How SB290/HB433 could help special interests silence public criticism of agricultural practices that harm Florida’s water quality.
There’s a provision buried inside a bill moving quickly through Tallahassee that could financially punish citizens, nonprofits, and journalists for speaking out about agricultural practices that impact Florida’s waterways.
It’s moving through the Florida Legislature as a part of a larger package, SB 290/HB 433, being referred to as “The Florida Farm Bill.”
And one section in particular could become a powerful tool to silence public criticism of agricultural interests like Big Sugar in Florida, even when the criticism is about practices that harm our water.
What SB 290/HB 433 does
The bill contains a provision pertaining to the agriculture industry that expands a “private cause of action” for disparagement, meaning it expands the industry’s ability to sue for defamation.
Right now, Florida has an existing disparagement law limited to perishable agricultural food products, which has been on the books for about 30 years.
When enacted in 1994, the current food libel law was intended to protect perishable products, like fruits and veggies that can spoil quickly, from timely misinformation.
But SB 290/HB 433 would expand that law in a major way by extending it to ALL agricultural food products produced in Florida, like sugarcane—not just perishable products.
Not surprisingly, Big Sugar appears likely to be behind this push, as the bill sponsor has stated a goal of the bill is to allow the sugar industry the same legal protections afforded under the current law.
The News Service of Florida reported bill sponsor Kieth Truenow saying, “There are some things that we produce in the state of Florida that aren’t perishable. They don’t fall under the statute. We want to include them, like sugar or some other products.”
Why Captains For Clean Water is concerned
As a movement and as an organization, we exist to protect Florida’s waters from threats, and that means confronting the practices that harm them. That’s where this bill really becomes an issue.
You see, this bill isn’t just about agricultural “products.” It’s about agricultural “practices” too.
Not only does it expand current law to include non-perishable items like sugarcane, it also expands the definition of agricultural food products to include “any agricultural practices used in the production of such products.”
That matters because agricultural practices can include:
- fertilizer use
- pesticide and herbicide use
- water management practices
- and other production practices (including required Best Management Practices)
Those are exactly the types of practices that can impact water quality, fuel algal blooms, and jeopardize the health of Florida’s fisheries and coastal communities.
Yet now they’re being offered increased protections from public criticism through this bill.
The heart of the problem: raising the cost of speaking up
Florida already recognizes defamation, a legal remedy that protects people and businesses from truly slandering or disparaging statements.
So, this isn’t about whether laws already exist to stop lies.
This is about creating a stronger, ag-specific pathway for lawsuits aimed at public speech, and expanding it into areas where the public often raises concerns before perfect data is available.
It’s important to acknowledge a basic reality here: when it comes to agricultural practices or products, the producer often holds the scientific facts and data, while the public does not have ready access.
This is why people need to be able to raise valid concerns without fear of legal punishment. This bill doesn’t stop misinformation; it stops conversation altogether.
It raises serious free speech concerns, threatens public accountability around water quality, and could effectively scare people into silence.
The most dangerous part: one-way attorney’s fees
This is the part that turns the bill into a potential intimidation machine.
The provision would change the law to award one-way attorney’s fees to a prevailing producer, but NOT to a successful defendant.
So, if the agricultural industry sued an organization or individual and won, the defendant would be on the hook for the industry’s attorney fees. Depending on the scope of the lawsuit and size of the parties involved, that could mean hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
That is not a neutral system for truth. It’s a major departure from:
- the default “American rule,” wherein each party bears their own fees unless a statute/contract says otherwise, and
- Florida’s strong constitutional emphasis on access to courts
And importantly, the current law covering perishable products does not award attorney’s fees or costs. This bill adds that new leverage.
In real life, one-way attorney’s fees can create an environment where:
- powerful industries can threaten speech with financial ruin
- everyday citizens and nonprofits can’t afford to “risk being right”
- the public debate goes quiet, even when the underlying concern is valid
What the public is left with: two bad options
If this becomes law, organizations and citizens are forced into a lose-lose situation with bad options behind each door.
Option 1: Stay quiet
Avoid criticizing agricultural practices tied to water pollution, even when it’s clearly in the public interest. Basically, accept silence and censorship.
Option 2: Speak up anyway
And risk a future where advocacy includes constant legal threats and massive financial exposure.
That’s not how public accountability is supposed to work in Florida.
Why this matters to clean water (and Florida’s economy)
Florida has already seen what happens when water mismanagement and pollution spiral into crisis.
