Food is not always something that you put in your mouth and eat!

Natural is the opposite of artificial or synthetic, right?  It’s something that isn’t altered or created by humankind rather something that comes from nature…… I think!

As I’ve often said, folks, it’s all in the words!  Something as simple as the word “natural” is under heavy scrutiny because of slick advertising being used on food labels that confuses consumers as to what the product is.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking public comment asking if it’s appropriate to define the word “natural”, if so, how FDA should define the word “natural”, and to decide how the agency should determine appropriate use of “natural” on food labels.

which way do i go 2I have to stop here for a moment and say, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME”?
FDA doesn’t know if it’s appropriate, how to define the word natural, or determine appropriate use on labels?  Reminds me of a quote from Alice In Wonderland ~~~ “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here”.

Phew…  Sorry folks, I had a moment, sarcasm kicked in!
Moving on…..

How many products in the grocery store shout out a reference in some type or form of the word “natural”? As a consumer, is your purchase influenced by a shout out such as “all natural”?  If you say yes, you aren’t alone in your thinking.  Most consumers are filled with a picture that the product came from a producer who supplied them with something that was raised or grown in its most natural state.

The Gospel according to the FDA website

  “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.”

FDA shares food labeling oversight with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  USDA is in charge of the use of “natural” on meat and poultry labeling.  According to the Gospel of USDA –

“A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product.  The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as “no artificial ingredients; minimally processed”)”.

The ambiguous meaning of “natural” as defined by regulations leaves consumers unprotected and confused.  Is it unreasonable for consumers to depend upon food labeling and have confidence in government agency oversight that ensures a product is actually what it claims?  Using the word “natural” on food labeling only refers to processing of the food not where it came from or how it was grown.  Most consumers do not know this!

A good example to ponder can be found in poultry.  According to USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service

Poultry is not injected with water, but some water is absorbed during cooling in a chill-tank, a large vat of cold, moving water. The chill-tank lowers the temperature of the slaughtered birds and their giblets (hearts, livers, gizzards, etc.). During this water chilling process, turkeys and chickens will absorb some of the water, and this amount must be prominently declared on the label. It is not unusual for poultry to declare 8 to 12% retained water on the label.”

This so called “chill-tank” is referred to by some as the “fecal soup bath” whereby processed chickens are dumped into a large tank or vat to cool down the carcass.  Akin to ground beef derived from many different cows mixed up together for packaging and shipped out for consumption, thousands of chicken carcasses co-mingle in the chill-tank.  The most commonly used type of anti-bacterial/microbial to prevent cross contamination of the co-mingling chickens is chlorine, however there are many other products on the market approved for use.  Chlorine does not exist naturally on our plant, it is made by humankind.

Yet I see many poultry products on the market with the words “natural” or “all natural” in large bold letters on the packaging.  Here is where the pondering comes in.  If chicken carcasses retain 8-12 percent water from processing (not naturally occurring original body water) the end product is altered.  Furthermore, in that chill-tank water that is retained from processing is some type of humanly added anti-bacterial/microbial that is not a natural derivative of our planet.  That would make the end product further altered from its natural state.

I suppose USDA’s ambiguous wording referring to the use of the word “natural” on meat and poultry labels absolves poultry products from not being “natural” under the term of “minimal processing” but for the life of me I can’t figure out how poultry products get around the term of “no artificial ingredients”.

There you have it folks!  In reality the word “natural” on food labeling is worthless and cannot be depended upon to really mean something.  Most of the food you eat is processed in some manner and therefore is no longer really “natural”.

To avoid years of studies, recommendations, and argument, not to mention waste of countless taxpayer dollars, why not just prohibit the use of the words “natural” and “all natural” on all food products or labels.  If the food industry insists on a definition to continue with marketing ploys for food products, wouldn’t it be less wasted time and much less costly to simply look the word up in the dictionary?

My next question would be why do we need two different federal agencies governing food labels?

A network of nonprofit organizations, farmers, consumers and businesses launched a campaign earlier this month aiming to reform Maryland’s food system that lacks adequate fairness, transparency, and accountability. I’m happy to say that I participate on the group’s farmer advisory council.

Fair Farms Maryland, convened by Waterkeepers Chesapeake and supported by more than 40 endorsing partners, is working to create awareness about the relationship between our food systems, the environment and public health.

