ed unfounded and unwarranted fear in the beef consumer’s mind. As a direct result of what had been called the “Oprah Crash,” the cattle industry suffered millions of dollars in cattle losses and in some cases permanent loss of confidence in beef product by many beef consumers. The Cause of Action in this case is False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products which includes the violation of Chapter 96 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, which establishes liability if someone intentionally disseminates false information about a perishable food product. Business Disparagement, Negligence and Negligence Per Se, Slander, Slander Per Se, and Defamation, and Libel and Libel Per Se were other Causes of Action.An important argument of the trial was whether or not beef was a perishable food. The argument for perishability is that once cattle have reached their optimum finish point, the cost of adding additional weight (gain) rises exponentially. For example, an average cost of gain to finish a steer in today's environment is about $.50 per pound. The cost of adding gain beyond the finish point is closer to $1.00 per pound. Live finished cattle market last week in Texas was $.73 per pound. So there is an economic point where holding cattle in inventorybecomes much more costly than what the market will pay. Oprah Winfrey won in the case pressed against her and Harpo Productions by Texas Cattlemen. U.S. District Court Judge Mary Lou Robinson held that cattle did not fall within the law’s definition of “perishable food product,” and dismissed the food-disparagement claim before sending the case to the jury. The case went forward on a conventional business-defamation claim, which required the cattlemen to show the Ms. Winfrey deliberately intended to harm the beef industry. That case is now on appeal to the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals. The Oprah vs. Texas Cattlemen case raises important questions A...
