformation continues. Presently the cattlemen are telling the public that the problem of mad cow disease has been "solved" in the United States by a new FDA regulation last summer which, in the words of the New York Times, "banned the use of ground animal parts in feed."

Actually, the FDA regulation has numerous dangerous loopholes. Although the FDA put curbs on the practice of feeding cow meat and bone meal back to cows, similar cannibalistic practices continue on a wide scale with other livestock. Pigs and chickens in the U.S. are still routinely nourished with feed supplements derived from the bones, brains, meat scraps, feathers and even feces of their own species, which leaves open the possibility of a mad cow-like outbreak in these populations.

Even the practice of feeding cow proteins back to cows has not entirely ended, as evidenced by Dairy Herd Management, a leading trade publication. Its October 1997 issue -- published two months after the FDA's new regulation went into effect -- featured an article advising farmers to "consider using spray-dried bovine plasma" as well as "spray-dried whole blood" as "protein sources for starter feeds" for young calves. This practice is fully legal under the FDA's regulation, and it's a risk, but don't expect the news media to report it.

Notwithstanding Winfrey's victory in the courtroom, the cattlemen's lawsuit has achieved its main goal -- to cast a glaze of euphemism and evasion over the gory details of what is being discussed. This is precisely the opposite of what the public needs and deserves in today's world, where cannibalistic feeding practices are only one of many new factory farming techniques that industry is introducing at a dizzying rate -- new antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, food irradiation, and genetic engineering of everything from cows to vegetables to animal drugs.

If the food disparagement laws that have enabled the Oprah trial to proceed are allowed to stand, it doesn't much matter that she won her case. The U.S. food industry has pioneered a technique that can be used repeatedly to chill debate about the risks associated with any and all controversial food industry practices.

Investigative journalist Nicols Fox calls mad cow disease a "warning shot across the bow" of the modern farm industry -- a warning of the dangers associated with technological innovation that may go unrecognized until it is too late to stop a tragedy. The Oprah lawsuit should also be a warning shot across the bow for journalists, activists and the public. It tells us how deeply the industry has fallen into denial of those dangers, and how far it will go in forcing that denial upon the rest of us.

<h2>External links</h2>

<ul>

<li>"<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/lyman.html" class="external text" title="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/lyman.html" rel="nofollow">"Intolerable" Speech? What Howard Lyman Told Oprah</a>", PR Watch, volume 4, number 2, 2nd Quarter 1997.</li>

</ul>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Mad_cow_disease" title="Category:Mad cow disease">Mad cow disease</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:PR_Watch" title="Category:PR Watch">PR Watch</a></div>

</div>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey_and_mad_cows</a>

----

"Veggie-Libel" Law Still Poses a Threat

<div style="text-align: left;">by</div><div style="text-align: left;">Ronald K.L. Collins & Paul McMasters</div>

<table border="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr><td>Ronald Collins is the co-author of The Death of Discourse (Westview, 1996) and the director of the FoodSpeak Free Speech Project at CSPI. (FoodSpeak@cspinet.org) Paul McMasters, formerly an editor at USA Today, is First Amendment ombudsman at The Freedom Forum in Arlington, Virginia. This article originally appeared in Legal Times, March 23, 1998, p. 28, and is reprinted with permission of the publisher. </td></tr></tbody></table>

</center>

</div>

Victory is in the eye of the beholder. Take the court ruling and the jury verdict in the Oprah Winfrey defamation case. Both were certainly good news for the celebrated talk-show host and her co-defendants. Then again, they are not flag-waving victories for the cause of free speech, especially in the 13 states that have food-disparagement laws and in the other states where such bills are pending. Through no fault of the defendants, the Oprah "victory" resolved only a narrow statutory question; it left unresolved, however, a major constitutional question. Unless that question is answered — and soon — others who don’t have the public profile or private resources of Ms. Winfrey will be dragged off to court for speaking out about food and food safety.

The First Amendment After Oprah

Before the trial concluded, federal District Judge Mary Lou Robinson ruled that the plaintiffs, Texas cattlemen, had no right to sue Ms. Winfrey under the Texas food-disparagement statute. Her ruling thus left the Texas statute constitutionally intact, which means that future actions may be brought against others who allegedly defame a "perishable food product." Of course, Judge Robinson did allow the plaintiffs’ common law action to proceed. But that failed, courtesy of the jury’s verdict. That verdict, though welcome news, also did not address the crucial constitutional question. So, in the vast majority of the states with food- disparagement statutes, food critics may be held to legal account if they cannot substantiate their claims by "reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data," as many of these statutes provide.

The Oprah case actually helps industry at the expense of free speech values. Here is why.

First, the ruling lets stand the special defamation laws carved out for the benefit of the agri-business. These preferential treatment statutes abandon the traditional common law product disparagement cause of action. In its place, many of them punish protected expression, establish a lower standard for civil liability, allow for punitive damages and attorneys fees for plaintiffs alone, and lend themselves to abusive litigation practices. The food-disparagement statutes — enacted between 1991 and 1997 — were devised by the industry precisely because the common law standard of fairness permitted too much robust expression about food and food safety. (Consider, e.g, Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes," 800 F. Supp. 928 (E.D. Wash., 1992), affir. 67 F. 3rd 816 (9th Cir., 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1567 (1996) (rejecting common law action by apple growers against CBS in connection with a 1989 broadcast on the dangers of Alar).

