Launched by the RSPCA in 1994, Freedom Foods is the UK equivalent of the BC SPCA’s “SPCA Certified” label, which aims “to provide farm animals with the opportunity to express behaviours that promote physical and psychological well-being.”
Freedom Foods is considered one of the most respected labels when it comes to eating “humane” animal products. Like similar labels, however, it has shown to be less trustworthy than people like to think; most recently, for example, this February, at a farm for “high-welfare free-range” poultry:
Filming, done through a gap in a wall, showed farm staff swinging ducks by their necks and throwing them at other birds as they are herded into crates to be transported for slaughter. Images later captured from inside the building showed sick, injured and dead birds. (Farm workers filmed abusing free-range ducks)
This isn’t the first time that a supposedly humane, free-range farm has been proven to be surprisingly similar to conventional factory farms. It isn’t even the first time for Freedom Foods label. Back in 2007, undercover investigators in Great Britain discovered something disturbing at “Freedom Foods”-endorsed farms which boasted “the very highest standards of welfare”: dead and decaying ducks, diseased and injured turkeys, filthy drinking water, pigs lying in wet, soiled conditions with no access to dry, clean straw, and more. (Film shows neglect of pigs, turkeys, and ducks sold under ethical label)
It happened again in 2008, at a free-range egg farm, where thousands of hens lived crammed into the darkness of an enormous shed. The birds were so cramped that they could barely move; many were undernourished and losing feathers, both signs of stress and overcrowding. Dead and dying chickens were found as well, decomposing and covered with dust. Though the birds were supposed to be outside every day by 9 AM, an employee at the farm admitted that he didn’t let them out enough because eggs laid outside got dirty and workers were too “lazy” to clean them. (‘Freedom Food’ sham exposed)
As I said before, these are not isolated incidents. Learn more about organic, free-range, and other “humane” animal products at our page: What do all the labels mean? or check out our other blog entries on the subject here.
(You can also read a complete account of the situation at United Poultry Concerns’ page.)
After months of citizen complaints, Black Eagle Farm, a respected organic and free-range farm in Virginia, was inspected. From the farm’s website:
“Our organic pullets and layers are kept under stringent USDA organic standards and according to our own organic, and animal and environmentally friendly criteria.”
At Black Eagle Farm, inspectors found a dead goat tied to a fence, 6 dogs locked in a filthy trailer without water, and 25,000 egg-laying chickens who had been without food for two weeks in an attempt to force-molt the birds.
What is force-molting? In nature, hens generally experience a natural molt near the beginning of winter. They stop laying eggs and their energies are spent growing new feathers and staying warm. Force-molting is the egg industry’s way of exploiting this process. A common and legal practice, it’s a cost-efficient way to squeeze the last few pennies out of layer hens that, at a fifth of their natural lifespan, are physically exhausted and no longer laying eggs at a profitable rate. Before they go to slaughter, these “spent hens” are denied food for anywhere from 5 days to up to 2 weeks. They are then eased back onto food, and their egg production rises briefly. An account of force-molting from Cal-Maine Egg Producers:
“Our chicken houses hold 126,000 give or take a few hundred. Our molts usually last about 12 days and during the molt we lose right around 50 birds a day. The last couple of days of the molt before we feed them we lose 100 to 150. The day we feed them we lose about 200-250 hens within a few hours after we feed them. The hens tend to gorge themselves and choke on the feed as they try to eat too much too soon, or at least that’s what we believe.”
After a short while, the surviving birds are then slaughtered.
When the starving hens at Black Eagle Farm were discovered, Quality Assurance Internatioal revoked the farm’s organic certification. Black Eagle Farm immediately applied at another organic certifier, A Bee Organic, under the name “Piney River Farms”.
State veterinarian Rachel Touroo, who inspected the farm initially, identified 4 violations of animal care laws and recommended that the hens be fed and that veterinary care be provided to all the animals on the farm. Two days later, a state supervisor visited the farm. The hens had begun to be fed and were about to be sold and sent to slaughter, so no legal action was taken. From the article:
Under state animal care laws, in general, “when we say a crime has not occurred that does not mean we feel the situation is ideal. It might be barely skating by,” said Daniel Kovich, a staff veterinarian at the Virginia Department of Agriculture who oversaw the investigation. “They can’t starve them to death, that’s the threshold.”
That’s encouraging: the situation wasn’t “ideal”, but the chickens hadn’t starved to death, so no crime was committed. The birds went to slaughter, and Dr. Ralph Glatt, owner of Black Eagle Farm, received the profits. No further legal action has been taken.
Learn more about organic and free-range animal agriculture at our page, “Humane” Farming.
This is what respect and honour really look like(photo by Farm Sanctuary)
Apparently we can get around feeling any remorse for killing and eating a baby animal by appealing to “honour” and “respect.” I just read through a post on the Foodists blog about the happy times of dismembering a baby sheep.
