Chickens' Lib

by Clare Druce

Predictable suffering is now specifically against the law and yet the FAWC Opinion confirms that such suffering is par for the course for millions of laying hens.

  *

  Research over the years has concluded that flocks of between 50 and 60 hens are ideal, since that number can readily recognise each other. Traditionally, flocks of up to 500 were regarded as workable – both figures far cries from today’s commercial excesses. It’s to be regretted that FAWC was not able to study a selection of small free-range units, let’s say where birds were divided into uncaged flocks of no more than five hundred hens, in housing designed to suit their needs.

  It’s my guess that under such conditions almost no injuries or bone degeneration would be found.

  So where’s the progress, after all these years?

  That there has been progress is beyond dispute. A major example is the 2012 EU-wide ban on the worst system of all for laying hens, the barren battery cage. In this chapter I’ve drawn together a miscellaneous, and no doubt far from comprehensive, list of improvements. Some are more significant than others but all indicate the importance of public pressure, without which little would have changed.

  As always, it’s necessary to look beyond window dressing by the poultry industry and into the hard facts, for pretty pictures and encouraging terms may still deceive. The figure for free range eggs has soared from only 4% of all British eggs in the 1980s, to just over 50% for shell eggs (that’s those sold as whole eggs, not incorporated into pasta, mayonnaise etc). Yet, as shown in the previous chapter, the label ‘free range’ can mislead, for the hens may still suffer stress, disease and injury.

  The term ‘Barn Eggs’ evokes a rustic, almost cosy picture, much at variance with reality. In this indoor system the hens usually move around via perches, ladders and platforms at different levels and may (legally) be so densely stocked that floor, platforms and perches are virtually obscured by the mass of birds – and that’s certainly not the image presented to the consumer. In fact, in terms of congestion, today’s ‘barns’ for laying hens could be likened to battery sheds minus the cages.

  The fact is, serious welfare problems can exist within any system for poultry keeping.

  *

  Some progress: From April 1st 1995, legislation has demanded that the length of time permitted for a turkey to be suspended in shackles must be reduced from six minutes to three (1). Better still, in 2010 Defra estimated that around 90% of turkeys are no longer shackled for slaughter, but gassed – a significant welfare improvement, meaning that some nine out of ten turkeys can remain in their transport crates until overcome by the gas, and so may be saved much stress and pain. Ironically, the exception to this is in the run up to Christmas, the season of goodwill. Then, much on-farm slaughter goes on – from November, the figure for turkeys killed by gassing could drop to around 65% (2).

  *

  Thanks largely to CIWF’s campaigning, animals’ sentience is now acknowledged. Previously, animals had been officially regarded as ‘goods’, no different from cabbages or cement. Since 1997 the concept of animal sentiency has been written into EU law, as a legally binding Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Now, Member States are required to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. As so often happens, reality may fall far short of the aspiration, but the above represents a valuable start.

  *

  A battle won: finally, the desired breakthrough with the Co-op occurred, though recent pressure on supermarkets from CIWF, plus the example of other companies, must have played a large part in completing the work we’d begun all those years ago. In the autumn of 2006, the Co-op declared its ‘own brand’ eggs to be free range. Then two years later came even better news: from February 2008 no shell eggs from caged hens, own–brand or otherwise, would be sold in its stores.

  And there was more: all Co-op fresh chickens and fresh chicken portions were to be from birds sourced from within the UK, and reared in ‘naturally ventilated and sunlit barns’ (presumably weather permitting, for the latter), given 30% more space than ‘standard’ chickens and provided with environmental stimulation, such as straw bales to perch on. Their diets would be calculated to encourage slower growth, and they’d be allowed six hours of darkness out of the 24, to allow for rest, this last feature anticipating the EU Directive by two years (3). And, according to Poultry World’s September 2012 issue, Morrisons supermarket now specifies similar conditions for all their ‘standard’ chickens.

  *

  Legislation, that valuable commodity that looks so good on paper, has continued to be upgraded; especially important is the 2006 Animal Welfare Act (of which more later).

