|
My disturbing experience is part of
a trend that is sweeping the country. We are losing one of
the basic tenets our country was founded upon: free speech. The
safety of food is mired in a deep, politically charged battle being
waged on many fronts: in Congress, convincing legislators of the
safety of many types of food and drugs; in the courts, silencing
consumers from voicing opinions; and in the media, via huge advertising
budgets.
Behind all of this is the fact that America's food has undergone
a startling change since World War II. The pastoral days of American
food production have been replaced by a gigantic, mechanized industrial
complex. In the last half-century, the modern food purveyors have
centered their efforts on the use of chemicals--many of which are
harmful--to produce larger crops, plumper livestock and better textured
and flavorful food with long shelf lives.
To achieve these goals, the food industry has assailed Congress
with more than 200 food-lobby groups. The deftly concealed agenda
of the food industry is not to nourish or even feed but to force
consumers into an ever-increasing dependence on processed foods.
Rather than valuing food for its ability to sustain health, it has
now become the object of catchy commercials with celebrity endorsements.
Modern food processing not only strips away natural anti-cancer
agents, but searing heat forms potent cancer-producing chemicals
in the process. In the end, it is consumers who suffer from the
alien food. These profound changes in our diet are leading to enormous
health consequences. Unfortunately, it is no coincidence that since
1950 cancer rates have steadily increased and are now at the highest
point in history. In the past few years, the food junta unveiled
its new business strategy. While parceling out a new wave of junk
foods, fresh from its chemistry laboratories, it conspired and began
its ominous push for food-libel laws. The fight began with a report
about Alar, the popular growth-regulator for apples that lessens
bruising and imparts a richer color. The Alar controversy erupted
in 1989, after a CBS-TV "60 Minutes" episode depicted
it as a cancer-causing agent. Promptly, apple sales plummeted. Many
schools banned fruit treated with Alar. The angry apple growers
sued CBS and lost. The manufacturer eventually stopped making it.
The food industry, embittered by the high-profile defeat, but intensified
efforts toward the new food libel laws. During the last decade,
at least a dozen states enacted these laws. Traditional libel
laws have stated that only a corporation or a living person can
be disparaged. But with the current food-libel statutes, former
President George Bush could be hauled into court for disparaging
broccoli.
The mere presence of these libel laws is forbidding. They can entangle
one in costly litigation, regardless of who wins the lawsuit. The
Texas cattlemen's case against Winfrey cost nearly $1 million to
defend at the trial level alone. That does not include the costs
of the federal case that is on appeal and another proceeding in
state court.
Winfrey's victory is largely a symbolic gesture, a last gasp of
free speech, since big industry can still drag anyone into court
for merely discussing food safety. The end result is the silence
of the majority of people who do not have the deep pockets or the
time necessary to stage costly legal battles.
Food is shipped to market from all corners of the world, and consumers
now have more reason to be watchful than ever before. Free speech
is vital to those who speak on food safety issues. Food libel laws
have made a mockery of our First Amendment rights to free speech
and need to be quickly repealed. The public has every right to know
about the safety and nutritional value of the food it purchases
and eats.
J. Robert Hatherill, a Research Scientist and Faculty Member
of the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, is the
author of Eat to Beat Cancer (Renaissance Books 1999)
|
