Big Sugar lost a battle earlier today when a disparagement clause against agricultural producers was removed from the Florida Farm Bill.

This would have been a super dangerous precedent to set against free speech and no doubt would have been axed by the USSC but who knows how many years it would have taken to get there.

https://www.wctv.tv/2026/02/10/florida-senate-removes-controversial-farm-bill-provision/

Basically the sugar industry in Florida has been thwarted at every turn by a group called Captains for Clean Water that have called the industry out for its use of fertilizers that pollute and cause algal blooms that eventually cause fish die offs, it's opposition to land restoration in the state and calling out sugar farming dictating that water cut offs be allowed that severely limit the flow of water through the Everglades.

The sugar folks don't like that.

Fast forward to the Florida Farm Bill on tap, an R-sponsored amendment to the Farm Bill was trying to punish anyone who had bad things to say about agriculture. The rub is that Florida was about to allow the sugar industry more leeway to sue if you said anything disparaging about the effects of the sugar industry on the ecosystem.

So one segment of the ag industry in Florida was going to be able to sue anyone saying bad things about sugar. But thankfully the provision was removed so agricultural sectors can still be talked about when it destroys another part of the ecosystem.

Let's face it, America doesn't need more sugar. This is completely opposite of something like saying "we will sue you if you say cow farts are causing global warming." You're free to google how the industry has tried to downplay its involvement in destroying nature.

This was a way for the sugar industry to try to silence folks from calling them out for destroying marine habitats, which they have done.

My bias: I like to fish in Florida and I'm conservative AF.

Glad it was defeated. Would be interested in Desantis's position on this one.

Here's the thing. The producers don't have millions of dollars and are not big corporations. Only the corporate who own the mill and the processing. So all of you who hate sugar are still taking a shot at the little guys.

And yes, I'm not defending having any type of non-disparagement language in any legislation.

Quote:

---

Let's face it, America doesn't need more sugar.

---

Unless you are industries pressured to replace corn sugar……….

Doesn't Texas already have such a law?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=CP&chapter=CP.96&artSec=96.001

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Doesn't Texas already have such a law?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=CP&chapter=CP.96&artSec=96.001

---

Quote:

---

LIABILITY. (a) A person is liable as provided by Subsection (b) if:
(1) the person disseminates in any manner information relating to a perishable food product to the public;
(2) the person knows the information is false; and
(3) the information states or implies that the perishable food product is not safe for consumption by the public.

---

Don't intentionally lie and claim that sugar is not safe for consumption if it is. Pretty low bar...

Quote:

---

Doesn't Texas already have such a law?

---

Not quite. The Texas law and the current Florida law just cover "perishable" food products.

The proposed Florida law would extend to all food and agriculture equipment.


the question is: Why is saying something disparaging about a non-perishable food a super dangerous precedent to set against free speech and no doubt would have been axed by the USSC, but saying something about perishable foods not?

The Florida legislature is run by RINOs. They seek to undermine DeSantis' authority on a variety of issue's. The Ag Commissioner is where the Legislature tries to consolidate authority that they don't want the governor to execute.

Last year, DeSantis called a special session ofbthe Legislature to vote on a bill he proposed for using FDLE to support enforcement of immigration law by coordination with DHS. The GOP state senate leader gaveled out the special session as soon as it opened and then convened another special session to vote on a bill authored by GOP legislators that they disingenuously named the TRUMP Act. The TRUMP Act would have stripped the governor of authority to enforce state laws on illegal immigrants and transferred that responsibility to the Ag Commissioner. The GOP legislators actually proposed to created a small force of 150 badged Ag Department officers to enforce immigration law. This was specifically to remove enforcement from the FDLE that has thousands of LE officers patrolling Florida highways. The RINOs and Ag Commissioner, who are entirely in the pocket of sugar and other industries in the agricultural lobby, hate that DeSantis wants to zealously enforce immigration laws and cooperate with DHS because they want the cheap pool of illegal alien labor.

DeSantis has his flaws but the Florida GOP would still rather have someone like Jeb Bush or Charlie Crist as governor rather than DeSantis.

Example number 10,000 that R's and D's are not that far apart. Both don't like when the opposition says something they don't like and try to find creative ways to shut it down. And tell me the difference between sugar subsidies and welfare?

I'd like to see all government largess programs restricted to "no sweetener added" food stuffs. Overconsumption of sweetened processed foods are the primary driver of our nation's health collapse.

Before sugar substitutes, they had no Equal.

ETA: The TRUMP Act Bill pushed by the state GOP leadership was >75 pages long in the first draft and introduced immediately when the new special session was opened. They had it already written because they knew DeSantis wanted to act ASAP on his mandate after the 2024 election.

DeSantis then took his case directly to the public and shamed the GOP leadership in the legislature. It's a long video but the most relevant section is from 5:20 to about the 8 minute mark



This is why the RINOs hate DeSantis. Like Trump, he's not afraid to hold an open press conference and take questions from a hostile press corps.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't Texas already have such a law?

---

Not quite. The Texas law and the current Florida law just cover "perishable" food products.

The proposed Florida law would extend to all food and agriculture equipment.


the question is: Why is saying something disparaging about a non-perishable food a super dangerous precedent to set against free speech and no doubt would have been axed by the USSC, but saying something about perishable foods not?

---

My inclination is that this law is there to prevent people the cabbage people from claiming something like all of the spinach in Texas is infected with e-coli when it was just a very limited outbreak in El Paso?

Ulysses90 said:

---

ETA: The TRUMP Act Bill pushed by the state GOP leadership was >75 pages long in the first draft and introduced immediately when the new special session was opened. They had it already written because they knew DeSantis wanted to act ASAP on his mandate after the 2024 election.

DeSantis then took his case directly to the public and shamed the GOP leadership in the legislature. It's a long video but the most relevant section is from 5:20 to about the 8 minute mark



This is why the RINOs hate DeSantis. Like Trump, he's not afraid to hold an open press conference and take questions from a hostile press corps.

---

This man wields executive power like Zoro with a light-saber.

Fun fact! While Bill was trying to break up with Monica, he paused to take a call from Big Sugar.

I think it's because the value of the product vanishes within days. If you spread a lie about oranges and they have a one week shelf life, you can destroy an entire harvest with a few words. There isn't time for the right information to get out there. If you spread lies about a shelf stable product, that time exists.

Which part of the 1st Amendment makes that distinction?