Just before the “slime wave” hit, I was in the middle of a draft TLT post analyzing a scholarly article proposing that tighter restrictions on the advertising of junk food to kids are not barred by the First Amendment, a key defense offered by the food industry against such restrictions.
As a former lawyer — even, at one time, a food advertising lawyer for a huge conglomerate – and as someone who has written extensively on industry regulation in this area (see, “Fox Guards Henhouse: Industry’s ‘Self-Regulation’ of Children’s Food Advertising” and all the related posts linked thereto), this is something I wanted to think and write about in depth.
Well, it looks like I’ve been scooped today by Mark Bittman who has his own “Opinionator” piece in the New York Times on this question. It’s definitely worth a read.
Bittman seems to accept the premise of the scholarly piece that the First Amendment poses no bar to greater regulation. If after I finish my own analysis I have nothing more to add, I’ll just give you a quick “What he said.” If not, I’ll share my own post with you as planned.
On a personal note, I was taken aback to see that my much beloved, former-Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Kathleen Sullivan (the kind of prof who kept you enraptured for an entire class) was hired to represent the food industry’s views on the issue. But I suppose I can’t take Professor Sullivan to task until I’ve had a chance to evaluate her arguments.
Stay tuned.
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join over 2,600 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page (or follow on Twitter) and you’ll get your Lunch delivered fresh daily, along with bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, and stimulating discussion with other readers. You can also check out my virtual bulletin boards on Pinterest and find selected TLT posts on The Huffington Post.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 Bettina Elias Siegel
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Its incredible how some ignorant people such as Siegel can still cause so much damage in such an advanced country such as e United States. Not only has she caused over 3000 people to loose their jobs she has caused an erroneous sense of fear. She should really stick to law. After all, last time I check she was not a microbiologist. “Pink Slime” has NEVER been proven to dangerous to humans. Now thanks to he STUPIDITY it will take over 1.5 million addtional cows in the USA to replace the lost of meat caused by the removal of whatever she calls “pink Slime”. One, the US economy cannot afford the lost of more jobs and the increase of food prices. And Two, our environment cannot afford to host an additional 1.5 million cows. Where will they be placed? How can we handle the additional contamination caused by the Gas Methane produced by these additional amount of cows.
Unfortunately, the US society as so missed guided by media and stupid people such as Siegel that we are becoming worse off in every aspect in our society.
This is a message for Siegel: “Siegel you have temporary won. But are ALL now losers”. After all, why should [Siegel] [extraneous personal information deleted] care about the poor and middle class citizens? If she continues to blog, she needs to learn to pick up a book and really investigate her news pieces from experts of the field. She is a disgrace the media industry.
Judith,
This is not an article about pink slime. Get a life.
And just a quick piece of advice. Name calling and making insulting comments about people with whom you have a disagreement, makes you look as if you have the maturity of a third grader. And the IQ of a toddler. Your post reflects badly on the beef industry.
Judith – what, pray tell, made you think that your comment was in any way relevant to the blog post to which it was attached? Was it “First Amendment”? Or maybe “junk food advertising”? Inquiring minds want to know.
~EdT.
Judith,
I have no idea if your claim that 1.5M cows are needed to replace the “pink slime”, but working from the opinion that you are correct, maybe we should just consume 1.5M less cows.
Eat more chicken!!!!!!
Is the first amendment not fundamental to permitting you to spew your libelous anti-industry propaganda with relative impunity? Now you perceive the first amendment as an unfair protection of food merchandizers? I think I understand why you are a “former” lawyer.
If you’ve left a comment on TLT in recent days and are not seeing it appear, that is an indication you are in violation of my comments policy against ad hominem attacks, foul language, etc. I will allow dissenting opinions, I will not pollute TLT with ugliness. And if you don’t like my “censorship,” feel free never to come back.
There is a certain cache to defensively tightening up a comments policy in a blog about the first amendment. Testimony relative to “mental state”, counselor.
My comments policy on this blog has been consistent from day one and in two years I have never once censored a comment because I disagreed with the viewpoint expressed. Hoever, I do reserve the right to remove comments for any reason and ad hominem attacks, profanity, threats, etc. are simply not welcome here.
My ball field, my rules. If you don’t like them, don’t come back.
Note to Anthony S: the First Amendment is not a defense to libel. Bettina, as a (former) lawyer, would be well aware of this. I am surprised that you are not.
~EdT.
You’re right about that, Ed. I trust BPI will straighten Bettina out on that point of law. Damages tally into the $millions already. 60 days out of production will have Bettina and co-conspirators staring at tens of $millions. That’s several lifetimes of garnisheed wages for most of us ordinary folks. Hey, that’s food politics!
