Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Poultry Press [Spring-Summer 2012]

Poultry Press [Spring-Summer 2012]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 304|Likes:
Published by Vegan Future
The Spring-Summer 2012 edition of Poultry Press, newsletter of United Poultry Concerns.

Find out more about United Poultry Concerns at
http://www.upc-online.org
The Spring-Summer 2012 edition of Poultry Press, newsletter of United Poultry Concerns.

Find out more about United Poultry Concerns at
http://www.upc-online.org

More info:

Published by: Vegan Future on Jul 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
United Poultry Concerns
P.O. Box 150Machipongo, VA 23405-0150(757) 678-7875FAX: (757) 678-5070
Visit Our Web Site:
 www.upc-online.or
Spring-Summer 2012 Volume 22, Number 1
Poultry Press
Promoting the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl 
Celebrating 22 years of dedicated activism for domestic fowl 
UPC# 11656
 World-amous artist Sue Coe, author o 
Dead Meat 
and
Cruel 
, created
Te Screaming Hen
orthis edition o 
Poultry Press 
. Te hen screaming in her “enriched” cage echoes Norwegian artistEdvard Munchs amous depiction o his experience, related in his diary in 1892, o hearing “an innite scream passing through nature.”
Te Scream
has been described as an expressionistevocation o an individual suering rom a sense o total distortion o one’s environment andone’s sel. Te proximity o a slaughterhouse and a madhouse to the site depicted in Munch’sscreaming gure may have inuenced his portrait o innite agony. Please turn the page . . .
 
United Poultry Concerns • (757) 678-7875
P.O. Box 150 • Machipongo, VA 23405-0150
2
Volume 22, Number 1
U
nited
P
oUltry 
C
onCernswww 
.
UPC
-
online
.
org
Agreement Raises Flags for Egg-Laying Hens:A Chicken Activist’s Perspective on the “New Deal”
By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
“What is that gun fring or?” said Boxer.“o celebrate our victory!” cried Squealer.“What victory?” said Boxer.From
 Animal Farm
by George Orwell 
he January/February 2012 edition o 
 Animal People 
included a ull-page ad headlined“It’s ime to Ban Barren Battery CagesNationwide,” urging readers to ask Congress to supportthe Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments o 2012.he ad told us that “All the groups that have beenleading the ight to ban battery cages – such as thoselisted below – actively support this legislation, becauseit’s the best opportunity to help the largest number o arm animals.”he irst part o this statement is alse, and thesecond part begs the question, since whether theproposed legislation is the best we can do or egg-laying hens is at the heart o the current debate over the shitin the animal protection movement rom trumpet callsto “ban cages or egg-laying hens” to “ban
barren
cagesor egg-laying hens.o begin with, not all groups that have beenleading the ight to ban battery cages actively supportthe proposed legislation. here is a mixture o sharpopposition and apprehensive ambivalence among us.Secondly, some groups so credited haven’t led the ightto ban battery cages at all. Some have done little ornothing o note. As George Orwell amously observed in his writingsabout the politics o language, rewriting history isa commonplace strategy used by politicians andpowerbrokers to get people to go along with shiting agendas. People can orget the acts o even the mostrecent past.For the record, then, I must recall that UnitedPoultry Concerns put chickens on the map o U.S.animal advocacy back when we were being told by someactivist leaders, in the late eighties and early nineties,that “nobody would ever care about chickens.” We took the challenge and proved otherwise.
 WHY IS HIS HEN SCREAMING?
In “Agreement Raises Red Flags,” we look atthe eort to ban battery cages or egg-laying hens in Europe and the United States. In January, a bill was introduced to the U.S.Congress called the Egg Products Inspection Act o 2012 (HB 3798). It advocates a ederal law that would allow battery cagesto continue in the orm o “enriched” cages.I enacted in 2030, the ederal law willpreempt state eorts to ban
all 
cages, criticssay. For more inormation about HB 3798,see
 www.RottenEggBill.org 
, a websitecreated by the Humane Farming Association.
The Scream
 
by Edvard Munch
 
United Poultry Concerns • (757) 678-7875
P.O. Box 150 • Machipongo, VA 23405-0150
3
Volume 22, Number 1
U
nited
P
oUltry 
C
onCernswww 
.
UPC
-
online
.
org
In the irst edition o my book 
Prisoned Chickens,Poisoned Eggs: An Inside Look at the Modern
 
