The+Paradox+of+Eating+Ethically+-+The+Chicken+&+The+Egg

Student Name: Sharon Tan Student Number: n8831181 Tutor: Michelle Cornford

=THE PARADOX OF EATING MEAT: The Chicken and the Egg=

ARTEFACT: ChookTracker
@http://www.sunnyqueen.com.au/chooktracker/

This artefact is a short video clip of a chicken tracking device and web camera that was installed by Sunny Queen Farms. Named the ChookTracker the device collects data on the hens and the live web camera which is permanently installed at a free-range egg farm in Queensland, documents their behavioural characteristics. The ChookTracker is used to identify and develop the ranging areas of the hens and to encourage the birds to explore.

This on-going campaign was developed by Sunny Queen Farms to educate consumers about the difference between free-range and caged eggs and turned its chickens into reality TV stars.

PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
The consumption of meat and factory farmed animals has increased throughout the developing world despite numerous studies extolling the benefits of eating a plant-based vegetarian diet. This report investigates the meat paradox that describes people’s concern for animal welfare and ethical beliefs that often conflict with their consumer behavior. The ChookTracker artefact is a representation of societal attitudes and ethical standards against the use of battery hens and cage eggs. It portrays the poultry roaming in a natural habitat, free from any inflicted suffering. Despite this constructed image advocating the practice of ethical animal farming and reflecting the public consensus for the rights of animals, strong consumer and commercial demand continues to drive mass production of animals and meat consumption.

media type="custom" key="24289360" align="center"

LITERATURE REVIEW
Meat consumption is on the rise across the globe and its demand in developing countries continues to expand as the production of meat increases with economic growth and socioeconomic status. Two decades ago the global demand for meat was 173 million tonnes of which poultry made up 23% (FAO, 2010). Today the annual global demand for meat sits at 285 million tonnes, with poultry comprising 35% of this at 100 million tonnes. Australia’s demand for chicken meat mirrors this global trend. In 1963 Australians ate an average of 4.2kg of chicken a year and this has increased tenfold to 44.6kg whilst the poultry meat prices have fallen by more than 75% due to a combination of supply and demand factors (ACMF, 2011). Of this, free-range chicken production accounts for only 15% of the total Australian market. Recent reports from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) reveal chicken meat has maintained its place as the most popular meat consumed at 1.08 million tonnes produced. In 2012-2013 Australians ate more chicken meat on average per person at 44.6kg than the combined average total of beef at 32.8kg and 9.5kg of lamb (ABARES, 2013). The ABARES estimate suggests that chicken meat consumption will continue to rise mainly due to the relatively lower cost than other meats. By 2017-18 chicken meat production is projected to increase to 1.2 million tonnes. The industry’s automation and mass production of chicken breeding, feeding and management practices have contributed to a cost-effective supply of poultry products. These factors have driven down the price of chicken meat in current dollar value terms over the past 50 years (ACMF, 2011). Consumer demand has reflected the changing attitudes to leaner meats, health benefits, convenience and perceived value for money. Since the late 1970’s recommendations in the United Kingdom and the United States to eat less fatty red meat and more poultry continue to reflect the rising demand for chicken meat and eggs worldwide. However, recent studies comparing the fat composition of organic free range poultry and eggs and their factory farmed counterparts reveal a striking increase in fat content of the standard broiler chicken over the past two decades (Wang et al, 2009). Growth promoters, selective breeding, confinement of animals and feed manipulation have given rise to higher percentage of carcass fat. In view of the global obesity epidemic, chickens that provide several times the fat energy compared to protein seems illogical and the research suggests that the existing methods of broiler chicken husbandry must be reviewed with regard to its implications for animal welfare, human nutrition and health outcomes.



Several studies have reviewed the epidemiological evidence for vegetarian diets, low-meat eating dietary patterns and the association with health status. Of these, the China Study which began in 1980, over two decades examined the relationship between the consumption of animal products and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and cancers of the breast, prostate and bowel. The authors concluded that people who eat a plant-based diet, avoiding animal products including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates, reduced or reversed the development of numerous diseases (Campbell et al, 2006).



