by Clare Druce
But I was to be disappointed. Mr Rampton announced in his customary bored-to-tears voice that he ‘had no questions for Mrs Druce’.
I like to think he was afraid he just might have ended up on the losing side.
*
June 19th 1997: I attended Mr Justice Bell’s long-awaited verdict, a 45-page summary of his 800-page Judgement. The defendants won on some issues and lost on others. When it came to poultry matters I listened in delight, almost in disbelief. Here was outright condemnation of cruelty to poultry, mostly based on the systems per se. Below are some of the judge’s comments, which we soon circulated widely:
On slaughter at Sun Valley: ‘A proportion of the chickens that are used to produce the First and Second Plaintiffs’ food are still fully conscious when they have their throats cut. This is a cruel practice for which the plaintiffs are culpably responsible…in my overall judgement those (charges) that are justified, relating to the restriction of movement of battery hens, broiler chickens and chickens which have their throats cut while still fully conscious are sufficient to justify the general charge that the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food.’
Of the battery system: ‘I conclude that the battery system as described to me is cruel in respect of the almost total restraint of the birds and the incidence of broken bones when they are taken for slaughter.’
Of Sun Valley’s broilers: ‘Sun Valley’s stocking density is what they think they can manage in order to make money without matching loss...I have already referred to the Second Plaintiff’s Animal Welfare and Husbandry sheet on “Chicken – Sun Valley”, which says that the chickens have freedom to move around at will. In my judgement that is palpably untrue of the last few days, at least, of their lives in Sun Valley houses…I can see no reason why at least 7% of broilers, and possibly more, should have to suffer the discomforting leg problems with which they live on. In my judgement it involves cruelty.’
And of broiler breeders: ‘My conclusion is that the practice of rearing breeders for appetite, that is to feel especially hungry, and then restricting their feed with the effect of keeping them hungry is cruel. It is a well-planned device for profit at the expense of suffering of the birds.’
*
In the years following their libel action McDonald’s took steps towards improving their image. Battery eggs were replaced by free range ones, conditions for these sounding well above average (the company insists on tree cover on the range, a significant benefit for the birds, and an encouragement for them to use all of the range). This has led to McDonald’s winning the RSPCA’s Good Business Award two years running. Another award for McDonald’s has been CIWF’s Good Egg Award.
McDonald’s now supports Oxford University’s Food Animal Initiative. One project of the FAI (www.faifarms.co.uk), jointly run with the World Society for the Protection of Animals, is to establish an international network of viable, humane and sustainable farms.
Much was made on the McDonald’s website (4) about the company’s pride in sponsoring the 2012 Olympics, and information about farm visits that would be on offer. I doubt whether any of their broiler chicken production facilities were opened to visitors. I imagine that ‘biosecurity’ might have come in useful, keeping the public at a safe distance from scenes which some may have found disturbing.
Meanwhile, the battles go on, worldwide. On June 23rd 2010 Mailonline reported that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) was threatening to sue McDonald’s for its ‘creepy and predatory ploy’ of enticing children into their restaurants (via pester power) with the promise of presents of toys (5).
A new word has entered the language to sum up what has happened to those fast-food restaurants seeking to dominate the world’s eating habits. And that word is McDonaldization.
*
To sum up : In 1997 a High Court Judge deemed three intensive poultry systems cruel – battery cages for laying hens, the broiler system, and broiler breeders’ feed restriction. Not only were the systems indicted, but the specific companies responsible for inflicting suffering on the birds, too. In addition he condemned many aspects of poultry slaughter, some of which may yet apply in slaughterhouses today.
The UK’s ‘David and Goliath case’ should surely encourage prosecutions of the perpetrators of intensive systems. Had the McDonald’s libel case been a criminal one, its outcome could have changed the lives of millions of abused poultry.
I rest my case.
Nearly a controlled explosion
In Spring 1998 we wrote to our supporters: ‘We’re at the moment preparing a leaflet which will be suitable for display in churches…the leaflet’s message will be endorsed by Church of England bishops (how many, we don’t yet know…).’
It turned out that thirty-two bishops were willing to sign, and we were sincerely grateful to each and every one of them.
On the front of the leaflet we quoted the Bishop of Dover, the Rt. Revd. Richard Llewellyn: ‘All animals, in their complexity and beauty, must surely concern Christians, since they are part of Creation. During this century farm animals have been exploited on an unprecedented scale. Many now experience little other than misery from birth to death as factory farming systems deprive them of any comfort and – as scientific research confirms – cruelly frustrate nearly all their needs. The battery cage system, which produces most of Britain’s eggs, is a prime example of such systems. As Christians, we must surely do all in our power to bring an end to this lack of proper respect for God’s creatures.’
*
July 18th 1998 marked the beginning of the Lambeth Conference, an event that takes place every ten years or so, when Church of England bishops from all over the world gather to discuss burning moral issues of the day. This one, the thirteenth, was presided over by Britain’s Archbishop George Carey, and we’d learned that 749 bishops would be present.
