Earlier this spring, Tufts Dining Services announced its decision to serve cage-free liquid eggs.
Patti Klos, Director of Dining and Business Services, said that the switch was made because the senior leadership in the department is committed to socially and environmentally responsible decisions.
An Apr. 14 Daily article ("Run free, little chickens,") documented these changes, but the Daily has since learned that this particular socially and environmentally responsible leadership decision is more complicated than it seems.
"The term 'cage-free' is a little bit of a scam. The [chickens] are not in cages, but they're crowded in barns," said Dr. George Saperstein, Professor of Environmental and Population Heath at Tufts' Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.
Saperstein is also involved with the Veterinary School's own free-range egg project (see box, page 9).
The Veterinary School has been producing free-range eggs for a little over a year with the support of a USDA grant, but Saperstein said that most farmers cannot afford to raise truly free-range chickens because the process is very expensive, cutting into profits, and leads to higher risk for diseases such as avian influenza.
"[Free-range chickens] suffer higher morbidity and mortality than birds kept in cages," he said.
Klos did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that chickens raised for meat have access to the outdoors in order to receive cage-free certification, there is no legal definition for cage-free chicken eggs.
"To our knowledge, a science-based international or nationally recognized standard defining animal husbandry practices for cage-free layer flocks does not exist," said Roger Glasshoff, the National Supervisor of Shell Eggs. "Therefore, USDA does not certify egg production facilities as conforming to a standard for cage-free layers."
Consequently, egg farmers may sell their eggs as free-range if their cages are slightly oversized or if there is a window in the shed.
If farmers want to have a USDA "cage-free" label on their eggs, they can contact the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to request certification and pay a fee.
The only catch is that there is no set protocol for the AMS graders who monitor chicken conditions.
"The voluntary program provides for the sanitary processing, grading, sizing, and proper labeling of shell eggs in accordance with the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs," Glasshoff said.
He said that a resident USDA grader working at a plant which receives and packages eggs with a USDA "cage-free" shield is responsible for monitoring the source and segregation of the product.
Though the USDA does not provide a legal definition of "cage-free," the agency does maintain an accreditation program for awarding farms a "certified organic" label.
This program is run under the authority of the National Organic Program. Any eggs labeled "organic" must be cage-free.
"The NOP states that a layer flock must have access to the outside at all times. Consequently, a production flock certified as 'organic' is recognized as a cage-free flock," Glasshoff said.
Saperstein said that if the USDA did create a legal definition for 'cage-free,' he would be concerned that it would be a disincentive.
Saperstein said it is also important to consider whether such regulations would be feasible in New England with its frigid winter temperatures.
"My personal view is that our agricultural system is based on market forces, and we have to use those to guide production," he said. "Our goal is to preserve open space by providing financial means for farmers to be more diversified and more profitable."
Saperstein said animal rights activists petitioning for the elimination of battery cages must also consider the evolution of the poultry industry from an international view. He said that people in the United States are used to a very high standard of living and very inexpensive food relative to their income, and there are financial considerations for not shifting entirely to cage-free eggs.
"By using good record systems and having a free market system, we have developed a highly entrepreneurial efficiency of agricultural production," Saperstein said. "The situation is often over-simplified and played on public sentiment of the animal welfare. But it's a very complicated situation, and the welfare of people in poverty is also involved, not just the welfare of the chickens."
Saperstein said that to change the system for a perceived benefit in animal welfare would have a negative impact on people in poverty because they would need to switch to a cheaper protein source.
The wholesale cost of eggs in the U.S. is 69 cents per dozen, Saperstein said, making the profitability of one egg a fraction of a penny. This price has remained relatively stable despite inflation and changes in the market.
The industry switched to using cages to subvert the dominant fowl pecking order. Free-range chickens are more prone to cannibalism and are at a greater risk for disease and predators.
"We have a very cheap, high-quality protein source," Saperstein said. "There are people who still can't afford even these cheap eggs."
He also said that articles aiming to make farmers change by portraying them as cruel has the reverse effect. "I've worked with farmers my whole career and, by and large, they like working with animals, and they're proud to feed the country and the world," he said.
Saperstein thinks that the best way to get farmers to change is by taking a positive rather than a negative approach. "If consumers demand a new product, farmers will aim to please them," he
said.
He said that when evaluating different methods of raising chickens for eggs, it is important to consider not only the welfare of the chickens but also the farmers and people across the globe.
"As a chicken, I'd prefer to be in the back yard. As a person or a farmer, I'd prefer the chickens in the back yard. As a business man, I'd raise them in the battery cages," Dr. Saperstein said. "There's no perfect system. It's not as simple as good and bad. It's just different."
"My message is that there's nothing wrong with cage-free; there's nothing wrong with our system," he said. "They are just examples of different products on the market, and hopefully they can all be kept available."
