For while the FDA’s decision to curb the use of cephalosporins in food animal production beginning April 2012 has been hailed as positive step in the right direction, I’d say it’s more a shuffle forwards – and a very reluctant one at that.

“We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals,” pronounced Michael R. Taylor, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, in the FDA press release. Now, as regular readers of my post will already know, I am passionate about the urgent need to curb the misuse of antibiotics in intensive farming systems. So what’s my problem with the FDA’s recent actions? After all, surely this is good news?

As various commentators – including Tom Philpott and Mary McKenna – have already pointed out, I am afraid that cephalosporins are nothing but small fry when it comes to overall antibiotic use in intensive farming. During 2009 alone, the FDA revealed that 80% of all antibiotics produced in the U.S. were used for animals – that’s an incredible 28,820,000 pounds out of the 36,080,000 pounds produced. Yet cephalosporins amounted to just over 91,000 pounds of this total – less than half of one percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. The FDA’s latest figures also reveal that cephalosporin use has decreased even further during 2010 to just over 51,000 pounds. To make matters even worse, the FDA’s announcement is actually a (less strict) rehash of proposals that were first announced in 2008, and which were immediately recalled after the usual uproar from the intensive farming industry lobby.

So what’s the real outcome of the FDA’s recent action? Well, certainly some positive media fluff for the FDA for appearing to take a stand by banning a minor antibiotic that was clearly already losing favor within the industry, yet a minimal impact on the day-to-day workings of the intensive farming industry. A cozy coincidence? I wish it was.

This rather insignificant move forward comes after a pre-emptive giant leap backwards made on December 22, 2011, just as most of us were focusing on the upcoming holiday period. Notably without any accompanying press release or media fanfare in this instance, the FDA quietly announced in the Federal Register that it was withdrawing its long-standing intention to compel intensive farms to limit certain uses of the key antibiotics penicillin and tetracyclines for food-producing animals – an objective originally set in motion more than 30 years ago when government FDA scientists first began to fully appreciate the risks to human health from the laissez-faire non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in industrial farming.

We all know the story since then: over the years, the FDA has time and again cowed down to powerful political and legal pressure from the multi-billion dollar intensive farming industry lobby and its paid-up politicians, as antibiotic use in farming continued to spiral out of control in the pursuit of ever-cheaper protein and ever-increasing profit – not to mention the impact of intensification on animal welfare, our health and the environment. In its recent announcement the FDA warns that while it has not “ruled out” future regulatory action, it will instead “focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health.” I bet Big Ag’s CEOs are quaking in their boots.

Voluntary reform? Call me a cynic but the FDA has got to be kidding. Despite decades of mounting evidence and the emergence of a global scientific consensus that the routine non-therapeutic use of medicinally important antibiotics on industrial farms across the world is leading to the development of life-threatening multiple antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the powerful U.S. intensive farming lobby continues to aggressively dismiss the science and deny any possible risks to human health – just as the tobacco industry did in the 1970s.

While the FDA’s announcement of limitations for the use of cephalosporins in food animal production might well be a small step in the right direction, the FDA continues to show that it has no teeth when it comes to ensuring that the intensive farming industry puts human health before profit, so that these vital medicines can remain effective for as long as possible. Even the Government Accountability Office recently concluded that key government agencies – including the FDA – are simply not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health, and that “antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”  Far from being the proud industry watchdog working on behalf of U.S. citizens, the sad reality is that the FDA is happy to play the role of Big Ag’s lapdog.

We’ve seen it happen with organic, where some of the rules that farmers and food manufacturers must follow in order to use the coveted organic label have been watered down or manipulated. This has happened to such an extent that many well-meaning organic consumers would now struggle to differentiate between some larger ‘organic’ operations and their industrial cousins. The same thing is now happening with the term “grassfed.” While the range of products, labels and brands that make grassfed claims grows day by day, the sad reality is that some of the grassfed meat, milk and cheese you can buy probably shouldn’t be labeled grassfed at all.

Fortunately, Animal Welfare Approved has just published an 18-page booklet called The Grassfed Primer to cut through the confusion surrounding the term “grassfed” and to help the public to understand the wide benefits that real grassfed farming systems can have for the environment, for farm animal welfare, and for our health.

The good news is that people across the U.S. are waking up to the hidden costs of cheap, industrialized meat production and damaging impact that intensive farming is having on the environment, on animal welfare, and on our health. Growing numbers of consumers are voting with their wallets and seeking out truly sustainable alternatives – including grassfed meat and dairy products.

And they would be right to do so: Scientists have shown that grass-based farming systems, where livestock eat a diet of 100 percent grass or other forage throughout their lives and have constant access to pasture or range, are far better for animal welfare and are less likely to cause environmental pollution. We know that grassfed farming has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As cattle and other ruminants graze pasture they stimulate the growth of grass, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere through its leaves and stores it in a mass of roots under the ground in a far more stable form of carbon – a process called carbon sequestration. Indeed, scientists now think that grazing cattle on pastures and restoring grasslands could play a vital role in slowing the global warming process. We also know that grassfed meat and dairy products offer real human health benefits in terms of higher levels of omega-3s, CLAs and vitamin E, as well as reducing the risk of E. coli food poisoning and the development of other antibiotic resistant bacterial diseases associated with intensive farming systems.

However, the bad news is that despite the apparent assurances that a grassfed label might offer, some of the so-called grassfed systems out there actually fall well short of our expectations because the requirements for keeping animals on pasture can vary significantly among the different grassfed labels.

