I agree on the importance of collaboration between NGO’s and the industry and there are some wonderful examples of how this has created great changes for animal welfare, however collaboration is not always possible. In this particular example, many NGO’s across multiple countries have tried, and often failed, to engage with McDonald’s to discuss their animal welfare policies. The majority of NGOs approach their work in this way, through engaging directly with companies and offering feasible solutions, timelines, and support for improving animal welfare. Open dialogue is always the preferred option, but this becomes difficult when companies refuse to engage.
‘Humane washing’ is a strong accusation but could be considered an accurate description in this particular situation as the vast majority of what McDonald’s is committing to do is what most of the industry already does (this of course doesn’t take into account their behind the scenes work). Here are a few examples:
Most producers and other industry stakeholders already set their own targets for welfare outcomes, with some publicly reporting on them.
Many producers trial welfare monitoring technologies, however monitoring becomes less important when we already know what the biggest welfare issues are.
The science on stocking densities and genetics are already extremely robust; additional trials without changing welfare-critical inputs are unlikely to shift welfare outcomes in a meaningful way.
This is not a direct criticism of McDonald’s’ commitment, for example, switching to CAS, which is also a requirement of the BCC, is a very positive, and welcomed welfare improvement. However, “the impact on the broilers would likely be more impactful than the BCC.” is an erroneous assumption and this is because Mc’Donald’s’ commitment does not address breed. Conventional fast growing breeds that Mc’Donalds, and the majority of the industry, use are bred for their extremely high growth rate, making them highly susceptible to heart and leg problems, behavioural deprivation, and even poorer quality meat. While additional space and enrichment are extremely important, research shows that breed must also be addressed for sufficient welfare improvements. The BCC addresses all of these issues and will likely have significantly better welfare outcomes than McDonald’s who are only addressing some.
The BCC is a commercially viable solution to suffering that already does what you are suggesting in this article. It has targets, is reported on, and is already proven to improve “Flock Mortality, Air Quality, Mobility & Leg Condition, Processing Effectiveness”.
It is positive that McDonald’s are looking at how they can improve welfare, but the proposals seem to represent the bare minimum. I would love to hear some of your further thoughts on how NGO’s could work better with companies such as McDonald’s when engagement is difficult.
Hi Aaron, thank you for sharing this.
I agree on the importance of collaboration between NGO’s and the industry and there are some wonderful examples of how this has created great changes for animal welfare, however collaboration is not always possible. In this particular example, many NGO’s across multiple countries have tried, and often failed, to engage with McDonald’s to discuss their animal welfare policies. The majority of NGOs approach their work in this way, through engaging directly with companies and offering feasible solutions, timelines, and support for improving animal welfare. Open dialogue is always the preferred option, but this becomes difficult when companies refuse to engage.
‘Humane washing’ is a strong accusation but could be considered an accurate description in this particular situation as the vast majority of what McDonald’s is committing to do is what most of the industry already does (this of course doesn’t take into account their behind the scenes work). Here are a few examples:
Most producers and other industry stakeholders already set their own targets for welfare outcomes, with some publicly reporting on them.
Many producers trial welfare monitoring technologies, however monitoring becomes less important when we already know what the biggest welfare issues are.
The science on stocking densities and genetics are already extremely robust; additional trials without changing welfare-critical inputs are unlikely to shift welfare outcomes in a meaningful way.
This is not a direct criticism of McDonald’s’ commitment, for example, switching to CAS, which is also a requirement of the BCC, is a very positive, and welcomed welfare improvement. However, “the impact on the broilers would likely be more impactful than the BCC.” is an erroneous assumption and this is because Mc’Donald’s’ commitment does not address breed. Conventional fast growing breeds that Mc’Donalds, and the majority of the industry, use are bred for their extremely high growth rate, making them highly susceptible to heart and leg problems, behavioural deprivation, and even poorer quality meat. While additional space and enrichment are extremely important, research shows that breed must also be addressed for sufficient welfare improvements. The BCC addresses all of these issues and will likely have significantly better welfare outcomes than McDonald’s who are only addressing some.
The BCC is a commercially viable solution to suffering that already does what you are suggesting in this article. It has targets, is reported on, and is already proven to improve “Flock Mortality, Air Quality, Mobility & Leg Condition, Processing Effectiveness”.
It is positive that McDonald’s are looking at how they can improve welfare, but the proposals seem to represent the bare minimum. I would love to hear some of your further thoughts on how NGO’s could work better with companies such as McDonald’s when engagement is difficult.