Whilst the evidence supports vegetarianism with reduced risk of diseases, it is still unclear whether the absence of meat and processed meat products from the vegetarian diet or whether differences in the foods replaced when meat is infrequently consumed, explains the reduction in mortality (McEvoy et al, 2011). In addition, it is not known whether a particular food, dietary compound or combination of dietary and lifestyle behaviourial factors in the vegetarian diet provided the protection against disease. McEvoy’s study suggests that vegetarian dietary patterns need to be further defined and trials are required before it can be advocated as an optimal health status.

It is for these health benefits that results from studies conducted in 2007 and 2011 reveal the most commonly cited reason for self-reported vegetarianism and veganism was a concern for health (66%). Less common reasons were animal welfare (47%), environment (34%), better taste (31%), religion (28%) and weight control (14%) (Izmirli & Phillips, 2011).



Despite animal rights campaigns and the advocacy of their welfare, consumer actions do not necessarily reflect ethical beliefs. Studies from from the United Kingdom observed the correlations between ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases and revealed individuals can have two views on animal welfare. As citizens, they support the notion of animals being entitled to a good life, as meat consumers however they avoid the cognitive connection to the animal (Schroder and McEarchern, 2004). In its RSPCA campaign on the welfare of chickens, 78% of respondents wanted to ban battery cages and 86% viewed battery cages as cruel. However, only 32% of eggs sold in Britain are barn or free-range eggs and 80% of the eggs used in the food industry come from battery hens (Schroder and McEarchern, 2004).

To understand this trend, in 2010, the paradox was observed by researchers from the University of Queensland and Melbourne. They described the behaviour whereby people mentally disengage from the origins of meat, serves as a function for meat eaters to reduce the dissonance aroused by enjoying meat but disliking the harm that animals suffer to produce it (Bratanova et al, 2011). The ‘meat paradox’ was coined to define the act by which meat-eating respondents were deliberately denying moral status and ascribing diminished mental capacities to food animals thus separating the association of meat from the animal. The level of dissonance experienced was affected by the kind of animal being eaten. Chickens were perceived to have ‘less mind’ or cognitive abilities and therefore the conflict related to their consumption was less (Bratanova et al, 2011).



In the egg producing industry male chicks are considered an unwanted byproduct of egg production and are killed and disposed of shortly after birth. Male chicks are killed as they cannot lay eggs and they are not suitable for chicken-meat production. Chick hatcheries breed one or the other type of chick depending on which egg or poultry meat industry they supply. At the layer-hen hatcheries, eggs are taken away to develop in industrial incubators. Once hatched, the newborn chicks pass down a production line to be sexed and sorted. Sick or weak female chicks and all male chicks are rejected and then killed by maceration or gassing (RSPCA, 2010).





Despite awareness of production processes and the concern for animal welfare this does not reflect consumer behaviour. About 58.6% of eggs purchased in retail outlets in Australia are cage eggs. These eggs come from hens that are housed in cages within a shed. Hens in barn systems are free to roam within a shed that is designed to keep them clean and healthy and account for only 9.4% of eggs sold in Australia. Free-range eggs come from hens housed in sheds that have access to an outdoor range for at least 8 hours during the day. They return to sheds for roosting, laying, drinking and eating. Free-range eggs account for 28.4% of eggs sold at the retail level (AECL, 2009).



Despite key findings of the health benefits of eating a plant-based diet and the concern for animal welfare, research shows that people continue to consume meat. The reluctance to inflict harm to animals is overridden by culinary practices embedded within culture and society.

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS
Given the epidemiological evidence for meat intake and chronic disease risk, understanding the trend and determinants of meat consumption is pertinent for researchers and other public health professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic disease. Food consumption behaviours shed some light on the barriers faced with the food production industry and consumer choices. Wealth as the main determinant of meat consumption across the globe may forecast the public health and environmental challenges expected to arise in the future, not only for leading consumer nations but the developing world (Daniel et al, 2010). With the growing preference for poultry consumption, as a replacement for red meat, this would suggest the need for more epidemiological studies of white meat and its implications for long term health and disease outcomes (Daniel et al, 2010).





The processes of globalisation have contributed to “nutrition transition” which is the increasing consumption of foods high in fats and sweeteners throughout the developing world (Hawkes, 2006). This study suggests that globalisation continues to exacerbate uneven dietary development between rich and poor and highlights population wealth distribution and health disparity. As national economies grow, the risk of obesity moves towards groups of lower socioeconomic status. Understanding the links between globalisation and the nutrition transition and its impact on meat consumption is therefore necessary to help governments and policy makers address the global burden of chronic disease.