When you ask most people to explain what “grassfed farming” means, they will almost always describe a pastoral farming scene with animals grazing outdoors on pasture, rather than in intensive feedlots. The truth is that a number of the grassfed labels which have recently sprung up may actually hide farming systems that still allow farmers to confine cattle in feedlots for at least part of the animals’ lives.

For example, some well-known supermarket retailers have set up their own grass-based beef standards which require participating farmers to ensure their animals spend at least two thirds of their lives on pasture. This sounds great. But when you realize that this could mean that the cattle may actually spend a third of their lives in barren confinement on a feedlot system, the bucolic “grassfed” image of this label starts to fade, and you start to wonder if this beef should really be labeled grassfed at all.

What about the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of grassfed, which was introduced in 2007 to protect consumer and farmer interests? Unfortunately, the USDA’s voluntary grassfed standards only require farmers to ensure their animals have access to the outdoors during the grass growing season. This means that farmers in some states could confine animals for as much as six months of the year in what is essentially a feedlot — yet still label products as grassfed — provided animals are fed trucked-in cut grass or forage.

Even more shocking is that the USDA also allows these grassfed farmers to feed a grain supplement to their cattle. In fact, the USDA sets no limit whatsoever on the amount of grain supplementation that is allowed, as long as the percentage of grain fed is stated somewhere on the grassfed label. Of course, this percentage could appear in much smaller print on the back of the packaging. Some of these grassfed labeling programs also permit highly questionable farming practices such as the routine use of antibiotics and do little to address other problem areas, such as environmental pollution.

So how can you be sure that the grassfed beef you are about to spend your hard-earned cash on really does meet your expectations? When you see the Animal Welfare Approved and the American Grassfed Association logos together on a label, you can be absolutely confident that the animal was raised according to the highest welfare standards, and lived its life on pasture eating a natural diet of 100 percent grass and forage. Animal Welfare Approved certifies truly free-range systems. No feedlot or confinement operation may use the AWA logo to sell its products — and that’s a guarantee.

We published The Grassfed Primer to help people to identify and purchase meat and dairy products from real grassfed farms. We hope that it helps to explain the problems with feedlot farming systems, but also the significant solutions that real grassfed farming can offer, and why it is important to choose a “grassfed” label that really means what it says.

Find out more about real grassfed farming and Animal Welfare Approved: download The Grassfed Primer here.

This is exactly what has happened in a small but very significant planning battle taking place in Great Britain. Midland Pig Producers (MPP) has applied to build a state-of-the-art indoor hog production unit in Derbyshire, which would hold 2,500 sows and produce around 1,000 hogs a week for slaughter – one of the biggest industrial hog farms in the country. But in what might prove to be a fatal blow to MPP’s plans, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) – the U.K. government’s independent advisory body on health – has raised a number of human health concerns about the proposal, including the fact that “recent research has found that those living up to 150m [165 yards] downwind of an intensive swine farming installation could be at risk of adverse human health effects associated with exposure to multi-drug resistant organisms.”

According to the HPA’s statement (1), many scientific studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between ambient emissions and particulates released into the air – such as ammonia and fecal waste dust – and hospital admissions for both respiratory and cardiac diseases and deaths, particularly among older people and, for respiratory illness, children. The HPA also raised concerns about the risks posed by bioaerosols – or airborne particles that contain living organisms, their toxins and waste – which can be inhaled and ingested by humans. The HPA stated that there is significant potential for the generation of bioaerosols at intensive farming installations, with a range of possible health effects – including infectious and antibiotic resistant diseases, acute toxic effects, allergies, cancer, respiratory symptoms and lung function impairment.

Of course, none of this will come as a surprise to anyone in the U.S. who has the misfortune of living near one of thousands of U.S. industrial pig operations across the country. Indeed, U.S. industrial hog operations have been pumping toxic waste into our environment for years – just on a far, far bigger scale.

According to the National Hog Farmer’s latest State of the Industry Report, over 116 million hogs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2010. Almost 90 percent all pigs slaughtered in the U.S. in 2008 came from hog operations with more than 5,000 pigs, while some of the largest U.S. hog operations can hold over 50,000 head of pigs in confinement. The bottom line is that the majority of pigs slaughtered in the U.S. come from hog operations that are larger than MPP’s proposed unit.

Industrial hog operations like these produce vast quantities of concentrated waste called swine effluent – a toxic concoction of pig feces, heavy metals, bacteria and, of course, residues from the concoction of pharmaceuticals that are given to the pigs to keep them alive in the filthy, confined conditions. Most U.S. factory farms pump this swine effluent in huge nearby open tanks or cesspools. Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields, each holding hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of gallons of putrefying swine effluent.

Being exposed to the elements, these lagoons emit toxic gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as methane, a key greenhouse gas. As this swine effluent is expensive to store or treat, most industrial systems periodically pump the waste out of the lagoons and spray it on the surrounding fields. The problem is that it is often sprayed at such high application rates or so often that the soil and plants cannot even begin to absorb it, let alone actually utilize it. This level of over-application frequently leads to highly toxic run-off, where the water-soluble nutrients find their way into our waterways and groundwater systems in vast quantities, polluting our drinking water and rivers, leaving our waterways dead. Accidents and storm floods have also led to massive releases of the toxic waste into waterways. This toxic run off is directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived dead zones along the U.S. coast, such as in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers from Texas A&M University are predicting that the dead zone in the Gulf will exceed 9,400 square miles this year, which would make it one of the largest ever recorded.

