In the latest update in a case this blog has been posting about since its inception, Justin Juozapavicius with the Associated Press reports that former Tyson director of environmental agriculture (until he left the company in 2005) Preston Keller faced questions of whether or not the company cared more about its public image “than protecting a million-acre watershed from environmental pollution,” as claim attorneys for the state of Oklahoma.Keller is the first current or former executive of the eleven poultry companies being sued by the state over the pollution of the Illinois River watershed to take the stand. Oklahoma alleges the practice of using excess bird litter as a fertilizer on farms near the some 1,800 poultry houses that dot the watershed’s landscape on both the Arkansas and Oklahoma side of the Illinois River lead to pollution of the watershed and put the state’s citizen’s health in jeopardy—violating both state and federal law.
The companies maintain that their contract growers in the watershed have not broken any laws because they received permits from both Oklahoma and Arkansas “to spread the waste as an inexpensive fertilizer on fields or sell it to other farmers.” State attorney Louis Bullock showed a PowerPoint presentation made by Tyson in which the company emphasizes its main concern is maintaining a positive public image. The state alleges the company cared little, if any, about issues of environmental protection from poultry waste as long as the public thought it did. Keller testified Tuesday that, ‘“Obviously, if we’re viewed as pursuing the right thing, we’d be better perceived [.]”’
Oklahoma argued to U.S. District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell, who is hearing the non-jury case, that in the reality of contract-grower poultry production the company owns the birds from birth to processing, so “they also own the waste that comes with them.” And presumably this would make them responsible for disposing the waste. The companies argue the “waste is the responsibility of their contract growers.”
Keller’s testimony on Tuesday was the sixteenth day of what Juozapavicius labels a “sprawling trial, which began in September.” The case has been ongoing, in some form, for years with plenty of significant developments over that time.
To read the Juozapavicius article for the AP click here.
Posted: 11/04/09
