tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/free-range-eggs-26233/articlesFree range eggs – The Conversation2019-12-13T13:41:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1264102019-12-13T13:41:59Z2019-12-13T13:41:59Z‘Organic’ label doesn’t guarantee that holiday ham was a happy pig<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306186/original/file-20191210-95125-1473z63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2592%2C1944&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Federal organic regulations require outdoor access for livestock -- but don't specify how much.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/5707774275">US Dept. of Agriculture/flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This holiday season, Americans will buy <a href="https://time.com/3646915/christmas-turkey-ham-dinner/">some 20 million turkeys and 300 million pounds of ham</a>. </p>
<p>Some of these turkeys and hams will be certified organic, reflecting the common belief that organically raised animals live happier, more natural lives. </p>
<p>The reality, though, is more complicated. </p>
<p>Government regulations for organic farming contain few specific protections for pigs, poultry, egg-laying hens and other animals raised for human consumption. So conditions on organic farms may not actually be all that different from those at traditional livestock operations.</p>
<h2>Organic explosion</h2>
<p>The organic food industry has grown enormously in the U.S. in recent decades. </p>
<p>Organic farming began as a radical cause in the 1970s embraced by a <a href="https://library.ucsc.edu/reg-hist/cultiv/home">small group of farmers in California and a handful of other states</a>. These pioneers sought to grow food naturally, rather than assert their dominance over the Earth. As such, they eschewed <a href="https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Transitioning-to-Organic-Production/Text-Version/History-of-Organic-Farming-in-the-United-States">synthetic pesticides and fertilizers</a>. </p>
<p>Animal ethics were part of these farmers’ vision, too. Rather than thinking of livestock only as producers of meat, milk and eggs, many organic farmers viewed animals as <a href="https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/sustaining-vision/">equal partners in a farm ecosystem</a> that perform important functions like fertilizing soil and controlling pests. </p>
<p>Organic is now mainstream. Organic food sales in 2018 totaled nearly <a href="https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/13805-us-organic-food-sales-near-48-billion">US$48 billion</a>, up from $8.5 billion in 2002. <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview/">Two-thirds of shoppers have tried organic products</a>. </p>
<p>But organic agriculture has struggled to maintain its early commitment to animal welfare. </p>
<p>In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Obama announced a new <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-00888/national-organic-program-nop-organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices">rule</a> that enhanced animal welfare requirements for organic farms. Among other things, it set strict rules for outdoor access and prohibited what USDA called “physical alterations” of animals – what animal rights advocates call “mutilations.” </p>
<p>In mainstream agriculture, pigs’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html">tails are often amputated</a>, or “docked,” so that they will not be bitten off by other pigs. Chickens have <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/">portions of their beaks removed</a> to prevent them from pecking one another.</p>
<p>But the agency <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/12/usda-decides-not-impose-additional-regulatory-requirements-organic">scrapped the new rule</a> two years later, in 2018, before it could take effect. </p>
<p><a href="https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2018/03/usda-continues-attack-integrity-organic-food-label-sparks-alternative-add-labels/">Dismayed animal welfare advocates</a> and organic farmers blamed <a href="https://civileats.com/2017/12/18/years-in-the-making-trumps-usda-kills-organic-animal-welfare-rules/">resistance from big agriculture</a> and the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exceeds-one-in-two-out-goals-on-cutting-regulations-but-it-may-be-getting-tougher/#2b270dbb3d40">Trump administration’s goal of eliminating regulations</a> for the policy change.</p>
<p>There’s some truth to these assertions. But <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=23573">my research on the history of organic food</a> finds that politics isn’t the only reason organic farms aren’t required to treat animals more humanely.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In conventional agriculture, egg-laying chicken live their lives in cages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Egg-Farm-Probe/db8d9090ced44c50b298274bf9a2f002/97/0">AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>USDA misses the mark</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Foods%20Production%20Act%20of%201990%20(OFPA).pdf">Organic Foods Production Act</a> – the only law governing organic farming in the United States – simply doesn’t authorize federal regulators to protect animals raised “organically.” </p>
<p>Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, directing the USDA to write national organic farming regulations. </p>
<p>Like many early organic farmers, the USDA’s new rules focused on the integrity of agricultural materials. Fertilizers and pesticides from natural sources were allowed, while synthetic ones were mostly prohibited. In other words, the USDA defined “organic” to mean the lack of unnatural inputs.</p>
<p>When it came to more complicated questions about how livestock should be treated, though, <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf">the rules were vague</a>. The law that came down from Congress offered the USDA little guidance on regulating organic animal welfare. </p>
<p>On conventional farms, animals are often raised in confined barns or cages, never seeing sunlight or breathing fresh air. The USDA’s organic regulations, which went into effect in 2002, required “access to pasture” for cows and “access to exercise areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight” for poultry. </p>
<p>What this meant in practice remained open to interpretation. Some dairy farms <a href="https://nyti.ms/2r68nBL">grazed cows for just a few months</a>, relegating them to dirt yards for the rest of the year. Large egg operations provided hens with small, concrete-floored porches.</p>
<p>And the regulations said nothing about tail docking and beak trimming. So organically raised pigs may still <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html">have their tails amputated</a>. Organic chickens can be <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/">debeaked</a>.</p>
<h2>Defending the animals</h2>
<p>To improve how animals are treated on large-scale organic farms, animal welfare advocates have worked creatively within the USDA’s limited regulatory scope.</p>
<p>Because organic regulations define allowed versus prohibited materials, activists have sought to extend the prohibition on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to materials used in organic animal agriculture. Some have <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3891/organic-watchdog-criticizes-continued-use-of-synthetic-protein-in-organic-chicken-feed">lobbied federal regulators to prohibit the synthetic protein methionine</a> – a food supplement for birds raised in confinement – in organic farming. </p>
