By Ken Klippen, President NAEF, Published by Agri-Pulse (www.agri-pulse.com) Oct. 2^nd.

September 9, 2015 may have become the U.S. egg industry’s tipping point.  The event that could well lead to a completely different way of producing eggs was the announcement that day from McDonalds that it decided to transition to cage-free eggs over the next ten years.  But the media attention focused more on the reasons stated by McDonalds for the transition in that they claimed it was for a more humanely produced egg and for better quality.

 The next day, the New York Times published McDonalds’ decision coupled with a quotation from Chad Gregory, CEO of the United Egg Producers (UEP) saying his group was in support of the decision.  UEP’s statement of support is tantamount to saying the current method of producing the bulk of the eggs (94%) in the U.S. was not humane and did not meet the quality standards suggested by McDonalds.

That is the tipping point.  For decades, egg farmers sought better technology to produce a safer more wholesome egg and settled on conventional cages where the chicken and her eggs produced are not laid in the dirt and manure like production practices of old.  And this return to laying eggs in the dirt and manure is acceptable to McDonalds and UEP?  It is unthinkable for egg farmers to quietly sit and not say this is wrong.

As the President of the National Association of Egg Farmers (NAEF), I felt compelled to set the record straight.  As a major buyer of shell eggs, I stated in my letter to McDonalds that they have the right to outline specifications from their suppliers, but in claiming the transition was to provide more humane and better quality eggs, McDonalds has damaged the majority of egg farmers nationwide and have put on alert the entire agricultural community.

When McDonalds became co-sponsors of the multi-year research project Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, the results did not conclude that cage-free eggs are produced more humanely, nor are they better quality. In effect I said to McDonalds they threw those scientists and the egg farmers who believed in them “under the bus”. Every egg farmer knows that increasing the population size of a flock of chickens increases the stress on those chickens due to the establishment of a “pecking order” among the chickens.  The behavior inherent in chickens is to determine the social standing of the individual hens through “pecking” each other.  The individual chicken lower in the social order is pecked the most.  When chickens are housed in conventional cages with 6 chickens, the establishment of this pecking order is minimized compared to thousands of chickens in a cage-free environment.  Imagine the chicken on the lower end of the pecking order among a population of thousands compared to only six chickens.

Concerning the claims from McDonald’s about improving the quality of food, I asked them to consider the food safety concerns reported on with cage-free eggs. 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. Conventional cages allow the feces to drop through the screen floor whereas in cage-free systems, the eggs are laid in the same general area for manure.  The potential for contamination is increased.

These results were confirmed in 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 (conventional cages) are standing on wire slats that allow feces to fall to a manure collection system beneath the hens.  Conversely, free-range hens (cage-free) 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.”

I said to McDonalds they may congratulate yourselves on this new policy, while animal activists like the Humane Society of the U.S. will mark their score cards as accomplishing another defeat for egg farmers. The egg farmers themselves are wondering why anyone would want to revert to the former ways of producing eggs that was more stressful for the chicken and may compromise the quality and food safety of the eggs for their consumers.

There will be some who oppose this viewpoint and will try to marginalize our association or me personally.  So, for the record, the National Association of Egg Farmers has 277 egg farmers as members.  That’s among the largest of all national egg associations.  Most are small family farms ranging from one managing 8,000 chickens to others with greater than 5 million chickens.  Other groups have more chickens in their member base, but the larger farmers who can weather the transition are gleeful to see the smaller farmers leave the business and the markets they’ve established.  me personally, I have served the egg industry for nearly 35 years in executive capacities.  Initially I was the Senior Vice President at United Egg Producers (UEP) before moving to London, England to serve as Director General of the International Egg Commission.  After returning to the U.S., UEP invited me back to head up their Washington, DC office.  I left of my own volition in 2004 when I saw upper management making decisions that I considered injurious to some egg farmers. 

Politico reported September 18, 2015 that UEP had given up the fight in the Massachusetts ballot initiative. On September 21, 2015 Politico reported that our group, NAEF, had taken up the mantle to fight this ballot initiative. The group behind the ballot initiative calls itself  “Citizens for Farm Animal Protection” but the lead organization is the HSUS.  It wants voters to “ensure that certain farm animals are able to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs.”  This appears identical to the ballot initiative in California in 2008 that also led to the passage in 2010 of AB 1437 mandating similar restrictions on egg farmers from other states selling eggs into California.  Six States [5 Attorneys General (MO, NE, OK, AL, KY) and IA Governor Branstad] have filed motions to dismiss California’s egg regulations under the new law as violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 3.  Massachusetts, like California, is an egg-deficit state meaning the 6.7 million people in the state will need the importation of eggs from other states to meet the per capita consumption needs of the consumers.  California’s deficit numbers approximated 16 million eggs daily imported into the state.  Unable to obtain eggs produced under California’s standards has led to short supplies and much higher egg prices than surrounding states. 