A significant body of scientific research already proves that the livestock waste management practices found on most industrial livestock operations in the U.S. are often not fit for the purpose and do not adequately or effectively protect water resources from contamination with excessive nutrients, microbial pathogens and the pharmaceutical residues present in the swine effluent and other industrial farming waste. A 2007 review paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2) states, “Impacts on surface water sources and wildlife have been documented in many agricultural areas in the United States. Potential impacts on human and environmental health from long-term inadvertent exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals and other compounds are a growing public concern.”

The storage and frequent spreading of this toxic swine effluent also has a significant impact on the health of communities living nearby. A growing body of research reveals that the toxic emissions which U.S. industrial hog operations release into the atmosphere every day – including gases, particulates and bioaerosols such as hydrogen sulphide, fecal waste dust, and bacteria –are causing serious adverse health effects on U.S. citizens and making their lives a misery. A March 2011 paper published in the journal Epidemiology (3) examined the health of residents in 16 communities in a region of North Carolina that is densely populated with industrial hog operations. The researchers looked at the associations of reported hog odor and of monitored air pollutants with the physical symptoms and lung function of people living within 1.5 miles of hog operations. They found that air pollutants from the hog operations were causing acute physical symptoms, including eye and nasal irritation, respiratory symptoms, difficulty breathing, wheezing, chest tightness, and nausea, among other symptoms. The evidence was so great that the researchers concluded, “Exposure to air pollution from hog operations is an environmental injustice in rural areas hosting facilities that supply pork to populations spared the burdens of its production.”

We already know that industrial farming is a perfect breeding ground for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, so the U.K.’s HPA’s concerns that the antibiotic resistant bacteria found on industrial hog operations could pose a real health risk to nearby human populations is clearly justified – and represents a significant public health issue for U.S. citizens. As U.S. hog operations are not subject to the same strict controls on the use of antibiotics as found on European farms, more U.S.-focused research is urgently needed to establish the risks.

In the drive to produce ever-cheaper meat it would appear that the pursuit of profit comes before all other concerns, including our health. Yet as the public finally wakes up to the huge societal costs of industrialized livestock production, including the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the explosion in diet-related ill health and the impact on rural economies, and as people recognize the unsustainable nature of industrialized livestock production, with its dependence on ever-diminishing supplies of fossil fuels and immense greenhouse gas emissions, the opportunity to radically change the way we farm is becoming more realistic – and more urgent – than ever.

References
1. Derbyshire County Council planning application consultation responses for the erection of a 2,500 breeding sow pig rearing unit near Foston. Available online at:
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/ESplanningapps/Planning-Applications/CW9-0311-174/9.1563.5/02-Consultation/RES.pdf

2. Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer. P. et al. (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115:308–312.

3. Schinasi, L., Horton, R.A., Guidry, V.T., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., Morland, K.B. (2011). Air pollution, lung function, and physical symptoms in communities near concentrated swine feeding operations. Epidemiology. 22:208–215.

North Carolina Rep. Glen Bradley, an advocate for consumer rights introduced a bill earlier this year to require labeling of genetically modified foods. House Bill 446 (text available here) sought to require “labeling of food and milk products sold in this state that are or that contain genetically modified food and or milk and milk products from animals that have received recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).”  First introduced on March 23, 2011 it was passed the very next day to the Agriculture Committee where it promptly withered and died. A representative from the office of House Bill 446 co-sponsor Rep. Bill Faison told us that it was highly unlikely to be revived this year.

If I were a cynical person, I would speculate that we have Big Ag to thank for this bill’s death. Why? Because industrial agricultural companies are the only entities that profit from our ignorance of what is in our food. This bill was not about banning genetic modification; it was simply about allowing the consumer to choose whether or not to consume its products. The steadfast resistance on the part of Big Ag to offer this choice shows a stunning lack of confidence – either in the ability of the consumer to make an informed decision or in their own products. All the more reason to join those marching in support of mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. For more information visit Right2KnowMarch.org.

I bumped into Finley at the recent Good Food Festival in Santa Monica, CA. We got talking and he told me about his recent successful fight with city bureaucrats over his community garden and the grassroots initiative he’s set up to help urban communities to grow healthy, organic food for themselves. From the outset I liked the man, and we were clearly fighting the same fight, just on very different fronts. His story was as inspirational as anything I had seen or heard before.

Finley is a fashion designer by trade. He’s also a keen gardener: “It’s just something I’ve always done,” he explains. “It’s kind of spiritual, putting something in the ground and watching it grow.”
After attending a local gardening class run by Florence Nishida in 2010, where he first heard about edible gardens being set up in urban areas devoid of nature and fresh fruit and vegetables, Finley was inspired to do something in his own neighborhood. Hooking up with Nishida and a few other friends, he established LA Green Grounds, a grassroots initiative that seeks to help communities to set up productive gardens. As Finley explains, South Los Angeles is recognized by the USDA as a so-called ‘food desert,’ where fresh, healthy and affordable food is in very short supply: “LA Green Grounds was an attempt to change this from the ground up, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for local people and to reconnect them with their food and how it’s grown.”

The idea is that LA Green Grounds helps people who want to set up a community edible garden but don’t know how: “We turn up with basic tools and a bunch of plants and teach people how to grow their own organic fruits, vegetables and herbs right in their own backyard.” So how does it work? “First, we establish whether or not the area is a viable plot for growing and if there is sufficient local support to make it happen. If it’s looking good, we work with the community to draw up a garden plan. Then, we plan a community ‘Dig In’ where friends and neighbors come together to create their garden. We teach them how to maintain it, even how to make compost. It’s all about instruction, demonstration and participation.”

