SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT ANIMAL WELFARE (LAYER HEN) CODE OF WELFARE AND DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT ANIMAL WELFARE (LAYER HEN) CODE OF WELFARE AND DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 29 April 2011 Voiceless Limited ACN Paddington Street Paddington NSW 2021 P F Disclaimer: Voiceless Limited ACN ( Voiceless ) is a company limited by guarantee. Voiceless is not a legal practice and does not give legal advice to individuals or organisations. While Voiceless makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of information presented on its behalf, Voiceless does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of that information. Information is provided by Voiceless as general information only and any use of or reliance on it should only be undertaken on a strictly voluntary basis after an independent review by a qualified legal practitioner (or other expert). Voiceless is not responsible for, and disclaims all liability for, any loss or damage arising out of the use of or reliance on information it provides. To learn more about Voiceless, please visit Voiceless envisions a world in which animals are treated with respect and compassion

2 ABOUT VOICELESS As an innovator, capacity builder and ideas-generator, Voiceless plays a leading role in the development of a cutting edge social justice movement, animal protection. With a highly professional and well-educated team, Voiceless brings together like-minded compassionate Australians from the legal, academic, non-profit and education sectors to form strong and effective networks. Voiceless believes in the provision of quality information, analysis and resources to inspire debate and discussion and to empower individuals and organisations to generate positive social change. Voiceless is a non-profit Australian organisation established in May 2004 by father and daughter team Brian and Ondine Sherman. To build and fortify the animal protection movement, Voiceless: Creates and fosters networks of leading lawyers, politicians and academics to influence law and public policy; Conducts high quality research and analysis of animal industries, exposing legalised cruelty and promoting informed debate; Creates a groundswell for social change by building and fortifying the Australian animal protection movement with select grants and prizes; and Informs consumers and empowers them to make animal-friendly choices. PATRONS J.M. COETZEE, Nobel Prize for Literature Winner 2003, author of 'Lives of Animals' and 'Elizabeth Costello' BRIAN SHERMAN AM, businessman and philanthropist AMBASSADORS HUGO WEAVING, Actor Last Ride, Little Fish, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Matrix Trilogy, The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert EMILY BARCLAY, Actor Prime Mover, Piece of my Heart, Suburban Mayhem, In My Father s Den ABBIE CORNISH, Actor Bright Star, Stop Loss, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Somersault, Candy, A Good Year For further information visit All correspondence in relation to this submission should be directed to: Ms Ruth Hatten Voiceless 2 Paddington Street Paddington NSW 2021 AUSTRALIA T: F: e.mail: ruth@voiceless.org.au 29 April 2011

3 1 Introduction 1.1 This submission addresses the Draft Animal Welfare (Layer Hen) Code Of Welfare and Draft Economic. Amongst other things, the Draft Animal Welfare (Layer Hen) Code Of Welfare (proposed code), if passed, will result in a transition from traditional cage systems to colony or enriched cage systems. Voiceless has reviewed the proposed code along with the supporting economic analyses and is of the opinion that the proposed code does not adequately consider the welfare of layer hens. The reasons for this opinion are addressed below. 1.2 The letter on how to make a submission titled Consultation on Draft Animal Welfare (Layer Hen) Code of Welfare and Draft Economic requests comments on a number of questions concerning the proposed code and the draft economic analysis. These comments are provided below. 2 Comments concerning the proposed code 2.1 Do you consider a code of welfare for layer hens to be necessary? Are there any alternatives which would achieve the same outcome as having a code of welfare. If so, what are they? (b) (c) Codes or standards for the welfare of layer hens are absolutely necessary. It is imperative however, to properly ensure the welfare of layer hens (and indeed other farm or stock animals), that they be consistent with the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Act) (specifically sections 4 and 10) and that they are drafted via an independent process. Codes are also most beneficial when they are enforceable, i.e. non-compliance with a code amounting to an offence. The proposed code is not consistent with the Act as it fails to ensure that the proposed standards are the minimum necessary to ensure that the purposes of the Act are met, mainly that owners and persons in charge of animals take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens are met 1. Codes of welfare are not drafted via an independent process. Currently, initial drafts of animal welfare codes or standards are drafted with heavy reliance upon advice received from industry groups. The main concern of industry groups is the protection of their economic interests, not the welfare interests of animals. NAWAC says that animal welfare is the key issue that it takes into account 2. That is clearly not the case here as the proposed code still allows battery cages and allows other styles of cages (colony or enriched cages) that are not consistent with the Act. Further, NAWAC has reviewed the proposed code in consultation with representatives of egg producers 3. Representatives of egg producers are an industry group. They do not have the welfare interests of layer hens at heart. Their main concern, as always, is their own economic interests. With such heavy reliance upon industry groups, as is the case here, codes of welfare are not drafted via an independent process. 2.2 Do you agree that the minimum standards in the proposed code are the minimum necessary to ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of layer hens will be met? For example, do the minimum standards reflect good practice (not just current practice), current scientific knowledge and available technology? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest? 1 Sections 9, 68 Animal Welfare Act Consultation on Draft Animal Welfare (Layer Hen) Code of Welfare and Draft Economic, p 3. 3 Ibid, p 2. Page 1

