Rhode Island’s House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a meeting on Thursday, March 3rd at the Capitol in Providence to discuss H. 7324 a bill mandating cages be increased to 213 square inches per chicken. Ken Klippen, NAEF, joined the last remaining egg farmer in the state housing his chickens in cages. Both testified along with Farm Bureau while HSUS and other animal rights advocates testified for the bill’s passage.

The Committee Chairman and each committee member received a copy of this email below.

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for the privilege on Thursday, March 3rd of testifying on H. 7324 relating to animal care and the size of cages for housing egg-producing chickens. As I related in my testimony and contained below, the good intentions of this bill are misplaced relative to chickens.

A Vote for Rhode Island H. 7324 is a Vote Against Food Safety

If enacted, H. 7324, although having good intentions, will cause more harm than good. Every egg farmer knows that eggs laid on the same ground where manure is located increases the likelihood of contamination. That is why supporting H. 7324 is voting against food safety.

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.”

Some have claimed that caged layers increases Salmonella. 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.

Cage-free egg production does not improve the welfare of the chicken

Every egg farmer knows that chickens establish a pecking order. The more chickens together, the more stress on those chickens lower on the pecking order. That explains why deaths among chickens is twice the number of those kept in cages. That is why egg farmers opted to minimize the number of chickens in cages to prevent these deaths. Certainly death is a welfare consideration.

Please vote “No” on H. 7324 for the consumers in Rhode Island and for the chickens.

Sincerely,

Ken Klippen, President

National Association of Egg Farmers (offices in Philadelphia and Washington, DC).

Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Web address: www.eggfarmers.org

We are continuing the fight in opposing a universal change-over to enhanced, colony cages or aviaries or expanded cages based on welfare and food safety considerations.  Yesterday several letters were sent to Dow Jones, the Corporate Office of Dunkin’ Donuts, and an equities manager who criticized any who oppose the California egg law.  NAEF fights back because it does not want to see egg farmers revert back to the former way of producing eggs after the decades of advancement culminating in today’s conventional cage system.  We’re not the only ones fighting.

You have read in the NAEF newsletter that the Attorneys General from Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, and Nebraska along with Iowa Governor Terry Branstad have filed an appeal to their earlier lawsuit against the California egg law. Coupled with this are the Amicus briefs filed by the Utah Attorney General and more recently the American Farm Bureau Federation (who has a California affiliated, but recognizes the inherent dangers of the egg law to the entire egg industry).  Congress have engaged too with a bill filed by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) “Protect Interstate Commerce Act” (HR687) specifically targeting the actions of the California egg law in violating the Commerce Act of the U.S. Constitution.  In the previous Congress, Rep. King managed to get a similar amendment added to the Farm Bill that passed the Agriculture Committee and the Full House of Representatives.  Just days ago, you read how Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) caught HSUS Wayne Pacelle in a lie before his committee denying only 9% of the monies collected from Oklahoma residents went to support pet shelters. Today, you read where the Ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) severely criticized the California egg law, adding he hoped they would run out of eggs so they can see what they’ve done.

The National Pork Producers Council have maintained a steady resistance to HSUS and others trying to force their industry to eliminate gestation stalls.  And Rick Berman and his group at the Center for Consumer Freedom (www.humanewatch.org) maintain their educational campaign behind the agenda of HSUS.  Please see their latest YouTube video on a veterinarian, a former HSUS field investigator, blowing the whistle on the agenda at HSUS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ_XJDZrzTM

Several of you have contacted me yesterday and today to say the larger egg farmers have given up the fight against resisting HSUS.  That is their choice, but we know what that means to their cost of production.  The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply reported the enriched, colony cages would increase the cost of producing a dozen eggs by 13% and 36% for aviaries.  You will have that economic advantage over them once they convert to different housing systems.

You have heard me repeat the words of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying “You cannot negotiate with those who want to put you out of existence.”  He knows terrorists and what they will do.  And we know what HSUS will do in incremental fashion to reshape the egg industry if we give up.

