Listen to the article
In a high-profile case highlighting tensions between corporate interests and environmental activism, food industry giant Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited (CPF) appeared before the Nonthaburi Provincial Court on October 22 to pursue criminal defamation charges against an environmental foundation leader.
The case centers on allegations that BioThai Foundation Secretary-General Witoon Lianjamroon disseminated false information linking CPF to the spread of invasive blackchin tilapia in Thailand’s waterways. According to court documents, the public prosecutor has charged Lianjamroon with criminal defamation by publication, a serious offense under Thai law.
During the initial hearing, Lianjamroon maintained his innocence by entering a not guilty plea. The court granted CPF’s request to join the proceedings as a co-plaintiff alongside the public prosecutor, setting December 1, 2025, as the date for pre-trial evidence examination.
The controversy erupted following a public seminar broadcast live online on July 26, 2024, where prosecutors allege Lianjamroon presented fabricated images and made misleading claims about CPF’s aquaculture operations. Among the disputed materials were photographs falsely labeled as CPF facilities, mischaracterized images of fish breeding procedures, and aerial photographs of shrimp ponds incorrectly identified as fish ponds.
Invasive blackchin tilapia have become a significant ecological concern in Thailand, where the non-native species threatens local aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. The spread of these invasive fish has raised questions about aquaculture practices and environmental safeguards within Thailand’s substantial seafood industry, which exports globally and contributes significantly to the national economy.
Thailand ranks among the world’s largest seafood producers, with CPF being one of the country’s most prominent agro-industrial conglomerates. The company operates integrated businesses spanning livestock and aquaculture production, processing, and food manufacturing, with operations across multiple countries in Asia and beyond.
The case highlights growing tensions between Thailand’s powerful agribusiness sector and environmental advocacy groups. In recent years, environmental organizations have increasingly scrutinized the ecological impact of industrial-scale aquaculture, raising concerns about habitat destruction, water pollution, and invasive species introduction.
Criminal defamation cases in Thailand have drawn international attention, with human rights organizations expressing concern about their potential chilling effect on legitimate criticism and public discourse. Under Thai law, criminal defamation carries potential imprisonment, distinguishing it from civil defamation remedies available in many other countries.
For CPF, the lawsuit represents an assertive stance against what it characterizes as damaging misinformation. In a statement, the company emphasized that the legal action reflects its “commitment to factual accuracy, integrity, and legal accountability,” adding that it seeks to “protect its corporate reputation and prevent deliberate misinformation from misleading the public.”
Environmental advocates have increasingly used digital platforms to raise awareness about ecological issues, sometimes leading to disputes over the accuracy of shared information and images. The proliferation of online content has created new challenges for verification, particularly when complex environmental issues intersect with corporate interests.
As the case proceeds through Thailand’s judicial system, it will likely draw attention from environmental groups, business associations, and legal observers concerned with the balance between protecting corporate reputations and preserving space for environmental advocacy and public debate.
The court’s eventual ruling could have implications beyond this specific dispute, potentially influencing how environmental campaigns are conducted and how corporations respond to criticism in Thailand’s evolving information landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Food safety and environmental protection are important issues, but false claims can also damage legitimate businesses. I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of this case and the evidence on both sides.
You make a good point. It’s a complex issue with valid concerns on multiple sides. The court proceedings should help provide clarity on the facts.
Interesting case about false labeling claims against a major food producer. It will be important to see the evidence and arguments from both sides to determine if the accusations have merit or are simply defamatory.
Indeed, these types of disputes between corporations and activists can get quite contentious. Hopefully the judicial process can help uncover the truth and resolve the matter fairly.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between corporate interests and environmental activism. I’ll be following the court proceedings with interest to see how the facts and evidence play out.
Yes, these types of disputes are always complex. Hopefully the judicial process can help shed light on the truth and lead to a fair resolution.
While the environmental concerns raised are understandable, making false claims is never acceptable. I’m glad to see CPF taking legal action to defend its reputation and business integrity. The court will need to carefully weigh all the evidence.
Agreed. Responsible businesses should be able to operate without facing unfounded accusations. But the environmental impacts also warrant thorough investigation.
As a shareholder, I’m glad to see CPF defending its reputation and integrity in court. Unfounded accusations can severely impact a company’s operations and shareholder value. However, the environmental concerns also deserve a fair hearing.
Agreed. It’s important to balance business interests with environmental protection. I hope the evidence presented can help strike that balance appropriately.