by Clare Druce
Some of the worst offenders cannot be classed as struggling small-time farmers but are ‘leading lights’ in the industry. In 2000, and again in 2007 Hillside exposed a battery farmer who was well respected in NFU circles, having served on its poultry committee for several years. Despite official inspections following welfare complaints by Hillside, with accompanying video proof of hens in shocking conditions spanning a period of seven years, no action was taken against this man.
*
In 2009 Hillside discovered illness and neglect in yet another welfare-accredited farm, this time a pig farm. And the question must be asked: where are the inspectors responsible for ensuring that much-trumpeted higher standards are in place?
Some startling figures appeared in Meatinfo of February 19th 2010, regarding the exponential growth of Freedom Food (FF). ‘Freedom Food’ pigs had seen a 23% increase, from nearly 1.6 million in 2008 to 1.9 million a year later, accounting for 20% of UK annual pig production, according to the RSPCA. Inclusion of ducks in the FF scheme had grown by 84%, FF ducks now accounting for 42% of all UK duck production, and turkeys increased by 17%, accounting for 7% of UK production.
Surely a vast number of inspectors would be required to check on that huge number of animals? Who knows how many farmers involved in Freedom Food and similar schemes might hold the premium that goes with the logo uppermost in their minds, rather than animal welfare? And how often, if ever, are these welfare-logo-bearing farms inspected without prior warning?
It is obvious that thousands of suitably qualified inspectors, working on a basis of unannounced visits, would be required to ensure the viability of such schemes.
*
The list of atrocities found by Hillside investigators seems unending. In February 2011 undercover filming taken in late January was shown on Channel Five news (the item delayed by the dramatic turn of events in Egypt). A flock of ducks, reared at the time for Waitrose, was filmed at catching time. As the team of three catchers waded among the terrified birds (some severely disabled) they were seen to toss live ducks into the main throng of birds to urge the others on, one catcher lobbing a live one across the shed for no apparent reason. While on the farm, the investigators saw a letter announcing that Waitrose was to visit on a certain date – how courteous of Waitrose, to give ample warning of its ‘inspection’!
*
Much of the last part of the above section is more about Hillside Animal Sanctuary than Chickens’ Lib. My excuse for this detour is that Chickens’ Lib was closely involved with the incident leading to the setting up of Hillside. We have followed Wendy’s progress with great interest, often supporting her in representations to officials and on occasions attending meetings with Hillside, alongside representatives from Freedom Food and the RSPCA’s Farm Animals Department.
As a pick-me-up after the above descriptions of abuse and incompetence, I suggest a visit to Hillside Animal Sanctuary’s website: www.hillside.org.uk. It’s so good to see animals being given what they deserve – a life worth living.
*
In 1997, just three years after our first contact with Wendy Valentine and after many years of frustrations of our own, we came upon some riveting information. Apparently our disgust with the ways of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been shared, but not by ‘activists’ this time.
On this occasion, the frustration came from within the very heart of officialdom.
A telling obituary
It was with the greatest interest that we read an obituary for a leading MAFF veterinarian. Following an initial tribute to Thomas Whyte Stobo, Veterinary Record published a second one, dated April 12th 1997.
Mr P.A. Sweeney wrote of his late friend Tom Stobo: ‘In 1938 he embarked on his illustrious career with the Ministry. After a year in Warwickshire he was promoted to deputy regional veterinary officer. This position entailed a lot of travelling as he was also responsible for Cheshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire…In 1965 he became regional veterinary officer for Lancashire and Yorkshire…During the next four years he became increasingly disillusioned with the work he had enjoyed…When he saw instances of welfare being compromised and his reports of abuses being suppressed he had had enough. A year before he was due to retire he asked to be released.’
What did that penultimate sentence mean? To us, its significance was clear. It meant that complaints by Mr Stobo were just not getting dealt with. Reports of welfare abuses, possibly perpetrated by high profile individuals or companies, were being swept under the carpet.
We wrote to MAFF, we wrote to the Chief Veterinary Officer. Then we wrote (more than once) to Glenys Stacey, at that time Chief Executive of the State Veterinary Service (now re-named Animal Health). We gave our interpretation of the sentence and asked for an alternative explanation. None has yet been offered.
*
The significance of the above obituary can hardly be exaggerated, nor can the fact that our pleas for an alternative interpretation to our own have been systematically ignored. But the silence from officialdom is understandable.
Successive governments have had no wish to highlight the inevitable welfare problems that occur within systems that they themselves have painstakingly enshrined in legislation. Furthermore, keeping on good terms with farmers would seem to be a priority – why else would ‘welfare inspections’ so often be made by arrangement, and so seldom end in prosecutions?
By the way, DEFRA et al., it’s not too late for that alternative explanation for Mr Stobo’s early retirement. Chickens’ Lib would still love to hear from you.
McLibel – the best free show
in town
The McLibel trial is now world famous, iconic even. And so are Helen Steel and her co-defendant Dave Morris, who stood up to McDonalds and, in truth, saw Goliath off. With remarkable courage they both refused to be intimidated by the threat, and later by the actuality, of being sued for libel by that giant corporation.
As members of Greenpeace London (no relation to international Greenpeace) Helen and Dave had, in the 1980s, been engaged in giving out leaflets entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s. The accusations had covered many grounds: the destruction of rainforests (to make room for beef cattle to graze), the luring of children into unhealthy diets, the littering of our streets with discarded packaging, the health risks from fatty and sugary foods, poor employment conditions…and the assertion that McDonald’s food production involved cruelty to animals.
Assuming that these two ‘ordinary’ young people would prove a pushover, McDonald’s issued its writ for libel. So began what, by December 1996, was to have become the longest trial of any kind in English history. And no doubt one that McDonald’s dearly wished they’d never embarked on. Having their dirty washing hung out for such an awfully long time could never have been part of the company’s plan.
*
One evening in 1994 my office phone rang. It was Helen Steel. She’d called to ask if I would be an expert witness in their case, on matters connected with poultry. We didn’t know each other then, but she’d read my book Chicken and Egg; Who Pays the Price? and appeared to think me a suitable person. Which was more than I did at that moment, as I clutched the phone, trying to keep calm.
Me, an expert witness in London’s High Court? The prospect was awesome, in the proper sense of the word. I had no idea what the possible implications might be. Would I compromise Chickens’ Lib in some unforeseen way, if I agreed? Was I up to the task? I promised Helen I’d think about it.
Of course I wanted to support the two defendants. McDonald’s was responsible for encouraging a relentless promotion of cruelly produced eggs and cheap chicken, worldwide. But I had been alarmed by the prospect of the High Court and the mysteries of legal matters, and by the huge responsibility involved.
The next morning I turned to the RSPCA’s legal department for help, and it was explained to me that the role of the expert witness is neutral. He or she is simply there to help the Court to c
ome to a proper, informed decision.
Now at least I understood my role. I phoned Helen back and it was agreed I’d help. My appearance as an expert witness turned out to be in the summer of 1995.
*
Much has been written about the case, and a DVD made (1). There’s the McSpotlight website too (2), where the entire proceedings may be accessed, so there’s no call for a detailed account of the case here. I’ll just give a flavour of Chickens’ Lib’s input.
*
The intelligence and tenacity of the two defendants amazed me. They were able to absorb the necessary information as they went along, working astonishingly long hours while desperately keeping one step ahead of their next daily appearance, brushing up their knowledge on the Tube on the way to the High Court, pushing themselves way beyond normal exhaustion for what they believed in – free speech and, in this case, the right to criticise a multi-national.
