Defamation Provision in Florida Farm Bill Draws Pushback From MAHA Advocates

Critics are demanding Florida lawmakers remove a section of a proposed bill that they say would punish and silence anyone who speaks out against commercial food producers.

Kelly Ryerson, known online as Glyphosate Girl, mobilized her followers and Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) supporters to voice their concern about the legislation by reaching out to subcommittee members who were scheduled to vote on the bill on Jan. 27.

More than 9,000 emails flooded the members’ inboxes, Ryerson said. She added that this prompted the hearing to be postponed.

In contrast to Ryerson’s claim that thousands of MAHA supporters’ emails caused the delay, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson said on a Florida radio show last week that the postponement was to ensure lawmakers had “all the tools in that toolbox” to get the legislation passed.

State Senator Kathleen Passidomo, the committee chair, said she was prepared to hear the bill last week.

“The bill sponsor [temporarily postponed] the bill, and when he’s ready to present it again, I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on the proposed policy,” Passidomo said in an emailed statement.

The sponsor of the bill, State Senator Keith Truenow, did not respond to requests for comment.

Bill Provision

Florida Senate Bill 290 is an agricultural bill, addressing land use, regulations, funding, the forest service’s authority, and more. Section 48, specifically, expands the Sunshine State’s food disparagement law.

Florida’s food disparagement law has been in effect for more than three decades but only covers perishable food products and production methods.

The newly proposed Section 48 expands that law’s provisions to all agricultural and aquacultural non-perishable products and production methods, outlines punishments for such disparagement including potentially steep fines, and allows companies to sue for defamation.

“Any producer or any association representing producers of agricultural food products which suffers damages as a result of another person’s disparagement … may bring an action for … compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs of the action,” the legislation provides.

The bill defines “disparagement” as willfully or maliciously spreading false information about food products being unsafe for consumption. “False information” is defined as anything not based on reliable, scientific facts that an individual knows or should have known is wrong.

First Amendment Implications

Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that while the statute has been in effect for decades in Florida, it has never been used. Walters theorized the measure had simply gone unnoticed until now.

“It’s hard to say that a statute that’s been on the books for 32 years and never used and never defended against chills anybody’s speech,” Walters said. “Even though that’s clearly what it was designed to do.”

The statute as a whole is a clear violation of the right to free speech, the attorney said. Florida is backing farmers and agriculture at the cost of the First Amendment.

Senior Fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum Gene Policinski said he could see the food disparagement clause actually benefitting the MAHA movement. If an individual makes a “disparaging” statement about perishables or nonperishables in Florida, that person could be empowered by the opportunity to prove in court that the statement is factually correct.

However, most people wouldn’t be able to keep up with the court costs and attorney fees to fight against a large commercial food producer who can, Policinski said, and as a result the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.

“I understand the free speech concerns,” Policinski said. “But at the same time, we have libel and defamation laws … to prevent this sort of negligent or false or malicious disparagement that isn’t rooted in some kind of scientific evidence.”

Ultimately, it may have to be left up to a court to decide if section 48 is a violation of free speech, the senior fellow said.

Public Versus Government

Ryerson told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that she has not seen legislation like section 48 anywhere else in the country.

“It is an egregious overstep of rights to free speech,” she said. “Section 48 was sneakily tucked into a larger farm bill, which was a tactic to get FL congressional support and decrease public scrutiny.”

“If you post on social media and say ‘Don’t eat this protein bar because it could cause inflammation,’ these big companies can sue you for defamation,” Glyphosate Girl said on Instagram. “It doesn’t matter if you are a public figure or if you post that to 100 people.”

Agriculture Commissioner Simpson appeared on the “Florida’s Voice” radio show a day after the committee hearing was postponed, defending the legislation, dubbed the Florida Farm Bill.

He also accused the MAHA movement of spreading misinformation about section 48.

“When you’re the commissioner of agriculture, you’re about protecting agriculture,” Simpson said. “When you kill the farm bill, you are anti-farmer, you’re not pro-farmer. When you kill the farm bill, you’re anti-consumer.”

Ryerson said the measure, if passed, would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.

However, according to Walters, if it’s challenged in court, Florida could make a good argument for the legislation.

“Where have you been before now? Why haven’t you challenged this in the previous 30 years if it’s so chilling to your speech?” the attorney said, making the case for the Sunshine State.

Yet, the statue is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination, Walters said , because it allows an individual to praise agricultural products, but not disparage them.

Striking section 48 from the bill would do nothing to Florida’s pre-existing food disparagement that has covered perishables since 1994. The attorney said he would be wholly in support of a mission to repeal it.

MAHA supporters are upset that Florida, a state people move to so they can enjoy more freedom, would support silencing critics of the chemicals and foods that poison the human body, Ryerson said.

“Big Sugar and Big Ag are clearly driving this as the MAHA movement gets traction on limiting ultra-processed foods, decreasing sugar intake, and raising awareness of how pesticides and chemical agriculture practices are directly driving the chronic disease epidemic,” Ryerson said in an emailed statement.

If doctors, scientists, the media, wellness gurus, or influencers can’t shed light on the harms of commercial food production, the MAHA movement can’t succeed, she said.

Simpson addressed this on the radio show, saying it’s untrue the farm bill will hamper MAHA’s success.

‘That’s completely false,” Simpson said. “You have a lot of groups that are anti-farmer that are spreading lies about the bill.”

The agriculture commissioner added he expects the farm bill to be passed in the legislature this coming week.

The Epoch Times requested additional comment from Simpson, but his office referred to his radio interview, saying, ”We’re going to let his previous comments stand for themselves.”

Ryerson’s and thousands of other MAHA supporters’ position is simple: Remove section 48 from the legislation entirely.

This back and forth between the government and the public is all part of the process, Policinski said.

“The Founders predicated a lot of our law on the idea of an engaged public,” he said. “If we see a law that we feel is either unfair or vague or chilling beyond a reasonable amount, I think this is one of the ways” people work these things out.

A new meeting for a vote on Senate Bill 290 has not yet been rescheduled.