Editing Food libel laws (section)

== Origins ==
On February 26, 1989, CBS News' ''[[60 Minutes]]'' aired a segment entitled {{"'}}A' is for Apple", in which ''60 Minutes'' anchors investigated a report published by the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] on the safety of [[daminozide]], a growth regulator used on apples to preserve their freshness. The NRDC, and ''60 Minutes'' along with them, claimed that daminozide, sold under the brand name Alar, was [[carcinogen]]ic, especially when consumed by children.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nrdc.org/stories/all-about-alar|title=All About Alar|work=NRDC|access-date=2018-11-17|language=en}}</ref> According to the report, Alar remained in apple skin even after processing, meaning that not only raw apples, but also apple products, like apple juice and apple sauce, could pose health risks.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Cain|first=Rita|date=Fall 2011|title=Food, Inglorious Food: Food Safety, Food Libel and Free Speech|journal=American Business Law Journal|ssrn=1905136}}</ref>

Immediately after the segment aired, consumers panicked and apple sales declined by nearly 60% nationwide. Growers reported revenue losses of $100M as a result.<ref name=":4" /> Seeking recompense, eleven Washington State apple growers banded together to sue CBS for [[trade libel]]: the intentional publication of false information about a product. Trade libel laws stipulate that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, meaning that the growers needed to prove in court by "[[Burden of proof (law)#Preponderance of the evidence|the preponderance of the evidence]]" that ''60 Minutes{{'}}'' claims about daminozide's carcinogenicity were dubious in order for the jury to decide in their favor.<ref name=":3">{{Cite thesis |last=Mullins|first=Kathleen|date=Spring 2011|title=Oprah Winfrey v. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act|url=https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=honorscollege_history |type=Honors thesis |publisher=State University of New York at Albany }}</ref> The growers failed to do so, and their case was dismissed as a result.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846757/Cochran.html?sequence=2|title=State Agricultural Disparagement Statutes: Suing Chicken Little|last=Daniel|first=Cochran|date=2001|publisher=Harvard University|language=en|access-date=2018-11-08}}</ref> In response, lobbyists affiliated with the agricultural industry began to campaign for stricter trade libel laws ''specific'' to agricultural products. They argued that agricultural products deserved special protections because of their perishability: they might spoil before the truth of claims regarding their safety had been verified. As a result, thirteen states adopted food libel laws, which offer larger settlement sums than regular trade libel laws and, unlike trade libel laws, often place the burden of proof on a case's defendant, rather than its plaintiff.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/pink-slimemarketing-uncertainty-and-risk-in-the-24-hour-news-cycle/pink-slime-and-the-legal-history-of-food-disparagement|title=Pink Slime and the Legal History of Food Disparagement|first1=Erika K. |last1=Eckley |first2=Roger A. |last2=McEowen|work=Choices Magazine Online|language=en|access-date=2018-11-08}}</ref>

''The Economist'' reported that "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) eventually decided that [[Alar]] was indeed a carcinogen."<ref name=AlarCan.Econ94>{{cite magazine  |magazine=[[The Economist]] |title=Agrivation |date=November 26, 1994 |page=28}}</ref>