Here’s an exemplary paragraph of wishy-washiness:
We all felt honoured to be a part of an event this special, and it was a sober moment as we laid out the carcass of Angus II, a beautiful, organic-raised lamb that lived a wonderful life running freely and dining on the wild grasses at Cutter Ranch Lamb. About 125lbs at slaughter, Angus II was about 65lbs with head and hooves on as she lay on our cutting table, with a bag containing the majority of its internal organs, or offal, such as lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, etc. Very little of this beast was going to be wasted.
I’ll get to the whole “honour” and “respect” bit in a minute. First off, though, notice how the author speaks of this dead lamb (a lamb is a baby sheep, by the way) as having “lived a wonderful life.” No matter that her life was less than one single year long. Can anyone’s life really be “wonderful” if it’s cut that short? She never even got to be an adult. If she were a human child, her death would be a tragedy, no matter how lovely a meadow she got to run around in. And what about the lamb’s mother? Does she not matter in anyone’s consideration? Who explains to her that her baby is being honoured by this wonderful event?
Also, why does the author refer to the lamb as “she” one single time, but “it” for the rest of the article? Does she really know the gender of the lamb? Or was the gendered pronoun just a slip – maybe for one second she recognized the corpse in front of her as an individual with characteristics, rather than an object? Probably just poor proofreading. And who in the world names a female sheep “Angus II”? My guess is that the lamb was named after she was killed and packed away.
Now, on to honour and respect. Notice that the author writes about feeling “honoured to be a part of an event this special.” But then she writes:
Many of the group had never butchered a whole animal before and were excited to learn new culinary techniques and processes, but some were pleasantly surprised by how the lead up to the event was less about techniques and more of the respect and honour to, not only our lamb, but to all ingredients being sourced from preparation to final plating.
So this butchering is about showing “respect and honour.” I think this is completely bizarre. I mean, who in their right mind talks about feeling honoured to be at an event, but then equates cutting up a dead animal to honouring that animal? Would she feel as “honoured” if someone were chasing her with a knife? How come she has two entirely different definitions of honour?
And how about respect? How does slitting a lamb’s throat and cutting her up into little bits and eating her show her any respect at all? When I respect someone I don’t reach for my butcher’s knife. Trying to call butchery “respectful” is an odd warping of the meaning of the word respect. Unless, of course, you really do consider animals as objects to be used.
Which is why this seems so soft-brained to me. On the one hand these butchers talk a lot about respecting the animals and humane care and treatment, as if the animals’ lives mean something – beyond our own purposes for them. But then they talk about respecting an animal as one would talk about respecting a car.
This weird and wacky tone is exemplified here:
Prior to the arrival, Foodists’ chef Anthony Nicalo sent a preparatory message to all would be butchers:
“Respect the animal. Show up on time and be prepared to work. You will eat some great food and take some with you to enjoy in the weeks and months to come, but the focus during butchery and prep is work—including cleaning. Take pleasure in the process of cooking and the responsibilities that come with the opportunity to cook—respect the animal and the farmer who raised it.”
Is he for real? Respecting the animal means that we should “Show up on time and be prepared to work”? That’s the most meaningless thing I have ever heard. That lamb doesn’t care one bit about whether or not you arrive on time or do a good job. All of your playacting about respect is for your own benefit.
All of this is really just a way for people who chop dead animals apart to feel good about themselves. What option do they have? If they were to actually consider the animal’s life from the animal’s perspective, how could they pick up their knife? In order to keep going, they need to tell themselves these lies about honour and respect. It’s really a tragedy that their fun and games has to lead to so many lives cut short, so many deaths, so much pain and suffering.
We are fighting a war. One that will only get fiercer and uglier before anyone wins.
According to a Vancouver Sun article, a recent survey by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association showed that vegan foods are one of the top 10 food trends. But, at the same time, small, traditional butchers are also one of the top 10 food trends.
As veganism and a real respect for all life grows, we will see a fierce reaction from the proponents of the status quo.
We are often seeing “humane” meat and “traditional” butchery passed off as a solution to the suffering of animals. Actually, though, it’s just another way of covering up the unethical murder of animals for our own personal pleasure.
I know that the metaphor of battle or war is not often appreciated by proponents of nonviolence, but taken in the spirit of Chogyam Trungpa, we are indeed warriors. Warriors for what is right, defenders of those who cannot speak or fight for themselves.
Let’s push the vegan trend even further, but be prepared for an even fiercer backlash. Be prepared for anger, hostility, and cruelty. Be prepared, and fight.
The Eyes Wide Open Film Screening Series kicked off last Saturday with Earthlings.
In the next couple of months, Liberation BC will be screening two other films: Fowl Play, a documentary about the egg industry; and Meat the Truth, a documentary about the environmental impact of meat consumption.