Poultry Industry 
(1996) I concluded: “he battle to liberatehens rom battery cages has begun and it includes all o us. Wherever we are, we are morally obligated to endthe oppression. Battery cages should be banned in theUnited States and throughout the world. Until they have been discontinued, our species stands condemnedo a criminal relationship with the living world.Consumers should boycott battery eggs and discover thevariety o egg-ree alternatives.
“Enriched” cages in Europe.
In the early 1990s, the distinction between barrenbattery cages and so-called enriched cages was emerging in Europe, as a result o initiatives by Chickens’ Lib andCompassion in World Farming toward trying to banbattery cages. A 1992 report by the European EconomicCommission’s Scientiic Veterinary Committeeconcluded that the existing battery cage system “doesnot provide an adequate environment or meet thebehavioural needs o laying hens.”However, the Commission did not propose a banon battery cages, just modiications. It proposed thatbeginning in 1995, each new cage should provide atleast 800 square centimeters (120 square inches) o wireloor space per hen, at least 60 centimeters (24 squareinches) o cage height over 65 percent o the cage area;claw-shortening devices consisting o strips o abrasiveoot-scratching tape added to the manure delectorsbehind the eed troughs, as mandated in Sweden;perches; and ully openable cage ronts. All cages wouldhave to comply with these standards by January 1,2002.In “A Cage is Still a Cage,” Compassion in WorldFarming lamented in the Spring 1993 issue o theCIWF magazine then called
 Agscene 
that i thesestandards became compulsory, egg-laying hens wouldcontinue to be condemned to lie in a cage, with a littlemore wire to stand on, sit on, and be surrounded by.his ear was prophetic. On June 17, 1999, theEuropean Union announced Laying Hen Directive1999/74/EC. he Directive banned the barren battery hen cage in Europe by 2012 by adopting the Swissormulation o minimum conditions that could notbe met by conventional cages. Compassion in WorldFarming hailed the Directive “a new era o humanity orhens.”Until 2012, existing cage systems were required tobe slightly improved by reducing the number o hensper cage, so that each hen had 86 square inches o living space, up rom 70 square inches. In 2008, theEuropean Commission reairmed its directive banning conventional cage systems in the EU, eective January 1, 2012.
“Major New Threat – The ‘Enriched’ Cage!”
his was the title o an alert published in the Winter 2002 issue o Compassion in World Farmingsrenamed magazine,
Farm Animal Voice 
. Pleased thatthe 1999 Hens Directive meant that the cruel systemo conventional cages was on its way out, the editors worried that the EU directive “does not also ban theso-called ‘enriched’ cages.”hey were “appalled at the prospect o ‘enriched’cages being used,” at the behest o the arm lobby,pointing out that while the “enriched” cage wouldgive each hen a tad more space the size o a postcard,along with a tiny perch, “nest” box, and bit o litter orpecking and scratching, these eatures “are so minimalistthat hens are unable to perorm many o their basicbehaviours in any way that is meaningul or them.” Activists were urged to continue to seek a ban on allcages, including “enriched” cages.In the Summer 2006 issue o CIWF’s
Farm Animal Voice 
, Clare Druce, ounder o Chickens’ Lib (laterrenamed Farm Animal Welare Network), noted that
As compared with the conventional cage, the "enriched" cageoffers no meaningful benefits to hens, said CIWF.
CIWF photo, 2002

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->