{"id":5072,"date":"2022-07-22T15:26:03","date_gmt":"2022-07-22T15:26:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?p=5072"},"modified":"2026-01-06T11:43:37","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T11:43:37","slug":"remembering-the-mad-cow-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/2022\/07\/22\/remembering-the-mad-cow-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Remembering Oprah’s mad cow libel case"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

By Asheley R. Landrum<\/a>, Texas Tech University<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n
\"\"<\/a>\r\n
Oprah celebrates the ruling in her favor on Feb. 26. 1998.\u00a0AP Photo\/LM Otero<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n

More than twenty years ago (1998), images of staggering cattle and descriptions of brains resembling Swiss cheese became associated with one of the most popular television programs of the day when\u00a0Texas Panhandle cattlemen sued<\/a>\u00a0\u201cThe Oprah Winfrey Show\u201d for defamation under Texas\u2019 \u201cveggie libel law<\/a>.\u201d They claimed the program\u2019s negative portrayal of their business caused a steep decline of beef prices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On the surface, this conflict looked like a battle between an industry and the TV producers who portrayed it negatively. But at its heart was some complicated science that had the potential to scare the public and be sensationalized by the media.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Today\u2019s practitioners of science communication grapple with the difficulty of\u00a0transmitting science information via the media<\/a>\u00a0to a lay audience. This 1998 trial serves as a rare public case study documenting the media\u2019s imperfect attempts to clarify the\u00a0science of mad cow disease<\/a>\u00a0in the midst of a celebrity spectacle.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Ultimately Oprah won the legal case. But how did the public\u2019s understanding of the science fare?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u00a0<\/h5>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Facts of the case<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

A year and a half earlier, rancher-turned-animal-rights activist Howard Lyman appeared on Winfrey\u2019s program. He claimed the American beef industry was giving cattle feed that contained remains of processed cattle. This practice,\u00a0no longer legal in the U.S.<\/a>, had been\u00a0banned by the British government in 1996<\/a>\u00a0due to the belief it had led to the\u00a01980s outbreak in Great Britain<\/a>\u00a0of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

BSE is a fatal nervous system disease in cattle; a human form of the disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, was subsequently diagnosed in England, causing the\u00a0deaths of 178 people in the U.K.<\/a>\u00a0through 2017. Medical researchers believed this form of CJD was caused by eating the meat of cattle infected with BSE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Upon hearing these revelations Winfrey proclaimed on-air, \u201cIt has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!<\/a>\u201d The \u201cOprah effect<\/a>\u201d kicked into gear and the term \u201cmad cow disease\u201d rose in the public consciousness.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The resulting lawsuit initially focused on the science of BSE and the extent of the danger to beef consumers. However, the judge\u2019s ruling ultimately hinged on legal questions of freedom of speech, rather than whether \u201cThe Oprah Winfrey Show\u201d broadcast scientifically valid findings.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n
\"\"<\/a>\r\n
Was American beef dangerous for consumers?\u00a0Ernesto Andrade<\/a>,\u00a0CC BY-ND<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n

Science from lawyers, via media, to public<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The verdict itself doesn\u2019t provide a clear reflection of how effectively the science of BSE had been communicated during the trial to the jury. But the case was also tried, as they say, in the court of public opinion.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson imposed a gag order on the attorneys, prohibiting them from talking about the case outside of court. She did, however, provide permanent seats in the Amarillo courtroom for local media. One of us (Larry Lemmons) was the lead reporter for the local CBS affiliate during the trial.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Celebrity sightings around the courthouse were common. PETA protesters traded insults with local restaurant employees grilling burgers for the crowd. Presumably because I was one of the primary local media reporters, my reports were followed by attorneys from both sides. When I personally met Oprah Winfrey she remarked, \u201cSo you\u2019re Larry Lemmons.\u201d I never figured out precisely what that meant.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

My media colleagues and I struggled to understand and communicate the specifics of BSE. We listened to the attorneys present the science to the jury, and then communicated those details to the public, who tended to be more interested in the spectacle.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In Amarillo in 1998, although access to the internet was growing more common, we reporters tended to regard it with suspicion. We gathered news the old-fashioned way, via in-person or phone interviews. For BSE research, I went to the library and a local college where a science professor provided me with some background. Part of my job as a reporter was to get the complicated scientific facts straight, and I couldn\u2019t ask any of the trial participants for clarification.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Looking back over two decades, I wondered if my challenges communicating the science were shared by colleagues and other important players in the trial. Now, as a doctoral student of media and communication (working with Dr. Landrum and others at Texas Tech), I contacted some of them to discuss how attorneys related the science of BSE to the jury and how the media subsequently reported on information presented in the courtroom.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Thinking back to the trial<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

