After facing press accounts depicting its product as “pink slime,” Beef Products Inc. has brought a defamation action in South Dakota against ABC News Inc.and ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer for damages from the coverage. Notably, the lawsuit also includes Gerald Zirnstein, a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist, as a defendant. It was Zirnstein who reportedly coined the catchy phrase “pink slime” for the beef product. The company is seeking $400 million in claimed actual and consequential damages, treble damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.
The product widely called “pink slime” is what the industry calls lean finely textured beef (LFTB) and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT). It is made by heating the fatty trimmings that remain after cattle carcasses are cut into roasts or steaks. The process involves a centrifuge that separates the bits of lean mean the scraps contain.
The company is alleging that the defendants convinced many that it was producing “some kind of repulsive, horrible, vile substance that got put into ground beef and hidden from consumers.” It is alleging that the coverage led to massive layoffs and the closure of three of four of the company’s plants.
The lawsuit includes claims of common-law product disparagement, violation of the South Dakota Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act and tortious interference with prospective business relationships. The lawsuit bears a strong resemblance to some other lawsuits involving disastrous coverage. The two leading examples both ended in losses for the Plaintiffs, though these lawsuits are often motivated by a desire to educate the public through litigation.
The first such case that comes to mind is Auvil v. CBS, 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1996). Sixty Minutes was showed after airing “A is for Apple,” a story criticizing the growers for their use of Alar, a chemical sprayed on apples. The shows devastated apple sales, but both the district court and the appellate court ruled for CBS. In a statement with obvious bearing on the current case, the Ninth Circuit stressed:
We also note that, if we were to accept the growers’ argument, plaintiffs bringing suit based on disparaging speech would escape summary judgment merely by arguing, as the growers have, that a jury should be allowed to determine both the overall message of a broadcast and whether that overall message is false. Because a broadcast could be interpreted in numerous, nuanced ways, a great deal of uncertainty would arise as to the message conveyed by the broadcast. Such uncertainty would make it difficult for broadcasters to predict whether their work would subject them to tort liability. Furthermore, such uncertainty raises the spectre of a chilling effect on speech.
The second case that comes to mind is Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 2000). The case is based on a show involving Oprah Winfrey called the “Dangerous Food” show, which dealt with “Mad Cow Disease.” Winfrey discussed the new-variant CJD in Britain. After hearing from various experts on the dangers of Mad Cow Disease, Oprah stated that she would not eat ground beef. Showing the power of Oprah, the court reported that “following the April 16, 1996, broadcast of the “Dangerous Food” program, the fed cattle market in the Texas Panhandle dropped drastically. In the week before the show aired, finished cattle sold for approximately $61.90 per hundred weight. After the show, the price of finished cattle dropped as low as the mid-50’s; the volume of sales also went down. The cattlemen assert that the depression continued for approximately eleven weeks.” The industry sued but lost before a Texas jury.
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.
Source: WSJ
This is once again an example of a powerful corporation trying to shut down the free speech rights of other groups. There is a marketplace of ideas and this group doesn’t like it. If I want to call this stuff pink slime, I am within my right.
When I first read about “Pink Slime” and how it was used in pet food I started buying my cats a better grade of canned cat food. True story.
Pink slime is to meat
as
American Courts are to justice
Yeah, gimme somma THAT!
Quote: ‘The company is alleging that the defendants convinced many that it was producing “some kind of repulsive, horrible, vile substance that got put into ground beef and hidden from consumers.”’
Until someone tells me I no longer can legally represent myself as an American consumer – that’s EXACTLY what happened. I was never offered meat-based sludge, and if I had been I would have refused it.
This is a lot like when the original marijuana laws were passed. The campaigning for those laws exclusively used the terror-inducing word “marijuana” rather than “hemp” or “cannabis”, which would have alerted local growers to coming changes they didn’t actually want. In a reverse but highly similar way, while this stuff hasn’t been outright hidden from consumers, the proponents of it are calling it LFTB and BLBT and hoping the public’s eyes will glaze over at the science of it because they didn’t instead use the phrase “all the crap we found on the floor at the end of the shift, then added ammonia to”.
Seriously. If the news of it had happened first, as in, a public discourse to decide whether to go that route, I believe most of us would have told the original LFTB innovator that he was batnuts in the head and shouldn’t quit his day job.
Bottom line at the end of the day is that while there may have been laws that were followed in letter, they were not observed in spirit. Producers and consumers involved are quite clear that something got pulled over the consumers’ eyes and now those that did it are embarrassed at being caught. Nobody sane involved in this has any real question about the right and wrong of it. BFI is nothing more at this point than a child trying to manipulate less punishment and consequences for actions they knew better to commit in the first place.
The product widely called “pink slime” is what the industry calls lean finely textured beef (LFTB) and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT). It is made by heating the fatty trimmings that remain after cattle carcasses are cut into roasts or steaks. The process involves a centrifuge that separates the bits of lean mean the scraps contain.
The company is alleging that the defendants convinced many that it was producing “some kind of repulsive, horrible, vile substance that got put into ground beef and hidden from consumers.” It is alleging that the coverage led to massive layoffs and the closure of three of four of the company’s plants.
