The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and 11CHAPTER Prospects

Michael C. Appleby

Introduction n June 15, 1999, the Euro- forty four in 2002). Perhaps its most Council of Ministers the power to leg- pean Union (EU) passed a important activity is the preparation islate. The Council of Ministers Odirective on the welfare of lay- of conventions. The only one widely (sometimes called the Council of the ing hens, requiring that battery cages known is the European Convention EU but not to be confused with the (so called because they are arranged on Human Rights, and most people Council of Europe) is the main deci- in batteries of rows and tiers) be assume that the EU produced it. One sion-making body. It includes one rep- phased out by 2012. Enriched laying area in which the council has been resentative from each country; a con- cages (which may also be arranged in active is . Indeed it has fusing feature, however, is that these batteries but which provide increased stated that “the humane treatment of representatives vary. For agricultural area and height, when compared with animals is one of the hallmarks of matters, the Council of Ministers con- conventional cages, and a perch, nest Western civilisation” (Appleby, Hugh- sists of the ministers of agriculture box, and litter area) will still be es, and Elson 1992). In 1976 it pro- from fifteen countries. A vital aspect allowed. This chapter outlines how duced the Convention on the Protec- of the Council is that its presidency is this directive came about, and the tion of Animals kept for Farming held for six months by each country social, economic, and political issues Purposes. Though not legally binding in turn, and the presiding country involved. It considers prospects for on member countries until they rati- takes most of the initiative for that the future, both within and outside fied it, member countries accepted period, often attempting to impose the EU, and implications for welfare the responsibility to include the con- its own agenda. The United Kingdom of laying hens in the United States. vention’s provisions in their national presided for the first half of 1998. legislation. This convention will be Germany presided for the first half of considered later. 1999. Both periods were critical in The Council of The EU, which has existed under a the course of the battery cage issue, number of names, such as the Euro- as shall be seen. Europe and the pean Community and the European The EU can enact regulations and Economic Community, started as a directives, among other legislation. European Union subset of the Council of Europe and Regulations are binding throughout First it is necessary to explain the now includes fifteen countries (Table the EU and overrule any contradicto- institutions involved. One influential 1). It has three key bodies. The Euro- ry national legislation. Directives, by grouping—little known, even in pean Commission is appointed by contrast, are not operative in the Europe—is the Council of Europe. member countries to run the show, member countries. They direct each The Council was established in 1949 including drafting legislation. The country to pass national legislation to to increase cooperation among European Parliament consists of put them into effect. This require- nations; it represents most of the members elected by constituents in ment is binding, so that countries will countries of Europe (the number was each country; it shares with the have at least the same minimum stan-

159 and this affects attitudes). The most Table 1 persuasive explanation, though, is Countries of the European Union and the that concern has developed largely in people who were less involved with System of Qualified Majority Voting Used animals than were others. The United by the Council of Ministers* Kingdom and the Netherlands, for example, are more industrialized Country Votes Country Votes than many other countries, and pres- sure for animal protection has come mostly from city dwellers rather than Austria 4 Italy 10 those involved in farming. A revealing Belgium 5 Luxembourg 2 snapshot was provided in 1981 by a review of which countries had then Denmark 3 Netherlands 5 ratified the Council of Europe’s 1976 Finland 3 Portugal 5 Convention on the Protection of Ani- mals kept for Farming Purposes France 10 Spain 8 (Table 2). Of the twenty-one member Germany 10 Sweden 4 countries, most of the eleven that rat- ified first were from the north and Greece 5 United Kingdom 10 had an average of only 6 percent of the population involved in agricul- Ireland 3 ture. Switzerland is relatively south- Total 87 ern but also relatively industrialized and ratified early, along with northern Required for Directive to be adopted 62 nations. Countries that ratified later Blocking minority 26 had a population average of 21 per- cent involved in agriculture. Most of *Number of votes is determined primarily by population. these countries were southern. Source: Council of the European Union 2003 Though a northern country, Ireland was in this group, too, and 23 percent dards (for example, the same mini- with votes weighted by countries’ of its population was involved in agri- mum space allowance for hens in populations (Table 1). culture. The north-south dichotomy cages). It has to be said, though, that The emergence of these complex may have reflected not only differ- when countries are unenthusiastic structures is in large part accounted ences in attitude but also the fact about directives they may delay pass- for by the diversity of the countries of that, where many people are engaged ing legislation as long as possible and Europe, and all that this has meant in agriculture, governments are skimp on the details. If they wish, historically and politically. That diver- unwilling to impose restrictions that countries may legislate for higher sity is further reflected in attitudes may affect their livelihood. Indeed, standards within their own borders— about animals. the agricultural industry has always for example, a greater space been particularly vociferous and effec- allowance in cages—but they cannot tive in lobbying for its interests. generally restrict imports of related Attitudes about It is relevant to note that priorities products from other member coun- other than animal welfare may also tries—such as eggs produced more Animal Welfare influence welfare, and that such pri- cheaply. (For one exception, see the It is well recognized that concern for orities also vary among countries. section on page 164 on Sweden.) For animal welfare varies across Europe, Norway, for example, has legislation regulations and directives, the mech- being generally stronger in the to limit farm size because it regards anism is as follows: The Commission north—particularly the United King- rural employment as important, and drafts legislation, either on its own dom, the Netherlands, Germany, and this limitation probably has some initiative or when requested to do so Scandinavia—and weaker in the benefits for animal welfare. France by the Council. The Parliament may south. Reasons are complex. A num- puts emphasis on food quality, which amend the draft. The Council amends ber of factors correlate with this vari- also has some positive effects: many it further and passes or rejects the ation, including temperature (it is people believe that non-cage eggs final version, with joint authority hotter in the south, which affects how taste better, and some of these eggs from the Parliament. On matters such animals are kept) and religion are probably bought in France for this as those of concern here, this deci- (Catholicism is commoner in the reason. sion is made by “qualified majority,” south, Protestantism in the north, In recent years concern for animal

160 The State of the Animals II: 2003 welfare has grown in southern Europe, as indicated by public opin- Table 2 ion polls. There is public sympathy for Ratification of the Council of Europe’s high-profile campaigns by celebrities such as Brigitte Bardot, and scientists 1976 Convention on the Protection and scientific bodies have increased of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes their interest in, and support for, ani- by 1981, and the Proportion of Each mal welfare research. The story that follows is, therefore, not simply one of Country’s Population Involved the north outvoting the south or in Agriculture browbeating it into agreement. How- ever, southern governments do con- Agricultural Labor Agricultural Labor tinue to be less positive than north- Ratified (percent) Not Yet Ratified (percent) ern governments about animal Belgium/Luxembourg 4 Austria 9 welfare (Sansolini 1999a). Publication of ’s Ani- Cyprus — Greece 30 mal Machines in the United Kingdom in 1964 had a huge, international Denmark 8 Iceland 9 impact. It greatly increased awareness France 9 Ireland 23 of factory farming methods, including battery cages, and concern for farm Netherlands 5 Italy 12 animal welfare. The U.K. government Norway 8 Liechtenstein — set up the Brambell Committee (which issued a report in 1965), Sweden 5 Malta 5 passed the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Switzerland 5 Portugal 26 Provisions) Act in 1968, and estab- lished an independent Farm Animal United Kingdom 2 Spain 17 Welfare Council (FAWC). Both the West Germany 4 Turkey 54 Brambell Report and FAWC have had an international influence, too, Average 6 21 including their development of the concept of Five Freedoms (Table 3). Source: Ludvigsen et al. 1982

