Cage-free chicken referendum may hike egg prices

• 
  

  Bob Beauregard of The Country Hen in Hubbardston. T&G Staff/Christine Peterson
  
  

  

  
• 
  

  By George Barnes
  Telegram & Gazette Staff
  

  
  Posted Jan. 16, 2016 at 7:00 PM
  Updated Jan 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM
  
  
  

  HUBBARDSTON - Amiably clucking away as they wandered around their barn-sized living quarters at The Country Hen in Hubbardston, the hundreds of chickens paid little attention to the people watching until Bob Beauregard whistled.

  They stopped, looked, saw it was him and then went back to clucking, scratching and laying eggs.

  The birds at the Hubbardston egg farm appear to be happy, healthy and productive, living indoors in what is a cage-free environment. Everything about the operation at The Country Hen is managed to ensure the safety and health of the birds and the quality of the organic cage-free eggs raised there. The attention to detail is what guarantees the farm produces high-end eggs to meet the needs of consumers and restaurants.

  The Country Hen is not the target of a ballot question seeking to prevent cruelty to farm animals in the state. The farm already operates well within the regulations proposed in what would be called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

  Mr. Beauregard, who is general manager of The Country Hen, agrees with the idea of raising chickens humanely, in a cage-free environment. He said it makes sense for his farm because it results in significantly better eggs, but he disagrees with efforts to write that requirement into law.

  In December, state Attorney General's office certified petitions seeking a ballot question creating what is called the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. If the act is not approved by the Legislature, voters in November will be asked to support the petition, which has the endorsement of many animal-rights organizations, including the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Rescue League of Boston.
  

  The act would prohibit what are viewed by the proponents as cruel practices, including raising farm animals in such tight quarters that they cannot fully extend their limbs or turn around. The practices are used to maximize the space in raising the chickens to produce more eggs, calves for veal and hogs for various pork products. The law would also prohibit the sale of eggs, pork or veal in the state if they are raised by those methods at farms outside of Massachusetts.

  The Humane Society of Massachusetts, one of the major supporters of the measure, argues that keeping chickens in tiny pens where they are not able to move around or even flap their wings, and calves and hogs in cages no larger than their bodies, is a cruel and unhealthy way to produce food.

  Stephanie Harris, a spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States, said the organization feels the practice is cruel.

  "By voting yes on this ballot question, we help prevent farm animal cruelty, promote food safety and aid responsible farmers," she said.

  Ms. Harris said the measure is also supported by the Massachusetts and American Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Rescue League of Boston, Zoo New England, the Berkshire Humane Society, the Center for Food Safety, the United Farm Workers and more than 100 family farmers and more than 300 veterinarians and professionals involved in the veterinary field. She said over 130,000 signatures were collected to get the initiative on the ballot. She said the vote is needed because the confinement of animals is still allowed under state law.

  "Today there are thousands of animals in Massachusetts confined in cramped cages," Ms. Harris said. "And Massachusetts consumers are threatened daily by substandard eggs, pork and veal sold in the Commonwealth."

  Ms. Harris said that having the animals in cramped cages for months on end is not only cruel but also increases risks of food safety problems like salmonella.

  Mr. Beauregard said The Country Hen, which is now the state's largest egg producer, with more than 80,000 chickens laying eggs in Hubbardston, has long followed humane practices because those practices result in better-quality eggs. Where he differs from the proponents of the bill is, he feels the market, which has been heading more and more toward organic and cage-free eggs, should decide how eggs are produced.

  "I believe farmers should be able to farm the way they want to and let the customers decide," he said.

  Mr. Beauregard said the growing interest in better-quality eggs, including at many businesses like McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, will provide the incentive for many to follow cage-free practices. He said a major concern for him is avoiding problems that occurred in California in 2015, including increasing prices and a major reduction in supply.

  California, he said, enacted a similar law five years ago. It just went into effect a year ago. He said the result was a significant drop in the number of eggs being produced in the state. Farms either cut production to allow for the increased space demands in their facilities, or left the state. He said it also resulted in significant increases in the cost of eggs.

  Ms. Harris disagrees, saying that the California prices can be blamed in large part on a bird flu outbreak and the egg industry itself.

  "They had six years to transition and instead they dragged their feet, scrambling in the final months to comply," she said. "Additionally, shortly after California's implementation (of the laws) the country's worst outbreak of avian bird flu spread across the country, causing six major egg-producing states to declare a state of emergency. This has been a prime cause of egg prices rising in California and across the whole country."

  The Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation also opposes the law. Brad Mitchell, director of government relations, said the law will have little effect on farms in Massachusetts.

  "We don't see the need for this," he said.

  Mr. Mitchell represents an organization of 6,000 farmers which assists farmers on agriculture related issues. He said the change in state law is not only unnecessary, it also sends the wrong message, misleading consumers into believing there are problems in Massachusetts agriculture. He said he knows of only one small farm using the types of bird cages which would be prohibited under the law.

  "I don't know of anyone using veal crates," he said.

  Years ago, he said the state may have had larger farms using some of the practices the law would prohibit, but those practices have been long abandoned.

  Mr. Mitchell said he does not believe the state will ever see the kind of large-scale production found in the Midwest because of land requirements and the cost of production. The smaller farms work more closely with customers with many selling directly from their farms. They do not want to be involved in practices customers would not support or find upsetting.

  "But do we want to legislate this or educate people?" he asked. He said once consumers know the benefits of cage-free farm products, those that can afford to switch to the more expensive products, will.

  The Farm Bureau supports an alternative to the Animal Cruelty Act. In the Legislature is a bill filed by state Rep. Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington which would create a livestock care and standards board to develop regulations as needed to govern the care and keeping of animals. The board would include representatives of the field of veterinary medicine, animal protection organizations, the farm industry and state agencies.

  Mr. Mitchell said it could go beyond the proposed law, creating regulations for any type of humane treatment, not just on the farm, but in animal transportation or how animals are euthanized. He said with a continually growing number of small farms in the state, it would provide an additional level of support.