AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEFAMATION LAWS: AN ETHICAL ASSESSMENT
This research examines agricultural products defamation laws. These laws are assessed from an ethical basis.
Several years ago, the public affairs and news television program "60 Minutes" on the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) televised a segment concerning the use of the pesticide Alar on apples by producers in the State of Washington. The implication of the report, if not directly charged in the presentation, was that the pesticide could be dangerous to human health and that the apple producers had failed to warn consumers. Apple sales did suffer in the wake of the telecast of the segment on "60 Minutes." The apple producers in the State of Washington brought suite against CBS for monetary damages. The charge was that the "60 Minutes" telecast had libeled their product. CBS successfully defended the charge in court because the apple producers were not able to establish without question that the reduction in apple sales was caused by the telecast. Thus, they could not prove that the telecast had caused them actual damage. Further, CBS has the truth on its side in that the apple producers did use the pesticide on their product. The claim by the apple producers that the amount of pesticide used was not harmful to human health was not sufficient for the courts to find against CBS' First Amendment rights to telecast the story.
In the wake of this case, agricultural producers in all parts of the country began pressuring their state legislatures to enact legislation that would provide them with stronger tools to combat those persons and institutions who spoke ill of their products. From this effort, 11 states by 1995 had enacted so-called "food disparagement" laws. Essentially, these laws (1) state that negative statements concerning agricultural products are illegal, unless (2) those individuals and institutions responsible for such statements can prove th...