In Part 1 of our exploration of the ‘Cage-free Illusion’, we uncovered the grim realities of free-run egg farming, shining a light on the hardships faced by hens. Now, in Part 2, our focus shifts to the cage-free campaigns advocating for this method. Do these campaigns truly pave the way toward a more compassionate world, or do they inadvertently perpetuate the status quo, or worse, make egg-eaters feel good about the food on their plates?

To recap some key points from the previous post, we learned that the difference between cage-free and cage systems lies primarily in the former’s absence of closed-wire enclosures. The transition to cage-free egg farming gained momentum in the late 20th century, spreading across Europe, North America, and Oceania. However, our research revealed the enduring suffering of hens in these supposedly improved environments, with overcrowded conditions and laying illnesses persisting, or even worsening, despite the absence of cages.

Now, let's delve into the motivations driving cage-free campaigns and explore their potential shortcomings.

Cage-Free: The Advocacy Movement

In their pursuit of a more compassionate world for animals, organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, Mercy for Animals, Animal Equality, Compassion in World Farming, The Humane League, and World Animal Protection, among others, have championed cage-free campaigns to improve the welfare of hens in egg production. Motivated by their desire to alleviate animal suffering, these organizations have invested significant time and resources into advocating for the transition to cage-free housing systems, believing it to be a step in the right direction.

These organizations employ a multi-faceted strategy that includes engaging with businesses, restaurants, supermarkets, and hotels to transition to cage-free sourcing. They work tirelessly to negotiate with stakeholders, urging them to incorporate cage-free eggs into their supply chains. By partnering with influential companies and institutions, these organizations aim to drive market demand for cage-free eggs and create tangible change within the industry.

These efforts are not only aimed at promoting cage-free alternatives, but also at holding businesses accountable for the impacts on the animals. Through transparent advocacy efforts, they aim to pressure companies to prioritize animal welfare. Simultaneously, they prioritize consumer education, empowering individuals to make informed choices and advocate for animal welfare. This includes social media campaigns, educational materials, and progress reports on companies adhering to supposed ‘humane’ standards.

Despite their knowledge of the ongoing suffering hens endure in cage-free environments, these organizations continue to prioritize ending the “cage age.” The rationale behind this approach lies in the belief that incremental changes, such as transitioning to cage-free systems, can pave the way for broader systemic shifts in animal agriculture. By appealing to consumers' sense of compassion and leveraging corporate commitments to animal welfare, these organizations hope to shift societal norms gradually towards more ethical and sustainable practices.

Cage-Free: Challenges and Limitations

The pragmatic approach adopted by advocacy organizations, akin to the 'foot-in-the-door' strategy, offers a practical framework for engaging individuals and fostering societal change. This approach recognizes the value of incremental steps in promoting animal rights and veganism, acknowledging that gradual shifts in behavior can lead to broader transformations. However, acknowledging the complexities inherent to this approach is essential.

Critics and academic researchers highlight the potential drawbacks of relying solely on pragmatic strategies. While these approaches may effectively engage donors and quantify outcomes, they risk oversimplifying complex ethical issues and neglecting broader systemic challenges. Welfare initiatives often focus on improving conditions for animals within existing systems, without addressing the inherent problems of using animals for human purposes. For example, the practice of measuring suffering in terms of hours of pain, further oversimplifies animal welfare issues, neglecting broader ethical implications such as the deprivation of autonomy and the fundamental injustice of treating sentient beings as mere objects for human use. This narrow focus fails to address the inherent exploitation, perpetuating the acceptability of using animals as commodities and reinforcing the status quo instead of challenging it.

An important part of our mandate at Egg-Truth is to promote “egg-free” vs. “cage-free”. We choose to do this for several reasons. One of these is that there are already numerous animal welfare organizations around the world that devote a significant amount of time and donor dollars to lobby consumers, the egg industry, food companies, and government regulators to move national and international supply chains toward cage-free housing. Adding our voice to this already large chorus would be meaningless.

We also believe that the availability of egg-free alternatives and baking products has improved massively in the last 10 years! In our view, promoting such alternatives will increasingly eliminate the need for eggs, benefitting the animals in ways far beyond the mere elimination of battery cages.

Cage-Free: Insights from Consumers

Cage-free campaigns are often talked about as beacons of hope in the realm of animal advocacy. Yet the question of whether these truly resonate with consumers or spur a groundswell of support for legislative change and market demand is often left unaddressed.