4 Voiceless does not agree that the minimum standards in the proposed code are the minimum necessary to ensure that the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens will be met. There are numerous instances throughout the proposed code where it is clear that the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens will not be met. The clearest of instances are set out below. (b) Minimum Standard No. 4 Housing and Equipment Design, Construction and Maintenance (ii) (iii) This Standard fails to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens are met for a variety of reasons. Battery cages are still permitted despite the fact that they clearly do not allow hens to perform natural behaviours such as running and jumping, spreading wings, foraging for food, dust bathing, scratching the ground, preening, perching and nesting. Battery cages also prevent hens from walking on grass, sunbathing and having access to daylight all things that hens in a natural environment enjoy. The prevention of these natural behaviours results in stress and frustration and is inherently cruel. Battery cages are in clear breach of the Act. It is also surprising that NAWAC acknowledges that the industry has agreed to stop using cages 4. If this is the case, Voiceless questions the failure by NAWAC to consider an immediate phase out, or at least a phase out by 2015 at the very latest. Colony systems are introduced. In reality, these systems are cages; cages only slighter bigger than traditional battery cages. They might provide for a nest area, a floor slope that supports forward facing claws and a height 5cm bigger than a traditional cage, perches and claw shortening devices yet these provisions do not ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of hens are met. With only 750 sq cm per hen, there are a number of natural behaviours a hen will not be able to perform, for example, she will not be able to spread her wings fully (which on average is approximately centimetres 5, twice the size of a typical battery cage). The table below shows the results of a study 6 into the amount of space used (as opposed to needed, which is generally significantly higher 7 ) by hens to perform a range of basic behaviours. Behaviour Area (cm 2 ) Mean Range Standing Ground scratching Ibid 2, p 4 5 Robbins, John and Ornish, Dean (2010) The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World. Humane Society International, No Battery Eggs: Our Campaign in Canada. Available at accessed 20 April Dawkins, M. S. and Hardie, S. (_989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30: 4_3-4_6. 7 Ibid 6. Page 2

5 Turning Wing stretching Wing flapping Feather ruffling Preening (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) This table shows that the only behaviour an average sized hen can express in a colony cage is stand. Therefore the space allowance for colony cages fails to provide hens with adequate space to express normal behaviours and are therefore in breach of the Act. A hen in a colony cage will also not be able to dust bathe and it is questionable whether she will be able to properly nest, roost, peck and scratch. In respect of provision for nesting in colony cages, this Standard simply requires that there be a discrete nesting area. There is no mention of nest design (apart from the mention of the floor area being covered with a suitable substrate ), minimum size requirements, maximum number of hens per nest or specific location of nests. Research suggests that hens prefer to lay in a discrete enclosed nest site with loose material such as straw or a flexible nest lining 8. However, no single type of nest can cater for the different requirements of all hens 9. Some designs of enriched or colony cages fail to provide a satisfactory nest from a hen s perspective 10. It has also been recognised that some hens may be prevented from laying in nest boxes due to competition from other hens 11. Hens may be interrupted while using the nest or be prevented from using the nest at all. Due to the time of egg laying being synchronised, with the majority of hens laying in the morning 12, many hens will be likely to use the nest box at the same time. Also, the limited space in the proposed colony cages is likely to be insufficient to allow hens sufficient time (on average, 45 minutes 13 ) if hens want to lay at the same time. In order to provide a satisfactory nest, it is recommended that: 8 Pickett, Heather BSc (Hons) MSc (2007) Alternatives to the Barren Battery Cage for the Housing of Laying Hens in the European Union: A report by Compassion in World Farming. Compassion in World Farming, p Petherick, J. C., Seawright, E. and Waddington, D. (1993) Influence of quantity of litter on nest box selection and nesting behaviour of domestic hens. British Poultry Science, 34: Guedson, V. and Faure, J. M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research, 53: Ibid 8, p Oden, K., Gunnarsson, S., Berg, C. and Algers, B. (2005) Effects of sex composition on fear measured as tonic immobility and vigilance behaviour in large flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95: Appleby, M. C. (1998) Modification of laying hen cages to improve behaviour. Poultry Science, 77: Page 3

