by Clare Druce
And now look at their savagely mutilated beaks. That’s something that no film, however keen to promote a cruel system, could hide.
Outlawed in Europe
Violet and I first met Peter Singer in the 1970s and we’d kept in touch over the years. A young Australian, he’d been studying at Oxford and campaigning with a group of friends against factory farming.
Now dividing his time between the posts of part-time Professor of Bioethics at the University for Human Values at Princeton and part-time Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Peter is now known throughout the world for his writing, much of it on philosophy and animal rights.
Following a meeting with Bill Hawks, Under-secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Professor Singer, who describes himself as having a ‘strong but strictly amateur interest in the field of farm animal welfare’, came to realise that he knew more about what was happening in European agriculture than did Mr Hawks, and probably, as he put it, ‘the entire United States Department of Agriculture’ (1).
Around the year 2000, Chickens’ Lib’s funds were dangerously low and we’d sent out an urgent appeal to all our supporters. Professor Singer came back with the suggestion that we might write an account of the progress achieved in animal protection legislation in the EU. This would be published in book form and Chickens’ Lib would be paid for the work involved, so easing our financial situation.
Grateful for the promise of help, I agreed to this interesting plan but soon realized the enormity of the task before me. Daunted, I turned to Compassion in World Farming’s campaigns manager Philip Lymbery and asked him if he’d be interested in co-authoring the book. Mercifully, Philip agreed to find the time, and in the end both Chickens’ Lib and CIWF benefited when Outlawed in Europe saw the light of day two years later.
In Peter Singer’s words: ‘If the people responsible for animal welfare in the United States Department of Agriculture know nothing of the most significant improvements in animal welfare for decades, it is fair to guess that most people in the United States, and even some members of animal rights or animal welfare organizations, will be equally unaware of what is happening across the Atlantic. This book is intended to provide the information that is needed, in the hope that greater awareness will lead to a desire among Americans to do something about the shocking cruelty to farm animals that is being addressed in Europe, but is continuing to occur on American farms’. (2)
There were many significant legislative improvements to record, some already in place, others with a future date set for enactment: for example, the abolition of crates for calves and the practice of depriving the young animals of iron and roughage to promote ‘white’ veal (outlawed in Britain since 1990 thanks to CIWF founder Peter Roberts’ inspired efforts) would be banned throughout Europe by 2007.
Sadly, the picture remains far from rosy for some calves reared for veal – it’s still legal to keep them confined for rearing and fattening in individual crates for the first eight weeks of their lives. The main improvement, apart from the shorter time-scale for isolation, is that the stalls/pens ‘must have perforated walls which allow calves to have visual and tactile contact,’ and, most importantly, the calf must be able to turn around (3). For a virtually newly born and utterly dependent calf, life must seem harsh and lonely, but better than in the old days of total isolation, living in near-darkness, unable to see neighbouring animals, forever unable to turn around. Having said that, many British farmers have totally abandoned the crate concept, keeping calves in small groups from the start. But thousands a year are unwanted for any purpose, and are shot shortly after birth.
A similar pattern existed for sow stalls, in that they were already banned in the UK and Sweden, the prohibition to be extended to all EU member states by 2012. I well remember an intensive pig farm Irene and I came upon, one hot afternoon. There’d seemed to be nobody about on the farm, and we’d peered into a long shed. Inside, crammed into individual stalls, were the sows, perhaps a hundred of them. Our unexpected appearance took them by surprise, and they all started to their feet in alarm, struggling to get upright within the close confines of the surrounding bars. Thankfully, that cruel way of keeping highly sensitive and intelligent animals is now outlawed throughout Europe.
In 2002, an estimated 99% of US laying hens were kept in battery cages with no hint of a future cage ban, while the EU already had a forthcoming ban in place, albeit a highly unsatisfactory one.
Listing the improvements in Europe had been satisfying. There were areas of progress for activists to be proud of. And yet my sense of satisfaction on seeing the finished book was limited. Despite improvements, so many of our farmed animals continued to suffer! Depressed, I raised this with Louise van de Merwe. Wisely, she commented that legislation marked the first and vital stage in the fight – without legislation in place stating what should happen, the battle to abolish cruelty to farmed animals would be even harder to win.
MAFF to DEFRA
In 2001 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) transformed itself into the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). An article in The Independent questioned the effectiveness of the new look: ‘Dreams do sometimes come true. The dearly held wish by campaigners for a change in agricultural policy, most recently about how foot and mouth disease is being tackled, and for the culling of MAFF itself, has been raised at least in name. But with the departure of Nick Brown as minister of agriculture, and Margaret Beckett’s arrival as minister in charge of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is it a case of MAFF is dead, long live DEFRA, or plus ça change?’ (1)
From this point onwards in the book, the erstwhile MAFF becomes DEFRA.
