www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php
Compassion Over Killing
"Just because it says free-range does not mean that it is
welfare-friendly.”
—Dr. Charles Olentine, editor of Egg Industry magazine, an industry
trade journal(1)
As concern grows over the way animal agribusiness treats
the animals we eat, so does the number of animal products labeled
“free-range” or carrying certifications claiming humane treatment. What
do these labels mean? Do “free-range” or “animal care certified”
chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows receive less inhumane treatment? Are
they slaughtered in less violent ways? Should we opt for these meats,
cheeses, eggs, and milk?
While producers are hoping these labels will put to rest
consumers’ concerns about the mistreatment of farmed animals, more often
than not, “free-range” and “animal care certified” labels make little
difference for the animals themselves.
“Free-Range” Eggs
No laws or governmental standards regulate the use of
terms like “free-range” and “free-roaming” on egg cartons.
Old MacDonald’s Farm: The Myth Shattered
The popular myth that “free-range” laying hens enjoy
fresh grass, sunlight, scratch the earth, sit on their nests, and engage
in other natural habits couldn’t be further from the truth. In most
commercial “free-range” egg farms, hens are kept inside windowless sheds
at all times, packed nearly wing to wing. And, while “free-range” laying
hens are given more space than those kept in battery cages (on average 1
to 2 square feet as opposed to 50 square inches), most of these birds
are never able to travel outside their sheds during their entire lives.
Even those facilities boasting outdoor access rarely offer more than a
single, narrow exit leading to an enclosure, too small to accommodate
more than a few birds at once.
The Death Toll
Both battery cage and “free-range” egg hatcheries kill
all male chicks shortly after birth. Since male chicks cannot lay eggs
and are different breeds than those raised for meat, they are of no use
to the egg industry. Standard killing methods, even among “free-range”
producers, include grinding male chicks alive or throwing them into
trash bags while still alive, leaving them to suffocate.
Inside commercial “free-range” egg farms, mortality
rates are even higher than those in battery cage facilities, as uncaged
birds must live in their own excrement, spending their lives among filth
and disease. In contrast, caged hens are suspended over vast manure
pits.
Whether kept in sheds or cages, laying hens are
considered “spent” when they are just one or two years old. (Chickens
can naturally live more than ten years.) As their egg production wanes,
rather than being retired, “free range” hens are slaughtered to make
room for another shedful of birds.
Food Industry Egg Certification Programs
Currently, hens in battery cages are given an average of
50 square inches of space per bird in which they must sleep, eat,
defecate, and lay eggs. This living space—less than half the size of a
single sheet of paper—is far from adequate; the industry publication
Poultry Digest reports that an average laying hen needs 290 square
inches merely to flap her wings.(2)
As a result of the increasing opposition to the
cruelties suffered by egg-laying hens, in 2001 and 2002, three fast-food
giants—McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s—required that their egg
suppliers immediately provide between 72 and 75 square inches per bird,
prohibited forced molting (starving birds to induce a new laying cycle)
and discouraged debeaking (searing off parts of chicks’ beaks to
minimize the impact of stress-induced aggression).
Shortly thereafter in 2002, the egg industry trade group
United Egg Producers (UEP) announced a new voluntary program for UEP
member producers. Companies agreeing to abide by the UEP’s new welfare
guidelines will be able to label their products “Animal Care Certified.”
However, unlike the fast-food reforms, the UEP
guidelines mandate only 67 square inches per bird, and, instead of
immediate implementation, there is a six-year phase-in period. Moreover,
the UEP guidelines neither prohibit forced molting nor discourage
debeaking.
While the UEP guidelines fall short of even the minimal
fast-food guidelines, none of the reforms ensures the welfare of
egg-laying hens. No matter which company is using their eggs, hens in
battery cages will never see sunlight, touch the earth, or even flap
their wings. They will still live suspended above manure pits, sometimes
dying in their cages, forcing other hens to eat and sleep on top of
their corpses.