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, the suit filed against Oprah under the ‘veggie libel’ statute by the Texas Cattleman’s Association. Which they lost.
~EdT.
thank you EdT!
I am following this story with a lot of interest, Lunchtray.
I would add that the response of the food industry to the IWG’s voluntary guidelines sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Kind of like an echo…. http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22140
Michele – That is a great read and very eye opening. Seems to be very typical of big business. I too am following the story with great interest.
I do not typically comment, but since I too have had things said about me when I was only trying to do what I thought was a good thing, I feel that when people feel the need to be so defensive, they are clearly feeling a guilt. I thank Bettina for doing what she does even at the cost of stuff like this….just know Bettina, that most people appreciate you bringing things like this to our attention, as the deception and secrecy must stop….that to me is an injustice…Judith if you feel so strongly that “pink slime” is fine, please tell us why it would not proudly be displayed on a label? If you are confident that everyone would think it is fine to include in our food supply, then there should be no problem putting it on a label listed as what it actually is instead of called something that sounds much different.
let people make their own choice by just providng the facts not your veiws and opinions. Dont be afraid of the truth. give your readers the tools to do their own research. i do respect everyones opinions and views as long as they give the facts and let people make their own decitions with out misinforming people and producing a bunch of bullies. have any of the people promoting this ever visited and toured any of the bpi plants and seen the efferts to make beef safe? If no step out of your house and get of your computer and get that truth for yourself before starting what you believe is a crusade. For others here is a sight that will give you facts.
http://www.beefisbeef.com
I send this to try and let people self educate themselves but i’m sure it will not show up on the lunchtry because it’s not what seigel wants to see or hear. i do respect her right to her opinion as long as she offers all the facts. i’m also sure if this does get posted it will probably get altered to soot her campaine.
sencerly a former employee of beef products in finney county, kansas that wants to let people self educate with an open mind.
Justin – FYI we are well educated on the subject but thanks for assuming we are all unable to make decisions for ourselves. The petition brought about awareness to an issue that has sparked debate on a much larger issue that is prevalent in our society than most people could have imagined. Stop being mad that we don’t want to consume that product anymore, that is our choice, but because it is not labeled we can’t make that choice. Your company made that choice for us and we don’t like it. Label it and I will buy something else and you can go on eating it and making it. We are all consumers and have the RIGHT to ask that a product be labeled with what is really in there. Would you want your choices taken away from you, only to find out years later? Wouldn’t that make you mad? Wouldn’t that make you want to do something about it? It seems to me that the USDA followed their own guidelines and didn’t require the labeling of LBFT because “its beef”. Many of us feel that those guidelines are not sufficient enough. If you want to eat ground beef that contains:
1. beef from advanced meat recovery (AMR) systems
2. low temperature rendered lean finely textured beef (LFTB)
3. partially defatted chopped beef
4. partially defatted beef fatty tissue
5. heart meat.
6. 2 piece chucks and other primal/sub-primal cuts intended for use in raw ground beef or other raw non-intact product
7. raw esophagus (weasand) meat
8. head meat
9. cheek meat
Then by all means do so. But some of us don’t OR just want to know those things are in the product we are eating so we can educate ourselves on it and then make a decision. For me up until this petition was started I had NO IDEA what was in the ground beef /beef patties I was eating and honestly most of the above does not bother me in the least, but some of it does for various reasons.
Don’t ignorantly assume sensational headlines caused people to sign that petition, awareness of the facts and choice did, whether you agree with it or not.
Mary..I could not agree more…it is not all about this issue, it is about the bigger picture which is not knowing what is in our food….all ingredients need to be on a label…we have the right to know, as consumers, what is in the food we are consuming. Another petition is on change.org regarding this exact issue for those who are interested..search for “all ingredients matter”….
Just reading what @Mary posted in addition to reviewing what was used on BPI’s site (for the record they do not explicitly state what parts of the cow carcasses are used @Justin any insight?) makes me understand the need to infuse the byproduct with ammonium hydroxide gas since there is so much surface area for pathogenic bacteria to thrive. @Justin, does BPI and other animal processing plants allow visitors inside? You raise many good points, but I would still argue that Bettina has covered those points quite extensively in several posts over the past 3 weeks. Also Mary, I think the majority of processed meats have been from AMR processing, so you’d be better off avoiding nearly all processed meats. I think if most people learned (and toured the facilities extensively) about the extensive conditions in which animal are raised, produced, slaughtered, and (now) repurposed for foods, we would all avoid or consume much less meat. I cannot recall a stench any worse than driving along the Texan panhandle along the cattle livestock processing facilities.
Agreed – they aren’t just going to open their doors to the public. But there are several documentaries out there that offer insight on what modern food production entails. Food, Inc. is a good place to start.