Legal Definitions - agricultural-product-disparagement law

Agricultural-product-disparagement law refers to specific statutes designed to protect producers of agricultural goods from false statements that harm the reputation or marketability of their products. These laws, sometimes colloquially known as "veggie libel laws," make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and food companies to sue individuals or organizations that spread untrue information about their perishable food products, livestock, or farming practices, leading to economic losses.

Unlike general defamation laws, these statutes often have unique provisions regarding proof of falsity, intent, or damages, reflecting the perishable nature and rapid market response to negative publicity concerning food items. The intent is to provide a legal avenue for agricultural producers to recover damages when their products are unfairly and falsely maligned, causing financial harm.

Here are some examples illustrating how agricultural-product-disparagement law might apply:

• Example 1: False Claims by a Social Media Influencer

  A popular social media influencer, without any scientific evidence, posts a video claiming that all organic strawberries from a specific region are contaminated with a dangerous, unlisted pesticide, urging followers to boycott them. Following this post, grocery stores report a significant drop in sales of strawberries from that region, and farmers face substantial financial losses due to unsold produce.

  This situation could trigger agricultural-product-disparagement law because the influencer made a false statement about an agricultural product (organic strawberries from a specific region) that directly led to a measurable decline in sales and economic harm for the farmers. The law would allow the affected strawberry farmers to sue the influencer for the damages caused by the untrue and disparaging claims.

• Example 2: Misinformation Campaign by an Advocacy Group

  An animal welfare advocacy group launches a widespread campaign asserting, without factual basis, that a particular brand of commercially raised chicken is unsafe for consumption due to its farming practices, which they falsely claim involve unsanitary conditions leading to widespread bacterial contamination. As a result, major restaurant chains and grocery stores pull the chicken product from their menus and shelves, causing severe financial losses for the poultry producer.

  In this instance, the advocacy group's unsubstantiated claims directly disparage an agricultural product (commercially raised chicken) and a specific producer. If these claims are proven false and result in substantial financial losses for the chicken producer, agricultural-product-disparagement law could allow the producer to sue the group for the economic damage caused by the misinformation campaign.

• Example 3: Competitor Spreading False Information

  A large dairy company launches an advertising campaign that falsely implies a rival's milk, which is sourced from cows fed a specific type of non-GMO corn, is inherently less nutritious and contains harmful additives, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This campaign leads consumers to believe the rival's milk is inferior, causing a significant drop in sales for the competitor.

  This scenario involves a competitor making false or misleading statements about another company's agricultural product (milk from cows fed non-GMO corn). If the rival dairy company can prove that these statements are untrue and have caused a measurable decline in their milk sales, agricultural-product-disparagement law could be invoked to hold the first company accountable for the economic harm resulting from the disparaging claims.