Table 3 The Five Freedoms*

Animals should have:

Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour

Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area

Freedom from pain, injury and disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment

Freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind

Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

*The concept originated from a phrase in the Brambell Report (Brambell 1965) and was developed by the U.K. Farm Animal Welfare Council (1997) Brambell Report: Farm animals should have freedom “to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs.” Source: FAWC

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 161 nest box, and a litter area. The term background scientific work on poul- Housing furnished cages probably is best, try welfare in a “farm animal welfare because it is descriptive rather than co-ordination program.” The author Systems for judgmental (Appleby et al. 2002), but was employed under this program Laying Hens the EU 1999 directive refers to starting in 1981 (Appleby 1983). enriched cages, so that term will be Another important effort has been Another important development in used here. The author suggests that the series of European symposia on the United Kingdom and elsewhere, welfare is improved in enriched cages, poultry welfare held by the World beginning in the mid-1970s, was work and more reliably so than in alterna- Poultry Science Association every on alternatives to battery cages. In tive approaches such as percheries four years; the first symposium took the developed world, by about 1970 and free range systems (Appleby place in 1981 (following a predeces- most hens kept for egg production 1993). This argument is still contro- sor in Denmark in 1977), and the (called laying hens or layers) were versial and unfamiliar to the public. sixth was in Switzerland in September housed in conventional laying cages The public tends to think that “free 2001. or battery cages. It is widely acknowl- range” means small, farmyard flocks, Two problems arose in general edged that battery cages cause many whereas commercial free range sys- understanding of the production welfare problems. They compromise tems house hundreds or thousands of methods used. First, systems were most or all of FAWC’s Five Freedoms, hens. Such conditions have numerous given a bewildering variety of and indeed contravene the very limit- problems, including—to emphasize names—those already listed as well as ed “freedoms” listed in the Brambell the point—the fact that unless part of aviaries, percheries, and others—and, Report (Table 3). Work on alternative the birds’ beaks is amputated, the second, systems had no official speci- housing systems, primarily aimed at birds often peck each other to death. fications. Eggs sold as free range, for reducing welfare problems, was most Other important work on improv- instance, might come from hens active in the 1970s and 1980s. ing cages included that of scientist allowed to “range” only inside a Much of this work was funded by Ragnar Tauson in Sweden. He sur- house or only if they could find one national governments in northern veyed the incidence of trapping and small exit from a huge building. The Europe. The main emphasis was on injury of caged hens (Tauson 1985). EU addressed these problems in 1985 use of non-cage systems such as deep This led to design of improved cages, by imposing a regulation defining litter, straw yards, and free range in use of which resulted in reduction in four labels that can be put on eggs the United Kingdom (Appleby et al. incidence (Tauson 1988). Tauson also and the corresponding conditions in 1988; Gibson, Dun, and Hughes developed an abrasive strip which, which hens must be kept (Table 4). In 1988; Keeling, Hughes, and Dun when attached to the egg guard the absence of one of those labels, 1988); slatted floors in Denmark behind the food trough, prevents eggs are presumed to come from (Nørgaard-Nielsen 1986); and tiered overgrowth of claws (Tauson 1986). cages. This regulation immediately wire floors in the Netherlands Beginning in 1979 the EU financed slowed the name-changing and had a (Ehlhardt and Koolstra 1984). There also was work in the United Kingdom and Germany on a modified cage called the Get-away cage (Elson Table 4 1981; Wegner 1990). However, all Criteria Defined by these systems have one major welfare the EU for Labeling of Eggs problem that battery cages do not. Birds in these facilities have to be Label Criteria beak-trimmed—a mutilation that has become increasingly controversial— Free range Continuous daytime access to ground mainly otherwise cannibalism is likely, often covered with vegetation affecting a high percentage of birds. Maximum stocking density 1,000 hens/hectare The cannibalism apparently is related Semi-intensive Continuous daytime access to ground mainly to group size, which in all these sys- covered with vegetation tems is larger than in battery cages. Maximum stocking density 4,000 hens/hectare Therefore, work began in the mid- Deep litter Maximum stocking density 7 hens/m2 1980s, in Edinburgh and elsewhere, A third of floor covered with litter on modifying cages for small groups. Part floor for droppings’ collection What have come to be called enriched Perchery or barn Maximum stocking density 25 hens/m2 or furnished cages provide increased Perches, 15 cm for each hen area and height compared with con- ventional cages, and also a perch, a Source: Commission of the European Communities 1985

162 The State of the Animals II: 2003 big impact on how non-cage hens are kept. For example, there are no laws Table 5 in any EU country on maximum floor Cost of Egg Production in Different stocking rates but to get a premium for deep litter eggs a producer must Systems, Relative to Laying Cages not exceed seven hens per square with 450 Square Centimetres Per Bird meter. Exceeding the limit means selling the eggs unlabeled, at a loss. System Space Relative Cost (%) The battery cage system is the least costly approach in use for egg pro- Laying cage 450 cm2/bird 100 duction (Table 5). However, over the Laying cage 560 cm2/bird 105 same period, in the 1970s and 1980s, a market for non-cage eggs was devel- Laying cage 750 cm2/bird 115 oping. Some people, again particular- Laying cage 450 cm2/bird + nest 102 ly in the north of Europe, will pay more for such eggs either because Shallow laying cage 450 cm2/bird 102 they are concerned about the welfare Get-away cage 10–12 birds/m2 115 of hens or because they perceive the eggs to be more nutritious, tasty, or Two-tier aviary 10–12 birds/m2 115 healthful. Thus some producers con- 2 tinued to keep hens in non-cage sys- Multi-tier housing 20 birds/m 105–108 tems, covering the higher cost with a Deep litter 7–10 birds/m2 118 higher selling price for the eggs. No 2 full economic analysis of enriched Strawyard 3 birds/m 130 cages has been published, but egg Semi-intensive 1,000 birds/ha 135 (140 including production probably costs around 10 land rental) percent more from these than from Free range 400 birds/ha 150 (170 including battery cages (Appleby 1998). This is land rental) cheaper than using most non-cage systems, but since eggs from enriched Source: Elson 1985 cages cannot be given any of the Space refers in cages to cage floor area, in houses to labels in Table 4, shoppers cannot dis- house floor area, and in extensive systems to land area tinguish them from battery eggs. As a result farmers will not use enriched 1973), Sweden (which joined in cages unless required to do so by law. Developments 1995), and Switzerland (which is not Egg labels often confuse customers. a member). Many people think (or perhaps hope) in Individual that eggs sold under names that Denmark sound appealingly rural or wholesome Countries In 1950 Denmark passed a compre- do not come from cages, but such Animal welfare legislation in individ- hensive Protection of Animals Act, brand names actually have no official ual European countries shows a which stated (T. Ambrosen, University status. About 20 percent of eggs sold dichotomy that reflects differing atti- of Copenhagen, personal communica- in the United Kingdom do come from tudes. Northern countries have tion, May 16, 2001) that: non-cage systems, either free range or detailed laws, with codified lists of Animals must be properly treated barn. In the Netherlands, Germany, actions that are prohibited. Southern and must not by neglect, over- and Denmark, deep litter eggs (which countries tend simply to state that strain or in any other way be sub- are called “scratching eggs” in their animals must not be ill-treated. Leg- ject to unnecessary suffering; Any- languages) are more popular. In islation also is enforced more strictly one keeping animals should see recent years, some supermarkets in in some countries than in others. that they have sufficient and suit- northern Europe have responded to Several northern countries have able food and drink, and that they customer concerns by labelling eggs passed legislation or made other are properly cared for in suitable from caged hens as such. The EU as of changes over the last half century accommodation. 2002 was moving toward making this that have affected the welfare of This language was interpreted as labelling mandatory. caged hens both within and outside their borders. This section considers prohibiting battery cages, so there Denmark and the United Kingdom were no cages in Denmark for many (both of which joined the EU in years. However, Danish companies

