Florida farm bill favors Big Ag over free speech, opponents say
Advocates for human health and the environment are pushing back against a Florida farm bill that would punish the spread of “false information” about agriculture, decrying a measure they say violates free speech rights and silences public debate about harmful farming practices.
The controversial provision took center stage at a Florida House Agriculture & Natural Resources Budget subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, when about 20 members of the public came from across the state to voice their opposition.
Section 47 of Florida House Bill 433 (HB 433) would amend an existing Florida food libel law, allowing agricultural producers to pursue compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees from people who disparage food products or farming practices by publicly spreading “false information that an agricultural food product is not safe for human consumption.”
A similar bill (SB 290) is currently stalled in the state’s Senate.
Section 47 of the bill defines “disparagement” as “the willful or malicious dissemination to the public in any manner of any false information that an agricultural food product is not safe for human consumption. False information is that information which is not based on reliable, scientific facts and reliable, scientific data which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false.”
This wording is unclear and could be interpreted in different ways, David Muraskin, managing director for litigation for the group FarmSTAND, told The New Lede.
“If they’re trying to limit conversations based on what a conservative legislature deems unscientific that’s unconstitutional,” he said. “If they’re trying to say you can’t give out information you know is false … it’s still concerning, but there’s narrower concern.”
The provision would make HB 433 the latest in a long line of so-called “veggie libel” laws that limit what journalists and other members of the public are allowed to say about agricultural products and how they are made, with 13 states currently having laws in the books that protect the agriculture industry from disparagement.
Veggie libel laws have been around since the 1990s and gained widespread attention in 1998, when talk show host Oprah Winfrey famously won a lawsuit filed by the Texas beef industry for comments on her talk show about the industry and mad cow disease.
Several states have so-called “Ag-Gag laws” designed to prevent animal rights groups from conducting undercover investigations of agricultural facilities.
“My guess is this is the next iteration of sleight of hand maneuvers to try to keep information from getting to the public,” said Muraskin.
Opponents of the HB 433 provision fear it will fuel pesticide manufacturers’ efforts to silence critics and stifle public debate over the health harms of their products. The move comes as an industry alliance formed by chemical giant Bayer has been pushing for laws that would make it harder for consumers to sue over alleged health risks of the products.
“The ‘disparagement’ provision creates a chilling effect on open and honest debate on the hazards of pesticides and the threat that pesticides used in agricultural production pose to health and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of the nonprofit Beyond Pesticides.
“The legislative language will lead to costly nuisance lawsuits that will stifle the full and fair public disclosure and dialogue on illness and adverse ecosystem effects of pesticides,” he said. “On the flip side, the chemical industry and its allies can continue, under this proposed provision, to misrepresent the safety of pesticides with impunity.”
The bill would be a boon to Florida’s sugar industry, the group Friends of the Everglades said in a statement, preventing criticism of controversial practices such as burning sugarcane fields before harvest.
Public health activist and MAHA movement supporter Kelly Ryerson, known as “Glyphosate Girl,” issued a call to action urging Floridians to ask their representatives to strike Section 47, saying it silences pesticide critics and sets a dangerous free speech precedent.
“The fact that we are here defending our right to free speech I find bizarre,” Rufus Wakeman, who owns a recreational facility on the Saint Lucie River in Florida, said at the hearing. Most people present at the hearing would be bankrupted if they were hit with lawsuits after stating “sugar is bad to your health” or “Roundup glyphosate causes cancer,” he said.
“We’re living in a time where chronic disease is on the uprise,” Amy McBride, executive director of the Global Wellness Forum, said at the hearing. “We should have a right to speak to the foods that are harming us.”
Rep. David Borrero defended Section 47 at the hearing, saying he believes it complies with the Constitution because “it only gives someone a cause of action when it causes harm, when it causes reputational damage.”
Florida Rep. Danny Alvarez, one of the bill’s sponsors, hinted at plans to alter the provision as the bill moves forward.
“While we can’t really get into the details right now, I want to make sure everyone understands that those folks are being heard,” said Alvarez at the hearing. “We’re dealing with that and we’ll be coming back to the next committee with a change that should make everybody pretty happy.”
The bill will next move to the State Affairs Committee.
Featured image by Salah Ait Mokhtar on Unsplash.
