 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
It's an unfortunate commentary on our society when it's necessary to pass a law to encourage people to tell the truth. But that's the world we live in now, and that's why agricultural disparagement laws are necessary. The origin of ag disparagement laws dates back ten years. In 1989, the television show "60 Minutes," at the encouragement of an activist group called the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), aired a report on Alar in apples that was inflammatory and highly damaging to the apple industry. The ensuing frenzy saw mothers dumping apple juice down the sink and removing the allegedly deadly fruit from their children's lunch boxes. The report devastated the U.S. apple industry and put some apple growers out of business. So they sued. One of the arguments the defendants ("60 Minutes" and the NRDC) used in the litigation was that farmers could not recover damages in a defamation case even if they proved that the defendants hurt farmers by knowingly presenting false information. They argued, successfully, that farmers are too remote from the defamatory statements to be entitled to recovery. So, in spite of the fact that the claims made on the show had no basis in science, the apple growers lost their suit and were told by the court that they had no legal protection from false and disparaging statements made against the product they produce. In response, agricultural producers in 13 states asked for and received protection. The law closes a legal loophole established by the precedence set by the Alar case and gives producers of perishable ag products similar protection to that enjoyed by other businessmen. Because of the perishability of some ag products, including beef, an ag producer usually has a very narrow window, sometimes just a few weeks, to sell an entire year's worth of work. When false and disparaging statements about the products they produce are made--and economic, hard dollar damage results--it has the potential to wipe out a year's worth of income. Existing ag disparagement laws are the only shield that producers, be they carrot growers or cattle feeders, have to set the record straight and reclaim some of the damage they suffer. Opponents of these laws are, in effect, telling farmers and ranchers, "Tough luck. Your livelihood, the livelihood of your family and employees and the economic damage you suffer are not worthy of legal protection." That's wrong. And these ag disparagement laws do not take issue with free speech. Certain tests must be met in order to use this law as legal protection. The person making the false and disparaging statements knew they were false and the statements resulted in economic damage. Ag disparagement laws merely require members of society to engage in responsible speech and to be accountable for what they say. Ag producers don't think it's unreasonable to hold people to that standard. All Americans value free speech and the right to protect oneself against attack. It is in that spirit that ag disparagement laws were enacted. It is in that spirit that every American should join ag producers in the effort to keep these laws on the books. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||