First with legal news

Don't like chicken? There must be something wrong

17 June 2009 | by Katrina Sharman Print this article Comments Share this article

Corporate counsel and animal rights campaigner, Katrina Sharman, talks about an industry that takes a chicken from ‘nest to nugget’ and finds a cure for people who don’t like chicken.


THE marketing gurus at Ingham chicken have caused a bit of a stir lately by airing a series of ads that suggest ‘if you don’t like chicken, there is something very wrong with you.’  

While I’m all for a bit of puffery, I’m not sure I entirely agree with the suggestion by the Advertising Standards Board that ‘most vegetarians would find this advertisement amusing as it pokes fun at itself and chicken eaters generally’ (Complaint reference number 214/08). 

To the contrary, it seems somewhat tasteless to make light of an industry that can take an emotionally and physiologically complex animal ‘from nest to nugget’ in 35 days. More so, when the vast majority of ‘normal people’ have little awareness of how the 450 million chickens consumed each year are produced.  

The Australian market for chicken meat has increased by 15,000% over the last 50 years; so fast in fact that the only way to meet our national appetite has been to move the industry indoors where birds can be raised in sheds with tens of thousands of others and grown at unnaturally fast rates, which can cause painful leg conditions and skeletal disorders. 

Chickens raised in factory farms live their short lives in worlds of artificial light designed to maximise their growth and efficiency. Natural behaviours such as nest-building and nurturing their young are completely denied. The treatment of chickens is of course symptomatic of our nation’s move towards intensive or factory farming generally and the vertical integration of animal industries at rates which have largely left the traditional Aussie farmer for dust. 

The law has been a willing participant in facilitating the deprivation and suffering of chickens, and indeed many other animals, since the enactment of our ironically named anti-cruelty or animal welfare statutes. 

While one could be forgiven for assuming that such legislation was intended to provide meaningful protections, Professor David Weisbrot AM, president of the Australian Law Reform Commission, who has identified animal protection as potentially the next great social justice movement, recently suggested that the legislation is, at least upon first impression, very misleading and "the loopholes are so large that you could potentially drive a factory farmer’s truck through them". 

Professor Weisbrot was alluding to the fact that the exemptions and defences in State and Territory Laws, combined with Federally agreed Codes of Practice that underpin many animal industries, essentially sanction the systemic abuse of staggering numbers of animals. 

In fact once animals are classified as ‘livestock’, it seems the floodgates are opened to a range of violations, from permanent confinement to the carrying out of painful mutilations without anaesthetic. Such acts would in all likelihood, constitute criminal offences were they carried out against your pet cat or dog. 

The law provides little relief for those consumers who have become aware of the plight of farm animals. Calls for mandatory labelling of animal-derived food products, which would challenge animal industry spin and enable shoppers to take a stand against factory farmed products, have to date fallen on deaf ears; they appear to be hiding in the same in-tray as calls to follow Europe’s lead by phasing out the worst aspects of factory farming. 

While the Government may be slow to act, the legal profession has increasingly expressed a willingness to take a stand against injustices perpetrated against animals. For example, many of Australia’s leading law schools are now teaching animal law, law firms are opening their doors to animal protection matters and increasing numbers of practitioners are calling for law reform.  

I think I’ve stumbled on the cure for those people who ‘don’t like chicken’ or at least those people who don’t like the shameful way that the vast majority of animals in this country are treated. Anyone for a good dose of animal law? Surely the time has come for us to take a stand against the institutionalised suffering of animals in recognition that they are not mere assembly-line commodities, but rather sentient beings with lives that matter. 

Katrina Sharman is the Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, the animal protection institute. For further details and to access Voiceless’s latest report ‘From Nest to Nugget’, visit www.voiceless.org.au



Follow The New Lawyer on Twitter @thenewlawyer


Tags: advertising | campaign | corporate counsel | in-house

Related articles:


