Does the egg industry need a Quality Assurance scheme?

The Australian Egg Corporation really is a law unto itself. A letter arrived today advising that a consultant had been appointed 'to help provide AECL with clarity on whether a national industry based Quality Assurance scheme is required by egg producers.'
What the .... !!!!!!!

AECL has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of members funds in developing its ill-fated Egg Standards Australia debacle which was rejected by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Wouldn't it have been sensible to find out if the scheme was wanted or needed before spending all that dough?

In the letter, AECL asks three questions:
1.should the egg industry have a QA scheme?
2. if so, should AECL offer such a scheme?
3. if the answer is yes, then 'how' should the scheme be offered, taking account of structure and resources?

Well in response to those questions:

1. No. What's important is to have a national standard reflecting provisions in the Model Code. The industry needs clear definitions covering production types (cage, barn and free range) and those definitions must be enshrined in legislation to prevent the sort of nonsense which the corporate egg industry has been getting away with for years. The only other real requirement is meeting food safety regulations which are in place in all States.

2. No. AECL has demonstrated its incompetence with its 20,000 hens per hectare stocking density proposal for free range farms. Farms can readily develop their own QA schemes having regard to an enforceable Model Code (or its successor) and State Food Safety Regulations. As a lobby group, there is no place for AECL to have any involvement in the implementation or oversight of any such scheme. There are already Food Safety Regulations in place with compliance administered by State Governments and local councils - there is no need for this process to be duplicated.

Will AECL take any notice? I doubt it.

Australian Egg Corp - 'A Mob of Crooks'

Yesterday the Labor South Australian Government defeated the Liberals Food (Labelling of Free Range Eggs) (No 2) Amendment Bill in the Lower House by just four votes. This was a Truth in Labelling bill which had passed the Upper House with the support of the Greens and Liberals and would have given teeth to the egg labelling issue in that state.
Michael Pengilly, the Liberal Member for Finniss moved the Bill. Here are some of his comments which might give the Australian Egg Corporation and corporate egg producers pause for thought - especially as there is an election looming in SA and the Libs may win Government.
“Quite simply, if the government through the Deputy Premier thinks that standing up and puffing and blowing about some so-called voluntary code is going to fix the issues with free-range egg production, he is having a lend of himself completely. It will not fix it because the Australian Egg Corporation, as far as I am concerned, is nothing much short of a mob of crooks. I have said that before and I will say it again. The whole system is geared towards the huge caged egg producers, and they have never been the issue with genuine free-range egg producers.
The minister in another place really does not understand the issue. Ministers come and go, as do members of parliament; however, I am concerned that free-range egg producers will get ridden over roughshod and that voluntary codes of practice will not work, purely on the weight of numbers. The structure of the Australian Egg Corporation's voting is that the more chooks you have the more votes you get. It is like something out of Communist Russia, quite frankly. It is blatantly ridiculous.
Free-range egg producers are relatively small in number, as opposed to the cage producers—who produce a quality item as well. As I said, that is not the issue, and calling them 'barn eggs' where they can get out of a shed every now and then is one thing but genuine, free-range egg producers or those who choose to limit to 1,500 birds per hectare, should be treated properly. They should be treated properly and not subjected to intimidation, bullying and outright bloody lying from the Australian Egg Corporation. It is foolish and not helpful.” 
This Bill may well be reintroduced if the Liberals gain government there.

Egg Corp spin - both fact and fiction

There are some interesting discussion points arising from comments by James Kellaway, Managing Director of the Australian Egg Corporation. Have a look at the attached link and see what you think. It is a blend of facts interwoven with assertions which the Egg Corp board likes to perpetuate.

It would be great to have a public debate with him.

I have no argument with James' comment about the supermarket duopoly in Australia. Clearly, the 'free range' standard planned by Coles is just as absurd as the Egg Corp's Egg Standards Australia proposal.

I also accept his comments about farm management practices having more impact on animal welfare than the production system. I have said many times that I have seen some very poorly managed 'free range' farms and some well run cage farms.

But the rest of his comments just repeat industry spin which has been rejected by many in the industry as well as by consumers. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E32Oe9nMtTQ

New Coles 'free range' standard about to be launched

Supermarket giant Coles, is about to launch its new 'free range' egg standard which allows its 'free range' egg suppliers to run their hens at a stocking density of 10,000 hens per hectare, when the current maximum under the Model Code is accepted as 1500 per hectare.