If the series proves to be successful and funding is available, we will continue to screen films throughout the year. Though we’ve never screened films in the past, we’ve always found video to be extremely powerful in reaching out to the public. In my experience, you can argue until you are blue in the face about animal suffering without any impact but the moment you show video footage of that suffering, it is immediately understood. This is why we always had a television with us when we did any outreach work on the streets.
150 people came to the Earthlings screening. The room we rented at the public library had a capacity for 130 people but we managed to fit everyone into the room.
Earthlings DVD
Earthlings, as those who have seen it will know, is not a particularly easy film to watch from beginning to end. It impressed and surprised me how many people did stick it out to the bitter end. Only about 20 people left in the middle of the film. For the 130 who stayed, I admire their courage and commitment to the truth no matter how ugly it may be.
After the film finished we had an open Q&A session. One woman wanted to know how we could get this film shown to meat-eaters as she assumed that everyone in the room was vegetarian like herself. In response to this question, we did a quick survey of the room and discovered about half of the people there were not vegetarians. We put a lot of effort into promoting this screening outside of the animal rights community and so I was pleased that so many of the general public did show up to the screening.
At the Q&A, some people wanted to know where to buy “humane meat”, some wanted to know what vegetarians ate and some wanted to justify omnivorism. It was interesting to hear the debate focusing solely on eating animals when the film was clearly divided into four segments: pets, food,fashion, entertainment and science.
Could this be an indication that people are becoming aware and distrustful about the practices of the food industry? Whatever the reason, it’s nice to see people questioning the food on their plates.
We handed out comment cards and received close to 80 of them back. The majority of the people commented that they had not previously seen Earthlings and had learned something new from the film.
We are hoping these films will provide a platform for people to start talking and thinking about issues concerning animals. Unlike advertising for KFC and McDonald’s, information about animal cruelty is not just going to jump out at people wherever they go. But we can try to make the information more easily accessible by keeping these screenings free and at a central location.
In order to pay for the space, and not charge admissions, we rely on your donations. If you think these screenings are valuable, please consider making a contribution to Liberation BC.
Argument:I keep hearing people argue that some of the more omnivorous among us would flagrantly protest animal cruelty, but that we’re very fond of tearing off huge, tasty pieces of our living cows while they scream for mercy. And I am very much against animal cruelty. I love animals. But guess what? There’s a gigantic difference between shooting your neighbor’s cat and eating pork. Smacking your dog isn’t the same as killing a chicken for the purposes of eating it.
Response: Uh yeah, in one case, you’re abusing the animal yourself. In the other, you’re paying someone else to abuse the animal for you. Oh, and the animals you want to defend are pets, while the ones you want to eat are what are commonly known as “food”. What kind of stupid idiot wrote this thing, anyway?
Oh right. That would be me. Like, eight years ago.
I think it’s pretty common knowledge that often, the angrier and more defensive a person gets when presented with the concepts of veganism, the guiltier they feel about it.
At the time I wrote that absurd diatribe, I had long since stopped eating fish and pork because I was particularly fond of those types of animals and couldn’t justify killing and eating them. I didn’t even wear leather, because I felt it was wrong to wear fur, and the two seemed too similar. Since childhood I’d considered myself a major animal lover. As a little kid I’d run lemonade stands in an attempt to raise money for the local animal shelter. Some of my best friends were the neighbourhood cats. I’d seriously considered a career in veterinary medicine.
Whenever presented with the idea of giving up cows and chicken and turkey, though, (I hadn’t even heard about how cruel the dairy and egg industries are) I would feel vaguely uncomfortable and try to think about something else. So what in the world inspired me to get so irrationally angry? I’d found a website that discussed BSE and in an abrasive way suggested that it was the fault of people who were “cruel” enough to eat cows. I don’t remember a lot of the details, but I do know that I felt defensive and infuriated because I knew I loved animals. How dare these people suggest that I was cruel to them?
And what brought me around to veganism only a year or so later? A few volunteers at my university who had a table of literature and stickers, who listened patiently when I told them I didn’t think I could really go vegan, or even vegetarian, because of my food allergies (wheat, soy, and nuts, for anybody having similar concerns), and who cheerfully answered my questions about why people go vegan in the first place. Hell, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to stop eating animals. I wasn’t convinced that it was necessary–couldn’t I just eat free-range meat?–and besides, fried chicken was one of my absolute favourite foods, and had been for years. As of this May, I’ll have been vegan for 6 years.
Think of it this way–every single person you talk is a potential vegan, a potential animal activist. Treat them that way. Be kind. Respectful. Try to remember how veganism was explained to you–what made it seem reasonable and realistic?–and answer their questions accordingly, and politely.
