What are “Cage Free” eggs?

When California Prop2 went into effect in January it raised the question of just what are “cage free” eggs?  The only consensus is that eggs produced by free-run and free-range birds, qualify and that standard laying cages do not.  After that it starts to get murky.  Are convertible standard cages considered “cage free”? What about colony cages and do furnished colony cages make a difference in definition?  What about pasture pens or aviaries, or again does it depend on the design? It is much like the term “Factory Farm”; it depends on who is doing the defining. And it very much matters whether the term is being used for labelling purposes or production standards or marketing campaigns.  

Canadian regulators do not define the term directly. They refer to organic standards.  Nor do producer groups or retailers. The same applies to the few US state regulators where so-called ”cage bans” have been implemented. In California for example, the term is being used somewhat inappropriately. Under the new law, and contrary to public perception, cages are not banned. Instead, egg producers simply have to provide larger space in order to meet the state agriculture regulations in order to meet the very vague requirements under the HSUS inspired Proposition 2 ballot measure.  Or at least until HSUS and company take their next step.

The state has not weighed-in on types of housing and neither has the Prop2 measure. In a February decision, a court of appeals judge upheld the measure arguing that the requirements “can be readily discerned using objective criteria” and that “a person of reasonable intelligence can determine the dimensions of an appropriate confinement that will comply with Proposition 2.”

The USDA, through its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) verifies “cage free” claims when used on USDA inspected eggs. This claim indicates the eggs came from hens who were “never confined to a cage and have had unlimited access to food, water, and the freedom to roam” whether they are indoors or outdoors.  But a “cage” is not defined.

HSUS and their Canadian branch HSIC has been a driving force in the “cage free” movement. But they are being cagey (pun intended) by not pinning themselves to a definition either.

They refer to “battery cages” in their literature but knowing the public doesn’t discern, they leave the impression that no cages are now used.  According to their website, HSUS states: “As the term implies, hens laying eggs labeled as “cage-free” are uncaged inside barns. Unlike battery hens, cage-free hens are able to walk, spread their wings and lay their eggs in nests, vital natural behaviors denied to hens confined in cages.”   And HSUS knows what it is doing. In January HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle toured California to publicize Prop2 and promote “cage-free” adding further public confusion.  

When HSUS formed a short-lived agreement with United Egg Producers on national standards in 2012, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle explained that HSUS believes in “practical, incremental reform” in animal welfare, and while a conversion to cage-free production would have been “ideal,” his organization “changed its position from “cage-free only” to colonies because the agreement exceeds all other housing regulations in the U.S. and abroad.” An even clearer statement was made two years earlier in a July 16, 2010 Position Statement Against Modified Cages for Laying Hens. A consortium of animal protection groups including HSUS, WSPA, and the Animal Welfare Institute stated: “The major animal protection organizations in the United States and European Union listed below that focus on the treatment of farm animals are opposed to modified cages, sometimes referred to as furnished, or so-called enriched cage, confinement of laying hens.”

And confusion continued when in February 2014 HSUS announced their new website, CageFreeCalifornia.com. “While Prop 2 does not specifically mention cages, it has the economic effect of facilitating the transition of the egg industry to cage free systems, the announcement read.  “Some California producers are converting to colony cage systems, but The HSUS has never believed those systems are compliant with the standards set forth in Proposition 2,” the announcement added.

HSUS’s Canadian branch is a little more forthcoming. HSIC has partnered with the Vancouver Humane Society with their decade-old Chicken Out! Campaign designed in their words “to educate Canadian consumers about more humane alternatives to eggs produced by battery cage hens.” The campaign states that “… if you do choose to consume eggs, consider cage-free eggs. When you hear the term “cage-free” in Canada, it refers to one of three different types of production methods: free-run, free-range and organic. An enriched cage, while it does provide more space, is still a cage, and is not considered cage-free.” Aviary housing is not mentioned.

World Animal Protection (formerly WSPA) defines “cage-free” eggs as “those produced in housing systems which permit hens the opportunity to engage in natural behavior… they include free run (or cage-free), free range, and organic. On their Choose Cage-Free page, begun in Canada in 2012, WAP says: “Furnished cages are larger than battery cages… but the cages are still crowded and hens’ movement is still restricted… Some producers have already adopted furnished cages. Eggs from these systems may be labelled as comfort coop or nest-laid.”  A fundraiser states, “while all these hens are guaranteed more space, some businesses have opted to simply use larger cages. Not cool, I know. But you can help. When you’re out shopping, make sure you’re still looking for cage-free eggs…”

The David Suzuki Foundation defines “cage-free” as “hens are not confined to battery cages, but that’s about it.” Adding: “You might see this claim on all three types of non-battery cage production eggs — free-run, free-range and organic.”

Egg Farmers of Canada, while not using the term “cage free”, very clearly explains conventional, colony and floor housing. The same will apply to the updated Recommended Code of Practice.

It gets even murkier when we get to “cage-free” certification standards.

There are many different third-party animal welfare certification organizations in Canada. And unlike industry and federal standards, each has their own specific criteria that must be met in order to be certified.

BCSPCA Certified and the Winnipeg Humane Society equivalent simply state that “caging of birds is prohibited.” No mention of colony cages or aviaries.

American Humane Certified is a program of American Humane Association and differentiates their certification for enriched colony cages and cage-free. For colony cages, each bird must be provided with at least 116 sq. inches and have access to perches and nest boxes.  Cage-free birds “must have 1.25 square feet (180 square inches) of floor space”, as well as access to perches and nesting boxes.

Certified Humane, a program of U.S.-based Humane Farm Animal Care, also operates in Canada. The standards clearly state that “battery, furnished or enriched cages as well as lock back aviaries are prohibited.

Animal Welfare Approved is a program of the U.S.-based Animal Welfare Institute and likely has the highest standards. However, they only certify flocks of fewer than 500 birds and no type of cage or pen, indoors or outdoors, are permitted. Aviaries do not comply.

With no clear and consistent definition of “cage-free” there is wiggle room for challenges that lie ahead.