Talk:Tyson Foods

Untitled

 * Talk:Tyson Foods/Archive 1

NPOV in the Christian activism section
Although I do not dispute the fact that Tyson tends to encourage Christian values within its Corporate culture, I believe that the exact phrasing and tone of this section presents an extremely biased point of view. I'm not entirely sure if it is noteworthy to have this section included in the article at all; however, it is extremely important that whatever content is included should be written neutrally and factually. If it is found that the section cannot be written in a neutral voice showing little or no bias other than factual evidence, then that should be an indicator that the section does not belong here. --Antcjone 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like bald statement of fact to me so what point of view do you think is being pushed? I can't even tell if you think it is biased for or against. --Spondoolicks 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the wording used in that section gave me a very negative impression, as if it had been written by someone that was spiteful or resentful of what was going on, instead of reporting the facts neutrally. However, that is just my personal impression, and may not be a consensus, which is why I am discussing it before any actual editing goes on. Also, just for the record, the quote used in that section is not being used in context. It is being reported that Tyson made that statement, when it was actually an analyst that wrote it about all food companies needing to sell an ideology. Follow reference 7 for that section and read the article it links to; you will find the quote at the bottom. --Antcjone 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that last statement reads as an official Tyson quote but is actually some journalist's interpretation of a marketing strategy devised by a consultant (Faith Popcorn - surely that can't be a real name) for the company - i.e. way too indirect a source. I've removed that sentence as it pretty much counts as original research. Regarding bias, I still don't see it. Perhaps you could try formulating an alternative way of stating the facts in this section which you would feel more comfortable with so I could see what you mean. --Spondoolicks 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As it reads now I find the the presentation to be quite NPOV, actually. There's no implication of coersion by the company that I can see and no presence of any 'weasel words', either and it's very well sourced.  An example of cut and dry editing, if you ask me.  :-) CanadianMist 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with the quote removed it now reads a bit more neutral to me as well. I think it was just how the quote was written as compared to what I know aobut the company that hit me the wrong way. I am removing the POV tag.--Antcjone 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New Link Added to the PETA Section
Although it is not a bad idea to have a link to YouTube for the PETA video, it needs to be edited to be listed as a correct reference, instead of being listed directly in the article. I do not know how to do this, which is why I am posting aobut it here. Thank you to whomever it was that added the information. It jsut needs to be formatted correctly. --Antcjone 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I turned the You Tube video into a reference. I think that is what you mean, but not totally sure.  I also added an environmental record  section and tried to do some clean up on all of the citations.  --Mackabean 01:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is a YouTube video a good enough source for the section and claims? Is there no real third-party, independent, verified article about Butler? --FeldBum (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TysonLogo.png
Image:TysonLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History section
It's a little bizarre that the history begins with Tyson selling chicken out of state. Was he born with these chickens? Did he already have a chicken farm? Was he a chicken middleman, selling someone else's chicken out of state? This history begins in the middle, reads a bit like an autobiography, and has a bit too much POV language. For example, "He realized that he could make more money..." supposes that he knew this in advance. He may have thought it, but it was not realized until he tried it. "he made another leap" - was he a leaper or a chicken salesman? Bsellers - can you go over this so it's more like history and less like something you'd find in a Tyson's ad. I appreciate that you found this info, and a history section makes sense, but it should be more "encyclopedic". thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tyson chickens and Russia
Can anybody write a few lines on Tyson's trade relations with Russia? Recently, the company has been warned by the Russian Ministry of Agriculture regarding the quality of its poultry. I believe it had something to do with the GMOs, but I could be wrong. KNewman (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question to RHM22
Why did you undo my edit...the article originally said:

Every week, its 54 chicken plants process 42.5 million chickens, their 13 beef plants process 170,938 cattle, and six pork plants process 347,891 pigs.

And I changed it to:

Every week, its 54 chicken plants kill 42.5 million chickens, their 13 beef plants kill 170,938 cattle, and six pork plants kill 347,891 pigs.

Im confused why that was edited out because the wording "process" sounds like a bad commerical. When were talking about "processing" were actually talking about killing or slaughtering the animals. Maybe slaughtering would be a better word.

It's like saying the Jewish people at the concentration camps were "processed" that'd be rude to them. The Nazis would probley say to people they were processing the Jewish people because it sounds a lot better than saying they were killing them.

RHM22 are you by any chance a Tyson employee? Tyson's website is also funny as it says absouluty nothing about where the meat actually comes from... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiimbil1239945 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a Tyson employee, nor do I have any relation to the company (other than having purchased their products occasionally). The word "processing" can have several different meanings, besides simply slaughtering or killing animals. For instance, perhaps the chickens are killed somewhere and transported to the Tyson plant to be processed (cleaned and packaged). I understand where you're coming from, but you seem to be intentionally using words like "kill" and "slaughter" in order to impart a negative sound to the article. This is considered Point of view editing, or POV. Also, to me, comparing chickens and cows to Jews under the regime of Nazi Germany seems a little unnecessary and, perhaps, slightly rude to those who did lose their lives during that period of history. I'm sorry if I came off as rude or stubborn. That was really not my intention at all. I was simply trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy of neutral editing. Hopefully this will not sour your opinion on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please leave me a message on my talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that whenever you kill anything your actually processing it? Interesting. Here's what I think...murdering is a opposing view point, slaughtering or killing is neutral view point, and "processing" is a favorable view point. You are also incorrect. The animals are first grown by a Tyson contractor then, they are shipped to a Tyson "processing plant" aka slaughterhouse where they are killed (they need to be killed before they cleaned and packaged). After their killed the cows for example are still hung up side down a brought to another part of the "processing plant) where they are sawed in half and packaged. When Tyson says they "process" x number of animals a week it means they are killing them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiimbil1239945 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please update the article with current information about Tyson? The majority of the information is prior to 2007. They still have abominable practices as do their suppliers. There have been investigations since 2007 into their aweful practices. I am not succinct enough to actually write an article, although I occasionally edit sentences in articles where I believe I am capable of doing so. Mylittlezach (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Video Depicting Animal Cruelty at Tyson Foods Supplier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNY4Fjsdft4 not certain on exact details surrounding this at the moment and am on my way to bed. 65.60.138.83 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Website Update in Infobox
Tyson.com is actually the website for the chicken brand of TysonFoods.com, the parent company this page is dedicated to. Would someone please consider updating the website in the Infobox to TysonFoods.com?

Thank you! Rgoodman85 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the tyson.com homepage is meant to be a home for Tyson Foods and all its subsidiaries. It has a "corporate" link to tysonfoods.com, but then also includes links to the website of each of Tyson's brands/subsidiaries. I think tyson.com is the more useful link here. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so quickly, IagoQnsi, and appreciate your time. Since this Wikipedia page is devoted to the Tyson Foods corporate brand, it's more accurate to direct website traffic to the corporate site, TysonFoods.com. Additional information for consumers, media, investors, etc. can be found directly here, as well as information on all subsidiaries and brands. Additionally, official news articles on the corporate brand link TysonFoods.com like Forbes, Fortune , and Bloomberg Thanks for the additional consideration! Rgoodman85 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The webpage currently linked very prominently displays access points to both the consumer and corporate websites for Tyson Foods. As such, I think the current link better serves a wider swath of readers&mdash;not everybody reading this article is an investor, and many may happen to be consumers who have no interest in the corporate site. From the discussion above, I see no consensus for changing this link, but if you can find enough editors who disagree, you are free to overturn this decision. Altamel (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the feedback and conversation and . For clarity's sake, could we consider having two website links in the infobox? With the first directing to the corporate website, TysonFoods.com, and the second directing to the chicken brand with a bit more consumer focus? This would provide the overarching Wikipedia page's website link since structurally this is similar to PepsiCo and Pepsi, and could remove a step for Wikipedia users. Rgoodman85 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between this scenario and the PepsiCo/Pepsi scenario is that PepsiCo and Pepsi have their own, separate articles, whereas Tyson consumer and Tyson corporate do not. The link http://www.tyson.com/ seems to be the ideal compromise -- right when you click that link, it prompts you to click on either the Consumer site or the Corporate site (and it describes each site in more detail than we ever could fit in the infobox). Given that that link already will take you to both sites, I don't see why we should awkwardly try to cram two links into the infobox, when that link already achieves the same thing. In addition, the external links section at the bottom of the page has links to each individual website. The infobox is meant to be quick at-a-glance information; the less clutter there, the better. Cheers, Iago Qnsi  (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the continued conversation. The splash page for http://www.tyson.com/ will be changing in the coming months, so perhaps I can reach out at that time and we can revisit this conversation. Again, thanks the time and discussion. Much appreciated!
 * Hi . Since our last interaction a few months ago the http://www.tyson.com/ website has undergone a refresh, so I was hoping we could revisit updating the website in the Infobox to tysonfoods.com, the corporate site. Happy to discuss further and thanks for the time! Rgoodman85 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Altamel (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, changing it is fine with me. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘

Thanks ! I have a COI with this page so was hesitant to edit anything on my own. Should I declare a new COI to have someone else in the community make the edit? Rgoodman85 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Financial Updates
Would someone please consider updating the financial data in the infobox based on the 2015 Annual Report? I formatted updates below in the way infobox updates would be for convenience/ease, but also happy to provide any further updates:
 * revenue = US$ 41.373 billion (2015)

US$ 37.580 billion (2014)
 * operating_income = US$ 2.169 billion (2015)

US$ 1.430 billion (2014)
 * net_income = US$ 1.220 billion (2015)

US$ 864.0 million (2014)
 * assets = US$ 23.004 billion (2015)

US$ 23.956 billion (2014)
 * equity = US$ 9.706 billion (2015)

US$ 8.904 billion (2014) Thanks for any help! Rgoodman85 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * num_employees = 113,000 }}
 * ✅. Thank you for making my job easier! Altamel (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Really appreciate your help. Rgoodman85 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tyson Foods
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tyson Foods's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT": From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States:  From Kentucky Derby:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE POV editing in the lead.
Looks like there has been a little edit war in the lead over stuffing a bunch of recent negative information in. I feel like it does not belong there and is not an accurate summary of the company as a whole and as such does not belong. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * More than half the body is devoted to controversies, with most of the space dedicated to scandals related to the company's damage to the environment, its history with animal abuse scandals, and its role in spreading COVID-19 and endangering employees during the coronavirus pandemic. Furthermore, the only reason you reverted me and are here in the first place is because you stalked me as part of a WP:HARASS campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get to double the size of the lead with POV pushing controversies like that. Do you have a proposal that might be a little more neutral to cover such content? Also yes this large campaign of one revert against you. Just like your second revert here was something to do with COI accounts. Please focus on content and not editors. PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the body. After you showed up here just to spite me and revert me, it no longer does. More than half of the article is no longer covered in the lead. What exactly are the POV problems that you have with the article? Half the body is devoted to controversies, in particular those related to environmental damage, animal abuse and its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. It's role in the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial enough to have an enormous fork at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States, which if imported into this article in full would be larger than the non-"controversies" parts of this article combined. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That illistrates part of the problem with the COVID stuff. It is all breaking news without long term understanding or context. It is just an unfiltered news feed at the moment which leads to unencyclopedic writing like what was added to the lead. At the moment I would probably favor a much more generic overview that what was purposed. PackMecEng (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your complaint was that the lead violated NPOV (without explaining how). Now your complaint is that the lead covers something recent (even though the environmental controversies and animal abuse scandals are not recent). Please propose your alternative lead that would resolve your purported problems with NPOV and RECENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the recentism with COVID is a symptom of the larger POV issues. I was explaining why that is the case. The first place to start would be addressing the maintenance tag in the controversies section then we can sort out what should or should not be added to the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain what issues you have with the content in the controversies section. It looks alright to me. If anything, it's missing various controversies. You've literally never edited this article before, so I find your sudden concern with the body to be very puzzling. It's almost as if you just stalked me to a page you've never edited before, indiscriminately reverted me and then jumped on any and all reasons to justify your revert. But I'm very eager to see what substantive contributions you intend to make to this article now that you're here, and your evolving justifications for excluding the largest section in the article (covering more than 50%) from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they could use quite the pairing down and even elimination of several sections as not having much if any impact to the company as a whole or the standing of the company. For example the animal abuse section largely sources to a YouTube video. The forcing employee's to wear diapers in the employee abuse section could probably go. The COVID section could use a pairing down to the essentials. The price section uses primary sources for statements about the company. I could go on and on but it is just shoddy writing and not written for an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see why reliably sourced content on employee abuse should be removed nor any big problems with the COVID-19 section (if anything, it should be expanded with recent updates and new comprehensive RS reporting). User:Cullen328 imported the COVID-19 section from the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States article, so his input on the COVID-19 section would be valuable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean if there is a whole Snopes article on it and no one really backing it up then it is probably undue. Yes others wrote that one place made the claim, that is not the same thing. You also failed to address any of the other points for some reason. Though of course this is just a quick once over of all the problems with the section, what did you find with your look? PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also find it puzzling that you have come out of the blue to push for the purging of sub-sections pertaining to allegations of animal abuse and employee abuse by the company, along with others in the controversy section, even though reliable sources back up the content (i.e., The Washington Post, United Press International, etc). For the record, I would find such a move objectionable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The employee abuse is sourced to UPI and is from an Oxfam report. It's not only sourced to Snopes. As for your last comment, I have not had the time to comprehensively examine the body and the available alternative sourcing. Thank you for stalking me to this page and bringing all of these issues to my attention. I will certainly make sure to put in considerable time into beefing up this article, as well as finally get around to adding a lot of content to other articles which I've had in my to-do list for a long time but never got around to adding. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The objections I raised with the animal abuse section was because it did not have RS backing. Youtube is not a RS. Would you be okay with the other suggestions that I had? Happy to work with you on all the issues in the controversies section. Those things are magnets for poorly sources or undue POV issues!{ PackMecEng (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My input is that meatpacking plants along with places like prisons and nursing homes have had severe problems with massive COVID-19 outbreaks, that Tyson is by far the largest American-owned meatpacking company, and their their coronavirus problems in 2020 have received heavy coverage in a very wide variety of reliable sources. I believe that the company's important role in the worst public health crisis in the last 100 years deserves mention in the lead section of this article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed and to that end we are looking at how to do that and what should really be in the criticism section about it. While their response (or lack there of) is certainly noteworthy about the company I could see the section being tightened up and summarized more. We already have a pointer to the main article for that subject so the content here should be rather brief. PackMecEng (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like a strong start to fixing the broken controversies section! Over the next couple of days I will keep taking a look and pairing down the unnecessary and unreliably sourced material. PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There are no problems with the remainder of the text in the body of the article. Since more than half of the body is devoted to Tyson Foods' environmental record, animal abuse record, and its role in the coronavirus pandemic, the lead should summarize that content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have still been looking. I like what you did with the workers rights section. The corona virus is still over sized since it already links to an umbrella article. So that needs to be summarized to shorten it down. The environmental section needs cleanup to not read like a poorly written list article. Bullet points starting with dates like that and no context is never good encyclopedic writing. The animal abuse section it riddled with editorializing and POV from advocacy groups that needs pairing down. So yeah, some big problems with the controversies section. As always seems to be the case with those coat rack sections. PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Environment, animal welfare and COVID-19 in the lead?
Should the lead include text noting that critics have criticized Tyson Foods for its:


 * 1) Environmental record?
 * 2) Handling of animal welfare?
 * 3) Role in and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic?

The text would summarize large parts of this section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support 1, 2, and 3. The controversies are numerous, notable, sourced, and constitute a significant portion of the entire article; avoiding any mentioning of this in the lede would violate the purpose of the lede.  I would keep the mention in the lede very brief, however, as these don't define the subject -- something along the lines of "...has received criticism around several issues, including environment effects, animal welfare, and COVID-19 handling."  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 1, 2, 3. This content is covered at great length in the body (more than half of the body is devoted to these controversies). As for 1, studies have been written covering the company's controversial environmental record. By one estimate, Tyson is among the largest single sources of greenhouse gases in the world. As for 2, Tyson has been involved with several animal abuse controversies, which has made the company a frequent target of animal rights groups. These controversies have led the company to institute various reforms in the last two decades, although critics say these do not go far enough. As for 3, an enormous amount of RS coverage has been devoted to Tyson's handling of the coronavirus pandemic in terms of employee safety and in terms of being responsible for coronavirus hot spots. Out of a workforce of 120,000, more than 10,000 have been confirmed as testing positive for the coronavirus. Per a ProPublica report, Tyson very belatedly implemented recommended safety measures to protect its workers, such as social distancing, plexiglass barriers and wearing of face masks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I agree something should be added to the lead to summarize the controversies section. I think a long the lines of what A D Monroe III suggests would be adequate. Something like Tyson Foods has received criticism around several issues, including environment effects, animal welfare, and COVID-19 handling. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I think PackMecEng's suggestion is the most appropriate in this case. But I would urge editors to edit the controversy section as well, given the undue weight tag that is currently on the page. Quorum816 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have been working on trimming that section to more reflect due weight in general. PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 1 & 2. I think it's a bit premature to include 3 in the lead at this point. The first two are long standing criticisms that are probably worth mentioning. (But with a careful eye about WEIGHT.) By the way, I agree with what another editor said (in another section) about the COVID-19 section being "over sized" in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess—some of this stuff should probably be mentioned in the lead. A side note, though: "Controversies" sections aren't usually a good idea, and the article should probably be restructured so that the information about controversies is worked into other sections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all important to note for the large corporation to balance positive aspects. ɱ  (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all; the controversies section is a little messy, but mostly due and it would likely continue to make up the majority of the article after cleanup, which would hypothetically merit it about two paragraphs in a full four-paragraph intro. For now I would have at least one. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose explicit mention of all three in the lede, but would support a summary mention in the lede along with a restructuring of the controversies section to assure RS and no POV. The lede should summarize important points including any prominent controversies - IMO listing these controversies is not summarizing given there are more than 3.  Tom94022 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Off the main topic: Is it possible to move some negative facts from Controversies and mix it up with positive of different sections? For example, section on governance is weak. There is no reason to list board of director names. It is finger pointing plus it changes. The important fact is Tyson Foods have board. This section could be about people of Tyson Food which will include everybody from top to bottom. Worker rights could than be moved from Controversies to this section Gpeja (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 1 & 2. Oppose 3 My opinion is that section Controversies should be proportional to other sections. If dominates this article. Maybe some of the bigger Controversies deserve separate page. Reason for oppose 3 is that no company or country responded very well to COVID so there is no reason to make it a big deal here. One sentence on Covid response is enough. Gpeja (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, per WP:CSECTION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support all - The lead summarizes the article, and these are major parts of the article. The COVID section is presently about 1/3 of the bytes on the page. Not sure it should be, but since it's such a big section it needs to be summarized in the lead. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you think the section on COVID is to big which would mean it violates NPOV and your solution is to make sure it violates it even harder? Interesting choice I must say. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun interpretation, but I'll stick with what I actually said in response to the subject of this RfC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Largest percentage of what?
The lead says that tyson "annually exports the largest percentage of beef out of the United States." What does this mean? That it exports more beef than anyone else (ie is the largest US exporter of beef), or that it exports a greater percentage of its own beef produce than anyone else? At the moment the phrasing is almost meaningless.Pincrete (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources for financial figures and CEOs
Hello! I'm Morgan, and I'm an employee of Tyson Foods. I've created an account to suggest some improvements for the company's Wikipedia article and related pages. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest rules enough to know I should not make changes to articles myself, so I will share suggestions here and ask editors to review and update for me. I have two specific suggestions in mind:

1) The financial figures can be updated in the infobox per the Form 10-K for 2019. "2019" could also be added as the year for the stated number of employees.

2) The first 2 sentences in the "CEOs" section do not have sources. Could someone please add these to the article? They confirm the stated facts.

John W. Tyson, the founder, was CEO from 1935 until his death in 1967. Don Tyson served as the company's CEO and chairman from 1967 to 1991.

I hope these sources are helpful. Happy to answer questions, thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the help . PackMecEng (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help here! I've shared another request below, if you're willing to take another look. MW Tyson (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

CEO, board roster, Fortune 500 ranking
Hi again! I have 3 more specific suggestions for updating this page:

1) Dean Banks has been appointed as CEO: CNBC, The Wall Street Journal.

2) Also related to leadership, here is a link to the current board roster if editors want to update the Board of Directors section of the article.

3) Finally, the article currently suggests Tyson Foods ranked number 80 on the Fortune 500, but the Fortune 500 website says number 79. Can someone update this appropriately?

Again, I hope this is helpful, and thanks to editors for updating. MW Tyson (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I implemented #1 & #3, the issue with #2 is it does not appear to be updated with the new CEO and president position yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I see you added Dean Banks to the Board section, but he was actually already included in the list. I was hoping the section could be updated to reflect the current roster, at least until the website is updated further:


 * John H. Tyson
 * Kevin M. McNamara
 * Les R. Baledge
 * Gaurdie E. Banister Jr.
 * Dean Banks
 * Mike Beebe
 * David J. Bronczek
 * Mikel A. Durham
 * Jonathan D. Mariner
 * Cheryl S. Miller
 * Jeffrey K. Schomburger
 * Robert C. Thurber
 * Barbara A. Tyson
 * Noel White
 * I hope this helps. MW Tyson (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mind revisiting this request to update the current board roster? Or, can you recommend another place I can go to for help? Thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, should be all set now. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

False insinuations that Tyson looked after its workers in the COVID pandemic
The lead contains the bolded part:

During the COVID-19 pandemic Tyson Foods did not implement recommended best practices to protect its workforce, including social distancing measures, plexiglass barriers and wearing of face masks. Later they hired 200 nurses and administrative personnel to begin testing at all facilities.

It's a travesty to mislead readers into thinking Tyson Foods took precautions for the safety of its workers by vaguely saying that they [belatedly] hired staff to conduct testing after the company had failed to implement recommended precautions, been the source of multiple outbreaks, caused massive numbers of infections among staff, and had dozens of staff die. In no way whatsoever is it proper weight to mention that in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is one of the most recent actions listed in the Coronvirus section. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I know, I was the one who added it to the body where it rightfully belongs. It's bonkers to add it to the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be something that is getting more traction in the media. Even recently Tyson was one of the places noted for NOT getting any citations. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing would be notable about a company taking the most basic of precautions for its workers (and surrounding communities) unless it had severely failed to do so in the first place. That last link says that OSHA in Iowa investigated four Tyson plants and one non-Tyson plant, but did not issue a citation for the Tyson plants. It's unclear to me what you think this indicates. Do you want that in the lead too? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above it is just RS talking about improvements at Tyson. No I do not think it belongs in the article at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The belated attempt to look after workers doesn't seem significant enough to me. Looking after workers is kind of expected.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I just want to point out that this was added very recently, here, with a misleading edit summary of trim, CE, and remove editorializing - that is absolutely not the way to go about making a controversial edit to the lead, especially right after an RFC about the lead's content. Since it's clear from both the discussion here and the RFC below that this doesn't currently enjoy consensus, and since it is a new addition that doesn't seem to have been discussed first (and the discussion that happened afterwards immediately trended sharply against it), I've removed it for now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to jump the gun. There is no time limit, we can wait for the RFC to end. PackMecEng (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need for you to rush to try and edit-war your proposed addition into the article, either. You made a WP:BOLD addition to the lead, and multiple editors objected; the thing to do now is to go back to the prior version while you try and obtain consensus for the change you are suggesting. RFCs do not magically freeze contested changes in place, and to the extent that they do it is more normal to go to the stable version, which in this case would be prior to your edit. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well luckily Snoog's started another RFC on the subject. So until the is finished the best course of action is to leave it. No need to rush or aggressively edit war as you have been doing. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It's plain there's no consensus for your addition from the discussion here; per WP:ONUS, you are the one who had to demonstrate consensus for your proposed change. --Aquillion (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Been there a month, it has implied consensus until the RFC finishes and shows that it does not. Onus has been fulfilled thankfully. PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was in the lead for less than twenty days before Snooganssnoogans objected to it, and as I pointed out, that was only because you used a misleading edit summary to add it; twenty days is not nearly enough for something to have implicit consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably enough. PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly bizarre interpretation of policy which (regardless of the outcome of this dispute) we probably have to deal with at some point; while it varies depending on how heavily-trafficked the article is, the usual length of time I've seen people quote is around two or three months - faster on higher-traffic articles, slower on lower ones, because the idea is that the more people who have seen it and not objected to it, the more implicit consensus it has. Claiming implicit consensus for an edit which had no discussion, a misleading edit summary, and was reverted four edits later is honestly a bit baffling, especially when discussions are currently trending something like seven-to-two against your position. It is absolutely not true that a contested addition automatically stays in place while an RFC runs, especially when it had no clear consensus prior and the RFC trends sharply against it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it is the most sources thing in the section at this point. The arguments made to remove are pretty weak given the sourcing and media attention. I should also remind you RFCs are not a head count, it is the strength of the argument. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those sources support the idea that it is a major enough part of Tyson Foods' history for the lead. And, regardless it's a new addition, so the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus.  If you genuinely think that 20 days and four edits is enough for it to have consensus, please take this to WP:AN or some suitable venue - I find your position here shocking enough that I have to stand firm.  Twenty days on a barely-trafficked article is an absurdly short length of time, especially when your initial edit summary was misleading (meaning that anyone who only saw it on recent changes wouldn't have realized you were making a significant change to the lead, and decreasing the possibility that it has had any serious review.)  If you are truly confident that consensus backs your addition regardless, I am entirely willing to take this to some suitable noticeboard to see who is editing against consensus here - I think it's silly for such a small change, especially since it seems vanishingly unlikely that it will gain consensus to remain in the article, but it's something that needs to be hammered out if you are genuinely serious, in order to avoid similar problems on other articles. --Aquillion (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate COVID-19 details
Hello again. User:PackMecEng, thanks again for helping above. I understand editors want to keep mention of the COVID-19 pandemic in this article. However, I see a significant portion of the text here is copied over from the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States (see here). Much of the redundant text can be attributed to this edit on May 5, 2020. Specifically, these two articles both provide details about incidents in the following cities:
 * Columbus Junction, Iowa
 * Waterloo, Iowa
 * Goodlettsville, Tennessee
 * Camilla, Georgia
 * Madison, Nebraska
 * Lexington, Nebraska
 * Dakota City, Nebraska
 * Center, Texas
 * Logansport, Indiana
 * Wallula, Washington
 * Dakota County, Nebraska
 * Portland, Maine
 * Perry, Iowa
 * Springdale, Arkansas

I also see that the "impact" article has details about the lawsuit filed on June 25 as well as incidents in the following cities, which are not currently mentioned in the Tyson Foods article: Wiklesboro, North Carolina; Sherman, Texas; Noel, Missouri; Storm Lake, Iowa; and Council Bluffs, Iowa. The fact that editors have continued to update the "impact" article suggests the COVID-19 page may be the more appropriate place for details about Tyson in relation to the disease.

Are editors willing to remove the duplicate text in the Tyson Foods article? I would think the company article should just have a summary, while the details of specific incidents could be kept on the "impact" page. I accept editors will have the final say here but want to point out the redundancy. Thanks again for feedback and article updating on my behalf. MW Tyson (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not at all redundant to have similar information in two different but related articles, and this article should definitely have complete detail about the significant outbreaks in various Tyson facilities. I oppose the removal of any properly referenced content from this article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty much correct. What should happen is the section here should be a summary of the important bits from the article the information was copy/pasted from, in this case Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States. Several people mentioned similar above in the RFC and previous discussions. If a main article exists for a topic, but that topic is relevant to a different article it should be summarized in that article. I think the section in this article can be reduced to about a paragraph of the most important bits and the rest left to the larger article. Since a main article exists is it a NPOV violation to give undue weight here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section
Hi again! Morgan here on behalf of Tyson Foods. Thanks to those who weighed in above. While editors continue to discuss the COVID-19 content, I was hoping to start addressing issues with the Controversies section, which currently has an "undue weight" banner placed by User:Textorus in March 2020.

I've identified several issues with the text in this section. Before tackling the more serious ones, I thought I'd at least point out some inaccuracies:


 * Currently, the Environmental record section says "In 2019, a Tyson plant in Alabama polluted rivers with E.coli and killed fishlife." Tyson Foods did not pollute rivers with E. Coli. The release caused a drop in dissolved oxygen that led to an impact on fish. I think the article would benefit from some rewording here.


 * Also, I think a sentence in the Food recalls section should be reworded. While all of this information is technically true, the way the last recall is characterized is misleading. Currently, the section says "On June 7, 2019, Tyson Foods announced a recall for over 190,000 pounds of chicken fritters which potentially contained hard plastic, calling the action "voluntary" and "out of caution" following reports from three consumers." All recalls are voluntary as the USDA does not have mandatory recall authority. However, the current text seems to imply that there's something unusual or concerning about this particular recall.

I have other concerns about this section as well, but seeing editor review can take time and require debate, I don't want to share too much at once. Thanks in advance for article updates or feedback. MW Tyson (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I found this more recent and neutral source about the river incident, which indeed focuses on the fish that were killed and doesn't mention E. coli. I'll go ahead and update that. Let's see if others have comments about the recall. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing no other comments, I'll adjust the information about the recall too. As you pointed out, the fact that the recall was voluntary isn't particularly informative in this context. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting the page on my behalf. I've shared another request for the controversies section below, if you're interested in taking a look. MW Tyson (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Antibiotic use
Next, I'd like to address a couple issues with the Undisclosed use of antibiotics section.


 * The phrase "Tyson's use of protozoa-killing ionophores in unhatched eggs constituted antibiotic use" is not factually accurate. Ionophores are not used in eggs, they are used in feed to control coccidiosis. I think some rewording is needed here. I should note, the sentence "Ionophores are used to control cocidiosis, a parasite common in all birds and the medication is not used in human medicine" is accurate.
 * The sentence "Tyson hid the use of this antibiotic from federal inspectors, with Tyson not denying the claim and stating that the use of this chemical is standard industry practice" is also not accurate. The NBC News source (#73) currently used as a citation verifies Tyson did not hide the use of gentamycin. It was an industry standard. At that time, organic birds – which, by default, were "ABF" could utilize baby chicks that had been given gentamycin within the first few days of life (there are no "organic" baby chick suppliers). We didn't deny the claim. Again, I ask editors to please reword the text here.
 * Finally, I would consider calling the subsection something like "Antibiotic use". Keeping "Undisclosed" is unfair. While the situation that was mentioned was controversial, our current policy and procedures are not controversial, are transparent, and demonstrate positive progress in our attempt to reduce antimicrobial resistance.

Thanks again in advance for article updates or feedback. MW Tyson (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising these concerns. I've rewritten the subsection to more closely follow the source. I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on whether or not the word "undisclosed" in the heading is appropriate based on the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested addition to antibiotic use section
Hello again! Related to the above request, I propose adding the following text based on quality news sources to bring the article more up to date:


 * In 2015, Tyson Foods announced plans to stop feeding chickens with antibiotics used in human medicine. In 2017, the company announced plans to stop using antibiotics on poultry for Tyson-branded chicken products such as breasts, nuggets, and wings.

Since you helped above, would you be willing to review and update the article with this proposed text as well? MW Tyson (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks fine, I've added these with a slight adjustment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Environmental record section
Hello again! I'd like to continue working to address issues with the Controversies section, more specifically the Environmental record subsection.

I noticed the entire third paragraph is sourced by a website called Corporate Ethics & Governance. Can someone please confirm if this is an appropriate source for Wikipedia? Also, are the remarks by the EPA senior trial attorney really necessary?

I'd also like to share some facts which might help bring some balance to this section:


 * the company's New Holland poultry complex has received the American Meat Institute Foundation's Environmental Recognition Award seven times since 2005, as well as the U.S. Poultry & Egg Environmental Award in 2012
 * Tyson facilities have received Clean Water Awards from the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association
 * Tyson has partnered with the Environmental Defense Fund to "develop and employ strategies that encourage sustainability while meeting consumer demands for more sustainably grown foods"
 * "In its first project, the companies are focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving water quality and maximizing farmer profitability. This effort will help Tyson meet its land stewardship goal of working with farmers to improve environmental practices on two million acres of corn by 2020."
 * this source shows recognition from the North American Meat Institute

Can any of these be incorporated into the article to bring some balance? You've reviewed several requests above so I wanted to put this on your radar as well. Thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm a little uncomfortable citing meat industry lobbying/advocacy organizations (U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, North American Meat Institute) as primary sources for awards that they've given to a meat company. The QSR source appears to be a press release and carries the disclaimer "News and information presented in this release has not been corroborated by QSR, Food News Media, or Journalistic, Inc.", so that may not be the best source either. The Drovers source seems better; I'll add it to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating the article. I am still curious about the reliability of the website Corporate Ethics & Governance, if you're willing to take a look. MW Tyson (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * After a bit of searching, I can't find any evidence that Corporate Ethics & Governance is a reliable source. Does anyone want to defend it? If not, it should probably be removed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the source with a different one and combined the two paragraphs about this incident. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Requests for Environmental record section
I would like to revisit this section and continue work to achieve some balance.

Here are some recent rankings and notable ways the company has been recognized for environmental performance:
 * 1) In Newsweek 2017 "green ranking", an environmental performance assessment of the largest public companies, Tyson Foods ranked number 223 in the U.S. and number 312 in the world.
 * 2) In 2020, Tyson Foods received a SmartWay Excellence Award, presented by the Environmental Protection Agency to recognize "top shipping (retailers and manufacturers) and logistics company partners for superior environmental performance".
 * 3) Tyson Foods ranked number 29 in Newsweek "America's Most Responsible Companies 2021", scoring 86.1 out of 100. The company scored 84.2, 89.1, and 85.2 in the environmental, social, and corporate governance categories, respectively.

Additionally, here are some documented environmental performance results to consider adding:
 * 1) Tyson Foods reduced water use by 7.6 percent between October 2004 and 2009, and reduced wastewater related permit exceedances by 5.4 percent during 2007–2009. The company reduced landfill solid waste by 12.5 percent during 2008–2009.
 * 2) Tyson Foods reduced water use by 4.7 percent during 2011–2012. The company reduce water use by 10.9 percent between October 2004 and 2012. During 2010–2012, Tyson Foods reduced wastewater related permit exceedances by 48 percent and notices of violations by 86 percent.
 * 3) Tyson Foods reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 8 percent during 2010–2011. The company cut 145 million truck miles during 2011–2012 via lightweight equipment purchases, packaging improvements, and use of rail transport.
 * 4) Six of Tyson Foods' wastewater treatment facilities capture biogas via enclosed anaerobic lagoons, as of 2010. Four of the systems use the biogas as an alternative fuel to natural gas; during 2008–2009, the four facilities used 1.8 billion cubic feet of biogas, replacing 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas and saving the company approximately $9.1 million dollars.
 * 5) Tyson Foods decreased water usage by 2.96 percent during 2015–2018. The company's 2019 sustainability report shows a decrease of 6.8 percent since 2015 against a 12 percent goal by 2020.

I'd also like to share some notable partnerships to consider adding to the article:
 * 1) Tyson Foods worked with the World Resources Institute to set a goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030. The plan was accepted by the Science Based Targets Initiative, a coalition of companies working to limit carbon emissions based on the goals of the Paris Agreement.
 * 2) Tyson Foods joined the United Nations Global Compact in 2019 and has goals similar to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.
 * 3) In 2019, Tyson Foods partnered with the Environmental Defense Fund to help farmers reduce nitrogen and erosion across 2 million acres of corn fields in the Midwestern United States and Pennsylvania.

I know a claim has already been added regarding the Environmental Defense Fund, but I wanted to share this proposed wording in case the added detail is helpful.

Can these be incorporated into the article to bring some balance? Thanks again for reviewing! MW Tyson (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added most of this information to the article. I'm a little confused about the 2019 sustainability report, as the 2.96 percent figure from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette seems to contradict the primary source (which says 6.8 percent). Am I missing something, or are the sources just inconsistent on this? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help. The Sustainability Report is correct but I shared some other sources as well because I was not sure how much editors would prefer to rely on company reports vs. news articles. I certainly welcome use of the Sustainability Report for the most accurate and up to date information. Also, if you're willing to take a look, I've requested addition of some information re: land stewardship below. Thanks again! MW Tyson (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Given the discrepancy I think it's fine to use the Sustainability Report for this information with in-text attribution. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Land stewardship
Hello again! I'd like to share some claims and sources related to land stewardship for the environmental record section:


 * Land stewardship and sustainable farming program
 * This Wall Street Journal article, published in January 2020, says, "Tyson has enrolled about 400,000 acres of corn in its sustainable farming program with a goal to reach 2 million acres by the end of the year".
 * Similarly, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Tyson plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% by 2030, improve land stewardship practices on 2 million acres of corn, and reduce water use this year. It also is working to identify deforestation risks across the company's supply chain."

Proposed addition: As of January 2020, Tyson Foods' land stewardship and sustainable farming program had enrolled approximately 400,000 acres of corn, and planned to support improved environmental practices on 2 million acres of row crop corn by the end of 2020.


 * Poultry litter
 * In 2018, The Tahlequah Daily Press said, "According to Tyson: 'In 2004, Tyson Foods, along with four other poultry companies formed BMPs, a nonprofit focused on removing poultry litter out of nutrient surplus watersheds. To date, the group has helped to pay for the removal of more than one million tons of poultry litter out of the Illinois River Watershed.'"
 * Also related to the Illinois River's watershed and BMPs, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Arkansas poultry farmers have been selling more poultry litter to farmers in other states, said Sheri Herron Scott, executive soil scientist for BMPs, a nonprofit that helps coordinate the sales. Since poultry companies started the nonprofit in 2004, more than 1 million tons of litter have been moved out of the watershed, according to Caroline Ahn, a spokesman for Tyson Foods."

Proposed addition: Through various nonprofit partnerships, Tyson Foods has helped to move more than 1 million tons of poultry litter out of the Illinois River watershed since 2005, redistributing the litter to areas with less density of nutrients available.


 * Deforestation
 * The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Tyson Foods Inc. is doubling down on its effort to curb deforestation. Earlier this year, the Springdale meat processor partnered with nonprofit Proforest and determined that about 94% of the land footprint of Tyson's suppliers had little risk of being linked to deforestation. To address the remaining 6%, Tyson said Thursday that it developed a Forest Protection Standard, a set of supplier guidelines to protect forests and other natural ecosystems. They will affect sourcing for beef and cattle, soy, palm oil and pulp, paper and packaging."
 * Similarly, Drovers Magazine said, "Tyson Foods launches an initiative to reduce deforestation in its global supply chain. An announcement Thursday (Nov. 12) says the company will focus on four commodities – cattle and beef; soy; palm oil and pulp, paper and packaging. After a deforestation risk assessment performed earlier this year with Proforest, Tyson concluded that nearly 94% of its land footprint is at no to low risk of being associated with deforestation. To proactively address the remaining six percent that was found to be at risk, the Forest Protection Standard was developed to ensure the company is continuing to target the reduction of deforestation risk throughout the global supply chain... In order to support the Forest Protection Standard, Tyson is developing specific Commodity Action Plans to outline the work required in each commodity area to support deforestation free sourcing."

Proposed addition: In 2020, Tyson Foods partnered with the nonprofit organization Proforest to complete a deforestation risk assessment, which concluded that approximately 94 percent of the company's land footprint is at low risk of being associated with deforestation. To address the remainder found to be at risk, in November the company announced a Forest Protection Standard focused on reducing deforestation risk in supply chains of cattle and beef, soy, palm oil, and pulp, paper and packaging. Tyson Foods developed Commodity Action Plans for achieving the standard and encouraging deforestation free sourcing.

Thanks for your continued willingness to review requests, provide feedback, and update the article. I hope these will help bring some balance to the section. MW Tyson (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added most of this information to the article, and some other details about the poultry litter situation. In the paragraph about deforestation, I haven't included the sentence about "Commodity Action Plans" because it strikes me as a less important administrative detail that doesn't need to be covered. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Waste reduction
Hello again! I'd like to continue working to address issues with the Controversies section, specifically the Environmental record subsection.

1. If you're open to using the 2019 Sustainability Report for other claims, you'll see we're conducting zero waste to landfill trials at select production facilities during FY2020 and will use the findings to inform the company's goals re: recycling and waste.

2. You'll also see a section on our packaging strategy, which is guided by Sustainable Packaging Coalition and Global Packaging Project recommendations. I propose adding mention of packaging innovation labs at the Discovery Centers in Springdale, Arkansas, and Downers Grove, Illinois, per the following sources:
 * Convenience Store News - "Other features of the Center include: Meat Case of the Future for displaying meat and meal solutions; Foodservice Presentation Kitchen, with front-of-the-house and back-of-the-house production; Case Ready Kitchen; Packaging Innovation; Sensory Testing Area; and Consumer Kitchen that resembles today's home kitchen."
 * Food Processing - "The Discovery Center, which opened in mid-January, is located on the campus of Tysons World Headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas. The 100,000 square foot facility is home to the food science and culinary professionals who are part of Tysons Research and Development team. The Center includes 19 specialized research kitchens, a multi-protein pilot plant, a packaging innovation lab, a sensory analysis lab and consumer focus group capabilities."
 * Food Processing - This source confirms both Discovery Centers.

3. On the green building front, Tyson Foods' Springdale office has earned LEED Silver certification. The original headquarters and Brown Hatchery building were repurposed and many materials were recycled. The updated office has bioswales to manage rainwater and decrease flooding. Here's another helpful news source, in addition to the 2019 Sustainability Report: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/nov/20/news-in-brief-20191120/

4. Finally, our report says, "In FY2019, we moved 100% of our corrugated supply purchases from 29.9% post-consumer recycled (PCR) content to 35.5%. This is a significant advance in the use of PCR fiber content, given the conditions in which our products are used (refrigerated/frozen, high-humidity, heavy-weight product mix environment), and we believe that this is close to the maximum corporate average PCR content that is attainable using currently available materials. We also transitioned 15,000 tons of folding carton paperboard to 100% PCR content. This paperboard is also 100% recyclable. In FY2020, our intent is to more than double this conversion to approximately 40,000 tons." Might a claim or two about PCR be worth adding for balance?

Thanks for your continued assistance making article updates. MW Tyson (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks – I've added the Discovery Centers and the LEED silver certification to the article.
 * As for the information sourced solely to the sustainability report – while I think it was reasonable to rely on the sustainability report to resolve the discrepancy above, in general articles should be based on secondary sources. I'd rather avoid adding information from the sustainability report on topics that aren't covered at all by secondary sources.
 * By the way, I've restructured the article to avoid having a designated "Controversies" section. "Controversies" sections should usually be avoided as they're a magnet for WP:NPOV problems. Hopefully with the information organized by topic instead, it'll be easier to see where there are NPOV issues and how to resolve them. Of course I'd be grateful for any feedback about how best to organize the sections and what other information they should cover. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Animal welfare section
Continuing work to address issues with the Controversies section, I'd like to focus on the Animal abuse subsection.

First, I propose renaming "Animal abuse" to "Animal welfare", which I believe is more neutral and inclusive since there's content about animal care guidelines, etc.

The information is not wrong, but this section does not mention many of the positive actions Tyson Foods has taken to address animal welfare concerns. Here are several articles that run the gamut of adding the Animal Welfare Specialists, starting Remote Video Auditing, starting FarmCheck, FarmCheck audits becoming certified, etc:


 * https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/tyson-foods-steps-animal-welfare-standards-new-initiatives/
 * https://www.beefmagazine.com/animal-welfare/tyson-announces-farm-audits-animal-treatment
 * https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/tysons-animal-welfare-audits-poultry-business-now-certified
 * https://prairiecalifornian.com/tyson-foods-animal-welfare-initiative/
 * https://www.greenbiz.com/article/tyson-foods-adopts-video-audits-monitor-animal-welfare
 * https://www.pbcommercial.com/news/20200616/uspoultry-grant-funds-animal-welfare-research-for-tyson-ua

Can any of these be incorporated into the article to bring some balance? You've helped with requests above so I'd like to put this on your radar, too. Again, my goal is to make the article more neutral and up to date, and eventually remove the warning banner re: lack of balance. Thanks, MW Tyson (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the section with some of these sources. The Farmer's Daughter and Prairie Californian seem to be blogs, which may not be reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Price manipulation section
Continuing work to address issues with the Controversies section, I'd now like to focus on the Price manipulation subsection. Following is the current text:

In 2016, Maplevale sued Tyson and others for alleged price fixing. In January 2018 Winn-Dixie Stores and its sister grocery, Bi-Lo Holdings, also sued Tyson and others; weeks later, Sysco and US Foods separately sued Tyson and others. Tyson and 16 other companies were accused of working together to restrict the supply of chickens and to manipulate chicken prices; these activities allegedly started in 2008. Expressing the magnitude of the Mapleville allegations, NBC News stated an American family of four spends an average of $1100 per year on chicken, and if industry-wide price fixing allegations are true, "about $330 of that should still be in your wallet each year".

In June 2020, it was announced that Tyson was cooperating with US Department of Justice in relation to price-fixing in the poultry industry. Tyson was cooperating under a leniency program whereby it would avoid criminal prosecution by providing aid to DOJ investigators. Just prior to the announcement, four poultry industry executives were indicted for price-fixing.

There are several issues with the section:


 * In the first paragraph, "sued Tyson and others" is not particularly helpful, so I've changed to "sued Tyson and other poultry producers" to clarify what is meant by "others". The next sentence is accurate but has not been updated to note the Northern District of Illinois consolidation, so I've updated the text appropriately.
 * I also suggest adding mention of Tyson's denial and seek to remove the last sentence (Expressing the magnitude of the Mapleville allegations, NBC News stated an American family of four spends an average of $1100 per year on chicken, and if industry-wide price fixing allegations are true, "about $330 of that should still be in your wallet each year.") Phrases like "if recent allegations ... are true" give weight to speculation. I'd like to think editors would agree that using verifiable facts is better and more neutral than providing readers with "if these allegations are true" claims. This should help address the "undue weight" tag.
 * In the second paragraph, I've specified bid rigging as the form of price fixing and added the sentence, "Since that time, additional individuals in the poultry industry have been charged and one company has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $110 million fine." This should make the text a bit more accurate and up to date.

Following is updated text and sourcing for editor review:

In 2016, Maplevale sued Tyson and other poultry producers for alleged price fixing. Since the original filing, numerous other customers and consumers have filed similar lawsuits, all of which are consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The companies were accused of working together to restrict the supply of chickens and to manipulate chicken prices; these activities allegedly started in 2008. Tyson has steadfastly denied the allegations that it participated in any conspiracy to reduce chicken output and/or manipulate pricing indices.

In June 2020, it was announced that Tyson was cooperating with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in relation to bid rigging conduct with respect to certain restaurant accounts. Tyson was cooperating under a leniency program whereby it would avoid criminal prosecution by providing aid to DOJ investigators. Just prior to the announcement, four poultry industry executives were indicted for conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging. Since that time, additional individuals in the poultry industry have been charged and one company has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $110 million fine.

Thanks for your continued help here. Hoping you and other editors can review and update the article. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks mostly fine to me, thanks for suggesting the changes. I've added them to the article, with some adjustments to follow the sources more rigorously. I'm happy to discuss any of the parts I left out if you think they're important. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Workers' rights
Thanks for your help above. Continuing with the Controversies section, I'd like to focus on the Workers' rights subsection. Here's the current text:

An Oxfam report issued in 2016 cited anonymous employees who stated they were routinely denied bathroom breaks, leading them to wear adult diapers to work. According to Celeste Monforton, professor of occupational health at George Washington University, on average, more than one Tyson Foods employee is injured and amputates a finger or limb per month.

In 2017, Tyson Foods announced that they would provide regularly scheduled bathroom breaks for employees, provide workers with training on workers' rights, and establish safety councils that involved workers. Tyson made the announcement in conjunction with Oxfam.

I've reviewed the citations and concluded the current text can be improved to provide a more accurate and balanced summary. Currently, the section starts with Oxfam, then jumps to Celeste Monforton, then revisits Oxfam. Also, the Celeste Monforton claim should be reworded to note the time frame being discussed (January to September 2015) so readers don't assume this average applies to the company's entire history.

I've drafted a more accurate and balanced summary of the sources already used as citations:

According to Celeste Monforton, professor of occupational health at George Washington University, 34 employees were injured at 10 meatpacking plants during January–September 2015, resulting in one amputation per month on average. Reporting on Monforton's findings in 2016, Buzzfeed News said Tyson Foods "recently launched new programs to improve workplace safety communication, awareness and education". An Oxfam report issued in 2016 cited anonymous employees who stated they were routinely denied bathroom breaks, leading them to wear adult diapers to work. In 2017, Tyson Foods announced plans to provide regularly scheduled bathroom breaks and training on workers' rights for employees, "give more attention to line speeds at plants", and establish safety councils that involved workers. Additionally, the company announced plans for "hiking wages, publicly sharing results of a third-party audit on worker conditions, increasing benefits to include more vacation and holidays, and expanding existing safety programs". The plans stem from compliance audits started in 2012 and an occupational safety and health pilot program established in 2015, and the announcement was made in conjunction with Oxfam America and United Food and Commercial Workers. By May 2018, hundreds of Tyson Foods workers at 27 plants had participated in the company's Upward Academy education program.

