e existence of a "sound scientific basis" for the statements. The term "sound scientific basis" is as vague as is the term "negative statement," as almost anything that is not outright complimentary may be construed to be negative. Further, these laws go beyond common law applicable to defamation and libel by holding the plaintiffs do not need to prove that they suffered any actual damages as a result of such "negative statements." The common law torts of defamation and injurious falsehood require that plaintiffs establish that they were injured by such acts. Further, the right of free speech, absolute in its express text, does not protect against either libel or slander. Thus, if a person or an institution makes a statement about another person or institution that is injurious to the part affected by the statement, that statement must be true, if the maker of the statement is to successfully avoid a charge of libel or slander.
When the existence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) among British cattle became public knowledge in the mid-1990s, consumers around the world became somewhat wary of beef. The quite natural tendency toward nervousness was abetted by several well publicized incidences of Escherichia Coli 0157: H7 (e-coli) contamination in beef products in the United States during the decade of the 1990s. Additionally, agricultural products other than beef had been implicated in e-coli incidents in the United States.
When the first major e-coli incident involving beef occurred in the 1990s, there were public calls for improved inspections of meat processing plants. The beef industry fought these proposals as hard as the tobacco companies have been fighting against attacks on their products. Their efforts were largely successful, and e-coli contamination in beef products continue to occur in the United States.
In the wake of the BSE alarm, the television program Oprah Winfrey televised a segment whe...