"Supporting statement: While Tyson prohibits antibiotic use in its chickens and markets some beef and pork as raised without antibiotics, the Company does not limit how antibiotics may be used in cattle and swine for much of its beef and pork, beyond legal compliance. Antibiotics overuse is known to exacerbate antimicrobial resistance (“AMR”), which the WHO describes as “one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity.”
AMR poses a systemic threat to public health and the economy. When the efficacy and availability of life-saving drugs are compromised, the entire economy suffers. And when the economy suffers, investors lose. By 2050, AMR could cause $100 trillion in lost global production, thus lowering the economy’s intrinsic value.

While Tyson has made laudable progress in eliminating antibiotics use in its chickens, its cattle and swine policies deviate from the WHO Guidelines, which recommend that “farmers and the food industry stop using antibiotics routinely to promote growth and prevent disease in healthy animals” and provide evidence-based recommendations and best practices. Moreover, despite Tyson’s chicken policies, a recent investigation found Tyson—along with other poultry giants—sold numerous meat products between 2015 and 2020 that were contaminated with campylobacter and salmonella, more than half of which were antibiotic-resistant strains. As another company with a meat supply chain explained, robust AMR protections raise “[t]he challenge of individual costs and widely distributed societal benefits.” But for diversified investors, the portfolio-wide costs associated with AMR are paramount.

Tyson’s decision not to prioritize broad AMR risks does not account for its diversified owners’ interests in optimizing public health, the economy, and their long-term portfolio returns. By using medically important drugs beyond WHO Guidelines, Tyson adds to the economic threat AMR poses to its diversified shareholders: reducing the economy’s intrinsic value will directly reduce diversified portfolios’ long-term returns. Tyson’s profit gain that comes at the expense of public health is a
bad trade for Tyson’s diversified shareholders, who rely on broad economic growth to achieve their financial objectives.
By changing its policies and adhering to the WHO Guidelines, Tyson could save lives, contribute to a more resilient economy, and protect its diversified investors’ portfolios."