Add a comment21 Comments

  1. at 05:40 PM on 30 June 2009, lizette wrote:
    aren't we meant to be evolving, how anyone can support the chicken industry and it's barbaric practices
  2. at 02:35 PM on 29 June 2009, Marli Lopez-Hope wrote:
    To all whom may read, i am a 16 year old animal enthusiast who wishes to become an Animal Rights Lawyer in the near future. this add startled me at how naive, inhumane and unjust the human society can be. how this add managed to make it out alive is still mind boggling. The time to act is now and one small step at a time, will help to one day save the lives of these precious beings. I am so glad to know that there is hope out there for the voiceless.
  3. at 10:23 AM on 20 June 2009, Curious wrote:
    TO THE MODERATOR!!! Can you please ignore the last question I posted about Dr Andrew Knight. I misread his post, I though he was attacking Katrina's article. In fact he is supporting her of course. My mistake. So please don't post that last note or this one. Thanks so much.
  4. at 10:13 AM on 20 June 2009, Curious wrote:
    Dr Andrew Knight: Can I please ask what your PhD focuses on? Thanks.
  5. at 03:01 PM on 19 June 2009, Des wrote:
    I complained about this ad on the grounds that it was likely to lead to persecution of vegetarian children in the schoolground - we all know how kids love to find reasons to persecute each other, and here is the great god television telling them their veg friends have something very wrong with them! The advertising board dismissed it because the ad was humorous - pretty much the Chasers defence recently. I am yet to find anyone who found it funny. "Stupid" is the most common judgement. Anyway, can we now resume telling racist and sexist jokes on the defence that they are "humorous"?
  6. at 05:51 PM on 18 June 2009, Emma wrote:
    I don't think this article is vegan spun at all. It is humane treatement of animals that is called for - not for everyone to stop eating meat. I can't comprehend how anyone could ever demand any less than a well treated animal.
  7. at 04:35 PM on 18 June 2009, Dr Andrew Knight wrote:
    As an experienced veterinarian with advanced qualifications in animal welfare science, with a personal interest in intensive chicken farming, I'm happy to refute the allegations of bias made against this article. The descriptions of the welfare problems faced by chickens are inaccurate only in that they exclude the worst examples. The descriptions of the legal and Code of Practice loopholes that allow these practices to continue are similarly accurate. Such unsupportable allegations of bias serve only to demonstrate the lack of substantive argument available to those who support intensive chicken farming.
  8. at 02:15 PM on 18 June 2009, Editor wrote:
    Hi Jenny... Yes we agree, but when we're told we're being biased we need step up. Would be interesting to hear an argument the other way, even if we personally don't agree... Cheers, Kate
  9. at 12:52 PM on 18 June 2009, Rap Attack wrote:
    My first thought was 'oh well this is just another stupid commercial to make eating flesh seem alright and how dumb flesh eaters are for thinking that is so'. Like neanderthal thinking. Backwards! Then I was offended but i thought naw if I cared what they think I wouldn't get on with getting my message across plus have peace of mind. So the only reason THEY would think there is something wrong with me is because of ignorance not because of fact.
  10. at 12:40 PM on 18 June 2009, laid off diary wrote:
    Yeah, but look how the law treats its own--in little tiny rooms with numbers instead of names and billing in .25 increments and in constant anxiety. Natural habits of having a life, socializing, and having a love life are complete denied. Social norms are completely ignored while weird awkward habits and assholic natures are praised and rewarded. I feel like a pressed and formed Mcnugget. lawshucks.com/laidoffdiary
  11. at 12:10 PM on 18 June 2009, Jenny wrote:
    The comments on this article seeking the alternative view are both fascinating and appalling. How can anyone think that it is OK to treat a living creature cruelly? It's a mindset I simply do not understand. But if I need to persuade such people that what they support and/or do to animals is wrong, I'd like to try to understand how they think, so I can in fact persuade them they are wrong.
  12. at 11:27 AM on 18 June 2009, Lorraine wrote:
    I like chickens. I like them alive though. I have some ex-battery farm chickens and I can tell you without hesitation or fear of contradiction, that it's one of the most cruel acts perpetrated on animals and how the hell they ever get away with it is beyond me. The people at Inghams, the farmers and anyone else involved in such detestable practices should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When I got them, those chickens had been so traumatised, so stressed that it took months to win their confidence and for them to grow feathers again (some never did and never will - such is the extent of the trauma). At least they're happy now though.
  13. at 11:21 AM on 18 June 2009, Lorraine wrote:
    I like chickens. I like them alive though. I have some ex-battery farm chickens and I can tell you without hesitation or fear of contradiction, that it's one of the most cruel acts perpetrated on animals and how the hell they ever get away with it is beyond me. The people at Inghams, the farmers and anyone else involved in such detestable practices should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When I got them, those chickens had been so traumatised, so stressed that it took months to win their confidence and for them to grow feathers again (some never did and never will - such is the extent of the trauma). At least they're happy now though.
  14. at 10:34 AM on 18 June 2009, Editor wrote:
    Dear Farmer.. We'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer willing to openly write about and defend a law that supports cruelty to animals. However, if you know a lawyer who would, put them in contact, we'd be happy to publish the opposite view. Cheers, Kate (Editor, The New Lawyer)
  15. at 09:49 AM on 18 June 2009, Farmer wrote:
    Where is the balance in this? Why is not the opposite view posted as well as this pro-vegan view? The community will not support lawyers who do not reasonably consider both sides.
  16. at 09:46 AM on 18 June 2009, Ali wrote:
    My sentiments exactly! I like chickens, which is precisely why I choose NOT to eat them.
  17. at 09:42 AM on 18 June 2009, Mandy Newman wrote:
    This ad offended me so i've lodged a complaint to the Advertising Standards Board.
  18. at 09:30 AM on 18 June 2009, Farmer wrote:
    I thought lawyers supported balance. This article is so full of spin that it almost disappears off the page. You should be asking those who have the opposite view to put it alongside this biased vegan view.
  19. at 09:26 AM on 18 June 2009, Bob Hamilton-Bruce wrote:
    I tried to complain about the shocking attitude shown towards chickens in the Nandos Advertisment only to be to that in spite of 'a number' of people having thought the advert showed odd humor in having chickend evaluate themselves as being proud to be in Nandos food, there were insufficient complaints for the advertising board to make an issue of it. I am not a vegitarian but I think respect for other species is intrinsic in being human. People who promote this type of treatment of othert animals should indeed return to suffer the same fate.
  20. at 08:44 AM on 18 June 2009, MoodyVegan wrote:
    I decided to take the company up on it's ad where it says they'll send empty boxes to stack in your fridge - they can waste their money and I'll recycle the cardboard. So I rang the hotline number and the whole thing is a lie - there's only 8 or so recorded messages such 'listen to a chicken kiev cooking in the oven' and no live person at the help desk. I do hope there is hell for people like the Inghams mob where the devil can hear them cooking in an oven.
  21. at 05:19 PM on 17 June 2009, Andrew wrote:
    I have to agree that if you don't like chicken "there is something very wrong with you" - so why eat them?!

Add a new comment

Enter the code shown:

View a sample newsletter

Newsletter archive