Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ethics and politics of the caged layer hen debate in New Zealand

  • OriginalPaper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changes in attitudes toward animal welfare, with a greater emphasis on the importance of allowing animals to express normal patterns of behavior has led to an examination of the practice of keeping hens in battery cages. There is widespread scientific consensus that the conditions of confinement and the barren nature of battery cages severely restrict hens’ behavioral repertoire, and are thus detrimental to their welfare. The New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999, stipulates that animals must have “the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour.” In spite of this provision, the New Zealand government has not acted in phasing out battery cages, arguing instead that there is insufficient evidence that welfare will be improved by a phase-out. There is evidence of strong industry pressure on the government, and the use of tactics common in policy considerations where changes are resisted by powerful interests. It is important that policy processes are better managed so that welfare changes are based on both public preferences and scientific knowledge, and ways of doing this are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerni V., Brinkhop M. W. G., Wechsler R., Oester H., Frohlich K. (2005) Productivity and Mortality of Laying Hens in Aviaries: A Systematic Review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61:130–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. (1995), 1994 Annual Report, Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  • Appleby M. C., Mench J. A., Hughes B. O. (2004) Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford and Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett J. L., Hemsworth P. H. (2003). Science and its Application in Assessing the Welfare of Laying Hens in the Egg Industry. Australian Veterinary Journal 81:615–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (1993), Through our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, WH Freeman/Spektrum

  • DeGrazia D. (1996) Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan I. J. H. (2002) Poultry Welfare: Science or Subjectivity? British Poultry Science 43:643–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Committee of the European Food Safety Authority), The Welfare Aspects of Various Systems of Keeping Laying Hens. The EFSA Journal 197 (2005) 1-23 plus annex. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/831_en.html (accessed May 2006)

  • Eisnitz G. A. (1997) Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry. Prometheus Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg M., Saffran B., Stinson T. J., Bennett C. L. (1999). Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs used in Oncology. Journal of the American Medical Association 282:1453–1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentle M. J., Waddington D., Hunter L. N., Jones R. B. (1990) Behavioural Evidence for Persistent Pain Following Partial Beak Amputation in Chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentle M. J., Hughes B. O., Fox A., Waddington D. (1997) Behavioural and Anatomical Consequences of Two Beak Trimming Methods in 1-and 10-d-old Domestic Chicks. British Poultry Science 38:453–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling S. D. (2003) A Dog’s Got Personality: A Cross Species Comparative Approach to Personality Judgements in Dogs and Humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:1161–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hager N. (2002) Seeds of Distrust: The Story of a GE Cover-up. Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager N., Burton B. (1999) Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-environmental Campaign. Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison R. (1964) Animal Machines. Vincent Stewart, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howison C., Urbach P. (1993) Scientific Reasoning: The Baysian Approach, 2nd edn. Open Court, Lesalle

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawczyk J., Wezyk S. (2002). Effect of Housing System on Performance of Commercial Hybrids of Tetra SL and Shaver Layers. Annals of Animal Science 2:181–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris M. C., Thornhill R. H. (2003). Animal Rights and Theories of Origins: A Plea for Unity. Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 7:338–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Rampton S., Stauber J. (2001). Trust Us We’re Experts. How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future. Penguin Putnam Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin B. E. (1998). The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science, Expanded Edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff M. (1981). At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic. Arizona Law Review 23:1283–1298

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott D. (2003). Science and the Consequences of Mistrust: Lessons from Recent GM Controversies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16:569–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M. J. A., McEachern M. G. (2004). Consumer Value Conflicts Surrounding Ethical Food Purchase Decisions: A Focus on Animal Welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28:168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer P. (1991). Animal Liberation, New Revised Edition. Avon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiller P. (2004) RIP – The Demise of Free-range Eggs. Organic NZ 63(5):26–28

    Google Scholar 

  • SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee) (1996), Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Agriculture.

  • Temple W., Foster T. M. (1992) The Welfare Status of Egg Production in New Zealand. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 53:215–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Welde H. T., Aarts N., Van Woerkum C. V. (2002) Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers’ and Consumers’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver S. A., Morris M. C. (2004) Science, Pigs and Politics: A New Zealand Perspective on the Banning of Sow Stalls. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widowski T. M., Duncan I. J. H. (2000) Working for a Dustbath: Are Hens Increasing Pleasure Rather Than Reducing Suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins D. (2004) The Politics of Hen Welfare. In: Perry G.C. (eds.) Welfare of the Laying Hen. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 31–37

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 57 Cornford St., Karori, Wellington, New Zealand

    Michael C. Morris

Authors
  1. Michael C. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Morris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, M.C. The ethics and politics of the caged layer hen debate in New Zealand. J Agric Environ Ethics 19, 495–514 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9007-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9007-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation