Welfare activists have promoted the Better Chicken Commitment in Europe through exerting pressure on retail chains, food service companies and restaurants. The Better Chicken Commitment requires the use of slow-growing strains, low stocking density and enrichments in growing houses.
At the outset there is no evidence that the requirements imposed under the Better Chicken Commitment standards actually improve welfare over and above the standards adopted by the Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the E.U. (AVEC) that approximate NCC standards in the U.S.
A recent study commissioned by AVEC conducted by RSK ADAS Ltd. an agribusiness consultancy has quantified the impact of the Better Chicken Commitment standards. This study Cost and Implications of the European Chicken Commitment in the E.U. determined:
- An additional production cost of 37.5 percent per unit of RTC
- A 35.4 percent increase in water consumption
- A 35.5 percent increase in feed consumption requiring an additional 7.3 million tons of feed for E.U. nations.
- A 24.4 rise in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of RTC weight produced.
- A reduction in 44 percent in the total meat produced compared to existing standard production parameters (6.2 lbs./ft2 stocking density). If the Better Chicken Commitment stocking density were to be applied, to maintain current production, close to 10,000 new broiler houses would be required with an investment of $9 billion.
Dr. Birthe Steenberg, Secretary General of AVEC stated, “The unique aspect of this study lies in the emphasis placed on calculating costs per unit weight of RTC unlike previous research that focus solely on consequences for live birds or live weight that does not acutely reflect market realities since we sell meat not live animals”.
Dr, Jason Gittins, Technical Direct for ADAS stated, “Due to differences in meat yields between current standards and the Better Chicken Commitment earlier studies underestimated the true impact of the requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment.
Gert-Jan Opelaat, president of AVEC noted, “While the Better Chicken Commitment aims to improve animal welfare it is crucial to recognize that these improvements come with significant economic and environmental implications.” He added, “Consumers should have the choice to select higher welfare products if they wish but it is crucial that standard, affordable options remain available.
It is axiomatic that opponents of intensive livestock production attempt to impose anthropomorphic parameters on producers that result in increases in cost. Essentially advocates of systems such as the Better Chicken Commitment gain a sense of self-satisfaction from reducing the potential demand for chicken based on elevated price. These promoters of “welfare” are not content to suggest adoption of enhanced welfare standards on a voluntary basis but are coercing retailers and the food service and restaurants segments of the distribution industry into adopting standards without considering the cost implications for consumers. Advocates for systems such as the Better Chicken Commitment ignore the reality that they are spending other people’s money. This is evident in the “Pacelle Tax” paid by California egg consumers following introduction of Proposition #2.