LA Green Grounds brings along basic gardening equipment, and supply the compost, seedlings and plants for free. “All we ask in return is for those who we’ve supported to help at a future Dig In for another area,” Finley says. The LA Ground Website keeps folk informed of the location and date for future Dig Ins, and interest is growing all the time.

But it’s not just about growing healthy, affordable food for those who need it most. LA Green Grounds is using gardening to help rebuild communities in some of LA’s most deprived areas: “It’s remarkable how community gardening can bring about real change in neighborhoods. People turn up for some fresh food, or at the Dig Ins, and just start talking. And it always amazes me how planting a bunch of seeds or plants really can change someone’s life as they watch it grow, and then harvest it. I’ve seen people light up and literally change before my eyes.”

So what about the conflict with city officials? Well, after setting up LA Green Grounds, one of the first things Finley did was to convert his front yard into a community vegetable patch back in the fall of 2010. By spring 2011, he was growing tomatoes, peppers, squash, onions, eggplant, and more in this urban garden for himself and local residents. So what’s the big deal, you might ask?

Well, the problem was that this ‘garden’ was actually a 10ft by 150ft strip of land between the sidewalk and curb in front of his house – a so-called parkway. This land was not ‘his’ to cultivate; parkways are all managed by the city’s Bureau of Street Services, and converting it from lifeless scrub to a productive urban garden without permission was against the city rules. Finley was told he had to cut it down or apply for a $400 permit. But even with a permit the garden’s future looked in doubt, as the rules specified the maximum height (no more than 36 inches) and type of plants he could grow. “In an area so devoid of nature and healthy food it just seemed crazy that we couldn’t grow fresh fruit and vegetables,” Finley says. “They were happy for people to waste water on scrub, yet we could not use the land to grow food for people.”

So Finley and LA Green Grounds decided to challenge the rules. With a hearing set for the end of August, Finley set up a local petition to muster support for the garden, and soon gained almost 1,000 signatures. Once the community began to mobilize, the media began to take note. And it wasn’t long before local politicians also saw the light. At the end of August, Los Angeles officials announced that they had cancelled Ron Finley’s hearing and that he could keep growing. And according to a recent piece in the LA Times, local councilor Herb Wesson is now calling for changes in the rules so that urban gardeners can legally grow food on parkways and potentially other city-owned vacant areas. As Finley says, “We’re just trying to show people what can be done, just what is possible.”

An inspiration to all, Ron Finley is a true urban farming hero.

Find out more about LA Green Grounds at www.lagreengrounds.org.

So what’s ruffled my feathers? At issue here is a statement released by National Pork Producers Council President Doug Wolf on the new Government Accountability Office report, Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing Antibiotic Use in Animals.  Wolf says, “Not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the U.S. pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn’t even adequate data to conduct a study.” He continues, “The GAO report on antibiotic resistance issued today confirms this.”

Wolf’s comments are hogwash and he knows it. The truth is that the GAO report does nothing of the sort, nor was that ever its intention. Even from the report title it’s already pretty clear what the overall conclusion is: key government agencies – namely the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) which are primarily responsible for ensuring food safety in the U.S. – are not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health. Far from “confirming” Wolf’s position, the GAO report states that, “Antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”

What’s more, the GAO provided the USDA and HHS with a draft of the report for review and comment and both departments agreed with the GAO’s recommendations for urgent changes to ensure that the correct data is recorded. It’s there in black and white. So I hope you can understand my utter indignation when I read a so-called ‘news’ item about this very same GAO report on the hitherto balanced and respected Meatingplace.com with a headline of “GAO can’t find link between antibiotic use in food animals and human resistance.”  Rather than evaluate the report themselves it would appear that Meatingplace took the spin from the NPPC and ran it as fact.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the National Pork Producers Council has fed the media with this kind of disinformation. In 2010, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, American Meat Institute and other industry bodies issued a joint statement which claimed, “there is no conclusive scientific evidence that shows the use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to an increase in antibiotic resistance in humans.”

The statement above flies in the face of fact. Only the willfully ignorant could ignore the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report which states that the “effectiveness of critically important antimicrobials for human medicine should not be compromised by inappropriate over-use and/or misuse in the non-human sector.” If we really had nothing to worry about, why did Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, warn earlier this year that, “In the absence of urgent corrective and protective actions, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated”? Why did the WHO dedicate World Health Day 2011 – an annual global PR initiative to highlight a priority area of concern to the WHO – to the very plight of combating the rampant rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

When it comes to protecting your future health, and the health of your family, who would you trust? A motley crew of lobbying organizations whose industry-funded objective is to protect and promote the interests (i.e., profit) of companies that control the industrialized livestock farming industry above all else? Or the World Health Organization (WHO), a world renowned specialized agency of the United Nations that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health?

Scientists have known for years that intensive farming systems provide a perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria. And this isn’t something that’s just happening in other countries: it’s happening in our own backyards. It is also killing Americans every year and unless we do something about it now, it’s going to get a whole lot worse. And while the NPPC is unable to put science ahead of profit, the United States Department of Agriculture has already admitted the link.

Recent cases of antibiotic-resistant E. coli, Salmonella and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have all been linked to industrial farming. A recent study by University of Iowa found MRSA in swine and swine workers in the United States. The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest. “Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two,” said the lead author of the study. “Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium.” This begs the question, “Who is the NPPC really representing?” By denying the existence of the link between the use of antibiotics and the obvious threat to farmers’ health and livelihood the NPPC demonstrates complete disregard, if not contempt for the farmers it allegedly represents.

NPPC’s position shows a failure of industry to address systemic problems that are threatening public health. A nationwide study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal in April 2011 found “unexpectedly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in fresh meat and poultry from grocery stores. Analyzing 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey from 26 retail grocery stores in five major U.S. cities, researchers found that nearly half of the meat and poultry samples—47 percent—were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria—52 percent—were resistant to at least three antibiotics. The most recent incident was the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg this summer, which was linked to a single Cargill meat processing plant in Arkansas, killing one and sickening more than 80 people. Cargill’s plant reopened over the summer, only to close again just weeks later with a further recall of contaminated meat.

When it comes to matters of global human health, surely honesty and transparency must always prevail? Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. We know that during the 1970s the tobacco lobby fought blood, tooth and nail to protect its own corporate interests, despite overwhelming evidence that they were killing their customers. In its fight for survival, we can expect the industrial farming lobby to do all it can to protect itself.

The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

On July 29, the U.S. Department for Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a nationwide outbreak of a deadly strain of Salmonella food poisoning that is resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the FSIS, the cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were associated with the use and consumption of ground turkey. No supplier or source of the outbreak was provided. No names, no brands, no source – just advice on cooking and handling meat properly.

Then on August 3, the multinational food monolith Cargill announced the largest ever Class I recall of tainted meat. In a press release Cargill stated that based on information from public health officials the company was ”voluntarily” recalling 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey produced over a seven month period beginning in February 2011 at one of their meat processing facilities at Springdale, Arkansas. According to a spokesperson, while there was no conclusive proof about the source of the Salmonella Heidelberg contamination, Cargill was recalling the meat out of “concern for what has happened, and our desire to do what is right for our consumers and customers.” Consumers were urged to return specific fresh and ground turkey products. Hidden in the list of recalled products are 40-pound chubs (catering packages) of ground turkey.  These chubs are used in the food service industry and combined with other food products—and thus, presumably, are now well beyond the reach of this recall. Processing at the Arkansas plant was also suspended, although production at Cargill’s four other meat processing plants would continue unaffected.

So far, the contamination has resulted in one death in California and at least 79 illnesses across 26 states. According to reports, it appears the outbreak “officially” began in March 2011, when a growing number of cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were noted. However, the FSIS didn’t issue a public warning until July 29, and even then this was a broad statement about potential links with ground turkey. Questions are already being asked about the significant time lag between the March detection of the spike in cases, the FSIS announcement in late July, and Cargill’s voluntary withdrawal in early August. But I have far graver concerns about this outbreak.

Cargill’s statement read, “It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry. We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time.” But these are hollow words indeed; for in almost the same breath, Cargill abdicated responsibility saying, “We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served.” The American Meat Institute has also leapt to Cargill’s defense, reassuring U.S. consumers that the turkey supply is safe, especially if standardized safe handling and cooking procedures are followed.

As a consumer I can’t help but find this insulting. The safe handling instructions should be there to protect the consumer – not the multinational corporation. Safe handling instructions are meant to be common sense guidelines for consumer safety, but have now been co-opted as the fail-safe for appalling production practices. While I am the first to accept that good food hygiene is important when handling raw meat and that bacteria are ubiquitous in our environment, please forgive me for screaming about the enormous elephant that is running riot round the room. My grave concern is that this outbreak is yet another stark warning that we are on the verge of something very scary indeed: A world where antibiotics will no longer work, and where common bacterial diseases will once again kill unabated, returning us to the medical equivalent of the 18th century.

While any outbreak of food poisoning is horrific, and the immediate focus must be to treat those affected and identify the source, few people seem to be discussing the larger public health issue: this particular strain of Salmonella is resistant to multiple antibiotics. Scientists around the world link this resistance to years of misuse of medicinally important antibiotics by the intensive farming industry. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive low levels of antibiotics throughout their lives as growth promoters to help maximize production. While this lowers the price tag on industrial protein, the practice encourages bacteria to quickly become resistant to antibiotics – the same antibiotics we use to treat ourselves. In fact, some dangerous bacteria are now resistant to multiple antibiotics. This means that when we get infected, there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. And we are fast running out of options altogether.

On the same day that the FSIS officially announced the outbreak of multi-antibiotic resistant Salmonella Heidelberg, a paper published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases warned of the discovery of yet another (and separate) multidrug-resistant strain of Salmonella, Salmonella Kentucky, which has a high-level resistance to a number of medicines, including a key antibiotic, ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin is one of the last remaining antibiotics that can still combat severe cases of Salmonella in humans. The authors suggest this new strain is most likely due to the inappropriate use of a group of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones (which include ciprofloxacin) in poultry production in Nigeria and Morocco, and call for urgent global action to limit its spread.

This all comes hot on the heels of the deadly outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 earlier this summer in Europe, which left at least 52 dead and over 4,000 people sickened. Again, what particularly concerned scientists was that the E. coli O104:H4 strain was resistant to several key antibiotics, and the consensus is that the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming systems was to blame.

In early June 2011, a paper from Cambridge University scientists in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal confirmed the emergence of a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in British dairy cows, which can also cause life-threatening illness in humans. Once again, the scientific consensus is that the routine use of antibiotics in dairy farming is to blame for this highly dangerous new strain.

