A Possible Reprieve for the Male Chicks of the Egg Industry

A little known fact about the egg industry is the number of male chicks who are killed in the process of producing eggs.  How does that happen?   Almost all hens in commercial operations are purchased from hatcheries that dispose of male chicks shortly after hatching since they only need the birds who will lay eggs – the females. The hatcheries need to wait for the eggs to hatch to “sex” the birds and identify males and females.  Females get sent to egg industry vendors and males get destroyed.  Methods of disposal include suffocation, gassing and grinding alive. These male chicks are not used as “meat” birds because their bodies are not as profitable as conventional broiler chickens (birds bred for and used as “meat” birds) and therefore have very little use and value to the agricultural industry.  The killing of male chicks is an unfortunate side effect of egg production.

You may notice that there is a column on our Egg Guide that asks vendors “Fate of Male Chicks?” with all of the answers being either “killed at hatchery” or not given. We’ve noted that even if the answer is “not given”, standard process is the culling and killing of male chicks at the hatchery.  We don’t currently have even a single vendor who can claim to successfully avoid this situation.

Unilever recently announced that they plan to provide financial support towards research of “in-ovo gender identification” technology.  This would allow the sexing of the birds within the eggs to happen before the eggs hatch, with the disposal of male eggs before hatching. Unilever committed financial support to the market introduction of such a method, once it’s successfully created.  If this technology comes to the market, we might very well have an egg industry that can avoid the culling and killing of male baby chicks.  

Interestingly, in the same communication about Unilever’s animal welfare policy, they commit to exploring ways to meet egg ingredient demands by using plant-based solutions.  Meanwhile Unilever recently attempted to sue Hampton Creek, makers of plant-based and vegan Just Mayo (carried at the co-op), for false advertising advertising and fraud, citing their use of the word “mayo” and depiction of an egg with a sprout in it on the front of their jar. They claimed Just Mayo damaged their market share by representing the product as something it’s not and Unilever asked Hampton Creek to pay them three times the amount of their profit and cover their legal fees in addition, to cease use of the egg image on their label, and to recall any products and promotional materials that might confuse the public. That lawsuit has since been dropped.

Sources:

1) http://www.unileverusa.com/resource/Animal-Welfarepolicy.aspx?utm_source=Farm+Forward+Master+List&utm_campaign=2369bb15fc-BuyingMayo_Victory_9_2_149_2_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_166cf7ddf5-2369bb15fc-202717493

2) www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/business/unilever-sues-a-start-up-over-mayonnaise-like-product.htl