To think that if you cannot afford free range chicken/turkey meat and eggs...

[LolaTheShowgirl]

...then don't buy at all?

I mean the suffering these birds go through in cramped, dirty sheds is unbelievable. There is usually no natural light and the birds are usually ill before they're culled.

If you can stomach it, please look at these:
WARNING: NOT NICE PICTURES!
HERE

Southmum- did you watch chicken out at all? If you did you would have seen that changing the demand changes the supply very easily

Message withdrawn

I disagree, cest la vie - the supermarkets do have a responsibility too, because they can put in place pricing policies that will affect people's buying habits.

If they decided to price ethical chickens at a similar price to the cheap ones, far more people would buy the better chicken.

Not at all SouthMum.

Supermarkets respond very simply and very quickly to the demands of the consumer. That is all. They are not good, or bad, or kind, or nasty. They are simply corporate entities aimed at maximising returns which respond to the demands of the market (the consumer) to do so. They will only change if consumer behaviour changes.

Stayingsunnygirl: they don't have a responsibility. They're just companies. Where does it say that they've got wider social responsibilities outside of their stakeholders (i.e. shareholders, creditors and employees)? They don't - it might be a nicer world if they did, but they don't. Their responsibility, outside of those prescribed by law, is to their stakeholders and no-one else.

So it is Ok for supermarkets to take no responsability for anything but poor people should feel the burden of it all? Is that it?

We'll have to agree to differ on that one, cestlavie.

I believe that companies do have a responsibility to act ethically - if only because it could increase their market share. For example, if people on this thread knew that they could get ethically sourced chicken/turkey and eggs at similar prices to the cheapy ones from Supermarket X, whereas the others were charging significantly more, they'd be very likely to go and shop at supermarket X to get the ethical cheap chicken, and would probably do the rest of their shopping there too - no sense in going to two supermarkets, imo.

So the ethical chicken could be an excellent loss-leader to get people into their shop.

But I believe that they have a responsibility to act ethically anyway, whilst balancing that with profits. They can well afford to do do, imo.

Message withdrawn

Firstly, I don't think it's okay for corporations (including supermarkets) to act that way - however, under the current system that is the way they will act. Their only incentives are economic. What is the incentive for them to act non-economically? If we dislike it, we should be demanding changes to the system.

Secondly, if a company by acting 'ethically' could indeed increase sales it would. I suspect that the supermarkets have reams and reams of very detailed data on consumer buying behaviour, however, and as such believe that the current pricing system will maximise their profits. I think it's doubtful to say the least that we know how their consumers behave better than them.

It's a balance, christiana. The supermarkets are there to make a profit - cestlavie is absolutely right about that, and they have to stock the products that people want, otherwise they'll shop elsewhere and profits will fall.

And of course we have to take responsibility for our choices, but the supermarkets attempt to influence our choices every day for a number of reasons - for example, Tescos used to try to get people to buy more fruit and veg by halving the price on 5 fruit and veg each week. They will do a special promotion on the latest dvd/Harry Potter book to get people to do their shopping at that supermarket that week (loss leaders, as I said), to boost their profits and to try to convert people to using them.

What I am saying is that both supermarket and customer can have an influence on buying behaviour and on issues such as ethically sourced poultry. I'm not suggesting that the supermarkets should remove all unethically produced poultry products from their shelves, but that they could price the ethical ones competitively so that people had a realistic choice. And the ethical poultry might well be a good loss-leader to get folk shopping in their supermarket.

totally disagree with the comment about vegetarianism being harder work and needing to spend all day cooking. pretty much all of the meat free food I cook is quicker to make than the meals with meat in.

Sorry if someone else has asked this question already:

Most of the Free Range eggs in our local supermarkets are from local producers.

So what happens in the winter?

Because Free Range hens don't lay in the winter, do they? Only ones who are kept indoors in artificial light.

Will they sell old eggs? I know they last for ages. Or will they import eggs from other countries? Or label them with one of those other terms for not-free-range-but-not-battery-cos-that's-cruel: Barn Fresh, Kind-Farmed, Cluckalicious . . .

Anyone know the answer?

I can't read through all the posts so apologies if the conversation has gone off in a different direction or I am repeating something already said but...

Isn't the best idea to eat good quality meat occasionally rather than poor quality meat often? We don't have much money at all but our policy is to eat meat only once or twice a week and when we do make sure we buy free range and/or organic produce. It is definitely more expensive but the benefits to our health (and that of the animals) is huge. And since we don't eat meat that often it works out the same as if we ate poor quality meat for every meal...

after reading some of this enormous thread I'm going to be doing what chaya suggests, buying good quality less often.

Cestlavie is right about companies not having wider responsbilities. Under our current system it is a companies function to make money for shareholders. This is just a fact.

You know the real way to make life better for animals? Have less people. If the population were low you could have more room for the animals - the american indians had no need to keep buffalo in cages.

So for those whose conscience bothers them this much this should be their ultimate aim.

It's not just about rich and poor, it's about choices.

Loads of people buy cheap meat when in fact they could afford better quality. They just don't see good quality meat as worth spending out on.

We seem to think that amazingly cheap food is normal, and our right. It's only recently that food has become so cheap, and it may not always be like this.

Food used to be be people's main expenditure after housing etc, but now it's running a car, clothing, leisure etc.

Our priorities have changed.

That is right, MorrisZapp, we really should place more priority on buying good quality food and less on possessions etc.

Not sure if anyone has made this point already (I am guessing they have) but the amount of energy and land that is used to feed animals (particular cows) is atronomical. If we didn't eat so many animals we could use just a fraction of that land and energy to grow veges, corn etc for humans. Thus there would be much less wastage of land and resources and pollution of the environment.

I am a proud meat-eater but really wish as a species we would eat more responsibly.

Balloon slayer, free range birds can still have artificial light, and even birds with no artificial light lay all year round. They just don't lay as many.

My Mum's and sister's chickens don't lay eggs in the winter, not just fewer eggs, no eggs. They wouldn't even qualify as free range as they are in a run most of the time, despite being happy chooks.

I thought that was why eggs became synonymous with Easter - because it's about then that your hens start laying again.

Mine are organic free range with no artificial lighting and no run, and they will lay all year, but possibly it depends on breed (I don't know).

I have neighbours with chickens and they lay all year around under the same conditions.

ooh-er!

Wonder what mum and sis do wrong differently? Must ask.

I think it is most likely to be breed. Or it could be that if they are in a run they get less sunlight as they can't move around the garden with the sun. I think it is sensible to keep them in a run if they live in a place with lots of predators though.

Cosmosis - I take your point about vegetarian food being no more time-consuming to make, but at the moment, the meals I cook almost all the time, have meat in, so I know what I'm doing, and the planning, shopping and cooking are easy and pretty quick. But I don't know a lot of vegetarian recipes, so starting to plan menus using less meat would be more time consuming for me at first, until I learned my way around a few recipes.

That's why I suggested a thread for ethical, inexpensive, low-meat or meat-free meals - to help those like me who aren't in the habit of making vegetarian food, and need some advice about what's best, what children will enjoy, and how to do it as quickly and easily as the meals we already cook.