Coles has been conducting on-farm inspections to see if its supplier farms meet their new standards (hard to imagine that anyone will fail!)

The new standard is expected to be launched later this month following the withdrawl of the Australian Egg Corporation's ill-fated Egg Standards Australia propposal which sought to introduce a 20,000 stocking density. It will be interesting to see how the new Coles standard is accepted by consumers (and the ACCC) and any response from the other supermarket giant Woolworths.

The Land - Egg Corp stuffed!!

Here's an article in The Land newspaper by journalist Andrew Marshall

EGG industry plans to kick-start the year with a new national quality assurance trademark for free-range eggs have been taken back to the drawing board.
Peak industry body, the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL), has bowed to increasing consumer scepticism about its quality assurance guidelines which would have approved free-range farms running as many as 20,000 hens a hectare. Critics of the high stocking rate believe AECL was jolted into withdrawing its trademark plan after a big pre-Christmas fine was imposed on a NSW duck producer convicted of falsely advertising its shedded poultry as free-range. The maximum stocking density advocated by well-established free-range egg producers is about 1500 birds/ha - a standard that has also been reinforced by law in Queensland - while some industry purists insist on stocking densities below 700/ha. AECL's application for a certification trademark had intended to provide consumers with a national benchmark that recognised a recently enhanced Quality Assurance (QA) program across the industry. The QA program for cage, barn-laid and free-range eggs was developed during three years of consultation with scientists, egg producers, regulators and the broader community. Its aim has been to set minimum egg production standards for hen welfare, food safety, farm biosecurity, environmental stewardship and egg labelling. "However, in response to concerns from some members of the community regarding three of the 171 minimum standards in the proposed QA program AECL has decided to withdraw the application," the corporation explained in a statement released just prior to Christmas. It said some structural elements of the program and "other observations" had helped mould its decision to halt the trademark program, which had been proposed for a late 2012 launch. In November the egg corporation copped a stern warning from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which questioned whether the trademark was misleading. ACCC received more than 1700 submissions about free-range eggs - most of them challenging the perceived high stocking capacity proposed for farms which qualified for free-range certification. It said the accreditation did not appear to fit consumer expectations of free-range farming and the consumer watchdog was unlikely to approve the trademark. Many free range producers also hope the ACCC will go further and start legal proceedings against some free-range producers who are believed to be running significantly more than 20,000 hens/ha, or are substituting cage or barn-laid eggs to meet the fast rising demand for free-range lines. Vocal Victorian campaigner against AECL's plans to make 20,000/ha a maximum standard for the industry, Phil Westwood, said the ACCC had already indicated its intentions pursuing a NSW duck producer in the Federal Court over misleading "open range" claims. On December 19 Windsor-based Pepe's Ducks was ordered to pay a $375,000 fine for advertising and packaging claims about its ducks being raised on the "open range" and "grown nature's way". Pepe's ducks had been grown in barns and were not allowed outdoors. The ACCC said the fine was a win for enforcing honesty in poultry industry advertising where consumers wanted labels to be "true and accurate". Eggs labelled free-range have been fast gaining market share, now representing 30 per cent of Australia's 13 million daily egg sales. But Mr Westwood believed about a third of those eggs may be sourced from intensive free-range farms carrying up to 40,000 chooks/ha or more, or farms keeping hens in barns most of the time. He said submissions to the ACCC showed most consumers believed free-range farms should running less than 1500 hens in grassy grazing conditions, not bare paddocks or big sheds with limited outdoor access. "I know a lot of big egg producers want to be able to produce massive volumes of eggs just as they do with cage facilities, but I don't think there's any room for the AECL to make compromises here," Mr Westwood said. "In fact, 1500 hens/ha is already a significant compromise." He said many mid-sized cage egg producers also strongly opposed AECL's big free-range capacity plans because it would encourage a flood of cheap free-range eggs on the market, forcing cage egg prices down to compete for market share. Margins were already slim for many egg farmers supplying the major brand names and generic supermarket labels, and getting tighter as electricity and feed grain costs rose. AECL said at this point it still intended to submit a new trade mark application after reviewing issues raised and making any necessary amendments to the minimum standards. It noted there was no opposition to the standards for cage or barn-laid egg production in the new QA program.

'Free Range' farm agrees to cut hen numbers

The saga of the Swan Valley free range egg farm in WA appears to be over, with the owner accepting that he will have to reduce his hen numbers to meet permit conditions.
This farm was accredited to the Egg Corp Assured program - until the breaches of permit conditions became public ! It demonstrates that the Australian Egg Corporation does not enforce the requirements of its own accreditation program.
http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/SWAN-Valley-Egg-Farm/7638460/

ACCC rejects Egg Corp's high density proposal.

The ACCC's initial findings on the Australian Egg Corporation plans to increase free range stocking rates to 20,000 birds per hectare have rejected the trade mark application.

The ACCC is concerned that the AECL Standards are inconsistent with consumer expectations and understanding of free range egg production. The ACCC is concerned that the use of the trade mark in the circumstances of such inconsistency has the potential to mislead or deceive consumers.

The ACCC does not believe that the Egg Corp Standard would meet consumer expections for free range.

Of 1700 submission, only 7 supported the AECL proposal (and most of those were probably AECL Board members and staff)

A great win for the free range sector of the industry and a kick in the teeth for the Egg Corporation.
More details here:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1087836/fromItemId/142

ACCC takes court action against SA egg supplier

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Ms Rosemary Bruhn, who trades as Rosie's Free Range Eggs.

The ACCC alleges that from March 2007 to October 2010, Ms Bruhn represented that eggs she supplied to business customers including 117 customers in South Australia such as retail outlets, bakeries, cafes and restaurants, were free range eggs when a substantial proportion of the eggs were not free range but cage eggs.

The ACCC says that such conduct contravened section 55 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (now known as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010).

The ACCC is seeking:

• a declaration that Ms Bruhn contravened the Trade Practices Act
• an injunction in relation to engaging in similar conduct in the future
• an order for a corrective notice
• an order for Ms Bruhn to write to affected customers advising them of the outcome of the proceedings
• an order for Ms Bruhn to attend compliance training
• penalties, and
• costs.

More:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/accc-begins-federal-court-proceedings-against-rosies-free-range-eggs/story-e6frg6nf-1226294112944

Plans to dump the poultry welfare code

Here is a post from the website of the Free Range Farmers Association which is worth repeating:

Changes designed to water down the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry are now being planned by the Australian Egg Corporation. It has arranged a forum to discuss the issues in Sydney on April 4 and it is vital for real Free Range farmers across Australia to have their say.
James Kellaway, AECL Managing Director, always claims that the organisation represents every industry sector when AECL actions make it clear that the Egg Corp only cares about the big operators and takes no notice of the free range sector (unless it's the intensive 'free range' version).
Help us to make your voice heard by telling us what you think about watering down the Model Code which establishes clear guidelines for the free range industry. The fundamentals of the Model Code are stocking density and beak trimming. The current Code is crystal clear on beak trimming - it must only be a last resort when other methods of controlling feather picking and cannibalism have been tried and failed. But the Egg Corporation accredits farms to it Egg Corp Assured programme when they have beak trimmed or de-beaked their birds at day old or soon after - completely contravening the Code which the Egg Corp still claims is a mandatory requirement of its accreditation scheme.
The issue of stocking density was clear to all in the industry until a couple of years ago. It stipulates a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare. But then some of the 'smart' operators felt they could exploit what they saw as a loophole and use a clause in the appendix to the Code which allows higher stocking densities for meat birds.
They claim (now supported by AECL) that this permits an unlimited number of birds and some farms are running up to 50,000 hens per hectare - all with the blessing of AECL. The Egg Corporations says it plans to close this 'loophole' by introducing its new standard (which it wants to call Egg Standards Australia) which will impose a ceiling of 20,000 hens per hectare, remove all restrictions on beak trimming and allow birds to be locked up in sheds for 25 weeks.
If you want your voice to be heard at the Egg Corp forum on the Model Code, please contact FRFA with your thoughts. 

You can contact FRFA at farmers@dcsi.net.au
This fight has been ongoing for about two years and there are no signs yet that the Egg Corporation will take any notice of egg farmers - so we hope to show politicians the duplistic nature of the AECL's plans.

