AECL has been subjected to significant media interest during the past week. AECL urges all egg producers to act in a team-spirited manner as we create some very important policies for the industry. As mentioned earlier, the draft ESA will be open for industry consultation next month.
An AECL statement provided to media about the issue is pasted below.
The Australian Egg Corporation Ltd represents all egg production systems and we are in discussions with egg producers about new egg standards for Australia.
This standard must consider consumer expectations, robust science and commercial reality as it relates to bird health and welfare, food safety and environmental stewardship.
Stocking densities of up to two birds per metre square provide hens with the ability to display all their natural behaviours. They can roam while having access to food, water and shelter in the henhouse. AECL is working to improve the current situation by establishing a cap on free range stocking densities. There is currently no cap on free range stocking densities. his is unacceptable. We believe these changes would be a substantial improvement on the current situation.
We seek this to be legislated and enforced by government.
The egg industry needs to feed a growing population with an affordable source of quality protein. This is our industry’s social responsibility. We believe this
definition will provide clarity, consistency and transparency.
For further information, please contact AECL Communications Manager, Kai Ianssen, on (02) 9409 6909 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
What a load of ....
Here's FRFA's response to James Kellaway, MD of the Egg Corp
'Our members look forward to the planned workshops on your Egg Standards Australia proposal, which we believe will mislead consumers and damage the environmental sustainability of farms. We note your comment:
'This standard must consider consumer expectations, robust science and commercial reality as it relates to bird health and welfare, food safety and environmental stewardship.'
Unfortunately your proposal does not meet consumer expectations or robust science. Despite an assurance by you that details would be provided, you have failed to provide evidence of the methodology of your 'Consumer Survey' and you have shown no evidence that egg production standards anywhere in the world are even close to your proposed high density 'free range' standard.
It is not credible for you to claim that this proposed standard will meet environmental stewardship requirements. The stocking density you propose would ensure that participating farms would be either mud baths or dust bowls - depending on the time of year.'