The cost of eggs going up from the implementation of the Massachusetts ballot initiative is assured without improving the welfare of the chicken nor the quality of the eggs produced. When California implemented its new regulation governing how eggs are to be produced on all eggs sold in California on January 1 [California Department of Agriculture Title 3, Section 1350 on Shell Egg Food Safety], the price of eggs in the state surged upwards double digits compared to elsewhere in the nation.  In January just three weeks after implementation, the price of eggs were close to three times more expensive than elsewhere in the nation.   January 20, 2015 USDA AMS reported the price of eggs nationally sold to retailers averaged $0.82 to $1.04 for large, white eggs, the price in California of eggs sold to retailers averaged $2.75 to $3.30.  California does not produce enough eggs to supply the population of 39 million people in the state.  It must import eggs from other states, but their production standards limit the supplies available.  Massachusetts will experience the same when it implements its ballot initiative and limits the supply of eggs to its 6.7 million people.  When supplies of a commodity are in short supply, the price naturally goes up.

Lastly, consider the impact on consumers.  Recently the federal government reported a 14% rate of food insecurity in the nation.  Those consumers are struggling to provide the daily nutritional needs to families and eggs have traditionally been a good source of high quality protein at economical prices.  The tipping point for the egg industry will be the tipping point for consumers as well.  That is why the National Association of Egg Farmers has been so vocal in pointing out the misinformation coming from the animal activists and from within its own industry.

About the Author: Ken Klippen has served the egg industry for nearly 35 years in executive capacities.  Initially he was the Senior Vice President at United Egg Producers (UEP) before moving to London, England to serve as Director General of the International Egg Commission.  After he returned to the U.S., UEP invited him back to head up their Washington, DC office.  He left of his own volition in 2004 because of policy differences with senior management.  

#30

On April 6^th, Ken Klippen testified before the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources in Providence, Rhode Island against H6023 mandating cage-free by 2022.  Klippen joined the sole egg farmer in the State (name withheld due to confidentiality agreement) who has struggled with these efforts by animal activists for the past several years.  See website for Klippen’s testimony.

https://www.ecori.org/government/2017/4/13/one-farm-stands-in-way-of-ban-on-battery-cages

The egg farmer explained the bill, if passed, would put him out of business. He also noted that cage-free eggs were not selling well, effectively squelching one activist’s survey claiming consumer preference for cage-free eggs. Dianne Sullivan from Massachusetts also testified in opposition. Readers of this newsletter recall Sullivan worked with a coalition of farm groups in Massachusetts including NAEF in trying to overturn that State’s ballot initiative last November. Sullivan cited the impact of her State, Massachusetts, on those impoverished consumers from the prices of eggs escalating as a result of a cage-free mandate. She also unleashed a barrage of verbal attacks against HSUS for their misleading donation solicitation tactics and the millions of dollars they are hoarding in offshore pension accounts for the HSUS staff instead of supporting local pet shelters with the donations as the ads infer.

The hearing lasted about 4 hours, starting at 4:40 pm and had a packed room of animal activists and just a few of us opposing. The HSUS and ASPCA were present in force and willing to testify enthusiastically in support, but only using their “feelings” about caged layers.  One tried to use her experience of flying to Japan in the middle seat on an airplane and equated that with chickens in cages.  The egg farmer is proactive and has invited legislators to his farm. One legislator spoke out favorably about what he saw occurring on the farm. The State Veterinarian Scott Marshall also spoke out in opposition to the bill saying that it would not improve the welfare of the chicken. The HSUS did cite “research saying cage free will only increase the price by a few cents per egg.”  Klippen refuted those claims by presenting data from California’s experience and their price differential for the entire 2016 at 90% higher prices than the rest of the country after California’s 116 square inch per chicken law went into effect.  HSUS spoke of offering the egg farmer a financial grant of $90,000 to help him transition to cage-free.  Some of the House Members were encouraged by this offer.  Klippen told the committee (and HSUS) that $90,000 would help transition only 2,200 chickens whereas the egg farmer in the State would need $1.6 million for his current flock since the average cost to transition is $40 per bird.  HSUS cited food safety concerns associated with large scale egg farmers (in reference to the 2010 egg recall).  Klippen refuted that claim by citing the Penn State research released in September 2016 where they tested more than 6,000 eggs from 200 different selling points and concluded that backyard chickens were more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella.  In the end, some House Members announced they still prefer cage-free.  Klippen asked that many food companies are planning to transition to cage-free, so why is the legislation necessary?  He objected to removing consumer choice by mandating one style of production system. Klippen added that California had the voters decide on their ballot initiative (Prop 2 in 2008), but in Rhode Island, if consumers asked why egg prices were increasing (assuming the bill passed), he would remind them their legislators voted in this cage-free mandate.

