producers of perishable foods; in many ways the provisions of each state’s statute are analogous, but some provisions vary. The state to adopt one of these statutes was Colorado in 1991. In the wake of the Auvil vs. CBS controversial case, a Colorado state representative, who also happened to be an apple producer, proposed a food disparagement bill. The bill was passed by the legislature but was then vetoed by the state Governor. The Governor argued the First Amendment right to freedom of speech as his reason for vetoing the bill. Because of this veto, Colorado has no statutory cause of action for agricultural and food disparagement. The state legislature evaded the Governor’s veto by amending a state criminal statute to include a provision that made it illegal to make false and disparaging statements about food products. Colorado is the only one of the thirteen states that does not have an independent statute for food disparagement. All of the statutes share one thing in common, that is they strictly apply to food products. The reasoning behind this is that false statements should not “perishable” seriously adversely affect products whose marketability is not diminished by time. The assumption is that eventually the truth will come out and the demand for these products will recover. Perishable products that only have a short shelf life are more likely to endure negative effects. The statutes are somewhat similar in structures, in addition to all providing protection for perishable food products. For example, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and Alabama have almost identical statutes that contain four general provisions. The first is a statement that indicates why it is important to protect food products. The second is a short definitions section of what the provisions of the law mean, as in what does disparagement and perishable mean. The third is a statement of
producers of perishable foods; in many ways the provisions of each state’s statute are analogous, but some provisions vary. The state to adopt one of these statutes was Colorado in 1991. In the wake of the Auvil vs. CBS controversial case, a Colorado state representative, who also happened to be an apple producer, proposed a food disparagement bill. The bill was passed by the legislature but was then vetoed by the state Governor. The Governor argued the First Amendment right to freedom of speech as his reason for vetoing the bill. Because of this veto, Colorado has no statutory cause of action for agricultural and food disparagement. The state legislature evaded the Governor’s veto by amending a state criminal statute to include a provision that made it illegal to make false and disparaging statements about food products. Colorado is the only one of the thirteen states that does not have an independent statute for food disparagement. All of the statutes share one thing in common, that is they strictly apply to “perishable” food products. The reasoning behind this is that false statements should not seriously adversely affect products whose marketability is not diminished by time. The assumption is that eventually the truth will come out and the demand for these products will recover. Perishable products that only have a short shelf life are more likely to endure negative effects. The statutes are somewhat similar in structures, in addition to all providing protection for perishable food products. For example, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and Alabama have almost identical statutes that contain four general provisions. The first is a statement that indicates why it is important to protect food products. The second is a short definitions section of what the provisions of the law mean, as in what does disparagement and perishable mean. The third is a statement of
Mullins_Thesis.docx