In November, 2008, California voters supported Proposition 2 requiring that egg-laying hens in the state must be given enough room, effective
2015, to lie down, stand up, fully extend their legs and wings, and be able to turn around without bumping into other hens or the enclosure.
However, Proposition 2 did not explicitly require California egg producers to eliminate cages.
In June, claiming compliance with the requirements of Proposition 2, egg producer, J.S. West & Co., opened the first “enriched”
cage system for laying hens in the US, in Livingston, CA. But since the 116 square inches per hen in the J.S West “enriched” cage
system do not allow a hen to fully extend both wings without bumping into other hens or the cage, the company’s claim to be compliant
with the California law is false.
However, since Proposition 2 didn’t explicitly ban battery cages, it is conceivable that egg producers could introduce a cage that would
meet the space requirements of Proposition 2 – difficult and unlikely, but not impossible. Meanwhile, the European Union’s 2012 ban
on conventional, barren cages DOES allow the use of “enriched” cages, despite a decade of vigorous campaigning by Compassion in
World Farming to prevent “enriched” cages from being adopted as an “alternative” to the conventional, barren cage. The
US egg industry, with the support of so-called animal welfarists like Temple Grandin and the American Humane Assn., is touting the
“enriched” cage as “a humane system of housing hens and producing eggs for the marketplace”
(Feedstuffs, 06/28/2010).
Responding to the egg industry’s move to substitute “enriched” cage systems for the barren cage system, in California and
other states following suit, United Poultry Concerns, joined by 8 other farmed animal sanctuaries, has formulated the following Position
Statement opposing “enriched” cages for laying hens. We are submitting this statement to the agribusiness community.
Farmed Animal Sanctuaries Oppose “Enriched” Cages for Laying Hens
No Caged Housing System for Chickens is Acceptable
“Enriched” cages are being promoted (and in some places are already being used) by egg producers as a “humane”
alternative to conventional, barren wire cages for egg-laying hens in North America and Europe. An “enriched” cage has a tiny perch
and nest box, and maybe a little box of sand or wood shavings for the hens to scratch and dustbathe in, within the confines of their cage. The
hens have “extra” space, about the size of a postcard, in a metal-plastic environment containing a clutter of tiny dollhouse items.
The “enriched” cages are stacked 6 to 12 tiers high in industrial egg-production operations. Depending on size and design, each
cage holds from 10 to 60 hens, and photos of some cage models show an increased use of siding enclosing the hens with their
“furniture.”
As directors of animal sanctuaries that rehabilitate and work directly with chickens, including brown and white egg-laying hens, we oppose
“enriched” cages and dispute industry claims that these cluttered little prisons meet their needs. Chickens, including egg-laying
hens, are semi-migratory birds with innate needs and interests. They have beaks and claws for foraging, legs and wings for walking, running,
and perching, and studies show (and we know) that chickens are disinclined to perch on a little stick two to three inches from the ground or
floor as in these “enriched” cages.
Chickens maintain hygiene by dustbathing and preening. Industrial chicken houses are densely polluted with toxic gases and airborne debris
– floating feathers, dander, and pathogens. Thousands of little “sandboxes” will increase the airborne debris in the caged
environment. An increase in airborne dust and dirt, as when a hen is flinging sand with her beak and claws during her dustbath, then vigorously
shaking out the particles from her feathers and skin following the bath, will increase respiratory and eye irritation.
And while laying hens need nest boxes, “enriched” cages will make meaningful inspections of the hens – already next to
impossible – even harder. As one animal welfare director asks: “Will the nesting box be carefully inspected, daily? Will checks be
made to see if a hen in there is in fact laying an egg, resting, escaping, or merely dying from cage layer fatigue? (Clare Druce, Farm Animal Voice Summer No. 162, Compassion in World Farming, 2006). Based on investigations and other documentation of what actually
goes on in caged-hen operations, the answer is No.
The groups represented in this document have joined the animal protection community in the United States and Europe to oppose
“enriched” cages for egg-laying hens. (The group known as “American Humane,” which supports “enriched”
cages, is a bogus animal welfare group that fronts for agribusiness.) Realizing that no commercial confinement system can ever meet the complex
behavioral and cognitive needs and interests of chickens, and even assuming that “enriched” cages inflict less total misery on hens
than barren cages do, we condemn the “enriched” cage as a particularly cruel and egregiously inhumane and falsely represented
housing system for laying hens. Nobody who knows chickens and cares about them can support their being confined in a cage in a building filled
with cages. The cage system for egg-laying hens is inherently cruel and inhumane and needs to be eliminated completely.
For more information, including a photo of a typical “enriched” metal cage, see the HSUS Report: Welfare Issues with Furnished
Cages for Egg-Laying Hens at http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/welfare_issues_furnished_cages.pdf.
Organizations Endorsing This Position Statement:
