Compassion in World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin).
A fascinating UK court case - which revealed that EU legislation was too imprecisely worded to provide useful animal welfare protection to broiler chickens; and that making money was ultimately an acceptable reason to justify animal suffering.
It followed that broiler chickens could lawfully be kept in a state of chronic hunger because this prevented the animals from developing other disorders and illnesses which commonly developed from this form of intensive farming practice.
Crude summary = you can half-starve chickens to stop them developing other diseases caused by your legal but undeniably cruel farming method! Making money is good and keeping chickens hungry to do so is lawful.
"It is not in dispute that the restricted feeding of broiler breeders results in hunger, but there is a significant dispute about what 'hunger' means, when applied to broiler breeders, and further an issue as to whether the state of “hunger” disclosed by the evidence infringes the Directive and is contrary to domestic law."
"I (judge) do not imagine that it would be difficult to find a large number of the population to support a call that broilers should not be kept in such enclosed and densely populated conditions. But the Court is not concerned with such a broad based attack. Mr Singh's (the barrister) case under this ground of challenge does not invite a judgment in connection with the precise conditions under which broilers are kept"
The law must command public confidence. This was a reasonable judgment within the letter of the law. The law exists because the people tolerate it as such - but are you content with this state of affairs - half-starved chickens who at least don't suffer other diseases so we can have cheap food?
A fascinating UK court case - which revealed that EU legislation was too imprecisely worded to provide useful animal welfare protection to broiler chickens; and that making money was ultimately an acceptable reason to justify animal suffering.
It followed that broiler chickens could lawfully be kept in a state of chronic hunger because this prevented the animals from developing other disorders and illnesses which commonly developed from this form of intensive farming practice.
Crude summary = you can half-starve chickens to stop them developing other diseases caused by your legal but undeniably cruel farming method! Making money is good and keeping chickens hungry to do so is lawful.
"It is not in dispute that the restricted feeding of broiler breeders results in hunger, but there is a significant dispute about what 'hunger' means, when applied to broiler breeders, and further an issue as to whether the state of “hunger” disclosed by the evidence infringes the Directive and is contrary to domestic law."
"I (judge) do not imagine that it would be difficult to find a large number of the population to support a call that broilers should not be kept in such enclosed and densely populated conditions. But the Court is not concerned with such a broad based attack. Mr Singh's (the barrister) case under this ground of challenge does not invite a judgment in connection with the precise conditions under which broilers are kept"
The law must command public confidence. This was a reasonable judgment within the letter of the law. The law exists because the people tolerate it as such - but are you content with this state of affairs - half-starved chickens who at least don't suffer other diseases so we can have cheap food?