Ivan: 0:00

Hello and welcome to The Bench Report. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

Amy: 0:06

Hello. Today we're looking into something that affects, well, all of us really, our food, and specifically animal welfare standards in UK farming.

Ivan: 0:15

That's right. We're using a recent parliamentary debate as our guide. It was triggered by a biggie petition, actually.

Amy: 0:21

Yeah, over 100,000 signatures calling to end cages and crates for farmed animals. That tells you how much people care about this.

Ivan: 0:29

Absolutely. So our mission today is to unpack what was said in that debate. We'll look at the current situation, the systemic problems raised, the tricky issue of trade, and what might happen next.

Amy: 0:42

It's about understanding the complex reality behind what you see on the supermarket shelves.

Ivan: 0:47

And the debate really highlighted this tension, didn't it? The UK says it has high standards.

Amy: 0:52

But the evidence presented, well, it showed millions of animals still living in confinement, sometimes suffering quite badly.

Ivan: 0:57

Speakers argued this wasn't just isolated incidents. We sometimes see that undercover footage, maybe piglets or conditions on salmon farms.

Amy: 1:05

Exactly. And that footage causes outrage, of course. But the argument in the debate went deeper, suggesting these are symptoms of policy failures, maybe weak enforcement.

Ivan: 1:15

Problems that connect to bigger things, too, like climate change, nature, the sustainability of how we produce food.

Amy: 1:22

Yes, fundamentally framed as a moral issue by many speakers, a kind of hidden suffering disconnected from our daily lives.

Ivan: 1:29

OK, let's get specific. What practices were really under the microscope? Cages and crates were central. because of the petition.

Amy: 1:37

Right. And many people might think, hang on, didn't we ban battery cages for hens years ago?

Ivan: 1:42

We did, didn't we? Back in 2012.

Amy: 1:44

Yes, the barren battery cages were banned. But the debate revealed about 28% of UK laying hens, that's around 10.6 million birds, are still in what are called enriched cages.

Ivan: 1:56

Enriched. That sounds better, but what does it actually involve?

Amy: 1:59

Well, the enrichment is pretty minimal, maybe a small perch, a bit of scratching area. But fundamentally, these cages still severely restrict natural natural behaviors.

Ivan: 2:06

Like what kind of behaviors?

Amy: 2:08

Things like properly stretching their wings, really flying up to perch high, or dust bathing, which is crucial for feather health and, well, just being a chicken. The lack of space leads to frustration, bone weakness, chronic stress.

Ivan: 2:22

So still a very restricted life, even with that label.

Amy: 2:25

A very restricted life, yes. And then there are the farrowing crates for sows, mother

Ivan: 2:30

pigs. That sounds particularly tough.

Amy: 2:33

It was highlighted as one of the most extreme forms of confinement still widely used. Around half of UK sows are put in these crates around the time they give birth.

Ivan: 2:42

For how long?

Amy: 2:42

For several weeks, while they nurse their piglets. And the crates are so narrow the sow literally cannot turn around. Can't

Ivan: 2:49

even turn around.

Amy: 2:49

No. Pigs are highly intelligent, as was pointed out, very sensitive animals, and they're immobilized like this during a really crucial maternal period.

Ivan: 2:58

And there's a contrast with the EU's plans, isn't there?

Amy: 3:00

A stark contrast. The EU is aiming to phase out all caged farming by 2027. But in the UK debate, suggestions for phasing out farrowing crates mentioned timeframes of, well, potentially 20 years from industry bodies.

Ivan: 3:14

20 years versus the EU's 2027 target. That's a huge difference.

Amy: 3:19

It is. And the petition also covered things like individual calf pens and cages for other birds. So it's a broader call for change.

Ivan: 3:25

OK, let's shift to broiler chickens, the ones raised for meat. The term Franken chickens came up.

Amy: 3:30

It's a stark term, isn't it? But it refers to the vast majority, maybe 90 percent of the nearly one billion chickens we raise for meat each year in the UK.

Ivan: 3:39

One billion. Wow.

Amy: 3:41

And these birds are bred to grow incredibly fast. They reach slaughter weight in just 35, maybe 40 days. That's about 400 percent faster than chickens grew back in the 1950s.

Ivan: 3:51

400 percent faster. What does that do to the birds?

Amy: 3:55

The debate detailed really severe suffering. Their bodies just can't cope. Chronic lameness is common. They get too heavy to stand properly. Organ failure. Breathing problem. And

Ivan: 4:05

painful burns.

Amy: 4:06

Yes. Hawk burns and foot pad dermatitis from lying in their own waste because moving hurts too much. It's a short life often filled with pain.

Ivan: 4:14

Even though slower growing breeds exist that have better welfare.

Amy: 4:17

They do exist. Yes. But the market incentives as pointed out strongly favor the fastest growth and lowest cost which unfortunately means these breeds dominate.

Ivan: 4:27

And this isn't just happening on land. is it? Intensive fish farming salmon was also raised.

Amy: 4:32

Definitely. Undercover investigations have shown some really grim conditions in offshore salmon farms, cramped cages underwater, problems with sea lice, disease spreading.

Ivan: 4:42

High death rates too.

Amy: 4:43

Shockingly high mortality rates in some cases, fish dying before they even reach market size. Plus, there's the environmental impact.

Ivan: 4:51

Pollutions.

Amy: 4:51

Huge amounts of waste and chemicals affecting the marine environment, wild fish populations. It's another intensive system driven by scale and profit, often at the expense of welfare and the environment. Calls were made for tighter rules, maybe even a pause on new farms.

Ivan: 5:08

And there's another specific practice discussed, one that's quite hard to hear about, the culling of male chicks.

Amy: 5:14

Yes, in the egg industry. Male chicks don't lay eggs and they aren't the right type for meat production. So about 40 to 45 million are killed each year right after hatching. Hatch and dispatch, it's called.

Ivan: 5:26

And the methods used are concerning.

Amy: 5:28

Concerns were raised about methods like gassing, crushing, or maceration, sometimes potentially while chicks are conscious, although humane methods are legally required.

Ivan: 5:39

But there's technology to avoid this.

Amy: 5:41

There is. It's called inovosexing. It can tell the sex of the embryo inside the egg before the chick develops the capacity to feel pain.

Ivan: 5:48

And it's affordable.

Amy: 5:49

The estimate mentioned was less than a penny per egg. It's already being used elsewhere. France and Germany have banned chick culling. The question raised was, why Why isn't the UK mandating this?

Ivan: 6:04

So beyond these specific practices, the debate pointed to bigger systemic issues. Enforcement was a huge one.

Amy: 6:11

This was quite striking. The argument was that accountability for breaking welfare laws on farms is seriously lacking.

Ivan: 6:17

How lacking? What were the numbers?

Amy: 6:19

The statistics cited was just 28 prosecutions for farm animal welfare violations between 2011 and 2021 across the whole UK.

Ivan: 6:27

28 in 10 years. That's fewer than three a year.

Amy: 6:30

Fewer than three a year. And this is despite apparently tens of thousands of inspections, finding numerous breaches.

Ivan: 6:36

That sounds incredibly low.

Amy: 6:38

It does. Concerns were voiced that the agency responsible APHA might be under-resourced, maybe relies too much on industry self-policing. The call was clearly for independent inspections and penalties that actually act as a deterrent.

Ivan: 6:51

Another system failure mentioned was labeling. It's confusing for consumers, isn't it?

Amy: 6:55

Very confusing. You see labels like red tractor or RSPCA assured and assume high welfare. But speakers pointed out Investigations have found farms with these labels still using things like crates or cages. It paints a misleading picture.

Ivan: 7:10

So what's the proposed solution?

Amy: 7:12

A strong consensus emerged in the debate for clear, mandatory labeling showing the method of production. So you'd know if it was caged, free range, organic, etc.

Ivan: 7:21

Why is that seen as so important?

Amy: 7:22

Well, it empowers you, the consumer, to make choices aligned with your values. It also properly rewards farmers who are using higher welfare systems, something the current labels don't always do effectively. Denmark was mentioned as a place where this kind of labeling really shifted buying habits. And labeling for non-stun slaughter methods was also raised as needing clarity.

Ivan: 7:42

OK, this brings us to maybe the trickiest part. International trade. How does that impact UK standards?

Amy: 7:49

This is a major concern, especially since Brexit. The worry voiced strongly was that the UK's animal protection rating has actually dropped and our standards are being undermined by trade deals.

Ivan: 8:01

How does a trade deal undermine welfare standards?

Amy: 8:04

By allowing imports of food produced using methods that are actually banned for UK farmers. Think lower welfare practices, maybe different rules on medicines.