The risks we take
BIRD FLU – FACTORY FARMING’S LITTLE PRESENT
‘Treat chickens, turkeys and ducks like dirt. Cram them by the thousand into dimly-lit, windowless sheds. Deprive them of fresh air and sunshine. Be 100% sure they’re vulnerable to infectious diseases. Force them to live 24/7 on a build-up of their own faeces. Once they’ve gone to slaughter, stockpile their manure (often contaminated with body parts) on farmland. Finally, if the deadly H5N1 bird flu virus is present, ensure it’s accessible to rats, foxes and wild birds. And humans.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT – A RECIPE FOR DISASTER! ’
So ran the wording on our postcard sent to supporters with our February 2007 newsletter, following the confirmation of an outbreak of bird flu on a Bernard Matthews turkey farm. Actually, we provided everyone with several cards, with a dozen or so suggestions as to possible recipients – the usual suspects, ranging from the Chair of the British Medical Association to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The hosts of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu virus H5NI are poultry and wild birds, and the danger of the virus mutating into a form highly contagious among humans is real. Were this to happen the consequences worldwide would be serious, potentially catastrophic. Some scientists believe that the deadly 1918 pandemic of “Spanish” flu, which killed many millions worldwide, occurred when avian flu crossed the species to humans.
The H5NI virus can survive outside the bird, in its faeces or carcass, for around five days in warm weather, but for up to thirty days or more in cold temperatures (1). During an outbreak of avian flu in Britain, farmers still persisted in spreading used poultry litter (and all it may contain) on fields (2). Amongst all the talk in the media from experts in their fields (bacteriologists for example) I heard no mention of this dangerous practice. Why is the link between lazy, unhygienic behaviour and the spread of deadly diseases not being shouted from the roof tops?
What does the World Health Organisation have to say about avian flu? ‘There is a constant risk that the H5N1 will combine with another strain of influenza,’ said Dr Takeshi Kasai, Regional Advisor for Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response. ‘The influenza virus is unpredictab
le; in areas where H5N1 is endemic, WHO and its partners are working to build surveillance systems to identify changes in the behaviour of the virus, raising awareness about the risks and protective measures, and building skills and capacity to respond to outbreaks quickly.’ (3)
It’s amazing how many risks we humans take in the name of cheap poultry. Dr Aysha Akhtar (US Food and Drug Administration and the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics) has pointed out that havoc can be wreaked without the horrors of terrorist attacks. Society can achieve a similar effect simply by cramming billions of birds into factory farms, creating a worldwide laboratory for infectious diseases.
Police visit number three
We’d not long been in our latest house when I had another visit from the CID, on this occasion by appointment. The time, eleven o’clock in the morning, had been arranged several days in advance and the purpose of the visit made clear. By association I had been involved in a theft of battery hens, somewhere in the south of England.
Several months previously, I’d received a letter requesting help from a young man who’d been part of a team rescuing battery hens from their cages – a night raid, I presumed. Our letter writer had been the one to drive the van to the scene of the ‘crime’, and he’d been the one caught. He was about to be prosecuted while the others, those who’d gone into the sheds, had slipped through the net. I’d been more than pleased to help, and sent the defendant anything I thought relevant: items connected with the law, and the suffering of battery hens. Perhaps the police had found our literature when searching his house, hence their trip to Yorkshire.
At the time of their visit we were having a conservatory built onto the back of the house. The garden was a sea of mud, cement mixers grinding away, men at work – never mind, I thought, my visitors would come to the other door, the proper front door.
I was vacuuming the living room at around nine o’clock (more displacement activity than necessity) when the two detectives appeared, having used the wrong entrance, picking their way through squelching clay and over treacherous trenches, and arriving two hours early. I did wonder if it was a ploy to catch me unawares, up to some unspecified but illegal behaviour. Rather put out by their premature appearance, I showed them up to the ‘office’, telling them they could look at anything they wanted to, while I went downstairs to make coffee.
By now, the campaign had shrunk dramatically from its former grand size. We’d moved to a smaller house, partly because we no longer needed space for storing stacks of posters and leaflets; now, much of the archival stuff could be put up in the loft. The present office doubled up as a spare bedroom for two of our granddaughters, who often stayed overnight. There was enough space in the room for one single bed, and we’d bought a new metal cabin bed, so office things could be kept under it, at floor level. The purchase was soon regretted, since the space below became something of a no-go area to anyone but the most highly motivated. Penny’s desk was squashed into one corner of the room, mine into another, and shelves of files lined the walls. The set-up did serve its purpose, just about, but to trained eyes may well have looked like a cover for suspicious activities.
I brought the coffee up and the three of us had a friendly discussion that got the two detectives precisely nowhere, since I knew nothing that could help them with their enquiries. One of them had smallish children and he happily took a copy of Minny’s Dream away with him.
It transpired that both officers had been inside the battery from which the hens had been rescued, and been appalled by what they’d seen. So, on the basics we were in complete agreement.
*
Who knows, the police may still be looking for those activists who took a few hens away from the living nightmare of a battery shed.
In Chickens’ Lib’s opinion, and as Violet had often said, the true criminals were those perpetrating the animal torture. And we didn’t just mean the farmers. Much of the blame must lie with government officials, those sitting at their desks with nothing to lose and doing none of the dirty work, while failing utterly to ensure that the country’s animal protection laws, penned and endorsed by their own department, are upheld.
