After enduring a cornucopia of press
commentaries that joked about making it illegal to bad-mouth broccoli,
libel lettuce or slander salmon, the Colorado Senate approved a bill
banning the ``disparagement`` of meats, dairy products and produce. The
vote was 20-13.
The legislation, known as the Act Concerning the Creation of a Cause of Action for the Disparagement of Perishable Agricultural Food Products, now goes to the state House of Representatives. That chamber, which passed an earlier version of the bill, must consider Monday`s minor Senate amendments before forwarding it to the governor.
Democratic Gov. Roy Romer declined to say immediately whether he would sign the measure.
Critics have questioned whether President Bush`s widely publicized comments about disliking the taste of broccoli and no longer having to eat it now that he is commander-in-chief would violate Colorado`s ``veggie bill.``
Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote of the proposal, ``So sue me, but with all due respect to the almond crop, the latest idea from Colorado is nuts.``
The bill has drawn angry protests from the American Civil Liberties Union and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and has provided grist for topical humorists ever since it was proposed by Republican Rep. Steve Acquafresca in early February. Acquafresca, an apple grower from Grand Junction, won substantial support
from his legislative colleagues by arguing that environmentalists have
hurt farmers and ranchers by sounding false alarms about everything from
Alar in apples to cholesterol in beef.
With agriculture vying with tourism as Colorado`s leading industry, the Republican-dominated legislature includes a large block of ranchers and farmers like Acquafresca, whose own business suffered when environmentalists held a press conference about the dangers of Alar, a preservative commonly used on apples.
Federal officials later concluded the danger had been overstated, but the ensuing scare caused schools and other fruit buyers to cancel purchases, bringing the apple industry huge losses estimated between $130 million and $700 million in 1989.
Under the law heading toward Romer`s desk, farmers could sue critics for three times any losses incurred when the critics` ``disparagement`` leads to lost sales.
The law defines disparagement as ``dissemination to the public in any manner of any false information which is not based on reliable scientific facts and scientific data, which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false, and which casts doubt on the safety of any perishable
agricultural food product to the consuming public.``
Critics such as Nader view the ``veggie bill`` as a heavy-handed effort to subdue public-interest groups concerned about health dangers from agricultural practices and the overuse of unhealthy food and drink.
commentaries that joked about making it illegal to bad-mouth broccoli,
libel lettuce or slander salmon, the Colorado Senate approved a bill
banning the ``disparagement`` of meats, dairy products and produce. The
vote was 20-13.The legislation, known as the Act Concerning the Creation of a Cause of Action for the Disparagement of Perishable Agricultural Food Products, now goes to the state House of Representatives. That chamber, which passed an earlier version of the bill, must consider Monday`s minor Senate amendments before forwarding it to the governor.
Democratic Gov. Roy Romer declined to say immediately whether he would sign the measure.
Critics have questioned whether President Bush`s widely publicized comments about disliking the taste of broccoli and no longer having to eat it now that he is commander-in-chief would violate Colorado`s ``veggie bill.``
Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote of the proposal, ``So sue me, but with all due respect to the almond crop, the latest idea from Colorado is nuts.``
The bill has drawn angry protests from the American Civil Liberties Union and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and has provided grist for topical humorists ever since it was proposed by Republican Rep. Steve Acquafresca in early February. Acquafresca, an apple grower from Grand Junction, won substantial support
from his legislative colleagues by arguing that environmentalists have
hurt farmers and ranchers by sounding false alarms about everything from
Alar in apples to cholesterol in beef.With agriculture vying with tourism as Colorado`s leading industry, the Republican-dominated legislature includes a large block of ranchers and farmers like Acquafresca, whose own business
suffered when environmentalists held a press conference about the dangers of Alar, a preservative commonly used on apples.Federal officials later concluded the danger had been overstated, but the ensuing scare caused schools and other fruit buyers to cancel purchases, bringing the apple industry huge losses estimated between $130 million and $700 million in 1989.
Under the law heading toward Romer`s desk, farmers could sue critics for three times any losses incurred when the critics` ``disparagement`` leads to lost sales.
The law defines disparagement as ``dissemination to the public in any manner of any false information which is not based on reliable scientific facts and scientific data, which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false, and which casts doubt on the safety
of any perishableagricultural food product to the consuming public.``
Critics such as Nader view the ``veggie bill`` as a heavy-handed effort to subdue public-interest groups concerned about health dangers from agricultural practices and the overuse of unhealthy food and drink.
In a letter to Gov. Romer last week, Nader called Acquafresca`s proposal
``an attempt by corporations to bully citizens into silence.``
``Colorado appears to be the testing ground for the newest form of consumer harassment-laws that inhibit a citizen`s right to speak critically about a corporation or product,`` Nader said.
But Sen. Tilman Bishop (R-Grand Junction), Senate sponsor of Acquafresca`s bill, described the legislation as an effort to ``restore confidence in our food supply.``
In debate over the measure, Sen. Al Meiklejohn (R-Arvada) said the bill is unconstitutional.
``The Constitution has taken a wooling in here this morning. I just don`t see how this can stand up,`` Meiklejohn said. ``This is just a plain violation of 1st Amendment rights.``
Said Acquafresca: ``A person cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I present that to you as an analogy.``
Allegations that Alar is dangerous and other such statements are damaging, Acquafresca said, because perishable crops have brief shelf lives and there is a ``potential for destroying entire agricultural economies.``
Representatives of the Colorado Cattlemen`s Association, Colorado Cattle Feeders Association, Colorado Farm Bureau and Colorado dairymen said they support the bill.
``an attempt by corporations to bully citizens into silence.``
``Colorado appears to be the testing ground for the newest form of consumer harassment-laws that inhibit a citizen`s right to speak critically about a corporation or product,`` Nader said.
But Sen. Tilman Bishop (R-Grand Junction), Senate sponsor of Acquafresca`s bill, described the legislation as an effort to ``restore confidence
in our food supply.``In debate over the measure, Sen. Al Meiklejohn (R-Arvada) said the bill is unconstitutional.
``The Constitution has taken a wooling in here this morning. I just don`t see how this can stand up,`` Meiklejohn said. ``This is just a plain violation of 1st Amendment rights.``
Said Acquafresca: ``A person cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I present that to you as an analogy.``
Allegations that Alar is dangerous and other such statements are damaging, Acquafresca said, because perishable crops have brief shelf lives and there is a ``potential for destroying entire agricultural economies.``
Representatives of the Colorado Cattlemen`s Association, Colorado Cattle Feeders Association, Colorado Farm Bureau and Colorado dairymen said they support the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment