Food-Disparagement and Ag-Gag Laws
Criticism of the food industry sometimes leads to more than advertising campaigns, lobbying, and public-relations efforts. It can also lead to lawsuits and laws affecting what critics, journalists, employees, and undercover investigators may say or reveal.
Food-Disparagement Laws
Food-disparagement laws, sometimes called food-libel or “veggie libel” laws, allow producers to sue under certain circumstances over false statements concerning perishable agricultural or food products.
Supporters argue that these laws protect farmers and food producers from false claims that can quickly destroy consumer confidence and cause serious financial losses. Critics argue that the cost and risk of defending a lawsuit may discourage people from speaking publicly about food safety, animal welfare, environmental harm, or other matters of public concern.
The Lawsuit Against Oprah Winfrey
On April 16, 1996, an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show discussed mad cow disease and whether a similar crisis could occur in the United States. During the program, Oprah Winfrey said that what she had heard had “just stopped me cold from eating another burger.”
Texas cattle producers sued Winfrey, her production company, and guest Howard Lyman. They argued that the program frightened consumers, harmed beef sales, and contributed to falling cattle prices.
During the 1998 trial, the judge ruled that the Texas food-disparagement statute did not apply to the statements made on the program. Another claim continued, but the jury ultimately ruled in Winfrey’s favor. A federal appeals court later upheld the result.
Read about the appellate decision in the Oprah Winfrey case
Ag-Gag Laws
The term ag-gag law is commonly used by critics to describe laws restricting particular methods used to investigate agricultural operations. Depending on the state, a law may address obtaining employment through false statements, entering agricultural property, secretly recording activities, or distributing recordings made inside a facility.
Agricultural businesses argue that these laws protect private property, employee safety, biosecurity, trade secrets, and lawful business operations. Opponents argue that some provisions interfere with whistleblowing, investigative journalism, animal-welfare investigations, and speech protected by the First Amendment.
Different Laws and Different Court Decisions
There is no single national ag-gag law. State laws differ substantially, and courts have not treated every provision in the same way. Federal courts have struck down or limited some provisions on First Amendment grounds, while allowing others to remain in effect.
For example, in litigation concerning Idaho’s law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down provisions criminalizing certain misrepresentations and audiovisual recordings, while allowing other portions of the law to stand.
Read the Ninth Circuit’s decision concerning Idaho’s law
Read an overview of ag-gag laws and the First Amendment
Because these laws and court decisions continue to change, readers interested in a particular state should look for the most recent law and court rulings for that state.