Florida’s Farm Bill Should Not Silence the Public

Commentary

I received an email this week from my colleague Kelly Ryerson, known to many as “Glyphosate Girl.” What she shared was so disconcerting that I stopped what I was doing to write this article.

Buried inside Florida’s Farm Bill is a provision that has little to do with protecting farmers and everything to do with silencing the public.

Section 48 of Florida Senate Bill 290, mirrored in Florida House Bill 433, quietly expands the existing food disparagement law into something far more dangerous. It creates a special legal weapon for agribusiness and chemical companies to sue citizens, journalists, doctors, scientists, parents, and farmers for speaking critically about farming practices and pesticide use. This is not about defamation or knowingly false statements. It is about speech itself.

This provision has been advancing through committee with relatively little public scrutiny, aided by some of the most powerful lobbying forces in the state, including Florida’s sugar industry and large-scale agrochemical corporations.

Where the Bills Are Now

Senate Bill 290, sponsored by state Sen. Keith L. Truenow, has already passed through Florida’s Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Fiscal Policy Committee. A hearing had been scheduled in the Florida Senate Rules Committee on Jan. 27, but that hearing was postponed. The bill remains in committee and has not yet been scheduled for a full vote by the state Senate.

The Florida House companion, House Bill 433, has moved through House committees and continues to advance in parallel. Neither bill has been placed on a chamber calendar for a final floor vote at this time. When large farm bills move simultaneously in both chambers, provisions buried deep within them still have a strong likelihood of surviving in the final package unless they are explicitly challenged.

Small Farmers Are Not the Problem—and Not the Priority

Large-scale agriculture often presents a false binary. In reality, there are large farmers and small farmers who use chemicals and there are large farmers and small farmers who do not. The dividing line is not size—it is choice. No corporate interest, trade group, or chemical manufacturer speaks on behalf of all family farms.

Yet this bill assumes a single agricultural voice and grants it extraordinary legal power. In doing so, it erases the diversity of farming practices and silences those whose livelihoods depend on transparency and consumer trust.

Independent farmers and ranchers depend on trust, but trust does not exist in a vacuum. It is built through education. Farmers must be able to explain why their practices are different, why their inputs matter, and why families might choose their food over industrial alternatives. Under this bill, simply communicating what makes our food safer could expose farmers to legal liability.

That puts families, family farms, and independent ranchers directly at risk. If speaking honestly about how food is grown becomes grounds for litigation, only the largest players with legal teams and lobbying power will survive. The very farmers lawmakers claim to protect will be the first casualties.

Informed Consent Requires Free Speech

At the heart of this issue is informed consent. Consumers cannot make informed choices if they are denied information. Informed consent only exists when people are free to speak openly, question practices, and share concerns without fear of financial ruin.

This bill undermines that foundation by redefining “agricultural food products” to include not just food itself, but any agricultural practices used in the production of that food. Criticism of pesticide use, fertilizer runoff, chemical exposure, or water contamination could now trigger lawsuits.

The expansion would also apply to nonperishable agricultural commodities such as sugar. That matters far beyond farming. Doctors, dietitians, nutritionists, and public health professionals routinely counsel patients about the well-documented health risks of excessive sugar consumption, including links to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic conditions. Scientists study its metabolic effects. Journalists report on its role in public health trends. Parents make decisions about what their children eat based on this information.

If producers can claim that such discussions constitute disparagement, everyday health communication could carry legal risk. The concern is not that truth will disappear overnight, but that the threat of costly litigation may discourage professionals and citizens alike from speaking openly.

The standard imposed on speech is equally troubling. Statements must be backed by “reliable scientific facts and reliable scientific data,” even though much of that data is controlled by the very companies whose products are being scrutinized. Courts already evaluate scientific evidence. This bill tilts the playing field before a case ever begins.

Most revealing is the fee structure. Producers can recover attorney fees if they win. Critics cannot recover fees if they win. This is not about truth-seeking. It is about attrition. Prolonged litigation becomes the punishment regardless of merit, making it financially impossible for ordinary people to speak up.

Freedom of Speech Must Be Our Highest Conscience

I am a freedom of speech maximalist. Freedom of speech must be our highest conscience because without it, none of our other rights can be meaningfully exercised.

We can see the erosion of free speech taking root across many areas of American life. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic era demonstrated how quickly, as a society, we were willing to suppress dissent and narrow acceptable speech in the name of safety and consensus. Whether one agreed or disagreed with prevailing narratives often became irrelevant. The precedent was set.

Once speech becomes conditional, it is no longer a right. It becomes a privilege granted by those with power.

Beyond Florida: A National Shift

This bill matters beyond agriculture. Chemical companies are only one of many powerful interests seeking insulation from criticism. Public concern around chemical exposure, food safety, and environmental health is growing across political lines.

Polling among Republican voters in Texas has shown overwhelming support for candidates willing to reduce exposure to harmful pesticides and herbicides linked to health risks. Awareness around these issues is no longer fringe. It is spreading through the electorate faster than policy can keep up.

When public opinion shifts more quickly than legislation, backroom deals and quiet amendments become tools to preserve the status quo. Small additions to large bills can have enormous consequences, especially when they erode the public’s ability to communicate freely.

Silence Protects Corporations, Not Farmers

As a farmer, I want to be clear: This bill does not protect farmers. It protects corporations.

Small producers rely on transparency. We survive because people can ask questions and choose differently. When speech is chilled, silence is mistaken for consent, and only the most powerful voices remain.

Chemical companies are not alone in attempting to avoid criticism, but the principle remains the same. When you are doing the right thing, you can withstand scrutiny. You can stand in the light.

Sunlight is not the enemy of agriculture. Silence is.

This provision should be stripped from Senate Bill 290 and House Bill 433. Florida already has a defamation law. It does not need a new speech weapon designed for one favored industry.

Floridians should be able to speak, warn, investigate, and advocate for safe food without fear of being crushed by lawsuits. If Florida passes this law, other states will follow. The cost will not only be free speech—it will be trust.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.