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 163 started building farms over the bor- end of the laying year, so they ought Sweden der in Germany and bringing the eggs to have been given more than 550 In 1988, at a time when Sweden per- to Denmark. By the 1970s the law was square centimeters of living space. haps did not expect to join the EU, being flouted with impunity: battery They probably had about 500 square the country passed a new Animal Wel- cages were being installed in Den- centimeters, corresponding to a body fare Act. This required that, starting mark and even supported by govern- weight of 2.2 kilograms. in 1989, all new cages should provide ment grants. A compromise was In the late 1970s, the U.K. Parlia- 600 square centimeters per hen. The reached in 1979, when a new law was ment set up a Select Committee on country also took account of Tauson’s passed that allowed cages, but with a Agriculture, whose members chose to work (mentioned above), mandating, minimum area of 600 square cen- consider animal welfare before any- for example, that by 1994 all cages timeters per bird. In a typical cage of thing else. They produced a report in should be fitted with a claw-shorten- 2,500 square centimeters, this meant July 1981 concluding that: ing system and a perch. More radical housing four instead of five birds. Agreement should be sought in change was to follow (R. Tauson, Denmark became a net importer of the European Community to a Swedish Agricultural University, per- eggs rather than a net exporter, but statement of intention that after, sonal communication, August 20, the Danish egg industry survives, say, five years egg production will 2000): even if smaller than before. be limited to approved methods Animals should be able to per- which will not include battery form natural behaviours and be United Kingdom cages in their present form. protected against disease and The U.K. Agriculture (Miscellaneous . . . This should be pursued during unnecessary suffering; Provisions) Act of 1968 had important the UK Presidency. . . .Meanwhile Hens for egg production should provisions in addition to those already the Minister should seek Com- not be kept in cages from 1999, mentioned, particularly a require- munity agreement to a minimum But alternatives must not mean ment to produce Codes of Recom- standard for adult laying birds in Impaired animal health, mendation for the Welfare of Live- battery cages of not less than 750 Increased medication, stock. Contravention of these is not a sq cm per bird. He should refuse Introduction of beak trimming or legal offense in itself but can be used to agree to anything less than Impaired working environment. as evidence in prosecution for cruelty. 550 sq cm. (House of Commons Despite the ban on cages, remark- (In the same way, breaking the better- 1981, 53) ably little was done on alternative sys- known Highway Code by driving on The proposal for a ban on battery tems in the next few years, by either the wrong side of the road is not ille- cages received widespread publicity, the government or the industry, and gal but would be evidence in a prose- but the timing was poor. The United the industry suggested that the cution for dangerous driving.) The Kingdom had just started a six-month required conditions would be “diffi- 1969 Code for domestic fowls stated: term as president of the Council of cult, if not downright impossible to In cages holding three or more the EU, and it was too late for the meet” (Fredell 1994, 1). More than 40 lightweight birds, the floor area detailed preparation that the battery percent of producers said they would should normally allow not less cage action would have needed. Per- leave egg production and predicted than 1 sq m per 39.1 kg live- haps partly for this reason, the pro- that imports would rise to more than weight. For heavier birds the posal was not taken up by the U.K. 60 percent (Sörensen 1994). allowance should not normally be government. Tauson agreed that the required less than 1 sq m per 44 kg live- The U.K. Farm Animal Welfare conditions were inconsistent with a weight. (Ministry of Agriculture, Council (FAWC) also arose from the cage ban, and started work on Fisheries, and Food 1969, 5) 1968 Act, and it has produced a suc- enriched cages in collaboration with Strains of heavier brown hens were cession of influential reports. These this author (Abrahamsson, Tauson, becoming common in the United include an assessment of egg produc- and Appleby 1995). In 1997 Sweden Kingdom by 1969, and they soon tion systems (1986), a report on the accepted the industry’s arguments became ubiquitous. This was an inter- welfare of laying hens in colony sys- and deferred implementation of the esting result of consumer preference: tems (1991), and a report on the wel- ban, requiring instead that all cages people bought brown eggs (which fare of laying hens (1997). be enriched. (By then Sweden was in come from brown birds) even though the EU.) A ban on cages remains on they cost more, because the eggs the statutes but in abeyance; enriched were perceived to be tastier or more cages were introduced in Sweden on a natural than white ones (which come large scale beginning in 1998 (Tauson from white hens). Brown birds 2000; Tauson and Holm 2001). weighed about 2.5 kilograms by the

164 The State of the Animals II: 2003 The actual threat from imports was but have improved with experience allow for different requirements. not as great as the industry claimed. (Fröhlich and Oester 2001). Because the convention itself is very Restrictions on imports are not gen- broad, the Council of Europe has a erally allowed within the EU. Howev- standing committee with a responsi- er, the Swedish egg industry is almost The 1976 bility for elaborating more specific free of salmonella, so that Sweden requirements. One of the first areas can refuse imports from countries Convention in which it became active was that of with salmonella—including the rest poultry welfare. of the EU, apart from Finland. and the 1986 In addition to individual countries, the EU became a party to the conven- Directive tion in 1978. Not surprisingly, the EU Switzerland From the late 1970s on, an underly- Switzerland is the only country in the decided it should act on the welfare of ing influence on poultry welfare was laying hens. After several years of world to have banned laying cages. the Council of Europe’s 1976 Con- The ban was imposed in 1992, after a negotiation, an EU directive was vention on the Protection of Animals adopted in 1986 which establishes 1978 referendum in which citizens kept for Farming Purposes. As men- were informed of the economic con- minimum standards for the protec- tioned above, once members ratified tion of hens in battery cages (Com- sequences of the proposed action. the convention they were obliged to Not being in the EU, Switzerland can mission of the European Communi- take it into account in their coun- ties 1986). By January 1988 all newly restrict imports of cheaper eggs. tries—and that included all the coun- Some imports are permitted, though, built cages had to provide 450 square tries in Table 2, except Turkey (which centimeters of space per hen and despite the fact that they come from still has not ratified). It also includes systems that are illegal in Switzer- meet other requirements (Table 7); other countries that subsequently these standards were to apply to all land, because the country’s egg pro- joined the council. The convention duction is insufficient to meet cages by January 1995. was concerned with the care, hus- In hindsight the directive seems demand. bandry, and housing of farm animals, The Swiss law is framed as a ban on minimalist to many in Europe. How- especially those in intensive systems ever, it was one of the first Europe- any enclosure for fewer than forty (Table 6). Its recommendations are birds. Various designs based on the wide statutes that actually specified couched in general terms, but the how animals were to be kept. Prior to Dutch tiered-wire floor systems are drafting committee commented that used (Matter and Oester 1989). Per- this approximately half the hens in it tried to lay down principles precise Europe were given less than 450 formance of these, and the welfare of enough to avoid a completely free the birds, were relatively poor at first square centimeters each, and proba- interpretation, yet wide enough to bly few cages in Europe met all the

Table 6 Extracts from the Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes

Article 3 states: Animals shall be housed and provided Article 5 deals with lighting, temperature, with food, water and care which—having humidity, air circulation, ventilation regard for their species and to their and other environmental conditions degree of development, adaptation and such as gas concentration and domestication—is appropriate to their noise intensity. physiological and ethological needs, in accordance with established experience Article 6 deals with the provision of food and water. and scientific knowledge. Article 7 deals with inspection, both of the condition and state of the animal Article 4 states: The freedom of movement appropriate to an animal, having regard to its species and of the technical equipment and in accordance with established and systems. experience and scientific knowledge, shall not be restricted in such a manner as to cause it unnecessary suffering or injury. Where an animal is continuously tethered or confined it shall be given the space appropriate to its physiological and ethological needs.

