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

BPI v. ABC: Week Two Review

Jeremy Ludemann
/
SDPB

High-ranking members of the media and agriculture industries took the stand last week in the defamation case between Beef Products Incorporated and ABC. BPI accuses ABC of conducting a wrongful media campaign by using the term ‘pink slime’ to describe its lean, finely, textured beef product by using the term ‘pink slime’ in network news reports. The Dakota-Dunes based meat company is suing the network and correspondent Jim Avila and claims almost two billion dollars in damages. If BPI wins, that could be tripled under the South Dakota Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act.  South Dakota Public Broadcasting’s Jeremy Ludemann reports.

Jurors considered testimony from David Theno last Monday. Theno is the former food safety chief for Subway and Jack-in-the-Box restaurants. He said he was a consultant for BPI from about 2010 to 2012 and reviewed the company’s food safety practices. He says he received a call from Jim Avila in March of 20-12 – the same time the network was airing the stories at the center of the case. Theno testified that Avila was abusive and denigrating to him and said Avila told him he was a shill and a hired gun for BPI. Theno also said Avila used an expletive and hung up the phone.

Tuesday brought the testimony of former ABC World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer. Sawyer testified that she saw network reports as “absolutely factual and fair” and “raising an important issue.”

Avila testified via deposition on Wednesday. He defended his reporting and the use of the term ‘pink slime' when asked by BPI attorney Dan Webb. "Did you think about the possibility that the viewing audience would interpret calling LFTB slime…that they would view calling LFTB slime as repulsive?" Webb asked. Avila responded, "I never used the term ‘slime’ alone. I called it ‘pink slime’ because that’s what it was called by Mr. Zirnstein."

Gerald Zirnstein is a retired US Department of Agriculture scientist. He testified in his deposition that he disagreed with the USDA’s approval of BPI’s product and said it wasn’t meat. He discussed federal regulations in this portion of his testimony after questioning from Webb:

In fact, if we go to subpart B, within the title of subpart B of 319.15, Zirnstein said. Webb responded yes as Zirnstein was arguing his point. Zirnstei It says raw meat products. W: Yes. Z: They don’t say it here but the definition of meat is skeletal muscle meat. It does not include a meat by-product, a processed meat product of low quality and different texture.” 

Another former government scientist, Carl Custer, also testified via deposition. He is also known as a critic of lean, finely textured beef.

This week’s witness list includes meat representatives from Walmart and grocery chains Safeway and Kroger – along with officials from Cargill and Tyson.