Tyson hucksterism?
Tyson Foods Inc. is the latest food company to spend a lot of money on feel-good advertising designed to enhance earnings. At a New York press conference yesterday, Tyson Chief Executive Dick Bond was quoted as saying he believes the conversion to antibiotic-free fresh chicken should "have a positive effect on our earnings," but he offered no projection.
At the news conference, Tyson showed a commercial from that campaign in which an announcer says serving antibiotic-free chicken should help parents to "feel good about feeding your family." The Wall Street Journal reported that the products will be more expensive but the company provided no premium estimate beyond asserting that they would be "affordable for mainstream consumers."
The move is aimed at eliminating the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in Tyson brand chicken. You probably can't read the label below, but there is a full-page version in today's USA Today that I saw while stranded at the Philadelphia airport. It says:
Chicken raised without antibiotics
No hormones administered
No artificial ingredients
Except Tyson will still use therapeutic antibiotics. And in the small print, it says:
Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in chicken.
Who says food isn't marketed based on perceptions of food safety? Now if someone would start marketing based on microbial food safety.
At the news conference, Tyson showed a commercial from that campaign in which an announcer says serving antibiotic-free chicken should help parents to "feel good about feeding your family." The Wall Street Journal reported that the products will be more expensive but the company provided no premium estimate beyond asserting that they would be "affordable for mainstream consumers."
The move is aimed at eliminating the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in Tyson brand chicken. You probably can't read the label below, but there is a full-page version in today's USA Today that I saw while stranded at the Philadelphia airport. It says:
Chicken raised without antibiotics
No hormones administered
No artificial ingredients
Except Tyson will still use therapeutic antibiotics. And in the small print, it says:
Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in chicken.
Who says food isn't marketed based on perceptions of food safety? Now if someone would start marketing based on microbial food safety.
Trackbacks (1)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/32541
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/32541
BarfBlog -
May 1, 2008 11:10 PM
Hucksterism. That's how I characterized the marketing by Tyson Foods Inc. of its antibiotic-free fresh chicken almost a year ago. A couple of judges have now agreed. Today, a federal appeals court in Baltimore refused to block an order barring...
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
Doug
A couple of points to clarify:
The chickens raised for this particular product will not get therapeutic antibiotics.
Tyson discontinued the "sub-therapeutic" use of antibiotics in chicken production several years ago. Nevertheless, there is widespread perception among consumers that antibiotics--and hormones--are broadly used in chicken production. The small print disclaimer on hormones is a USDA requirement any time there is mention of no hormones being used in production.
Point taken: wasn't clear in one of the stories I read, but yes, birds that receive therapeutic antibiotics will go into another product stream.
The consumer perception argument has been used repeatedly regarding a number of technologies such as genetically engineered foods and irradiation. Focus groups and willingness-to-pay are generally a poor indicator of what consumers will actually do in the grocery store. But hey, I'm just observing, and don't have a company to run, and people will pay for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they should.
I agree with you, Doug.
If only consumer choices were guided by rational and scientific data, and if consumers only placed credibility in folks like you rather than, well...others...defining marketing strategy might be less complex.
Consumer choices, policy decisions and my individual choices are guided by a number of values and preferences and there is often competing scientific data regarding any particular risk. Science is important but is never enough. My point is that large corporations like Tysons should take a leadership role rather than soley responding to focus groups. But that's a long discussion that has been going on for a long time.
I'm curious, you say Tyson put the "No hormones administered" on the label because there is a consumer perception that hormones are used. Do you think all poultry should be labelled, "No hormones administered?"
I might take issue with your assumption that this move is being done strictly in response to focus groups. I believe Tyson took a leadership role several years ago when the company discontinued the use of antibiotics as growth promotants. So if more than 95% of the company's chickens are _already_ being produced without the use of antibiotics--and that's not the case with all of our competitors--why should the company not leverage that leadership in the marketplace? You seem to be implying that it is "hucksterism" to use marketing communications, rather than other forms of communication (which we've been using--some might say less effectively--for years) to get those messages to consumers.
I don't think labeling poultry "no hormones administered" would be a bad thing at all; at least until the time the public becomes more informed.