A Famine of Words: Changing the Rules of Expression in the Food Debates

Abstract

The First Amendment implications of recent debates and legislation involving the politics of food and consumption are examined, with emphasis on the evolving role of the science of nutrition and health and its relationship to free speech. This analysis traces the appropriation of the rhetoric of personal expression and sovereignty by corporate interests to fend off critical views of the corporate food system and regulations aimed at promoting public health. To this end, the paper considers Food Disparagement or “Veggie Libel” Laws, the Oprah Winfrey beef lawsuit and the current litigation involving “pink slime,” and debates over nutritional supplements. In each matter, free speech is a contested site, with scientific expertise either appropriated or undermined by interests in protecting or building profits, while the ideals of speech or science as means for fostering democratic practices among an informed populate are discounted.