Why free range eggs aren't as ethical as you think

Let me begin by saying that free range eggs are much, much better than battery eggs.

This is something we all know - and most people who care about ethics opt for the free range option every time.  Battery hens are crammed into a miserable existence, unable to raise even a single wing; in contrast, free range hens are allowed at least some movement and outside access.

But is the free range option actually more damaging to chickens, the environment and the animal rights movement in general?

Or would it be better to avoid eggs altogether?

Here are a few facts

1. Free range hens are usually kept in cramped, indoor conditions.  The only legal requirement is that they have some access to the outdoors.  However, this often means a few holes cut in the walls, through which only a handful of chickens will ever go.  This 'outside' area is often a tiny patch of bare earth. 

2. Free range hens undergo painful and inhumane procedures - including being 'debeaked', which involves having the ends of their beaks cut off without anaesthetic.

3. For every free range hen born, a male chick is born.  As male chicks are unable to lay eggs they are usually killed soon after birth by a range of methods including gassing, strangulation, crushing or live shredding.  Those that are not killed are raised for meat, with none of the benefits that free range hens enjoy.

4. Free range hens are killed as soon as their egg-laying starts to wane - usually after about twelve months (their natural lifespan could be six-seven years).  This involves a long trip to a slaughterhouse without food or water, where they are killed using the same methods as non-free range hens.


5. While free range hens undoubtedly live in better conditions than battery hens, the existence of free range hens gives a 'conscience soother' to those people who would otherwise avoid eggs.  Therefore, like many other ethical 'tickets', such as carbon offsetting, it is diverting attention away from the real problem which is: the egg industry is cruel, no matter how it is carried out. 

6. All eggs, free range or otherwise, are packed full of cholesterol. 

7. Free range eggs still damage the environment - in fact more so, as more land and energy are required.  The meat industry is extremely damaging to the environment - more so than the world's entire transport system including aviation. 

8. Free range labels provide a smoke screen for farmers who actually engage in cruel activities.  An image is projected of happy, natural hens roaming the land, and ethically concerned consumers are deceived into believing they are making the humane choice.  If these labels did not exist, these same ethically concerned consumers would probably avoid buying eggs altogether. 

Obviously, if you are going to buy eggs at all, free range eggs are the preferable option.  But if the demand for eggs remains so high, then supply has to match it - and the only way to ensure adequate supply is by cramming as many hens as possible into as small a space as possible. 

Demand has to drop in order for supplies to drop - which is the only way to ensure hens are not subjected to horrific cruelty.

So next time you're shopping, why not consider avoiding eggs, free-range or otherwise?

Potential badger cull: what's your view?

I was reading today about the badger cull that may be taking place in Wales imminently.  The Badger Trust has launched an appeal against this, and the Welsh Assembly will consider it next week.

Initially, I thought the whole idea of the cull was horrific.  And, if the level of protest is anything to go by, a lot of people feel the same.

Most farmers, however, believe that the cull is necessary.

This is because of ramptant TB (tuberculosis) among cattle, a chief cause of which is badgers (or so it is claimed).  In order to manage this crisis, farmers say there needs to be a drastic and immediate cull of badgers.

So what's your view? As far as I can see, the argument can be divided as follows:

Reasons for the cull:

• cattle have as much right to live as badgers
• once the epidemic has been brought uner control, the badger population can be allowed to flourish again
• the death of cattle has a knock on effect - it can infect the entire herd, which can be financially devastating to farmers
• those badgers that remain after the cull would be healthier, and the level of TB among both badgers and cattle would be reduced

Reasons against the cull:

• It may ruin the reputation of north Pembrokeshire (where the cull is due to take place) for being a haven for wildlife
• There may be other options such as vaccinating badgers
• The depth of feeling may divide the community and create an ongoing conflict
• Some (including the RSPCA) claim that the threat from badgers is minimal, and they are being used as a scapegoat

So what's your view? Are you for or against it?

I think the problem with this is that badgers have a sort of 'cuddly' image, which make it hard to be objective.  But at the same time, a decision to start deliberately culling a species should never be taken lightly.

Me - I'm uncertain about this.  I would have to do a lot more research before I could make a decision.  But I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks.