Hi, I agree absolutely. We are a very rich nation and if we want to eat meat we should be prepared to pay the extra cost that's needed to make sure our livestock is reared and slaughtered to the highest possible standards.
Ok Paul, chickens are stupid, but that also means that the chicken idea of a good time is pretty simple: run around a bit, scratch a bit, live in smallish groups with room to get away from one another. Keep all your feathers. Live more than 32 days. Seems fair exchange if you're gonna eat it!
Must say that we've only used outdoor reared products, usually from sources we know well, for a very long time now. This is actually pretty awkward 'cos it rules out most supermarket products and much of the menu at most restaurants and pubs, but at least it might be healthier!
One thing that really annoys me is the "
Weasel'' food labeling that tries to make food look better than it is:
"Outdoor bred" - for pigs. This keeps the mortality rate down, but the piglets can get taken away and intensively farmed. Don't confuse with "outdoor reared"!
"Traditionally reared" - me old grandad always kept t'beggers in the shed!
I managed to get Sainsbury to withdraw some packaging when they used that phrase below a picture of ducks swimming in a pond. They'd never seen the outdoors so the ASA agreed it was misleading.
"Reared to xxxco's high standards" - No actual laws were broken.
"Red tractor" logo. - Didn't break any Defra directives (or at least didn't get caught!)
RSPCA's "Freedom food" initiative. - They finally owned up that, despite the name, it wasn't necessarily free range chicken, only "reared to their standards".
"Organic" - Only really indicates any welfare standard if it also carries the Soil Association logo. How do you monitor "organic" imports from all over the world?
Those meat packs with pictures of nice smiley farmers claiming "high standard of welfare". It might be so, but it can mean absolutely nothing and still be made as a claim.