As expected, there are conflicting perspectives on how effectively the science was communicated.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Howard Lyman\u2019s defense attorney, Barry Peterson, said that \u201cto prevail I had to inform the jury that there was reasonable scientific evidence to support Howard\u2019s opinions.\u201d But he also had to consider the political environment: \u201cWe were more concerned about our ability to successfully defend Howard and HARPO Production because we are in beef country.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Despite representing the losing side, one of the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys Vince Nowak said the trial was a success for the cattle industry because it convinced the public that BSE was not a serious threat to American livestock. Though he presented extensively on the science during the trial, he acknowledged that \u201cscience played a very small factor\u201d in the subsequent ruling by the judge.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Nevertheless, some reporters said the local cattle industry, who were not affected by the judge\u2019s gag order, should have been more eager to clarify to the media the relative risks of Texas cattle becoming infected with BSE. At the time, Kay Ledbetter worked for the Amarillo Globe-News. She said obtaining scientific information was frustrating and limited to what was discussed in the courtroom:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

\u201cThere was nobody reliable to discuss what the disease \u2013 bovine spongiform encephalopathy \u2013 really was \u2026 We were left with the catch phrase Mad Cow Disease, and our imagination.\u201d<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On the other hand, Stacy Yates, who covered the trial for local news radio station KGNC, thought both the defense and plaintiffs did a reasonable job communicating the science and that \u201cif you were a person who wanted to understand the science, the coverage was there.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Ultimately the media covering this trial were left to muddle through as best we could \u2013 and the public relied on our efforts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n
\"\"<\/a>\r\n
The case hinged on controversial feeding practices.\u00a0AP Photo\/Nati Harnik, File<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n

The name matters<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

My own notes from the trial are rich with legal and scientific explanations that accompanied courtroom observations. Notes for one report included this passage:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201c[Winfrey\u2019s] attorney Charles Babcock tried to establish links between what\u2019s called \u2018new variant CJD\u2019 in humans and mad cow disease in cattle. [Primary plaintiff Paul] Engler insisted upon precise scientific answers while Babcock tried to put the issue in layman\u2019s terms.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

However, recent research on how to most effectively communicate science has found that sometimes\u00a0putting a scientific issue into less accurate layman\u2019s terms<\/a>\u00a0can add to confusion and heighten controversy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Ledbetter is now an agriculture science communicator for Texas A&M AgriLife, a statewide agricultural research institution. She said that by using the term \u201cmad cow disease,\u201d the media misrepresented the issue:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not Mad Cow Disease, it\u2019s bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE. And if agriculture would have taken the same stance on this issue as they did on Swine Flu, trying to educate on what it really was and asking the media to call it by its real name, H1N1, many people wouldn\u2019t have had the same concerns.\u201d<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Ledbetter\u2019s point of view is supported by science communication research. In one study, researchers investigating a subsequent mad cow outbreak in France determined that the framing of the issue influences public perception. When people were confronted with the term \u201cmad cow,\u201d they\u00a0reacted more emotionally<\/a>\u00a0than they did to a scientific label, such as BSE. It\u2019s an open question, though, how opinion would have changed with the use of a more deliberative description of the disease during the Oprah Winfrey lawsuit.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Today the CDC considers the risks to Americans from BSE to be \u201cextremely low<\/a>.\u201d Since 1993 there have been a total of only 25 cases of BSE in North American cattle, the majority of those in Canada. In \u201cA Comparative Study of Communication About Food Safety Before, During, and After the \u2018Mad Cow\u2019 Crisis,\u201d food law scholar Matteo Ferrari concluded the public decides\u00a0whom to trust regarding the message<\/a>\u00a0by how government, industry or advocates frame it.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In this case, the jury determined the media\u2019s First Amendment protections outweighed the defamation concerns presented by the plaintiffs. Ironically, because of the media focus on the trial, the perspectives of the cattle industry were also highlighted.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The public got the message that there was little evidence that BSE threatened American livestock in a substantial way. Two decades of hindsight suggest that lawyers and media \u2013 in perhaps a piecemeal, stumbling way \u2013 did transmit relatively accurate science information. The cattlemen may have lost the case, but U.S. media consumers were left with the understanding that U.S. beef was safe. Media professionals still struggle with knowing how to best explain and condense complex science and public health issues in ways that won\u2019t inappropriately trigger defensiveness, denial or fear. Research in the area of the science of science communication has made great strides in exploring these issues, but there is still much work to be done.<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Asheley R. Landrum, Texas Tech University More than twenty years ago (1998), images of staggering cattle and descriptions of brains resembling Swiss cheese became associated with one of the most popular television programs of the day when\u00a0Texas Panhandle cattlemen … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-libel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5072","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5072"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5072\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7071,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5072\/revisions\/7071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}