(Poll) 'Pink Slime' Coverage Leads to Billion-Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Against ABC News, Diane Sawyer and Others
Beef Products Inc. has filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News stemming from coverage of a meat product called "finely textured beef."
Photos
Who can forget a memorable term like "pink slime," which critics used to describe "lean, finely textured beef," an inexpensive filler used to stretch ground beef found commonly in grocery stores and restaurants?
Media outlets jumped on the story – and the term. Businesses around Iowa and beyond such as Hy-Vee pulled the meat from their shelves, restaurants and schools stopped serving it, and Beef Products Inc., the processor of the meat, closed its Cedar Valley plant which cost 650 jobs.
Two companies won't soon be forgetting the term.
BPI of South Dakota has filed a billion dollar defamation lawsuit against ABC News, anchor Diane Sawyer and others. The lawsuit claims the network misled consumers into believing the product is unhealthy and unsafe.
The meat processor is seeking $1.2 billion in damages for roughly 200 "false and misleading and defamatory" statements about the product.
What do you think? Vote in the poll and weigh-in in the comment section below.
Other defendants include ABC correspondents Jim Avila and David Kerley; Gerald Zirnstein, the USDA microbiologist who named the product "pink slime;" Carl Custer, a former federal food scientist; and Kit Foshee, a former BPI quality assurance manager who was interviewed by ABC, according to the Associated Press.
The "defendants engaged in a month-long vicious, concerted disinformation campaign against BPI," the AP cites the lawsuit as claiming.
BPI claims the misleading information led to false impressions and "catastrophic" results for the the company, including a 80 percent loss in business over a 28-day period.
While the company faced a public relations nightmare on one end, a bevy of advocates spoke out in defense of the food, including Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who joined other Republican governors to tour a plant and taste some LFTB-filled burgers.
Meanwhile, Hy-Vee was among the stores who announced it would return the product to its shelves, with a label denoting which meat contains LFTB and which does not.
A tidal wave of social media attention inflated the controversy that started back in 2009 when a federal microbiologist first used the term “pink slime,” according to the Associated Press.
B.A. Morelli
3:47 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
I bet this lawsuit will dive deep into biological definitions and nuances to determine whether or not BPI was defamed, and will be hard for the lay person to follow.
Scott Raynor
4:47 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
So far the votes to Marion Patch are for the no category. Is it safe to say you guys don't think BPI's claims are legitimate?
gary w. sherman
11:08 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
BPI claims are TOTALY LEGITIMATE. We have been consuming these products satisfatorily for years. This is absolute sensationalism for profit by the media and has given such news reports a black eye. This has only harmed producers and consumers alike.I hope ABC incures the cost of reopening this important food producer.The sensationalism created has been of no benefit to the average person. Shame on ABC News.
Tim
11:10 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
I do think the media screwed them. Cost a lot of people jobs, for mis-reporting. I really think they knew they were not being truthfull. They should pay and pay big. This just keep happerning over and over.
Bill
12:15 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Since when is mainstream media truthful? Frankly it's amazing they reported something that wasn't a gov approved story.
Matthew Georges
12:01 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
The news reported a story, people decided they didn't like what they heard was going on, and demand for an inferior product fell. Doesn't equal a legal claim in my mind. I will still choose not to purchase beef that has been inundated with ammonia gas and LFTB. I think it should be labeled accordingly, and those consumers who want to buy it because it is cheaper can feel free to do so. I am glad I will have the choice and information available when purchasing a product.
Maria Houser Conzemius
6:10 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
+1, Matthew Georges! I feel the same way. Eat meat scraps bathed in ammonia? I don't think so.
Erv Server
12:51 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Just because people have been eating this crap for years doesn't mean its safe. Cigarettes were considered safe for years and years, also food colorings. Stay tuned folks...some facts will come out during the trial that may change your positive mind about pink slime.
Dennis Pine
10:13 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Erv,
If the story never broke, what would your thoughts of your hamburger be today?
Matthew Georges
2:37 pm on Saturday, September 15, 2012
My thoughts would have been that it is beef, ground up. Not this product added that gets doused with ammonia gas.
Maria Houser Conzemius
6:13 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
+1, Erv Server! I've read that attorneys specializing in such claims think that Beef Products Inc. has an uphill climb to prove that ABC News intended to defame their product. I'm personally grateful to know that I have yet another reason to buy all of my meat at New Pioneer Coop.
Jason M.
8:03 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Because people unknowingly ate something that they thought was being put into dog food for years does not excuse its use. And the fact that someone reported what was being consumed is not punishable. So...what we have here is a nuisance lawsuit. Accept some responsibility for what you have done, BPI.
Dennis Pine
10:16 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Jason,
It is not the reporting about the product that is the base of the lawsuit. It is the slandering of calling the product "slime". If they had called it processed trimmings and reported what they did to it, I would call it a nuisance suit because they were reporting the truth. But calling it "slime" is not truthful but slander.
Matthew Georges
2:41 pm on Saturday, September 15, 2012
In order to prove a slander suit, one first has to prove that the claim is untrue. Is the LFTB pink? Yes. Is it slimy? Let's see, the dictionary defines "slime" as the following:
1. A thick sticky slippery substance.
2. Biology A mucous substance secreted by certain animals, such as catfishes and slugs.
3. Soft moist earth; mud.
4. A slurry containing very fine particulate matter.
5. Vile or disgusting matter.
6. Slang A despicable or repulsive person.
Seems definitions 1,4 and 5 can all be applied to describe LFTB, so the claim cannot be proven false.
I rest my case.
Maria Houser Conzemius
6:14 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
+1, Jason Meredith! Corporations need regulation, and this is more proof of why. Even if it were proved that meat scraps bathed in ammonia are safe to eat, I still wouldn't eat the stuff.
Dennis Pine
6:30 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
Matthew,
1. have you ever felt to see if it is "thick sticky slippery substance"? Isn't sticky and slippery oxymoronic?
4. I will give you very fine particulate matter but is it a slurry?
5. Vile or disgusting matter is a matter of opinion.
You case has holes. ;-)
Matthew Georges
7:19 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
@ Dennis,
In re to (1) I don't think sticky and slippery is an oxymoron, think of substances like mucus, semen, honey...
In regard to the slurry question,
slurry (ˈslʌrɪ)
— n , pl -ries
a suspension of solid particles in a liquid, as in a mixture of cement, clay, coal dust, manure, meat, etc with water
That pretty much speaks for itself.
Finally, in regard to LFTB being vile or disgusting, yes it is true that this definition would be a matter of opinion, which actually bolsters my case in the following way: First, opinions are neither true nor false.
Second, as I mentioned before, in order to win a slander case, one must prove false statements were made.
Therefore- A case for slander cannot logically be made bases on an opinion.
Still think my case has holes?
David Leonard
8:56 pm on Saturday, September 15, 2012
BPI is only going to succeed in bringing the term "pink slime" back into the public consciousness. They should have let this alone so it would recede in our memories. ABC will simply use freedom of the press as its defense and will win easily.
Matthew Georges
7:20 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
It's true, those type of comments are very rare on here ^
Maria Houser Conzemius
6:16 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
+1, David Leonard. It's nice to read comments by people who have common sense.