In the early days, voluntary support from a young barrister, Keir Starmer (now Director of Public Prosecutions), had encouraged Helen and Dave, especially since others had pointed out the hopelessness of taking on McDonald’s. Throughout the long trial, the defendants were able to drop into Mr Starmer’s chambers for vital discussions on how best to proceed. As time went by he’d seen them developing into potentially ‘very good lawyers’ (3).
*
For a while Helen and I were in frequent touch, as I sorted out relevant papers on slaughter, on the sordid living conditions endured by broilers, the cruelties of severe feed restriction for the parent stock, the deprivation of caged hens, their diseases and close confinement. I was lost in admiration, seeing how quickly Helen boned up on these subjects, many details of which were new to her.
*
Before I was due in court I sat in on a day’s proceedings, to familiarise myself with the strange goings on of the legal system. Dr (now Professor) Neville Gregory, at that time a senior research fellow in the Department of Meat Animal Science at Bristol University’s School of Veterinary Science, was acting as the expert witness on poultry and pig meat, for McDonalds.
Initially, this confused me. I’d known Dr Gregory for some time, through his valuable work on poultry welfare. He’d helped me in the past, checking the accuracy of a complicated Chickens’ Lib’s fact sheet on chicken slaughter. My gut reaction was to wonder what he was doing there, supporting McDonald’s. Then I reminded myself of what I’d been told – that the role of expert witness was to help the court to come to a proper decision.
In the event, Dr Gregory was a brilliant expert witness, and presumably no comfort at all to McDonald’s, as he consistently confirmed the grim conditions for poultry described to him by Helen Steel. During Helen’s questioning of Dr Gregory he volunteered something about broiler breeders that I hadn’t heard before – they can be so hungry, he said, that they resort to eating the litter from the shed floor. On a lighter note, it emerged that Sun Valley’s broiler litter was, on occasions, composed of shredded bank notes.
*
Helen Steel’s meticulous questioning of Dr Gregory, and of Sun Valley’s Group Technical Manager Mark Pattison, laid bare many welfare problems inherent in modern chicken meat operation, from the breeding stock to the rearing stage, and ending on the slaughter line. During slaughter at SV, pre-stun shocks were occurring, and the system of neck cutting, especially important if the stun fails, as it sometimes did at the SV plant, was unsatisfactory, leading to the strong possibility of chickens remaining conscious even up to the last stage – the scalding tank.
In his February 1993 report on a visit to Sun Valley’s slaughter line Dr Gregory had stated that the company had not been adhering to the Ministry of Agriculture’s Code for the Welfare of Poultry at Slaughter. Neither was Sun Valley ensuring cardiac arrest at the water bath stage, nor was it severing both carotid arteries at the neck cutting stage. Taken together these omissions severely limited the chances of a humane death, chances further diminished by the company’s habit of stunning birds at 60mA per bird, precisely half the strength generally regarded as acceptable.
*
Many of the claims made in a document issued by McDonald’s ‘Animal Welfare and Husbandry – McDonald’s Position,’ were revealed as false. For example:
• ‘McDonald’s insists that animals used in its products are reared in a clean, safe, hygienic, comfortable environment, and that humane methods of killing are used.’ My comment: The words used above to describe conditions in broiler units are totally inappropriate, and the slaughter line at Sun Valley was found to be in urgent need of improvements.
• ‘Chickens used for McDonald’s products are not reared in cages. They have the freedom to move around at will.’ My comment: Using the ‘not caged’ argument is a tired old red herring, since no meat-type chickens are caged. And, especially towards the end of the growing cycle, broilers’ freedom of movement is severely restricted.
• ‘Sun Valley complies with the strict EC legislation regarding poultry rearing.’ My comment: At that time there was no specific legislation for broiler chickens. The first such EU legislation would be introduced in 2010.
• ‘This (the battery cage system) is the company’s preferred system for egg production because it is hygienic and efficient, providing a clean, low-risk environment which enables eggs to be separated from the hens and their droppings.’ My comment: I had no first-hand experience of Oasters Eggs, sole provider of all McDonald’s egg requirements, but ‘low-risk environment’ was deceptive – all caged hens are at very high risk of developing brittle bones and many other cage-related ills. As to ‘hygienic’ – that’s not a word that springs to mind, when describing the inside of a battery shed.
McDonald’s list went on, shamelessly shot through with inaccuracies and misleading statements.
*
On my first day as an expert witness, I arrived at the High Court much too early. I wandered around the area, hoping to find somewhere for a reviving coffee, but London was still half-asleep. Only McDonald’s was open. I’d never once been into a McDonald’s, never wanted to, but with the doors of every café in sight closed, on that morning its brash interior looked hugely tempting. Even so, I went without my coffee. Just suppose I’d been spotted, relaxing in McDonald’s …
*
Richard Rampton, the QC acting for McDonald’s, tried his hardest to discredit me. Sounding exquisitely bored, he warned Mr Justice Bell that I had no qualifications to back up my claim to be an expert witness, indeed was not worth listening to. The implication was that I was a fraud.
To some extent this was true, at least the first part. A diploma in clarinet teaching was hardly relevant. Earlier, Mr Justice Bell had expressed the fear that I would operate on ‘instinctive judgement’, in view of my campaigning record. I suppose he meant the ‘well she would say that wouldn’t she?’ syndrome. He was concerned too that I hadn’t seen into any Sun Valley farms, or visited their slaughter plant (Sun Valley, its name a supreme irony, was the sole provider and slaughterer of McDonald’s UK chicken meat). I think at that stage the judge assumed the broiler system could be perfectly acceptable; nor did he know that I had in fact asked Sun Valley’s management if I could visit one of their farms, and even steeled myself to ask to observe their slaughter line. Not surprisingly, considering Chickens’ Lib’s reputation, both my requests had been refused.
But by the time I entered the witness box, Mr Justice Bell had decided he could listen to me. He explained that in his opinion there were two ways of arriving at expertise – one through the normal channels (appropriate qualifications), the other exemplified by my method: hands-on experience and meticulous information gathering (not quite his words, but that was their import). Maybe hearing that we’d received the RSPCA’s Lord Erskine Award in recognition of our campaign to improve poultry welfare upped my status in his eyes. Whatever had brought about the change of heart, I was now a bone fide expert witness.
Despite that, Mr Rampton was soon up to his old tricks aga
in. We’d recently produced two videos. The first one, Chicken for Dinner?, though made on a shoestring budget, contained some brilliantly emotive shots and the script comprehensively exposed the cruelly deprived lives led by broiler chickens. Our second video, ‘Sentenced for Life’ described the battery hen’s severe deprivations. The defendants wanted our videos shown in court. Mr Rampton did not. Sounding once again bored almost beyond endurance, he explained to the judge that he’d watched them both over the weekend, and M’Lord would gain nothing from seeing them!
Even at the time I thought this wasn’t a very clever move. Might it not encourage the judge to view our videos? Did Mr Rampton fear their impact? In the event Mr Justice Bell announced that he would view them both.
Having Chickens’ Lib’s videos shown in the High Court was way beyond our expectations. Not many people were present, but that didn’t matter. It was the judge whose opinion we wanted to influence, and he watched with attentive interest.
*
Helen, having by then absorbed a mass of information about battery hens and broiler chicken farming as well as the complicated anatomical and technical facts about slaughter, made the very most of her knowledge, frequently leading up to the entrapment of witnesses for McDonald’s, as cleverly as any fully trained lawyer. Little by little she exposed the serious welfare problems at that time inherent in Sun Valley’s and Oaster Eggs’ husbandry systems, and the unsatisfactory state of SV’s slaughter line.
I’d expected to appear in the witness box, on and off, for two whole days. The afternoon of the second day was the slot for my cross-examination by Mr Rampton, and I was looking forward to it.