Iowa Public Radio Shows How UEP is Selling Egg Bill

The link and quote shown below reveals how UEP is selling the egg bill in the media ….Improved housing, improved environment and improved food safety.

 “This is what my industry and my egg farmers want and passionately believe that they need to [have] happen so that they can pass their farms on to the next generation,” said Chad Gregory, president of United Egg Producers. He said the proposal would require larger cages with perches, nesting boxes and improved manure systems. “Housing will improve drastically, the environment will improve drastically and the safety of our product will improve drastically over the next 15 years,” Gregory said, “if we can get this bill passed.”
http://iowapublicradio.org/post/new-cages-and-carton-labels-could-come-egg-industry

EFA Provides “Other Side of the Story” to Iowa Public Radio

Efforts were made by National Association of Egg Farmers to counter the press coverage of the egg bill and how UEP was characterizing it as “drastically” improving housing, the environment, and food safety. Details were sent to Iowa Public Radio. While we’re not aware of the basis for any of UEP’s claims, National Association of Egg Farmers responded with facts.

1.EFA detailed the impact the legislation will have on many farmers with foreclosures.

2.EFA detailed the impact the legislation will have on consumers with the costs of eggs increasing 25%.

3.EFA cited scientists who noted the impact on the welfare of chickens with more leg and wing breakages.

4.EFA did cite the scientific study and journal where published showing the impact on food safety reporting an increase in the transmission of Salmonella Enteritidis.

The following letter to the editor was sent December 23, 2015 to the newspapers in major cities throughout the U.S. and the UK

Dear Editor,

Egg farmers nationwide are wondering why consumers are not noticing the greatest case of fraud this year with food companies announcing a new policy of exclusively offering cage-free eggs as the means of improving the welfare of chickens.  This is simply untrue and any person who watches chickens roaming about on the ground will see the reasons why.  Food companies are reacting to the pressure from the misinformation from animal activists that more space means better conditions. 

The National Association of Egg Farmers has tried repeatedly to counter this fraud by explaining to the media and to the top food retailers that cage-free systems means more chickens pecking one another in establishing a pecking order. Thousands of chickens loose on the floor establishing a pecking order increases their stress.  Pecking is an inherent behavior among chickens.  More chickens together, such as in a cage-free system, means more pecking, and those chickens lower on the pecking order are being pecked the most.  That explains why cage-free systems oftentimes have three (3) times more chicken deaths than the modern conventional cages.  An increase in deaths is hardly better welfare.

Food safety is also a concern.  Some food companies have transitioned to cage-free believing it will lead to better quality eggs.  This is another fraud perpetuated by animal activists.  Eggs laid on the same ground where the chicken manure is located hardly improves the quality of the egg.  In fact it likely increases bacterial contamination from contact with the manure.  

Cage-free eggs will increase prices.  The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply investigated the different production systems and concluded the price to produce a dozen eggs will likely increase 36 per cent. Why would food companies wish to increase food prices when the federal government’s recent statistics on food insecurity (not having enough resources to provide sufficient food) reached 14% of total U.S. households and child poverty in the U.S. has increased since the year 2000. 

Egg farmers are advising food companies not to adopt this new policy of buying only cage-free eggs because of the misinformation that they improve the welfare of the chicken or that they improve the quality of the egg.  Educated consumers can opt for cage-free at retail outlets, but when food  companies announce offering exclusively cage-free eggs, their customers, after reading this, will now know the facts too.Dear Editor,

The current conflict in Gaza is daily news of Israel prosecuting a war against Hamas.  It has certain parallels to animal agriculture addressing production methods with animal activists or environmentalists. When companies give a little ground to placate the animal activists or environmentalists, they may believe they are buying peace, but it is short-lived as the domestic terrorists want an end to animal agriculture. When agriculture companies announce an end to conventional cages or gestation crates, this is a short-lived peace.  Their objective is not peace, but the elimination of animal agriculture.  Consider the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister. “You cannot negotiate with those who want to put you out of existence,” said Netanyahu. He was addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress 4 years ago.  He knows a thing or two about terrorists.  Animal agriculture can learn from his experience in application to our response to animal rights groups (i.e., animal activists or environmentalists are defined by the FBI as domestic terrorists). So why do companies producing meat, milk, or eggs think giving in on eliminating cages or farrowing crates will placate the animal activists and allowing those companies to continue operations?  Below are public statements from five leaders in the animal rights community:

1. 1.“Eating meat is not your personal decision, any more than whether somebody beats their children is their personal decision.” Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary, formerly PETA.
2. 2.“Meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health as tobacco use.”

Neal Barnard, Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

1. 3.“I dream of a vegan world – that’s where I want everyone to go.” Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary.
2. 4.“ We just have to reduce the number of animals that are raised forIf anyone says ‘cage-free’ is 100% humane, 100% cruelty-free, that’s not accurate.” Josh Balk, HSUS
3. 5.“[about eggs] We want to get rid of the industry.” Miyun Park, GAP, formerly HSUS.

These are the leaders in the animal rights community.  They don’t want to negotiate a peaceful coexistence with animal agriculture.  They want to eliminate it.

The associations representing animal agriculture must maintain a vigilance in refuting each and every false claim made about modern production practices.  In yesterday’s FoodProductionDaily.com (July 30, 2014) is the article “Why did the Chicken Cross Europe? To call for better labelling.” This is a report by a European chicken farmer’s daughter, Tamsin French, while touring 21 EU member states dressed in a chicken costume for 39 days.  She picked the time because that is average lifespan of an “intensively farmed” meat chicken where the chicken has “little or no opportunity to display natural behaviors” stated Ms. French. Her journey also coincides with a European Commission review of poultry meat labelling this summer. The media pictured this attractive graduate wearing part of her costume.  The implication is she’s from a farm and must know the facts about raising poultry.

I raised the issue yesterday with many EU animal scientists asking what consideration was given to food safety in her mission?  For example, there are food safety concerns associated with free range poultry. 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, USA, reported Enterobacteriacea on egg shell surfaces were 90% greater in free-range over battery 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.

Granted this is not the battle we are watching in the Mideast, but unless we draw a line and start refuting the misinformation published in the press, we will soon be facing more food companies demanding we eliminate our proven production practices in providing a safe and wholesome product.