  *

  Far more meat-type chickens are free range than was the case when Chickens’ Lib first campaigned for them. The downside of this is that most continue to be the offspring of half-starved parent stock.

  Broilers marketed under Freedom Food standards are said to be in better bodily condition than their ‘standard’ counterparts, and I’m told by Dr Marc Cooper, the RSPCA’s senior chicken welfare scientist, that the females of the parent stock of the Hubbard birds chosen for FF’s slower growing birds are not feed restricted. Only the males are rationed. Since breeders are kept at approximately nine hens to one cockerel, Dr Cooper pointed out that the Hubbard breeding line (4) chosen by FF represents a 90% improvement, and it would be churlish not to celebrate this obvious welfare improvement. But here’s the rub: by various means the hens’ food must be kept separate from that destined for the cockerels, forcing the desperately hungry males to watch while the hens eat their unrestricted rations. And this is especially ironic. For under natural conditions a cockerel will stand back courteously, having drawn the attention of a favourite hen to a tasty morsel. Factory farming destroys so much…

  In the past, grids often caused severe damage to breeders, resulting in swollen head syndrome (5). To what extent this still happens I cannot say. In 2010 I noticed an advertisement for a ‘brand-new males-only pan’ on the back cover of World Poultry. The makers, Roxell (5), boasted that the pans made for comfortable eating for the male breeders, offering ‘fast and uniform feed distribution’. I looked at Roxell’s website and the pan’s design looked reasonable. But all the better design in the world won’t lessen the misery of hunger still endured by the vast majority of broiler breeders, worldwide.

  *

  I emailed a query to Bernard Matthews Farms Limited, asking whether the company’s free range birds could be the offspring of females artificially inseminated with the semen from, in all likelihood, disabled male parents (6). No response was forthcoming, so it’s only sensible to assume that there’s no progress to report on that front.

  A tiny proportion of ducks are truly free range, with access to water for swimming, and the Soil Association’s standards may currently be the best but, as with all commercially reared poultry, the ducklings will be killed years before their time.

  *

  Some twenty-first century free range eggs are as good as they get, given the strictures of commercial egg production.

  The chickens whose eggs are sold in Sainsbury’s under the Woodland Eggs brand name spend their days amongst trees, ideal for descendents of the Jungle Fowl. Even the species of trees are specified. Woodland Eggs (7) operates in co-operation with the Woodland Trust (8), the charity that works to ensure the protection and regeneration of British woodland. The Trust receives a small percentage on every dozen Woodland Eggs sold and, since 2004, has planted more than a quarter of a million trees on over a hundred farms where Woodland Eggs’ hens roam.

  And there’s more to come. Woodland Eggs is associated with Noble Foods which in turn is associated with Goldenlay. And I was told in an email that all Goldenlay Eggs are now free range (9). Now that’s progress! Images on Woodland Eggs’ website of hens wandering among trees, in dappled sunlight, could hardly be further from the stark image on our old black and white postcard, its caption The Taste of the Country?.

  By email,
I tried to sort out the precise connection between the three companies, but Noble Foods wanted to know more about me, and once they did, there were no more incoming emails. Surely, after all these years, memories of our demos have faded … or perhaps not.

  I looked on Goldenlay’s website (10) and discovered that its eggs are advertised as being rich in Omega 3. And there’s a little jingle to emphasise the fact, inspired by an old playground rhyme:

  Chick, chick, chick, chick, chicken,

  Lay a healthy egg for me…

  Only the playground version goes …Lay a little egg for me. I suppose you can’t really blame Goldenlay for changing the words a bit. After all, Chickens’ Lib did plenty of that, and on Goldenlay’s very doorstep.

  *

  In 2009 the Farm Animal Welfare Council issued its report The Welfare of Poultry at Slaughter (11). One of FAWC’s recommendations is that pre-slaughter inversion and shackling should be phased out, a view shared by the EU. So there is hope on the horizon, though that horizon may be a far distant one. Already, effective gas killing systems exist but, once again, hard economics will dictate the speed of change.