In 2018, major Lake Okeechobee discharges fueled toxic red tide blooms on the coast, hammering communities, threatening human health, and lighting up national headlines.
The crisis lasted months, crippling Florida’s tourism and devastating local economies.
At the time, there were no major studies proving that lake discharges—a result of water management that prioritized Big Sugar’s irrigation supply—intensified existing red tide blooms.
It was obvious to our community who could see it happening lost summer after lost summer, but nothing that would have held up to this law in a disparagement suit.
Since that crisis event—in no small part due to the attention that was brought to the issue by this movement—there have been several breakthrough studies exposing the connection between Lake Okeechobee discharges and red tide intensification.
The first study, led by the University of Florida’s Center for Coastal Solutions, was released in 2022. Were citizens supposed to have waited silently for 4 years before getting the conversation going? NO! The situation needed immediate advocacy and critical attention. Thankfully, that’s what it got, and we have major progress to show because of it.
Clean water progress has required people to speak out early, loudly, and persistently, even before every issue had a neat press release and a perfect set of studies attached.
This bill threatens the public’s ability to do that.
What happens next, and how you can help
On Tuesday, January 26th, this provision was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Rules Committee. Supporters of clean water, public health, conservation, and free speech showed up to testify, traveling through the night to get there. But lawmakers had received so many messages, emails, and phone calls from concerned citizens leading up to the hearing that the committee postponed the bill in a surprising move rather than take a vote.
That matters. The hearing wasn’t postponed because this issue went away, unfortunately. It was postponed because lawmakers did not have the votes to move it forward as written.
But this is not over. The bill will be heard again in the coming weeks, and behind the scenes there are already efforts underway to revise or negotiate the language in hopes of securing the votes needed to pass it.
That is unacceptable.
This provision doesn’t need to be rewritten. It needs to be removed entirely.
Whether you live in Florida or not, this bill matters to you if you care about clean water, public accountability, and the right to speak up without fear of being silenced through costly litigation.
The most important thing you can do right now is speak up.
Click here to automatically email Florida lawmakers and tell them to delete the disparagement provision from SB 290/HB 433.
The First Amendment is not up for negotiation.
How SB290/HB433 could help special interests silence public criticism of agricultural practices that harm Florida’s water quality.
There’s a provision buried inside a bill moving quickly through Tallahassee that could financially punish citizens, nonprofits, and journalists for speaking out about agricultural practices that impact Florida’s waterways.
It’s moving through the Florida Legislature as a part of a larger package, SB 290/HB 433, being referred to as “The Florida Farm Bill.”
And one section in particular could become a powerful tool to silence public criticism of agricultural interests like Big Sugar in Florida, even when the criticism is about practices that harm our water.
What SB 290/HB 433 does
The bill contains a provision pertaining to the agriculture industry that expands a “private cause of action” for disparagement, meaning it expands the industry’s ability to sue for defamation.
Right now, Florida has an existing disparagement law limited to perishable agricultural food products, which has been on the books for about 30 years.
When enacted in 1994, the current food libel law was intended to protect perishable products, like fruits and veggies that can spoil quickly, from timely misinformation.
But SB 290/HB 433 would expand that law in a major way by extending it to ALL agricultural food products produced in Florida, like sugarcane—not just perishable products.
Not surprisingly, Big Sugar appears likely to be behind this push, as the bill sponsor has stated a goal of the bill is to allow the sugar industry the same legal protections afforded under the current law.
The News Service of Florida reported bill sponsor Kieth Truenow saying, “There are some things that we produce in the state of Florida that aren’t perishable. They don’t fall under the statute. We want to include them, like sugar or some other products.”
Why Captains For Clean Water is concerned
As a movement and as an organization, we exist to protect Florida’s waters from threats, and that means confronting the practices that harm them. That’s where this bill really becomes an issue.
You see, this bill isn’t just about agricultural “products.” It’s about agricultural “practices” too.
Not only does it expand current law to include non-perishable items like sugarcane, it also expands the definition of agricultural food products to include “any agricultural practices used in the production of such products.”
That matters because agricultural practices can include:
- fertilizer use
- pesticide and herbicide use
- water management practices
- and other production practices (including required Best Management Practices)
Those are exactly the types of practices that can impact water quality, fuel algal blooms, and jeopardize the health of Florida’s fisheries and coastal communities.
