mericans have debated for centuries. Many people question whether laws forbidding disparaging comments about food products constitute reasonable economic protection for ranchers, farmers, and other agricultural producers or amount to unconstitutional interference with the right to engage in free and open debate. Ronald Collins, director of the Food Libel Project for the Center for Science in the Public Interest said, “The statues have a very chilling effect on individuals because of the enormous costs involved in litigating these cases. Anybody who wants to be critical of food has to be prepared to be the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.” The Humane Society of the United States agreed. On the other side of the fence, Rex Runyon, vice president of the American Feed Industry Association, said, “the laws were not designed to stifle free speech. I know there’s been some concern about free speech and freedom of the press, that’s really not something that should be a worry for people learning about this law. The law says you can not willingly and knowingly make a false statement about a product.” Frank Newton, dean of the Texas Tech University Law School, said “The Supreme Court has made it clear that even when you get into an area involving commerce and property rights, the First Amendment still plays a prominent role.” Since the Oprah vs. the Texas Cattlemen case there have been many cases to follow under the new “veggie libel.” Some of the cases are Ben & Jerry Ice Cream vs. the State of Illinois; Miller, Coors and Boston Beer Company vs. the Missouri Division of Liquor Control; McDonald’s Corp. vs. Helen Steel; and Texan Emu Ranchers vs. Honda Motor Company. The new Food Disparagement Laws intent is to hold someone accountable for making damaging statements. It was a shock to farmers and ranchers that so much damage could be caused by a false and mi...