======
Worked at a ConAgra beef plant for a little over three years. They don’t waste anything.
There are advantages to being vegetarian.
It’s about responsible reporting.
Not only is pink slime treated with ammonia, but when they are rendering CAFO meat the source is already contaminated with steroids, hormones and mutated bacteria from feed lot antibiotic use.
Just buy healthy meat, grass fed beef, free range chicken and pastured pigs. This is the only meat that has the healthy Omega 3 fats intact. The reason doctors started warning people about red meat is because CAFO meat is entirely changed by the feed lot system- the fats become imbalanced with more Omega 6 than Omega 3. Grass fed beef is one of the healthiest foods one can eat.
There was a ‘report’ that ‘tick bites’ were making people allergic to meat. This is a huge diversion- the same allergies are showing up in people who consume GMO grains and vegetable oils. I would like them to do a tandem study on grass fed beef vs CAFO beef- I would bet the ‘allergies’ would not show up in people eating ethically raised beef fed on grass.
So, just say “No” to CAFO meat entirely if you value your health. Very glad this company is going out of business- the food agriculture giants are going to be forced to change the way they produce food when people get tired of being sickened by Big Ag.
Big Ag makes us sick so Big Pharma can sell us drugs.
I am unique in that I like the smell of ammonia, although I don’t want to eat it. When I played football they had ammonia capsules for when you got your bell rung. I would tell the trainer I needed them just to get the smell..and jolt. When I was in college we had a janitor called Ammonia Ed. When Ed cleaned the bathrooms he used straight ammonia. Guys on my floor would go to other floors after Ed cleaned. I had the whole bathroom to myself. It was great on hangover mornings. I love the smell of skunks, it evokes summer evenings of my youth.
Mike,
I wrote a post about pink slime earlier this year.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Pink slime is produced by grinding together low-grade trimmings like connective tissue, cow intestines, and beef scraps that would normally be destined for dog food and rendering. (Such trimmings are said to come from the parts of the cow that are highly exposed to fecal matter.) The ground concoction is then simmered in low heat in a centrifuge in order to separate fat and tissue and treated with ammonia-hydroxide to kill pathogens, including salmonella and E. Coli. ‘The resulting pinkish substance is later blended into traditional ground beef and hamburger patties.’ The United States Department of Agriculture says it’s safe to eat.”
*****
It’s been reported that pink slime is a “filler” that can be found in approximately 70% of hamburger meat that is sold in supermarkets. Carl Custer, a retired microbiologist, said that the treated beef trimmings were originally called “soylent pink.”
I only buy ground meat from a small local market that grinds the meat on its premises.
Elaine,
Of course I read and became aware of the issue because of your post.
“The company is alleging that the defendants convinced many that it was producing “some kind of repulsive, horrible, vile substance that got put into ground beef and hidden from consumers.”
In other words the defendants were telling the truth to a public who had no idea that the “lean” hamburger they were buying, at a premium price, had been doctored with chemicals and renderings. Since this story I still buy chopped meat but have stopped paying a premium for “lean” beef that is doctored. The companies loss comes from their overcharging for a misrepresented product has been discovered, too bad for them.
I echo Darren’s simple solution to this dilemma for food manufacturers:
“I believe the lesson to be taught is if a company does not want to have a news agency like CBS or ABC broadcast or publish devastating news about a product which results in the company ruination, maybe it might be worthwhile to not put unhealthy ingredients in it.”
I saw first hand the effect of the Alar Scare resulting in the lawsuit here Auvil v. CBS, I grew up about 15 miles south of Grady Auvil’s orchards. The economic damage for that year and to a lesser degree the second harvest did put many orchardists out of business and it had a ripple effect affecting packing sheds, fruit brokers, and thousands of employees. It was a considerable shock to parts of Eastern WA.
I can understand the need to protect economic interests from libelous torts but (such as food being laced with mercury when it is not) but if there is truth in the matter, it has little standing in court.
I believe the lesson to be taught is if a company does not want to have a news agency like CBS or ABC broadcast or publish devastating news about a product which results in the company ruination, maybe it might be worthwhile to not put unhealthy ingredients in it.
There are many businesses out there which pride themselves with their wholesome products, some offering tours of their facilities to showcase this to the public.
But in regard to those who put gross things into food, rendering it as sludge, well what do you expect?
Well, if it looks like pink slime, feels like pink slime, and tastes like…..oh heck no, I am not going there.
All defense counsel is going to have to do is bring a bucket of the stuff into court and set it in front of the jury. After that, they will not need to argue the case.
Truth…. People need little of….. Then again…. Red ipsa loquitor…..
Where are the damages? The idea of ammonia added to the meat just sounds so tasty!?
Is this an adversary case in their chapter 11 bankruptcy (CSM)?
Looks kinda’ like pink slime to me:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Scientist+coined+Pink+Slime+reluctant+whistleblower/6360938/story.html
If only citizens could collectively sue for media coverage causing US catastrophic harms to make journalists think twice before propagandizing (See “NDAA 2013 Legalizing US Propaganda: Could it Make Americans Less Gullible?” http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/2012/08/defense-bill-legalizing-us-state.html
The main reason it is called pink slime is the addition of ammonia and preservative compounds. Most consumers objected to the additives.