A sub title on the group’s press release says “Fair Farms campaign showcases sustainable farmers who “”farm against the grain””.  I guess it could be said that I’m one of those farmers.  Sending my brain into overdrive is the “farming against the grain” part.

For example, Nick Baily of Grand View Farm in Forest Hill, MD says “we set out to prove that wholesome food can be produced in a way that regenerates the land, respects nature and the needs of the animals and reestablishes a lost visceral connection between consumers and their food”.

I started thinking that the goals of Nick’s farm shouldn’t be considered farming against the grain it should be the norm in farming.  I mean really, shouldn’t we all want to produce wholesome food, regenerate the land that gives to us, respect nature and the needs of our farm animals and have a connection with those who consume our food?

Another example, “Taxpayers heavily subsidize the intensive farming norm, while also paying higher bills for related health care costs and to restore the damage done to our environment” says Bob Gallagher, in Annapolis, MD, a board member of Waterkeepers Chesapeake and co-chairman of the Maryland Clean Agriculture Coalition.  Bob wrote a guest column “Let’s insist on sustainable food system”, in the Capital Gazette about the Fair Farms campaign.

Bob refers to intensive farming as the norm for food production. Without going into a lengthy explanation suffice it to say that I’m talking about industrialized food production utilizing methods without regard to public and environmental health, lack of respect for the land and animals that sustain us, and where the almighty dollar outweighs the inclination to produce food that sustains farms and communities.

Comparing the two farming methods, which are on opposite ends of the spectrum, it’s hard to reconcile how food production became so jumbled.  It befuddles me when thinking about the notion that food can be, and is, produced with total disregard or care of what is good for people, animals, and the environment.  It also boggles the mind to think that the goals of Grand View Farm aren’t considered as normal!

Taking it one step farther – what about just doing the right thing?  Seriously folks, I’ve seen so much denial, blame shifting, meetings behind closed doors, ambiguity, fear mongering, strong arming, influence peddling, deal making and breaking, and sometimes outright untruths from big ag proponents that nothing surprises me anymore.

I’m sure the first serve from detractors in the volley will be that the Fair Farms campaign is against farmers.  “This campaign is not about environmentalists versus farmers,” said Betsy Nicholas, executive director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. “Fair Farms is about working together to reform a food system that is out of balance. We shouldn’t be rewarding farm operations that produce cheap food with steep hidden costs to the environment and public health. Instead, we need to find new opportunities to support those agricultural practices that will grow food in healthy ways for generations to come.”

Working together to reform a food system that is out of balance and growing food in healthy ways – sounds like good ideas to me!

If you would like to know more about Fair Farms Maryland   take a peek.  While you are there take the pledge to be a Fair Farms Consumer.  It’s free!

DOJconcentration-workshop

A friend sent me a link to a website entitled Chicken Check In, which at first, I thought my friend was sending me a joke.  I anticipated something funny!  So I clicked on the link  and low and behold, I saw a video banner that showed a carpet of chickens, tens-of-thousands of chickens in an industrial poultry warehouse.  The website belonged to none other than the National Chicken Council (NCC).  This was no joke, folks!

I immediately started noticing things that most people wouldn’t and thought to myself – “The NCC is its own worst enemy”!  Yes that’s exactly what I said for those of you who are reading this and have taken a deep inhalation of air in shock that I would dare to say anything of the sort.  Even more shocking is that I talked to myself saying “what a bunch of clowns”.  I wonder which is more shocking – that I talked to myself or that I said “what a bunch of clowns”?

In an effort to appear transparent and I suppose to show the wonderful life of the chicken in an industrial setting, NCC has once again, shot itself in the foot.  Ah, YOUHOO, NCC, chickens that can only lift themselves and take a few steps before plopping down in exhaustion is not a bucolic slice of life no matter what your experts say!  Furthermore, if anyone takes the time to notice, why are some of the chickens gasping for air?  Chickens do not NORMALLY breathe or try to draw in air through their mouths.

When the chickens do manage to haul themselves up off the manure they are laying in, it saddens me to see that nothing has changed since I was a part of the chicken industry.  Having voiced my concerns many times over about the welfare of the chickens and the methods of the industry madness to excuse itself from responsible humane treatment I concluded that industry doesn’t want to change its ways.  I think that in the interest of self-preservation industry makes believe it changes its ways.