6 (A) a minimum of one nest is required for 5 hens 14 ; (B) (C) all nests should be at floor level at the start of laying and raised progressively once production has started and the hens are using the nests 15 ; a nest of 25cm x 48cm (large enough for two hens) be provided in a cage housing four to five hens. This equates to a minimum of 240cm2 of nest area per hen, much greater than the nest area currently provided in enriched or colony cages 16. (ix) (x) (xi) The above requirements should be made clear in this Standard. In respect of roosting, this Standard requires suitable perches that provide at least 15cm of space per hen.... This Standard fails to define what a suitable perch is. Research shows that perches are very important to hens, especially prior to nightfall 17. Generally 15cm of space per hen is adequate for most types of hen but heavier birds may require greater space. In saying that though, the design of the perch is an important factor - some perches are constructed in a crossover design which makes parts of the perch inaccessible and effectively reduces the length of perch available 18. The other concern with perches in colony cages is the height at which perches are erected. The proposed height of 45cm means that perches will not be able to be situated more than a few centimetres from the floor level of the cage. A perch positioned 5cm above floor level is not considered as a perch and has no attractive nor repulsive value 19. Hens prefer higher perches and as hens may spend a considerable amount of time on perches, it is recommended that cage height should be measured from the perch rather than from the floor 22. If, as Dawkins found 23, hens make use of vertical space up to a height of 56cm and perches are usually set around 7cm above floor level, the height of a cage should be 63cm (56cm + 7 cm). In order to satisfy a hen s need for perching, the housing system must be able to provide: (A) (B) sufficient length of perching space to allow all birds to perch at the same time; and sufficient elevation of the perches to satisfy the hens requirements for a perceived safe roosting place at night Poultry Behaviour. Available at accessed 20 April Ibid. 16 Appleby, M. C. (1998) Modification of laying hen cages to improve behaviour. Poultry Science, 77: Cooper, J. J. and Albentosa, M. J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14: Ibid 8, p SVC (1996) Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section on the Welfare of laying Hens, VI/8660/96, 30 October Perching behaviour and perch height preference of laying hens in furnished cages varying in height: British Poultry Science, Volume 49, Issue 4, 2008, pp AHAW (2005) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q ), adopted by the AHAW Panel on 10th and 11th November The EFSA Journal, 197: Ibid 8, p Dawkins, M. S. (_985) Cage height preference and use in battery-kept hens. Veterinary Record, 6: Ibid 8, p 15. Page 4

7 (xii) It is unclear whether this Standard requires litter for foraging (pecking and scratching) and dustbathing. While paragraph (f) provides that litter material must be provided for housing other than cages, there is no specific requirement in the part of this Standard dealing with colony systems that litter be provided. Litter is imperative for hen welfare. Hens will make great efforts to access litter for pecking, scratching and dustbathing 25 three natural behaviours of hens. (xiii) (xiv) (xv) When hens are unable to forage, they are known to redirect their pecking towards other birds in the form of harmful feather pecking 26. The provision of litter material in colony cages can provide limited opportunities for foraging. However due to the limited space in a colony cage, sufficient litter cannot be provided to allow all hens to forage during much of the day. When hens are unable to dustbathe, they develop sham dustbathing behaviour whereby they go through the motions of dustbathing in the absence of litter. Sham dustbathing does not appear to satisfy a hen s need to dustbathe 27. Unfortunately, colony cages, even with litter, do not provide adequate opportunities for dustbathing. It has been acknowledged in the EU that in enriched cages, some high priority behaviours (eg foraging, dustbathing) cannot be performed or are limited... Foraging facilities are well provided for in most non-cage systems 28. The same issues arise in barn systems as in cages when it comes to perches. This standard requires perches in barn systems at a height that allows hens to use them easily and without risk of injury. This requirement risks being interpreted loosely. Due to the need for hens to roost at high levels, Voiceless considers it necessary that a minimum height for perches be clearly expressed in this Standard. (c) Minimum Standard No. 5 Stocking Densities As stated above, the proposed colony cages do not allow hens to engage in natural behaviours and therefore they are in clear breach of the Act. With a stocking density of 13 hens per square metre (maximum) or 750 square centimetres (minimum), clearly the stocking density is too high. The same can be said for conventional battery cages. (d) Minimum Standard No. 6 Lighting Despite Voiceless s general dislike for hens being housed in an environment with only artificial lighting, the reference to chicks and pullets being exposed to short periods of darkness after placement should be clarified. What is a short period? (e) Minimum Standard No. 11 Behaviour Voiceless approves of paragraph in this Standard, however, is concerned that it conflicts with Minimum Standard No. 4 which clearly 25 Cooper, J. J. and Albentosa, M. J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14: Keeling, L. (2002) Behaviour of fowl and other domesticated birds. In P. Jensen (ed.), The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI Publishing. 27 Vestergaard, K. (1982) Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology, 8: Ibid 21. Page 5

8 allows housing systems that do not comply with this Standard. For example, as illustrated above, cages, including colony cages, do not allow hens to extend and flap their wings and it is questionable whether they will be able to lay eggs in a discrete nest area, perch, forage and dustbathe. If this is the intention, as it should be, the size of colony cages / available space per hen must be increased. (ii) Voiceless is very concerned that the time by which battery cages must be replaced will be too far in the future. This concern is due to the likely outcome, based on the information provided in the economic analyses on the costs of transitioning from battery cages to colony cages, that transitioning will not occur for another 18 to 20 years. This is unacceptable due to the unacceptable welfare conditions for layer hens in caged housing systems, whether cage or colony, and the flaws with the economic analyses (refer to section 3 below). (f) Minimum Standard No. 12 Handling and Catching (ii) (iii) This Standard does not provide the minimum necessary standard to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens are met. Firstly, it only requires that hens be handled in a manner that minimises the risk of pain and distress. This is not sufficient. A minimisation of risk of pain and distress could be achieved whilst still causing a layer hen significant pain and distress. A preferred standard might be that hens be handled in a manner that avoids as far as possible the risk of pain and distress. Albeit there is still a risk of loose interpretation here by the use of the words as far as possible, Voiceless feels that the standard worded in this manner caters for a higher standard of welfare for layer hens. Secondly, Voiceless questions whether it is sufficient to state that stress of handling, especially at depopulation, must be minimised by appropriate design of the facilities. What is appropriate design? Who determines whether facilities are appropriately designed? The meaning of the phrase appropriate design is open to interpretation and can therefore lead to facilities being considered to be appropriately designed when in fact they are not. At a minimum, this Standard needs to provide or refer to examples of appropriately designed facilities. Thirdly, what does it mean to be suitably trained in the handling of layer hens as required by paragraph (e)? Who determines what suitably trained is? The meaning of this phrase, suitably trained, is open to interpretation and can therefore lead to someone being considered to be suitably trained when in fact they are not. At a minimum, this Standard needs to state in what respect someone is suitably trained to handle layer hens. For example, is someone deemed to be suitably trained if they have successfully completed poultry training through Agriculture ITO? And to what level level 2, 3, 4 or 5? (g) Minimum Standard No. 13 Loading and Transport (ii) This Standard suffers from the same problem as Standard No. 12 in that it again uses the phrase suitably trained. Voiceless repeats and relies upon paragraph (f)(iii) above in this regard. Further, this Standard provides in paragraph (e) that Conveyances and containers must have sufficient ventilation to prevent the build-up of Page 6