Perfect! Without prior planning, we had a leaflet tailor-made for the occasion and hot off the press. We made a parcel of the necessary number (plus a few spares) and posted it off to the conference venue in Canterbury, along with a polite covering letter: we’d be very grateful if each bishop could be given a leaflet, was its gist.
A day or two later I took a phone call from the Canterbury police. Our leaflets had caused ‘a great deal of disturbance’, an officer informed me, our parcel nearly becoming the subject of a controlled explosion. While I listened, I was picturing seven hundred and forty-nine bishops, resplendent in their finery, being hustled outside to somewhere reckoned to be a safe distance from our parcel bomb. Some dismal car park, maybe, earmarked as the gathering place in the event of fire.
Rather decently, all things considered, the Archbishop’s Public Affairs Officer, Mr Louis Henderson, later replied to us on Dr Carey’s behalf, thanking us for the leaflets and letting us know that copies of the leaflets had been made available to all the bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. It appeared no grudges were borne, despite the alarm and disruption caused. We were heartened!
But we heard nothing from any of the bishops. Not one word.
*
Later, we were to read that the most hotly debated issue at the conference had been homosexuality within the Anglican Communion. It was decided, by a vote of 526 to 70 that ‘homosexual practice… is incompatible with Scripture.’
How wonderful, Violet and I agreed, if, instead, the ghastly debasement of animals in the name of cheap food had been hotly debated; how heartening if that had been deemed incompatible with Scripture.
*
My father had died in 1991, and three years later Violet moved to a residential home in Harrogate, to be near my sister. From there, she continued to fire off campaigning letters. Early in 1998 she’d written to the Archbishop of Canterbury yet again, and received a reply, dated January 19th 1998, from the same Public Affairs Officer who’d written to us about our leaflets’ narrowly avoided
fate.
Once again, the fact that the Archbishop was the Vice Patron of the RSPCA was given as reassurance and proof that he had made his views clear on animal welfare. Mr Henderson then stressed that the Archbishop could not impose his views on the Church as a whole.
But why not, we wondered? After all, we’re talking about the very people who claim to revere God’s creation. Surely abused farmed animals should automatically come within reach of the church’s compassion, and was not the Archbishop, of all people, in a position of influence?
The abomination of factory farming needed to be condemned from every pulpit, as once it was in York Minster by our dear Patron the Bishop of Salisbury.
Baby foods and school dinners – food for thought
We’d been looking into what goes into baby food and school dinners. In 1998 I’d written to H.J. Heinz Company Limited asking their Consumer Contact Manager, a Mr Brian Hooker, if ‘spent’ hens were still to be found in Heinz Baby Foods, and on May 15th I phoned him for a chat. During this conversation Mr Hooker stated that Heinz used spent broiler breeders, and it sounded as if this was the company’s preferred source, perhaps its only one. In one way this came as a relief, for some highly disturbing information had come to us years earlier.
Alastair Mews, when Chief Veterinary Officer at the RSPCA, had told me that in some slaughterhouses for ‘spent’ hens the electrical current was set low, to minimise the shattering of the vulnerable birds’ bones. Shards of bone in the meat would be highly undesirable in pastes and soups, even more so in baby foods! This practice ensured a dreadful end for battery hens; many were reaching the knife, and even the scalding tank, fully conscious. I have no way of knowing if this calculated cruelty has continued into the twenty-first century.
Mr Hooker’s written reply, dated June 5th, was more guarded, and less specific. He referred to carefully selected suppliers and to safety and quality, to independent veterinary checks and exacting standards. However, it seemed that the company didn’t actually specify any particular type of poultry. So maybe spent broiler breeders were not the only type of chicken on offer to babies. Spent battery hens too may have been in the mix.
*
It proved hard to find out much about the national scene and eventually we limited our fact finding to West Yorkshire. Kirklees’ Catering Service informed us that the chicken ‘chunks’ used in West Yorkshire school meals were derived from battery hens, and that dehydrated or minced chicken (quite probably from battery hens too – at that time spent hens were just about worthless, so definitely a bargain) was used in ‘Chicken Teddies’. What were Chicken Teddies? I queried. It seemed they consisted of re-hydrated chicken meat formed into Teddy Bear shapes.
The baby food scene continued far from reassuring. A lady speaking for Cow and Gate baby foods told me their producers operated in line with standards so their products are fit for human consumption. We were all too well aware that standards for human consumption of meat could be rock bottom, with millions of farmed animals reared amid filthy conditions. Not only the animals, but babies and schoolchildren too surely deserved better.
Feeling we had the beginnings of a good story, and one that urgently needed telling, I contacted one of the serious Sunday newspapers, and an arrangement was made to meet two journalists in London, over lunch. I explained that I was vegan, so it would be helpful to go somewhere with a suitable menu – Indian perhaps? Yes, yes, they agreed, a good idea. Then the message came to meet them at Le Pont de la Tour, a restaurant where, I am told, Tony Blair had wined and dined President Clinton (and doubtless Cherie and Hillary too).