Australian Egg Corporation hits the panic button - 5 million dozen eggs in storage

This is from the latest newsletter of the Australian Egg Corporation and it demonstrates what a spin they are in.
Egg Corp layer and egg supply forecastThe forecast report for January has been distributed by AECL to all egg producer subscribers to the service. It paints a daunting picture of record and increasing egg supplies to the market given the chicks that have already been placed and those now on order. Production is now projected to reach 34 million dozen in July this year. It says that action is needed by all egg producers to control the oversupply or surplus. The best indicator is your coolroom and the increasing stocks in inventory. The inventory report suggests that inventory levels are now at record volumes, in excess of 5 million dozen.
Given the significant and now record levels of egg production and egg inventory, AECL has requested a meeting of the top 25 egg producers to seek a ‘path forward’ for the egg industry in a co-ordinated and consolidated fashion to ensure its profitable sustainability, a key part of the egg industry’s vision. All other egg producers are welcome to join the meeting that will take place in Sydney during early February.
The huge volumes of surplus eggs demonstrate why there is such pressure to allow intensively produced eggs to be labelled as 'free range'. There is now a real dilemma amongst the big producers as they all thought the new slack standards would be through now to get them out of trouble.

Australian Egg Corp caught with its pants down

Here's a great response to the Australian Egg Corporation's attempt to con politicians and consumers about its 'view' of the industry and its plans.
http://humanechoice.com.au/Resources/Documents/AECL%20High%20Politics%20and%20Low%20Blows%20-%20Propegganda.pdf

Consumer deception on a grand scale

Here's an excellent article by Steve Pennells, published in today's West Australian:
Reality lost down on the farm
The most expensive eggs in the supermarket last week came courtesy of Giuseppe, a third-generation egg farmer who lives with his wife, Victoria, and daughter, Annie, on their family farm built from scratch more than 70 years ago on their own "little piece of Australia".


It’s heart-warming stuff, told by Giuseppe on the egg carton in intricate detail, illustrated with family photos and his gratitude for "supporting our family". Sadly he says, Giuseppe Sr, who started the farm in 1948 is no longer with us. But Nonna still lives in the family home. There’s a black and white picture of her there too, laughing next to Giuseppe Sr in happier times.


Except it’s not Nonna and Poppa. The people in the picture never farmed eggs and never set foot in Australia. They’re also not Italian migrants.


The image is a US Library of Congress picture of two Polish immigrant tobacco farmers in Connecticut who were battling poverty in post-Depression America when the photo was taken in 1940.


Almost nothing else on this $7 carton of eggs is real, either.


Despite the family photos and heart-warming history Giuseppe and his family don’t exist.


Even the four happy chooks pictured clucking in the meadow next to the family photos are on foreign grass. That image is a widely used stock US photo which can also be found as the cover of the book Animal Philosophy a weighty tome on animal ethics with a chapter by Nietzsche.


"It’s not misleading," says Brian Ahmed, the managing director of LT’s Egg Farms, which distributes the Down on The Farm gourmet free-range eggs.


"How does it mislead? It’s the story of a family and that farmer is very common with almost every egg farmer in Australia." When contacted about the eggs this week, Mr Ahmed, who also happens to be president of the Victorian Farmers Federation, said Giuseppe’s story was not a lie.


SP: But they (the family) don’t exist.


BA: But the story of egg farmers if you go to every egg farmer in Australia you’ll find that is a similar story where they’ve all been passed on through generations of families that have grown up on egg farms.


SP: So you don’t think people would believe that’s where the eggs are coming from? BA: Well, that’s exactly what’s happening, mate.


SP: Really? So Giuseppe’s grandparents set up an egg farm in 1948? BA: Well, the date might be different but every farm has been set up in the 40s and 50s and it’s passed on in generations and now you find the children are running those farms.


He settles on the term "symbolic" to describe the company’s creative use of fictitious characters, emotive words and archive photos from the US Library of Congress to create the impression that a close-knit Italian migrant family in Australia was responsible for producing a pack of eggs sitting on the shelves of WA supermarkets.


"I can’t say if that’s (the photo) the actual people because what happens is we have a farmer in Western Australia suppling those eggs and we have a Victorian farmer in Victoria doing the same     thing," Mr Ahmed says.


Well, it’s definitely not anyone from WA or Victoria or any other egg farmer in Australia.


That picture of a Mr and Mrs Andrew Lyman, who set up a tobacco farm in America, was taken in September 1940 by Jack Delano, a photographer for the US Farm Security Administration, an organisation set up in the Depression to combat American rural poverty They farmed some vegetables too, but definitely no eggs.


The images and Giuseppe’s whole fabricated story feed into long-outdated myths surrounding the food that gets on our plate.