Urgent pleas to address this issue are mounting – this is a scientifically grounded concern that is recognized as a serious public health threat throughout the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has been warning for years that the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is one of the gravest threats known to human health. In recognition of this threat, on World Health Day 2011, which was themed “Antimicrobial resistance: no action today, no cure tomorrow,” the WHO introduced a six-point policy package to combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Among the key targets was the urgent need to regulate the use of antibiotic medicines, including in animal husbandry, and to reduce the routine use of vital antibiotics in food-producing animals. The message cannot be any clearer.

I hate to be the voice of doom and gloom, but the advice of “cook it properly and everything will be OK” just doesn’t cut it. A report from the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General points out that while cooking meat properly can destroy pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella, no amount of cooking will destroy antibiotics and other residues in meat. In some cases, heat may actually break antibiotic residues down into more harmful components. So I think I’ll pass on that double turkey burger with Salmonella to go – even if it has been grilled to a crisp.

The point is that the likes of Cargill and Co. need to clean up their act. Our farming industry is already five years behind the European Union, 15 years behind Denmark and 25 years behind Sweden in banning non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in farming. The U.S. intensive farming lobby claims that such a ban would devastate U.S. farming and dramatically increase food costs. But European farmers have survived, and the changes have not reduced efficiency of meat production nor directly increased the cost of food. In fact, one Danish study shows that the ban led to lower mortality and higher growth rates in pig farming.

All this leads me to ask: is cheap meat really worth it? The gravity of the threat we face cannot be overstated – we are literally about to lose one of the most important medical innovations of our time. We need to act and we need to act NOW. I urge you to support Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in her drive to introduce The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in U.S. livestock farming so that these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. Surely preserving the usefulness of vital medicines that we all depend upon is more important than eating cheap, tainted meat and short-term corporate profits?

For years, black farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or that they were forced to wait longer for loan approval than other non-minority farmers. Some contended that they endured foreclosure and financial ruin as a direct result.

Following a class action lawsuit that was initiated back in 1997 – the so-called Pigford Cases – a U.S. Court has established that between 1983 and 1997 the USDA discriminated against black farmers who applied for farm loans and other assistance on the basis of their race, and that the USDA also failed subsequently to investigate or properly respond to complaints. Following this unequivocal ruling you would think that all efforts would now turn to addressing this injustice as swiftly as possible for the thousands of individuals and families who were wronged.

Yet in a public attack that smacks of racism, Bachmann and a small number of Republican colleagues are alleging that the majority of applications being made by black American farmers under this ruling are fraudulent. According to Bachmann, this “mass fraud” is evidenced by the fact that the number of black American farmer claimants is far higher than the number of black American farmers who were on the agricultural census during the period concerned.

Bachmann’s outburst also reveals a shocking ignorance of the facts. Her apparent lack of rigor is made all the worse because we’re talking about someone who has put herself forward as a presidential candidate.

Bachmann and her cronies really should have done at least some homework before making such insulting allegations. Because the reality is that, through no fault of their own, many of the people who have made applications were left off the agricultural census at the time. In addition, many of the claimants are children of rightful recipients who have subsequently died, while some claimants are people who were driven out of farming altogether because they were unable to get a loan. These are individuals and families who have suffered discrimination because of the color of their skin and they simply want what is rightfully theirs.

Rather than jumping to conclusions that appear to be based on bigotry as opposed to fact, Bachmann and her team would do well to read a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from December 2010, entitled The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers. This enlightening 10-page document explains in very simple language why the number of people who have subsequently made claims may well be higher than the number of black Americans on the Census of Agriculture for the period concerned. It’s not rocket science.

First, it is important to note that before 2002 the Census of Agriculture only counted “principal farm operators” as part of the census process. So according to the 1982 Census of Agriculture there were 33,250 African-American operated farms; in 1987, there were 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. As the CRS report explains: “Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators…” But these statistics failed to recognize that many farms were (and are) operated by more than one farm operator.

Those of us who know how farms operate are well aware that subleases and rental agreements can allow many more people to farm, although they may not necessarily own the land or receive a census form to complete. So when the Census of Agriculture began to collect data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm from 2002 onwards, this new procedure immediately identified 29,090 African American farm operators, more accurately capturing the actual number of farmers, or “those who are actually engaged in farming.”

But, as the CRS report goes on to explain, a single farm may actually be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. A farm operator might also operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such cases, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm, yet they could be eligible to make a claim because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. It is these varying definitions of “farm,” “farm operator,” and “farm owner” that help to explain why the number of claimants was higher than the number of farms/farm operators in the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997.

Instead of making spurious allegations about mass fraud, Bachmann would do better to ask why this issue was not resolved years ago. Back in 1994, the USDA initiated a study to examine the treatment of racial minorities and women in the face of mounting allegations of endemic racial discrimination in its handling of applications for farm loans and grants. Looking at the period 1990-1995, the study found that minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans. Indeed, the final report found that the largest of the USDA loans went to corporations (65%) while another 25% of the largest payments went to white male farmers. In addition, 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers and less than 1% went to black farmers. The study also noted that, due to “gross deficiencies” in USDA data collection and handling, the reasons for the discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not easily be determined. Again, these statistics come from the 1990s, not the 1950-60s.

