RWA? That’s “raised without antibiotics” for all of us city-slickers. Seems chicken-champ Tyson Foods got in trouble with some of its birds. Sort of. Depends on who’s story you’re gonna believe.
Except for people living under rocks, everyone, including Tyson, knows that the American public wants to eat more healthful food. So Tyson hatches a plan to raise, market, and sell some of their brood produced using no antibiotics. And of course it wants the public to know about this healthier chicken alternative. Like all good companies — read, companies that have to comply with the US Department of Agriculture rules and regulations with regard to food manufacturing, lest consumers conk out on E. coli or some other nasty disaster (See the latest fresh tomato debacle) — Tyson applies to the USDA for permission to use the label “raised without antibiotics” for these uber-healthy chickens. And, the USDA says yes. Cue the sound of joy and jubilation emanating from Tyson’s marketing department as well as perhaps a less vociferous reaction from its executive suites. Maybe a tasteful humming of “We’re in the Money.” This labeling permission was granted last May.
So Tyson began rolling out their thusly labeled chicken products across the nation. It didn’t take long for a couple of Tyson’s dastardly competitors to notice. Perdue and Sanderson Farms filed a lawsuit, charging false and misleading advertising since the feed that Tyson gave the chickens used for these products contained ionophores, an additive used to prevent nasty gastrointestinal problems in poultry. Injunctions, opposing rulings, denials, and further filings from both sides, like, well, chicken feathers, flew.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, er, the government (kinda the same thing for the next six or seven months, but who’s counting?), it seems the USDA goofed. Its very own Food Safety and Inspection Service unit classifies ionophores as antibiotics. So it took back its permission last fall. Tyson, having spent lots of money on advertising, publicity, and marketing, not to mention packaging and the labels themselves (about $20 million according to the company), was a bit miffed but offered to change its claim to read “Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact Antibiotics Resistance in Humans.” Uncrossed your eyes yet?
To confuse matters even more, the Food and Drug Administration, while it has no oversight in this instance, does not consider those accursed ionophores antibiotics. To Tyson’s credit, it has asked the Agriculture Department to consider starting a public process for more clarity and consistency in labeling and advertising rules for food product claims.
However, back at that OK Corral better known as the federal appeals courts, those evil, suit-filing competitors said Tyson’s revised claim only served to confuse the consumer and, more importantly, bottom-line-lovers that companies tend to be, caused them to lose money as a result. (Perdue claimed $10 million in losses; Sanderson claimed $4 million.) The appeals courts weren’t buying it and tossed out the suit, saying the companies had failed to prove their claims.
And here it gets kinda hairy (feathery?). Tyson, good corporate citizen that it claims it is, says it has now voluntarily pulled its no-antibiotic advertising and labeling. But the gumint says it sent Tyson a letter requiring them to do so. Guess it boils down when Tyson got the USDA’s letter. And who really knows? Tyson says it was late on the very day it decided to take its voluntary action. Perhaps we need to seek out the mail clerk at Tyson.
All I know is, when it comes to food labeling, it’s time for everyone, Tyson and all of its cohorts in poultry production, along with the various and sundry federal agencies involved, to get their ducks in a row.
Comments
Leave a Comment