Photos of happy chickens frolicking across a meadow like Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music are products of a time long since gone and belie the grim reality of an industry of mass production.


One of the most interesting things about the whole Australian-Indonesian cattle fiasco is that while we’ve rightly felt outrage at the images of what happened to our cattle overseas, no one has felt the need to look at the Australian food industry with a critical eye or any sort of introspection.


Phrases like "free range" conjure images that don’t match the reality of intensive farming.


Free-range eggs are produced on an industrial scale and some come from flocks of up to 120,000 birds housed in huge sheds that may never find the door to go outside.


Their eggs come off conveyor belts. There is also no national standard defining what constitutes a free-range egg so those labels and their inflated prices should be treated with scepticism. Still, we’re willing to pay more for them because it eases our guilt.


The very reason Giuseppe was concocted is because we still like to subscribe to the romantic notion that the food we eat got to our plate in the best, most ethical and humane ways.


There’s a reason that Australian abattoirs and producers have always been reluctant to have photographs taken in their slaughter operations. They might be operating to best practice but even at best practice, the bloody reality of a slaughter floor is not a pretty place.


The West Australian’s resident food guru, Rob Broacifield, bemoans the consumer naivety: "We have become infantilised toward food production by our increasing distance from it it’s the reason pork consumption plummeted when the movie Babe was released and while many adults express squeamishness in child-like terms when faced with eating, say a f1uffy cute rabbit".


The pressure to work fast - time is money - means that the animals suffer. No one who eats meat can escape responsibility for that, unless perhaps you rear your own animals and slaughter them on the farm." The message is simple: if you eat the meat, take off the blinkers and take ownership of the reality It’s enough to make Giuseppe Sr roll over in his imaginary grave.


Postscript: Brian Ahmed confirmed late yesterday that Giuseppe and his imaginary family would be erased from the future egg cartons, saying the company had no intention to mislead.

Complain to everyone you can think of !!!!

Cage farmer slams AECL 'free range' proposal

Opposition to the Egg Corporation's insane 'free range' plan comes from some strange places. NSW egg producer, Bede Burke (who is President of the Egg Group of NSW Farmers Federation) has now voiced his concerns.


Until recently his comments suggested that he fully supported the plan to allow a massive increase in stocking densities for 'free range' flocks. But at last he has recognised that the change is likely to have drastic implications for the whole industry.

In an article in The Land he said free-range hens were increasingly housed in congested sheds with minimal room to range outside.

Pressure for the industry to produce more free-range eggs, and the high costs associated with running free-range operations, had encouraged some intensive and "Mickey Mouse" operations.

He feared all farmers and retailers were at risk of being tarnished by a sales boom backlash if common sense did not prevail among opportunistic producers, and supermarket executives who were championing free-range ahead of caged eggs without acknowledging the production facts.

Bede, has 110,000 layers on his cage farm near Tamworth.

He said the free-range egg sales rise was a great result for his industry, but consumers should not be pressured into thinking it was the only way to ethically produce eggs.

"My hens don't die in heatwaves or cannibalise each other, or sit on eggs for days. We don't have flies, dust or parasites in our sheds; we don't need to secondary beak trim, and we have no problems getting labour to work here.

"Australia is lucky to have affluent consumers who can choose to pay extra if they don't want eggs from caged hens, but that doesn't mean alternative production methods aren't just as ethical or carbon emission friendly - or more so."

It's great to get some recognition from a major player in the industry that the Australian Egg Corporation draft 'free range' standard could damage the whole industry if it is implemented.

Egg Corp stumbles on

A report by Les White in today's Weekly Times says:
THE Australian Egg Corporation has reneged on an agreement to release consumer research paid for with farmer levies, free range egg producers claim.



The research forms the basis of the AEC’s controversial new proposed standards, which allow "beak trimming" and stocking densities of 20,000 hens a hectare.


The Free Range Farmers Association plans to ask newly-elected Greens MP Adam Bandt to present a petition bearing 3500 signatures to parliament in an attempt to keep standards the same. The Greens have pledged to create a legal definition of "free range", which the major parties have failed to do.


It has already written to new Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig asking him to redirect levies from freerange eggs to free-range associations rather than to the AEC.


The AEC said in June: "Cage production systems offer greater safety to hens from disease, parasites, cannibalism and predator attack than free-range did".


AEC spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said the corporation would not comply with the FRFA’s request until it received "the final report on the research’’.