9 concentrations of gases or water vapour harmful to the hens. This creates a risk that the phrase sufficient ventilation could be interpreted in a manner that fails to ensure that the welfare needs of layer hens are met. Thought should be had as to whether there is any way to define or give examples of sufficient ventilation. (h) Minimum Standard No. 14 Management of Health and Injury (ii) This Standard makes reference to a detailed inspection but does not specify the appropriate person to carry out such inspection. It also refers to appropriate intervention being undertaken by a suitably qualified person. Voiceless notes the references in the introduction to this Standard to all persons responsible for the care and management of poultry needed to be competent to recognise signs of ill-health. If this is the category of persons that fit within the meaning of suitably qualified person or the persons responsible for carrying out detailed inspections, then this should be made clear. If not, then the appropriate category of persons responsible for these tasks should be clarified. Minimum Standard No. 15 Beak Treatment (ii) (iii) (iv) Beak trimming is a cruel and inhumane procedure, even with the use of an infrared beam 29. Indeed, beak trimming has been banned in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. The UK Government has also enacted a ban on beak trimming. This was due to come into force on 1 January 2011 but, unfortunately, the ban has been deferred to a provisional date sometime in Voiceless understands that the industry relies upon beak trimming as a means of diminishing the issue of pecking and cannibalism in laying hens. It has been shown however, especially in the European countries mentioned above, that other management practices diminish or resolve this issue 31. It is clear that the UK Government is committed to banning beak trimming 32 and New Zealand and other countries should follow the UK s (and the EU s) lead. Despite the need for an ultimate ban on beak trimming, there are issues with the way in which this Standard is drafted, the main issue being the requirement that beak trimming must only be carried out by competent, trained operators. What is a competent, trained operator? Voiceless agrees with the SCARM 33 Working Group that skill is required since poor procedure can have long-term consequences for welfare and that anyone performing beak trimming should be accredited to do so 34. At a 29 Compassion in World Farming (26 January 2010) Briefing on the Welfare Implications of Beak Trimming by Hot Blade and Infra-Red Beam. 30 Battery Hens Standard Note: SN/SC/1367 by Christopher Barclay, Science and Environment Section, House of Commons, UK Parliament, available at pdf. 31 Pickett Heather MSc BSc (hons) (October 2009) Controlling Feather Pecking & Cannibalism in Laying Hens Without Beak Trimming, A Compassion in World Farming Report. Ibid 8 pp Ibid Standing Committee for Agriculture and Resource Management. 34 SCARM Working Group (June 2000) Synopsis Report on the Review of Layer Hen Housing and Labelling of Eggs in Australia. Page 7

10 minimum, a competent, trained operator ought be someone who has proper industry training and qualifications in beak trimming of layer hens and this should be made clear in this Standard. (v) Other issues include: (A) (B) the allowance to carry out beak trimming up to 10 days of hatching despite the introduction providing that beak trimming be carried out on day old chicks, which in actual fact is not a day old chick by its literal meaning but chicks up to 72 hours of age (surviving on their internal yolk sack) ; and the allowance to beak trim chicks older than 10 days in an emergency with veterinary approval and supervision to help control outbreaks of cannibalism during the laying period. Rather than allow this procedure on hens, which will result in an increased level of pain and trauma on the hen in question, there should be greater emphasis on the employment of other means of reducing incidents of pecking and cannibalism. (j) Minimum Standard No. 17 Emergency Humane Destruction This Standard suffers from the same problem as Standards 12, 13, 14 and 15 in respect of the reference to someone being appropriately trained. The meaning of this phrase, appropriately trained, is open to interpretation and can therefore lead to someone being considered to be appropriately trained when in fact they are not. At a minimum, this Standard needs to state in what respect someone is appropriately trained to euthanise layer hens. For example, is someone deemed to be appropriately trained if they have successfully completed poultry training through Agriculture ITO? And to what level level 2, 3, 4 or 5? (ii) The other main issues with this Standard are: (A) the failure to mention the method of gassing in terms of the type of container used or the method to be used depending on the number of hens / chicks to be killed, such as frequent injection of CO 2 into the chamber to maintain appropriate levels where a large number of hens / chicks are to be killed 35. Such further detailing of procedures are imperative to ensure that hens / chicks are killed in the most humane way possible; (B) the prescribed mixture of gas being 70% CO 2 in air or 70% CO 2 and 30% nitrogen or inert gas, such as argon. It has been advised that carbon dioxide is acidic and thought to be highly aversive to birds at concentrations above 25% and that a preferred alternative is argon gas, which is non-aversive 36. Specifically in terms of chicks, it is advised that argon and nitrogen do not cause any respiratory discomfort and should therefore be the preferred gases to use 37. Further consideration needs to be had as to the most humane methods of killing poultry 35 University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (January 2005) Humane Euthanasia of Animals, pp Available at 36 Humane Slaughter Association (June 2006) Gas Killing of Chicks in Hatcheries. 37 Ibid. Page 8