Again, my goals are to make the article more accurate and fair, and to hopefully address the banner in the Controversies section asking for balanced text. I'm hoping User:Mx. Granger and other editors can review and update the article on my behalf. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. I'll edit the article as suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Text suggesting that Tyson Foods took COVID-19 precautions
Should the lead include a sentence saying that Tyson Foods "hired 200 nurses and administrative personnel to begin testing [for COVID-19] at all facilities"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. This is classic WP:UNDUE. Tyson Foods has faced considerable scrutiny for its failure to take COVID-19 precautions, putting its employees and surrounding communities at risk. Very belatedly, the company began to implement some rudimentary protective measures. Nothing would be notable about a company taking the most basic of precautions for its workers (and surrounding communities) unless it had severely failed to do so in the first place. To include this in the lead is WP:UNDUE and misleads readers into thinking the company took adequate precautions to deal with COVID-19. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to start a new RFC every time someone disagrees with you? PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not in the lead section. Doesn't really belong in the lead, as this text is not among the most important aspects of the company's history. Neutralitytalk 15:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes It is notable to give their response to all the criticism. It is well covered in RS and the lead should summarize the body. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No This is recentism and undue weight. If our sources were uniformly asserting that 2020 has caused a seismic shift in how Tyson is perceived and regarded, then maybe the lead section could contain a paragraph about their COVID-19 response, but this paragraph is not it. It's not even a proper paragraph. Sentence 1, the topic sentence, is all about the environment and animal welfare. The rest of the paragraph is about COVID-19, which is not the same topic. Vadder (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No Undue. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  00:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes But only if the paragraph on COVID-19 is used in the lead. However, all but the first sentence belongs in a new section for COVID-19 Response. The first sentence of the paragraph does not fit with the rest. Ihaveadreamagain 19:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the proposed addition is WP:UNDUE for the lead to the point of absurdity; no reasonable person could argue that this is a significant event in the company's history, and the (comparatively) slight coverage reflects that. The implicit argument, above, that we are required to give Tyson Foods' "response" weight equal to any negative facts about the company is patiently WP:FALSEBALANCE. Mentioning COVID-19 briefly in the lead makes sense the pandemic itself is a major event with far-reaching impact for the company, but it should be a brief summary, not a blow-by-blow; and this is plainly obscure blow-by-blow minutiae.  Furthermore, it is mentioned only extremely briefly in the article body, so the idea that it belongs in the summary of the lead is absurd - the entire rest of the section it is in, which is a huge in-depth multi-paragraph analysis citing a wide variety of sources across an extended period of time, gets only a single sentence in the lead.  To then pull one sentence from the body, with only brief, passing coverage, and devote an equal amount of text to it in the lead is textbook WP:UNDUE weight.  --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Aquillion said it so well that I will simply endorse their comment. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No WP is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Unless Covid-19 is responsible for a long-term readjustment (in whatever form that would take) of this company, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the lead. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Would that be anything related to COVID in the lead or just their response? PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , anything Covid related. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No Coastside (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and I will argue that this is a significant event in the company's history, and is not UNDUE for the lead. As noted above, the pandemic is a major event that impacted this company. They received widespread backlash and criticism for their unsafe working conditions. And in response, spent millions of dollars, named a new CEO, and hired 200 nurses and administrative personnel, and begin administering coronavirus tests at all of its U.S. production facilities. This is relevant to the backlash/criticism, and a significant event as evidenced by the widespread coverage it received. They are also one of the first major American employers to commit to such regular and expansive testing of its workforce. Maybe the sentence could be re-worded, but it is not UNDUE to mention this in the lead, especially when the criticism is already in the lead.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point that "the criticism is already in the lead". Maybe this poll wasn't very clear. I think the whole paragraph should be taken out of the lead and moved later in the article to a section on controversy. 's response above criticizes the whole second paragraph. And I agree with him. This whole discussion of Covid response is recentism.Coastside (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No Its inclusion is WP:UNDUE - Idealigic (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No I agree with the above reasons - this doesn't belong in the lede per WP:UNDUE Quorum816 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No While I think the pandemic should definitely be mentioned, I think the lead goes into way too much detail on it. Compared to the rest of the lead, reading that line just jumps out as oddly specific. So, I also think this is WP:UNDUE.Wikignometry (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * (This is in response to Aquillion's vote) It is more that so far that is the aspect of their COVID response that has gotten a large section of sources talking about it. When you say no reasonable person could argue that this is a significant event in the company's history please do consider the RS backing it up. False balance is also a red herring because that deals with minority viewpoints that do not get much coverage in RS, which again a number of high quality RS have dedicated whole articles to their response. Nothing undue here, in fact nothing could be further from the truth, if you look over the section in general the sources is not great for much of the claims (minus the one in question here oddly enough) so you are saying poor sources and a few "so and so said such and such in bumfuck no where" has more weight than several high quality sources? I think not my friend, I think not. PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor do any of those sources indicate that it is a significant part of Tyson Foods' notability; a press release that gets picked up by a handful of articles is still grossly undue for the lead. Furthermore, while the COVID sentence in the lead paragraph immediately before your new addition is a massive section with vastly more sources overall, the sentence you are trying to crowbar into the lead is a mere single sentence - the article itself does not support the idea that it belongs in the lead.  And finally, "we need to include it in the lead because it is a viewpoint that gets little coverage" is the very definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE; we cover things based on their coverage in reliable sources, not on your personal opinion that "this aspect isn't getting the coverage it deserves" or "the balance of coverage here isn't what I, personally, feel is correct, so we need to put our thumb on the scale and amplify some stuff of otherwise minimal significance." --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "we need to include it in the lead because it is a viewpoint that gets little coverage" Is not the argument I made, no idea where you got that. Sounds like WP:GASLIGHTING. The argument I made is there are a lot of sources that talk about it, it did not get little coverage, and was a prominent thing reported on. Also is still reported on. So yeah false balance is not a thing for here and it meets sustained. I do not understand why you are so dead set against well sourced and informative information in the article. Makes so sense to me, but such is life I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has clearly not gotten the sort of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would indicate that it is a significant part of Tyson's overall reputation or history. I have no objection to putting it in the body, where it belongs, but I am baffled that you would want to pull a single sentence out of the body and put it in the lead when it has only a handful of sources, all from very recently.  If it turns out to be a major turning point in Tyson Foods' reputation we can always add it to the lead later, but for now I feel it would be reasonable for you to compromise and leave it in the body, waiting for longer-term coverage to see if it actually affects their reputation sufficiently to be leadworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries added another from this month even. Also nice job tag bombing the article when you don't get your way. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed hiring hasn't even happened yet; none of the sources treat it as significant in a way that would justify the way you're proposing we weight it equal to the entire lead. And naturally it needs to be tagged given how grossly undue it is; likewise, you're an experienced enough editor to know that adding additional citations alone is not sufficient to make something leadworthy, so the massive WP:OVERCITE on that sentence serves no purpose but to make the section hard to read.  Beyond that, you still haven't demonstrated a consensus to the material you want to add to the article or satisfied WP:ONUS; given the sharp way both the discussion above and the RFC here are trending against your position, and the obvious weakness of your one-line justification for including it contrasted with the extensive multi-point arguments for it being WP:UNDUE, I'm a little baffled that you would engage in victory-dancing or double down so hard on something that seems extremely unlikely, at this point, to obtain the consensus required to remain in the article. It isn't possible (or even advisable) to win every dispute; sometimes it is useful to know when to back down or compromise when consensus is plainly trending against you. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the last one I added was fairly on point with an overview of how Tyson has reacted to COVID in general and they certainly make mention of it. The article was also this month so not from just a press release from July (not that others were either, they were full articles discussing the impact of it as well). You keep changing your story and justifications at every turn when it is shown that they are not being applied correctly. What do you have against significant developments covered by RS? PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My position has remained the same the entire time, though I've expanded it a bit as I noticed more problems with your proposed addition to the lead - none of these sources justify your insistence that this one sentence carries weight equivalent to the entire rest of the section, and as far as I can tell you haven't even made any serious effort to argue that they do, you've just continuously grabbed more nearly-identical sources and basically pushed the same argument that is being roundly rejected above under the belief that if you find enough sources covering Tyson's press releases it will be sufficient by sheer numbers. But it is still, ultimately, only a single hiring event whose coverage remains comparably brief and narrow relative to Tyson's history or to the much broader coverage of the COVID section as a whole.  Almost all your cites cover the same press release, the same points, and so on, with no new information; they support that it is worth a brief mention in the body, but they can't support your assertion that this is a lead-worthy event in Tyson Foods' history, since the to push "hired 200 people and implemented some safety protocols" to that point is bafflingly wide. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So your position has remained the same and then changed. Got it. The rest of what you are saying appears to be repeating the same debunked claims. Basically even recent sources, as demonstrated, still talk about it as an important thing. Sources write whole articles documenting Tysons response to COVID and it seems like you want to engage in original research to keep out parts you dislike for no known reason. Lets just go with how RS describe the situation and keep the original research to a minimum at this point. Also with this post the majority of your posts express now baffled you are with the whole thing. It shows. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely hypocritical of you (PackMecEng) to keep removing details about Tyson's willfully negligent and inhumane actions to spread COVID should be removed from the lead while keeping excess details about their later (legally obligated) actions in the lead. Either mention it in brief among other historical controversies or accept an equal amount of detail on the issue as per NPOV. Shadybabs (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations for unsourced claim
Hi again! Right now the Use of antibiotics section has a 'citation needed' tag after "Tyson and the USDA compromised on rewording Tyson's slogan as "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans". This New York Times article and this Baltimore Sun article confirm the claim. Can someone please update the article on my behalf? Since you helped with this section above, I'm putting this request on your radar. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added the sources and some more information based on them. Unfortunately, as currently written the sequence of events is a little confusing (it seems a lot happened in May and June 2008), so I'd welcome any help making the section clearer and easier to follow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. I think the only suggestion I'd make is changing "a parasite common in all birds" to "a parasite common in poultry". I think that's more accurate but understand you and other editors make that call. I appreciate your continued assistance. MW Tyson (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked a few sources discussing coccidiosis and ionophores, and they do seem to focus on poultry. I couldn't find a source for the claim that it occurs in all birds. So I'll make this change as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing acquisitions
Hello again! Pivoting from the controversies section for a moment, I wanted to identify some acquisitions not currently mentioned in the article. I'm hoping you and others may be willing to update Acquisitions and investments section on my behalf:


 * In April 2017, Tyson announced plans to acquire AdvancePierre Foods Holdings, a supplier of packaged sandwiches, for approximately $3.2 billion in cash.


 * Tyson Foods agreed to acquire the organic chicken and chicken sausage brand Smart Chicken and parent company Tecumseh Poultry in mid 2018.


 * The Philadelphia-based cheesesteak company Original Philly Holdings was sold to Tyson Foods in November 2017.