Going back to the Chicken Check In website, I click on the heading “A Day In The Life”.  Eww, look at all of the poo that the chickens are standing and lying in!  I’m not impressed with the picture banner that greets me.  Why would depicting this convince anyone that standing or lying in one’s own everyday excrement is comfortable to a chicken?  I can’t imagine that doing so would be comfortable to anyone be they man or beast.

We hear from a company “poultry welfare expert” that the chickens have plenty of room to commune or go off by their self when they want “alone time”.  Let’s go back to the video banner that greets us and the tens-of-thousands of chickens we see with less than a square foot of living space.  I guess the chickens do commune when they have no choice.  Alone time? Huh!  Someone please tell me that I’m missing something because I don’t see any place in the warehouse where the chickens find “alone time”.  Very misleading if I don’t say so myself!

I do have to agree with the company “poultry welfare expert” the chickens have plenty of feed and water at all times.  Yes folks, 24-7 do the chickens gorge on feed.  I suppose this is the part that is considered to be best animal welfare practices.  Just imagine letting your pet to gorge itself 24-7.

I further have to wonder when the chickens roost and sleep.  I didn’t see anything about that on the website.  Roosting and sleeping is a natural behavior of chickens as they like to sleep in high places.  It’s a safety issue to a chicken and can provide alone time should it so desire.  Having at least 8 hours of consecutive darkness is also natural for chickens however I’m not aware of anytime during a 24 hour day that industrial chickens have 8 hours of consecutive darkness.  Someone please correct me if I’m wrong!

I had to finally stop looking farther into the NCC Chicken Check In and I’m positive that I’d find many more things to point out.  Disgust and anger overwhelmed me and I don’t want to have these negative thoughts during the Holidays.  After all it is supposed to be a time of Peace, Love, and Joy!

From what I just typed, it dawned on me, most everyone must feel the same way.  It’s much easier to ignore the disgust and anger than to do something about it.

For all of the many, many issues that have been publicly brought forward and voiced, pictures, documentary’s, exposes ‘ , campaigns, what have you, I can easily see from the NCC Chicken website, it’s still, business as usual in the chicken industry.

In my humble opinion, there is something that is very wrong with the entire picture.  However, I’m singing – tis the season to be jolly, falalalala lalalala!  Happy Holidays to all and may you have Peace, Love, and Joy during the Season.

Recent conversations have brought to my attention the lack of success with the Blueprint for the Chesapeake Bay so I decided to do some research into it.  Known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint (CCWB), six states within the Bay watershed agreed and signed onto the Blueprint to reduce nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment runoff into the Chesapeake in efforts to restore the Bay.  Those states are New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia

Within the Blueprint, milestones were set for each state to accomplish.  I came across reports produced by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC) on interim progress achieved by each state.  These reports were derived from limits established by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 under the Clean Water Act.  Although there are 6 states, to monitor for progress, my concentration zeroed in on the Delmarva Peninsula including Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.  Indicators are – the milestones won’t be met for certain “stakeholders”!

Further research into the subject had my head spinning.  I often wonder if things are done this way just to confuse people!  To sum it up – attempting to sift through all of the related documents, publications, agreements and re-agreements, memorandums of understanding, analysis, legislation, and any other document you can imagine, it is a wonder that anyone knows exactly what is supposed to be done to clean up the Bay.

Agriculture is one of the major contributors to the killing of the Chesapeake Bay and that is a fact.  Within the framework of federal and state agreements limits on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment were established.  This relates primarily to agricultural runoff.

“While pollution controls put in place over the last five years have lowered the amount of nutrients and sediment entering the nation’s largest estuary, new data show that agricultural sources have sent more nitrogen and sediment into the Bay since 2007 than previously thought.”  Chesapeake Bay News/Chesapeake Bay Program

This troubled me because I have observed local area grain farmers monitoring soil conditions before planting crops and re-monitoring throughout the growing season.  Of course I’ve heard a lot of mumbling and grumbling about the excessive paperwork and field work required, however they do what they must. These farmers, in my humble opinion, have been vigilant.

I think it’s safe to say that we all know where the problems stem from! Chicken manure is the number one product of the Bay woes coming from the Eastern Shore.  I once heard the descriptions that chicken manure was spread like icing on a cake over the Eastern Shore and one of Maryland’s past Governor’s described the states eastern shore of the Bay as the “shithouse” of the state.  What a legacy for us Eastern Shore folks!

