Dozens of Organizations Fight State Laws That Allow Suits Against Food Activists

Laws enacted in more than a dozen states now make it much easier for farmers or ranchers

to sue people or organizations who challenge their products’ safety.

But some three dozen organizations have joined forces to oppose “food-disparagement” legislation. Such laws hold people civilly liable for criticizing perishable foodstuffs as unsafe for human consumption, unless they can produce convincing scientific evidence in support of their claims.

“These laws are a frontal attack on the provision of consumer information to the public,” says Ronald K. L. Collins, who heads the FoodSpeak coalition from his office at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in Washington.

The laws, which 14 states have passed and at least 8 more are considering, are patterned on model legislation drafted by the American Feed Industry Association after a 1989 controversy over the chemical Alar had caused apple sales to plummet.

“We needed legislation to prevent food scares,” explains Rex A. Runyon, the association’s vice president for public relations. “We needed a law that would encourage responsible science and would cause speakers to think twice about what they’re saying. The law is not designed to stifle free speech, but it addresses accountability and a reckless disregard for the truth.”

Yet to a broad swath of the non-profit world, such laws seem pernicious. The FoodSpeak coalition includes such disparate groups as the Alliance for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Greenpeace, the National Writers Union, Public Citizen, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the United Farm Workers. All members share “a common belief that public discussion should be robust and unfettered” when it comes to issues of food policy and safety, Mr. Collins says. “We’re all aware there’s an alligator in the tub, and it’s posing a real problem.”

That alligator sometimes bites without warning. The Ohio Public Interest Research Group, for example, discovered in 1997 that Buckeye Egg Farm, the state’s largest egg supplier, was rewashing old eggs and repackaging them with fresh eggs for sale with later expiration dates.

The organization filed suit against Buckeye to halt the practice. At a news conference announcing the action, Amy Simpson, Ohio PIRG’s director, said: “We have no idea how many — if any — consumers have been made ill from consuming these eggs.”

Some weeks later, Ms. Simpson learned that she and her organization had been named in a countersuit seeking compensation under Ohio’s food-disparagement law.

“We weren’t even aware of the law when it passed,” she says. Buckeye dropped the suit a year later, after a First Amendment expert at a large Cleveland law firm had agreed to represent Ms. Simpson and the Ohio PIRG on a pro bono basis.

Groups that criticize food run the risk of attracting a major lawsuit that might exhaust their resources even if they ultimately win, Mr. Collins says.

“Most people can’t afford the year of litigation,” he says. “They can’t afford to stay in the game. The impact is quite chilling for people who speak out.”