Pâté de foie gras
Many organisations have done much more than we ever did to draw attention to that cruel ‘delicacy’ – foie gras. But now we felt we should at least support the general campaign. Foie gras is obtained by force-feeding huge quantities of food to helpless ducks or geese a few weeks prior to slaughter, until their livers grow to many times their normal size. The procedure, when food is rammed down the birds’ throats via a metal funnel, is known in France as gavage.
DEFRA assures us that there’s virtually no chance of anyone being allowed to set up in foie gras production in the UK, yet there is no prohibition against its import or sale. Consequently, it’s available in ‘high class’ stores and regularly served in restaurants in the UK. One such restaurant was in Raymond Blanc’s beautiful hotel in the Cotswolds, Le Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons.
It was Mr Blanc’s much trumpeted enthusiasm for all things organic and wholesome that especially took our attention – all those luscious vegetables and herbs, whenever possible gathered fresh from his hotel gardens, as seen on TV! How could Mr Blanc claim to serve wholesome food while foie gras featured routinely on his menus? If Mr Blanc were to ban foie gras, those chefs still determined to keep this disgusting product on their menus just might take note and follow his lead.
In 2007 we produced postcards, scores of which must have made their unwelcome arrival at Le Manoir. In addition, we copied the wording from our first foie gras post card onto a pre-drafted letter to the Minister of Animal Welfare, Ben Bradshaw, so our supporters could let him see that it wasn’t just ‘animal lovers’ who objected to foie gras – scientists saw it our way too. The post card to Mr Blanc read like this:
FOIE GRAS – what the scientists say about force feeding:
‘When ducks or geese were in a pen during the force feeding procedure, they kept away from the person who would force feed them, even though that person normally supplied them with food. At the end of the force feeding procedure, the birds were less well able to move and were usually panting but they still moved away or tried to move away from the person who had force fed them.’ Member of the EU’s Scientific Animal Health and Animal Welfare Committee, reporting on farm visits to observe foie gras production.
‘The production of fatty liver for foie gras raises serious animal welfare issues and it is not a practice that is condoned by FAO.’ Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
‘This practice causes unacceptable suffering to these animals.’ Dr Christine Nichol, Professor of Animal Welfare, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, UK.
‘Force feeding quickly results in birds that are obese and in a pathological state, called hepatic lipidosis, or fatty liver disease. There is no doubt that in this pathological state the birds will feel very ill.’ Dr Ian Duncan, Professor of Applied Ethology, University of Guelph, Canada.
*
Having seemingly achieved nothing via our first post card, and after trying repeatedly and unsuccessfully to elicit information from Mr Blanc’s personal assistant, we produced a second postcard. This time its heading was in French:
FOIE GRAS?
CE N’EST PAS CHIC, MONSIEUR BLANC!
Chickens’ Lib reminded him, adding:
‘In fact, this “delicacy” is the grim end-product of appalling cruelty. Imprisoned, then force-fed, ducks and geese suffer untold miseries before their diseased livers reach your tables.’
Please, M Blanc, take foie gras (fatty liver) off your menu!
*
Following emails and searches on the website, we found that foie gras had suddenly been removed from menus in all Raymond Blanc’s dozen or so bistros, located in major cities throughout Britain. But Le Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons was standing firm.
Could it be that Mr Blanc’s privileged guests simply couldn’t contemplate starting a
meal without a portion of diseased liver on their plates? It was to be a while before we could rest easy, on that score.
Legislation for broilers
2010 saw the long-awaited EU Broiler Directive, representing the first ever legislation to include specific standards for meat-type chickens. And it proved deeply disappointing.
Though previously no more than a recommendation in a Code, the maximum stocking density suggested for UK broiler chickens had stood at 34 kg of chicken per square metre (75 pounds of chicken in 10¾ square feet), perhaps better explained as one nearly full-term chicken allotted floor space equivalent to a sheet of A4 typing paper. However it’s been readily admitted that many British broiler farmers exceed this stocking density, especially near the end of the birds’ lives (1).
The EU maximum stocking density is now set at different levels, allowing 39kg (86lbs) of chicken per square metre, a figure which could be increased to 42kg/sq.m (92½ pounds) ‘if stricter welfare standards are met’(2). Presumably this shocking example of over-stocking has been arrived at to accommodate Member States (presently numbering twenty seven) where existing conditions could be even worse than in the UK.
By way of a low-grade form of ‘gold plating’ the UK is to limit stocking densities to 39 kg/sq m – already the UK norm – stipulating that producers will be obliged to inform DEFRA of this high level. (In this context the term ‘gold plating’ applies to a Member State choosing to demand higher standards than those set out in a Directive.)
For the rest of the EU, the highest stocking densities are officially allowed only where ventilation and various environmental aspects are ‘state of the art’. But given the huge numbers of farms and the totally inadequate number of inspectors, who is likely to check after the initial approval is given?