A. Free Range

Free range claims are made in advertising on takeaway food shops, as well as on eggs and poultry products in the various supermarkets. A large poster for Lilydale chickens displayed on the Classic Food Bar in Marrickville is headed ‘Free to roam’ above a photograph of chickens on grass under gum trees.

Vague or misleading descriptors such as ‘barn raised’ and ‘free to roam’ have become the subject of legal action. The Australian Com­petition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken action in the Federal Court of Australia against three poultry suppliers including Baiada Poultry Pty Limited, the supplier of Lilydale Free Range Chick­ens, for misleading and deceptive conduct. The ACCC alleged that phrases such as ‘free to roam’ are misleading and deceptive because the chickens ‘do not, as a practical matter, have substantial space available to roam around freely’. The Court found that two of the firms, Baiada and Bartter, and an industry body had made false representations and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.^[1130]

Consumer demands for free range poultry products, based on ethical concerns for animal welfare, have become increasingly apparent. Egg and poultry producers have responded by increasing the supply. One way to do this is to redefine ‘free range’.

There are a number of competing certifications, with different stocking densities (indoor/outdoor), some prohibiting beak trimming. Bodies spon­soring these certifications range from Australian Certified Organic and state free range farmers’ associations (with some of the strictest limits at around 1,000 birds per hectare) through the RSPCA to the Australian Egg Corp Ltd (AECL).

The AECL sets very low standards for ‘free range’ and argues that densities under the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals should increase to 20,000 birds per ha.

When [Choice] asked consumers what they’d consider to be a reasonable maximum outdoor stocking density... 65 per cent of respondents said they didn’t know. This reinforces our belief that a maximum stocking density shouldn’t be predominantly based on consumer research, but rather on a broader body of independent, scientific research in conjunction with con­sumer research.^[1131]

Choice campaigns for clarity and standardisation of labelling, so that consumers may make informed choices about the food they buy. This leads to demands for standards, regulations and well-understood terms on which to base buying choices. In any of these debates, there are disputed criteria, based on different interests and values. Poultry farmers may have economic interests that are at odds with those of humanitarians, or even chickens (if they can be said to have interests). These interests may be fought out in the name of various values (to paraphrase Marx).^[1132]

If we were to argue, with some secularists or certain Marxists, that these values are essentially arbitrary, irrational, or an ideological smoke­screen for material interests, it may be difficult to find a way through such disputes. And yet the welfare of sentient beings can be seen to require that animals be allowed to express natural behaviours and be protected from suffering. Such values are held by many people, and can be defended on a variety of ethical, political or religious grounds.^[1133] They are subject to rational and ethical debate.

However, as Choice finds when surveying consumers who would choose free range products, it is difficult to know just where to set specific standards. Serious public debate on matters of values should be informed by scientific research and even philosophical analysis. If the average consumer has no idea what stocking densities are necessary to allow chickens to walk, scratch and peck, then ethological and veterinary research can be informative.