The Wall Street Journal reports that Tyson Foods has reassured a federal district court that it is changing its approach to advertising of antibiotic-free chicken products. The assurances come a month after Tyson said that it would change its labels from reading “raised without antibiotics” to “chicken raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans."
The change was made because of charges that Tyson’s so-called antibiotic-free chickens actually have been given an antibiotic called ionophores, which the Journal describes as “commonly added to poultry feed to help prevent an intestinal parasite that can lead to lower body weight or death in poultry, causing economic loss to producers. Ionophores aren't used in human medicine and therefore don't pose an immediate risk of causing antibiotic resistance in humans, something that is of growing concern to the medical and scientific communities.”
While Tyson has been changing its labels, it apparently did not change some of its advertising to reflect the wording change, and the company maintained that this was not required by its previous agreement. But now, under threat of litigation, Tyson has assured the courts that it will make the broader adjustment.
The change was made because of charges that Tyson’s so-called antibiotic-free chickens actually have been given an antibiotic called ionophores, which the Journal describes as “commonly added to poultry feed to help prevent an intestinal parasite that can lead to lower body weight or death in poultry, causing economic loss to producers. Ionophores aren't used in human medicine and therefore don't pose an immediate risk of causing antibiotic resistance in humans, something that is of growing concern to the medical and scientific communities.”
While Tyson has been changing its labels, it apparently did not change some of its advertising to reflect the wording change, and the company maintained that this was not required by its previous agreement. But now, under threat of litigation, Tyson has assured the courts that it will make the broader adjustment.
- KC's View:
