Michael Kobori is the Chief Sustainability Officer at Starbucks, the largest coffee chain in the world. But Michael and Starbucks have a dirty secret – Starbucks is taking food safety risks and causing extreme animal cruelty because their restaurants still use eggs from hens confined in tiny cages.
On farms that confine hens in cages, feces and dirt are caked on the bars of cages where eggs are laid, and feces piles up just inches away from eggs and from the birds themselves. Mother hens are crammed for nearly their entire lives in cages so small and cruel they are illegal in dozens of countries around the world. The corpses of dead hens are left to decompose right next to hens laying eggs for human consumption.
Starbucks committed to serving only cage-free eggs – which are far safer, higher quality and more humane – in its company-owned stores by 2020. However, Starbucks did not oblige licensees to join the commitment, and Starbucks also failed to meet its own cage-free targets in many of its Asian markets. It seems that Starbucks thinks Asian customers don’t deserve the same quality of food. They continue to sell eggs from filthy and cruel caged-egg farms with no commitment to change.
Dozens of other leading restaurant and cafe chains have already made commitments to use only cage-free eggs across the US, Europe, Asia and beyond. For example, Burger King, Subway, Pret A Manger, Papa John’s, Tim Horton’s, and Costa Coffee have all made 100% cage-free egg commitments throughout the US, Europe, and Asia, as have over 50 other leading food companies.
It’s time for Michael and Starbucks to catch up with other leading international restaurant and cafe chains by setting a timeline to sell only cage-free eggs.
Starbucks: I won’t drink coffee or eat at any of your restaurants, until you catch up with other leading food companies and commit to stop using eggs from filthy, cruel battery cages. It’s time for Starbucks to go 100% cage-free！
Over a dozen scientific studies have found that caged egg farms have dramatically higher rates of salmonella contamination. The European Food Safety Authority conducted the largest study ever on the issue, analyzing data from five thousand farms. It found that caged egg farms are 25 times more likely to be contaminated with key salmonella strains. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
There are numerous reasons why packing hens in cages causes food safety risks. Research by the United States Department of Agriculture shows the stress of cage confinement makes hens more vulnerable to disease. Cages are also hard to clean and disinfect, leading to “a larger volume of contaminated fecal material and dust.” (18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Just like dogs and cats, chickens are smart, intelligent individuals that feel pleasure and pain. Packing an animal for nearly her entire life in a cage so small she can barely turn around is simply wrong. (24)
Battery cages are so cruel they have been banned in dozens of countries around the world. Every mainstream animal protection organization around the world condemns battery cages as cruel and inhumane. (25, 26, 27)
Here is what just a few such organizations have said:
“the most simple behaviours such as the ability to flap their wings or perch are denied. The SPCA is deeply concerned for the welfare of these millions of chickens.” Hong Kong SPCA
“Battery cages are extremely inhumane; they are not only very crowded, they also deny egg-laying hens the ability to nest and dust bathe…The food industry should use cage-free eggs as soon as possible” Taiwan SPCA
“It’s inhumane for hens—intelligent, active animals—to be confined to cages so small they can barely move an inch for almost their entire life.” Humane Society International
These organisations are not associated with this website
Starbucks continues to sell customers eggs from suppliers who confine hens in cruel and filthy battery cages
At Starbucks’ egg suppliers, dead hens are left to rot in cages alongside live hens
Each mother hen spends nearly her entire life packed in a cage so small she can barely turn around
Equitas is a global non-profit organization based in the United Kingdom that works for consumer protection and animal welfare in food supply chains worldwide.
Citations on the food safety risks and animal cruelty of battery cages
1: Van Hoorebeke S, Van Immerseel F, Schulz J, et al. 2010. Determination of the within and between flock prevalence and identification of risk factors for Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks housed in conventional and alternative systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 94(1-2):94-100.
2: Snow LC, Davies RH, Christiansen KH, et al. 2010. Investigation of risk factors for Salmonella on commercial egg-laying farms in Great Britain, 2004-2005. Veterinary Record 166(19):579-86.
