Beef Products, Inc. (or “BPI”) is mad. You may have never heard of BPI, but you have probably heard of their product, lean finely-textured beef (“LFTB”). Of late, LFTB has gained some prominence in the public eye under the slightly more-descriptive name “pink slime.”
[BPI] has just filed a defamation (“veggie libel”) lawsuit for $1.2 billion (!) against an amazing cast of characters:
- ABC News (owned by Disney)
- TV news anchor Diane Sawyer
- ABC correspondent Jim Avila
- ABC correspondent David Kerley
- Gerald Zirnstein , former USDA employee who invented the term “pink slime”
- Carl Custer, former USDA employee
- Kit Foshee, whistleblower former BPI employee
From what I understand, the concern is not just that the concept of “pink slime” is kind of gross. People have raised health concerns as well, due to questions of ammonia content or something. BPI disputes that the process that involves ammonia poses any danger to consumers.
I get that we cannot expect, as end users in a vast, complex society, to receive our consumer goods in anything much resembling their natural state. We’ve probably all been to Subway or Blimpie and seen the giant cylindrical loaves of turkey (just like the Pilgrims ate!)
I do think, however, that we consumers have a right to accurate and comprehensive information about the food we eat. Food producers that oppose requirements to provide such information, frankly, scare the crap out of me, for any number of reasons. South Dakota, along with my native Texas, has a veggie libel law that prohibits taking photos or videos of food production facilities. Don’t get me started.
BPI, by filing a lawsuit that will eventually include a discovery process, may have opened the door to learning more about what is in their LFTB. I don’t really have the energy today to read the entire 263-page complaint, but I can skim it for you. Apparently the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved LFTB in 1993, and it approved the “ammonium hydroxide process” in 2001. BPI had enjoyed success, due to high demand for LFTB, before the ABC network ran an episode of Jamie Oliver’s “Food Revolution” in April 2011, in which Jamie Oliver allegedly made multiple false statements about LFTB. BPI alleges that Oliver intended to convince consumers that LFTB was neither safe nor healthy. ABC presented all of this as factual, etc., etc.
The lawsuit alleges various common law claims for defamation, tortious interference with business contracts, and violations of the Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, South Dakota’s own veggie libel law. Lawyer-blogger Jonathan Turley (who is far more qualified to opine on the legal aspects than I) notes the similarity to the 2000 Fifth Circuit decision in Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, in which the court threw out defamation claims against Oprah Winfrey over statements made on her show about the safety of the beef supply. Turley has doubts about BPI’s lawsuit, and perhaps the constitutionality of South Dakota’s veggie libel law itself:
Calling a product “slime” is in my view clearly opinion and the inclusion of the scientist in my view is vexatious and unfounded. Likewise, the targeting of ABC raises serious questions of freedom of the press and the threat posed by tort liability vis-a-vis the first amendment. I would bet against the viability of the lawsuit in the long run absent a showing of clearly false statements as opposed to opinion.