Testimony by Ken Klippen

President of the National Association of Egg Farmers

Before the Rhode Island House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

House Bill 6023

 Thursday, April 6, 2017

Good evening. My name is Ken Klippen, President of the National Association of Egg Farmers, a nationwide association representing approximately 200 farmers producing 14 billion eggs (more than 1 billion dozen) from approximately 50 million laying chickens. I have both a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Poultry Science from Michigan State University and have spent more than 40 years in the poultry industry both in production as well as association management nationally and internationally.

Thank you for the opportunity today to testify on H6023 pertaining to animal husbandry and the proposed provisions for unlawful confinement of a covered animal outlined in H6023. As 4-1.1-1. Definitions of the act related to several farm animals, my comments will address only subsection (3) “Egg-laying hen”.

We Oppose H6023. We are opposed to H6023 because the specifications for the size of the enclosure do not contribute to the welfare of the individual chicken. Chickens establish a pecking order among a population of birds. Farmers started putting chickens into confined spaces such as conventional cages to minimize the stress from pecking. Those 6-8 birds in a cage have established which chicken is dominant and which is at the lower end of the pecking order. Imagine the stress of those lower on a pecking order when loose on the ground among thousands of chickens. The mortality (a clear indication of stress) in cage-free systems is twice that of conventional cages resulting from the pecking from the more dominant chickens.

H6023 Clause (7) states: “Fully extending the animal’s limbs” means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure. In the case of egg-laying hens, “fully extending the animal’s limbs” means fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens and having access to the amount of usable floor space per hen that complies with the 2016 Edition of the United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks “Guidelines for Cage-Free Egg Production.” Will chickens that touch another chicken in a cage-free environment be in violation of this proposed law? The expression “birds of a feather, flock together” include chickens and those that are in a cage-free environment will mingle among other chickens touching one another.

Not Opposed to Voluntary Standards, But H6023 Will Enforce Mandatory Standards. NAEF does not oppose the United Egg Producers animal husbandry guidelines for cage-free egg production as they are voluntary and provide a standard for those farmers who wish to market eggs as cage-free. But H6023 is mandating that all egg produced and sold in the state must conform to those standards, taking away the individual right of the farmer and those of consumers who want a high quality, lower priced egg to purchase.

Once again NAEF is not opposed to producing cage-free eggs, but we are opposed to the false premise that cage-free eggs are more humane. 

Investigating animal welfare in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) and the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA) are the two agencies that respond to citizen complaints about the welfare of livestock in the state.

Combined, the two agencies conducted approximately 65 investigations in 2016 related to livestock welfare annually which includes investigating the physical condition of animals (condition related to animal weight, lameness, and hoof care), followed by access to sufficient feed and water and access to suitable shelter. Of the complaints that these agencies receive, the majority (approximately 90%) are unfounded, stated the RIDEM.

Of those complaints that are with merit (about 6 annually, according to RIDEM), most of the situations are not due to criminal neglect, but rather ignorance or complacency within the food animal sectors.

Fortunately for Rhode Island, the one farmer producing shell eggs complies with the known animal care standards as adopted by NAEF (which provides 40 scientific references on poultry production) including proper housing, feed and water, air quality and environmental considerations for both the chickens and the workers working in the farm facilities.