  *

  2010: Guests at Raymond’ Blanc’s Manoir may still lust for foie gras, but they’re now doomed to disappointment.

  As mentioned earlier, this product of extreme cruelty had been withdrawn from Mr Blanc’s range of bistros, and in 2009 I made a few phone calls, to find out why. An obliging chef at one of these bistros explained that since Mr Blanc supported Freedom Food, foie gras was no longer an option. This triggered a memory – I’d spotted a little item in Poultry World about Freedom Food’s ‘Simply Ask’ campaign. And guess who was mentioned as one of the initiative’s prestigious champions? Raymond Blanc, none other!

  I immediately phoned Freedom Food, pointing out that it wouldn’t be too good if guests ‘simply asked’ about foie gras while dining at Le Manoir, only to have Chef obligingly describe the cruel force feeding, the terror shown by the birds, the diseased livers. Doubtless Freedom Food took my observations up with Mr Blanc, who, rather than withdrawing his support for the Simply Ask scheme, finally gave in.

  If you key in Oxfordshire on FF’s Simply Ask website, Le Manoir still comes up as an approved place to eat, but now there’s no mention on the menus of foie gras. (www.simplyaskrestaurantfinder.org.uk)

  *

  The opening paragraph in our 2008 report Today’s Intensive Turkey Industry reads: ‘The Farm Animal Welfare Network (aka Chickens’ Lib) is calling for the introduction of CCTV cameras in all intensive turkey sheds, to help reduce the appalling abuses known to take place behind closed doors on Britain’s “hidden” turkey farms. Though no such progress has yet been made, there’s now a powerful move towards CCTV in all slaughterhouses, spurred on by undercover filming.’

  In January 2009 Animal Aid began its programme of secret filming in ‘red meat’ (non-poultry) slaughterhouses, gathering material from seven different establishments and revealing instances of appalling treatment of animals. At Tom Lang Ltd., in Ashburton, Devon, forty hours of activities were recorded over a period of two weeks. The evidence was shocking, made even more so by the fact that Mr Lang’s establishment was on the Soil Association’s list of approved slaughterhouses.

  As a result of Animal Aid’s filming, three slaughtermen were suspended, and a spokesperson for the Meat Hygiene Service stated there was ‘clear evidence of breaches of animal welfare legislation’. CCTV cameras have now been installed at Tom Lang Ltd., but who knows for how long the appalling treatment of animals had been going on, or for how long it would have continued but for Animal Aid’s work? (12)

  The Daily Mail took up the story and the publicity generated led to support from Compassion in World Farming, the Food Standards Agency, the Soil Association and the RSPCA for Animal Aid’s call for CCTV cameras to be in continuous use in all UK slaughterhouses.

  In February 2010, the RSPCA issued another press release: the Society wants to ensure that cameras are up and working in all FF-approved slaughterhouses as a preventative measure or, at worst, to provide evidence in cases of suspected bad treatment of animals awaiting slaughter.

  On June 11th 2010 Online Meat Trades Journal reported Halal meat supplier Naved Syed of Janan Meat MD as calling on other processors to follow his lead, by installing CCTV cameras in all Halal abattoirs. Killing for Halal-approved meat is on the increase. Since the Halal method involves no pre-stunning of the animals, it is vital that the procedure is monitored on camera.

  *

  Welcome though the above signs of progress are, they cannot compare with what was to happen in 2012.

  For then, thanks to bold and tenacious work by Animal Aid, DEFRA, that old brick wall that Chickens’ Lib had so often come up against, was to be substantially weakened.

  The Crown Prosecution Service

  March-April 2011: Hidden cameras placed by Animal Aid’s investigators within the premises of Cheale Meats’ slaughterhouse record examples of terrible abuse. Almost unbearable to watch, the footage shows two Cheale Meat employees cruelly abusing pigs awaiting slaughter.

  Kelly Smith (40) is seen repeatedly beating pigs, using the sharp side of a ‘slap stick’ (an implement used in slaughterhouses, to urge animals on). One animal is struck thirty times in 62 seconds, including around the head. In Animal Aid’s words; ‘…an attack that forced the animal to sit down like a dog, and pant heavily as the blows rained down.’ (1) One of the offenders drags a seriously lame pig by the ears, towards the slaughter area.

