Many in the UK will have seen the recent uproar about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ “RSPCA Assured” food assurance scheme, which is supposed to raise the welfare of farm animals. For those unaware, in summary Chris Packham, a well-known BBC presenter and animal rights advocate and Caroline Lucas, a former Green party leader, have resigned from the RSPCA over accusations (with video evidence) of various acts of cruelty being carried out at RSPCA-approved abattoirs.
As uncharitable as the cruelty is, you might mistakenly think that if the RSPCA Assured guidelines were followed you could tuck into your <insert animal food of choice here> guilt free. That it would mean that the animal concerned would have led a good, if not somewhat shortened life.

According to their website RSPCA Assured farms “follow strict welfare standards” that “offer a higher standard of care to their animals than is legally required”. That certainly sounds like something a consumer could hang their hat on in persuading themselves that all is tickety-boo, but unfortunately it turns out the legal requirements aren’t very hard to better.
With around 75 billion slaughtered annually, chicken is now the world’s go-to mammalian meat, so we took a quick look at the RSPCA Assured standards for broiler (meat) chickens to get an idea what kind of 5 star experience these winners of the poultry lottery can expect to receive.
Firstly, under the title, “Space to move freely” the guidelines allow for only 15 birds per square metre, so as to allow birds to “spread their wings and walk around freely.” Fifteen chickens in one square metre? It doesn’t feel like there would be space to do much, let alone freely.
Under “Encouraging natural behaviours” the guidelines state that “chickens are intelligent and naturally inquisitive birds”. Intelligent seems to be pushing it a bit – compared to what – but if intelligence is a prerequisite to avoiding cruelty then half the human population should probably be concerned. It goes on to state that “the instinct to forage, scratch and peck is very strong for chickens”. To address these urges, which according to the RSPCA are necessary for any quality of life, the guidelines require 1.5 straw bales, 2m of perch space, and one destructible pecking object, e.g. peck-a-blocks, brassicas (e.g. cabbage, cauliflower) per 1,000 birds.

Image courtesy of Open Cages.
Now, just considering that apparently critical perch space. If the chickens are awake for 18 hours per day, and somewhat unrealistically assuming that they organise themselves into an ordered queue, perhaps with a numbering system, if 10 birds can get on the perch, each chicken would get 10 minutes per day. It doesn’t sound like a great deal of time for something that from the RSPCA’s own admission is critical for well-being (they’ve even included an article on it on their website). I’m assuming there’s an almighty ruckus to get to that one hanging cauliflower. Must make the 1970s football terraces look like a silent yoga retreat.
So the issue with the RSPCA Assured Scheme is not just that there might be some occasional cruelty at slaughter, it’s that the standards promoted, even if they are followed, are woefully inadequate. The scheme follows a familiar format, where the headline is designed to reassure consumers, but scratch the surface and the standards are such that you wouldn’t even wish them on that neighbour’s cat that you hate.
We’ve picked out a couple of ‘fun facts’ here so as not to get too heavy, but of course RSPCA Assured also condones many of the other decidedly uncharitable practices of industrial farming, such as beak trimming. “If we wedge thousands of them all into tiny indoor spaces we can improve efficiency and therefore lower price”. “Oh crap, they haven’t evolved to live that way so they’re all pecking each other to death, we better let them all out again”. “Wait, can’t we just cut their beaks off?”

Image courtesy of https://freefromharm.org.
I’m assuming the first conversation went something like that. And if you’re asking do they suffer in having their beaks cut off, you’re thinking small. I don’t care if it’s painless or not; is this what we want farming to look like? Is this who we want to be? Mutilating animals so we can eat more of a product than is necessary or even healthy for us at low prices? Where’s the integrity in that?
The Ethos Code is of the firm belief that food assurance schemes are all about enabling consumer purchase and very little to do with actual animal welfare. There’s also a strong argument that they do more harm than good by helping to perpetuate the deeply misguided perception that any type of animal welfare can be provided in an industrial food setting.
There are better reared chickens out there, though that comes with the caveat that with the quantity being consumed today to provide anything anywhere near a natural life, half the planet would probably have to be given over to chickens. So ideally eat a lot less. And don’t forget, your local kebab shop and an awful lot of restaurants won’t be so picky in their supply chain. It's time for change, and that will only happen bottom up, from the consumer. You have choices, don’t check your morals at the dinner table or let industry fob you off with BS. Choose wisely.
Would love to hear some comments below!
Comments