Asked why it had released proposed standards without having received the final report, she said: "We don’t want to sit on our hands".


Ms Baptista said some free-range producers were "very supportive" of the changes in the proposed new standards, but could not name them as opinions had been collected anonymously.


"The data I have is that the free-range producers who have been very vocal represent about 0.075 per cent of the (egg) industry," Ms Baptista said.

The Egg Corp figures are very rubbery because many egg producers cannot be bothered to join the AECL or send them any data - however, there is no doubt that genuine free range producers are a tiny minority. Which demonstrates that even with AECL's current standards, most consumers are not getting what they think they are paying for. The only way buyers in Victoria can be sure that the eggs they buy really are free range is to look for the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association.
We have sent the results of our consumer suvey to the Egg Corporation and to the New Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig and advised him that the Egg Corportation plans would mislead consumers.

Fraud at the supermarkets

The Sunday papers are carrying a story about the mislabelling of food (including eggs) in supermarkets. The article says: 'AUSTRALIANS are being duped at the supermarket, with one in 10 products the subject of "food fraud".

In some cases, eggs from caged hens are being sold as free range and fresh fruit and vegetables sprayed with pesticides are selling as organic, according to researchers at the University of Western Australia’s forensic research centre.
Professors John Watling, Cameron Scadding and Garry Lee are leading a project to expose producers who fraudulently label their products, as the cost of food fraud tops an estimated $7 billion a year nationally.'
Of course the Australian Egg Corporation will vigorously deny there is any substitution going on. It always defends the big operators.
But it's clear that unless the Federal Government steps in with some real 'truth in labelling' legislation the problem will continue and will even get worse if the Egg Corportion gets away with its proposal to introduce new misleading standards for 'free range' production.

Egg wars - the Egg Corporation's 'free range' plans

There is an excellent article on Google News about the Australian Egg Corporation's planned changes to 'free range' standards. Here's the link
Egg Wars - The Australian Egg Corporation changes "Free Range" Rules

Hopefully, once we have a new federal government in place we may actually get someone in Canberra to listen!!!

Getting hens out of cages is a good idea, but producers need to be honest about they are doing and the way they describe their production systems.

The Dalai Lama has now clmed intothe debate with a letter to the Humane Society nternational and the Humane Society of the United States.

The Dalai Lama Condemns Cage Confinement of Egg-Laying Hens

WASHINGTON (Aug. 31, 2010) – His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama has issued a statement in the wake of the largest egg recall in United States history. In a letter, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate decries the egg industry’s cruel treatment of hens and urges egg buyers to switch to cage-free eggs:

“The abuse we inflict on hens has always been particularly disturbing to me and I have always been particularly concerned toward how these animals are treated in industrial food production. I am troubled to learn about the practice of confining egg laying hens in tiny cages. In these cages, birds cannot engage in their natural behaviours, such as spreading their wings, laying eggs in a nesting area, perching, scratching at the ground, even standing on a solid surface. Each hen has less space to live than the very sheet of paper I have written this letter on. Turning these defenseless animals into egg-producing machines with no consideration for their welfare whatsoever is a degradation of our own humanity. Switching to cage free eggs would reduce the suffering of these animals.”

The Dalai Lama’s statement comes as a major U.S. movement against cruel and inhumane cages on factory egg farms is taking root. Prominent U.S. corporations from Burger King to Safeway are switching to cage-free eggs. Michigan and California have passed laws to phase out the use of cages to confine hens. California has also passed a law requiring that all whole eggs sold statewide be cage-free by 2015. In Ohio, agriculture leaders agreed to a moratorium on the construction of new cage egg facilities.

Nutritional differences between cage and free range eggs

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=98183091&blogId=316013614

I still get heaps of enquiries about nutritional diferences between real free range eggs and those laid by caged hens. Unfortunately there has been very little research here in Australia, but the Australian Egg Corporation is always quick to claim that the food values are identical between cage and free range.

They ignore evidence such as that produced by Mother Earth News in the US (see a link above).

The AECL may well be right about the eggs labelled as 'free range' which it endorses because they are mostly the same breeds of birds as found on cage farms, they eat the same feed, they are de-beaked so they can't forage properly and they are kept in intensive conditions.

But if the hens are truly free range and are allowed to roam over pasture where they can eat things like worms, spiders and grasshoppers, as well as leafy greenstuff such as grass and purslane, the eggs have been shown to have a higher nutritional value.