Source: Council of Europe 1976

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 165 Table 7 Extracts from the EU 1986 Directive Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens Kept in Battery Cages

A minimum area of 450 cm2 per bird and 10 cm of feeding Cage height of at least 40 cm over 65 percent of the cage area trough per bird and nowhere less than 35 cm A continuous length of drinking trough providing at least Cage floors capable of supporting adequately each forward- 10 cm per bird or if nipple drinkers or drinking cups are facing claw and not sloping more than 8 degrees, unless used, at least two shall be within reach of each cage constructed of other than rectangular wire mesh

Source: CEC 1986 criteria specified for area, feeding licity and the commission took no come most of the behavioural space, height, and floor slope. The direct action on it. In that same year, deficiencies, modified enriched governments of southern Europe however, the commission issued a cages are showing good potential resisted inclusion of a space draft for a new directive (Commission in relation to both welfare and allowance as high as 450 square cen- of the European Communities 1992) production....Mainly because of timeters, agreed to this provision which surprised everyone by recom- the risk of feather pecking and reluctantly, and subsequently imple- mending that cages should provide cannibalism, [non-cage] systems mented it slowly. However, all mem- 800 square centimeters of area and have severe disadvantages for the bers of the EU did have to translate 20 centimeters of perch per hen. A welfare of laying hens. (109) the directive into national legislation. minimum height of 50 centimeters In the first half of 1998, the United In the United Kingdom, for example, was included, with a height of at least Kingdom held presidency of the coun- this was done in 1987. The United 60 centimeters over 65 percent of the cil and was pressing for change. That Kingdom also amended its Welfare area. This was generally interpreted March the commission brought out Code to recommend only the legal as “testing the water” rather than a another proposal for a new directive. minimum of 450 square centimeters serious proposal, and no mention of The proposal was oddly framed, how- (Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries, 20 centimeters of perch or 60 cen- ever, requiring hens to be provided and Food 1987). Denmark and Swe- timeters of height was ever seen with nests and litter but stating that: den, by contrast, continue to provide again—although requirements for Member states may authorise more than the minimum. 800 square centimeters of area and derogation from [those require- 50 centimeters minimum height were ments] in order to permit the use retained to the next stage. of battery cages if the following Developments Meanwhile much relevant research conditions are met: continued. For example, in 1989 (a) At least 800 cm2 of cage Leading to the Dawkins and Hardie reported that area . . . shall be provided brown hens take up 475 square cen- for each hen; 1999 Directive timeters just standing still and 1,272 (b) Cages shall be at least One further provision of the directive square centimeters simply turning 50 cm high at any raised the possibility of future around. point. (Commission of changes, for example a ban on cages, By 1995 the commission had decid- the European Communi- by saying that: ed that it had to take further action, ties 1998, 5) Before 1 January 1993 the Com- and asked the Scientific Veterinary Enriched cages, “equipped with lit- mission shall submit a report on Committee to update its report. The ter, perches, and a nestbox,” were scientific developments regarding updated report, issued in 1996, listed mentioned as a possible housing sys- the welfare of hens under various welfare benefits and deficiencies of tem; they were required to be 50 cen- systems of rearing. (Commission cages and non-cage systems. It con- timeters high but no more than that. of the European Communities cluded that: Then a critical coincidence 1986, 3) Because of its small size and its occurred: Sweden started introducing The Scientific Veterinary Commit- barrenness, the battery cage as enriched cages on a commercial tee (Animal Welfare Section) of the used at present has inherent basis. In late 1998 a number of key commission did produce a report in severe disadvantages for the wel- players in the Council of Ministers 1992 (de Wit 1992), but it did not fare of hens. . . .To retain the and the Commission’s Directorate- receive widespread circulation or pub- advantages of cages and over- General for Agriculture were able to

166 The State of the Animals II: 2003 visit Sweden and see the cages for agreed with it. The Parliament although the Council does not need themselves. They doubtless took note amended the first version of the direc- unanimity, it attempts to achieve it, of the fact that egg production from tive, voting heavily to replace the rather than forcing minority coun- enriched cages is cheaper than from derogation for battery cages with a tries to accept change against their most non-cage systems. provision that “the use of battery will. If several countries were known Meanwhile Germany, hungry for cages shall be prohibited”: the vote to be planning to vote against the substantial progress on animal wel- was 58 percent for, 38 percent directive, the Council probably would fare during its forthcoming presiden- against, 4 percent abstaining. The have deferred the vote and considered cy of the council in the first half of increasing concern for animal welfare further amendments. 1999, was gearing up to ensure adop- among southern Europeans may be Those thought most likely to vote tion of the directive in that period. illustrated by the fact that the amend- against were France, Greece, Italy, The German presidency—that is, the ment was presented by an Italian Portugal, and Spain; these countries German ministry of agriculture, with member of the Parliament and signed have a total of 38 votes, more than support from the rest of the German by Italian and Greek members, the 26 needed for a blocking minori- government—recognized that the among others (Sansolini 1999b). The ty. Portugal, for example, stated pub- proposed directive did not give Parliament did not delete the men- licly that it planned to vote against enough details of enriched cages for tion of enriched cages as a permissi- (Aguirre y Mendes 1999). Groups these to be properly regulated. They ble system, though. Thus it, too, supporting the ban, such as Euro- put forward an amended version in voted to ban battery cages but not group for Animal Welfare and Com- early January. This avoided the words enriched cages. passion in World Farming (CIWF), battery and enriched altogether, and This was the first stage of the were particularly active in lobbying said that: debate to hit the headlines, making those five countries but also lobbied All cage systems [must] comply the front page at least in the poultry countries thought to be in favor—to at least with the following re- and animal welfare press, if not in the ensure their continued support and quirements: popular media. The coverage empha- to persuade them to put pressure on (a) Where the cage contains sized that the European Parliament the possible dissenters. The action eight hens or more, at had voted to ban batteries. But the that received most publicity was a least 550 cm2 of cage most important stage was still to hunger strike by Adolfo Sansolini, the area. . . must be provided come. The final decision would be Italian head of Compassion in World for each hen; taken by the Council of Ministers. Farming’s campaign in Mediter- (b) Where the cage contains Strictly speaking, the decision might ranean countries. On May 20, 1999, fewer than eight hens, at not be completely final. If the Council Italy announced that it would support least 800 cm2 of cage area did not act as the Parliament wanted, the ban (Sansolini 1999b). must be provided for each the Parliament could then require it Details of the negotiations among hen.... to think again—as it did recently the EU ministers of agriculture are, of (f) Cages must also provide: a when the Parliament voted to ban course, not public. It is possible that nest and an area with or sales of cosmetics tested on animals some who opposed the ban finally without litter enabling and the Council demurred. However, agreed to support it in return for hens to peck and scratch. the Parliament might well not have some other political favor. Stories (Commission of the Euro- persisted, so the Council decision have circulated that they were warned pean Communities would be momentous. that, if the directive failed, there 1999a, 7) would be increased pressure for more In other words, they proposed to radical change, such as a complete ban battery cages, but not enriched The 1999 ban on cages. It also happened that cages. the final vote came just after a dis- The European Parliament—which, Directive cussion on the dioxin scandal (Com- it will be remembered, is the directly The next months were busy. Govern- mission of the European Communi- elected, democratic body represent- ments put the proposals out for con- ties 1999b), which is rumored to have ing the public throughout the EU— sultation—for example, the author diminished any trust that the agricul- debated the proposed directive in late was on the list of those consulted by tural industry could be left to regu- January 1999. In the convoluted the U.K. government. Lobbying inten- late itself. (Not long before, there had political process that constitutes the sified because the Council would be been a widespread problem in Bel- EU, the version it debated was that using qualified majority voting (Table gium of dioxin contamination of ani- first proposed, not the version amend- 1) so that, if several countries voted mal feed, leaving toxic residues in the ed by Germany. However, the mem- against the directive, it would fall. carcasses after slaughter.) Serendipi- bers of Parliament were aware of the Indeed, the directive probably would ty may well have played some part in German initiative and most of them not even reach a vote because, the vote. However, it can also be said

