Look, you know how the game is played. Special interests call the tune, your legislators dance; they file bills written by and for deep-pocketed donors. And as you’ve heard us say so many times over the years, few donors have deeper pockets than Big Sugar.

So it was fascinating, though hardly surprising, to read investigative reporter Jason Garcia’s Dec. 18 expose on how “Florida politicians may give Big Sugar legal power to go after activists and silence critics.”

Turns out that a set of legislative proposals filed by Rep. Keith Truenow (R-13) in the House and Sen. Danny Alvarez (R-69) in the Senate, collectively dubbed the “Florida Farm Bill,” contains a provision expanding Florida’s “food libel law.” Currently, the law seeks to prevent critics from disparaging Florida’s perishable agricultural products. Now, Senate Bill 290 and House Bill 433 would broaden its scope, allowing agricultural producers to sue for disparagement of non-perishable products — like sugar.

The provision would also expand the definition of “agricultural food product” to include farming practices. This means agricultural producers could sue if you disparage the methods used — like, say, the burning of sugarcane fields prior to harvest.

The existing Florida law, writes Garcia, hasn’t been touched by the Legislature in 20 years. So why the proposed changes now?

It could be that Florida’s sugar industry has been stung by investigative reporting about sugarcane burning and its impact on the nearby Glades communities. Recent reporting from Inside Climate News, the Palm Beach Post, the (U.K.) Guardian and other media outlets, along with the work of groups like the Sierra Club and our friends at Friends of the Everglades, has hammered the industry over the health impacts of burning. The industry surely wants to strike back at its critics — and our Legislature is providing them with the weapons.

But again, don’t be surprised: as our “Dirty Money Project” has detailed, between Jan. 1, 2018 to July 5, 2024, less than six full years, the industry gave $22.8 million to candidates and political action committees at the state level alone. It gave millions more to county-level candidates, and federal candidates and causes.

Call it an investment — one that appears to be paying off. 

Stay tuned as we fight and follow the progress of this provision and try to leave a sour taste in Big Sugar’s collective mouth.