It’s no secret that, having researched “free range” and “organic” farming, I am less than impressed and feel that most consumers have been thoroughly deceived as to what such terms mean. Most people aren’t aware that “cage-free” chickens usually can’t go outside, that “free range” has no legal meaning, and again, doesn’t require that chickens have access to the outdoors, or that even “organic”, which is the highest standard there is, requires routine mutilation and death. (More here.)
That said, do I believe that it is better to live like this…
…than like this?
Of course I do. Both types of farming result in considerable and unnecessary suffering for the animals involved, but one is obviously worse than the other. Most reasonably sane people will be able to agree on this last point.
That brings us to the United Egg Producers, who, like most egg producers on the North American continent, are very concerned with keeping chickens in battery cages. Why is that? Because they CARE about chickens. Who knew?
Witness the profound absurdity of a company insisting that free-range chickens, who in the very best of circumstances, DO go outside, won’t have any form of shelter and will have to stand around in the rain.
"I miss my warm dry cage, Dolly!"
Same thing with this brilliant attempt at fooling the public. Message to the public: apparently egg producers think you are unbelievably stupid.
Apparently egg producers also think chickens are unbelievably stupid, and will stand around waiting to get picked off by predators. I guess they haven’t read the studies which demonstrate that chickens actually have different ways to communicate where a predator is coming from, as well as how much of a threat it is.
One more:
As if chickens lay their eggs for us to eat. Even life in a battery cage does not destroy the chicken’s desire to create a nest for the babies she expects to have. Because battery cages are entirely barren, however, they don’t generally have anything to build with–no straw, sticks, leaves, etcetera.
On occasion, however, and because the cages are (literally) never cleaned out:
Face it, egg producers, chickens don’t care whether their eggs taste like wild onions or like cheap corn meal/flax seed mixes. They lay them for the same reason that all birds lay eggs–because they are expecting to have offspring.
My thanks to Suicide Food for bringing the ridiculous attempts of the UEP to my attention.
It’s basically a look into whether it’s possible to really have “cruelty-free” eggs. I look at the issues of hens in battery cages, the hidden costs of organic and cage-free systems, and the cruelties of backyard hens.
The truth is there are hidden costs and cruelties to all these systems. For every hen you see subathing, there’s a rooster who got killed at only 1 day old because he was useless for producing eggs. No one rechons these costs, but it’s important to look past the surface and realize what goes on outside of our line of sight.
Check out the post, and please post a comment there and show them some love!
Imagine being raised for meat, fattened up, and slaughtered.
Now imagine being raised for your breastmilk, or your eggs.
In the case of milk, you are forcibly raped and impregnated.After a period of months—nine, in the case of both cows and humans—you give birth to a baby.Within hours—or days, if you’re lucky—your baby is taken from you.You won’t see it again. If born male, he usually will become veal. If female, she will be raised to replace other older cows at the dairy.
Machines are attached to your nipples, and, for a few months, the milk meant for your baby is siphoned out.
Then it starts all over.
You’ll give birth to four or five babies, and then it’s off to the slaughterhouse.You’ll be turned into cheap meat—of course—because your body is so weak and worn out after four years of producing seven to ten times more milk than you would in nature, and even though you’re perhaps a quarter as old as you could become.Now that you can’t give any more milk, your body is a byproduct.
If you are a chicken, raised for your eggs, you won’t have your babies taken away from you.No matter where you are, though, you will feel an intense drive to prepare for the arrival of chicks.Even in a battery cage, where there is no bedding material, you may attempt to make nests out of the body of a dead cagemate.Your eggs roll down the slanted wire floor of the cage and away from you.
After a year or a year and a half, you will be incredibly weak from your calcium-deficient diet—the creation of an egg requires many nutrients, including calcium—but in order to get a few more hundred eggs from you and the other hens, the farm will induce a period of forced-moulting by starving you.For at least five days, there is no food.Six days pass.Seven.
The farm may go fourteen days or longer without feeding you, and if you live, you will have lost 30% of your weight.(5 to 10% of the other chickens, of course, will die, and on an average farm that adds up to thousands of birds.)You might be force-moulted one more time, or even twice, in order to get as many eggs from your tired body as possible.And then, when—like the dairy cow—you can’t produce enough of your reproductive secretions (yum), you become cheap meat—dog food, soup, or baby food.You will be less than two years old, about a tenth of your potential lifespan.
It’s odd to think that while people sometimes stop eating meat because of their concern for animals, they continue to consume animal products.Broiler chickens die at around a 45 days old, rather than languishing for a year or a year-and-a-half, and even beef cattle die a couple of years younger than those raised for dairy.Comparatively, the egg and dairy industries cause far more suffering. Think of it this way: egg-laying chickens and dairy cows are still killed for meat—they just suffer longer first.
I can think of few things more horrible in farming today than the standard methods by which we procure milk and eggs.