Talk:Food libel laws

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afgmcdonald.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Forgive the probably silly question... but why "Oprah" throughout? I know that's how she's generally known, but surely in a serious article like this surnames should be used - hence, "Winfrey"? The article on O. J. Simpson doesn't refer to him as "O. J." all the way through, after all. Loganberry (Talk) 11:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Illustration

There is no substantiation for the claim that Green Illusions "was censored." Who censored it? Why? What proof is there of the censorship? The fact that this is attached to an IMAGE and not to part of the article raises questions about procedures. Apparently this was "self-censored" -- a claim that anyone can make with or without cause. (Bill Kovarik) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkovarik (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Looking at what is available online, I suspect the "censorship" is a publicity stunt. Reading the "censored" page in the graphic gives me the same impression. Brianyoumans (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV

This article gives a very negative impression of food libel laws, and as such, I think it lacks NPOV. The first three paragraphs are roughly neutral, but the last three need to be balanced. The only pro for the laws on this page is the final external link (which is now broken). Perhaps some of the arguments from the final external link could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Volfy 20:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

But the truth is, this law has no positive factors in it. Nada. It's just a result of lobbying. --216.165.24.59 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph provides the necessary counterpoint. I move to delete the NPOV notice. Will Entriken (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"...allow for punitive damages and attorneys fees for plaintiffs alone[2], regardless of the case's outcome. Meaning, even if a defendant is found innocent of libel he or she may still have to pay the legal fees for his or her prosecution." Where is the source for this??? Source 2 doesn't say that. This statement needs to be backed or removed. --AlexThreeSix (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the source does support this. Not certain about the reliability of the source, but it certainly supports the statement. Guettarda (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it misstates the law of libel. At common-law, and in Pennsylvania where I practice, the Plaintiff need not show that the statement is false, only that it is disparaging. Truth is an affirmative defense to libel that must be plead and proven by the Defendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.224.2 (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article seems pretty fairly balanced. Just because a law is odious and clearly biased in favor of a particular industry doesn't mean one has to provide a "fair and balanced(tm)" view of it (e.g., saying "Well both sides have a point, so let's cut he baby in half").

What I am curious about is why this subject has been dormant since about 1999? This link:

http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/

Appears to have gone dormant since about 1998. Have there been no lawsuits since the Winfrey debacle?

Perhaps the food industry has realized that an attention-getting drawn-out lawsuit is worse publicity than the original "libel" of the food product.

Such lawsuits are in fact an activist's dream - dragging the offending company over the coals again and again with negative media coverage as well as high legal expenses (for the company) and little or no hope of winning.

Joe Patent (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

McLibel Section

I don't think the McLibel case fits in this page, as it's based on the UK common law tort of defamation, and this page is concerned with statutory food libel laws, specifically in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.170.218 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the McLibel section is out of place and I move to delete it. There is a very robust article, "McDonald's Restaurants vs. Morris and Steel," which discusses the issue. --Afgmcdonald (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see that this section was removed, but it was then reinstated on the grounds that the article is not region specific, presumably referencing the edit message removing it referring to British vs American law. This isn't the reason that this section is out of place. It should not be here because it has nothing to do with food libel laws, AFAIK. AFAIK it is a case relying purely on the general (comparatively strong) libel laws in the UK, not specific provisions concerning food. The fact that it involves libel and food is not enough to make it relevant to this article, which is about food libel laws (i.e. statutes specifically prohibiting libel against food products); not food, libel and the law generally. Since the relevant reason to remove it doesn't seem to have been considered in reinstating it, and there seems to be no disagreement about removing it apart from on the false basis that it is a matter of region, I am going to remove it. I am adding a link to it to the See Also section since it is tangentially related and I can imagine people reading this looking for information about it. If you reinstate it, please state why, probably here since an edit message probably isn't practically able to be long enough to explain sufficiently fully, and there appears to have been misunderstanding on this in the past when Afgmcdonald's edit was reverted. Sipos0 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)