Second, the Oprah ruling does not change the scientific evidence standard, which has a clear chilling effect on anyone who wishes to speak out about food, including freelance journalists and non-profit organizations. That is, unless one can speak with scientific certainty — and such "scientific" data typically remain closely-held by industry — legal liability can follow. The more than occasional result: No public talk about food unless such talk comports with "reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data." Turn back the clock and consider how that standard would have stifled public debate about tobacco. The principle is as noble as it is unpredictable: The search for truth, be it scientific or other, is often contentious; hence, in the give-and take of it all, error must of necessity tumble with its opposite.

Third, the message the Oprah trial sends to would-be food critics is that they may one day find themselves at the horns-end of a costly lawsuit. If a popular and powerful TV personality is not safe from these laws, then who is? Remember, the statutory victory in the Oprah case cost upwards of a million dollars to defend, not including the cattlemen’s appeal. The net effect of the Oprah ruling may well be to silence those who cannot endure the time and expense demanded by a seven-figure lawsuit. In that respect, the food-disparagement laws encourage lawsuits designed to intimidate food critics by the mere threat of we-can-bankrupt-you litigation, replete with gag orders from cooperative judges.

Finally, the sword of Damocles still hangs over the media as well. For as long as food critics must satisfy a high burden of scientific proof, the media will be understandably hesitant to publish stories in this area lest their names be added to a legal complaint. A recent editorial in the Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL) states the danger well: "A consumer reporter for a small-market newspaper or TV station or a solo scientist putting out a food-safety newsletter is . . . very much at the mercy of agribiz." This suggests that food critics will be less likely to be critical, and when they are critical the press may also be less likely to air their views.

The "victory" in Texas thus leaves First Amendment freedoms in jeopardy, which is their unstated purpose. The food-disparagement statutes in the 13 states represent "a legislative attempt to insulate an economic sector from criticism." David J. Bederman et al, 34 Harv. J. Leg. 135, 168 (1997). In Colorado, such insulation comes by way of a criminal law (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §35-31-101) designed to punish those citizen-activists guilty of mouthing falsehoods about farm products. Imagine what any of these laws, let alone the Colorado one, could mean to those who distribute food safety newsletters in these states or who post food criticisms on the Internet.

First Amendment Threats & Defeats

Despite the issue raised in the Oprah case, food-disparagement bills continue to be introduced (or reintroduced after failing) in states such as California, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wisconsin, among others. It bears noting, however, that such proposals have failed in California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming. An attempt to include a disparagement provision in the federal 1996 Farm Bill also failed.

Meanwhile, the court cases continue. Three veggie-libel suits are currently being litigated. In Texas some emus ranchers are suing Honda in federal court for a 1997 tongue-in-cheek TV commercial in which the following was said: "Emus, Joe. It’s the pork of the future." The ranchers are claiming some $75,000 in damages. In Ohio, the Buckeye Egg Farm is suing a consumer organization, the Ohio Public Interest Research Group, and one of its employees, Amy Simpson. The egg producer (represented by Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue) alleges that the defendants, during the course of a press conference announcing a consumer action against Buckeye Egg, falsely and knowingly misrepresented that the company washed and repackaged old eggs for resale. The defendants counter that their charges were based on numerous interviews with the company’s own employees "who knew of the repackaging." Finally, there is the lawn libel case in which the owner of A-1 Turf is suing a Texas agricultural agent (James McAfee) for allegedly issuing libelous reports about its sod. The agent’s statements were later published in the Dallas Morning News.

Incredibly, modern-day public interest activists in Ohio and elsewhere may actually enjoy less free speech liberty than did Upton Sinclair when he wrote his great muckraking novel, The Jungle (1906). Today, Sinclair’s broadside against the meat-packing industry would surely trigger a food-disparagement lawsuit, however unmerited.

Contest "Veggie-Libel" Laws

At bottom, and true to the spirit of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and its progeny, noncommercial statements about food and food safety represent a vital part of the political discourse of our times. The public interest in hearing and evaluating such information cannot be discounted. Hence, what is needed is more public discussion and debate about food safety, be it about "mad cow" disease or olestra or pesticide-tainted foods. That is just as true today as it has been in the past when debates were waged over matters such as fat content in milk, cholesterol in eggs, and nitrite in bacon. Food-disparagement laws run counter to this tradition of open discussion by diminishing the amount of information in the marketplace of ideas. Where the First Amendment marketplace invites viewpoint diversity, the food-disparagement statutes demand scientific certainty. Ideas are not to be tested, only scientifically confirmed by a court of law. Worse still, the continued existence of these laws can only encourage other industries — e.g. the dairy, cosmetic, alcohol, and auto industries — to push for similar laws to protect their products.

The Oprah ruling must not cloud the ever-important need to contest these laws. Every attempt must be made to challenge the constitutionality of food-disparagement statutes. Equally important, a vigorous campaign to repeal these statutes must begin with the combined support of civil liberties, consumer, health, food, environmental, and media groups, and all others concerned about public health and safety and the future of the First Amendment. To this end, a campaign led by Consumers Union activist Reggie James has just been launched to repeal the Texas law. (An ABCNews.com non-random poll conducted shortly after the Oprah verdict revealed that respondents believed, by nearly a 2-1 margin, that veggie-libel laws are "wrong and should be repealed.")

The true index of freedom is the degree to which a society allows its citizens, rich and poor alike, to participate without trepidation in that public dialogue so essential to democratic self-rule. By that measure, food-disparagement laws are unworthy of a free people.

<a href="http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/candm.htm">http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/candm.htm</a>

==

</div>

</div></div></div>