Bill proposed in U.S. for enriched cages across the nation

It’s a situation that surprised many in 2011 and 2012 inside and outside of the United States, but much progress has been made over the last two years in the quest to enact historic national legislation for enriched cages for layer hens – and that progress is steadily continuing.

The move, which grew from lobbying efforts over the last few years by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is supported by UEP (the United Egg Producers), a group that represents those that produce almost 95 per cent of U.S. eggs. “This amendment is supported by hundreds of family farmers, most of the national animal welfare groups such as HSUS and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, major consumer groups like Consumer Federation of America and National Consumers League, and scientific groups like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of Avian Veterinarians – as well as dozens of media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune, New York Times and USA Today,” says UEP president Chad Gregory. “We think it’s best for our industry on all fronts.”

“The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012” if passed, would require enriched colony housing systems to be phased into every commercial egg production facility in the country over the next 15 to 18 years.

Currently, a majority of U.S. hens are each provided 67 square inches of space, with up to 50 million receiving just 48 square inches. The proposed phase‐in would culminate with a minimum of 124 square inches of space for white hens and 144 for brown hens countrywide. Gregory adds, “The amendment also requires that after a phase‐in period, all egg‐laying hens be provided with environmental enrichments such as perches, nesting boxes and scratching areas that allow hens to express natural behaviours.”

The proposed legislation goes further – there are requirements for labelling on all egg cartons in the country to inform consumers about production method: “eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” “eggs from cage‐free hens” and “eggs from free‐range hens.” Feed-withdrawal or water-withdrawal molting to extend the laying cycle is also prohibited if the bill passes (a practice already prohibited under the UEP’s “Certified” program). In addition, the bill includes standards for euthanasia of egg‐laying hens that have been approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, limits on ammonia levels in henhouses, and the prohibition of the transport and sale of eggs and egg products countrywide that don’t meet these requirements.

Rationale for UEP’s decision

By 2010, the HSUS had helped ensure the passing of Proposition 2 in California, which mandates that layers be housed in such a way that allows them freedom of movement, in an enriched cage or aviary, but the specifications were not exactly defined.

Still, at the time – and in some minds today – it was rather shocking when in July 2011, the UEP and HSUS announced that they had agreed to work together to push for federal legislation. (The HSUS agreed to immediately suspend state-level ballot initiative efforts in Oregon and Washington.) “Protecting the stability of our industry is part of this,” says Gregory.

Industry at risk

The conundrum was a matter of supporting uniform federal legislation for a commodity that is often shipped from state to state, versus producers having to deal with dozens of contradictory, unworkable and competing state laws relating to egg production standards that were sure to spring up instead, and in light of this, the UEP stance seems very logical. “Five states already have such laws,” Gregory notes. “Federal legislation is the only way to ensure a uniform baseline for laying hen standards within the U.S. egg industry, and it’s the only way to pre-empt the state laws that call for conflicting standards. We need certainty about what standards are going to be required in the coming years so we can make the necessary investments.  

Some farm groups, however, are still fighting the amendment, concerned that it sets a precedent for federal legislation concerning how farm animals are managed – stepping onto a slippery slope, if you will. There are also those who do not see the new cage requirements as science-based, while others argue that to codify cage standards today is to ignore innovations that could appear in the future. The UEP counters this by pointing out that leading scientists familiar with egg production see it as a transitional move. “Our scientific advisory committee, the American Veterinary Medical Association and other prestigious institutions have reviewed enriched cages and have noted that they combine the advantages of both conventional cages and cage-free systems,” says Gregory. “And a great deal of research shows that increasing the amount of space per hen and providing the hens with environmental enrichments improves their welfare, which is advantageous for hens and producers alike.”

There are also concerns capital costs of transitioning to enriched cages could be prohibitive for small producers. UEP has an answer for that too. “Studies show that enriched colony cages can be better for production than conventional cages, as  the hens have lower mortality and higher productivity,” Gregory explains. “These improvements are confirmed in a January 2012 Feedstuffs report on an American egg producer using enriched colony cages: mortality was 4.22 per cent compared to 7.61 per cent in conventional cages, eggs laid per hen were 421 versus 399, and average case weight was 49.4 versus 47.93 pounds.”

Lastly, there are worries over the cost of eggs going up – and consumers therefore eating less of them. “We have an Agralytica study that predicts that enacting this legislation would add less than two cents to the cost of a dozen eggs spread out over an 18‐year period,” states Gregory.”

“It seems a big and scary move for some, and it’s hard for some in our industry to see the big picture,” says Gregory. “But we think this is the right thing for our nation’s laying hens and our farmers. The alternative to having a national standard for all U.S. egg producers is a future that’s not good for anyone.”

For more, visit www.eggbill.com.