3: 2010. Annual Report on Zoonoses in Denmark 2009. National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark.
4: Van Hoorebeke S, Van Immerseel F, De Vylder J et al. 2010. The age of production system and previous Salmonella infections on farm are risk factors for low-level Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks. Poultry Science 89:1315-1319.
5: Huneau-Salaün A, Chemaly M, Le Bouquin S, et al. 2009. Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. Enteric contamination in 5 French laying hen flocks at the end of the laying period. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 89:51-8.
6: Green AR, Wesley I, Trampel DW, et al. 2009 Air quality and bird health status in three types of commercial egg layer houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 18:605-621.
7: Schulz J, Luecking G, Dewulf J, Hartung J. 2009. Prevalence of Salmonella in German battery cages and alternative housing systems. 14th International congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene: Sustainable animal husbandry : prevention is better than cure. pp. 699-702. http://www.safehouse-project.eu/vars/fichiers/pub_defaut/Schulz_Salmonella_ISAH%202009.ppt.
8: Namata H, Méroc E, Aerts M, et al. 2008. Salmonella in Belgian laying hens: an identification of risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83(3-4):323-36.
9: Mahé A, Bougeard S, Huneau-Salaün A, et al. 2008. Bayesian estimation of flock-level sensitivity of detection of Salmonella spp. Enteritidis and Typhimurium according to the sampling procedure in French laying-hen houses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 84(1-2):11-26.
10: Pieskus J, et al. 2008. Salmonella incidence in broiler and laying hens with the different housing systems. Journal of Poultry Science 45:227-231.
11: European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the Analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. The EFSA Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620761896.htm.
12: Snow LC, Davies RH, Christiansen KH, et al. 2007. Survey of the prevalence of Salmonella species on commercial laying farms in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Record 161(14):471-6.
13: Methner U, Diller R, Reiche R, and Böhland K. 2006. [Occurence of salmonellae in laying hens in different housing systems and inferences for control]. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 119(11-12):467-73.
14: Much P, Österreicher E, Lassnig. H. 2007. Results of the EU-wide Baseline Study on the Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Holdings of Laying Hens in Austria. Archiv für Lebensmittelhygiene 58:225-229.
15: Stepien-Pysniak D. 2010. Occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria in hens’ eggs depending on their source and storage conditions. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 13(3):507-13.
16: Humane Society International, “An HSI Report: Food Safety and Cage Egg Production” (2010). HSI Reports: Farm Animal Protection. 3. http://animalstudiesrepository.org/hsi_reps_fap/3
17: European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the Analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. The EFSA Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620761896.htm
18: The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. 2004. The national Salmonella control programme for the production of table eggs and broilers 1996-2002. Fødevare Rapport 6, March.
19: Davies R and Breslin M. 2003. Observations on Salmonella contamination of commercial laying farms before and after cleaning and disinfection. The Veterinary Record 152(10):283-7.
20: Methner U, Rabsch W, Reissbrodt R, and Williams PH. 2008. Effect of norepinephrine on colonisation and systemic spread of Salmonella enterica in infected animals: Role of catecholate siderophore precursors and degradation products. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 298(5-6):429-39.
21: Bailey MT, Karaszewski JW, Lubach GR, Coe CL, and Lyte M. 1999. In vivo adaptation of attenuated Salmonella Typhimurium results in increased growth upon exposure to norepinephrine. Physiology and Behavior 67(3):359-64.
22: Shini S, Kaiser P, Shini A, and Bryden WL. 2008. Biological response of chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) induced by corticosterone and a bacterial endotoxin. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part B. 149(2):324-33.
23: Rostagno MH. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 6(7):767-76.
24: Marino, L. 2017. Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition 20(2): 127–147.
25: “European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web 03 August 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC
26: “Farm Animal Confinement Bans.” American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Web. 03 August 2018, www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans
27: World Organization for Animal Health, “Terrestrial Animal Health Code” (2017). www.rr-africa.oie.int/docspdf/en/Codes/en_csat-vol1.pdf