NEW YORK — In the past couple of years, the poultry industry has sharply reduced its use of antibiotics, responding to concerns among public health officials and regulators about the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
But now, one major poultry processor is standing its ground and making sure consumers know about it.
Sanderson Farms, the country’s third-largest poultry producer, has started an advertising campaign to defend its continued use of antibiotics — and calls its competitors’ efforts in the other direction a “marketing gimmick’’ aimed at charging higher prices.
“There’s a lot of confusion about the labels used to market chicken,’’ said Mike Cockrell, chief financial officer at Sanderson. “We have decided we’re not going to sacrifice our environmental goals, our animal welfare goals, or our food safety goals for marketing purposes.’’
The ads feature two blue-collar men, Bob and Dale, in plaid shirts and baseball caps talking about the labels on chicken.
“The ones that say ‘raised without antibiotics,’ ’’ Dale says in one of the ads, “That’s just a trick to get you to pay more money.’’
Sanderson’s marketing campaign, which will appear in regions where its products are sold, as well as across digital platforms, is likely to intensify the already fierce fight over the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Consumers, advocacy groups, and corporate customers like McDonald’s and Chick-fil-A have said they will buy only chicken raised without the antibiotics used to treat humans.
Those commitments and others from big corporate buyers have persuaded four of the five large US poultry producers to begin reducing their reliance on antibiotics. Perdue has gone the furthest: Well over half of its flocks receive no antibiotics at all. Tyson, the largest chicken producer and a McDonald’s supplier, has pledged to largely eliminate antibiotics used to treat humans from its chicken operations by September 2017.
Pilgrim’s Pride, the number two poultry processor, and Foster Farms are also taking steps to reduce antibiotics use.
But not Sanderson.
“There is not any credible science that leads us to believe we’re causing antibiotic resistance in humans,’’ said Lampkin Butts, president and chief operating officer of Sanderson.
Butts said raising chickens without antibiotics would lead to higher mortality rates and a need for a greater number of barns to provide more room between birds.
“We looked at it, and we would need more corn, more water, more soybean meal, more housing, more electricity,’’ he said. “But sustainability calls for using less of everything.’’
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has repeatedly expressed concern that the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In a 2013 report, the agency linked two of 18 antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the use of antibiotics in animals.
“The concern we have is the bacteria on the meat and poultry that are resistant to antibiotics and can cause disease,’’ said Dr. Robert Tauxe, director of the division of food-borne, waterborne and environmental diseases at the agency.
While regulators have not moved to ban the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry, they have taken steps to reduce it. For example, the Food and Drug Administration in 2005 rescinded its approval of the use of enrofloxacin, an antibiotic that was used in the poultry business. And this year, the FDA began requiring those raising animals for meat to get a prescription from a veterinarian for the use of antibiotics in their operations.
All Sanderson chickens get an antibiotic called gentamicin while still in the egg. Dr. Phil Stayer, Sanderson’s on-staff veterinarian, says Sanderson also uses oxytetracycline, among other antibiotics, but “very rarely.’’
“Our judicious use of antibiotics is to keep chickens healthy and prevent disease, not for growth promotion,’’ Butts said.
Butts said Sanderson had conducted focus groups and other research this year showing that consumers were confused about what the various antibiotic-free labels on packages mean.