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 167 that this was a vote whose time had The Royal Society for the Prevention cages, it will disallow enriched cages come. of (RSPCA) within its own borders, producing a On June 15, 1999, thirteen of the (undated [a], 9) says that “as more situation similar to that in Switzer- fifteen countries voted for the direc- producers become familiar with the land. This is despite Germany’s part tive (Compassion in World Farming design and management of alterna- in promoting the directive, including 1999). Only Austria voted against, tive systems, enriched cages offer few its provision for enriched cages. The and it did so because it did not believe benefits.” The RSPCA’s Freedom Netherlands and the United Kingdom the directive went far enough. Spain Foods standards do not allow cages. are considering similar moves abstained. The group does not mention the (Department for Environment, Food The key provisions of the directive problems of beak trimming, cannibal- and Rural Affairs 2002). are shown in Table 8. It will phase out ism, and occupational safety in alter- What was the egg industry’s barren battery cages by 2012, with an native systems. In this context, the response to passage of the directive? interim measure requiring 550 EU Scientific Veterinary Committee It was horrified. In the United King- square centimeters per hen by 2003. report may be recalled; it described dom, egg producers met on June 15, All new cages starting in 2003 and all both battery cages and non-cage sys- the very day of the decision, and “as cages starting in 2012 must provide tems as having severe welfare disad- details of the directive were revealed, 750 square centimeters per hen, as vantages but said that modified they were received with a stunned well as a nest box, a perch, and a lit- enriched cages had good potential for silence” (Cruickshank 1999). A Sep- ter area for scratching and pecking. both welfare and production (Scien- tember meeting of the International Requirements for non-cage alterna- tific Veterinary Committee 1996). Egg Commission, representing thirty- tives also change. Litter is not cur- Perhaps the most important point three countries, including all of the rently required in percheries (Table is that it seems extremely unlikely major producing countries except 5), but as of 2007 it will be needed in that a complete ban on cages would China, resolved to raise $1 million for all houses. (The situation will be have been possible in the EU in 1999 action to overturn the ban. The reso- reviewed before the end of 2004.) or the foreseeable future. Such a ban lution was supported by countries Not surprisingly, given the complex would have faced the arguments that worldwide, including the United process leading up to the directive caused Sweden to defer its own ban in States. One reason must have been and the various forms it went 1997—arguments that there would solidarity in face of what was per- through, there was confusion for be problems in both practical and ceived as a direct attack on the Euro- some time about exactly what had welfare terms. It also would have been pean members; in addition, “a domi- been decided. Headlines were along much more difficult for the countries no effect is feared by the United the lines of “Battery Cages Banned.” of southern Europe to accept a States, Canada, and Australia” (Far- As many people, even within industry change that would have had even rant 1999). and welfare groups, were unaware of more economic impact; some of the The industry may have been the existence of enriched cages or northern countries might also have encouraged in the hope that it could gave them little thought, they rejected such a change. Finally, the overturn the ban by the complex cir- believed that cages had been prohib- Council of Ministers may believe that cumstances leading up to the vote. ited altogether. The situation was the EU can protect an industry shoul- Ben Gill, president of the U.K. clarified to some extent by articles dering 10 percent cost increases National Farmer’s Union, wrote to the such as that by Elson (1999), entitled against competition from the rest of U.K. Minister of Agriculture describ- “Laying Cages to be Enriched, Not the world, but it probably would have ing the changes as “ill thought Banned,” but it still is not clear what balked at a higher cost increase. through” (Cruickshank 1999). How- actually will happen on most com- There is, therefore, a strong case ever, the complexities should not be mercial farms, as shall be seen below. that it was the availability of enriched taken as indicating that Europe was cages as a viable system that enabled half-hearted on this measure. Such a the ban on battery cages to be negative conclusion is denied by the Commentary accepted. Some commentators sug- strength of the vote in Parliament and Welfare groups enthusiastically wel- gest that enriched cages will not be by the fact that fourteen of fifteen comed the directive. Compassion In economically competitive with non- ministers voted for or wanted the ban. World Farming (1999), for example, cage alternatives (Compassion in At least since publication of Animal called it a “huge victory for animal World Farming 1999) and thus will Machines in 1964, “Ban the Battery welfare.” However, the groups are never be common commercially out- Cage” has been one of the most com- unenthusiastic about enriched cages. side Sweden. Even if that is true, mon protest calls. In the twentieth Peter Stevenson (2001a) of Compas- however, the cages have moved the century, it probably was surpassed as sion In World Farming calls on the issue forward. Germany decided in a popular cause by very few others, industry not to install these, but 2001 that, in the context of a such as “Votes for Women” and “Ban instead to move to non-cage systems. Europe-wide phasing out of battery the Bomb.” Ruth Harrison lived to see

168 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Table 8 Extracts from the EU 1999 Directive Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens

Un-enriched (conventional) Cages Review From 1st January 2003 no new conventional cages may be By 1st January 2005 “the Commission shall submit to the brought into service and existing cages will have to provide Council a report, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from 550 cm2 per bird and a claw shortener the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on the various systems From 1st January 2012 conventional cages are prohibited of rearing laying hens, and in particular on those covered by this Directive, taking account both of pathological, Enriched Cages zootechnical, physiological, and ethological aspects of From 1st January 2002 enriched cages must provide: the various systems and of their health and environmental • 750 cm2 per bird, of which at least 600 cm2 impact. is at least 45 cm high “That report shall also be drawn up on the basis of a study • A minimum total cage area of 2,000 cm2 of the socio-economic implications of the various systems • A nest and their effects on the Community's economic partners. • Litter such that pecking and scratching are possible “In addition, it shall be accompanied by appropriate • 15 cm perch per hen proposals taking into account the conclusions of • 12 cm of food trough per hen the report and the outcome of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.” • A claw shortener

