[richlevy]

Originally Posted by glatt

Interesting to see that antibiotic free chicken advertised. I just read in the paper today that Perdue successfully sued Tyson to prevent them from advertising the fact that Tyson doesn't routinely feed antibiotics to their chickens. Perdue argued that the public might interpret that as meaning that Perdue chicken is inferior.

Why not let the consumer decide if they want to eat chicken that is routinely fed antibiotics?

I heard about this on NPR. The reason Tyson lost is that the ad was misleading, as was mentioned in the article. Tyson's ad depended on a narrow interpretation of 'antibiotic' and 'raised' (see below)

What's annoying is the the FTC didn't being the action, their competitors did.

Now my state of PA did ban certain advertising on hormones in milk cows because it made others 'look bad', not because it was deceptive. I can foresee a future trial in that decision with the state arguing that it has the right to stop a company from telling the truth. F***ing morons.

Sanderson and Perdue initially based their legal challenge on Tyson's practice of feeding chickens ionophores, an antibiotic used only in animals raised for food. Sanderson and Perdue also use ionophores.
Then during trial in federal court in Baltimore, Tyson officials acknowledged they also inject eggs several days before they hatch with antibiotics that are approved for use in humans. Dave Hogberg, Tyson's senior vice president for consumer products, said it is a common industry practice.
Hogberg said injecting eggs with antibiotics did not undermine the "raised without antibiotic" label because the term "raised" is understood to cover the period that begins with hatching.