<p>If farmers cannot use methionine, their thinking goes, industrial-style organic chicken farms will no longer be viable. Farmers would have to raise chickens in smaller, outdoor operations. The birds would benefit.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ‘organic’ label may imply little about the animal’s quality of life.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Small-Dairies-Fight-Back/78735a81ac49487d8d85f858d42af39b/1/0">AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Activists have also pressured ethically minded consumers to demand better living conditions for animals. </p>
<p>An animal rights watchdog group called the Cornucopia Institute in 2014 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/11/think-your-milk-and-chicken-are-organic-these-aerial-farm-photos-will-make-you-think-again/">released aerial photos of large organic farms in the U.S.</a> The images showed gigantic buildings and barren yards in which dairy cows and egg-laying chickens spent their days – not the bucolic conditions that many consumers envision when they buy organic. </p>
<p>“Shoppers who passionately support the ideas and values represented by the organic label understandably feel betrayed,” the <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/2014/12/investigation-factory-farms-producing-massive-quantities-organic-milk-eggs/">Cornucopia Institute press release</a> noted. </p>
<h2>New regulations</h2>
<p>The USDA defends its decision to withdraw the Obama-era organic animal welfare standards that would have enhanced outdoor access and prohibited tail docking and beak trimming. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/usda-sued-for-killing-new-rules-for-organic-livestock/">According to public statements by the agency</a>, it lacks authority under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act to implement such expansive rules. </p>
<p>My research confirms this. Congress gave the USDA a mandate to regulate synthetic inputs, not complex farming practices. There is very little in the 1990 federal organics law about animal welfare. </p>
<p>The Trump administration’s decision to kill protections for organically grown animals is now in court, <a href="https://ota.com/livestockpractices">following a lawsuit against the USDA filed by the Organic Trade Association</a>.</p>
<p>For concerned consumers, that means that serving an ethical holiday dinner requires some research. </p>
<p>Pigs and turkeys on some organic farms may well live their lives very differently from their conventionally raised cousins. But an “organic” label does not guarantee this. </p>
<p>[ <em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126410/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Haedicke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US federal regulations say little about how animals on organic farms should be treated. So if you’re planning to serve an ethical holiday dinner, you’ll have to do some research.Michael Haedicke, Associate Professor of Sociology, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1043942018-10-15T06:33:03Z2018-10-15T06:33:03ZAustralians care about animals – but we don’t buy ethical meat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240551/original/file-20181015-165903-b8knuf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australians happily pay more for free-range eggs, but that hasn't translated to other animal products.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekevinchang/4807680154/in/photolist-8jQBP9-eEDjbv-8UViWM-haVocF-6t4yEY-cvZf8o-NtPGWo-5wRXgM-7xiHuj-9hei7D-72cNFE-8h5nUr-WC6w67-2fHjWT-21rBeLW-697mg5-4nvDnU-4ibim9-216Ujq5-dZ5dF5-4nvCX5-e7GiqW-6d268e-4ibhYA-92nea3-aj79T3-5b3iEV-6yCXqc-4Rx41e-26mLp-YH7mz6-cJ3CmS-6T7dGe-5ir8Pi-bp5WZR-27tXtDq-cJ3BB3-2ytgrG-6ZhJb7-eEDh1R-icQ3LD-wbqhn-6ji3S2-cxMAhW-6ojYKG-5FyHtF-e7AE94-XFDGkH-cMk3ZA-8XeX6q">Kevin Chang/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australians clearly care about animal welfare: our research has found 92% shoppers in Sydney considered animal welfare to be important.</p>
<p>However, when we look at the distribution of market share of so-called high-welfare foods in Australia, we get a varied picture. Aussie shoppers seem to care far more about free-range eggs than the living conditions of pigs, cows and broilers (meat poultry). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-comes-first-the-free-range-chicken-or-the-free-range-egg-77869">What comes first: the free-range chicken or the free-range egg?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Free-range eggs now account for <a href="https://www.australianeggs.org.au/who-we-are/annual-reports/%23item-818">more than 40% of all eggs sold in Australia</a>. This contrasts with only a 14% market share for <a href="https://www.chicken.org.au/facts-and-figures/">free-range poultry</a> and even less for pork, with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-05/consumers-misled-over-free-range-pork/2325502">only 5% coming from pigs raised outdoors</a>.</p>
<p>Modern Australians are far removed from the production of their food. Around 95% of meat chickens and pigs eaten in Australia live on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/kirby-modern-meat/4770226">intensive farms</a>, where huge numbers of animals are kept in small enclosed areas. This means we are largely divorced from the price animals pay in becoming our food.</p>
<h2>Mind the hypocrisy gap</h2>
<p>If we care about the welfare of the animals we eat, why don’t we buy foods that come from animals that were treated well? And why are we buying eggs that reflect higher welfare but not other animal-based foods?</p>
<p>This incongruence is an example of what is referred to as the attitude-behaviour gap, or the disparity between what we say and what we do. Many of us love animals, but buy the cheapest meat at the supermarket. This may be simply because all the different labels about welfare standards are too confusing, or it might be a consequence of the considerable price disparity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-know-what-youre-getting-when-you-buy-free-range-eggs-81675">How to know what you're getting when you buy free-range eggs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We also know when a researcher asks shoppers if they’d pay more for free-range, she may receive disingenuous answers. We often like the idea we’ll do the “right” thing, and until we’re forced to put our money where our mouth is, it costs nothing to say we would behave honourably.</p>
<h2>Hard to know</h2>
<p>Even with the best intentions, it can be hard to know how the cows and pigs we eat are raised. Australian legislation doesn’t require producers to disclose fully their farming methods, such as the use of sow stalls. Sow stalls are highly confined housing that pregnant pigs are kept in. Promisingly, Pork Australia has said Aussie farmers are <a href="http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/animal-welfare/housing/">voluntarily phasing them out</a>. </p>
<p>Shoppers can easily be left in the dark about the animal welfare implications of certain foods or, worse, misled by an array of labels, claims or certifications that are essentially meaningless.</p>
<p>When it comes to pork and bacon, Aussie consumers are afforded no legally enforceable definitions for pig husbandry systems. Currently, upwards of 95% of all pigs grown in Australia have no outdoor access.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240557/original/file-20181015-165921-l378ht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It can be hard to find out how pigs are raised.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tony Webster/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When pigs are reared indoors, their stocking densities (number of animals per unit floor area) have a direct impact on farmers’ profit margins. Overcrowding and tail-biting in confined pigs are among the chief welfare concerns that drive consumers to pay a price premium for free-range pork and bacon.</p>
