BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 722
By: Bob Turner
02-24-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

In 1991 the Centers for Disease Control linked an outbreak of salmonella food poisoning to
cantaloupes.  Texas growers, farm workers, and others involved in the melon industry suffered $12
million in losses due to news reports about the possibility of salmonella in the fruit, even though
those reports were never substantiated.  

The well-known Alar apple scare cost apple growers in Washington State $125 million.  It was later
determined that the disseminators of the damaging, sensationalized allegations linking Alar to cancer
had no recognized scientific data to validate their charges.  These cases underscore the fact that food
producers in Texas are currently vulnerable to the careless or malicious use of false or misleading
information.  This is especially alarming when considering the short amount of time available to
harvest and market perishable agricultural and aquacultural food products.  Many feel that legislation
is needed to ensure that claims about the health, safety and wholesomeness of Texas-grown food
products are based on reasonable and reliable scientific data, not sensationalized claims made by
groups or individuals seeking publicity for their agendas.  Opponents to food product legislation
believe that the measure is unnecessary because common law slander of property already offers
producers protection, although it does not provide for a cause of action. They also believe that the
bill's broad language will inhibit consumers' ability to learn about products that may be unsafe.

Legislation comparable to C.S.H.B. 722 was introduced during the Seventy-third Regular
Legislature. Similar food product disparagement legislation has already been passed in Louisiana,
Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and South Dakota.


PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to create a cause of action against the disparagement of perishable
food products.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to a
state officer, institution, department or agency.


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Amends Title 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, by adding Chapter 96 as follows:
     CHAPTER 96.  FALSE DISPARAGEMENT OF PERISHABLE FOOD PRODUCTS.

           SECTION 96.001.  DEFINITION.  Defines "perishable food product."

           SECTION 96.002.  LIABILITY.  
               (a) Sets forth that a person is liable if:
                    (1) the person disseminates information relating to a perishable                     food product to the public;
                    (2) the person knows the information is false; and
                    (3) the information states or implies that the food product is not safe                   for consumption by the public.
               (b) Sets forth that a person who is liable under Subsection (a) is liable            to the producer of the product for damages and appropriate relief.
           
           SECTION 96.003.  PROOF.  Establishes a presumption that disseminated           information is considered false if it was not based on reasonable and reliable       scientific inquiry, facts or data.  This presumption may be challenged by       appropriate evidence.

SECTION 2.  Effective Date.  The Act takes effect September 1, 1995 and applies only to
information disseminated on or after that date.

SECTION 3.  Emergency Clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute includes processed and unprocessed agricultural and aquacultural food products in
its definition of "perishable food product."


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

Public notice was posted in accordance with House rules and a public hearing was held on February
21, 1995.  

On February 21, 1995, the full committee voted to report H.B. 722 as substituted with the
recommendation that it do pass by a record vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 present not voting and 4 absent.

The following people testified in support of the bill:

     Ms. Kathryn Keller, of the Texas Farm Bureau and representing herself.

     Mr. Charles Carter, representing the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas.

     Mr. Ed Small, attorney, representing Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

     Mr. Ross Wilson, representing the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.

     Mr. Tommy Engelke, representing the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council.

The following people testified against the bill:

     Mr. Reggie James, representing the Consumers Union.