|
Notre Dame University's Decision-Making Process To Stick With Eggs From Caged-Hens
Source: Feedstuffs Foodlink (9/4/2006)
With
consumers increasingly considering "social responsibility" issues when
making food purchasing decisions, egg producers are following
scientific guidelines to house their hens in a humane and responsible
environment.
by Jeffrey D. Armstrong
Consumer choice has great influence over the food system, and consumers
are increasingly including animal welfare, environmental concerns,
genetic modification, organic and other issues more broadly defined as
"social responsibility" issues in their decision-making process.
Likewise, major companies and organizations are spending more time on
corporate responsibility in the food system, and retailers are
requiring quality assurance, which, in many cases, must be verified by
a third party.
Livestock and poultry producer groups have developed different
strategies to address the consumer desire for social responsibility in
the food chain.
The United Egg Producers (UEP) is considered one of the leading groups
in applying science to welfare, food safety and environmental issues.
In 2004, UEP unanimously adopted and implemented a science-based set of
guidelines for laying hens raised under caged conditions (Feedstuffs,
March 15, 2004). Concurrently, UEP established the UEP certified
program that is regularly audited (third party) by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and Validus.
The UEP guidelines have been endorsed by the Food Marketing Institute and the National Council of Chain Restaurants.
On the other hand, critics believe the guidelines are not valid as the cage system is inherently inhumane.
Decision-makers
With this background in mind, there are situations within the food
system where a few make decisions for many. One example involves
university food services, where decisions are made in the interest of
the students and their parents.
I recently attended the annual meeting of the National Association of
College & University Food Services to determine how university food
services sort through these issues and make informed purchasing
decisions.
During this meeting, the University of Notre Dame provided a
behind-the-scenes look at its decision-making process for food
procurement. Representing the key decision-makers (Social
Responsibility Committee) were Jocie Antonelli, manager of nutrition
and safety, and Dan Crimmins, director of purchasing. Antonelli is a
registered dietitian with 10-plus years of experience and is
responsible for the nutrition and safety of food served at Notre Dame.
Notre Dame has 11,200 students, with 80% living on campus. More than
6,800 purchase on-campus meal contracts. The majority (80%) of students
are Catholic, and the university has a strong history and commitment to
campus life and social causes.
Earlier this year, Antonelli and colleagues were petitioned by a small
group of students to serve only cage-free eggs. The group, ND for
Animals, provided a 15-minute video depicting serious problems found in
a typical cage system.
The scenes on the video were appalling. In my opinion, some of the acts
shown in the video are reprehensible, and the perpetrators should be
prosecuted. However, the scenes simply do not represent conditions
experienced by hens housed and managed under the UEP guidelines.
Investigating
To investigate the concerns, Antonelli and other committee members,
along with two students, visited the current egg provider and two
cage-free suppliers. The university's egg supplier has been on the UEP
certified program (www.uepcertified.com) since its inception.
Antonelli noted that they saw four to six hens per cage, with each hen
provided 67-72 sq. in. of space, 24-hour access to food and water,
protection from predators and access to bright light that mimicked
normal day and night patterns.
She went on to note that the cages were built such that the birds and
manure were separated. She described how USDA conducts audits on a
regular basis and showed several images from inside the facility.
Antonelli and others found the cage-free environment not much different
than the cage environment. While there were no cages and more space,
she noted that the birds huddled together at one end of the hen house,
so while they had more space, in practical terms, they were not using
any more space than the hens in cages were provided.
The hens were walking around in a "deep litter" system. Antonelli said
beak trimming occurred in both systems. She also noted that there was
more dust and ammonia. Equally important, Antonelli and her team
recognized that the cage-free system provided opportunity for the hens
to demonstrate behaviors such as scratching and dust bathing.
The Notre Dame food services group spent a great deal of time
discussing the moral, ethical and particularly the religious claims the
students made.
One particular quote attributed to Pope Benedict XVI occurred when he
was a Cardinal, so its relevance was relegated to a personal opinion
rather than an official church position. Upon further exploration, they
found the following excerpt from the Catholic Catechism:
"God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom He created in
his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and
clothing. ... Medical and scientific experimentation on animals, if it
remains within reasonable limits, is a morally acceptable practice
since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives. ... It is
contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.
It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a
priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one
should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."
According to Antonelli, the religious issue became a neutral point in the review.
The university also had its chef test both varieties (cage and
non-cage) of eggs, and he found no difference in their culinary
performance. There also was no difference in nutritional quality.
Upon examination of the quality of life issues for the hens, Antonelli
said it was determined that quality of life might be slightly better in
the cage-free system, but there was no real way of asking a chicken
that question. More importantly, Antonelli said neither the cage
production system nor the cage-free system treats chickens inhumanely.
As determined by the UEP committee, it is difficult to measure the
welfare of animals. It requires weighing beneficial or detrimental
outcomes under a variety of production conditions relative to the
impact on hen well-being.
Finally, Antonelli and Notre Dame expressed concern with food safety
issues (including salmonella, egg contact with feces and freshness of
the eggs) with the non-cage systems. The university also is the
provider of food for a children's center on campus, a retirement home
for priests and pregnant women.
In addition, logistical issues of egg deliveries were considered as
well as cost factors, since many cage-free eggs cost much more than
cage production eggs. Antonelli stressed that cost was not a major or
deciding factor.
Notre Dame's decision was to maintain its current egg supplier.
Antonelli's advice to other universities is: "Do your own homework and
investigation, check out your suppliers and understand all aspects of
the issue of products in your supply chain. See for yourself; don't
just take other people's word for it."
Jeffrey Armstrong is with Michigan State University's department of
agriculture and natural resources. Armstrong chaired the committee that
led to the United Egg Producers' (UEP) adoption of a science-based set
of guidelines for laying hens raised under caged conditions.
|