What Do Poultry Scientists Claim as Acceptable Space Allowance? The following peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude that a minimum of 67 square inches per layer producing white-shelled eggs (76 square inches per layer producing brown-shelled eggs as these varieties of chickens are larger in size) will allow each individual chicken to stand upright in the cage, lie down, turn around and spread its wings while also having direct access to feed and water when desired. The following scientific references relate to space allowances for chickens producing eggs:

Scientific References:

1. Adams, A.W. and M.E. Jackson, 1970. Effect of cage size and bird density on performance of six commercial strains of layers. Poultry Sci. 49:1712-1719.
2. Anderson, K.E. and A.W. Adams, 1992. Effects of rearing density and feeder and waterer spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers. Poultry Sci. 71:53-58.
3. Anderson, K.E., A.W. Adams, and J.V. Craig, 1989. Behavioral adaptation of floor-reared White Leghorn pullets to different cage densities cage shapes during the initial settling-in period. Poultry Sci. 68:70-78.
4. Anderson, K.E. 2001. Welfare implications of cage density, population, and feeder space. 2001 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention, Touchstone Energy Place at River Center, St. Paul, Minnesota March 14-15, 2001. Pp. 164-170.
5. Anderson, K.E., G.S. Davis, P. Jenkins, and A.S. Carroll. 2004. Effects of bird age, density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Sci. 83:15-23
6. Al-Rawi, B. and J.V. Craig, 1975. Agonistic behavior of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird.       Applied Animal Ethology 2:69-80

Food Safety Concerns. Penn State researchers have found that eggs from small flocks of chickens (typically cage-free) are more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis as eggs sold in grocery stores, which typically come from larger flocks.

The results were published in the September 16, 2016 issue of PSU News:

http://news.psu.edu/story/425880/2016/09/14/research/eggs-small-flocks-just-likely-contain-salmonella-enteritidis

That conclusion was drawn from a six-month study done last year in Pennsylvania. Researchers from Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences collected and tested more than 6,000 eggs from more than 200 selling points across the state for the study.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that shell-egg producers from farms with 3,000 or more chickens be in compliance with the agency’s Final Egg Rule, which is aimed at restricting the growth of pathogens.

Federal regulations for these larger flocks require placement of Salmonella-“clean” chicks, intensive rodent control, cleaning and disinfecting between flocks, environmental monitoring of pullet and layer houses, continuous testing of eggs from any Salmonella-positive houses, and diverting eggs from Salmonella-positive houses for pasteurization.   However, small flocks with fewer than 3,000 laying hens are currently exempt from the rule. Eggs from these producers often are marketed via direct retail to restaurants, health food stores and farmers markets, or sold at on-farm roadside stands.

The research highlights the potential risk posed by the consumption of eggs produced by backyard and small layer flocks. And, analysis of the Salmonella enteritidis present in the eggs from small flocks shows they are the same types commonly reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from human foodborne outbreaks.

The Cost Benefit Analysis of H6023 shows enactment will also be harmful to consumers. If the one Rhode Island farmer producing eggs in conventional cages today is mandated to establish cage density for layers at 144 square inches, the costs would increase more than 90 percent. This is borne out by the document (included) comparing egg prices in California (which established a cage density for layers at 116 square inches in implementing its egg production guidelines on January 1, 2015) as reported by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock, Poultry & Grain Market News National Shell Egg Index Price Report (National prices FOB and California delivered). The daily spreads before California enacted their new law mandating 116 square inches, the price differential between the state and the rest of the nation was greater. In 2015 the differential was 49 percent higher and in 2016 that price differential has skyrocketed to 90 percent higher.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012 report: Summary of RI animal agriculture: There are 1,243 total farms in the state of Rhode Island which 521 are pasture raised (raise livestock).

Poultry is a category of livestock that is better broken down into subcategories. 327 farms raised egg laying hens with 300 of them raising fewer than 400 birds.

Only 1 farmer raised more than 10,000 birds. 49 farmers raised 13,402 broiler type chickens, 24 farmers raised an undetermined number of turkeys, and 52 farmers raised 450 ducks. Other categories are primarily exhibitors or poultry fanciers who raise smaller numbers of birds.  

In effect, H6023 is targeting the one Rhode Island egg farmer and those egg farmers in nearby states producing eggs in conventional cages who provide eggs for the 1 million consumers in the state.

Conclusions. For the reasons established that 144 square inches per chicken will not improve the welfare of the chicken, small backyard flocks are more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella, and the increased cost to the consumer, the National Association of Egg Farmers is opposed to H6023 proposed for Rhode Island.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am prepared to answer any questions at this time.

Attachment (California Prices 90 percent higher)