Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

BPI v. ABC: Week One Review

Jeremy Ludemann
/
SDPB

The second week of the defamation trial between Beef Products Incorporated and ABC News is underway at the Union County Courthouse in Elk Point. In last Monday's opening statements, attorneys for The Dakota-Dunes based beef company alleges ABC's reporting about its lean, finely textured beef was a wrongful media campaign that caused significant financial harm. Attorneys for the network claimed the reporting was accurate, and that BPI didn't want people to know how its product was made. South Dakota Public Broadcasting's Jeremy Ludemann reports. 
 
BPI's first witness in this case was Ran Kivetz of Columbia University's Business School. He testified that the repeated use of the term "pink slime" led to negative reactions to its product.

On cross-examination, ABC attorneys questioned Kivetz if participants were asked about their views on the media and on politics...and if they'd already viewed the reports from ABC or other media organizations about BPI's product. Kivetz answered no to these questions.

The week concluded with two food scientists testifying. Mindy Breshears from Texas Tech University said it was false to say that BPI's product was pink slime. She said BPI had stringent food safety procedures that she observed. In response, ABC's attorney brought up a notice of enforcement from the US Department of Agriculture that said the company needed to improve hazard prevention practices. 
 
Kerri Gehringfrom Texas A&M University testified on Friday that BPI's product is beef and has similar nutritional value to other ground beef. On cross examination, ABC attorneys cited statements from food scientists who believed the protein quality of BPI's product was not the same as its peers. 
 
This week, the jury considers testimony from former ABC World News tonight anchor Diane Sawyer and ABC national correspondent Jim Avila.
 
The trial is expected to continue until late July. BPI claims $1.9 billion in actual damages in this case. If the company wins at trial, that figure may be tripled under South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act. For South Dakota Public Broadcasting, I'm Jeremy Ludemann.