<p>But there is a growing trend towards use of the rather opaque term “outdoor-bred”. This denotes that piglets are born outdoors, but when weaned, at about 21 days of age, they are transferred to sheds where they spend the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware of the true conditions behind this label and think it indicates that the animals spend all of their lives <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-05/consumers-misled-over-free-range-pork/2325502">ranging freely</a>.</p>
<p>Bred free-range is such a misleading term that Australia’s consumer watchdog has <a href="https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/3376670/accc-moves-on-pork-labelling/">pushed for the inclusion of the words “Raised indoors on straw”</a> to make it clearer to consumers that the pigs are born outdoors but raised indoors from weaning until slaughter.</p>
<p>The stocking densities on Australian farms are governed by the <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=5698">Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs</a>. However, for outdoor pigs, the code only offers “recommended” maximum stocking densities. Thus there is really no way of knowing how much space “free-range” pigs occupy, unless you study the details of accreditation or assurance schemes. </p>
<h2>Information feeds demand</h2>
<p>Australian shoppers now see plenty of information on egg cartons, which raises our awareness and, in turn, the demand for higher welfare eggs. This high demand lowers the price, and the attitude-behaviour gap shrinks a little when it comes to eggs.</p>
<p>Free-range eggs sell at a lower price premium than other high welfare animal-based foods. For example, intensively farmed cage eggs will cost you about A$3.50 per dozen, yet for just an extra dollar or two you can buy free-range eggs. This contrasts sharply with intensively farmed chicken meat, which will generally cost you A$7 per kg for breast fillets, while the free-range counterpart sits at around A$16/kg.</p>
<p>If you are confused about this disparity, so are we! That’s why we are exploring the extent of the attitude-behaviour gap in Australia and have launched an <a href="https://redcap.sydney.edu.au/surveys/?s=3EKHYKKTHN">online survey</a>. We need you to tell us how labelling around animal welfare influences your shopping decisions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/animal-welfare-and-animal-rights-are-very-different-beasts-26848">Animal welfare and animal rights are very different beasts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Welfare-friendly shopping involves avoiding foods that have been produced using practices such as so-called battery cages (for egg production) and sow stalls (for pork production). With the attitude-behaviour gap in mind, it’s important to find higher-welfare products by looking for labels such as <a href="https://rspcaapproved.org.au/">RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme</a>,<a href="http://www.humanechoice.com.au/">Humane Choice</a> or <a href="http://www.frepa.com.au/">FREPA</a>, just to name a few. But we should also be demanding clearer labels.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amelia Cornish receives funding from the RSPCA Australia Scholarship for Humane Animal Production Research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul McGreevy consults on a voluntary basis to the RSPCA Australia and is a lifetime member of the RSPCA NSW </span></em></p>Nearly half the eggs sold in Australia are free-range, but only 5% of pork comes from pigs raised outdoors.Amelia Cornish, PhD student, University of SydneyPaul McGreevy, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare Science, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883022017-12-01T05:59:48Z2017-12-01T05:59:48ZProposed poultry standards leave Australia trailing behind other industrialised countries<p>Battery cages will not be phased out of Australia’s chicken farms, according to a draft of <a href="http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/poultry/">industry guidelines</a> released this week. </p>
<p>The proposed <a href="http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/poultry/">Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry</a>, currently open for public consultation, will if approved form the basis of federal and state legislation on poultry welfare. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/files/2015/07/Public-Cons-Version-Poultry-non-cage-systems-support-paper-Oct-16.pdf">supporting paper</a> to the standards argues that extra cage space does not guarantee better welfare for hens. Further, it claims that battery cages allow better inspection and more efficient management of the birds, the biosecurity risks and the environmental impact. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-know-what-youre-getting-when-you-buy-free-range-eggs-81675">How to know what you're getting when you buy free-range eggs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But continuing battery farming flies in the face of a global trend, as both countries and consumers turn against small cages.</p>
<h2>Why do we battery farm?</h2>
<p>In the latter half of the last century, a system of restraining laying hens in rows of small cages (like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage">cells in a battery</a>), with up to five in each, became popular as a means of maintaining good health and high productivity in large numbers of birds. </p>
<p>This was introduced to meet a growing demand for national <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/battery-hens-and-broiler-chickens">self-sufficiency in food production</a> after two world wars which threatened, and at times delivered, widespread famine. Now the world has moved on and global trade is flourishing, but the battery cage remains. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-comes-first-the-free-range-chicken-or-the-free-range-egg-77869">What comes first: the free-range chicken or the free-range egg?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It was not long before the poor welfare of birds in these “battery cages” became a concern for consumers. In 1964, Ruth Harrison’s <a href="https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781780642840">Animal Machines</a> described the restriction on birds’ behaviour; their inability to forage for food, flap their wings, preen and dust-bathe; and the strange, injurious plucking of other birds’ feathers that is so common in these small spaces. </p>
<p>Scientists then proved that birds had a strong motivation to perform many of the behaviours that were rendered impossible in the cages, such as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0376635795000275">laying eggs in a nest</a>. They also found that birds in small cages are <a href="https://www.european-poultry-science.com/Welfare-of-laying-hens-housed-in-cages-and-in-aviaries-what-about-fearfulness,QUlEPTQyMTc1MTAmTUlEPTE2MTAxNA.html">more fearful</a> than those in more spacious accommodation. </p>
<p>Research has also shown that hen don’t adapt to the cages, because the longer they are confined the more they compensate by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347287800635">flapping and stretching when released</a>. </p>
<h2>Moving away from battery farming</h2>
<p>In 1999 the <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/battery-hens-and-broiler-chickens">European Union</a> announced a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC">ban on battery cages from 2012</a>, 20 years after <a href="https://www.upc-online.org/battery_hens/SwissHens.pdf">Switzerland</a> became the first country in the world to phase them out. <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10891877">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://www.cfhs.ca/canadas_battery_cage_phase_out_officially_begins">Canada</a> are now in their phase-out period, ending all battery cage egg production in 2022 and 2032, respectively. </p>
