Food Slander Laws Stifle Criticism of Unsafe Food in the USA

Monday, April 12, 1999

Take the Gag Off Food Safety Issues
Environment: Laws that say you can libel
broccoli keep the public from
knowing the dangers in what they eat.
By J. ROBERT HATHERILL
Los Angeles Times

Times are tough when you have to
talk in hushed tones about
hamburger safety. These days,
merely implying that a food is
unsafe can land you in court, as Oprah
Winfrey learned with her
now-famous comments against ground
beef.
The lesson swiftly became a
personal one when my publisher
stripped lengthy passages from my new
book. Simply put, I was not
allowed to disclose dangers inherent
in some common foods like
dairy and meat products, as well as
over-the-counter medicines like
calcium supplements and
nonprescription pain remedies. The
problem had nothing to do with whether
there was sufficient
evidence to support the claims--there
is--it came down to fear of
litigation. I was told, "We could win
the lawsuit, but it would cost us
millions, and it's just not worth it."

My disturbing experience is part
of a trend that is sweeping the
country. We are losing one of the
basic tenets our country was
founded upon: free speech.
The safety of food is mired in a
deep, politically charged battle
being waged on many fronts: in
Congress, convincing legislators of
the safety of many types of food and
drugs; in the courts, silencing
consumers from voicing opinions; and
in the media, via huge
advertising budgets.
Behind all of this is the fact
that America's food has undergone a
startling change since World War II.
The pastoral days of American
food production have been replaced by
a gigantic, mechanized
industrial complex. In the last
half-century, the modern food
purveyors have centered their efforts
on the use of chemicals--many
of which are harmful--to produce
larger crops, plumper livestock
and better textured and flavorful food
with long shelf lives.
To achieve these goals, the food
industry has assailed Congress
with more than 200 food-lobby groups.
The deftly concealed
agenda of the food industry is not to
nourish or even feed but to
force consumers into an
ever-increasing dependence on processed
foods. Rather than valuing food for
its ability to sustain health, it has
now become the object of catchy
commercials with celebrity
endorsements.
Modern food processing not only
strips away natural anti-cancer
agents, but searing heat forms potent
cancer-producing chemicals in
the process. In the end, it is
consumers who suffer from the alien
food. These profound changes in our
diet are leading to enormous
health consequences. Unfortunately, it
is no coincidence that since
1950 cancer rates have steadily
increased and are now at the
highest point in history.
In the past few years, the food
junta unveiled its new business
strategy. While parceling out a new
wave of junk foods, fresh from
its chemistry laboratories, it
conspired and began its ominous push
for food-libel laws. The fight began
with a report about Alar, the
popular growth-regulator for apples
that lessens bruising and
imparts a richer color. The Alar
controversy erupted in 1989, after
a CBS-TV "60 Minutes" episode depicted
it as a cancer-causing
agent. Promptly, apple sales
plummeted. Many schools banned fruit
treated with Alar. The angry apple
growers sued CBS and lost. The
manufacturer eventually stopped making
it. The food industry,
embittered by the high-profile defeat,
put intensified efforts toward
the new food libel laws. During the
last decade, at least a dozen
states enacted these laws. Traditional
libel laws have stated that
only a corporation or a living person
can be disparaged. But with
the current food-libel statutes,
former President George Bush could
be hauled into court for disparaging
broccoli.
The mere presence of these libel
laws is forbidding. They can
entangle one in costly litigation,
regardless of who wins the lawsuit.
The Texas cattlemen's case against
Winfrey cost nearly $1 million to
defend at the trial level alone. That
does not include the costs of the
federal case that is on appeal and
another proceeding in state court.
Winfrey's victory is largely a
symbolic gesture, a last gasp of free
speech, since big industry can still
drag anyone into court for merely
discussing food safety. The end result
is the silence of the majority
of people who do not have the deep
pockets or the time necessary
to stage costly legal battles.
Food is shipped to market from
all corners of the world, and
consumers now have more reason to be
watchful than ever before.
Free speech is vital to those who
speak on food safety issues. Food
libel laws have made a mockery of our
1st Amendment rights to
free speech and need to be quickly
repealed. The public has every
right to know about the safety and
nutritional value of the food it
purchases and eats.
- - -

J. Robert Hatherill, a Research
Scientist and Faculty Member of the
Environmental Studies Program at Uc
Santa Barbara, Is Author of
"Eat to Beat Cancer" (Renaissance
Books 1998)

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times.