Urbanisation has also caused urban populations with rising incomes to consume less foods of plant origin and more animal products (Fu et al, 2012). These trends have been observed in China and India where rapid economic growth has paralleled rising incomes of large populations with an ever increasing rate of meat consumption. This combination of globalisation, economic growth and urbanisation has lead to major lifestyle and dietary changes as a more affluent workforce eat out, consume more convenience foods and animal products.

To meet global demand, it is argued that the volume of modern meat production contributes significantly to global climate change already beginning to have adverse health impacts on parts of the world (McMichael & Bambrick, 2005). The issue extends the population health risk discussion to the burgeoning global industrial agricultural system that poses risks associated with extensive use of fertilisers and pesticides, feed formulations that include animal tissues and resistant-antibiotics that have contributed to the spread of diseases and consequent environmental pollution (McMichael & Bambrick, 2005). The consequence of economic and social change on the rates of meat consumption and the environmental impact are integral to this discussion.



Bioethicist Peter Singer argues that consumers have an ethical responsibility to be aware of how their food is produced. In his 1975 book Animal Liberation, he first suggested that as human beings we are ethically obliged to give equal consideration to the interests of all sentient beings that are capable of feeling emotions, wellbeing, pain and suffering. Given that animals can suffer, Singer proposes that humans have a moral obligation to minimize or avoid causing such suffering to animals. He argues that consumers have the ethical responsibility to be aware of how their food is produced and take the responsibility upon themselves to become better informed about their purchasing choices beyond taste and price (Singer, 2013). This extends to the ethics of food production and the moral obligation that producers have to be transparent with consumers regarding the treatment of farmers, workers, animals and the environment. Whilst vegetarianism and veganism are a conceivable solution to alter current global trends in rising meat production and consumption, to reduce the negative effects of large scale meat production, changes to production methods through increasing regulation, improving occupational and welfare standards for workers and animals and educating consumers are required to address this issue. However, simply educating consumers on the effects of factory farming and benefits of eating less meat are insufficient for producing substantial change (Gossard, 2007). Cultural beliefs about food and social structural factors continue to influence the consumption of meat. Tastes, habits, ritual, tradition and symbolic meanings associated with food preferences need to be considered. With consideration of these cultural and social factors, public health experts have the challenge of proposing dietary patterns that address the balance of meat consumption and plant-derived foods that deliver both health and ecological benefits.

ANALYSIS OF THE ARTEFACT & LEARNING REFLECTIONS
The ChookTracker artefact is a reflection of current social attitudes and ethical standards against the use of battery hens and cage eggs. It portrays Australian free-range poultry roaming in a natural habitat, free from any inflicted suffering. Despite this constructed image advocating the practice of ethical animal farming and reflecting the public consensus for the rights of animals, strong consumer and commercial demand for meat drives mass production of animals and their consumption. This artefact represents the ‘meat paradox’ that describes people’s concern for animal welfare and ethical beliefs that often conflict with their consumer behavior. While I believe we have the moral obligation to care for animals with equal consideration, I am still conflicted by the paradox of eating ethically. Food production companies continue to carefully construct images of free-range chickens whilst the majority are still bred in cages and the male chickens killed. It has led me to question my choices of what types of meat, in particular the poultry and eggs I consume and where and how they are farmed.

Researching this topic I was alarmed at the unsustainable use of natural resources such as land clearing to create pastures that lead to the loss of biodiversity and displacement of communities. I was unaware that modern factory farming requires intensive energy inputs greater than the food energy output produced. We are faced with the challenge of feeding growing populations however factory farming through economies of scale, that promised cheaper meat and ‘leaner’ poultry has created a system that places human health, animal welfare and the environment at risk.

The extensive body of research strongly supports a transition from a diet high in meat consumption to one predominantly plant based to not only improve health, but to advocate the ethical treatment of animals. Whilst I am still undecided if a completely vegan diet is realistic and sustainable for me, this assessment has provided a comprehensive study of meat production and consumption and how I can make more informed and ethical choices in the future.

REFLECTION COMMENTS
http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Factory+Farming+-+The+Real+Cost

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Cruel+Confines+-+N8805172