  Piotr Andrzej Wasiuta (29) tortures pigs by pressing lighted cigarettes to the animals’ snouts. You hear one cry out in shock and pain.

  *

  The prison sentences these two criminals received may seem inadequate for intentionally causing such suffering – for Smith it was seven weeks reduced to four (he appealed his sentence, but bail was refused) and for Wasiuta nine-weeks, reduced to six. But at least some degree of justice was done.

  But there would have been no such outcome had DEFRA had its way.

  *

  In Kate Fowler’s words: ‘Getting anyone to court has proved a long and difficult task. Initially, DEFRA refused to prosecute and gave a series of excuses as to why it could not do so. And because of DEFRA’s decision, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it would not even investigate. Animal Aid’s appointed legal team had to remind the FSA that it had a statutory duty to do so, no matter what it thought the outcome would be. Sure enough, it then undertook an investigation. The next step was to try to get DEFRA stripped of its powers to prosecute.’ (2)

  No easy feat, you might say, considering DEFRA’s track record of holding all the cards. The expertise of Ministry vets has hitherto been held vital to back up prosecutions. But Ministry vets have often been found wanting, proving themselves experts only in ignoring evidence of cruelty or in their willingness to obey dubious advice from on high.

  And true to form, instead of leaving no stone unturned in a quest to prosecute Cheale Meats’ particularly callous offenders, the Coalition’s farming Minister Jim Paice refused to accept Animal Aid’s evidence, expressing his opinion that such evidence, obtained illegally, would fail to stand up in court.

  To take up Animal Aid’s story again: ‘Our only chance was to lobby hard for a historic reduction in DEFRA’s powers. After a year of campaigning and reminding the world that DEFRA had a serious conflict of interest, the news that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would take over decisions on whether to prosecute was quietly announced on the CPS website. We were another step closer and, equally importantly, we had weakened DEFRA’s ability to shield all farmed animal abusers from the law in future.’

  Inevitably, I thought back to the times we’d presented first MAFF then DEFRA with firm evidence of cruelty. Those countless occasions when we’d been assured that all was well in this or that particular hell-hole. And I thought back to Mr Stobo’s obituary in Veterinary Record. Remembered how he, a MAFF vet, had experienced the same suppre
ssion of his welfare concerns and, unable to stomach the frustrations any longer, had taken early retirement.

  The British Veterinary Association (BVA) supported Animal Aid in its campaign. Its president, Harvey Locke, stated: ‘The method by which the issue was highlighted should not, in our opinion, preclude further investigation by the Food Standards Agency and DEFRA into these incidents with a view to lawfully obtaining evidence to either support or refute the accusations arising from the Animal Aid footage.’ (3)

  On March 3rd 2012 Simon Clements, Head of the Welfare, Rural and Health Prosecutions Division of the Crown Prosecution Service said: ‘This decision [to prosecute Wasiuta and Smith] was taken in accordance with the Code Prosecutions. After careful consideration of all the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.’ (4)

  And so came about a truly historic reduction in DEFRA’s powers.

  *

  For a full run-down of the shameful story of cruelty at Cheale Meats and of DEFRA’s determination not to prosecute, visit Animal Aid’s website. There, for a complete picture of AA’s persistence, you’ll find its ‘Timeline for the case against Cheale Meats Employees’. Disturbingly, AA discovered that Cheale Meats is a Freedom Food approved slaughterhouse. This status was temporarily withdrawn after Animal Aid’s secret filming was revealed, but reinstated in November 2011. (5)

  Significant progress in legislation

  The 2006 Animal Welfare Act, England and Wales (with similar legislation in Scotland) specifically requires that an animal’s needs must be provided for and that legal action can now be taken before the worst consequences of neglect are manifested. In the introductory section, under the heading Unnecessary Suffering, this is the crucial sentence: ‘A person commits an offence if he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect [that is, to cause unnecessary suffering] or be likely to do so.’ (1)