Judge Paul Friedman’s proceedings from the Pigford Cases makes for very somber reading in this day and age, with countless graphic examples of racial discrimination experienced by black American farmers at the hands of USDA officials. From personal conversations I have had with a number of farmers affected it would seem the white farmers got their loan applications approved pretty much as they wanted, while the applications of numerous black American farmers were frequently ignored or delayed; subsequent complaints were just thrown into the garbage. John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA), even claims that he was spat at by a USDA official, who was later moved to a different office but continued to serve his time at the USDA without any further reprimand. The patience and tenacity of John and his fellow farmers in the face of such hostility is nothing short of remarkable, and I am proud that Animal Welfare Approved is associated with this ongoing fight for equality among family farms.

The settlement includes a process of application and review by a legal panel for each claim, so naysayers can rest assured that each and every application will be reviewed against a set of fair and unbiased criteria, and that each individual will be judged without prejudice. We should expect nothing less.

It’s just a pity that the same cannot be said for Bachmann.  Her unfounded allegation that the majority of applications were “fraudulent” has at best revealed a lack of rigor not becoming of a presidential candidate.  At worst it has revealed her true nature.

“In essence all three branches of the U.S. Government – legislative, executive and judiciary – have been involved in this case to some degree, acknowledging the bigotry that occurred within the USDA and the need to rectify it,” John Boyd said in a recent communication. “So it defies reason that these outrageous allegations continue. Bachmann is going to have a hard time proving to America that she is not racist if she continues to make these kinds of comments, and I hope the people of this great nation will see fit to ensure that no candidate for the highest office includes racism as part of his or her political campaign.”

Bachmann’s allegations of mass fraud are nothing less than an insult to the thousands of individuals and families who were directly and indirectly affected by racial discrimination at the USDA over the years. The very least that she can do is to issue an immediate public apology for ridiculing a group of people who have been victimized by the USDA and who simply deserve justice – nothing more, nothing less.

In his blog, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle says that the “landmark agreement” will “help millions of hens.” HSUS has been calling for cage-free egg production for years, so an agreement to end all caged egg production would represent an enormous advancement in welfare. Sadly for the hens, that isn’t the basis of this agreement.  In defiance of common sense, and all previously expressed opinion, HSUS has achieved nothing more than an agreement to work with UEP towards new legislation which will move hens out of one type of battery cage into a another slightly larger cage. An historic welfare advancement? I think not.

HSUS claims that this new cage isn’t the same as the standard battery cage; it’s an “enriched” cage. So what exactly is an “enriched” cage and what welfare benefits does it offer the hens? HSUS claims that the “enriched” cages will provide environmental enrichments so birds can engage in important natural behaviors, such as perching, using nest boxes, and having scratching areas. But can a bird that is still behaviorally very much like its ancestor the jungle fowl really express natural behavior in a cage?

The answer is a definitive “no.” The word “enrichment” has positive connotations that quite frankly are not supported by science. In a previous blog, I state that these cages are better described as “furnished” rather than “enriched.” This may seem like wordplay, but the point is that while adding a perch or a nest area to a cage can be factually described as furnishing it, it’s a matter of (scientific) opinion as to whether or not it actually “enriches” the confinement of the bird. Let me explain.

The provision of perches is one of the claimed welfare benefits of furnished cages. Now, you might wonder how it is possible for a bird to get up on a perch in a cage. I suspect that your picture of a bird roosting is probably similar to mine: a bird in a tree or in the rafters of a barn, high up to enable the bird to feel safe from predators and other threats. In a furnished cage the perch is likely to be less than 3 inches off the floor, while the wire top of the cage will be just 15 inches above that. You might argue that as no predators can get into cages the bird must automatically feel safe, but this misses the point. Chickens originate from jungle fowl of southern Asia and, regardless of the cross breeding and hybridization of the species over the years, their natural behavior remains pretty much the same. Scientists have established that in order for chickens to be free from fear and distress they need to be able to get up on a perch where they feel “safe” (Olssen and Keeling 2000; Cooper and Albentosa 2003).

Scientists in Europe have already established that the furnished cage “perch” just isn’t up to the job. In 2012, standard battery cages will be prohibited across the whole of the European Union, following the introduction of legislation in 1999. To assist farmers in the transition, the European Union has funded a huge amount of research into furnished cages and bird welfare. The EU Animal Health and Welfare Panel (AHAW, 2005a) states that “Resting and perching are important aspects of birds’ welfare. Roosting at night on an elevated perch is a behavioral priority.” At just a couple of inches off the floor, scientists have established that hens will regard the “perch” in a furnished cage simply as part of the floor and not as a perch (Tauson, 1984).

Let’s move on to another of the other supposed benefits of a furnished cage: the fact it has a nest area. It is well established that hens place a high value on a secluded nest site. Research has shown that hens will move weighted doors and squeeze through gaps to get to what they consider to be a suitable site. Early work on enriched cages (Guesdon and Faure, 2004) showed that eggs laid in the nest area varied between 43% and 68% in a trial comparing four designs of furnished cages with standard cages. This suggests that the nest areas were not always satisfactory for the hens and reiterates the “furnished versus enriched” argument. The provision of a nest site is not the point: the hens must find it acceptable or they won’t see it as “enrichment.”

The reduced space in cages generally, combined with the small area set aside for nesting in furnished cages, is also a problem. Hens naturally lay at the same time each day – early in the morning – so there could be a line of hens waiting for their turn to get into the nest area. This is not an issue for non-cage systems which provide far more space and more numerous nest boxes.

In some reports on the recent agreement HSUS is quoted as saying that these new cages are better because they are 12 foot by four foot (or 48 square feet). Again, this really is missing the point: the actual size of the cage is nowhere near as relevant as the amount of space each bird gets. A standard broiler house will be around 20,000 square feet, but each of the 20,000 or more birds within the house only gets about 1 foot square as its personal space allowance. Let’s be very clear that whether the cage is 20 inches by 21 inches like a standard battery cage, or 12 foot by four foot, we are still talking about confinement of chickens in cages.