“Free-Range” Broilers
Chickens and turkeys raised for their meat (“broilers”)
may be sold as “free-range” if they have U.S. Department of
Agriculture-certified access to the outdoors. No other
criteria—environmental quality, the size of the outdoor area, the number
of birds confined in a single shed, or the space allotted per animal—are
considered in applying the label. As with “free-range” laying hens, many
“free-range” broilers must live in a facility with only one small
opening at the end of a large shed, letting only a few birds outside at
any given time.
According to The Washington Post Magazine, in the case
of birds, the term 'free-range’ “doesn’t really tell you anything about
the [animal’s] … quality of life, nor does it even assure that the
animal actually goes outdoors.”(3)
As with factory farmed birds raised for their meat,
“free-range” chickens and turkeys may undergo the same grueling and
sometimes fatal transport to slaughterhouses when reaching market
weight. Workers gather these birds up to four at a time, carrying them
upside down by their legs before throwing them into crates on
multi-tiered trucks without protection from the heat or cold and without
access to food or water. “Free-range” birds end up at the same
slaughterhouses as other birds, where they are hung upside down, have
their throats slit, and bleed to death, often while still fully
conscious.
“Free-Range” Cows, Sheep, and Pigs
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
“free-range” meat is loosely defined as coming from animals who ate
grass and lived on a range. No other criteria—such as the size of the
range or the amount of space given to each animal—are required before
beef, lamb, and pork can be called “free-range.” “Free-range” and
“free-roaming” facilities are rarely inspected or verified to be in
compliance with these two criteria. The USDA relies “upon producer
testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims.”(4)
Even when “free-range” cows, sheep, and pigs are allowed
to live outdoors, they are still subjected to excruciating mutilations
without painkiller, such as castration, branding, dehorning,
tail-docking, and tooth-grinding. Once they are fattened, they are
trucked to slaughterhouses. They are denied food, water, and adequate
protection from extreme temperatures once in the vehicles, and many die
during the trip. For those still alive at the journey’s end, the cows,
sheep, and pigs are still slaughtered in the same horrific ways as
factory farmed animals: They are pushed along conveyor belts, hung
upside down, and have their throats slit; many are dismembered while
still fully conscious.
Is a Truly Free-Range World Possible?
The U.S. animal agribusiness industry currently confines
and slaughters more than ten billion land animals each year, the
overwhelming majority of whom live on factory farms. Would it be
possible to raise ten billion animals without intense confinement?
Probably not.
If intense confinement operations were banned, it’s
highly unlikely producers could feed an entire nation of 280 million
meat-, egg-, and dairy consumers. In short, without considering the
ethical problems inherent in raising and slaughtering animals for food,
from a practical perspective, there is no way to produce animal products
for such a large population without cruelty.
The Bottom Line
Granted, living in cramped conditions is better than
living in even more cramped conditions. Laying hens who have 67 square
inches of space per bird likely suffer less than those who have only 50,
and giving even 10 out of 10,000 turkeys access to sunlight and the
outdoors is better than denying all of them such basic needs. But does
this mean “free-range” farming is the answer to ending animal abuse? No.
The animals killed so we can have steak, milk, and
omelets feel pain and experience joy just like the dogs and cats we
pamper. And, like dogs and cats, they want to live free from torture and
suffering. By choosing vegetarian foods, we can improve their lives and
our own. Indeed, eating meat, eggs, and dairy products is not necessary
for our survival and, in fact, has been shown again and again in medical
research to clog our arteries, raise our cholesterol, and contribute to
heart disease, some cancers, and stroke.(5)
Becoming vegetarian, rather than looking for less
inhumane animal products, is the most ethical decision to make.
1) Olentine, Charles. “Welfare and the Egg Industry: The
Best Defense Is an Offense,” Egg Industry, October 2002, p. 24.
2) “British Scientists Want More Hen Space,” Poultry Digest, May 1990,
p. 44.
3) Perl, Peter. “The Truth About Turkeys,” The Washington Post Magazine,
November 5, 1995.
4) Donovan, Michael E. Official U.S. Department of Agriculture/Food
Safety and Inspection Service letter, April 11, 1996.
5) “Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets,”
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, November 1997, volume 97,
issue 11, pp. 1317–21.
Go on to ACT Radio -
Animal Concerns of Texas
Return to 25 May 2003 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