<p>In the United States, a state-by-state ban has been progressing, often stimulated by the requirements of retail outlets. So far <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/battery_cages.html">three states, California, Michigan and Ohio</a>, have taken action to end the production of eggs in battery cages. Several major retailers have now committed to cage-free eggs. </p>
<p>While Australia’s draft standards conclude that birds in battery cages have an acceptable level of welfare, many Australians don’t agree. The proportion of caged eggs sold in supermarkets has fallen from <a href="https://www.australianeggs.org.au/who-we-are/annual-reports/#item-818">75% to 49%</a> over the past decade. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/double-standards-in-animal-ethics-why-is-a-lab-mouse-better-protected-than-a-cow-75810">Double standards in animal ethics: why is a lab mouse better protected than a cow?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The supermarket chains recognise their customers’ concerns and are phasing out eggs from battery cages: <a href="https://www.coles.com.au/corporate-responsibility/responsible-sourcing/responsible-sourcing">Coles</a> from their own brand from 2013, and <a href="http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/woolworths-to-phase-out-cage-eggs.php">Woolworths</a> and <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/aldi-caged-eggs-to-be-phased-out-as-supermarket-bows-to-customer-pressure/news-story/be8ccf0680bf59e48192ba83936fe2fb">Aldi</a> applying the ban to all eggs from 2025.</p>
<p>The European Union has developed and supported <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12365505">furnished cages</a>, which are much larger than previous cages and specifically provide necessary “enrichment items” such as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325142/FAWC_opinion_on_enriched_cages_for_laying_hens.pdf">perches, nests, and litter for pecking and scratching</a>. </p>
<p>The Australian standards argue that these are only required for the birds’ mental state, not their biological functioning. This view implies that a hen’s mental suffering is unconnected to its welfare, a claim that has been steadily eroding in the face of <a href="https://www.cabi.org/vetmedresource/ebook/20143282089">research into animal consciousness</a>. </p>
<p>For example, my research group recently discovered that <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347217301707">hens’ vocalisations</a> are more informative to other hens than thought possible, demonstrating their capacity for rich communication. </p>
<p>To deny the significance of an animal’s mental state is to deny the premise of animal welfare at all. Without this consideration, animals would basically have the same rights as plants. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-animal-welfare-laws-but-they-dont-stop-the-suffering-30703">We have animal welfare laws but they don't stop the suffering</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Despite this, the proposed standards’ accompanying paper relies on narrowly restricted studies, such as a report from industry body Australian Egg that claims there are no difference in the stress levels of birds in <a href="https://www.australianeggs.org.au/dmsdocument/529-non-invasive-assessment-of-stress-in-commercial-housing-systems">battery cages, barns and free-range farms</a>.</p>
<p>Only 12 flocks in total were studied. The stress hormone cortisol was used as the basis of comparison between farm types, even though <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262851068_Monitoring_stress_hormone_metabolites_as_a_useful_non-invasive_tool_for_welfare_assessment_in_farm_animals">little enters the egg and confounding variables are likely to affect cortisol levels</a>.</p>
<p>These limitations are why much animal science today looks at welfare in terms of behaviour, disease and lifetime measures as well as biological markers. </p>
<p>It’s disappointing to see Australia’s welfare standards trail behind much of the world and the clearly expressed attitude of many Australians. With the standards open for consultation until February 26, it is to be hoped that consumer advocate groups, researchers and members of the public register their concern. </p>
<p><br></p>
<hr>
<p><em>The <a href="http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/poultry/poultry-public-consultation/">public consultation period</a> runs until February 26.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88302/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips consults to Voiceless as a member of their Scientific Committee and is on the Board of Minding Animals. He has received funding from ASEAN for the development of poultry standards for ASEAN countries. </span></em></p>Proposed national standards for chicken farming argue that battery cages are not a significant detriment to hens’ health.Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778692017-05-18T00:12:03Z2017-05-18T00:12:03ZWhat comes first: the free-range chicken or the free-range egg?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169745/original/file-20170517-2399-17qo18r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many people believe free-range eggs are tastier and more 'natural'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andres Stapff/Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many shoppers buy free-range eggs because they think the eggs are superior, rather than out of explicit concern for the hens’ welfare, according to our <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2017.1310986">new research</a>.</p>
<p>We asked 75 people in focus groups and shopping mall interviews about what food choices they make and why. When we asked shoppers what they look for in terms of products that promote animal welfare, the most common answers involved free-range or cage-free eggs.</p>
<p>We then asked people why they chose these products. A strong theme emerged: many shoppers preferred these types of eggs because they viewed them as higher quality, having better taste and colour, more nutritious, and safer than eggs produced using other methods such as barn systems.</p>
<p>Our participants attributed these features to the idea that free-range (and cage-free) egg production was “more natural”, and in particular that hens had access to a “natural diet”. This type of diet in turn led to what they described as more nutritious and safer products.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether these claims are true or not, our survey results are consistent with <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0160424">other research</a> suggesting that food labelled with humane production methods prompts people to imbue it with certain characteristics, such as better taste and higher nutritional value.</p>
<h2>Responsible shopping</h2>
<p>To put it in philosophical terms, ethical consumption is about considering “moral others” when we make purchases. In other words, ethical shopping involves thinking about what is best for our communities, the environment and non-human animals. </p>
<p>In contrast, when we act solely as consumers we tend to focus on our own needs and preferences, or those of our family and others close to us. Increasingly we are being encouraged to consider moral others when we buy food, and free-range eggs and meat are key examples of this trend.</p>
<p>Of course, our participants may well care about the welfare of chickens (and other animals). But, when justifying their choices, our research showed ideas of better welfare and better product quality are strongly linked, and often it is the latter that seals the deal. </p>