Venturing across the globe, the landscape of success varies from country to country. In the UK and Australia, where the echoes of historical animal advocacy campaigns still reverberate, cage-free eggs reign supreme, with consumers actively seeking out these options buoyed by robust labeling and minimum standards. In contrast, the narrative in the USA takes a different turn, with consumer concern for hen welfare lagging behind despite a confident grasp of the prevalence of caged egg production. Studies reveal lower pro-chicken attitudes and a reluctance to associate sentience with these feathered creatures, highlighting deeper cultural divides and legislative disparities. Canada, too, grapples with a similar dichotomy, where exposure to the harsh realities of conventional confinement methods sparks a notable shift in consumer behavior towards cage-free options.

But here lies the crux of the issue: the glaring chasm between consumer sentiment and purchasing habits. Despite vocal calls for stricter production standards, many still opt for the cheaper, caged alternative. This discord reverberates throughout the supply chain, leaving retailers and producers at an impasse. Retailers are hesitant to commit to cage-free eggs without assurance of consumer demand, while producers await a long-term commitment before investing in cage-free facilities. As the tug-of-war between advocacy and economics continues, the fate of cage-free initiatives hangs in the balance, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the industry's future. But what drives farmers' reluctance and insistence on extended timelines?

Cage-Free: Perspectives from Farmers

It actually took farmers a really long time to figure out how to put the bird in the cage—and it’s going to take a while to figure out how to get them back out.* This sentiment encapsulates the challenges farmers encounter when transitioning to cage-free systems. It demands meticulous planning, substantial investment, and a re-imagination of age-old practices. Yet, at its core, this shift reflects a call for a return to pre-industrial egg production methods, while balancing the efficiency and affordability of modernization.

Unlike traditional cage systems, cage-free environments demand more labor and offer less control, presenting a significant challenge for large-scale producers aiming to meet today's market demands. The lack of consensus on cage-free standards further complicates matters, with varying criteria across states and fast food chains.

When asked to rank housing systems—cage-free, conventional, or no major difference—across categories like sustainability, animal welfare, production efficiency, food affordability, and environmental impact, producers provided revealing insights. The findings, outlined in the graph below, paint a nuanced picture. Primarily, ‘United Egg Producers’ members regard conventional housing as superior in terms of food affordability, production efficiency, and environmental impact. A significant majority (62%) perceive conventional systems as optimal for sustainability, while around one-fourth view cage-free and conventional as equal. Notably, although 45% of respondents consider cage-free housing better for animal welfare, the majority (55%) do not share this view.

Despite acknowledging the driving force of consumer demand, farmers remain skeptical about meeting all pledges within the designated deadlines. This skepticism, coupled with the challenges inherent in transitioning to cage-free systems, could potentially slow down the overall transition process, prolonging the suffering of hens confined in conventional systems.

Beyond Cage-Free: Empowering Change

As we reflect on the journey through the complexities of the egg industry and the ongoing transition to cage-free systems, it's vital to recognize the efforts and progress made by organizations and their campaigns. If anything, one thing we've learned from the cage-free movement is the immense effort and complexities involved in making these changes. However, it's equally important to acknowledge the shortcomings and challenges that persist. To truly advance animal rights, we must recognize that welfare improvements, while important, are just one part of the equation. Advocacy efforts must also challenge the fundamental use of animals for human purposes and promote a paradigm shift towards veganism and animal liberation. This requires a deeper understanding of the ethical implications of our choices and a commitment to dismantling oppressive systems rather than simply mitigating their effects.

But amidst the uncertainties, let's not lose sight of the impact we can have as individuals. Every decision to opt for plant-based egg alternatives is a powerful statement supporting compassion and ethical living. For those still struggling to make the transition, resources like the Vegan Bootcamp offer guidance and support.

Let's draw inspiration from the strides already taken and the countless individuals advocating for change. It's essential to keep the welfare of the hens at the forefront of our minds, serving as a constant reminder of why our efforts are crucial. So, let's continue to share our stories, support one another on our journeys, and never lose sight of the impact we can have.

Juliane Priesemeister, Executive Director

Juliane worked almost a decade for an international corporation as an information designer. Generating compelling visual stories was her daily deed, but as much as she enjoyed the creative work the big corporation environment left her hungry for substance and impact.

When she started her yoga journey a few years ago the “do no harm” philosophy pushed her to align work with her personal ethics and values. Today she uses her omnibus skill set, including marketing communications, economics, and graphic design, to reveal the truth about the egg industry to consumers.