Defending disparagement? Anna Paulina Luna joins Farm Bill critics, says people should be free to criticize “Big Ag”

A Republican member of Congress cautions that this year’s Florida “Farm Bill” championed by the Agriculture Secretary could reap a bitter harvest of suppressed speech.

U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna criticized the legislation Saturday, creating another controversy for the far-reaching legislation, but this time from the populist right.

“What’s going on with the Florida State Legislature, passing or trying to pass legislation protecting big ag. Big ag should be open to public criticism, especially if they’re trying to make people sick. HB 433 (Section 47) and SB 290 (Section 48) introduce a major expansion of Florida’s agricultural non‑disparagement (food‑libel) framework, creating new legal exposure for anyone who publicly criticizes agricultural products or practices,” she said.

The objectionable changes include explicitly banning disparagement of “agricultural” products, and forcing a defendant to pay a plaintiff’s attorney fees to defend itself from the action.

Agricultural products are defined as “any agricultural or aquacultural food product or commodity grown or produced within this the state for a commercial purpose. The term also includes any agricultural practices used in the production of such products.”

Some believe that new language could chill expression in journalism or from political groups.

The bill wasn’t heard during a Senate Rules Committee meeting chaired by former President Kathleen Passidomo, but was temporarily postponed at the sponsor’s request.

Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson and Rep. Lawrence McClure sharply criticized what happened.

The bill is on the agenda for Tuesday’s Rules Committee.

SB 290 was the final bill heard — or, in this case, not heard — by Rules that morning. After acknowledging sponsor Keith Truenow’s request to temporarily postpone the bill, Passidomo took public testimony anyway, but said that no action would be taken on the bill during Tuesday’s Committee meeting.

Luna’s opposition to the right is the latest twist regarding this legislation.

Captains for Clean Water said last month the “disparagement provision in SB 290/HB 433 is an attack on our First Amendment rights and must be deleted in its entirety. If it were to pass, it would make it financially dangerous for people to speak publicly about agricultural practices, including practices that impact water quality—like fertilizer use, pollution from agriculture, pesticide and herbicide use, and water management practices.⁠”

Friends of the Everglades says the bill would benefit the sugar industry by expanding the state’s “food libel law” by allowing suits against people who disparage products or “farming practices (like burning sugarcane fields prior to harvest).”