The Cheeseburger's Threat To The First Amendment

As much as I would like to keep my blog light-hearted and hopefully a little funny, I decided to write about a very serious issue that threatens our First Amendment rights. It is a topic of which most Americans are completely unaware: food-disparagement laws.

Have you ever said, "Don't eat that (insert perishable junk food product here). It's so bad for you."? Well, you just broke the law in 13 states. Hard to believe, right? You broke what is commonly referred to as a food libel law or veggie libel law. Thirteen states have laws on the books preventing individuals, media and businesses from disparaging perishable food products.

Remember Oprah's beef rancher lawsuit? She was sued by cattle ranchers in Texas for an episode of her talk show about "mad cow disease". She made the comment, "It has just stopped me from eating another burger!". Cattle prices tumbled and she was subsequently sued for "false defamation of perishable food" and "business disparagement". After spending 1 million dollars defending the suit she won, but the Texas law remains unchanged. She also no longer speaks publicly on the issue.

Most of us generally know what is good for us and bad for us to eat. We make our choices and justify eating it in some way or another. In no way am I some sort of food "Nazi" screaming that everyone should ban all junk food. That would make me a hypocrite or very skinny. I LOVE a good cheeseburger and fries! As my "journey" to a healthier lifestyle for myself and my family continues I'm sure I will detour here and there to indulge in the American decadence that is junk food. But my point is simply this: we should all be allowed to question and/or criticize the food we eat. I'm not willing to eat a burger that came from a cow with mad cow disease. Is it wrong to be given the information to make that choice? According to Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas it is illegal to provide any information that may disparage perishable food items unless you have deep enough pockets to defend yourself.

So, what can we say and in what context can we talk about food safety? Basically, if you can't back it up with reliable data you could be responsible for paying restitution to whomever you may have offended. If I were to imply that beef is bad for you I could be sued. Sure, I can back it up with all sorts of information regarding some of the negative effects beef has on the body, but beef has many positive qualities too. It is really all in the eye of the beholder. The data regarding food can be twisted in any direction to suit the argument. In the majority of food libel cases the burden of proof falls on the defendant. Ultimately, this causes a "chilling effect" meaning that food critics will remain silent regarding certain topics for fear of retribution in the form of a very costly lawsuit.

What about the First Amendment? Does it not afford every American the freedom to speak freely with out fear of retribution? Here's a refresher:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Food libel laws challenge the very fabric of the First Amendment. They leave the door open for all industries to move towards legislating opinions about their products. Can you imagine poor little Calvin getting slapped with a lawsuit for urinating on the Ford or Chevy emblems? We are a free consumer nation and should be allowed to question our consumer goods and share those questions and concerns with others.

When mother and Food Safety Advocate, Barbara Kowalcyk, was asked in an interview for Food Inc., whether or not she eats meat anymore she would not answer for fear of a lawsuit. Why would a Food Safety Advocate be prompted to answer that question? In 2001 her two-and-a-half-year-old son died 12 days after eating a hamburger tainted with E. coli. In her case, she would probably win that lawsuit, but she still would have to bear the burden of litigation costs. When faced with plaintiffs with very deep pockets and teams of lawyers a mother on a fixed income doesn't stand a chance making it through a trial with her shirt on much less winning.

So, what does that mean for my little mutinous junk food blog? Well, I will choose my words carefully. I will continue to post recipes I try and like. I will continue to blog about current food issues that affect my family and happily dole out advice to my inquiring friends about food. I do not presume that all the food I buy at the grocery store is completely safe for my family nor do I presume that agribusiness is out to poison us all to meet their bottom line. I will just continue to learn more about the food we eat, try to make the best choices for my family, and share those choices and ideas with anyone who might be listening.