The Florida Legislature is considering SB 290 and HB 433, which would broaden the state's 1994 food-libel law to include nonperishable goods like sugar and permit suits over agricultural practices. Opponents — environmental groups, First Amendment defenders and MAHA activists — warn the expansion lowers the disparagement standard and adds one-way fee-shifting that could bankrupt critics. Supporters say the change protects farmers from false attacks; critics say it risks silencing journalists, scientists and activists who raise evidence-based concerns about pollution and farming practices.
Florida Bill To Expand 'Food Libel' Law Draws Critics Who Say It Would Chill Speech
Environmentalists and MAHA Activists Say Bill To Expand Florida's 'Food Libel' Law Will Silence Critics
A provision tucked into a major farm bill moving through the Florida Legislature would broaden the state's 1994 "food libel" statute and has united an unlikely coalition of environmental groups, First Amendment advocates and Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) activists. Opponents say the change would enable agricultural businesses to sue critics of farming practices — effectively chilling public debate about environmental harms, food safety and alternative agriculture.
Dozens of Floridians traveled to Tallahassee from as far as the Panhandle and the Florida Keys to oppose Senate Bill 290 and its House companion, House Bill 433, at a House budget subcommittee hearing. Lawmakers privately assured some speakers that work was underway to address concerns, yet the Florida House Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee unanimously approved the bill.
The measure would expand the current food-libel law — originally limited to perishable products and false food-safety claims — to cover nonperishable goods such as sugar and to permit lawsuits over disparaging statements about "any agricultural practices used in the production of such products." Critics say the proposal lowers the standard for disparagement claims compared with ordinary libel claims and creates a one-way fee-shifting rule that lets agribusinesses recover attorney fees if they prevail while denying the same relief to prevailing defendants.
Why opponents object
Environmental advocates warn the change could silence reporting and criticism about fertilizer runoff, algal blooms and sugar industry practices that affect Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades and coastal fishing grounds. "It’s incentivizing litigation," Anna Upton, CEO of the Everglades Trust, told the committee.
"Lake Okeechobee gets five times the amount of nutrients that the state says it should be getting in a normal year every single year, and 75 percent of that is coming from agricultural lands," said Daniel Andrews, co-founder of Captains for Clean Water. "Now there's proposed legislation that would make a lot of people think twice about what they're saying and really infringe upon their First Amendment rights to stand up for what they believe in."
First Amendment advocates raised similar alarms. Bobby Block of the First Amendment Foundation warned researchers, journalists and advocates could face costly litigation "simply for doing their jobs." Captains for Clean Water has already faced legal and political pressure in Florida after complaints from sugar companies prompted local law-enforcement scrutiny of the group's social media posts.
MAHA-aligned activists and alternative-farming proponents fear the bill would chill criticism of pesticides, herbicides and "Big Sugar," potentially stalling organic and regenerative agriculture efforts in the state. Blogger Kelly Ryerson, who supports reduced pesticide use, said the proposal could "shut down a lot of the commentary" that helps those movements gain traction.
Supporters' defense
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson defended the farm package on radio, arguing that attacks on farmers and outside special interests are harming producers and prompting land sales to developers. Several agriculture, nursery and trade associations signaled support at the hearing.
Broader context
Critics also point to economic and legal context: the U.S. sugar sector has long benefited from protectionist policies and subsidies, and a 2025 Government Accountability Office report estimated that U.S. sugar policy costs consumers roughly $2.5–$3.5 billion per year. Legal observers note precedent where government or regulatory actions have trampled on free-speech rights — for example, a 2019 federal ruling found an Oregon engineering board had violated the First Amendment when it investigated and fined residents for unlicensed engineering activity.
Opponents say the bill’s one-way fee-shifting would increase the incentive for well-funded agricultural interests to sue critics, making litigation a tool to punish dissent even when the underlying claims are defensible. "The fact is whether you are correct or incorrect in your argument, the punishment is in the process with this," said Chris Whitman of Captains for Clean Water.
The legislation is still progressing through the Florida Legislature, and its fate will shape whether critics say the state is protecting producers from falsehoods or restricting public debate about environmental and food-safety concerns.
Help us improve.