Efforts by farmers to try and stem the flow of manure pollution into the Bay have overwhelmed them.  There is way more chickens than available land to utilize manure produced from those chickens.  Heck, there are more chickens than people – 449,226 people, only 8 percent of Maryland’s population compared to 305,200,000 chickens (2013). The answer to that problem was to establish State programs to assist.  Implementing taxes including a tax just to flush the toilet. That was my favorite!  All courtesy of taxpayers to clean up a mess that wasn’t created by them and doesn’t belong to them!

With the wild frenzy occurring within the chicken industry to build more chicken house developments, we will never reach the milestones set out in the Blueprint. Period!  Delay’s in identifying the problems with more studies, panels, organizations, commissions, advisory boards, or whatever other clever name can be thought of doesn’t solve the problems.

Maybe a little bit of common sense would help.  It’s perfectly clear that we already have too many chickens being produced on the Delmarva Peninsula.  Why in the world would we allow increased numbers in production of chickens?

The Blueprint for the Chesapeake aims only to restore Bay health not to aim higher than restoration. It’s highly unlikely that it will ever be restored to its original state rather restored to a palatable state where it will be safe for human utilization.  We can throw all of the tax dollars we want toward fixing problems created by private industry or we can tell private industry to clean up its own mess!

This folks is part of the REAL cost of cheap chicken!

I’ll be perfectly honest about the Chesapeake Bay being a pet peeve of mine. I don’t believe that any one of us has the right to wantonly destroy a National treasure. It shouldn’t matter who you are or what you have or don’t have. There are NO exceptions. There are consequences to actions and if you are a culprit of destruction to the Bay, you, alone, are responsible for your actions.

On the Delmarva Peninsula the chicken industry has a presence that can be seen from major routes that visitor’s travel to visit our beaches. If one were to take a detour down any side road that presence would be highly notable. We are no longer talking about the occasional farm with a few chicken houses we are talking about huge developments of chicken houses. Thusly, what used to be farms are now classified as CAFO’s – concentrated animal feeding operations and called CAFO developments.

In today’s terms, the chicken houses are huge long buildings, 67 feet by 650 feet. That’s 43550 square feet of living space for chickens to be crammed into for six to seven weeks, 5 times per year. At best, the chickens are given three-quarters of a square foot to live on until they are sent to the processing plant. Using the figures above and giving the benefit of the doubt on exact living space per chicken, each building would house 58,000 chickens. Exact figures are hard to pin down. I’ve been told 3 different numbers the highest being 60,000 chickens.

Needless to say, there are a lot of chickens in one building, too many chickens that produce, roughly, 180,000 pounds of manure during the course of one 6-7 week period per house. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that cramming animals into a building with less than a square foot per animal and living on their own excrement for 6-7 weeks is going to brew undesirable and dangerous consequences.

The consequences are many. A constant diet of antibiotics/antimicrobials to counter diseases created by the model of cramming as many chickens into a given area comes to mind. So does ammonia emissions from the huge fans that exhaust bad air out of the buildings. Communication of disease to humans, such as avian influenza, is a scary one. Some have charged animal cruelty, environmental degradation, a huge contributor to the destruction of the Chesapeake Bay, loss of enjoyment of property and worthless property values. The list goes on……

A good example of CAFO development can be seen in Somerset County, MD where 6 residences sit right smack in the middle of 28 chicken houses. The CAFO development came long after the homes however the county never took into consideration the residents who would suffer the consequences. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore is located 2 miles from the same CAFO development.

We’ve heard all of the excuses from the county and the state permitting this type of development. These excuses are the same that industry has hidden behind for years. Land zoned agriculture, Right to Farm, and county regulations for setbacks from roads and property lines. Who made up the planning, zoning, and regulations? The county and state with input from industry! Other input, if it was oppositional, went into the wastebasket!

With a burst of chicken house development suddenly occurring in the lower counties on the Delmarva Peninsula and some chicken companies offering incentives to build CAFO’s, residents are raising objections and well they should. What was once acceptable and allowed to run feral is now being resisted by local communities. In both Somerset and Worcester Counties in Maryland, residents affected from CAFO developments have raised objections and concerns to county officials. Well organized with legitimate and sound scientific concerns presented to the Somerset County, MD Planning Commission, residents have asked the county to revise CAFO regulations. Public Health concerns are at the top of the list of reasons for taking a look at permitted CAFO developments.

