Food Ethics Dilemma: Broiler Chicken Case Study
Stakeholders and Ethical Dilemmas
Prepared by Scott Bremer 15 October 2010
Robert Smith and I have discussed the stakeholders and ethical dilemmas associated with the
broiler chicken meat ‘food chain,’ with a view to crafting an Open Educational Resource case
study. We have arrived at a list of stakeholders and dilemmas that we considered may be able to
be incorporated into an integrated narrative that is both (a) interesting and engaging, and
(b) educational relative to ethical considerations. Collaboration between Robert and I consisted
of email and telephone conversations, which have been condensed into this summary document.
The summary below is structured according to the requirements of the Food Ethics Dilemma
Open Educational Resource (OER), and is divided into two lists; stakeholders and dilemmas. At
the end two potential narratives are presented as ways of bringing the dilemmas together into
‘three levels,’ in accordance with the Food Ethics Dilemma seafood case study prototype.
1
Stakeholders:
1)
2)
Broiler chicken producers/farmers;
Broiler chicken retailers and restaurant chains;
3)
State agencies regulating broiler chickens - including environmental protection
agencies, agricultural agencies and food-safety agencies for example;
4)
5)
6)
Environmentalist non-governmental organisations;
Animal welfare non-governmental organisations;
Consumers – consumer rights non-governmental organisations.
These six stakeholders represent a cross-section of the stakeholders concerned with the
governance of the broiler chicken meat food chain, and possessing the most acute value/ethical
positions. Specifically, the first two stakeholder groups represent the private sector, the third
group represents the state, and the fourth, fifth and sixth stakeholder groups represent
(mobilised) civil society. The non-governmental organisations also represent the perspective of
those ‘stakeholders’ that are unable to represent themselves; namely the animals, and the wider
natural environment. This cross-section allows participants to gain an insight into the diverse
perspectives in deliberation over ethical dilemmas.
It was considered that scientists, veterinarians and the expert community constitute another key
stakeholder group in the governance of the food chain, however while far from value-neutral, this
group was determined to have a less distinctive ethical position. Rather, as with the seafood
case study prototype, it was considered that the opinions of the expert community would best
serve to provide the pool of ‘evidence’ from which stakeholders can draw in forming their ethical
arguments.
2
Dilemmas:
Below are outlined four different ethical dilemmas, in no particular order. While some dilemmas
will be of more interest to some stakeholder groups than others, all stakeholders are considered
to have an ethical position for each dilemma.
(a)
Environmental impact vs animal welfare: On one hand broiler chicken production is
determined to have much smaller environmental impact than other forms of meat
production. It has much lower resource and energy inputs per kilo of meat than beef
for example - or even organic chicken meat production - and most adverse effects
are able to be ‘internalised’ or maintained within the production system, due to the
highly regulated environment.
However, on the other hand, broiler chicken
production has a long list of adverse impacts on the welfare of chickens. This
introduces a trade-off between environmental impact/sustainability and animal
welfare. This dilemma is interesting because of the depth of literature on which to
draw, and because it goes against the broad perception that animal welfare and
environmental sustainability are intrinsically positively correlated.
3
(b)
Local vs imported broiler chicken: Given the means of producing broiler chickens,
both the environmental impact and financial cost of producing chicken in warmer
climates is less than producing in cooler climates, such as in Europe. Therefore, on
one hand the environmental and economic cost of producing broiler chickens abroad
– in Thailand for example – is much less. However, on the other hand, the social
cost may be high; raising ethical questions of income and working conditions in
developing countries, fair trade, and a failure to support local farmers and the local
economy. This introduces a trade-off between environmental and economic costs on
one hand, and social costs on the other. It also emphasises the global nature of
these issues.
(c)
Food availability/affordability vs animal welfare: Broiler chicken production allows for
the cheap production of meat, thereby broadening the section of the public able to
afford to eat meat. This can be argued on to improve the quality of life and choice for
a wider spectrum of the community, given there is a strong correlation between an
increase in wealth and meat consumption. However, the production of cheap meat is
at the expense of the welfare of the animals. Free range chicken, on the other hand,
is supposed to have a higher welfare standard but is much more expensive than
broiler production, and thus less affordable and accessible to ‘the poor.’ This
introduces a trade-off between an improved quality of human life, and the reduced
welfare of chickens.
(d)
Food safety vs animal welfare: Broiler chicken production, as a result of its ‘closed
and controlled’ environment, is able to ensure a degree of environmental safety
relative to zoonotic diseases for instance. Free range chicken production, on the
other hand, while ensuring a higher degree of animal welfare, is not able to ensure
the same ‘environmental safety.’ This introduces a trade-off between food safety and
animal welfare.
Potential Narratives:
The above four dilemmas provide a point of departure for the discussion of possible narratives
that run through the three different ‘levels’ demanded by the Food Ethics Dilemmas OER
framework. The final choice of three dilemmas will depend on the narrative chosen. Additionally,
we envisage that the dilemmas faced in the other cases may have an impact upon our final level
selections – e.g. the Food Ethics Dilemma team may not want to address food safety twice.
Here we suggest two potential narratives. One potential narrative could begin (first level) with a
food safety scare, leading to a culling of chickens (dilemma (d)). This spurs (second level) broiler
chicken producers to move their production ‘off-shore’ to a developing country such as Thailand
(dilemma (b)). Finally, (third level) this draws attention to the trade-off between environmental
impact and animal welfare (dilemma (a)). A second potential narrative begins (first level) with a
celebrity/some other ‘spark, drawing attention to the welfare of broiler chickens, introducing the
trade-off between food affordability/availability and animal welfare (dilemma (c)). This leads
(second level) broiler chicken producers (and other stakeholders) to defend their practice on the
basis of a low environmental impact (dilemma (a)). Finally, (third level) under increasing pressure
‘back home,’ broiler chicken companies consider moving their operation ‘off-shore’ (dilemma (b)).