Environmentalists and MAHA Activists Say Bill To Expand Florida's 'Food Libel' Law Will Silence Critics |
Free Speech
C.J. Ciaramella | 2.5.2026 2:10 PM
A provision of a large farm bill moving through the Florida Legislature that would expand the state's "food libel" law is drawing criticism from an unusual coalition of environmental groups, First Amendment advocates, and Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) activists, who say the law will be used to target critics of industrial agriculture practices and squelch free speech.
Dozens of Floridians drove to the statehouse in Tallahassee from as far away as the Panhandle and Florida Keys to voice their opposition to the bill at a budget subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, prompting lawmakers to promise that work was going on behind the scenes to address their concerns. Nevertheless, the Florida House Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee unanimously approved the bill.
Florida reporter Jason Garcia first reported in December on Senate Bill 290, and its House companion, House Bill 433, which would expand Florida's "food libel law" to cover nonperishable agricultural goods, such as sugar. The bill would also allow agriculture companies to sue over disparaging statements about "any agricultural practices used in the production of such products."
Florida's current food libel law, passed in 1994, allowed producers of perishable agricultural products to sue for losses resulting from disparaging claims about food safety, which the law defines as "false information" that is "not based on reliable, scientific facts and reliable, scientific data which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false." It was originally passed to protect fruit growers from false news reports or claims that could lead to ruinous losses due to spoilage.
The proposal to expand the law to cover non-perishables and agricultural practices alarmed a wide variety of groups because agricultural practices—particularly issues like fertilizer runoff and the burning of sugar cane fields—are some of the most fiercely contested issues in the state. The standard for disparagement would be lower than in a normal libel lawsuit, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The proposed expansion would also allow agricultural businesses that prevail in lawsuits to collect attorney fees—but doesn't allow those who successfully defend themselves against such lawsuits to do the same.
"It's incentivizing litigation," Anna Upton, CEO of the Everglades Trust, testified.
Daniel Andrews, the co-founder of Captains for Clean Water, an environmental advocacy group of Florida fishing guides, says the law would create opportunities........