The Newburyport, Massachusetts News reported on March 4th NAEF’s comments about the Massachusetts ballot initiative

This letter is in support of Will Coggin’s letter to the editor on the Massachusetts ballot initiative on caged layers producing eggs. The group I represent, The National Association of Egg Farmers, is in support of free choice for eggs from different production systems, but the ballot initiative will eliminate that free choice.

As it relates to food safety, every egg farmer knows that eggs laid on the same ground where manure is located increases the likelihood of contamination.

The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, a group of scientists investigating the different production systems for eggs, finished their two-year study of the available research including food safety. The conclusions from their analysis of the research is that eggs produced in caged environments had less fecal contamination compared to cage-free eggs. This is logical since cages allow for the eggs to be removed from the environment of the hen compared to cage-free, where the eggs come into contact with manure. Any reasoning person would conclude that keeping eggs clean and away from manure is better from a food safety perspective.

Caged eggs allow for cleaner eggs.

The scientific articles that support this claim are shown below.

1) The Journal Poultry Science in 2011 [90, pp. 1586-1593] published “Comparison of shell bacteria from unwashed and washed table eggs harvested from caged laying hens and cage-free floor-housed laying hens.”

This study found that the numbers of bacteria on eggs was lower in housing systems that separated hens from manure and shavings.

2) The Journal Food Control published a study June 17, 2014, entitled “Microbiological Contamination of Shell Eggs Produced in Conventional and Free-Range Housing Systems.” The conclusions state, “Battery caged hens are standing on wire slats that allow feces to fall to a manure collection system beneath the hens. Conversely, free-range hens laid their eggs in nest boxes on shavings and the eggs remained in contact with hens, shavings and fecal material until they are collected. The longer contact time with free-range hens, shavings and feces would explain the higher enterobacteriaceae counts (pathogenic bacteria) on free-range eggs as compared to battery caged eggs.”

One of the letters to the editor claims that caged layers increases salmonella, citing a government survey. This is not true. It’s not even logical when considering the federal agency responsible for food safety has issued regulations to protect the consumer. The Food & Drug Administration has issued the regulation entitled Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation (21 CFR part 118) on July 9, 2009, requiring shell egg farmers to implement measures to prevent SE from contaminating eggs on the farm. If caged environments increased salmonella, it’s inconceivable that FDA would issue regulations governing the production of eggs in caged environments.

We applaud your paper for publishing the scientific truth about modern egg production systems that provide a safe and wholesome egg for the consumer.

Ken Klippen, National Association of Egg Farmers

Wasted tax dollars is upsetting to everyone and should alert Massachusetts voters when they go to the polls on November 8^th. Question 3 on the ballot will increase your food dollars $45 per person without the benefits hoped for.  While cage-free egg farming is claimed by many as the future, the facts show it is a reverting to the past. This is the law of unintended consequences where voters are encouraged to “feel” with the wording of the ballot initiative instead of examining the facts.

More than five decades ago, egg farming transitioned to cages to:

1)      Improve the lives of the chickens (by reduced death in a flock of chickens in half)

2)      Improve the quality of eggs (by removing the likelihood of the eggs coming in contact with manure)

3)      Improved the working conditions of the farmer (less dust from the chickens scratching in the shavings). 

4)      A vote in favor of Question 3 will definitely lead to $14 more per person for eggs in Massachusetts as substantiated by Dr. Harry M. Kaiser, Cornell University in 2016 and twice as much as eggs when purchasing pork as reported Dr. Jason Lusk, Oklahoma State University in 2014.  Massachusetts – are you ready to increase your food budget by $45 per person?

FACT: California passed an identical ballot initiative with the proponents saying the impact on egg prices would be just pennies.  California consumers are paying 90% more for a dozen eggs than the rest of the nation.  That’s hardly pennies a dozen.

FACT: The most recent investigation into the best production systems by scientists in the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply showed the facts do not support cage-free egg production as the ideal model for the egg-producing chicken.  McDonald’s was one of a list of contributors to this investigation. Those scientists reported to McDonald’s and others that cage-free systems lead to more death loss among chicken due to their establishing a pecking order. 

FACT: Penn State researchers recently published last month the results of a 6-month study testing 6,000 eggs and concluded backyard flocks of cage-free were more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella. Farmers today know how to produce a safe and wholesome egg while caring for the chickens. 

FACT: Those food companies including McDonald’s will learn that cage-free is not the consumers’ choice.  Check out the stores selling both types of eggs today and find which ones the consumers are buying.

The extended future of egg production will be right back to chickens in cages after the food companies learn the lessons that farmers learned five decades ago. We hope the Massachusetts voters don’t make the same mistake as California voters did and learn the hard way with skyrocketing egg prices.

Ken Klippen, National Association of Egg Farmers

Market pressures, more so than laws and regulations, are likely to end the use of controversial practices in livestock production. The trend is already becoming visible, with major fast food chains and other restaurants prohibiting their suppliers from using gestation crates in hog production, said Joy Mench, professor at the University of California-Davis. The stalls are intended to prevent aggressive behavior among pregnant sows but are controversial because they restrict the animals’ movement. Mench said she expects the hog industry to end the use of crates within 10 to 15 years at the insistence of major pork buyers. “It won’t have been done through legislation. It will have been done by the retailers.”