An Iowa State professor, who testified for the defense in Oprah Winfrey’s recent Texas “veggie libel” trial, said he has received only a modest amount of criticism for his statements.

Marvin Hayenga, professor of agricultural economics, testified on Feb. 19 and 20 in Amarillo, Texas, for Winfrey who was being sued for her comments during a 1996 show on “mad cow” disease.

Hayenga told the court a drop in cattle market prices was not a direct result of Winfrey saying she would never eat another burger

Hayenga said there were two other causes — an increase in the supply of purchased and ready-to-be-packed beef after the Oprah show and a decrease in European demand for beef linked to the mad cow disease epidemic in England.

“It was virtually impossible to sort out the impact of the Oprah show as the sole cause of the price changes that occurred after that [show], as was claimed by the plaintiffs in their damage calculation,” Hayenga said.

Hayenga also said there was no significant change in consumer confidence in beef after the show aired.

While a few members of the beef industry criticized Hayenga for his support of the Winfrey team, he said he has received mostly positive comments.

Hayenga was on the witness stand most of one day, he said. According to an article in the Amarillo Globe, he was paid $400 per hour for his testimony.

Other ISU professors agreed with Hayenga’s testimony.

Allen Trenkle, professor of animal science, said the show had little impact and few long-term consequences in Iowa because it addressed a problem that never really existed.

“There’s not been a problem with mad cow disease in the U.S.,” Trenkle said. “There’s no need to scare the public if there’s not a problem.”

Wythe Willey, a Cedar Rapids cattleman and lawyer, also said the trial would have few long-term effects.

“I don’t think that trial is going to amount to much,” Willey said. “It’s not going to affect beef demand much, one way or the other.”

Willey, president of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association from 1994-1996, said the ICA never advocated a “veggie libel” law in Iowa.

The laws are intended to protect agricultural industries from damaging remarks. A similar law was introduced in the Iowa legislature last year, but Willey said it was never high on the ICA’s priority list.

Though the ICA did not actively support the legislation, Willey said it still is important for people in positions such as Winfrey’s to act responsibly.

“[There is] the need for anyone to act responsibly when you talk about matters that might affect somebody else’s livelihood,” he said.

Giles Fowler, professor of journalism and mass communication, said he was concerned that the issue of free speech was not emphasized in the trial.

Fowler said the case needed to address Winfrey’s right to speak negatively about a product.

“What if you have research that says that Idaho potatoes really aren’t as nutritious as potatoes that come from Mexico, and what if you get on a talk show, or bring it to the attention of a talk show host, and she says, ‘I guess I’ve eaten my last Idaho potato,'” he said.

Fowler said all consumers should have the right to express their opinions about products.

“I think it’s very unhealthy to try to cut off people’s rights to comment critically about agricultural products, or industrial products, or anything else,” he said.

Willey expressed concern at guest Howard Lyman’s negative comments about the safety of beef on the Winfrey “mad cow” disease show.

“If somebody’s going to hold himself as an expert, they ought to be held to some level of responsibility,” Willey said.