Date: September 12, 2013 To: Dr. Maria Moore From: Kurt Schueler Regarding: BPI Technology vs.

ABC News, Inc. The Facts of the Case: Throughout the spring of 2012, ABC News with Diane Sawyer broadcast a series of reports on the topic of pink slime, a term for what is now known as Lean Finely Textured Beef. Throughout the reports, ABC News mentioned the three plaintiffs, Beef Products, Inc., BPI Technology, Inc., and Freezing Machines, Inc. The report was intended to display pink slime and unsafe and unhealthy (Brokaw and Schulte). This meat is used in many places, including fast food restaurants, school lunch programs, and other beef products. The report repeatedly referred to Lean Finely Textured Beef as pink slime repeatedly, a term that doesnt make anything sound very appetizing, especially when it is something that is used around the country, everyday, with many people not realizing what it is. The report highlighted the large scope and many uses for the product, while characterizing it as something that is both unhealthy and unsafe to eat. Lean Finely Textured Beef is a low fat processed food product, blasted with small amounts of ammonium hydroxide to prevent viruses such as E. Coli from contaminating the meat (Graybow and Huffstutter). Made from real beef and beef trimmings, this food does resemble a pink slime when seen in bulk, before being shaped into whatever it is intended to be, such as a burger or ground beef. The food is used in a number of widely consumed and sold foods, like fast food hamburgers and packaged meatloafs. The report itself concentrated on BPI and the other plaintiffs as manufacturers of pink slime. The report also claimed that 70% of ground beef sold in the US contained this product, and led consumers to believe the product was unsafe. After the report, BPI and the other plaintiffs were under a lot of scrutiny. BPIs sales were down by more than 50% and a loss of many jobs and facility closings occurred. On September 13, 2012, BPI, BPI Technology, and FMI filed a lawsuit against ABC, ABC News, and reporters such as Diane Sawyer for knowingly misleading consumers about BPI, the other plaintiffs and their Lean Finely Textured Beef product. BPI and the other plaintiffs seek over $1 billion dollars for their losses as a result of the reports and for the defamation itself. This case is still pending, with ABC seeking to move the case to a federal court, as opposed to a state court. Legal Principles: Defamation can be defined as ruining an individual or corporate reputation. It is assumed that whomever is claiming to be defamed was not in this

position or otherwise was not harmed in this way at an earlier time. This case meets some of the requirements for defamation. Clearly after the report had been aired many viewers felt disgusted by what they saw and who they saw promoting it, damaging the reputation of the companies involved. After the loss of sales and downsizing, it is clear that the reputation of the company had been severely compromised. The report was shown on ABC News, so it clearly had been something published. The plaintiffs were directly named as sellers and manufacturers of pink slime, leading to the job losses and lost sales. The identification of the company was what may have led to that decline. The company is able to correlate the report with the loss of sales and employees, and can show exactly how much it lost due to the publics backlash after the report, fulfilling the compensation facet of defamation. Also, ABC News is not a satire. If this had been on The Daily Show or another program of the like, then they may be able to rest on the parody exception, but that is not the case. The two areas where defamation may be hard to prove is falsity and fault. It is not immediately clear if ABC News had falsely informed the viewers of their show. BPI claims that the reports are false, and part of a disinformation campaign on ABC News behalf, but unless the case goes any further, the in-depth specifics of what BPI does may not be revealed. Due to that, falsity cannot be determined straightaway. While much of the popular backlash had started after ABC News reports, many, including and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, had already criticized pink slime (Oliver). The fault for the controversy and backlash against BPI may not be completely attributed to ABC News. Due to this, defamation is not entirely proven, in my opinion. Analysis: When finding a case to write about, I just wasnt really finding anything that piqued my interest, until I just tried to find the most recent, high profile suit. This was one of the first results, and one that I had remembered hearing about. I havent seen the reports on pink slime, but I do remember hearing about the controversy and subsequent legal action on behalf of the manufacturers of pink slime. Now, Im not going to lie and say I havent eaten a McDonalds burger and been disgusted by it. McDoubles are a guilty pleasure. Im well aware that the food I eat, not limited to fast food, is sometimes processed and preserved in similar ways that pink slime is. And I still eat it. Its going to be difficult for BPI and the other plaintiffs to prove that ABC News is the direct cause for its troubles, but I still feel its no coincidence that those major troubles started after the reports. This case is still pending, and may not even go to trial, but I feel like ABC News will be cleared of any wrongdoing, barring some courtroom revelation that totally changes the case. Pink slime is likely not healthy, but its probably no more unhealthy, and possibly even healthier, than many other things we eat and drink regularly. ABC News could have picked anything similar to this product to report about, but if you look at what pink slime really looks like, Im sure youd agree that it looks disgusting and couldnt possibly be beef, but it is. It certainly films well, and just going off the basis that it doesnt look like something people would voluntarily eat was likely the kind

of thing ABC News was looking for. Unfortunately for BPI, it happened to be their product. I certainly understand why they would pursue this legal action, but I believe that ultimately it will not turn out well for them. References: Brokaw, Chet, and Grant Schulte. "'Pink Slime' Lawsuit: Defamation Case Against ABC News Tough To Prove, Experts Say." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. Hufstutter, PJ, and Martha Graybow. "'Pink Slime' Suit Could Become High-stakes Defamation Case." 'Pink Slime' Suit Could Become High-stakes Defamation Case. MSN News, 3 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2013. Oliver, Jamie. "The Pink Slime Story Continues." Jamie Oliver. Food Revolution, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2013. I also received information about the case and about pink slime from the following websites: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/southdakota/sddce/4:2012cv04183/51675/74/0.pdf?ts=1376380861 http://www.beefisbeef.com