Great Farmers' Market weekend

We had a good day at the Inverloch Farmers' Market on Sunday and it capped-off a great weekend  following our first venture into the Wheeler's Hill Farmers' Market on Saturday at Jells Park.

We sold out of eggs at both markets and we also did well with our garlic and chillies. So well in fact that we now have no more garlic until the new crop is available in November/December.

I took along the 150 gram egg featured in our local newspaper, the South Gippsland Sentinel Times (left) and I was very pleased that the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association appeared in the published photo.

With all the nonsense about the egg industry dumping standards, the only way way for anyone in Victoria to be sure that they are buying free range eggs from a real free range farm is to look for that logo.
If the farm selling their version of 'free range' eggs isn't a member of the Free Range Farmers Association, be suspicious. The reason they are not a member is not usually that they don't to be - it's because we won't have them as a member.

There will be heaps more national and state publicity about the Australian Egg Corporation's dumb move to trash their already inadequate standards for so-called free range eggs.

We have been told that we should keep quiet about the proposed changes to the definitions because it will damage the industry - but it is these proposals which will damage the industry. We are aware that the big boys will almost certainly win because Federal and State Governments will dance to their tune, but we believe that we should fight for honesty and integrity. Money talks and the big egg producers will 'laugh all the way to the bank' if this definition is adopted..

Free Range Con

The Australian Egg Corporation revealed plans on Wednesday night to relax rules for free range egg production and con consumers into paying for eggs labelled as 'free range' even though they are clearly laid in a factory farming environment. Needlesstosay, this has generated extreme anger amongst genuine free range egg producers.

Under the proposal outlined in Melbourne, hens will be allowed to be de-beaked as a matter of course, they can be locked up in sheds for 25 weeks and the stocking density can increase from 1500 to an incredible 20,000 birds per hectare!

The Victorian-based Free Range Farmers Association had two members at the meeting but Anne, president of FRFA, was locked out of the meeting (probably inadvertently - the lifts were shut down at 6.30 when the meeting was due to start and the stairwell doors were locked). The proposed amendments designed for major industry players reinforce the need for a national definition for 'free range' eggs that doesn't mislead consumers into thinking they are buying welfare-friendly eggs.

The AECL, which is about to publicly launch its Egg Corp Assured scheme, set up a working group some time ago to develop words which will allow major farms to continue to produce eggs which can be labelled as 'free range'.

This stupid proposal demonstrates contempt for consumers as the AECL and the big producers clearly believed they would fall for it!

The current definition of 'free range' used by AECL and the big boys in the industry is contained in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4th Edition. It officially limits the number of birds to 1500 per hectare and requires farmers to manage the outdoor range to avoid muddy or unsuitable conditions – but there is little enforcement of those conditions and some so-called 'free range' farms have more than twice the number of allowed birds.

Apart from the numbers of hens, a fundamental difference between industry practice and FRFA requirements is the issue of de-beaking. The Free Range Farmers Association prohibits de-beaking (or beak trimming) which is standard practice on most big farms. The Model Code states that 'Every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting chickens for reduced feather pecking and cannibalism'

The AECL's Egg Corp Assured program says it requires accredited farms to  meet the standards of the Model Code, but it does not require those farms to demonstrate any attempt to address the potential problem of feather pecking or cannibalism before resorting to de-beaking the birds.

As well as permitting 20,000 hens per hectare, which will be a totally unsustainable farming practice, the proposed change will allow hens to be permanently locked in sheds until they are 25 weeks old. (They currently must be allowed to range outside once fully feathered at around 6 weeks).

On a real free range farm with a low stocking density, cannibalism is not a problem, because the hens have enough room to escape from any aggressors.

Consumer views appear to have been ignored by the AECL. It seems to us that to protect consumers, there is now a real need for a dual definition. Leave the term 'free range' for traditional low density egg farming such as practised by members of the Free Range Farmers Association and introduce a term like 'Intensive Free Range' 'Factory Free Range' or 'Cage Free' for the major players who don't meet the same standards. Currently the only way consumers in Victoria can be sure they are buying real free range eggs is to only buy from a FRFA accredited farm.

The Egg Corp Assured program currently has 19 accredited farms in Victoria. There is a total of 140 throughout Australia out of an estimated 500 – 600 commercial egg farms and many thousands of backyard operators who sell their eggs illegally.