Tyson’s mislabeled chicken going into trash after recall

Tyson Foods Inc. has no plan to use its recently recalled chicken products, an option the meat company has instead of disposing of nearly 2.5 million pounds of chicken. In light of Tyson’s recall last week, an expert said the decision allows the company to avoid potential pitfalls, including negative public reaction.

According to an email sent by Tyson spokesman Caroline Ahn, “The product will not be repurposed.”

Tyson said on June 9 that it would voluntarily recall 82,760 cases of breaded chicken because labels on the product did not list milk, which is a food allergen. No

allergy-related reports of illnesses or injuries caused by the mislabeled chicken were confirmed by Tyson or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Over three days, eight other food companies announced similar recalls because of mislabeling of unmarked allergens on their products.

According to the USDA, an unknown ingredient supplier informed Tyson on June 6 that the bread crumbs the company received and used in production between Aug. 17 and Jan. 14 potentially had undeclared traces of milk.

The products recalled were sold mainly to schools and restaurants

and not available for retail purchase.

As a more sustainable option, companies may repackage their products and sell them again, specifically in cases of mislabeling. In some cases, companies may repurpose recalled food into animal feed or fertilizer.

For meat, if it’s cooked at a high enough temperature to kill potential pathogens, it’s considered safe for human consumption and may be sold without warnings that anything was initially odd — a method approved by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

In July 2002, ConAgra voluntarily recalled 18 million pounds of ground beef after 16 cases of E. coli were linked to meat processed at a plant in

Greeley, Colo. Before the recall, the USDA cited ConAgra over fecal contamination on beef carcasses, but no significant action was taken. ConAgra handled the second-largest recall in history by properly cooking its tainted ground beef and repurposing it into food for animals, people or nonfood products.

In ConAgra’s case, the recalled amount was significant enough for the company to benefit from repurposing its product.

Travis Justice, chief economist of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, factored in that repurposing a recalled product is more risky, costly and potentially could lead to negative public reaction.

When chicken patties are

sent back to a company, they tend to thaw in transit before being refrozen and there’s room for bacteria to compromise the food, making it unsafe for consumption, he said.

“I could see how once it leaves my operational control, I would be taking on a significant risk and liability,” Justice said.

If Tyson were to repurpose its food, the company would have to factor in extra funds to relabel and redistribute an already profitless product, he said. Even though the recall was largely a clerical mistake and not a health issue, the mislabeled food has a bad image in the public’s eye.

“From a PR standpoint, it’s still got a stigma,” Justice said. “I can see how a company may not want to open that door.”