Alternative Systems From 1st January 2002 new non-cage systems must have: • A maximum of 9 hens per m2 of usable area • Litter occupying at least one third of the floor • 15 cm perch per hen From 1st January 2007 all non-cage systems must comply with these conditions

Source: Commission of the European Communities 1999c the directive passed (and, character- egg sales for the next few years. longer if the directive’s deadline is istically, immediately started consid- Various manufacturers are offering not strictly enforced. ering how it could be improved), but models of enriched cages, and The review will consider perfor- died in 2000. If full implementation research on design details is in mance of different systems (including of the directive is achieved by 2012, progress. The U.K. Ministry of Agri- enriched cages in Sweden) and their as planned, it will be forty-eight years culture, for example, commissioned “socio-economic implications,” after Animal Machines fired the indig- research on cage height, group size, together with “the outcome of the nation of the European public. Taking and space allowances with the inten- World Trade Organization negotia- half a century to achieve just one of tion of making the results available to tions” (Table 8). So the latter must be the changes called for in that book, the Scientific Veterinary Committee’s considered next. and arguably only partially at that, is review in 2003 or 2004. However, few hardly rushing things. enriched cages will be installed out- side Sweden before the Commission World Trade report is out. Immediate No doubt producers continued to Organization install conventional cages right up to Developments December 2002. Some used models Rules What happens next obviously will be that are convertible to enriched Negotiations are under way to extend affected by the timing and content of cages; for example, a model of this the rules for free trade established by the EU Scientific Veterinary Commit- kind is sold by Big Dutchman, the the World Trade Organization (WTO) tee’s review and the subsequent Com- largest European cage manufacturer. to agricultural products, preventing mission report (Table 8). Others used standard models, taking individual countries and trade zones Installation of non-cage systems the risk that they will be usable only such as the EU from limiting imports, probably will increase slowly in the until 2011 (J. Campbell, Glenrath subsidizing exports, or applying any short term. Those who are ahead of Eggs, personal communication, other process that favors domestic the game will get premiums for their March 15, 2001), or perhaps a while versus foreign producers. The EU pro-

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 169 poses that animal welfare be taken welfare. However, under no possible countries with lower standards” (Sci- into account in trade, by allowing construction could it be argued that entific Veterinary Committee 1996, labelling; agreements between trad- the ban on use of batteries within 111). ing partners that safeguard welfare; Europe—with all its fantastical histo- If the EU succeeds in restricting or payment of subsidies to producers ry—is itself motivated by protection- import of battery eggs, or in other who maintain high welfare (European ism. One additional piece of evidence measures such as being allowed to Communities 2000). This will meet against such an interpretation is that label eggs from different systems or resistance from other countries, any tightening of legislation on hous- subsidize farmers required to including the United States. However, ing of laying hens always has been renounce batteries, the Commission it is possible that welfare can be taken resisted by the industry (cf Jorêt surely will recommend few, if any, into account even under existing 1998). Examples in the United King- changes to the directive. In that case, WTO rules. Article XX of the WTO’s dom and Sweden have been men- changes to existing battery cage sys- General Agreement on Tariffs and tioned above, and the horror provoked tems will accelerate in 2010 or so. Trade says (Stevenson 2001b, 13): in egg producers by the 1999 directive Indications are that most producers Nothing in this agreement shall has been described. Clearly, egg pro- will choose to use enriched cages be construed to prevent the adop- ducers did not regard the legislation rather than other alternatives, partic- tion or enforcement by any con- as a potential defense against imports ularly in the colder northern coun- tracting party of measures: from the rest of the world. Neverthe- tries. a) necessary to protect public less, not unexpectedly they did ask for However, success for the EU in the morals, protection; indeed, they believe that WTO negotiations is not assured. b) necessary to protect human, the Commission and the agriculture animal or plant health. ministers have promised it (Farrant The possibility of using this article 1999). In fact, most reports, from var- Prospects Under to justify measures within the EU to ied sources, recommending tighter protect animal welfare has not yet legislation on housing of laying hens Free Trade been fully explored. This possibility is in Europe have recommended such What will the socio-economic impli- strengthened by the fact that the protection (House of Commons 1981; cations be if such protection cannot United States recently used similar Scientific Veterinary Committee be achieved? Could the directive still arguments to justify a ban on trade of 1996; Farm Animal Welfare Council be implemented? Yes, it could. The dog and cat fur (United States Con- 1997; Royal Society for the Prevention chance of a great reduction in Euro- gress 2000). The act’s preamble of Cruelty to Animals undated [b]). pean egg production is small. The states (Stevenson 2001b) that: Still this cannot be described as pro- suggestion of the Scientific Veteri- The trade of dog and cat fur prod- tectionism. Certainly protection of nary Committee (1996), just quoted, ucts is ethically and aesthetically European egg producers is envisaged, probably is an overstatement. So is abhorrent to U.S. citizens; but on the two grounds of fairness and the following statement by Jorêt [The] ban is also consistent with animal protection. It would be unfair (1998) in responding for the U.K. egg provisions of international agree- to require producers to adopt more industry to proposals for the direc- ments to which the United States costly, humane systems and then suf- tive: “There is no point in legislating is a party that expressly allow for fer competition from cheaper, inhu- our own industry out of existence measures designed to protect the mane imports. And this would not pro- only to turn round and import that health and welfare of animals: tect animals if sales of eggs from product from those very same sys- [U.S. consumers have a right to] cages outside Europe displace egg tems, but operated to much lower ensure that they are not unwit- production from more humane sys- standards than were in use at home.” ting participants in this gruesome tems in Europe; the common phrase The phrase, “legislating our own trade. is that “we would be exporting our industry out of existence,” is an exag- Thus the United States cannot con- welfare problems.” Clearly, if the main geration. For years, as mentioned, sistently argue against attempts by effect of the directive is a great reduc- Denmark has had more stringent leg- the EU to prevent import of battery tion in European egg production and islation on cages than the rest of eggs, on the grounds that banning of substitution by battery egg produc- Europe. Its egg industry survives, batteries in Europe is a matter of pub- tion elsewhere in the world, it will albeit perhaps smaller than it might lic morality and protection of animal have failed in its intentions. The Sci- otherwise have been. If this applies to health. entific Veterinary Committee suggest- trade within Europe, it applies even Perhaps some countries will suggest ed that “high standards of laying hen more to the threat of longer-distance that such attempts by the EU to pre- welfare can only be implemented and imports to European countries from vent import of battery eggs are pro- sustained if the EU market is protect- outside Europe, at least with regard tectionist rather than concerned with ed against imports of eggs from third to whole eggs (which the industry