Ivan: 8:14

Can you give some examples that came up?

Amy: 8:16

Sure. Things like gestation crates for pigs, banned here since 99, barren battery cages for hens, banned here 2012, hormone treated beef, banned here, much higher antibiotic

Ivan: 8:27

use. And from Australia.

Amy: 8:28

The practice of mules and sheep removing skin without pain relief, which is banned here, was mentioned concerning Australian lamb imports under the New Deal.

Ivan: 8:35

So the basic argument is, if it's too cruel to do here, should we be importing it?

Amy: 8:40

Exactly. It feels unfair to UK farmers who face higher costs meeting our regulations. It effectively allows us to offshore Were

Ivan: 8:49

there different views on how the government is handling this?

Amy: 8:53

Yes, different perspectives. Some MPs across parties insisted trade deals must not disadvantage U.K. farmers or lower standards, particularly on things like hormones. Labor speakers argued some recent deals did hold the line on certain issues, like the U.S. hormone beef ban.

Ivan: 9:08

But specific deals still caused worry. The Australia deal. The CPTPP agreement.

Amy: 9:14

Definitely. Concerns about lamb, beef, potentially eggs from cage systems entering via the CPTPP. The call was for import standards to match UK standards for the entire life of the animal, not just its slaughter.

Ivan: 9:26

Which is the current requirement. Just its slaughter.

Amy: 9:28

Broadly, yes, for many aspects. And the EU moving towards ending cages and possibly applying that to imports was noted as something the UK might consider aligning with. Plus, biosecurity risks, diseases coming in with imports were also part of this trade discussion.

Ivan: 9:42

So it's not just about protecting farmers. It's framed as a moral stance versus economic pressures.

Amy: 9:48

And public opinion seems quite clear. Polling mentioned showed 84% support for imports meeting UK standards. That's a strong message.

Ivan: 9:58

The debate also connected intensive farming directly to public health.

Amy: 10:02

How?

Ivan: 10:03

Through antibiotics. Cramped intensive conditions can lead to disease outbreaks, which are often managed with routine, preventative antibiotic use.

Amy: 10:12

And that's a problem for us.

Ivan: 10:14

It's a huge problem. It fuels antimicrobial resistance, AMR. Basically, the antibiotics stop working for humans when we need them. The WHO warning was cited AMR could kill more people than cancer by 2050. Farming practices are a big contributor.

Amy: 10:29

Other health links mentioned.

Ivan: 10:30

Things like managing bovine TB and generally the need for robust biosecurity infrastructure to prevent disease spread.

Amy: 10:38

Now, it's important to say this wasn't about farmer bashing, was it?

Ivan: 10:40

No, not at all. Many speakers explicitly praised UK farmers for their hard work and commitment, often achieving high standards despite pressures.

Amy: 10:48

So the idea is that if we ask for higher standards, farmers need support. They need clarity on the rules, fair prices that cover the extra costs, and certainty to invest in changes. Things like defending the government grants for animal welfare within environmental schemes were seen as vital. The goal, as one speaker put it, quoting the Welsh government, should be ensuring animals have a good life, even if a short one.

Ivan: 11:12

So wrapping this up, what were the main calls for action? What concrete steps were proposed?

Amy: 11:17

A whole range, really. Setting clear deadlines to ban farrowing crates and cages. Mandatory method of production labeling was key.

Ivan: 11:25

Stronger enforcement, too.

Amy: 11:26

Definitely. Independent inspections, real penalties, proper funding for the inspectors, and on trade, defending UK standards, blocking lower standard imports, upholding the live export ban.

Ivan: 11:37

Anything else stand out?

Amy: 11:38

Using government buying power, public procurement to support higher welfare It's a complex

Ivan: 11:58

picture, isn't it? Balancing welfare, farm economics, trade, public health.

Amy: 12:03

It really is. The debate shows strong public values on animal welfare, but the reality behind the supermarket shelf can be, well... quite different, that gap is significant.

Ivan: 12:13

So the final thought for you listening might be, how do we close that gap? Is it down to government action, industry change, or our choices as consumers?

Amy: 12:23

Or maybe, as the debate suggested, it needs action on all fronts. Something to think about next time you're doing the food shop.

Ivan: 12:29

As always, find us on social media at BenchReportUK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.

Unknown: 12:37

...