<p>Our research also implies that consumers think about animal welfare in much broader terms than suggested by the so-called “<a href="http://kb.rspca.org.au/Five-freedoms-for-animals_318.html">five freedoms</a>” used by scientists to define animal welfare.</p>
<p>Our other important finding was that people who bought free-range eggs did not tend to make meat purchases based on similar welfare claims. One reason given was that free-range eggs are seen as relatively affordable, whereas free-range meat was viewed as too expensive. </p>
<p>Note, however, that <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-013-9448-5">some researchers argue</a> that many free-range eggs available in Australia (particularly the cheaper ones) don’t necessarily resolve concerns about animal welfare and health or other ethical issues, as they are produced using large-scale production and distribution systems.</p>
<p>We also found that participants considered the labelling on eggs to be much clearer than on other types of food products that incorporate welfare claims, despite ongoing debates in Australia about <a href="https://theconversation.com/free-range-egg-labelling-scrambles-the-message-for-consumers-57060">labelling standards</a>, including what should count as “free range”. </p>
<p>Several people in our study also indicated that they kept their own hens, or sourced eggs from people who did, to ensure that they were eating only “free-range” products.</p>
<p>Overall, our research highlights the complexities of ethical consumption and the trade-offs that people make between a range of factors, including taste and price. This suggests that common assumptions about why people buy free-range eggs may be too simplistic.</p>
<p>A shared understanding of what “good” farm animal welfare means and why it matters is an essential starting point for a much broader conversation. We need to debate how we can sustainably and humanely produce affordable, safe and nutritious food. </p>
<p>Consumer demand alone doesn’t tell us <a href="https://theconversation.com/tastes-like-moral-superiority-what-makes-food-good-59581">how people define “good food”</a> or “good eggs”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77869/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny receives funding from the Australian Research Council including DP110105062 "What Shall We Have For Tea? Toward a New Discourse of Food Ethics in Contemporary Australia" which funded the research discussed, and LP130100419 on animal welfare which includes contributions from industry partners Coles Group Ltd, Elders Limited, Richard Gunner’s Fine Meats Pty Ltd, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. The University of Adelaide is a partner in the Animal Welfare Science Centre.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP110105062 What Shall We Have For Tea? Toward a New Discourse of Food Ethics in Contemporary Australia).
Heather Bray's salary is partly funded (50%) by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP130100419) which includes contributions from industry partners Coles Group Ltd, Elders Limited, Richard Gunner’s Fine Meats Pty Ltd, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. She received scholarships from the Pig Research and Development Corporation (now Australian Pork Limited) between 1991 and 1997. The University of Adelaide is a partner in the Animal Welfare Science Centre.</span></em></p>Many shoppers choose free-range eggs because they think they are tastier and healthier, rather than being motivated purely by concerns for hens’ welfare, a new study has found.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History, University of AdelaideHeather Bray, Senior Research Associate, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620832016-11-09T21:39:37Z2016-11-09T21:39:37ZCage-free sounds good, but does it mean a better life for chickens?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145120/original/image-20161109-16691-f4d708.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What is a good life for an egg-laying hen?</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Massachusetts is the latest state to vote on a ballot initiative to increase the amount of space that animals are allowed in industrial food production systems. It prohibits keeping pigs, cows and egg-laying hens <a href="http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/government/2015-petitions/15-11-summary.pdf">in tight confinement that</a> “prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.”</p>
<p>You might think <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/08/voters-decide-measure-mandate-cage-free-eggs/BGJTX5ETCt2pKppz9AqTTM/story.html">its passage</a> is a major moral victory, at least for chickens, but is it? As a philosophy professor who’s worked on food issues for my entire career, I’ve come to believe that questions of animal welfare are more complicated than they seem at first glance. It’s not a clear choice which of the possible living conditions for egg-laying hens – enriched cages, cage-free systems, free-range setups – serve them the best.</p>
<h2>What does humanity owe chickens, anyway?</h2>
<p>The philosophical question of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/">whether animals deserve any kind of moral consideration</a> has been debated <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100915190">at least since the ancient Greeks</a>.</p>
<p>At one far end of the spectrum are those who say nonhumans cannot be regarded as proper subjects of moral concern. Some hold this on the <a href="http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/01-13a.html">basis of divine revelation</a> – the other animals were put here for humankind to use as they see fit – while others deny that animals have the kind of subjectivity or experience that could give rise to a moral duty or obligation on our part. The 16th-century philosopher Rene Descartes <a href="http://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/descartes/">likened animals to machines</a>.</p>
<p>All the way at the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that what we owe to animals is <a href="http://tomregan.info/books/animal-rights/case-for-animal-rights/">not unlike what we owe to each other</a>. We should not kill them, nor should we cause them pain or suffering save under highly unusual circumstances. We <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com">certainly should not eat them</a>.</p>
<p>Eggs occupy a theoretically ambiguous place on this spectrum, as it is possible to produce them without killing any chickens. Nevertheless modern egg production does involve killing chickens. First, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/13/us-egg-producers-to-eliminate-routine-killing-male-chicks-by-2020/">virtually all male chicks are destroyed</a> within a few moments of hatching (though the egg industry has pledged to end this practice by 2020, using technology to determine the sex of fertilized eggs rather than waiting for chicks to hatch).</p>
<p>And egg producers will not bear the expense of continuing to feed hens after they have <a href="http://www.henclass.com/how-long-can-she-go/">gotten too old to lay eggs</a>. When the rate of lay declines, henhouses are “<a href="http://henhub.eu/eol/">depopulated</a>,” meaning birds are removed, killed and their carcasses are composted. As such, those who occupy the ethical vegetarian end of the animal ethics spectrum are no more supportive of the egg industry than they are of beef or pork production. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145270/original/image-20161109-19089-x0hmkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chickens without cages don’t live in Eden.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s best for the hens?</h2>
