Editing Food libel laws (section)

==Notable cases==

=== ''Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey'' ===
In 1998, television talk-show host [[Oprah Winfrey]] and one of her guests, [[Howard Lyman]], were involved in a lawsuit, commonly referred to as the Amarillo, Texas beef trial, surrounding the Texas version of a food libel law known as the ''False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act of 1995''. The words "Cows are herbivores. They shouldn't be eating other cows ... It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger."<ref>Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 688. {{cite news
   |title=Veggie Libel Laws: Attempts At Silencing Animal Rights Advocates
   |work=Civil Liberties Defense Center |url=https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel |date=2012-01-09}}</ref> were attributed to Winfrey as part of a 1996 episode of her show. It was accused that the two made disparaging comments about beef in relation to [[mad cow disease]]. Although they were not the first people to be sued using this type of legal action, this case created a media sensation.

In a normal U.S. libel suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. Under the [[Texas]] food disparagement law under which Winfrey and Lyman were sued, the plaintiffs—in this case, beef [[feedlot]] operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders—had to convince the jury that Lyman's statements on Winfrey's show were not "based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data."<ref>V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 96.003, accessible at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf</ref>  As a basis for the damages sought in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs noted that cattle futures dropped 10 percent the day after the episode, and that beef prices fell from 62 cents to 55 cents per pound.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mS38Lo5VVjMC&pg=PA377|title=Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment|author=Jennings, Marianne M.|year=2005|page=377|access-date=2009-12-28 | isbn=978-0-324-20488-9 | publisher=Cengage Learning}}</ref> Engler's attorneys argued that the rancher lost $6.7 million, and the plaintiffs sought to recoup total losses of more than $12 million.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/20/oprah.update/|publisher=CNN|title=Court shares light moment during Oprah jury selection|date=1998-01-20|access-date=2009-12-27}}</ref>

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://medialibel.org/cases-conflicts/tv/oprah.html|publisher=MediaLibel.org|title=Texas Cattlemen v. Oprah Winfrey|access-date=2009-12-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611094949/http://medialibel.org/cases-conflicts/tv/oprah.html|archive-date=2010-06-11|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, Winfrey no longer speaks publicly on the issue, and declines to make videotapes of the original interview available to inquiring journalists.<ref>{{cite book | author = Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber | title = Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here? | location = [[Madison, WI]] | publisher = Common Courage Press | year = 1997 | isbn = 1-56751-111-2 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/madcowusacouldni00ramp/page/192 192] | url = https://archive.org/details/madcowusacouldni00ramp/page/192 }}</ref>

=== ''Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News'' (Pink Slime case) ===
On March 7, 2012, [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] aired a segment dedicated to investigating a beef product called lean finely textured beef (LFTB) sold by the South Dakota beef company [[Beef Products Inc|Beef Products, Inc]] (BPI). ABC News correspondents, including [[Diane Sawyer]], reported on a whistleblower's claim that BPI's LFTB was used as a filler in the ground beef sold by many American beef companies, as a way of cutting costs. According to the unknown whistleblower and ABC News, BPI's LFTB was derived from beef trimmings sprayed with ammonia, and resembled "[[pink slime]]".<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/05/pink-slime-trial-begins/|title="Pink slime" or lean finely textured beef? Food defamation trial set to begin|date=2017-06-05|work=The Denver Post|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en-US}}</ref> Throughout March and April, ABC News continued to run segments and publish articles about BPI's LFTB, including publishing updates on the company's financial losses after the original segment's airing.<ref name=":7" />

On September 12, 2012, BPI sued ABC News for food disparagement under South Dakota's food libel legislation. They claimed that ABC News falsely portrayed their product, lean finely textured beef, as unfit for human consumption. BPI also claimed that ABC News' disparaging content led to serious financial damages for BPI. By their report, sales of BPI's LFTB dropped from five million to two million pounds per week, prompting the closure of three out of four production facilities and the lay-off of 700 employees. ABC News responded by calling for the case to be dismissed, arguing that it was within ABC News' First Amendment rights to investigate matters of possible concern to their viewers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nicole|first=Sasaki|date=Summer 2014|title=Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News: (Pink) Slimy Enough to Determine the Constitutionality of Agricultural Disparagement Laws?|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46713269.pdf|journal=Pace Environmental Law Review|volume=31|issue=3 |pages=771–802|doi=10.58948/0738-6206.1752 }}</ref>

The case went to trial in June, 2017. Under South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, BPI could have received as much as $5.7 billion in statutory trebled damages were ABC News found liable.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/pink-slime-lawsuit.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer|title=Trial Will Decide if ABC News Sullied a Company With 'Pink Slime'|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-news-braces-57-billion-pink-slime-trial-heart-trump-country-1009269|title=ABC News Braces for $5.7 Billion "Pink Slime" Trial in the Heart of Trump Country|work=The Hollywood Reporter|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en}}</ref> After the case had been tried for only three out of the expected eight weeks, ABC News and BPI reached a settlement of $177 million. At the time, this was the largest settlement recorded for a media defamation case. The terms of the settlement were not released.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/media/disney-abc-news-pink-slime-settlement/|title=Disney paying at least $177 million to settle 'pink slime' lawsuit|last=Kludt|first=Tom|work=CNNMoney|access-date=2018-11-19}}</ref>