Yet now they’re being offered increased protections from public criticism through this bill.
The heart of the problem: raising the cost of speaking up
Florida already recognizes defamation, a legal remedy that protects people and businesses from truly slandering or disparaging statements.
So, this isn’t about whether laws already exist to stop lies.
This is about creating a stronger, ag-specific pathway for lawsuits aimed at public speech, and expanding it into areas where the public often raises concerns before perfect data is available.
It’s important to acknowledge a basic reality here: when it comes to agricultural practices or products, the producer often holds the scientific facts and data, while the public does not have ready access.
This is why people need to be able to raise valid concerns without fear of legal punishment. This bill doesn’t stop misinformation; it stops conversation altogether.
It raises serious free speech concerns, threatens public accountability around water quality, and could effectively scare people into silence.
The most dangerous part: one-way attorney’s fees
This is the part that turns the bill into a potential intimidation machine.
The provision would change the law to award one-way attorney’s fees to a prevailing producer, but NOT to a successful defendant.
So, if the agricultural industry sued an organization or individual and won, the defendant would be on the hook for the industry’s attorney fees. Depending on the scope of the lawsuit and size of the parties involved, that could mean hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
That is not a neutral system for truth. It’s a major departure from:
- the default “American rule,” wherein each party bears their own fees unless a statute/contract says otherwise, and
- Florida’s strong constitutional emphasis on access to courts
And importantly, the current law covering perishable products does not award attorney’s fees or costs. This bill adds that new leverage.
In real life, one-way attorney’s fees can create an environment where:
- powerful industries can threaten speech with financial ruin
- everyday citizens and nonprofits can’t afford to “risk being right”
- the public debate goes quiet, even when the underlying concern is valid
What the public is left with: two bad options
If this becomes law, organizations and citizens are forced into a lose-lose situation with bad options behind each door.
Option 1: Stay quiet
Avoid criticizing agricultural practices tied to water pollution, even when it’s clearly in the public interest. Basically, accept silence and censorship.
Option 2: Speak up anyway
And risk a future where advocacy includes constant legal threats and massive financial exposure.
That’s not how public accountability is supposed to work in Florida.
Why this matters to clean water (and Florida’s economy)
Florida has already seen what happens when water mismanagement and pollution spiral into crisis.
In 2018, major Lake Okeechobee discharges fueled toxic red tide blooms on the coast, hammering communities, threatening human health, and lighting up national headlines.
The crisis lasted months, crippling Florida’s tourism and devastating local economies.
At the time, there were no major studies proving that lake discharges—a result of water management that prioritized Big Sugar’s irrigation supply—intensified existing red tide blooms.
It was obvious to our community who could see it happening lost summer after lost summer, but nothing that would have held up to this law in a disparagement suit.
Since that crisis event—in no small part due to the attention that was brought to the issue by this movement—there have been several breakthrough studies exposing the connection between Lake Okeechobee discharges and red tide intensification.
The first study, led by the University of Florida’s Center for Coastal Solutions, was released in 2022. Were citizens supposed to have waited silently for 4 years before getting the conversation going? NO! The situation needed immediate advocacy and critical attention. Thankfully, that’s what it got, and we have major progress to show because of it.
Clean water progress has required people to speak out early, loudly, and persistently, even before every issue had a neat press release and a perfect set of studies attached.
This bill threatens the public’s ability to do that.
What happens next, and how you can help
On Tuesday, January 26th, this provision was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Rules Committee. Supporters of clean water, public health, conservation, and free speech showed up to testify, traveling through the night to get there. But lawmakers had received so many messages, emails, and phone calls from concerned citizens leading up to the hearing that the committee postponed the bill in a surprising move rather than take a vote.
That matters. The hearing wasn’t postponed because this issue went away, unfortunately. It was postponed because lawmakers did not have the votes to move it forward as written.
But this is not over. The bill will be heard again in the coming weeks, and behind the scenes there are already efforts underway to revise or negotiate the language in hopes of securing the votes needed to pass it.
That is unacceptable.
This provision doesn’t need to be rewritten. It needs to be removed entirely.
Whether you live in Florida or not, this bill matters to you if you care about clean water, public accountability, and the right to speak up without fear of being silenced through costly litigation.
The most important thing you can do right now is speak up.
Click here to automatically email Florida lawmakers and tell them to delete the disparagement provision from SB 290/HB 433.
The First Amendment is not up for negotiation.