Keep up the fight.  Now is not the time to follow those who have given in.  NAEF will keep fighting for you because we all know that conventional cages provide a safe and wholesome egg while providing a humane system of producing eggs.

(In response to the Cedar Rapids, Iowa Gazette’s Editorial on Sunday, April 27)

Your Iowa readers need to learn there are dissenting opinions to the Gazette’s “Eggs-Acting Demands” in yesterday’s editorial.  Iowa is the leading egg producing state and exports approximately 30% of California consumer needs for eggs.  Iowa Governor Terry Branstad is to be commended for looking out for Iowa’s egg farmers and the state’s economy by supporting the Missouri lawsuit against the California egg law.  The state has the right to enact laws or regulations governing the production of eggs in their state, but it cannot specify production standards in Iowa.  By doing so, California is assuming the role of determining the commerce of eggs which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 granting the U.S. Congress the power to regulate commerce between the States.  California Title 3 Section 1350 requires out-of-state egg farmers selling eggs in California to implement that state’s food safety regulations that go beyond the federal regulations under FDA’s food safety standards for eggs [21 CFR Part 118], “Production, Storage, and Transportation of Shell Eggs”.

The Gazette’s suggestion to support one national federal standard for egg production would actually have led to the smaller egg farmers throughout the country including those in Iowa actually going out of business. Whereas the larger egg complexes could gradually make the transition suggested by the Gazette over a 15-year period, the smaller egg farmers would not be able to because of the egg processing capabilities on those smaller farms. Those smaller egg farmers would be forced to make the conversion in one step leading to an economic disadvantage leading to insolvency for them.  As to the organizations representing 90% being in favor of this national standard, there was never a survey done of the egg industry. Instead a handful of companies made the decision and their egg cooperative carried out the dictates.

The implied claims of increasing space for hens leads to better welfare is incorrect. Consider the facts.  The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2010 released a report on the welfare implications of various kinds of housing. (www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/cage_noncage_systems.asp) The report concluded consumers need to balance the hen’s freedom against exposure to potential hazards such as disease vectors and the cannibalism caused by pecking. Certainly cannibalism and pecking are welfare issues, and in conventional cages where the number of chickens is minimized, these concerns are also reduced compared to other systems. Dr. Kenneth Anderson, NC State University, presented his research findings to delegates at the 2010 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention March 16-18, 2010 where he noted that chickens reared in conventional cages had significantly greater numbers of Grade A eggs, significantly greater numbers of total eggs produced, and significantly better feed conversion rates (meaning a lower carbon footprint), and a better immune response (meaning better able to resist disease).  Certainly these are indicators of a healthier chicken and thus better welfare.

The National Association of Egg Farmers, representing egg farmers throughout the nation, remains committed to opposing one national standard and allowing U.S. egg farmers to produce eggs for the consumers in their markets without the dictates of a national law.  We have learned the mistakes in the European Union and their egg law (EU Council Directive 1999/74/ED).  This article from Farming UK (see website below) demonstrating the suffering resulting in Europe as a result of implementing their national egg law on January 1, 2012.  The Germans moved even quicker than the whole of the European Union and implemented a new national law in 2010.  

http://www.farminguk.com/News/German-egg-producers-face-insolvency-as-supermarkets-discount_29844.html

The article quotes an international economist who predicts that 30% of the German egg farmers will likely become insolvent by October. This same sort of disaster will occur in Iowa and elsewhere should one national standard become law.

Iowa egg production is providing jobs and food for the nation’s consumers in addition to the consumers in the state.  For these reasons, the people in Iowa should send their compliments to their Governor Terry Branstad for his courage in supporting the Missouri AG’s lawsuit against the misguided effort by California and the misinformation from the media.  I’m sending this dissenting opinion to Governor Branstad along with my thanks.