What Is Florida Farm Bill 433, Vol. 1: What Is It? and What Happened?

The Fly Box LLC
11 minutes ago
4 min read

This feature was written by The Fly Box and published in Casts That Care, our charity-driven fly fishing newsletter.

Casts That Care delivers real stories, deep dives, and the heart of the fly fishing world while donating 50 percent of all subscription fees to a different fishing-related nonprofit each month. For February, those funds will support Her Waters, Inc.

Join Here.

Florida lawmakers are currently debating two major bills: House Bill 433 and Senate Bill 290. These bills are being described as agriculture support packages, but there’s one section that has drawn strong backlash. That section could change how people are allowed to talk about water pollution and environmental harm in the state.

This article breaks down what the bills are, what they say, and why people are paying close attention.

What’s in These Bills, and Why You Should Care

House Bill 433 and Senate Bill 290 are being sold as routine farm legislation. But the parts that actually matter to people who fish, guide, or fight for clean water aren’t about tractors or land leases, they’re about what’s happening to our waters, and who’s allowed to talk about it.

Section 48 Senate Bill 290

Here’s what the bills do beyond the usual agriculture red tape:

They would make it easier for large agricultural companies to sue critics — including guides, scientists, or citizens — who speak publicly about pollution, runoff, or farming practices that harm water.
They would open the door to using state-managed conservation lands for private agriculture, which could further damage natural habitat, wetlands, and water quality.
They block local governments from placing limits on gas-powered equipment — even in areas trying to reduce air and noise pollution near sensitive coastal and aquatic zones.

But all of that is a distraction from the real move: a rewrite of Florida’s food disparagement law that could make it legally dangerous to speak up about sugarcane burning, fertilizer runoff, or anything else tied to the ag industry.

If you care about water, if you fish, if you document algae or guide clients near it — this affects you.

What Is Section 47 (HB 433) and Section 48 (SB 290)?

These sections change a law passed in the 1990s called the “food disparagement law.” That law allowed farmers to sue someone if they knowingly spread false information about perishable food and it caused financial harm.

The new version expands that law in three important ways:

It removes the word “perishable,” so now it applies to any kind of food — like sugar, beef, or citrus.
It includes criticism of “farming practices,” such as burning sugarcane fields or using fertilizer.
It makes it easier for companies to sue someone who they believe caused them harm, especially if the statement is not backed by “reliable scientific data.”

The bills also allow companies to collect legal fees if they win the case, but do not allow the person being sued to collect fees even if they win. That means anyone sued under this law could lose thousands of dollars just defending themselves.

Who Is Behind These Changes?

The proposed legal change came from Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson. He is a former Senate President and a longtime supporter of Florida’s sugar industry.

According to the publication Acres USA, a source familiar with the bill said: “His goal is to ensure that sugar growers can use Florida’s food libel law, too.”

Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson, Senator Keith Truenow, and Rep. Danny Alverez

Senator Keith Truenow and Representative Danny Alvarez are the main sponsors in the Senate and House. They argue that Florida’s farmers are being unfairly criticized and need tools to protect themselves.

Simpson said in a public statement, “Florida farmers are under constant bombardment from misinformation. This is about giving them tools to protect themselves.”

*A sugar cane field burns before its harvested in Okeelanta, Fla - 2021*

At the heart of this fight is Florida’s sugar industry, often called “Big Sugar.” Companies like U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals are two of the most politically powerful players in the state. For years, they’ve faced criticism for practices like sugarcane burning and nutrient runoff, which scientists and fishing guides say fuel harmful algae blooms and water pollution. Critics argue that this bill isn’t just about protecting farmers. It’s about shielding these companies from public scrutiny. Instead of fixing environmental damage, they believe this is a way to silence the people speaking up about it.

Who Opposes It?

The group Captains for Clean Water was one of the first to speak out. They are a nonprofit made up of fishing guides and water advocates who work to protect Florida’s coastlines and estuaries.

In a public statement, they wrote: “This bill doesn’t stop misinformation — it stops conversation altogether. It creates a legal trapdoor to sue citizens, scientists, and advocates who are simply trying to protect Florida’s waters.”

Over 9,000 emails and messages have been sent to lawmakers urging them to stop or change the bill. Many of those messages came from regular Floridians, environmental groups, scientists, and clean water organizations.

Anna Upton, CEO of the Everglades Trust, spoke at a public hearing on February 4. She said, “This provision allows for lawsuits based not on actual falsehoods, but on whether someone else feels economically harmed. It silences critics. It’s a First Amendment problem.”

Even though every speaker at the hearing opposed the bill, lawmakers voted to move it forward with no changes.

Where Things Stand Now

House Bill 433 has passed two House committees and is on its way to the State Affairs Committee.

Senate Bill 290 has passed the Senate Agriculture and Fiscal Policy Committees. It is now being held in the Senate Rules Committee.

The controversial section has not been removed from either version. Unless lawmakers amend or strike it, the provision is still active.

What’s Coming Next

In Vol. 2, we’ll explain what these changes mean for freedom of speech, how similar laws have been used in the past, and why legal experts say this could silence people who speak up about the environment.