11 2.3 Do you agree that enriched colony systems will provide hens with an adequate minimum standard of welfare. If not, what alternative do you suggest? Voiceless does not agree that enriched colony systems will provide hens with an adequate minimum standard of welfare for the reasons stated in section 2.2(b) above. The appropriate alternative is barn or free range housing systems. 2.4 Do you agree the example indicators given are appropriate to describe how to measure or assess the achievement of the intended outcome of the minimum standards? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest? Voiceless does not agree. However, if the minimum standards were in fact the minimum standards required to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of layers hens were met, then example indicators would be a useful means of describing how to measure or assess the intended outcomes. 2.5 Do you agree that the recommendations for the best practice in the proposed code are appropriate? If not, what alternatives do you suggest? Voiceless does not agree. They certainly have potential but overall, due to the general failure of the proposed code to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of layer hens are met, they are not appropriate in most respects. 2.6 What barriers do you see to the implementation of the proposed code and how might they be resolved? (b) The biggest barrier will be public resistance to the proposed code. The proposed code is heralded to be a document which meets the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 38. In reliance upon the submissions above, it clearly does not. Due to perceived economic impacts, the welfare of layer hens remains severely disregarded. The biggest issue with the proposed code is the continued allowance of cages, whether the conventional battery cage or the new colony cage. Globally, there is overwhelming disdain for caged housing systems. An April 2002 survey by Colmar Brunton found that 78 percent of the New Zealand public considered battery cages unacceptable and wanted them banned as soon as possible 39. A recent Australian survey reveals that 86% of Australians think keeping egg laying hens in cages for their entire lives is unacceptable 40. The only way this barrier can be resolved is by further amending the code so that it does in fact ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of layers hens are met, in the main by disallowing any type of caged housing system. 2.7 What benefits do you see from having the proposed code? Voiceless does not see any real benefit from having the proposed code. Overall, cruel practices for layer hens will continue to be enshrined and further welfare improvements for layer hens delayed. 38 Ibid 2, p NZ Herald News (20 May 2002) Higher Egg Prices Better Than Battery Cages SPCA Survey. Available at 40 Vegetarian/Vegan Society of Queensland (February 2010) A Pound of Flesh: A survey of 1202 Australians about whether they re vegetarian or vegan and what their attitudes to animals are. Page 9

12 2.8 What impacts will the proposed code have on your business or on your work? There will be no change in impact for Voiceless. Voiceless s fight to improve conditions for layer hens will continue. 2.9 What impacts do you think the proposed code will have on New Zealand society, the economy and the environment? Layer hens will continue to be treated inhumanely with total disregard for their sentience and welfare needs. New Zealand society will remain dissatisfied with the Government s failure to improve welfare conditions for layer hens. New Zealand will remain behind the EU in respect of welfare conditions for layer hens. The industry will continue to prosper from its cruel treatment of layer hens. The environment will continue to suffer due to impacts associated with intensive farming conditions. 3 Comments on the draft economic analysis 3.1 NAWAC has invited comments on MAF s draft economic analysis, being the report titled Review of the Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare: Draft Economic for Consultation by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity New Zealand, December 2010 (Biosecurity Report). In developing the proposed code, NAWAC has considered the economic impact of prohibiting the use of battery cages for egg production in New Zealand. As well as the Biosecurity Report, NAWAC has considered the following reports: (b) Economic Impact of a Proposed Revision to the Code of Welfare for Layer Hens, Final Report by Nimmo-Bell & Company Limited, March 2010 (Nimmo-Bell Report); and Egg Market Dynamics An Investigation into the Impact of Changed Production Requirements by Kieran Murray, Patrick Harnett, LECG, June 2010 (LECG Report). 3.2 Voiceless s comments in this section refer to all three reports, referred to on the whole as the draft economic analysis. 3.3 There are various flaws with the draft economic analysis. The first flaw is that the Biosecurity Report relies upon the Nimmo-Bell Report and the LECG Report. Both of these reports were commissioned and funded by the Egg Producers Federation. This is an industry group with economic interests its primary concern. Clearly these reports cannot be relied upon as an independent study into the economic impacts of the proposed code due to the industry s vested interests. 3.4 The second flaw is the failure to survey and conduct an economic analysis on the phasing out of systems where hens are not loose-housed 41. The failure to investigate this option is said to be based on NAWAC s belief that colonies allow hens behavioural needs to be met 42. As submitted above, it is clear that colony cages do not allow hens behavioural needs to be met and that therefore colony cages are clearly in breach of the Act. Loose housing ie barn or free-range systems are the only housing systems which allow for layer hens welfare needs to be met. 3.5 The third flaw is the emphasis placed on the high economic burden of converting battery cages to colony cages. The draft economic analysis places a lot of emphasis on 41 Ibid 2, p Ibid. Page 10

