After talk-show host Oprah Winfrey raised a scare about the safety of U.S. hamburger, outraged Texas cattle producers struck back with lawsuits, claiming that her program cost them $11 million through a drop in cattle prices.
The television program in question featured a guest who claimed the U.S. was threatened by an epidemic of mad-cow disease. Winfrey endorsed his wild allegations by stating she would never eat a hamburger again.
Part of the producers’ suit rested on the so-called “veggie libel” laws, common in many states, dealing with false and alarmist accusations against perishable foods. The special-interest laws were a response to a scare campaign against Alar-treated apples.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
The second part of the Texas lawsuit relied on conventional civil law, where people can sue for economic injury caused by the wrongs of others.
The judge quickly disallowed the first part of the producers’ case, and last week the jury rejected the second.
As unpopular as that result may be among cattle producers, it was probably the most sensible outcome.
The questionable “veggie libel” laws have created an uncomfortable impression of food producers wanting unusually severe restrictions on freedom of speech. If strictly implemented, they could raise consumer concern that the food industry has something to hide.
The conventional part of the lawsuit was more solid, but not strong enough to overcome the jury’s concerns about freedom of speech and other factors.
Sometimes, it is difficult to guess exactly why commodity prices move up or down, let alone prove it in court.
Unless claimants can prove there was sustained, deliberate and malicious misinformation, defendants’ right to free speech should tend to prevail.
The best place to counter remarks like Winfrey’s is the court of public opinion. After all, the public’s verdict on food safety ultimately counts for far more than a single court decision. U.S. cattle producers would not be helped by a dozen juries finding Winfrey guilty, if a hundred million Americans nevertheless refuse to eat hamburger.
And in the court of public opinion, producers won a clear victory. Industry evidence convincingly demonstrated that there is no danger of an epidemic of mad-cow disease in the U.S.
“We did accomplish that main objective,” a Texas cattle producer said, “to convince the U.S. people, the consumers, that U.S. beef is safe.”
Hopefully, they also reassured themselves that a celebrity like Winfrey is a phantom threat. An industry with a good product and good public information has nothing to fear from one off-base outburst, even by a TV star.