There are other missing acquisitions, but I don't want to give editors too much to review at once. Of course I'm also open to changes to the proposed wording, but I've tried to be brief and neutral based on quality news sources. Thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've added these acquisitions to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cultured meat
Hello again! The "Cultured meat and over-population" section currently reads: "Tyson Foods Inc., the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, was the first major food company to fund cultured meat research in Israel, Netherlands and the United States. With overpopulation as the major motivating forces behind Tyson's decision to pursue artificial meat.

This text is not quite right. The CNBC source says, "Tyson Ventures, the venture capital arm of Tyson Foods, has participated in Future Meat's seed and Series A funding rounds," and confirms the company's "stake in Memphis Meats, a U.S.-based competitor to Future Meat." The company has said, "The investment is an example of Tyson Foods' commitment to explore innovative, new ways of meeting growing global demand for protein.", which does not specifically say "overpopulation". The first citation is a student publication and the second is inaccessible (at least for me). I am not sure if BusinessGreen is appropriate for Wikipedia or not, but I can only view the first paragraph, which is about a sustainable protein coalition.

Text more representative of sourcing might look like the following, under the section title "Cultured meat and the global demand for protein":


 * Tyson Foods Inc., the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, was one of the first major food companies to fund cultured meat research in 2018 with their investment in California-based Memphis Meats. "Tyson Foods' commitment to explore innovative new ways of meeting growing global demand for protein" is the major motivating force behind their decision to pursue cultured meat.

I may seek to add some other claims about cultured meat, but for now I'm hoping to correct the current text. Putting this request on your radar as well. Thanks for your help with the waste reduction request above and for restructuring the article. MW Tyson (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've edited the section based on those sources. The sources don't seem to say that Tyson was the first or one of the first major food companies to fund this research, so I've removed that claim for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice the investment in Memphis Meats is also covered in the "Acquisitions and investments" subsection. It probably doesn't make sense to cover it in two different places, so I'll combine them for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Update to profile
Hello! My name is Cheyenne and I work for Tyson Foods. I am taking over for User:MW Tyson as the company's representative on Wikipedia, and I've registered an account to suggest updates here on the Talk page for editor consideration. User:Mx. Granger, I've been briefed on work completed to date and understand you've reviewed several requests. I look forward to working with you and other editors to bring this page up to date.

I'd like to focus on the third paragraph of the "Profile" section. I propose adding to the end of the paragraph:


 * In 2019, the company entered the plant protein category with their Raised & Rooted brand of plant based nuggets and tenders. In 2020, the company launched two plant-based patty breakfast sandwiches under its Jimmy Dean brand.

If this update is appropriate, then I suggest updating language in the paragraph's first sentence as well. I propose changing "The company makes a wide variety of animal-based and prepared products at its 123 food processing plants" to "The company makes a wide variety of animal-based, prepared foods and plant-based products at its 123 food processing plants" (adding mention of plant-based products). Hoping Mx. Granger and others can review and update appropriately.

Thanks! Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggesting this. I've added the information with some extra details. Because the word "plant-based" is often used to mean "vegan", I've replaced it with the word "vegetarian" to describe the products that contain eggs, to avoid confusion. But otherwise this is useful information, definitely worth including. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Update to "Employment of undocumented immigrants" section
Hi again! User:Mx. Granger, thanks for your help above. I'd like to focus on the Employment of undocumented immigrants section. I see two problems here: 1) I suggest re-wording the first part, and removing the sentence, "In May 2006, Tyson suspended operations at nine plants during a nationwide day of immigration demonstrations citing expected lack of workers." This sentence is true but has nothing to do with the hiring of undocumented immigrants.

For replacement text, please consider:


 * Tyson Foods was indicted on December 9, 2001, along with six employees on charges that it conspired to smuggle illegal immigrants across the Mexican border to work in its processing plants. The 36-count indictment, which was unsealed at Federal District Court in Chattanooga, Tennessee, accused Tyson of arranging to transport illegal immigrants across the border and of helping them to get counterfeit work papers for jobs at several Tyson plants, including Shelbyville, Tennessee.


 * In March 2003, a federal jury acquitted Tyson Foods and its managers of hiring illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America as part of a nationwide conspiracy to boost production and profits. The jury deliberated for less than a day before acquitting Tyson on all charges.

Sources:
 * https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2001/12/17/daily31.html
 * https://www.chattanoogan.com/2001/12/19/16052/Chattanooga-Grand-Jury-Indicts-Tyson.aspx

Hoping Mx. Granger and others can review and update appropriately.

Thanks! Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made most of these changes. I haven't added the sentence about how long the jury took to deliberate, because it strikes me as a minor detail that's not important to mention, but I'm open to discussing that.
 * I've removed the sentence about the immigration demonstrations because it's true that the source doesn't tie this to Tyson's hiring of undocumented immigrants. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tyson Renewable Energy
Thanks for your help updating the Environmental record section. I see the Tyson_Foods subsection has been moved from the Profile section to the Environmental record section. This makes sense, however this section is just four sentences long and two of the sources used are problematic. I do not recommend clicking on the press release Reference #97, which redirects to a questionable website, and Reference #98 also does not work. Are you willing to remove the inappropriate content and fold this subsection into the larger Environmental record section?

Also, perhaps you feel enough detail is included in the current article, but here's some additional detail if helpful:


 * Tyson Foods is working toward a "30 by 30" target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 30% by 2030 against a 2016 baseline year. The Science Based Targets initiative accepted Tyson's target in 2018, making Tyson the first U.S. protein company in the food and beverage sector to receive such an approval.
 * Tyson's GHG emissions from direct sources they control (scope 1), as well as indirect emissions from energy they purchase (scope 2), have been measured since 2004. Currently, six of Tyson’s production locations including Dakota City, Amarillo, Joslin, Lexington, Cumming API and Albany have covered wastewater treatment lagoons that allow them to capture biogas and reuse in their plant boilers. The practice of capturing biogas allows Tyson to take advantage of a renewable fuel source and helps to reduce GHG emissions and reduces the amount of natural gas needed for purchase.
 * Tyson is a member of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Better Buildings, Better Plants Program. This program is helping Tyson become more efficient by setting energy saving goals, developing energy management plans and tracking and reporting on annual progress.

If you feel there's already enough detail in the article, I understand, but I wanted to put these details on your radar just in case. Either way, thanks again for taking another look at this section. Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these suggestions. I've fixed one of the references, removed the other one, and folded the renewable energy subsection into the larger section as suggested.
 * The "30 by 30" target is already mentioned in the article. Is there a source for the claim that Tyson was the first U.S. protein company to have its target approved? The practice of capturing biogas is already mentioned as well.
 * As for the Better Buildings, Better Plants Program – is there an independent secondary source for this? I'd prefer not to to add the information purely based on Tyson's inclusion on the list you linked – a secondary source would be better, to demonstrate the importance of this information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Profile update and banner
I'd like to propose additional corrections to the Profile section:
 * I propose changing "As of 2014, the company employs 115,000 people" to "As of 2019, the company employs 141,000 people" to match the infobox
 * I also propose changing "Tyson had about 97,000 employees in 27 states" to "Tyson had about 122,000 employees in 27 states", per the Sustainability Report
 * There are also have very specific but unsourced statistics ("Tyson also works with 6,729 independent contract chicken growers."; "Every week, its 54 chicken plants, 13 beef plants, and six pork plants slaughter and package 42.5 million chickens, 170,938 cattle, and 347,891 pigs."), which I propose removing as well.

I think this section would be improved in other ways as well, but I'll pause here for now. Also, given the many improvements and updates made to this article, I think the banner at the top of the page which says "This article may lend undue weight to allegations of corporate misconduct without presenting unbiased reports in some cases" may no longer be needed. Thanks again for your continued help. Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've implemented these suggestions and added updated figures for the number of animals slaughtered per week. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Tyson foods is the biggest meat packager and exporter in the world. With this being said, every industry contributes to climate change but at different levels. Tyson Foods though is a major player in the food industry which definitely leads them to have some affect on climate change. The article had a sustainability section which is pretty detailed up until 2020. Other than that, it doesn’t mention a ton of the other things that happen from Tyson, as they seem to have cleaned up most of their practices. Other than this one section on sustainability, the Tyson Foods Wikipedia doesn’t mention the word sustainability again. Although the events leading up to this are well documented, it seems to leave out major components of climate change and block it with the surface level sustainability news to show a change, when there really isn’t. They still mainly use corn and soybeans for feed which is major player in greenhouse gas emissions. They also don’t mention the pollution that would be caused by fertilizer and the fuel burned when transporting goods. The sources and evidence behind the research is strong as there are tons of different sources. The article was rated a C but I felt as though the in depth explanation for the climate change up until 2020. The sustainability portion of the wiki page is good but it is overall only one section. Maybe adding ore more in depth context on specific elements could be required for this as well. It is a good overall article but lacks the more in depth analysis of what Tyson Foods is really doing. 141.133.216.48 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)