13 this burden, providing that the longer farms have to convert to colony cage systems, the smaller the price increase, the smaller the decrease in eggs produced and consumed, the lower the number of industry exits, and the larger the number of birds kept in colony cages net of the amount of exported welfare. There is a clear preference for an extended phase out period. 3.6 A big concern Voiceless has with this statement (and other similar statements throughout the draft economic analysis) is the failure to consider garnering government support for cost increases and the total disregard for filtering any cost increases through to consumers. Nearly eight out of ten New Zealanders are willing to pay more for their eggs, if battery cages for hens were banned 43. Indeed, if such economic impacts exist, wouldn t it be more prudent to require a complete ban on cages (a step that the public and animal protection groups will continue to lobby for) with increased costs met by government support and increased prices for consumers, especially where such costs are considered minimal 44? 3.7 There is also failure to consider recent moves by supermarkets, not only in New Zealand but in Australia and the EU, to cease selling battery or cage eggs: (b) In New Zealand, Victoria Park New World supermarket in Auckland began labelling its eggs about five years ago, dividing shelves into free range, barn and battery / caged eggs. Sales of free range eggs have increased and now occupy more shelves than battery or cage eggs. In Australia, both Coles and Woolworths, the two leading supermarket chains, have responded to customer demand by: modifying egg shelf layouts to reflect farming types caged, barn-laid and free range 45 ; (ii) reducing the number of caged eggs for sale under their own brands 46 (iii) reducing the price of Coles free range eggs 47. (c) (d) (e) (f) In the UK, Marks & Spencer sells only free-range eggs and uses only free range eggs in their entire range of baked goods, processed products and ready-made meals. Waitrose sells only non-cage eggs and uses only free range eggs in their processed products and ready-made meals. As of 1 January 2007, all supermarkets in Austria (with the exception of one) no longer sell battery eggs. Many retailers in the Netherlands only sell free range eggs. Three Belgian supermarkets no longer sell battery cages. (g) Four of Sweden s largest retailers no longer stock conventional battery eggs Ibid Based on a report by the European Commission, 12 free range eggs cost 0.32 more to produce than 12 battery eggs and 12 barn eggs cost 0.16 more to produce than 12 battery eggs. These figures include building and equipment costs with capital costs eased by a generous phase-out period of 12 years: ibid 8, pp Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Report 2010, p 64, available at 46 Woolworths discontinued selling caged Select brand eggs in 2009: Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Report 2010, p 64, available at Coles has committed to phasing out Coles branded cage eggs by 2013: Page 11

14 3.8 Finally, there is reliance upon section 73 of the Act in the Biosecurity Report allowing practices even though they don t meet the obligations of the Act. The reliance upon section 73 relates to the perceived economic impact of transitioning from battery cages to colony cages and that impact amounting to an exceptional circumstance under the Act. Voiceless objects to the perceived economic impacts as amounting to an exceptional circumstance for the reasons stated in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7 above. 4 Conclusion 4.1 Overall, Voiceless is very disheartened by the proposed code. Not only does it fail to properly take into consideration the welfare needs of layer hens, it seeks to rely upon biased advice given by industry and an economic analysis that fails to consider the economic impact of converting battery cages systems to barn or free range systems, clearly the most beneficial in terms of welfare needs of layer hens. The public demands better welfare conditions for layer hens and the proposed code fails to deliver. The only appropriate outcome in consideration of animal welfare (and public demand), being the key consideration that NAWAC alleges it has taken into account, is to ban any form of caged housing system by 1 January 2019, with cost increases being met not just by industry but by the government and consumers. 48 Ibid 8, pp Page 12