Four different lawsuits that include a statutory product disparagement charge - the so-called "veggie libel laws" - have been filed but no court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of these laws. The only such suit to go to trial, Texas Beef Group (Engler) v. Oprah Winfrey, ended in the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, without the judge addressing the First Amendment issues.

   Following an unsuccessful libel suit against CBS for its 1989 "60 Minutes" broadcast about the alleged dangers of Alar, 13 states enacted product disparagement statutes; another 16 states have considered or are considering similar statutes. Proponents of these defamation laws say they will prevent and punish the distribution of false information about perishable food products. Critics of the laws say that they violate the First Amendment and would limit public discourse about an important health and safety issue.

Litigation

   Texas Beef Group (Engler) v. Oprah Winfrey (Texas). This case garnered national attention because the defendant was popular talk show host Oprah Winfrey, who moved her whole show to Amarillo during the six-week trial. Winfrey had been sued by the cattlemen's association because of comments on her show about "mad cow disease." The statutory agricultural product disparagement cause of action was dismissed Feb. 17, 1998 when federal Judge Mary Lou Robinson ruled that cattle were not perishable agricultural products within the meaning of the statute. The plaintiffs have appealed the judge's ruling as well as the jury's findings in favor of Winfrey on the other counts of the complaint. In April 1998, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case joined a suit filed in state court, once again asserting a violation of the disparagement law. That case was removed to the federal court of Judge Robinson, who will decide whether to retain jurisdiction or send it back to the state court in Dumas, Texas. By January 1999, this case had been in litigation for 32 months. In December 1998, Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, a San Antonio Democrat, introduced HB 126 in the Texas legislature to repeal the food-disparagement statute.

   Pat Anderson d/b/a A-I Turf Farm v. James McAfee (Texas). Sod producer Pat Anderson sued James McAfee, an agronomist specializing in turf grass management, under the Texas disparagement law after McAfee wrote a news release critical of one of the firm's products, Textturf 10. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted on April 8, 1998 because McAfee's statement was made in the course of his employment by the state. The court did not address the merits of the disparagement claim.

   Burleson Enterprises v. American Honda Motor Company (Texas). The plaintiff, a rancher raising emus, sued the motor company under the Texas law, claiming that a Honda television commercial disparaged emu ranching and emu meat by comparing it to pork. Honda filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 24, 1998; the court converted that to a motion for summary judgment on March 5, 1998. A ruling is pending in Judge Robinson's court in Amarillo.

   AgriGeneral a/k/a Buckeye Egg v. Ohio Public Interest Research Group (Ohio). In 1997, Ohio PIRG filed a lawsuit against Buckeye, charging that the firm failed to pay its workers overtime and that it repackaged and sold dated eggs. In August 1997, Buckey sued the Ohio PIRG and a spokeswoman, charging that her comments at a press conference explaining the original lawsuit violated the Ohio disparagement statute. In July 1998, Buckeye dropped its lawsuit "without prejudice."

Opposition to Veggie Libel Laws

   Until the constitutional questions raised by veggie libel laws are settled by the courts, current laws remain in effect and proponents in the food processing, chemical, and pesticide industries will continue to press for more states to adopt such laws. In the wake of the Winfrey trial, which raised the national profile of this issue, the Libel Defense Resource Center has published a special bulletin issue on Agricultural Disparagement Laws: The Trend To Impose Statutory Liability on Speech and formed a committee headed by Bruce E.H. Johnson at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle to monitor developments under these new laws.

   In April 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest announced the formation of The Foodspeak Coalition, which has more than 30 public interest, civil liberties, press, Internet, environmental, and medical groups as members. Director Ronald Collins said the coalition will work for the repeal of current food-disparagement laws and oppose laws proposed in other states. Among other activities, Foodspeak has drafted a 50-page legal memorandum in opposition to the Ohio law. "Food-disparagement laws invite abuses of our legal system; they permit agribusiness to slap citizens with harassing lawsuits wherever citizens exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out about food safety," said Collins.