.png){kind=small}
Last week The Humane League UK, represented by law firm Advocates for Animals, was in court fighting for justice for the one billion chickens that are reared and slaughtered in the UK each year.
Our argument is clear: the breeding of fast-growing chickens breaches the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 - which states farmed animals can’t be kept if their genes cause them detriment to their health or welfare. We argue these breeds of chicken suffer from painful health and welfare issues due to their speed of growth.
The two days in court were for the history books. We witnessed some of the most advanced legal brains in the country acknowledge the importance of this case and engage with each issue with curiosity and competence. The panel of three Lord Justices recognised the impact on chickens and public policy, but did not shy away from carefully examining what the law means when it prohibits the keeping of farmed animals that suffer a ‘detriment’ as a result of their genes.
We say it means detriment suffered when kept in standard farming conditions. The government says it means detriment that is inevitable after all improvements to the environment chickens are raised in are made.
The difference may seem subtle, and on the face of it of little consequence when all the evidence suggests that fast growing chickens cannot be kept in any environment without suffering. However, contrary to how it appears, these different interpretations will produce very different results for chickens. Without underpinning the ‘detriment’ to the reality, we exist in a world of hypotheticals, where a breed could never be banned if an individual farmer could in theory create environmental conditions to remove any detriment. This case comes down to banning breeds prone to detriment versus an obligation to create environments where breeds prone to detriment can be kept without detriment.
The issue with the latter interpretation is that how could it ever be scientifically researched in a world of countless hypothetical scenarios? How could it ever be policed when dealing with one billion animals per year? And how could it be fair on farmers to create this environment to remove the suffering of a chicken, when that suffering has been bred into them? How can a farmer even be expected to find this environment by themselves, far beyond what the law and official guidance tells them to do, with those farmers exposed to prosecution should they not create that environment?
We hope the judgment is in our favour and brings clarity, for our sake, for the farmers’ sake and most importantly for the chickens’ sake.
Edie Bowles, Solicitor, Advocates for Animals:
“When I first started working on the case against the fast growth imposed on chickens the first goal was to get us to where we were last week, sitting in a courtroom having the legal protections for farmed animals being taken seriously. Something which should happen as a default, but so seldom does. In fact I overheard someone say with bemusement to a group of people outside a different courtroom ‘have you seen them chanting justice for chickens outside’ with the group responding in laughter. But why shouldn’t there be justice for chickens too? Why don’t their legal protections matter? I refuse to accept that animal legal protections are performative, I believe that the law should work for them too.”
Sean Gifford, Managing Director, The Humane League UK:
"This case represents a groundbreaking opportunity to end one of the greatest animal welfare crises of our time: the farming of fast-growing chickens. These so-called ‘Frankenchickens’ are bred to grow at such unnatural rates that their own bodies fail them—all for profit. Their lives are plagued by suffering, and we believe the law is clear: breeding animals with suffering hardwired into their DNA is illegal and has no place in our food system. We hope the judgment reflects this urgent need for change."