I’ve sat through some of these meetings and honestly have to say that it was akin to a dog and pony show on the part of the county. Other than a court room, I’ve never heard of a public meeting where the public wasn’t allowed to speak or ask questions. Furthermore, it is inherent that those making the decisions excuse their self from the process when a personal interest or conflict of interest would cloud their decision. Public servants have a duty to put personal gain and beliefs aside.

A moratorium on further building until regulations, considerations, and sound science can be looked at has been asked for and rejected. As the powers that be slowly draw out the process CAFO developments are advancing at a fast and furious pace.

From a moral standpoint and doing the right thing, industry should take into consideration those who are affected by its practices and not pay out cash to CAFO Developers that want to plow over anything and everything that is in their way!

A recent opinion from Watt AgNet  crossed my desk concerning the world outbreaks and deaths of humans from avian flu.  The author, Mark Clements, presents his thoughts with a British twist, according to Watt AgNet.

Also known as bird flu, I agree with Mr. Clements that human deaths from avian flu go largely unreported in the news headlines.  He states a staggering statistic from the World Health Organization (WHO) for 2015.  In the first 4 months of this year the number of human deaths worldwide has almost doubled compared to the entire year of 2014.  I would call that a headline!

There are various reasons as to the “why” we don’t hear about the human deaths from avian flu.  I think the foremost reason is sensationalism.  Human outbreaks and deaths slowly rise in number compared to the rapid millions of infected chickens that have either died from the disease or Have been euthanized in an effort to control the disease.

Secondly, the various organizations, agencies, and industry around the world don’t want to start a panic.  Mr. Clements clearly states that “the WHO warns that wherever avian influenza viruses are circulating in poultry, sporadic infections and small clusters of human cases are possible in people exposed to infected poultry or contaminated environments”.

If the general public were made more aware of the warning from the WHO questions would arise about industry practices and why such things are allowed to go on while keeping people in the dark about the risks to their health.

Just this year alone in the United States, avian flu has spread across the country killing or causing to be killed, millions of chickens and turkeys.  Some experts are calling this the worst ever outbreak of avian flu in the country.  The Center for Disease Control says that highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5 infections have been reported in U.S. domestic poultry (backyard and commercial flocks), captive wild birds, and wild birds. HPAI H5 detections began in December 2014 and have continued to date in 2015. USDA is reporting H5 bird flu virus detections in 21 U.S. states.

So, where does avian flu come from and how does it spread?  Government agencies and industry are saying that migratory birds such as ducks and geese are the initial culprits.  Three out of four migratory flyways have shown a few wild fowl to be infected with avian flu.  Interestingly enough is the fact that the strain of avian flu appears to have mutated from a Eurasian strain to combine with the North American strain creating a whole new strain.  My question on this fact is – did the migratory waterfowl bring the Eurasian strain through traveling the flyways and when they arrived in North America the virus combined with an already live North American strain of avian flu?

In researching the avian flu outbreak looking for exact numbers of poultry infected in the United States, I ran across a report released on June 15, 2015 from Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an agency of USDA.   This definitely wasn’t what I was looking for however I decided to peruse it.  Although lengthy and highly scientific, what caught my eye was analysis of the avian flu virus traveling on the wind and in the air.

I quote, “The results obtained to date indicate that HPAI can be aerosolized from infected flocks and remain airborne.  HPAI (highly pathogenic avian influenza) RNA was detected in air samples collected inside and immediately outside of the infected premises. Low levels of genetic material were detected at distances of approximately 70 to 1000 meters. Viable virus was detected in an air sample collected inside an affected barn.”  70 to 1,000 meters translates to 76 to 1093 yards or up to almost one-half of a mile.

Based on considerably sound science is it reasonable to question the possibilities of humans becoming infected with the avian influenza virus from environmental routes such as airborne?  Common sense which I have a degree in says that human viruses such as the flu are easily spread by aerosolized routes, like sneezing.   “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind” keeps popping in my head!  Does anyone remember the Bob Dylan song “Blowin’ in the Wind“?

While avian flu hasn’t reached the east coast some experts warn that it could be seen by this fall.  Personally, we began practicing strict bio-security measures on the farm as a preventative measure after receiving a Virus Alert from the Maryland Department of Agriculture.  Unfortunately, I haven’t seen bio-security being practiced by industrialized chicken production, locally.

