Animal rights activist groups, primarily the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PETA have launched campaigns to eliminate the modern cage-egg production systems. They have brought pressure on the retail grocery, restaurant, and university dining as means to force a change in the market. They have introduced state legislation in many states, of which they have been unsuccessful up until their push for a ballot initiative in California in November 2008.
HSUS was successful in misleading voters in California with the Proposition 2 vague ballot language. The law, scheduled for implementation by January 1, 2015 will require that all hens have the ability to "fully extend their wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.” Based upon the wingspan of a chicken and their prohibition of touching one another, this language will virtually require that all egg-laying hens be returned to the production practices of the 1940s and possibly the only system allowed would be free-range. This law will be bad for the health and welfare of the birds as well as for consumers. It will be bad for the birds because it will return farming back to the time of diseases that have long been controlled or eliminated. It will be bad for consumers in that it will severely increase prices and pose the potential for food safety concerns. Based upon the USDA weekly retail shell egg feature report for 17,000 grocery stores across the country, we find that in 2008 the average price for cage produced eggs was $1.36 versus $2.79 for cage-free and $3.71 for organic.
A study conducted by the University of California Agriculture Issues Center concluded the following when Proposition 2 becomes law: "Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg production in California within the five-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a very few years.”
An economic study conducted by Promar International on the potential impact of Proposition 2 provided the following: “We estimate that egg production costs under the conditions dictated by the proposed legislation would be higher than in a modern cage system by 33 cents per dozen or 76% using a University of California costing method. Industry cost accounting systems show an even greater differential. Even without normal markups along the distribution chain such increases would result in a cost structure for California producers that would not be competitive with that of eggs imported from other states. The result will be that most of the California egg farms will go out of business."
Egg farmers and UEP’s Scientific Advisory Committee understand that hens in non-cage systems have higher mortality rates, lower rates of egg production, and require more feed to produce a dozen eggs (poor feed conversion). If the HSUS agenda and the requirements of Proposition 2 were spread across the nation, we have estimated that the U.S. egg industry would need 15 million more hens to produce the same number of eggs for the market. We have also estimated that 700,000 additional acres of corn and soybeans will be needed to provide the feed for these hens. Another way to understand the scope of the problem is to recognize that an additional 2.1 billion pounds of feed would be fed to the chickens to produce the same number of eggs. To convert commercial egg farming from the conventional science-based cage systems to a non-cage system, on a national basis, would require the estimated construction of 15,000 additional poultry houses. In total, it is estimated the costs to egg farmers to convert to a non-cage system would be approximately $8 billion, which ultimately must be passed on to consumers.
Bird health and welfare is not necessarily improved in non-cage systems. In fact UEP’s independent Scientific Advisory Committee identifies additional disadvantages of non-cage systems as:
• Increased risk of feather pecking and cannibalism
• Increased risk of death by smothering
• Increased risk of external and internal parasites
• Increased concentrations of ammonia
• Increased difficulty in inspecting individual birds
and catching.
These observations are confirmed in a Swedish study that found that free-range or non-cage barn systems had higher mortality, higher rates of bacterial infection, greater problems with birds pecking each other, and more mite infections.
UEP’s Scientific Advisory Committee has acknowledged that the “conventional” cage does not allow birds to perch, dust bathe, or have greater freedom of movement.
Legislators and the public really need to understand the ultimate mission of HSUS, PETA and other vegan organizations. This ultimate mission is the elimination of animal agriculture.
The real impact of a national type Proposition 2 could be a severe reduction in the number of hens resulting in a severe reduction in the number of eggs produced in this country. Likely, eggs would be produced at far less cost in other countries and imported thereby causing even greater concerns for food safety and food security.
This type of legislation would likely impair egg farmers ability to produce an abundance of affordable, safe food and potentially contribute to even greater hunger among our citizens and beyond. And this is just the US egg industry. What if the animal activists are successful in forcing “their agenda” on all of animal agriculture? The negative impact on the environment and the price of animal protein to the consumer would be impossible to predict.
We invite you to investigate where the millions of dollars contributed to HSUS and PETA are actually spent. We believe you will learn that they are not supporting animal shelters or helping pets. We believe you will find them promoting a vegan society.