<p>Egg production has been a key target of animal welfare initiatives because <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.009">at one time layers were so crowded</a> that they literally had to stand on top of one another in the wire cages used by the modern egg industry. We can’t be sure these stocking densities have been entirely eliminated, but the vast majority of table eggs today come from chickens that have at least enough space to stand on the floor of their cage.</p>
<p>More important than these increased space allotments is the introduction of amenities that clearly matter to chickens: nest boxes, scratch pads and perches. These enhancements allow the birds to engage in the perching, dust-bathing, nesting and foraging behaviors they are highly motivated to perform.</p>
<p>By 2010, a consensus emerged among producers and some activists for moving to much larger cages that provided <a href="http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/final-results">opportunities for most of chickens’ natural behaviors</a> – the so-called enriched or colony cage. From the producer perspective, enriched cages represented the best compromise between slightly higher costs and improved welfare for hens. But <a href="http://cagefreefuture.com/wp/commitments/">recent pledges to source eggs from cage-free facilities</a> have virtually taken the opportunity for enriched cages off the table. And that is where the moral uncertainty begins to turn wicked.</p>
<h2>Out of the cage, into the fire</h2>
<p>Cage-free and free-range systems clearly do a better job of <a href="http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/final-results">allowing hens to express behaviors</a> that are similar to those of wild jungle fowl. They can move around, and they have better opportunities for scratching, dust bathing and foraging. However, in comparison to enriched cages, <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2008/00000017/00000004/art00005">hens in cage-free and free-range facilities</a> suffer injuries simply because they move around more. Access to the outdoors often means that <a href="http://countrysidenetwork.com/daily/poultry/chicken-coops-housing/how-to-protect-chickens-from-hawks/">predators also have access to hens</a>, and some are inevitably taken by hawks, foxes or the like.</p>
<p>A curious ethical point is that <a href="http://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-0138">people seem to be roughly split</a> on whether being chased and eaten by a hawk or a dog is a bad thing from a chicken’s perspective. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=D6FpUP0OdLcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=CONSUMER+PREFERENCES+FOR+FARM+ANIMAL+WELFARE:+RESULTS+FROM+A+TELEPHONE+SURVEY+OF+U.S.+HOUSEHOLD&ots=DYfXivA37d&sig=30ZrVi8KtcsLrlOQ28P8jtJYl-M#v=onepage&q=CONSUMER%20PREFERENCES%20FOR%20FARM%20ANIMAL%20WELFARE%3A%20RESULTS%20FROM%20A%20TELEPHONE%20SURVEY%20OF%20U.S.%20HOUSEHOLD&f=false">In research done at Oklahoma State University</a>, 40 percent of respondents saw the suffering of animals as the root issue for ethics, while 46 percent judged that pain, suffering or discomfort would not be significant if it was consonant with what an animal would experience in nature. Getting eaten by predators is certainly what chickens and their close relatives experience in the wild. (The remaining 14 percent of people surveyed didn’t care much about animal welfare beyond being sure that animals’ basic needs are met.)</p>
<p>Further complicating the “freedom” of cage-free and free-range enclosures, hens will peck one another in an effort to establish a dominance order. In small groups (the 40 to 60 birds that would be found in the enriched-cage system), this behavior generally recedes. But in flocks of 100,000 or more chickens, the least dominant birds can be subjected to so much pecking from other hens that their welfare is clearly worse than it would be in an enriched cage. Welfare scientists tend to favor aviaries (cage-free) over floor systems (free-range) because they allow better perching and thus give less dominant birds better places to hide. </p>
<p>Egg producers limit the damage that birds can do to each other by <a href="http://certifiedhumane.org/beak-trimming/">trimming off the sharp tip of their beak</a> (which is also controversial). Even still, higher mortality from pecking gets treated as a cost of business in cage-free production facilities. </p>
<p>It is possible to house chickens in groups of 40 to 60 birds where pecking orders become stable quickly, but the roughly 6’ by 12’ enclosures for these groups look suspiciously like a cage to most people. This option may no longer be an option, however. Not only do ballot initiatives like the one in Massachusetts pass with overwhelming support, grocery stores and many chain restaurants are <a href="http://cagefreefuture.com/wp/commitments/">now pledging</a> to abandon suppliers who utilize cages over the next five to 10 years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145283/original/image-20161109-19078-xgx7py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consumers don’t want to feel their eggs come with a side of cruelty.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Agriculture-Tour/baa9b11c323e4ae08625eb3df9b9a81a/2/0">AP Photo/Toby Talbot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>With the best of intentions</h2>
<p>Egg production seems to be especially susceptible to actions where the public is highly confident that they’re in the right – even while many who’ve look closely at the alternatives are far less sure about how it feels to be a chicken in these operations.</p>
<p>Massachusetts voters thought chickens – as well as the pigs and cows that become pork and veal – would be better off in less tight quarters. Since the ban applies to the sale of any products from animals raised in restrictive cages, the ballot measure could have repercussions for food suppliers based far beyond Massachusetts. Opponents of the initiative predict the price of a dozen eggs will spike.</p>
<p>So do chickens benefit from more space, and should we turn them out of their cages? If we are trying to help them live a more natural kind of existence, then maybe we should. If we are interested in limiting the injuries they suffer from being pecked by other birds, as well as from getting hunted and killed by hawks, dogs and other predators, maybe not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul B Thompson receives funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He serves as an unpaid member of the United Egg Producer's advisory group for animal welfare, as well as the advisory group on farm animal welfare for the American Human Association </span></em></p>Voters in Massachusetts passed a ballot measure that assumed so. But a philosopher of animal welfare suggests the ethical issues involved are trickier than a yes/no vote would suggest.Paul B. Thompson, Professor & W K Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613672016-07-26T19:52:31Z2016-07-26T19:52:31ZTen facts you need to know about the chicken and eggs on your table<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131887/original/image-20160726-31202-1i7df9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are a lot of myths about the way chickens are farmed in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When I am asked by friends what I do for living, I tend to raise eyebrows because my job is somewhat odd to many city people. That’s because I’m a poultry nutritionist. </p>
<p>Typically, the conversation turns into a friendly debate on the myths around eating chicken. Do we feed chicken hormones? Are any chickens genetically engineered? Do free range chickens taste better? And so on. </p>
<p>So to save everyone some time, here are some of the most common questions I get asked, and the answers I give.</p>
<h2>1) Should you buy hormone-free chicken?</h2>
<p>The truth is that no chickens or eggs produced in Australia contain added hormones, and they have not been given hormones for decades. </p>
<p>Independent tests by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, as part of the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/food/nrs">National Residue Survey</a>, confirm that Australian chicken meat is free of added hormones. </p>
<p>Not that it would be easy to give them hormones anyway. Growth hormones are proteins similar to insulin used to treat diabetes. </p>
<p>Like insulin, they can only be injected into the body because they are broken down in the digestive tract. Therefore, it is pointless to provide chickens growth hormones in their food because they would be rendered ineffective. </p>
<p>And given a typical commercial shed may accommodate 40,000 to 60,000 birds per shed, it is simply logistically impossible to inject hormones into each chicken.</p>
<h2>2) Are meat chickens genetically modified to grow fast?</h2>
<p>Our chickens are not genetically modified, and their genes have not been altered artificially. Modern meat chickens grow more quickly and are more “meaty” than chicken breeds available decades ago due to selective breeding and optimal nutrition. </p>
<p>Just like pedigree dog breeders breed their puppies for desired traits, selective breeding involves those animals that show the desirable characteristics being selected as the parents for the next generation in the breeding program, and this process being repeated over many generations. </p>
<p>In the 1960s, the goal of selective breeding in meat chickens was simply increased growth rate and increased meat production. Nowadays, the focus has changed from growth and yield to a broad spectrum of outcomes, with a clear emphasis on improving animal welfare, reproduction and overall fitness.</p>
<h2>3) Are meat chickens raised in cages?</h2>
<p>All commercial meat chickens are kept in large poultry sheds on litter floors, covered with things like rice hulls or wood shavings. They are not kept in cages. </p>
<p>Additionally, some meat chickens also have access to the outdoors, such as those often referred to as either free-range or organic. A simple comparison is shown below.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zSK2S/2/" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="430"></iframe>
<h2>4) Are free range chickens healthier?</h2>
<p>Not always. In fact, free range chickens are more likely to catch diseases, get injured and die earlier than those kept inside. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678619">In the UK</a>, free range egg layers have a mortality rate of 8-10%, which is far higher than caged hens’ death rate of 2-4%. </p>
<p>The contact between free range chickens and wild birds also increases the risk of spreading bird flu. And birds can die from over-consuming grass. </p>
<p>Cannibalism can also happen in egg layers and it is a big challenge for free range egg production systems in particular. </p>
<p>We always assume animals behave in a civilised manner. But the fact is free range layer hens may peck each other to death. Cannibalism in poultry is part of their natural behaviour and, unfortunately, it has proven difficult to get rid of.</p>
<h2>5) Do free range or organic chickens taste better?</h2>
<p>There is very little data supporting the idea that free range or organic chickens actually taste better than conventionally farmed ones. </p>
<p>Commercial meat chickens do not tend to like running around, as they were selected to maximise their growth. So it’s a myth that more exercise makes chicken meat more tender.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is it organic? Does it matter?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>6) Why are some meat chickens yellow in colour?</h2>
<p>In some cultures, chickens with yellow fat and skin are considered to be better quality. However, this is not true. </p>
<p>The yellowness of the skin, fat and egg yolk depends on the level of beta carotene in the diets. So those yellow chickens are fed with a corn-based diet, which is higher in beta carotene.</p>
<h2>7) Are meat and egg laying chickens the same breed?</h2>
<p>The meat and egg industries have different requirements, and use different breeds of bird.</p>
<p>The only eggs produced in the meat industry are those needed to produce the next generation of chickens. </p>
<p>Ross and Cobb birds are the two common commercial breeds selected for meat production. </p>
<p>The egg industry houses their hens quite differently and uses very different breeds of chickens, which are bred selectively over many generations to exhibit optimal egg producing characteristics. </p>
<p>The common breeds of laying hens in Australia are the Hyline Brown and the Isa Brown. </p>
<h2>8) Why are some eggs white and others brown?</h2>
<p>The colour of eggshells is the result of pigments being deposited during egg formation. The type of pigment depends upon the breed and is genetically determined. </p>
<p>To get a hint about the egg colour, look at the colour of the chicken’s ear lobes!</p>
<p>Interestingly, people have strong preferences for different egg shell colours in different markets. In Australia and parts of Asia, brown eggs are preferred, whereas in the US and Japan, people prefer white eggs.</p>
<p>The nutritional value of the egg only depends on the chickens’ diet, not the system of production or the colour of the egg shell. </p>
<p>For example, it has been shown that vitamin D-enhanced eggs can be produced if the diet is supplemented with high level of an active form of vitamin D. </p>
<h2>9) What types of chickens do restaurants use?</h2>
<p>It is often difficult to tell. </p>
<p>Fast food chains are more likely to use chickens produced conventionally unless specially labelled. Restaurants vary in the chickens they use. If you prefer a particular type of chicken, be sure to ask before you order. </p>
<h2>10) Does Australia import chickens from elsewhere?</h2>
<p>All the raw chicken meat available in Australia is grown in Australia.</p>
<p>According to Australian Chicken Meat Federation, we consumed <a href="http://www.chicken.org.au/index.php">45.3kg of chicken meat</a> per person in 2015, which means 870 grams of chicken meat per week. </p>
<p>Last year, more than 1.1 million tonnes of chicken meat was produced in Australia and almost all of it was consumed here. </p>
<p>The claim “produced in Australia” is applicable to almost all chicken meat sold in Australia with only very small quantities of cooked chicken meat being imported from New Zealand and some canned products containing chicken also potentially imported.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Sonia will be online for an Author Q&A between 1:30 and 2:30 on Wednesday, 27 July, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p>
<p><em>NOTE: The word “happier” was removed from question number 4 as the answer focuses exclusively on the health of the chickens.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61367/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Liu receives funding from several sources including Rural Industries R&D Corporation Chicken Meat Program. The program is funded by statutory levies paid by industry participants. Other sources include broiler integrators and suppliers of feed ingredients including enzymes and amino acids.</span></em></p>Do organic chickens taste better? Why are some eggs white and others brown? Are free range chickens healthier? There are a lot of questions about chicken production. Here are the facts.Sonia Yun Liu, Lecturer in Poultry Nutrition, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/570602016-03-31T23:57:03Z2016-03-31T23:57:03ZFree-range egg labelling scrambles the message for consumers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117026/original/image-20160331-9712-ci1pci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eggs cartons will need to show stocking density on the carton.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Egg image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian governments have agreed on a <a href="https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-releases/agreement-reached-free-range-egg-labelling-standards">new national standard</a> for <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Consultations/2015/Free-range-egg-labelling">labelling “free range” eggs</a>, in a bid to clear up <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2014.980879">years of consumer confusion</a>. </p>