Anxious not to be late, I arrived much too early and hung around. I told a hovering waiter that I was expecting friends, and sat people-watching as a stream of immaculate thirty-somethings poured in. Stockbrokers? Bankers? It was interesting to speculate (speculators too, in all likelihood). As the minutes ticked by I felt increasingly like a bag lady, and half expected to be thrown out.
Eventually, the two young men did arrive, and we sat down and consulted the menu. In the event, they chose what they wanted, two excellent lunches, while I made do with a huge heap of rocket and some dry bread (though a little dish of olive oil was rustled up, at my request). I chomped my way through as much of the chewy greenery as I could, my thoughts turning to rabbits, wondering why on earth this place had been chosen. The answer, I suppose, was obvious – my journalists desired only the best, on expenses. And to hell with vegan diets!
They seemed interested in what I had to tell them, and made noises about following the story up, but nothing happened. Had they used their wits, they could have beaten Jamie Oliver to it, and perhaps saved a generation of small children from the insult of those tragic Chicken Teddies.
The battery cage ban at last?
January 28th 1999: The European Parliament votes for a ban on battery cages throughout the European Union – a huge step forward for animal welfare, and recognition of all the hard work by activists throughout Europe. As long as egg quality, and above all morality, are set aside the battery system works brilliantly: without sustained campaigning over the years, there might have been no end to one of the cruellest animal husbandry systems ever invented.
With the necessary endorsement by all EU Farm Ministers achieved, on July 19th 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC was published (1), setting down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, and including a date for the ban – January 1st, in the year 2012. In addition, various minimal improvements in cage space were set out, to be introduced during the years leading up to 2012, a date which gave farmers thirteen whole years in which to scrap their cages.
Yet the Directive contained a fatal flaw. The enriched cage system, with its empty gestures to better welfare, is not included in the ban. The ban only applies to what have become known as ‘barren’ battery cages – those containing no ‘furniture’ (of which more later).
Right up to 2010 some countries (Poland and France are two examples) were asking for the date to be pushed into the future. France, as a founder member of the EEC/EU, had no excuse for its inaction but many EU Member States had only recently joined, and their egg production was still largely dependent on barren battery cages. The sheer impossibility of all twenty-seven countries being able and willing to abide by the cage ban by the legally required date was obvious.
Looking beyond the ever-expanding EU, there are few signs of an impending ban on cages, barren or enriched. As things stand, billions of hens are destined to spend their days standing or crouching on sloping grid floors, unable even to spread their wings, debeaked, neglected and abused from day one until they meet a terrifying death.
Violet Spalding 1908-1999
My mother’s health deteriorated in 1998, and the following October she died.
For a long time, Violet had been unable to take part in active campaigning – I’d been the one attending meetings in London on Chickens’ Lib’s behalf. But the moral support had been there. Even now I find myself, just for a split second, thinking I must let her know about some interesting development on the campaign front.
Along with the big events I remember little things, like the two of us having a celebratory drink in a dingy pub in Wakefield (we must have had time to kill, while waiting for a train). The House of Commons Agriculture Committee’s Report had just been published, with its recommendation for a ban on battery cages in their present form ‘say, five years from now’ (2). That was in 1981– a full thirty-one years before the scheduled EU-wide cage ban, with all its shakiness and imperfections. What a blessing that we couldn’t foresee just how slowly and feebly the wheels of progress would turn.
In our Christmas newsletter we wrote to our supporters: ‘Old established Friends of FAWN will be very sad to hear that Violet Spalding (Clare’s mother) died in October…An intrepid campaigner, she saw the inside of many a horrific battery and market, demonstrating fearlessly outside (and inside!) the Ministry of Agriculture and challenging conditions on appalling “fa
rms” and markets, before such activities were commonplace... Her contribution to the fight against factory farming was considerable, and will be remembered with gratitude.’
Shortly after Violet’s death, Mark, our daughter Alison’s husband, wrote about Violet. His poem expressed so much about her life that I’ve included it here. The title reflects the fact that in her youth Violet had been a fine singer.
Exhalation for a Singer
The breaths she took were massive,
and the change she made was deep.
The air she trapped and then let go
by war then peace then war was shaped
and met this world’s numb cold full on
to take offence and make defiant
sympathy with simple pain.
She was not going to stand for it.
In the darkness there would be flowers
and in the silence there would be song
for a tune is like a long, long life,
formed in the air, but born in the lungs.
The world she made was massive
and the breaths she took were deep.
Mark Robinson 1999
*
1999 was a difficult and sad year, not only for me but for Irene too. She signed her last Chickens’ Lib newsletter that spring. Exhausted after nursing Eric through a long illness, she decided after his death that it was time to ‘retire’. Of course I understood, but I greatly missed her invaluable help and excellent company. And I must add that in spirit Irene has never retired and still does everything she can, in a personal way, to carry on the fight.
*
Penny Perkins had by now worked with us for a long time, and she took over many of Irene’s tasks, so enabling Chickens’ Lib to continue. Together we discussed future campaign tactics and sent out leaflets, videos and newsletters, while Penny valiantly kept the office side of things in order.