170 The State of the Animals II: 2003 calls “shell eggs”). The industry in battery cages. The egg industry lems that remain to be solved, such as acknowledges this. Mary Ann also believes that the European bat- parasite infestation and poor working Sörensen of the Federation of tery ban may in due course lead to a conditions for operatives. Swedish Egg Farmers considers that “domino effect” in the United States, the importance of freshness in shell Canada, and Australia (Farrant 1999). eggs should enable countries to If Europe cannot protect its egg Implications retain this market for local produc- producers under WTO rules, there tion (Farrant 1999). Similarly, Mike will be considerable discussion and for the United Ring, director general of the Interna- lobbying. One additional complicat- tional Egg Commission, says that ing factor is the potential accession States “the EU shell egg market will be of up to twelve new countries as EU What are the lessons from such a largely protected by the freshness members; these countries are likely labyrinthine history for a single coun- needs of that market” (Farrant 1999). to argue that they need more time for try such as the United States? There is a possibility, though, that implementation than those with a 1. Don’t expect too much too soon. imports of processed eggs, which head start. Nevertheless, it is almost The First (and so far only) North make up 25 percent of European egg certain that there will be major American Symposium on Poultry Wel- production, would rise. In fact, as changes to the housing of many or fare was held in 1995 (in Edmonton, these would be from battery cages, most laying hens in Europe in 2010 Canada)—compared with the Euro- the result would be to continue a and 2011. pean Symposia that effectively started trend that already is present. Refer- in 1977—and related changes of atti- ences to people’s willingness to buy tude still have not gathered pace. non-cage eggs apply mainly to fresh Long-term 2. Change is possible. One of the eggs; few people consider where the most important agents for that eggs come from in processed food. If Prospects change is public opinion. Politicians other countries increase exports of Obviously, longer-term prospects in every European country and relat- processed eggs to Europe, it is likely depend on many factors, including ed institution comment that they that European egg production would the WTO negotiations, but one point receive more letters on animal wel- shrink under the proposed changes, needs to be made. It has been empha- fare than on any other subject, and but it would not disappear. sized that non-cage systems have two that this influences and strengthens Precisely how the European Com- major, alternative welfare problems: them in countering industrial mus- mission, Parliament, and Council cannibalism, and the beak trimming cle. American politicians make simi- would act in response to such a likeli- required to prevent it. If strains of lar comments. Furthermore, it seems hood is hard to predict, but it is diffi- birds can be developed that do not that expectations of American citi- cult to believe that they would back- show cannibalism, then eventually zens are being affected by develop- track completely and rescind the ban cages probably will be phased out ments in Europe. Differences between on battery cages. Given the manifold altogether. Such genetic selection is the American political system and circumstances leading to the ban, possible (Muir 1996). However, it is that in Europe probably will mean, such a move would be seen as a not in the economic interests of the however, that even more public pres- betrayal and would lead to a huge out- poultry breeders, for two reasons: sure will be needed to effect similar cry. It seems more likely that, if any- adding any such criterion would change in the United States. thing, compromise proposals would reduce breeders’ ability to breed for 3. The United States is a single be made, lengthening the phase-out other, more profitable characteris- country, but as a union of semi- period for batteries, for example, or tics, and success would favor the autonomous states it has much in reducing the space requirements in move from cages to other systems, common with the EU. Individual other systems. One additional argu- which the industry sees as unfavor- European countries were successful ment for Europe “putting its own able. Thus one of the most important acting alone, and these actions finally house in order” in this matter, requirements for long-term improve- led to communal action. Similarly, despite world-wide pressures, is that ment of laying hen welfare is legisla- single American states could take the there is reason to believe that the rest tion requiring such selection against lead, and persuade others to follow, of the world will eventually follow. cannibalism. If that legislation is on hen housing as on hog factories. Canada, Australia, and New passed, enriched cages will perhaps 4. In fact, most of the above history Zealand—and McDonalds and other have been a medium-term develop- shows that piecemeal change is chain restaurants in the United ment, although certainly one that worthwhile in itself, and finally leads States—already have moved toward facilitated further change. However, to wholesale change. This obviously matching European space allowances non-cage systems do have other prob- applies to labelling. Much of the dis-

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 171 cussion about labelling refers to giv- 86/113/EEC: Welfare of battery ing consumers a choice. In regard to Literature Cited hens. Official Journal of the Euro- welfare, choice is not actually what is Aguirre y Mendes, A. 1999. Portu- pean Communities (L 95) 29: desired; it is desirable to improve the gal—Press campaign and political 45–49. welfare of all hens, not just a small, lobbying. Agscene 135: 9. ———. 1992. European Communi- labelled proportion of them. Yet the Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and M.C. ties draft recommendations No. fact that some people buy Free Range Appleby. 1995. Performance of four VI/2327/92. Brussels: CEC. eggs—and Freedom Foods demon- hybrids of laying hens in modified ———. 1997 Protocol on the welfare strates that a significant proportion and conventional cages. Acta Agri- and protection of animals. Brussels: will “put their money where their culturae Scandinavica 45: 286– CEC. mouth is”—has led the way for more 296. ———. 1998. Proposal for a Council widespread change. Labelling Appleby, M.C. 1983. Nest-site selec- Directive laying down minimum schemes in the United States—such tion by domestic hens. CEC Farm standards for the protection of lay- as the Farm Free label of the Ameri- Animal Welfare Programme Evalua- ing hens kept in various systems of can Humane Association—could tion Report, 1979–1983: 34–38. rearing. Brussels: CEC. receive much more emphasis, to use- ———. 1993. Should cages for laying ———. 1999a. Proposal for a Council ful effect. hens be banned or modified? Ani- Directive laying down minimum 5. Similarly, the initiative by mal Welfare 2: 67–80. standards for the protection of lay- McDonalds in 2000 to require its egg ———. 1998. The Edinburgh Modi- ing hens [Amendment from the Ger- suppliers to increase their cage size fied Cage: Effects of group size and man Presidency]. Brussels: CEC. parallels the actions by some Euro- space allowance on brown laying ———. 1999b. Press release. pean supermarkets and has influ- hens. Journal of Applied Poultry http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cf enced other commercial companies Research 7: 152–161. m?LANG=1. to make similar moves. It is possible ———. 2003. The European Union ———. 1999c. Council Directive that nongovernmental action to influ- ban on conventional laying cages: 1999/74/EC laying down mini- ence market structure is a more History and prospects. Journal mum standards for the protection promising route than regulation in of Applied 6 of laying hens. Official Journal of the United States (Thompson 2001). (2): 103–121. the European Communities August 6. The EU ban on battery cages is Appleby, M.C., G.S. Hogarth, J.A. 3, L 203: 53–57. the cumulative result (and even now Anderson, B.O. Hughes, and C.T. Compassion in World Farming only a partial result) of activity on Whittemore. 1988. Performance of (CIWF). 1999. Europe agrees ban many different fronts. Some of these a deep litter system for egg produc- on battery cages: Huge victory for have not even been discussed in this tion. British Poultry Science 29: animal welfare. Agscene 135: 10. account, such as the pressure on the 735–751. Council of Europe. 1976. Convention EU to agree—which it finally did Appleby, M.C., B.O. Hughes, and H.A. on the Protection of Animals Kept (Commission of the European Com- Elson. 1992. Poultry production for Farming Purposes. http://con- munities 1997)—that animals are systems: Behaviour, management ventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties. “sentient beings,” not just products. and welfare. Wallingford, England: Council of the European Union. Any campaign in the United States CAB International. 2003. Qualified majority. http: must be similarly multifaceted, bring- Appleby, M.C., A.W. Walker, C.J. Nicol, //ue.eu.int/en/Info. ing pressure to bear on all relevant A.C. Lindberg, R. Freire, B.O. Cruickshank, G. 1999. Egg producers groups, including producers, retail- Hughes, and H.A. Elson. 2002. call for unity to fight cage ban. ers, consumers, legislators, and the Development of furnished cages for Poultry World (August): 1–3. media. laying hens. British Poultry Science Dawkins, M.S., and S. Hardie. 1989. 43. Space needs of laying hens. British Note Brambell, R. 1965. Command Paper Poultry Science 30: 413–416. Another version of this article is cited as Appleby 2836. London: Her Majesty's Sta- Department for Environment, Food 2003. tionery Office. and Rural Affairs. 2002. Consulta- Commission of the European Com- tion on a possible ban on the use of munities (CEC). 1985. Amend- enriched cages for laying hens in ment 1943/85 to Regulation England. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ 95/69, also amended by 927/69 corporate/consult/enrichedcages/ and 2502171. Official Journal of the letter.htm. European Communities (July 13). de Wit, W. 1992. The welfare of laying ———. 1986. Council Directive hens kept under various housing

