The Egg Bill

Nearly two years ago, Canadian Poultry reported to you about the quest to enact historic national U.S. legislation relating to mandatory enriched cages for layer hens. That quest is over for now, but the move to larger, enriched cages and other welfare-related changes is inevitable in that country, according to some major industry players.

The so-called “Egg Bill” (The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012) would have required enriched colony housing systems to be phased in at every commercial egg production facility in the U.S., over the 15 to 18 years after it was passed. Phase-in schedules would have been more rapid in California, consistent with an initiative there already approved by that state’s voters (Proposition 2, see sidebar).

The bill had formed out of lobbying efforts that were put forward over the previous few years by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and was strongly supported by UEP (the United Egg Producers), a group which represents those who produce almost all U.S. eggs. It was also supported by hundreds of family farmers, other animal welfare groups such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (HSUS), major consumer groups like Consumer Federation of America and National Consumers League, and scientific groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of Avian Veterinarians. Dozens of media outlets – including heavy hitters the Chicago Tribune, New York Times and USA Today — were also in support.

Before we get into what happened and why, let’s review the bill. The cage systems proposed within it would have seen each egg‐laying hen have nearly double the amount of space (the majority of U.S. hens are currently mandated to have at least 67 square inches of space, but up to 50 million of them have just 48 square inches). The proposed legislation set a minimum of 124 square inches of space for white hens and 144 for brown. The bill also called for eventual environmental enrichments to be provided for all birds, including perches, nesting boxes and scratching areas that allow hens to express natural behaviors.

And that wasn’t all. There were requirements in the bill for labeling to inform consumers about production method. Feed-withdrawal or water‐withdrawal molting to extend the laying cycle would have been prohibited (a practice already prohibited under the UEP’s ‘Certified’ program). In addition, the bill included 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 nationwide that don’t meet these requirements.

The HSUS had already been successful in 2008 in having phased-in roomier layer housing mandated in California. In 2010, a follow-up law was passed that applied the same provisions to out-of-state farmers who sell their eggs in California. (In 2013, Missouri’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit to fight that law.) HSUS was also making progress in other states with respect to getting more humane and natural hen and swine housing in place.

 UEP threw its support behind a national legislative effort for several reasons. As UEP President Chad Gregory told Canadian Poultry in 2012, “We at the UEP felt it was time to do the right thing — that enriched cages are a more humane way to produce eggs, and that fighting this state-by-state or nationally was not the course of action that was best for our industry.” For a commodity that’s often shipped from state to state, uniform federal legislation would prevent egg producers from having to deal with contradictory and competing state legislation that was sure to spring up instead. Gregory explained at the time that “a growing patchwork of inconsistent state laws will restrict interstate movement of eggs, distort competition and put many farmers out of business. This is a very serious situation.”

Some farm groups fought the bill, concerned it would set a precedent for how all farm animals are managed. There were also concerns among egg farmers about the costs of transitioning to enriched cages. Gregory cited studies showing that enriched colony cages can be better for production than conventional cages. He countered worries over the cost of eggs going up with citing studies indicating enriched cages only add a modest operating cost increase over the current system, and since the changes would be phased in over the next 15 to 18 years — many during the normal course of replacing aged equipment.

By last year, the Egg Bill was known as The Egg Products Inspection Act of 2013. However, over the course of legislative negotiations as the Farm Bill (which it was part of) progressed, it was excluded. HSUS President Wayne Pacelle stated in a blog post in early 2014 that the Act was killed “because of the dysfunction of Congress, the blocking maneuvers of a small number of lawmakers, and bullying and lobbying by other sectors of animal agriculture.”

At this time, Gregory explains that UEP and HSUS have agreed not to extend any formal connection that existed during the bill’s consideration. “UEP remains committed to facilitating discussions that are needed to provide stability in the egg industry and to secure uniformity in egg production standards,” said Gregory. He said the organization now is focused on preparing its members, their customers and US consumers for potential changes in the egg market when new laws governing egg production, enacted after the passage of Proposition 2, taking effect in California in January 2015.

 He adds, “Our members provided tremendous leadership in working to pass the Egg Bill and establish uniform national standards for hen housing. Enriched housing for egg-laying hens represents an important step forward for the egg farming community, and we applaud the voluntary efforts of many of our farmer-members to incorporate this housing into their farm operations.” Gregory said UEP is dedicated to partnering with its members, allied industry and other stakeholders to identify workable, long-term solutions that maintain the viability of the egg industry.

Cage-free developments from around the globe
In 2009, Michigan passed a law which, among other things, phases out battery cages for laying hens and gestation crates for breeding sows by 2019. In 2010, Ohio (the second-largest egg-producing state in the U.S.) declared a moratorium on permits for new battery cage facilities.

In February 2014, the government of Australia passed a law to ban battery cages in egg production and gestational crates for sows and beak trimming of chickens. This follows the action of the government of Tasmania late in 2013 to phase out gestational stalls and new battery cage facilities. Battery cages are being phased out in New Zealand, and have already been banned in Switzerland, Austria and Sweden.

In 2010, global food manufacturing giant Unilever stated it would switch all of the 350 million eggs it uses for Hellmann’s mayonnaise to those produced in cage-free facilities. The HSUS says other companies converting to cage-free eggs include Marriott International, Burger King, Compass Group, Aramark, and Sodexo.

Egg Farmers of Canada responds
We asked the Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC) for its thoughts on the UEP’s efforts over the last few years to move its producers towards larger, enriched cages. Specifically, we asked if EFC applauds this direction, whether it see UEP’s plans as a reasonable goal, and what it sees as the major challenges to having all egg production in enriched, larger cages or cage-free enriched facilities.

Alison Evans, EFC manager of corporate and public affairs, says “We continue to support ongoing research and assessment of all types of housing and the industry responds to changing consumer demand. Currently, EFC invests in the work of several Canadian researchers.”

She adds that “Furnished housing is increasingly being considered in many jurisdictions as an alternative to conventional cages. This is due, in large part, to the fact that the amenities typically included—perch, enclosed nesting areas, dustbath or scratchpad—provide opportunities for birds to express a greater variety of behaviour patterns. Whether it is at the farm (micro level) or macro (provincial or industry-wide level), any transition must be well-planned and orderly, taking into account all levels of the supply chain and customers, operations, costs and other implications.”

When asked if EFC has a goal for phasing out cages for layers in Canada, Evans says “There are many important reasons to house birds in cages—ranging from disease management to food safety to mitigation of aggressive behaviours…The EFC Code of Practice recommends reduced density as farmers purchase new cage housing and all egg producers must meet the density targets to pass the EFC ‘Animal Care Program,’ which is based on the Code of Practice.” She adds that some provinces are implementing policies that help farmers make decisions about retooling or installing new housing systems.

When asked the estimated percentage of cage-free operations in Canada, Evans says cages are currently the most widely-used housing system, though other systems are being adopted, including free-run indoor systems and free-range systems with access to the outdoors, weather permitting. “There are plusses and minuses to all housing types,” she notes, “and trade-offs must be carefully analyzed and assessed.”

Almost all the housing for layers that Big Dutchman has been selling since 2010 in all of U.S. and Canada are cage-free and enriched/enrichable systems, says cage-free systems manager Bill Snow. “There have been a couple conventional cage systems sold, but only a few,” he notes. “Mostly cage-free is what we are seeing in California. “The return-on- investment is usually seven years, but I am sure this varies.”