For Thursday, January 15, 1998 Drummer Column, Gibbs, 707 words

Veggie wedgie

I'm bugged by food disparagement legislation. Aren't you?

Food disparagement laws can hold a person libel for making denigrating comments about fruits, vegetables, and meat. Texas Emu farmers sued Honda Motors a while back for implying in a humorous car commercial that emu farming was a dead-end job.

Now, Texas cattle ranchers, led by Paul Engler, owner of an Amarillo cattle-feeding operation, are suing Oprah Winfrey and former cattleman/present Humane Society official Howard Lyman for bad-mouthing beef.

Lyman was a guest back in April. I happened to be watching that day. After explaining to Oprah and her 20-million-member audience about "mad cow" disease and how 100,000 cows in this country drop dead annually for no known reason and are ground up and fed to other cows, Oprah exclaimed, "It has just stopped me from eating another burger!"

The next day beef prices dropped with a plop. Engler claimed the "Oprah Crash" ultimately cost him 6.7 million and sued everybody involved.

Texas isn't the only state with agricultural libel laws. Thirteen states, including Colorado, North Dakota, and Oklahoma make it a crime to falsely accuse fruits and vegetables of wrong-doing.

The argument is that these natural foodstuffs are perishable and highly vulnerable to bad publicity. If Seinfeld claims that peppers make him impotent, the peppers can't wait for their reputation to return. They miss their market. They rot in shame.

To quote the prophetic words of Engler's lawyer, Michael St. Denis: "You can't sit on fruit for six weeks."

California legislators have twice shot down attempts to bring a "veggie libel" law to California. Some said the recent bill, pushed by growers, was aimed at the farm laborers union because of rumors of a planned boycott on strawberries. Under the new legislation, those who boycott perishable items would be subject to litigation.

That's just the tip of the 'berg. The repercussions would go far beyond strawberries.

We would never get to see "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes III." The horror film "Pumpkinhead" would be pulled from the shelves. "Fruit of the Loom" would be asked to move up their labels. Letterman shows that involve hurtling watermelons off of tall buildings would have their signals scrambled at the border. George Bush would become a wanted fugitive for disliking broccoli. And no more slipping on bananas.

Seriously, produce can be damaged unfairly by bad reporting. Remember last year when a Texas health official blamed the cyclospora outbreak on strawberries? Later the parasites were traced to Guatemalan raspberries. It was too late, however, for the strawberries. The industry lost about $30 million dollars nationwide.

Remember alar and the apple? California and Washington apple growers lost $500 million after a 1989 episode of "60 Minutes" questioned the safety of spraying apples with a growth regulator. The industry suffered a serious setback; however, the spraying did stop.

That's one of the reasons why California has resisted the legislation. We consider the "veggie libel" law a health risk. If a health inspector or journalist had to fear litigation whenever he gave an unflattering report on the food industry, it would seriously hamper open safety debates.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of poking fun at pickles or slamming yams, unfairly. I've never joked that snow peas were just green beans off the bottom. I have respect for my vegetables. I have mixed emotions about eating cows, birds, pigs, and sheep, but I keep it to myself, and use plenty of sauce.

The careless or intentional destruction of the marketability of a perishable item with false information is unethical and should be illegal now, without any special legislation. It's lying. That's bad. Don't condone it.

However, the careless or intentional feeding of tainted food to people is worse than lying. It's dying for dollars. Our food-handlers need watched. Nosey reporters and inspectors should be encouraged, not discouraged, to find faults and weaknesses. We only ask that they use good science, and play fair.

I'll say this: If a food is poisonous, tell me, even if you're only 90-percent sure. If you're wrong, too bad for the industry; lots of businesses face recalls. If you're right, you've saved my life. That "best effort" needs to be protected.

I'm going outside now to beat up some poison oak.