AgBiotech Interests Claim Starbucks Campaign is a Nefarious Plot to Sell More Organic Coffee

Web Note: The nice guys at agbionews are trying to claim that the Starbucks campaign is just an evil corporate plot to force innocent customers to buy more organic coffee. Aren't we evil! (see their article below) in fact we have lots of interesting information about the links between agbionews contributors and a whole range of far-right corporate lobbyists and anti-semites - just in case you need the information.

________________________________________________

"THE HOPE OF THE INDUSTRY IS THAT OVER TIME THE MARKET IS SO FLOODED (WITH GM) THAT THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, YOU JUST SORT OF SURRENDER."

[Quote by Don Westfall, vice-president, Promar International]

________________________________________________

From: Andrew Apel, Editor <agbionews@earthlink.net

Could Mr. Redick or any other attorney on this discussion list give us a brief opinion on this? As many of you likely know, a coalition of eco-reactionary groups plan to target Starbucks coffee shops across the US and Canada on March 20.

The activist groups include Friends of the Earth (FOE), Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network and Sustain. The activist groups, which promote organic farming and scare consumers with hypothetical and sometimes bizarre portrayals of the risks of GMOs, are demanding that the company, among other things, eschew products with GM ingredients and instead promote  Fair Trade, shade-grown, organic coffee.

Ronnie Cummins, the head of the umbrella group Organic Consumers Association (OCA), promised that this will be the largest consumer campaign ever mounted against a major US food and beverage company and warned that Starbucks will run a significant risk of damaging their worldwide reputation and profitability unless the company capitulates completely. This campaign against Starbucks will continue until they meet all of our demands,  Cummins said. If necessary we will extend this campaign internationally to Europe and Asia.

The Minnesota-based OCA is linking the protest to Minnesota-based organic coffee interests such as Peace Coffee, through which the anti-biotech Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy sells Fair Trade, shade-grown, organic coffee, and Cloudforest Initiatives, a Minnesota-based outfit which also offers to sell such coffee.

The OCA alleges that genetically modified ingredients are present in Starbucks products, and says those products are contaminated.

This is not the first time coffee interests have targeted Starbucks.

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act governs many types of unfair competition by forbidding... false descriptions or representations, in connection with the sale of goods or services.. Section 1125 of the act seems to require the same, making it illegal to make any false or misleading representation of fact, which... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods...

In the 1995 case of Raybestos v. Younger, the US Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) found that, as between competitors, defamation can constitute a violation of both the Lanham Act and the Indiana Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.

The law of unfair competition is primarily comprised of torts that cause an economic injury...

Disparagement and interference with the lawful business of Starbucks could be considered at least as a tort, which is defined as  unintentional violation of another person's rights, usually due to negligence. It is different than a crime, which generally is an intentional violation of another's rights. A tort is subject to civil action and subsequent judgement for damages payable to the wronged party, whereas a crime is subject to criminal action and subsequent penalty.

There are, however, intentional torts resulting in economic harm which the law recognizes. Note that the OCA has threatened economic harm to Starbuck's.

My questions are:

1. If the OCA carries through with its threats, will a provable connection between it, its cohorts and organic coffee interests show a violation of the Lanham Act?

2. If the OCAís campaign goes ahead, can it be sued in tort without reference to the Lanham act or proof of any connection to organic coffee interests?

3. If the OCA and its cohorts disparage conventional farming to serve the economic interests of organic farming interests, could that show a violation of the Lanham Act?

4. Could a concerted trade disparagement effort such as described on the OCA website and related websites establish a violation of the Federal RICO statute?

5. If any of 1-4 above are colorable claims, why are they never pressed in the courts?

6. Why is doing legal research on the net so egregiously difficult? It should be the ideal medium.