Read for yourself without my comment

Instead of hating the people you think are war-makers, hate the appetites and disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.

- Thomas Merton,

New Seeds of Contemplation

...and in other news....

Food libel laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Veggie libel law)

Jump to: navigation, search

Food libel laws, also known as "food disparagement laws", "veggie libel laws", or "veggie hate laws", are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food industry interests to sue their critics for libel. These 13 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas. ^[1] Many of the food-disparagement laws punish First Amendment-protected expression, establish a lower standard for civil liability, allow for punitive damages and attorneys fees for plaintiffs alone^[2], regardless of the case's outcome. Meaning, even if you are found innocent of Libel, for questioning whether or not hamburger contains ammonia or ecoli, you pay the legal fees of your persecution... Usually a team of very expensive lawyers from the best law firms money can buy.

Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Alar 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] History

In 1996, television talk-show hostess Oprah Winfrey and one of her guests, Howard Lyman, were involved in a lawsuit surrounding the Texas version of this law. Although they were not the first people to be sued using this type of legal action, this case created a media sensation and is the example most people associate with food libel litigation.

These laws vary greatly from state to state, but they typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish weaker standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits.^{[citation needed]}

In a normal U.S. libel suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. Under the Texas food disparagement law under which Winfrey and Lyman were sued, the plaintiffs — in this case, beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders — simply had to convince the jury that Lyman's statements on Winfrey's show deviated from "reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data."

One obvious trouble with such a law is that two reasonable, reliable scientists may not always agree. The subject that Engler and Cactus Feeders were suing Winfrey and Lyman over was BSE (also known as "mad cow disease") which has seen respected, reliable researchers reach quite different conclusions. Such a law partially shifts the burden of proof from the accuser.

Winfrey and Lyman won their case in 1998. However, the lawsuit also had the effect of silencing Winfrey. She stopped speaking on the issue, going so far as to decline to make videotapes of the original interview available to enquiring journalists.^[3]

[edit] Alar

Proponents of food libel laws often cite the Alar "scare" as proof of the necessity of such laws, as farmers' protection against a loose-lipped public. In the Alar incident, a CBS report on a carcinogenic but widely used apple agrichemical led to a brief slump in the apple market^[4] on Alar and a ban on the chemical. Apple growers subsequently sued CBS under existing libel laws and lost. "Never again — not another Alar" became a rallying cry for the food industry.

[edit] See also

• Chilling effect

[edit] References

1. ^ http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm
2. ^ http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Veggie_Libel.html
3. ^ Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here?. Madison, WI: Common Courage Press. pp. 192. ISBN 1567511112.
4. ^ "Fruit Growers Pull Commercials To Protest Report by CBS". New York Times. May 7, 1989.

[edit] External links

• "Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer". New York Times. March 7, 2007
• "Farmers' Right to Sue Grows, Raising Debate on Food Safety". New York Times. June 1. 1999.
• "Apple growers bruised and bitter after alar scare". New York Times. July 9, 1991.
• Chilling effect of laws from the Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Existing laws by state Center for Science in the Public Interest.

And last but not least...

CHECK THIS OUT IF YOU EAT FOOD!