Advertisement

Battle of the Frozen Chicken Heats Up

Like dug-in Civil War combatants, California chicken producers knew the enemy was planning to retaliate. They just didn’t know when the strike would come. Time often seemed to stand still in the long-running Battle of the Frozen Chicken.

In January, the Californians scored a hard-fought regulatory victory at the U.S. Department of Agriculture: the USDA announced that it wanted to prevent out-of-state chicken producers from selling previously frozen chicken as fresh.

Nearly three months passed. Then, in early April, a force of 19 mostly Southeastern senators attacked.

Advertisement

Led by a Virginian, Republican Sen. John W. Warner, the powerful band of lawmakers fired a letter to the USDA denouncing the implementation of the proposed rule that the Californians say lifts a pall of deceit from the chicken cases of supermarkets nationwide.

No longer, if the Agriculture Department has its way, will frozen chickens be allowed to be thawed and peddled as fresh.

No way, say the Southern senators, all of whom have poultry-producing constituencies in their states who have a keen interest in continuing to ship the rock-hard birds all over the country.

Advertisement

Once again, the Battle of the Frozen Chicken has turned hot.

On one side is the California Poultry Industry Federation, which has fought for years to modify the USDA-ordained definition of “fresh” chicken--now between 0 degrees and 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The California growers--along with consumer groups and now, importantly, the Agriculture Department itself--want the temperature threshold at 26 degrees--below which chickens actually freeze.

On the other side is the National Broiler Council and the big Southeastern growers, who like the old rule because their rock-hard birds are easier to stockpile and distribute. They also enjoy the higher prices that their chicken commands.

The last time the fresh-chicken forces--brands such as Foster Farms and Zacky Farms--mixed it up so openly with the frozens--brands such as Tyson, Holly Farms and Country Pride--was 10 months ago when celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck showed up at a House committee hearing to extol the virtues of fresh chicken and condemn the quizzical USDA temperature rule.

Advertisement

During the lunch break, the California poultry federation sponsored a chicken-laden luncheon down the hall. Out on the veranda in the muggy June heat, guests were invited to “bowl,” using frozen birds that met the USDA’s “fresh” definition.

The event was a public relations winner because it helped frame the rule-making as a truth-in-labeling issue (although some animal rights groups flapped mightily over using the hapless fowl as props).

Then in January, the USDA issued a proposed rule that would prohibit placing a “fresh” label on any poultry products chilled below 26 degrees. Any chicken below that temperature would have to carry a “previously frozen” label.

It seemed that common sense had won out. Fresh is fresh. Frozen is frozen. California producers were crowing. But they were not home-free.

The National Broiler Council had fended off attacks on the temperature regulation for years and was not about to retreat now. It has already succeeded in getting the USDA to add 60 days to the “comment period” on the proposed rule, citing a USDA report, which included taste tests, that found no noticeable difference in the chickens that had been frozen below 26 degrees and those kept above that temperature.

“This counterattack was anticipated,” said Thomas A. Lee Jr., vice president and general counsel of Foster Farms, the big California producer based in Livingston. “I’m not surprised that they would go to their elected officials who are beholden to campaign contributions from big producers.”

Advertisement

All told, 16 of the senators who signed the Warner-orchestrated letter pulled in nearly $117,000 from various poultry PACs during the last two election cycles. This figure doesn’t include contributions from individuals or the wealthy chicken producers themselves.

As an added worry to proponents of the 26-degree rule, one of the Warner 19, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Agriculture Department’s budget.

All Warner and his colleagues want is for the Agriculture Department to set a lower temperature for “fresh” and jettison the off-putting “previously frozen” labeling requirement. In other words, gut the new rule. The USDA closes off comment on the issue May 19 but has no fixed timetable to hand down its final rule.

Will the department cave in, as it did in 1989 when the Broiler Council succeeded in getting a similar 26-degree standard dropped after only six months?

“I am hopeful that the Agriculture Department will hold firm,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Foster Farms’ Lee also remains upbeat: “The USDA has come out publicly with the proposed rule, it’s been applauded by consumers, applauded by the press, applauded by all the national consumers groups. It’s a question of deception and fraud.”

Yet common sense has a way of getting pushed aside when powerful industries see Washington tinkering with their time-honored business practices.

Advertisement

“It is my fervent hope that the rule is adopted as published,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said. “But I never underestimate the economic power that fights (such changes). There is a lot of power behind the status quo.”

Advertisement