172 The State of the Animals II: 2003 systems: Report to the EC. Pro- Switzerland: World’s Poultry Sci- responses. Poultry Science 75: ceedings, World’s Poultry Congress, ence Association. 447–458. Amsterdam: 320–323. Gibson, S.W., P. Dun, and B.O. Hugh- Nørgaard-Nielsen, G. 1986. Behav- Ehlhardt, D.A., and C.L.M. Koolstra. es. 1988. The performance and iour, health and production of egg- 1984. Multi-tier system for housing behaviour of laying fowls in a cov- laying hens in the Hans Kier system laying hens. Pluimveehouderij ered strawyard system. Research compared to hens on litter and in (December 21): 44–47. and Development in Agriculture 5: battery cages. Rapport til Hans Kier Elson, H.A. 1981. Modified cages for 153–163. Fond, Forseningen tel Dyrenes layers. In Alternatives to intensive Harrison, R. 1964. Animal machines. Beskyttelsei Danmark, 1–198. husbandry systems, 47–50. Potters London: Stuart. Royal Society for Prevention of Cruel- Bar, England: Universities Federa- House of Commons. 1981. First ty to Animals (RSPCA). Undated tion for Animal Welfare. report from the Agriculture Commit- (a). Home to roost: The future for ———. 1985. The economics of poul- tee, Session 1980–81: Animal wel- laying hens. Horsham, England: try welfare. In Proceedings, Second fare in poultry, pig and veal calf pro- RSPCA. European Symposium on Poultry duction. London: Her Majesty's ———. Undated (b). Conflict or con- Welfare, ed. R.M. Wegner, 244–253. Stationery Office. cord? Animal welfare and the World Celle, Germany: World's Poultry Jorêt, A.D. 1998. Walking the animal Trade Organization. Horsham, Eng- Science Association. welfare tight-rope—An egg indus- land: RSPCA. ———. 1999. Laying cages to be try view. In Farm animal welfare: Sansolini, A. 1999a. Europe in brief. enriched, not banned. Poultry Who writes the rules? Programme & Agscene 134: 13. World (August): 16. summaries, ed. British Society for ———. 1999b. Italian turning point. European Communities. 2000. Euro- Animal Science, 2. Edinburgh: Agscene 135: 7. pean Communities proposal: Ani- British Society for Animal Science. Scientific Veterinary Committee (Ani- mal welfare and trade in agricul- Keeling, L.J., B.O. Hughes, and P. mal Welfare Section). 1996. Report ture. WTO Committee on Dun. 1988. Performance of free on the welfare of laying hens. Com- Agriculture, Special Session, Paper range laying hens in a Polythene mission of the European Communi- G/AG/NG/W/19: www.wto.org, house and their behaviour on ties Directorate-General for Agri- Trade Topics, Agriculture, Negotia- range. Farm Buildings Progress 94: culture VI/B/II.2. tions. 21–28. Sörensen, M.A. 1994. Economical Farm Animal Welfare Council Ludvigsen, J.B., J. Empel, F. Kovacs, and political considerations of (FAWC). 1986. An assessment of M. Manfredini, J. Unshelm, and M. keeping laying hens in Europe and egg production systems. Tolworth, Viso. 1982. Animal health and wel- in the EU: The Swedish case. In England: FAWC. fare. Livestock production science Future egg production in Sweden: ———. 1991. Report on the welfare of 9: 65–87. Prospects for alternatives to con- laying hens in colony systems. Tol- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and ventional cage keeping of laying worth, England: FAWC. Food (MAFF). 1969. Codes of rec- hens in a larger scale in Sweden, ed. ———. 1997. Report on the welfare of ommendations for the welfare of M.A. Sörensen, 85–96. Kunsängen, laying hens. Tolworth, England: livestock: Domestic fowls. London: Sweden: Kronägg. FAWC. MAFF Publications Office. Stevenson, P. 2001a. An ethical Farrant, J. 1999. IEC’s world action ———. 1987. Codes of recommenda- approach to farm animal hus- to keep cages. Poultry World tions for the welfare of livestock: bandry. In Proceedings, Ethics and (November): 1–4. Domestic fowls. London: MAFF Animal Welfare 2001: Relationships Fredell, R. 1994. Welcoming remarks. Publications Office. between Humans and Animals. In Future egg production in Sweden: Matter, F., and H. Oester. 1989. Conference, Stockholm, May. Prospects for alternatives to con- Hygiene and welfare implications of (Comment cited is not in the print- ventional cage keeping of laying alternative husbandry systems for ed abstract.) hens in a larger scale in Sweden, ed. laying hens. In Proceedings, Third ———. 2001b. The WTO rules: Their M.A. Sörensen, 1. Kunsängen, Swe- European Symposium on Poultry adverse impact on animal welfare. den: Kronägg. Welfare, ed. J.M. Faure, and A.D. Petersfield, England: Compassion Fröhlich, E.K.F., and H. Oester. 2001. Mills, 201–212. Tours, France: in World Farming Trust. From battery cages to aviaries: 20 World's Poultry Science Associa- Tauson, R. 1985. Mortality in laying years of Swiss experience. In Pro- tion. hens caused by differences in cage ceedings, 6th European Symposium Muir, W.M. 1996. Group selection for design. Acta Agriculturae Scandi- on Poultry Welfare, ed. H. Oester adaptation to multi-hen cages: navica 35: 165–174. and C. Wyss, 51–59, Zollikofen, Selection program and direct ———. 1986. Avoiding excessive

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 173 growth of claws in caged laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinav- ica 36: 95–106. ———. 1988. Effects of redesign. In Cages for the future, Cambridge Poultry Conference, 42–69. Not- tingham, England: Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. ———. 2000. Furnished cages and aviaries: Production and health. Proceedings, 21st World Poultry Congress, Montreal: 8–17. Tauson, R., and K.E. Holm. 2001. First furnished small group cages for laying hens in evaluation pro- gram on commercial farms in Swe- den. In Proceedings, 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, ed. H. Oester, and C. Wyss. 26–32. Zol- likofen, Switzerland: World’s Poul- try Science Association. Thompson, P.B. 2001. Book review: What should we do about animal welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 81–82. U.S. Congress. 2000. Dog and Cat Protection Act. U.S. Congress Pro- ceedings PL 106/476 Chapter 3: sections 1441–1443. Wegner, R.M. 1990. Experience with the get-away cage system. World’s Poultry Science Journal 46: 41–47.

174 The State of the Animals II: 2003