Cracks in the Egg Industry

[Guest guest]

By Marc Kaufman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 30, 2000; Page A01

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41147-2000Apr29.html

 

 

SACRAMENTO –– For years, most egg farmers in the United States have routinely

extended the egg-laying lives of their chickens by withholding feed from the

birds until they lose a quarter of their weight.

 

That process --called induced or forced molting-- generally continues until the

chickens shed their feathers, usually after five to 14 days. When food is

restored, the birds are rejuvenated and lay bigger and stronger eggs than

before.

 

To the egg industry, the practice is a logical and necessary extention of its

efforts to increase productivity and scientifically manage its flocks. About 75

percent of egg-laying flocks undergo induced molting, and some more than once.

 

But increasingly, health researchers, animal rights activists and now

legislators are challenging the practice.

 

Some see forced molting as inhumane, saying it amounts to intentional

starvation. And others are pointing to research linking the stress of forced

molting with an increased likelihood that people will get sick from salmonella

by eating eggs.

 

When hens are denied food, the researchers have found, their immune systems

become weakened, leaving them more vulnerable to the salmonella bacteria. The

birds then might be more likely to pass the infection to people through their

eggs.

 

The practice of forced molting has been the subject of a little-known but

passionate dispute for several years. But it has begun to draw increased

attention. This week, for example, the state Assembly in California--the

nation's third-leading egg-producing state--will hold a public hearing on forced

molting as it considers the nation's first proposed legislation to ban the

practice.

 

" To me, this is a very significant public health issue, " said Assemblyman Ted

Lempert, a Palo Alto Democrat who sponsored the bill. " I was first shocked by

the practice because of the horrible cruelty, but the health issues really

demand attention. "

 

But egg farmers say they are being misunderstood and unfairly maligned. Birds

fast and molt naturally, they say, and farmers are simply manipulating that

process to produce more and better eggs, such as the extra large and jumbo eggs

consumers seem to prefer.

 

And the link to salmonella, they say, remains far from proven. What's more, with

salmonella cases declining in California and nationwide--down more than 33

percent across the nation from 1996 to 1998--they say their industry has been

working hard and successfully to reduce its contribution to that disease.

 

" We feel wounded, " said Paul Bahan, a major California egg producer and member

of an industry animal welfare committee. " We feel like we're doing a phenomenal

job producing a wonderful product at a wonderful price, but we're being

presented as monsters. "

 

Egg producers also say induced molting is essential to maintaining their

profitability, which is already threatened by a national oversupply of eggs.

Industry officials estimate that without the molts, their eggs would cost at

least 4 cents more per dozen, which would be passed on to consumers.

 

" We are dealing here with a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of

farm animals, " said Donald Bell of the University of California at Riverside,

who is often described as the driving force behind induced molting.

 

" When man domesticated animals, it was inevitable there would be some negative

aspects for those animals, " he said. " But it's only because of that

domestication--and now the scientific approach we use to raising animals--that

we can feed the world. Do people really want that to stop? "

 

Because of strong objections by the egg industry, few expect the Lempert bill

will pass this year, and it may not even get out of the generally pro-farmer

Agriculture Committee.

 

But anti-molting activists have also petitioned the federal government to ban

forced molting nationally and are starting to pressure fast food chains to not

buy force-molted eggs. The egg industry understands it is facing a public

relations as well as scientific problem.

 

Adding to their difficulties, experts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

and a scientific advisory committee appointed by the United Egg Producers (UEP),

the largest industry group, have voiced concerns about the way many farmers

conduct induced moltings.

 

In a letter to activists who in 1998 petitioned the government to ban forced

molting, an official with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service wrote

that while the agency did not have authority to regulate the practice, it " is

encouraging poultry and egg producers to eliminate forced molting practices and

adopt alternatives that reduce public health risks. "

 

In addition, the chairman of the advisory committee of scientists that studied

animal welfare for the industry last year concluded that farmers need to find

new ways to induce their molts. In a letter to the legislative committee taking

up Lempert's bill, Jeffrey D. Armstrong, of Purdue University, wrote that " the

welfare of the hen is compromised when feed withdrawal or restriction is used to

induce a molt. "

 

Armstrong opposes Lempert's bill, saying the industry needs time to find

alternative ways to force a molt. But because of his committee's conclusions,

Armstrong said, " I have a lot of colleagues mad at me because they don't think

there's anything wrong with removing food for 14 days. "

 

Farmers have long known that hens lay more and bigger eggs after their natural

annual molt. In the 1950s and '60s, as egg farming became increasingly

industrialized, they began to experiment with commercial methods to force their

birds to molt on demand and at the same time. The most effective method was to

deny the birds food, and sometimes water, for up to 14 days.

 

What egg producers view as a rational system for producing more eggs more

cheaply, however, some animal rights activists see as cruel and inhumane

treatment of defenseless animals.

 

Teri Barnato is national director of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal

Rights, one of several groups leading the campaign against forced molting. Her

group initially approached Lempert's office about introducing a bill on forced

molting, which was banned in Europe in 1987.

 

" Our country is way behind many others in terms of protecting the welfare of

farm animals, and we think forced molting shows that very painfully, " Barnato

said.

 

But the issue would not have gone as far if the practice had not also been

implicated in the spread of the salmonella bacteria in hens and eggs.

 

Following a surprisingly sharp rise in human salmonella cases in the mid-1980s,

researchers and government agencies began to study how and why it was spreading.

They found that 1 in 20,000 eggs was infected with salmonella, and that

undercooked, infected eggs were a major source of the spread of the disease.

(Federal statistics show salmonella in eggs was associated with 28,644 illnesses

and 79 deaths from 1985 to 1998.) Several studies concluded that there was also

a link between the stress of forced molting of hens and salmonella in them and

their eggs.

 

Many in the egg industry do not accept this conclusion and say they do not see

any connection between induced molting and salmonella. The federal government

has been quiet on the issue, and forced molting was not raised as a concern in

the administration's recent action plan for reducing salmonella in eggs.

 

But research in the mid-1990s by Peter Holt of the USDA's Agricultural Research

Service has found that food withdrawal lowers the immune systems of hens and

makes them more susceptible to salmonella. " We saw that [salmonella] infections

were more severe in the molted birds, that there was more intestinal

inflammation, that the birds excreted more salmonella and they transmitted it

more readily to other molted birds, " Holt said. But he cautioned that his

research was in the laboratory rather than the field, and said the USDA had

asked him in December to do more studies.

 

While the USDA has avoided taking a position on forced molting, its Food Safety

and Inspection Service has reached some conclusions. In a 1998 draft report

released to United Poultry Concerns of Machipongo, Va., under a freedom of

information request, the service estimated that eliminating forced molting would

reduce illness from salmonella by about 2 percent.

 

With concerns growing about molting-related salmonella and animal welfare

issues, the industry has been working to modify farm practices, especially

cutting back on the length of food withdrawal. The scientific advisory committee

convened by the UEP is expected to present its report soon, and it will contain

recommendations on molting practices and other issues, such as the size of hens'

cages.

 

" Ultimately, it's the science that will dictate what we do, " said Al Pope,

president of the industry group. " We would not like to eliminate [induced

molting] because it has so many benefits, but we may not have much choice. "

 

 

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41147-2000Apr29.html

--

_____________

Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmamail.com

 

 

powered by OutBlaze