Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
6Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Final Complaint

Final Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25,067 |Likes:
Published by Beef Products Inc.
Official Complaint filed by Beef Products, Inc., Bpi Technology, Inc. and Freezing Machines, Inc. vs.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ABC News, Inc., Diane Sawyer, Jim Avila, David Kerley, Gerald Zirnstein, Carl Custer, and Kit Foshee
Official Complaint filed by Beef Products, Inc., Bpi Technology, Inc. and Freezing Machines, Inc. vs.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ABC News, Inc., Diane Sawyer, Jim Avila, David Kerley, Gerald Zirnstein, Carl Custer, and Kit Foshee

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Beef Products Inc. on Sep 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) IN CIRCUIT COURT:SSCOUNTY OF UNION ) FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUITBEEF PRODUCTS, INC., BPITECHNOLOGY, INC. and FREEZINGMACHINES, INC.,Plaintiffsvs.AMERICAN BROADCASTINGCOMPANIES, INC., ABC NEWS, INC.,DIANE SAWYER, JIM AVILA,DAVID KERLEY, GERALDZIRNSTEIN, CARL CUSTER, and KITFOSHEE,Defendants))))))))))))))))CIV# 12 - _______
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 NATURE OF THE ACTION ..........................................................................................................1PARTIES .......................................................................................................................................10I. Background Regarding Plaintiffs ...........................................................................10II. Background Regarding Defendants .......................................................................11JURISDICTION & VENUE ..........................................................................................................13ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................................14I. Background on Ground Beef and LFTB ................................................................15A. The Process of Making Ground Beef before LFTB...................................15B. The Process of Producing LFTB for Ground Beef ....................................16C. LFTB as a Lean Beef Source for Ground Beef ..........................................19D. The USDA’s Approval of LFTB and BPI’s Process .................................201. The USDA’s 1991 Approval of Fat Reduced Beef .......................202. The USDA’s 1993 Approval of Lean Finely Textured Beef .........213. The USDA’s 2001 Approval of the Ammonium HydroxideProcess ...........................................................................................23E. BPI’s Commitment to Producing a Safe and Nutritious Lean Beef ..........24II. BPI’s Success Prior To Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign AndInterference ............................................................................................................26A. High Demand Fuels BPI’s Expansion .......................................................27B. Additional Benefits of LFTB for the Environment and Consumers ..........27III. ABC’s Opening Attack Against BPI and LFTB ....................................................28A. April 2011 “Food Revolution” Episode on LFTB .....................................28B. AMI Informs ABC of False and Defamatory Statements ..........................30C. ABC’s Reaction to its Broadcasting of False and DefamatoryStatements ..................................................................................................31
 
iiIV. Overview of Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign Against BPI andLFTB ......................................................................................................................32A. Defendants Convinced Consumers They Were Providing “Facts”About BPI and LFTB .................................................................................321. ABC Defendants Promoted Themselves as Reporters of “Facts”............................................................................................322. ABC Defendants Promoted Their “Sources” as Providers of “Facts”............................................................................................343. ABC Defendants Proclaimed They Reported “Facts” AboutBPI and LFTB ................................................................................35B. Duration and Scope of Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign ................36C. Primary Themes of Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign .....................36D. Overview of Consumer Reaction to Defendants’ DisinformationCampaign ...................................................................................................38E. Overview of Defendants’ Actual Malice ...................................................401. Information Provided or Made Available to the Defendants .........402. Other Facts Demonstrating Defendants Knowingly orRecklessly Published False Statements .........................................483. Defendants’ Actions Before, During, and After theDisinformation Campaign Demonstrate Their Intent toInjure BPI and LFTB .....................................................................52V. Defendants Intentionally Maligned BPI and LFTB by Describing LFTB as“Pink Slime” ..........................................................................................................53A. Defendants’ Campaign to Recast and Rename LFTB as “Pink Slime” ........................................................................................................53B. Defendants’ False Statements Were Intended to Create a ConsumerBacklash .....................................................................................................58C. Defendants’ Statements Were False and Defendants Acted withActual Malice .............................................................................................59VI. Defendants Falsely Stated and Implied that LFTB Was Not Meat or Beef ...........62A. Defendants’ Campaign to Convince Consumers LFTB Was NotMeat or Beef ..............................................................................................62

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
janet_v_1 added this note
While BPI prays for judgment against journalists for telling the truth, I pray the judicial system sees the error of shooting the messenger for revealing inconvenient truths to American consumers. BPI tried to foist an inferior product on unsuspecting consumers: Now THAT's a lawsuit!

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->