Ken Klippen, National Association of Egg Farmers, and Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the U.S.,  battled it out over the radio KQED, San Francisco.  Scott Shafer was the moderator and he included Sasha Khokha, Central Valley Bureau Chief with KQED from California, who could detail the new egg law.   Klippen said the CA law is bad for both the chicken and the consumer.  The welfare is not improved due to increased bones being broken when the chicken injures herself on the enhancements in the cages, nor is it improved when the population density is increased in the larger cage and the pecking order causes stress to those chickens lower on the pecking order.  It will not be good for Consumers as California has seen a 100% price increase this past year coupled an increased incidence of bacterial contamination from the eggs laid in the nest boxes where manure may be accumulating.  Quoting from the journal “Food Control”, the article submitted in April 2014 entitled “Microbiological Contamination of Shell Eggs Produced in Conventional and Free-Range Housing Systems” reported that conventional cages allow the feces to fall beneath the cages whereas free-range hens laid their eggs in nest boxes (and by extension Enhanced Colony Cages that provides nest boxes) thus explaining the higher pathogenic bacteria counts on the egg shells.

Pacelle said Klippen represented a marginal group of egg farmers who opposed the national egg bill whereas UEP, representing 90% of all egg farmers, supported a federal mandate.  He also stated the chicken today can’t turn around in its cage.  Klippen refuted the ability of the chicken to turn around saying “this is misinformation” being disseminated.  As it related to the size of NAEF, Klippen noted we are a new association that is growing and has members coast-to-coast.  Klippen added he used to work for UEP, and this new association has members of both organizations, but they keep a low profile to prevent being targeted by the animal activists.

The evolution of the egg production practices has resulted in today’s conventional cages, but the animal activists that are pressing for cage-free and free-range will revert back to production methods in practices decades ago, said Klippen.

Listen to the debate by logging in:

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201412310930

Mr. Kendall J. Powell

Chairman of the Board and CEO

General Mills, Inc.
P.O. Box 9452
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Dear Mr. Powell:

General Mills is recognized as one of the world’s largest food companies with some of the most trusted bands including Häagen-Dazs, Pillsbury, Betty Crocker, and Yoplait. Some of these products use eggs in their manufacture and that is why The National Association of Egg Farmers (NAEF), representing egg farmers nationwide, is disappointed in the decision by General Mills to switch to cage-free eggs.  We know that the company has been misinformed about egg production practices believing it is more humane or better from a food safety perspective.  Today’s modern conventional cages used in producing eggs provide:

1. 1)A humane way of producing eggs

So here are the facts from today’s farmers concerning the welfare of the chicken. 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 upwards of 60 chickens in the California-style enhanced, colony cages, and even more so in an aviary (cage-free chickens) with thousands of chickens.   The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, a cooperative effort of animal scientists investigating the published research concluded recently that different housing systems (cage-free, enhanced colony cages, and the conventional cages used today by nine-five percent of egg farmers) are not significantly different in the stress among the chickens.  This compliments earlier findings by The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2010 which released a report on different housing systems.  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 reduced compared to the enhanced, colony cages or aviaries. 

Dr. Kenneth Anderson, a preeminent Poultry Extension Specialist at NC State University, presented his research findings to the egg industry at a conference in March 2010 where he noted that chickens reared in conventional cages had: 1)significantly greater numbers of Grade A eggs, 2)significantly greater numbers of total eggs produced,  3)significantly better feed conversion rates (meaning a lower carbon footprint),  4)better immune response (meaning better able to resist disease). Certainly these are indicators of a healthier chicken and thus better welfare.

2)Provide a safe and wholesome egg

In considering food safety, eggs laid on the floor in an aviary system have more pathogenic bacteria from contact with manure.  This is virtually eliminated in conventional cages where the birds stand on a wire and the manure falls below the cages and away from the eggs. As published in Food Control [47 (2015) 161-165] entitled “Microbiological Contamination of Shell Eggs Produced in Conventional [battery cages] and Free-Range” the authors from Clemson University reported Enterobacteriacea on egg shell surfaces were 90% greater in free-range over battery cages (conventional cages). Salmonella for free-range was 2.36% and 0 for battery while Campylobacter for free-range was 26.1% compared to 7.4% for battery eggs.

3)Provide a lower cost for a high quality protein product

Lastly, consumers benefit from conventional caged egg production with a lower cost for a high quality protein product.  The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply reported recently the cage-free eggs (aviaries) were thirty-six percent more expensive that conventional caged eggs and enhanced colony caged eggs were thirteen percent more expensive.  Over the past five decades of improving the welfare of the chicken and improving the food safety of shell eggs with today’s conventional cages, unfortunately companies and misinformed readers believe it is better to return to the old days when eggs were laid near manure or the chicken suffered from the pecking order. This is false and harms both the chicken and the consumer.

Today’s egg farmer, using conventional cage systems, is producing a safe and wholesome egg while providing for the needs of each chicken.

We urge General Mills to reconsider its policy of cage-free for the sake of the chicken, the farmer, and the consumer purchasing the company’s products.