So what exactly is the benefit for the individual bird when moving from a standard to an “enriched” cage? The UEP press release says that as part of its agreement with HSUS the two groups will jointly ask Congress for federal legislation which would require egg producers to increase space per bird in a “tiered phase in,” with the amount of space birds are given increasing, in intervals, over the next 15-18 years. Currently, the majority of birds are each provided 67 square inches of space. The proposed phase-in would culminate with hens eventually being provided with 124-144 square inches of space.

Leaving aside the fact that it sounds like (at least initially) farmers could install enriched cages and still stock them at the same rate as they currently stock their standard battery cages, we need to ask if 144 square inches per bird is sufficient space? On one hand you might say that any increase in space must be positive for the birds; but on the other, if those in the egg industry are going to claim great changes to their systems then they ought to be meaningful. Of course, it’s natural to think that if a hen is moved from 68 square inches to 144 square inches she will feel like she’s gained something. But unfortunately that isn’t how it works: A hen put in a cage that allows her 144 square inches doesn’t know how lucky she is to have more than 68 square inches room. She simply finds that she hasn’t got enough room to move. Her individual welfare is not improved.

Dawkins and Hardie (1989) looked at the average space required by a hen to carry out basic needs and found that a bird requires an average space of 198 square inches to turn; stretching wings requires 138 square inches; and flapping wings 290 square inches. You’ll probably notice that these figures are all far greater than the space provided per bird in a furnished cage. Of course, each cage holds more than one hen and will be greater than 144 square inches in total, so you could argue that within the cage there is 290 square inches for a particular hen to flap her wings at any given time. Of course, she’d have to count on the co-operation of all the other hens to move out of her way and not want to stretch their own wings at the same time as her. And we’re not even considering the need of the bird to run, fly and forage.

Dustbathing is another key natural behavior (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997) that the furnished cage is supposed to facilitate. Dustbathing involves the hen lying down and throwing litter or other loose material over the feathers of their backs and wings; rubbing it in and then shaking it out. When hens do not have a suitable area and litter in which to dustbathe, they still go through the motions of dustbathing. This is known as sham ‘dustbathing’ and research suggests that it does not properly satisfy the motivation of hens to dustbathe. Scientists found that in enriched cages sham dustbathing on the wire cage floor takes place far more frequently than in the littered area (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997), with two thirds of dustbathing taking place outside of the designated area. At first it was thought that the restricted space in cages was contributing to this and that as dustbathing tends to take place at the same time each day (like egg laying) the birds would be motivated to dustbathe at the same time. But further research (Olsson and Keeling, 2002) shows that there was no relation between sham dustbathing and competition for use of the litter area. This suggests that the area, the type of litter provided, and the depth of litter provided in furnished cages just does not meet the hens’ requirement for a dustbathing area. Like the nest box, it’s not just the provision of a designated area that is important; it’s whether the hens see it as acceptable. In non-cage systems where there is litter on the floor and/or access to outdoor areas there is no evidence of sham dustbathing (AHAW, 2005b). Remember, too, that this agreement between UEP and HSUS does absolutely nothing to address other important welfare issues, such as routine removal of part of the birds’ beaks in caged egg production systems to prevent them from pecking each other in the confined conditions.

Of course, this agreement between HSUS and UEP will ultimately mean very little if the proposed legislation is not actually passed or becomes watered-down during its journey through Congress. Call me a cynic but to assume that the poultry lobby won’t attempt to influence the legislative process is somewhat naïve. In light of this newfound concern for animal welfare, I am also intrigued to know what plans UEP now has to amend its own standards. Or maybe UEP is just happy to wait for the legislation – if and when it comes…

But perhaps the most perplexing aspect of this recent agreement is that just over a year ago HSUS carried out a review of the welfare problems associated with enriched cages, which concluded that enriched cages provided “an unacceptably limited amount of space per bird.” Having reviewed the science myself I am at a complete loss as to what changes have occurred in the last year to make these previously unacceptable enriched cages suddenly so acceptable to HSUS. And while we can debate whether there is any welfare benefit to the agreement reached between UEP and HSUS, it is frankly unacceptable for Wayne Pacelle and HSUS to now present enriched caged systems as “humane.” The fact is that this new agreement between HSUS and UEP appears to offer little in terms of animal welfare, yet much in terms of positive PR. In light of these concerns, perhaps the two parties involved would agree to publicize the full terms of the agreement to allow an open, honest and democratic debate. Until that point I have to assume there are other forces at play, because I fail to see how this private backroom agreement that effectively leaves billions of hens in cages achieves much at all.

References:

AHAW (2005a) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), adopted by the AHAW Panel on 10th and 11th November 2004. The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

AHAW (2005b) Report of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), accepted by the AHAW Panel on 14th and 15th September 2004. Annex to The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

Cooper, J. J. and Albentosa, M. J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14: 127-149.

Dawkins, M. S. and Hardie, S. (1989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30: 413-416.

Guedson, V. and Faure, J. M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research, 53: 45-57.

Lindberg, A. C. and Nicol, C. J. (1997) Dust-bathing in modified battery cages: Is sham dust-bathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55: 113-128.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2000) Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68: 243-256.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2002) No effect of social competition on sham dustbathing in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, 52: 253-256.

Tauson, R. (1984) Effect of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 74: 193-209.