In the U.S., 94 percent of eggs produced come from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or factory farms,¹ where hens, so-called “caged layers,” spend their entire lives in small wire battery cages. Each hen gets a space that’s smaller than a standard sheet of paper where she’s unable to even spread her wings. This practice is undeniably cruel, with the hens suffering severe health problems as a result of their immobility, from spinal cord deterioration leading to paralysis to muscle and bone wasting.

Battery cages have already been banned in the European Union, and in the U.S. demand is growing for more humane — and healthier — cage-free options. In fact, about 100 grocery chains, 60 restaurant chains and other food businesses have said they plan to switch to cage-free eggs in the next 10 years, a move that would affect about 70 percent of the U.S. egg demand.²

This would require the majority of CAFO egg producers to rethink the cheap way they’re churning out eggs, so not surprisingly there’s been some resistance from the industry.

Among the most brazen is a bill introduced in Iowa that would require grocery stores in the state to always carry CAFO eggs.³ The pitch is that cage-free eggs can be more expensive, so the bill is supposed to protect consumers’ access to cheaper eggs and ensure “consumer choice,” but what it’s really about is protecting the interests of industrialized agriculture.

Clearly Big Ag is getting nervous; even Walmart has said it will eventually source its eggs from cage-free operations, but the bill, if it’s passed, would require them to still carry CAFO eggs in its Iowa stores.⁴

CAFO Chicken Producers Are Dirty Birds

In addition to eggs, CAFOs also supply the vast majority of chicken bought and consumed in the U.S., with similar concerns about animal welfare, public health and environmental pollution. Big Chicken, including big names such as Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, Pilgrim’s Pride, Koch Farms and Sanderson Farm, has also been hit with a number of lawsuits recently alleging they engaged in a conspiracy to raise and fix prices over the last decade.

“Historically, broiler chicken was priced on a boom-and-bust cycle — when prices for chicken went up, so did supply; then, prices would fall,” WUWM reported.⁵ More recently, however, the price of broiler chickens has stabilized and risen, even as input costs, such as corn and soy for feed, have dropped. The game-changer appears to be Agri Stats, a software program that allows poultry companies to share data such as production numbers, bird sizes and financial returns.

“The database company gathers information from 95 percent of poultry processors and tracks 22 million birds a day. Companies can then use this information, according to farmers, retailers and distributors, to set a higher price for all their products,” according to WUWM.⁶

A Bloomberg report also revealed that profit margins at some leading chicken producers grew exponentially in recent years. For Tyson, profits rose from 1.6 percent to 11.9 percent from 2009 to 2016 and, for Pilgrim’s Pride, from 3.8 percent to nearly 13 percent between 2012 and 2015.^7,8

In 2016, a lawsuit from Maplevale Farms, a food wholesaler, was filed against Tyson and Pilgrim’s alleging the companies were in collusion to increase broiler wholesale prices by nearly 50 percent from 2008, causing Maplevale to pay inflated prices. Another lawsuit, filed in 2017 by several farmers against Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue, Sanderson, Koch and others, alleges the companies formed a cartel to keep down farmers’ wages. WUWM continued:⁹

“In April 2017, Chicken Kitchen, a restaurant franchiser, brought a similar lawsuit against Tyson Foods, alleging that the company ‘conspired to fix, maintain and stabilize the price of Broilers by limiting production with the intent of increasing Broiler prices in the United States.’

On Jan. 12, the Southern supermarket chains Winn-Dixie and Bi-Lo filed suit against Koch Foods, Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, and others alleging that the processors restricted supply in order to keep prices high. US Foods and Sysco followed with separate lawsuits on Jan. 30.”

Many are also not aware that, in addition to allegedly trying to shortchange farmers’ wages, the industry pays its farmers via a tournament or “gladiator system,” which pits farmers against each other. Those ranked in the top half (producing the fattest chickens with the least amount of feed, for instance) receive a bonus payment while those at the bottom will get a penalty. That may mean the farmers at the bottom receive about half the pay for the same number of chickens.¹⁰

100 Percent Natural, Really?

Sanderson Farms is no stranger to lawsuits. In June 2017, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit against Sanderson Farms for falsely advertising their products as “100% Natural.” In reality, testing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) National Residue Program revealed a battery of unnatural residues in the chicken, including:

Antibiotics for human use, including one prohibited for use in food animals	Ketamine, a drug that causes hallucinogenic effects that is not approved for use in poultry
Ketoprofren, an anti-inflammatory drug	Predisone, a steroid
Two growth hormones banned for use in poultry	Amoxicillin, a human antibiotic not approved for use in poultry
Penicillin residues	Pesticides

Out of 69 inspections of Sanderson Farms in various states from November 2015 to November 2016, 49 found residues that were far from “natural.”¹¹ Although Sanderson’s claims their chicken is “nothing but chicken,” it actually contains a number of residues that are not disclosed on the label. Ronnie Cummins, OCA’s international director, told Sustainable Pulse:¹²

“Consumers should be alarmed that any food they eat contains steroids, recreational or anti-inflammatory drugs, or antibiotics prohibited for use in livestock — much less that these foods are falsely advertised and labeled ‘100% Natural’ … Sanderson’s advertising claims are egregiously misleading to consumers, and unfair to competitors.

The organic and free-range poultry sector would be growing much more rapidly if consumers knew the truth about Sanderson’s products and false advertising.”

Meanwhile, Sanderson is fighting back against the OCA’s suit; they filed a motion for sanctions in February 2018, and it remains a “buyer beware” market when it comes to these types of label claims. When sorting through “natural” and “antibiotic free” labels available, it’s important to be aware of the “fine print” in many cases. In Perdue’s No Antibiotics Ever program, for instance, it means just that.

However, if the label states only “responsible antibiotic use,” “veterinarian-approved antibiotic use,” “no antibiotic residue” or “100% natural,” antibiotics may have been used in the hatchery while the chick is in the egg. Even if a product is labeled organic, it could have had antibiotics used in the hatchery. The exception is if it is labeled organic and “raised without antibiotics.”

In this case, it means no antibiotics were used at any point. Other loopholes include stating “no human antibiotics,” but this means other animal antibiotics may be used.

Claims to watch out for include the “no growth-promoting antibiotics” label and the no “critically important” antibiotics label or claims. In the former case, it means antibiotics may still be used for disease prevention and in the latter, most critically important antibiotics aren’t used in poultry production anyway, so the “claim doesn’t translate to meaningful change in antibiotic use,” according to Consumer Reports.¹³

As for the USDA’s definition of “natural,” it only means a product contains “no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product.” Under this vague description, Bloomberg noted, “even chicken nuggets — that emblem of highly processed, additive-laden, junk food — have borne the ‘100% natural’ label.”¹⁴