Which poultry is better for your health?

The industry is trying to make the case that there’s a way to treat all three of the major conditions: birds, people and the environment.

“It’s about not making the case just for poultry,” said Gary Schoenebaum, chief scientific officer of the United States Poultry Industry Association.

“You have to be able to do it for everybody.”

In a world of cheap, abundant meat and dairy, it’s not difficult to see why there would be widespread demand for cheaper, less nutritious food.

“The whole point of the industry is to be the cheapest and most nutritious choice,” said Dr. Andrew Friesen, an entomologist and the president of the North American Poultry Association.

In the past, companies have had to figure out what to do about the many illnesses caused by antibiotic-resistant bugs, and some have tried to mitigate some of those infections by using antibiotics that are far more effective than the antibiotics that the world has to use.

But the PSA has gone a step further and said that there should be no restrictions on the use of antibiotics in poultry.

“There is no evidence that antibiotics are causing an increase in antibiotic resistance, nor is there any evidence that they increase antibiotic resistance in poultry,” the PAA said in a statement.

It also said that antibiotics should not be used on wild animals because they can spread infections to people.

The PAA argues that the U.S. government should ban all antibiotics from human consumption, and that it is also a good idea to limit the use to poultry farms because it is not sustainable to have animals being raised in cages where they are kept for years without access to the outdoors.

“We believe the best approach to poultry is a global policy that will protect all of our citizens from the harms of antibiotic use,” said Schoenbaum.

“That’s what we’re trying to get the world to do.”

This article has been updated to include a statement from the U-Poultry association.