<p>The standard will be legally enforceable under <a href="http://consumerlaw.gov.au/">Australian consumer law</a> from next year. It states that eggs can be labelled free range if hens have “meaningful and regular access to an outdoor range” and an outdoor “stocking density” of up to 10,000 birds per hectare. The stocking density of the hens – the number of hens per hectare - will also be labelled on the pack.</p>
<p>The new standard also follows <a href="https://accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-guide-to-provide-clarity-on-%E2%80%98free-range%E2%80%99-egg-claims">action by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission</a> (ACCC) against several egg producers, who it alleged had misled consumers about whether their eggs were truly free range. </p>
<p>But the new definition of free range could perpetuate confusion and controversy for consumers.</p>
<h2>Outdoor access?</h2>
<p>Under the standard, eggs labelled free range will need to come from hens that have access to the outdoors. But the hens won’t necessarily actually go outdoors. </p>
<p>Most free-range eggs on supermarket shelves come from production systems where hens are housed in large sheds of 20,000 or more birds, with access to the outdoors via openings along the sides of the sheds. A relatively small number of birds may be outdoors at any time, depending on a range of factors including the size of the flock, the design of the barn, the number of openings, and the conditions outdoors. </p>
<p>These large-scale free-range production systems <a href="http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/research-results/">do not necessarily improve the health and welfare of hens compared with barn systems</a> (sheds with no openings to the outdoors) or “enriched cages” (group cages designed to enable hens to express some natural behaviours). </p>
<p>The conditions that produce free-range eggs at large scale and low price will inevitably lead to <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5140400&fileId=S004393399100017X">overcrowding and inadequate supervision at times</a>, and this may lead to cannibalism and other problems.</p>
<p>Many consumer and animal welfare advocates have argued that the term “free range” should be reserved for smaller systems, where hens range on pasture and where all hens are able to express natural behaviours such as foraging, pecking and dust bathing. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://accc.gov.au/system/files/1029_Free%20range%20Eggs%20guidelines_FA.pdf">ACCC‘s view</a> is that eggs labelled free range should come from egg farms where “most hens move about freely outdoors on most ordinary days”. </p>
<p>Large producers have argued that the ACCC’s definition of free range is unworkable and that their production systems are designed to give hens “<a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2015/Free%20range%20egg%20labelling/Submissions/PDF/Egg_Farmers_Australia.ashx">the freedom to choose whether or not to go outside</a>”. The new standard supports this position, enabling eggs to be labelled as free range as long as hens have “meaningful and regular access” to the outdoors.</p>
<p>However, regular access doesn’t necessarily mean that hens will regularly go outside. And if they don’t go outside, how meaningful is their access?</p>
<h2>How many hens?</h2>
<p>The stocking density of hens has also been a controversial issue in the debate about free range. The <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/meat-fish-and-eggs/eggs/articles/what-free-range-eggs-meet-the-model-code">stocking densities of free-range hens</a> vary from 1,500 birds per hectare or less, for small production systems, to 10,000 birds or more per hectare for large systems. </p>
<p>Smaller producers, the consumer group Choice and the Australian Greens have all argued that eggs labelled free range should have a maximum stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare. This is the outdoor stocking density recommended for free-range hens under the <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=3451">Model Code of Practice</a>, the official national animal welfare guideline for poultry. </p>
<p>The new labelling standard will set a maximum outdoor stocking density for free-range hens of 10,000 birds per hectare, which is the typical stocking density of many large producers who supply to the major supermarkets, contrary to the Model Code. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/meat-fish-and-eggs/eggs/articles/choice-calls-for-bad-egg-boycott-310316">Choice</a> has called the new standard “meaningless” and has called on consumers to boycott supermarket eggs with stocking densities of 10,000 hens per hectare. </p>
<h2>Consumer confusion</h2>
<p>For consumers, the confusion around free range looks set to continue. Multiple definitions of free range will still exist. The <a href="http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/rattenbury/2016/free-range-egg-definition-a-missed-opportunity">Australian Capital Territory has already introduced egg-labelling laws</a> that define free range as 1,500 birds per hectare or less, and some brands and supermarkets will seek to differentiate their free-range eggs with different stocking densities. </p>
<p>Consumer protection will also arguably be weaker under the new standard, as it will provide producers who meet the standard with a safe harbour against ACCC action for misleading consumers.</p>
<p>Consumers will need to look at egg labels carefully. A stocking density of 1,500 or less may be the only clue to indicate that eggs are likely to have been produced under a small-scale free-range system, where most hens have access to the outdoors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christine Parker receives funding from the Australian Research Council to research “Regulating Food Labels: The Case of Free Range Food Products in Australia” (with Dr Gyorgy Scrinis, University of Melbourne) (DP150102168).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gyorgy Scrinis receives funding from from the Australian Research Council to research “Regulating Food Labels: The Case of Free Range Food Products in Australia” (with Prof. Christine Parker, University of Melbourne) (DP150102168).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Carey is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne on the project 'Regulating Food Labels: The case of free range food products in Australia', which is funded by the Australian Research Council. She is also a Research Fellow on the project Foodprint Melbourne, which is funded by the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation. </span></em></p>New standards for free-range eggs will limit stocking densities and mean hens must have access to outdoors.Christine Parker, Professor of Law, The University of MelbourneGyorgy Scrinis, Lecturer in Food Politics and Policy, The University of MelbourneRachel Carey, Research Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.