Of specific concern is the sudden land grab and building of many chicken houses concentrated in one area and the related traveling by CAFO developers between their chicken developments.  What better way to spread a virus such as avian flu or other diseases?

Should we be concerned over the possibilities indicated and implications of risks to human health?  Is questioning called for?  Taking a look around at the heavily concentrated industrialized chicken production locations in relation to airborne avian influenza being transmitted to humans – we better start questioning!

Note:  This post is in relationship to public health concerns and avian flu and in no way is meant to take away from the disastrous affects the virus has on poultry.

Last week, Tyson Foods made the announcement that it’s “striving to eliminate the use of human antibiotics from its US broiler chicken flocks by the end of September 2017”. I snickered to myself after reading this and thought, what’s the catch?

Researching this big announcement took me firstly to Tyson’s website for the official announcement and found that the company does indeed say that “it is “”striving”” to eliminate the use of “”human antibiotics from its U.S. broiler chicken flocks by the end of September 2017″”. The company will report annually on its progress, beginning with its fiscal 2015 Sustainability Report.  Tyson Foods has already stopped using all antibiotics in its 35 broiler hatcheries, requires a veterinary prescription for antibiotics used on broiler farms and “”has reduced human antibiotics”” used to treat broiler chickens by more than 80 percent since 2011.”

So why the snicker, wondering about what’s the catch, and double quotes in the last paragraph?

Back around 2007, Tyson began a huge advertising and labeling campaign of “raised without antibiotics” on its chicken products and was enthusiastically applauded for it by many.  I can remember hearing from some acquaintances about the “big” news and I can also remember me saying that I didn’t believe it for a second.

In June 2008, The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved Tyson’s use of the raised without antibiotics label.   USDA reversed that approval and ordered Tyson to remove the label after finding out that Tyson injected its chickens with antibiotics while still in the egg, before hatching, warning that it could no longer consider the raised without antibiotics label “truthful and accurate”.  Tyson admitted that the company used gentamicin which had been used for more than 30 years in the U.S. to treat infections in humans interjecting the belief that rules on labeling describing how chickens are raised typically begin from the second day of life.

According to an AP report, a U.S. District Court Judge had ordered Tyson to stop running any advertisements, setting a May 15, 2008 deadline after Perdue and Sanderson Farms sued, claiming Tysons advertising campaign was misleading.  Sanderson Farms claimed a loss of $4 million in and Perdue claimed it lost about $10 million in revenue.

A consumer lawsuit against Tyson followed accusing the company of falsely claiming that its chickens were raised without antibiotics.  Tyson settled the lawsuit in 2010.  The settlement was capped at $5 million.  The consumer payout was based on proof of purchase (a receipt) which would award $50 dollars, those who didn’t have proof of purchase but provided a sworn statement detailing the poultry they bought would receive $10 dollars.  Any residual funds after paying consumer claims that were left over the company would donate its products to food banks in lieu of the dollar amount.

“While we believe our company acted appropriately, we also believe it makes sense for us to resolve this legal matter and move on,” Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said.

While researching this ongoing saga, I found some fairly strong words being used to describe Tyson’s actions.  Statements such as “no longer consider the raised without antibiotics label truthful and accurate”, false and misleading, and getting to the heart of the issue – “It is quite clear to this court that it was in Tyson’s financial interest to delay the phase-out period as long as possible,” Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland written opinion referring to Tyson delaying further use of its advertising campaign.

Take the time to go back and read the bold print above and what I’ve double quoted.  Tyson’s announcement does not say that the company no longer uses antibiotics.

It’s all in the words folks!  It’s the twisting and turning of what the words actually mean and the assumption that consumers read the words and believe them as the gospel truth.  Is it any wonder that I snicker and wonder, what’s the catch over Tyson’s newest BIG announcement concerning the use of antibiotics?

Furthermore, $14 million was claimed to have been lost by Tyson’s competitors, just in 1 year.  Settling for $5 million with consumers is peanuts.  Were any fines levied for not being truthful and accurate, false and misleading, or delaying being so for financial gain?  Does anyone keep their household food purchase receipts for 3 years or bother with a sworn statement to a court for $10 dollars?  Was Tyson able to write off the value of products donated to Food Banks?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 547 other followers