The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES), nearing completion of a two-flock research study to better understand the sustainability impacts of various types of laying hen housing  including cage-free aviary, enriched cage and conventional cage systems has released preliminary research results. Over the course of three years and two separate flocks, CSES noted that the research assessed five areas of sustainability: (1) animal health and well-being, (2) environmental impact, (3) food affordability, (4) food safety and (5) worker health and safety. A complete overview of the preliminary results is available at www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org.

Egg farmers understand the importance of these statistics of mortality, hen-day and hen-housed egg production, case weight and feed conversion, but when operating costs and capital costs are factored in, today’s modern conventional cage system is providing an affordable table egg that in addition provides a humane, lower environmental impact, safe and wholesome production system.  Again science continues to exonerate conventional cages for producing eggs.

1. 1.Egg Farmers of America Trademarked by UEP

We can no longer use the name “Egg Farmers of America” since UEP has filed for the trademark effective February 11, 2014.  Below is the letter sent to Randon Wilson, UEP’s legal counsel.  This demonstrates how effective we have become in defeating the egg bill, in supporting the King amendment in the Farm Bill, in assisting the MO Attorney General in getting support from 5 other Attorneys General in the lawsuit filed against the California egg law, and in rebutting the misinformation in the press about today’s modern conventional cage systems.  The name of an organization is incidental to the effectiveness of the organization.  We are effective and will continue to expand our membership.  As to a new name, a number of suggestions have been made and researched.

Subject: Re: Egg Farmers of America

Dear Mr. Wilson,

This is in response to your letter dated March 7, 2014 claiming  ownership by your client United Egg Producers (UEP) of a trademark for the name “Egg Farmers of America”. As the General Counsel of UEP you are well aware that this name has been used by the Egg Farmers of America since 2011. The agreement among Egg Farmers of America and the original representative to Egg Farmers of America, the Russell Group, Arlington, VA, dates to September 23, 2011.  In a letter to the House Agriculture Committee December 2011, Egg Farmers of America joined with the National Pork Producers Council, National Cattlemen & Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and several others in opposition to the UEP-HSUS agreement and legislation introduced in the House (H.R. 3798) and Senate (S.3239) which codified the UEP-HSUS agreement. On March 12, 2012 in Agri-Pulse, a Washington, DC journal under the heading “Do you want new federal standards in animal care?’, stated “despite UEP’s push within the egg industry, not all members are indeed united.  A group of small and medium sized egg producers called ‘Egg Farmers of America’ opposes the bill.” In a letter to the House Agriculture Committee dated January 13, 2013  the Egg Farmers of America expressed their opposition to UEP-HSUS agreement and the legislation introduced in the House and Senate to codify that agreement. On July 26, 2012  the Egg Farmers of America testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee in opposition to the legislation to implement the UEP-HSUS agreement to codify a national standard for egg production. 

Your letter to me states that your client UEP first used these terms only in October 30, 2013. Thus your registration of this service mark is deceptive on its face. We note that your letter is conveniently vague on UEP’s use of these words on that date.

Your registration is particularly egregious because it is very transparently an attempt to stifle all opportunity for the Egg Farmers of America to register their opposition to your clients’ agreement. It is an attempt to deny them their constitutional right to petition their government. This is not an action that will be favorably viewed by either the courts or your fellow members of the bar.

 We  have consulted with counsel  and have no doubt that we can successfully contest your deceptively obtained service mark in court and prevail.  However, we have no intention at this particular time of bringing suit against you because we know that egg farmers do not need to be involved in any more expensive litigation than UEP has already involved them in. We reserve our right to bring legal action against your client at a future date to not only contest these allegations but to pursue any  additional causes of action available.   I can assure you, few things would give me more pleasure than seeing Chad and Gene Gregory deposed under oath. 

Sincerely,

Ken Klippen

Klippen & Associates, LLC

Dear Editor:

The LA Times Editorial Board is mistaken in thinking the new California egg law is good for chickens as well as Californians (December 26^th editorial “California’s egg-laying hens to get their breathing room”).  Speaking on behalf of the National Association of Egg Farmers and farmers outside of California providing the majority of the eggs consumed in California, the “wake-up call” for consumers on January 1^st will leave them and you scrambling for explanations.  Egg prices nationwide have risen 35% in anticipation of the law being enacted.  More so in California. This will continue as it did in Europe when they enacted their new law January 1, 2012.  Where the LA Times Editorial Board is mistaken, is thinking this will lead to better welfare for the hens.  The incidence of bones broken in the colony cages have been noted by scientists when compared to conventional systems.  This is because of the larger running areas coupled with the additional features in the cages (nest boxes, scratch pads, perches) where chickens can be injured when frightened. Added to this is the increased incidence of pecking that will take place when more chickens are in larger groupings.  Hardly welfare enhancements when bones are broken or chickens pecked.  The food safety component is also a mistaken thought.  The colony cages have been shown to have higher levels of pathogens including total aerobes and coliforms when compared to conventional systems due to fecal contamination of the shells.  Those nest boxes and scratch pads provide additional areas for manure to collect and thus contaminate.  So before you start “crowing” over  your vision of being “more humane” and showing the rest of the nation how you should be emulated, consider there are reasons for the production methods in egg production today and those have led to the conventional systems available in the other states.

California’s egg-laying hens to get their breathing room

By THE LA TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

In January, California’s egg-laying hens must be freed from cramped battery cages many egg farms use. Next month, all of California’s 15 million egg-laying hens must be freed from the cramped, restrictive battery cages that have long been used on most egg farms. In the future, they will have enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and spread their wings without touching another bird. Though they are no doubt unaware of it, they have waited more than six years and four lawsuits for the extra space. Proposition 2, which passed in 2008 by a landslide 63.5% of the vote, also covers gestating pigs and veal calves, but there are few pig and veal operations in the state, so the law’s biggest effect is on the hens. A separate law requires all out-of-state egg producers that sell to California (which gets about a third of its eggs from farmers outside the state) to comply with the same housing standards for hens. Not surprisingly, egg producers have sued, variously arguing that Proposition 2 is vaguely worded or that the companion law unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce. All the suits have been dismissed. Two — including one brought by a group of state attorneys general led by Chris Koster of Missouri — are under appeal. Despite the backlash from egg producers and their allies, it is clear that these measures reflect a growing concern on the part of consumers about the welfare of farm animals. Just because they are certain to end up on a dinner plate or in a barn producing eggs or milk doesn’t obviate the need to treat them humanely during their short lives.

It would be prudent for egg producers to end their legal challenges and start retrofitting their barns. They’ve had years to figure out how to create housing that meets the requirements of the law. The typical minuscule wire-mesh battery cages, offering 67 square inches of space per hen, won’t do any longer. Many farmers are converting to bigger, taller colony cages that offer about 116 square inches of space and allow birds to move around in accordance with the law. Some producers are modifying existing battery cages to make one enclosure out of two or more.

Some producers are going even further than required, setting up completely cage-free barns for birds, allowing them to move around and even fly to different-level perches. And some major food companies are requiring that their egg suppliers go cage-free. The food services company Aramark uses only cage-free eggs in its California operations and has announced that all of the 30 million eggs it buys annually in the U.S. will come from cage-free hens by the end of this year. Unilever is well into the process of converting to cage-free eggs. Burger King has committed to having all of its eggs come from cage-free animals by 2017.

California voters, to their credit, were ahead of the game in voting to better the welfare of California’s hens. Over time, that will lead to improvements for all 300 million egg-laying hens in the country.