Allowing farmers in England to keep fast-growing broiler chickens that suffer a wide range of health problems is contrary to animal welfare regulations, the high court has heard.
The Humane League UK (THL), represented by Advocates for Animals, claims the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey, has unlawfully failed to properly monitor and prosecute farmers for keeping “Frankenchickens”.
As a result of genetic selection, about 90% of the 1 billion meat chickens slaughtered each year are faster-growing breeds, reaching slaughter weight of about 2.2 kg within three to 36 days.
In written arguments, Edward Brown KC, opening the case for THL in London on Wednesday, said: “These breeding practices have increased meat yield, and allowed producers to significantly reduce cost, at the expense of substantial welfare detriment … Welfare issues connected to fast-growing breeds include musculoskeletal and cardiovascular disorders such as leg weakness, ascite (buildup of fluid in the abdomen), breast muscle myopathies (diseases) and higher mortality rates, all of which are exacerbated as a result of the high-density intensive conditions in which the animals are kept.”
He told the court the growth speed of faster growing breeds was 12 weeks faster than it was 50 years ago. Brown said there were “commercially viable, more slowly growing, higher welfare breeds” available, highlighting the Netherlands, where he said 100% of meat-chickens were of the slower-growing breed.
The case centres on the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007 (WOFAR), which state: “Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”
Brown told the court that an RSPCA report, which he called the “most extensive analysis” in the area, “concludes that fast-growing breeds cannot be kept without detrimental effects to their health and welfare”. Nevertheless, he said there had been no prosecutions, which he claimed was inconsistent with the law.
Richard Turney, for Coffey, in his written arguments, said the environment secretary had “no ‘policy’ of permitting any particular breed of chicken to be kept … nor is she primarily responsible for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions”.
THL claims the relevant WOFAR provision “prohibits the keeping of animals for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected that, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detriment effect on their health or welfare”. But this interpretation is disputed by Turney, who said it meant “because of breeding it is impossible that the animal in question could be kept without welfare detriment”.
He added: “Following assessment of the evidence by departmental welfare advisers, the secretary of state does not consider that there is scientific consensus that fast-growing meat chickens have a genetic make-up which means they cannot be kept without detriment to their welfare.”
He suggested their welfare was affected by other factors, namely “environmental conditions, animal husbandry and stockmanship”.
The RSPCA, which is a third-party intervenor in the case, said WOFAR was “clearly engaged by the evidence about broiler chicken welfare”.
In his written submissions, Nick Armstrong KC accused Coffey of “seeking to minimise and avoid confronting the obvious thrust of extensive multi-sourced evidence”.
Before the hearing, supporters of the judicial review, including Chris Packham, who was at the high court for a separate case, and Benjamin Zephaniah, chanted “justice for chickens” outside the court.
The hearing is expected to conclude on Thursday with judgment reserved until a later date.
