A bitter row is running in Australia over the Australian Egg Corporation’s plans for a huge increase in the permitted stocking density of free range egg units.
The Free Range Farmers Association says the Australian Egg Corporation (AECL) wants to increase the stocking density more than tenfold by introducing a new standard to define free range egg production.
The association is resisting the change. It wants the limits to remain unchanged and it has been seeking the support of consumers by running a publicity campaign and organising a petition to gather public opinion. More than 3,500 consumers have indicated their opposition to the proposed change through the association’s consumer survey. The results of the survey have been passed to Australia’s Agriculture Minister in an attempt to exert pressure on the AECL.
Here in the United Kingdom there was some initial resistance from welfare groups when the Lion code was amended last year to allow free range egg producers to increase stocking from 1,000 to 2,000 birds per hectare.
The RSPCA said it wanted to see evidence that bird welfare would not be affected before agreeing to the increase but subsequently gave its approval.
The changes here in the UK would be dwarfed by the reported changes planned by the AECL in Australia.
The Free Range Farmers Association says the Australian Egg Corporation wants to increase the stocking density from the current standard of 1,500 birds per hectare to a maximum of 20,000 birds per hectare. The association’s Phil Westwood told the ABC broadcasting network, "The Egg Corporation is wrong because the stocking density is far too high. A stocking density of 20,000 birds per hectare will lead to welfare problems."
The association has met with the Egg Corporation but the meeting failed to resolve the disagreement. Phil Westwood said the Egg Corporation had agreed to discuss possible changes with the group before any new standard was adopted by the industry, but the Egg Corporation’s offer failed to allay his fears.
"That still did not give us a great deal of confidence in the outcome because the AECL’s voting system is based on the number of birds owned by each member," he told ABC.
"The big operators always get through what they want, and the new proposed standards will enable major producers to mislead consumers by legally labelling their eggs as free range and charging a premium. That’s even though they do not bear the additional costs of genuine free range production methods."
The Australian Egg Corporation issued its own statement in an attempt to diffuse some of the concern raised by the association’s campaign. It said that the corporation was "looking to robust science, consumer expectations and commercial reality to identify definitions and minimum standards for all egg production systems."
The statement said that in seeking to draft new standards the corporation had looked at evidence from around the world. "AECL have considered ten known national and international standards of free range egg farming, conducted extensive, independent and robust consumer research into understanding and expectations of consumers, consulted rigorous and repeatable scientific research on hen husbandry and engaged in extensive industry consultation to ensure that these minimum standards are rigorous and practical.
"At this stage there has been no commitment to any changes. AECL have been running workshops in every state for all egg farmers to provide comment on possible definitions and minimum standards for all forms of egg production," said the statement.
"Australian egg farmers have been heavily criticised for the lack of universally recognised definitions for all methods of egg production. AECL is attempting to give consumers a ’line in the sand’ that acts as a minimum benchmark that egg farmers must meet in commercial production.
That said, this would be a minimum standard, with egg farmers wishing to farm above this benchmark having a valuable opportunity to market their product as superior to the minimum standard.
"AECL look forward to finalising the workshops and receiving the feedback from egg farmers so that the expectations of consumers, science and commercial reality can interact with recognised universal standards to continue providing a safe, nutritious and natural food source to Australian families."
Phil Westwood dismissed the corporation’s statement as "complete spin." He said, "They were obviously attempting to counter a growing groundswell of publicity against their proposed changes to the definitions of free range."
He said, "About the only accurate statement it contained was the need for commercial reality – something which we all accept but for major egg producers the bottom line is all that counts and to hell with consumers, farm sustainability or animal welfare."
He said that 10 known national and international standards may have been considered by the plan, but no standard seen by his association allowed anything approaching 20,000 hens per hectare to be called free range.
Phil Westwood said that seven free range egg farmers had met with James Kellaway, managing director of the Australian Egg Corporation and Mr Kellaway had been unable to demonstrate that any standards anywhere in the world allowed a stocking density of 20,000 or even 10,000 birds per hectare.
Phil Westwood said that the corporation’s "independent and robust consumer research into understanding and expectations of consumers" was in reality a matter of seeking opinions from people who did not normally buy free range eggs. The consumer survey conducted by the Free Range Farmers Association resulted in 3,537 voicing their opposition to the Australian Egg Corporation’s proposal.
The Free Range Farmers Association says that the survey was conducted both on-line and in face-to-face interviews with consumers at farmers’ markets during July and August this year. The survey asked consumers’ views on both stocking density and on the issue of beak trimming. Responses were sought to the statement:
’The Australian Egg Corporation has revealed plans to change free range standards to allow egg farms to beak trim their hens and to increase the maximum farm stocking density to 20,000 chickens per hectare. We believe that the maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 chickens per hectare and that beak trimming should be prohibited in free range flocks.’
The association says that all 3,537 signatories agreed that the AECL draft standard did not reflect their views of the term free range and believed that the proposal was unacceptable.
