http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/right...
There have been campaigns for both types of chicken to improve their quality of life. Here in NL they were conducted by an NGO called Wakker Dier. There's the campaign against the 'plofkip' (huge chicks who are unable to move, and are force fed) so that grocery stores quit selling these. Then for the sale of eggs (itself harmless for chickens, if unfertilized eggs, and if chickens are treated without abuse) there's a star system ranging from 1 ('kooi') [1], 2 ('scharrelei') till 3 ('vrije uitloop'). Note that this system says nothing about their diet. Now, if you'd translate 2 and 3, you'd both end up with 'free range'. This Wikipedia article on free range [2] explains the EU has strict rules on that term, while the US does not. Its worth noting that due to campaigns of Wakker Dier eggs of type 1 are almost never sold anymore directly, but they are still being widely used within products! If not, they will mention the name of type 2 and 3 ('scharrel-ei' usually or more uncommon in the case of products 'vrije uitloop ei' otherwise).
Regarding the picture you linked if that is from NL, that might very well either be accurate due to fipronil scandal [3] (millions of chickens were killed due to that hence near empty cages), or otherwise a propaganda picture.
Its very important to be critical of farmers. They're treating thousands upon thousands of animals with various degrees of treatment (from loving/caring to downright abuse), as well as affecting our soil (as in, "the inhabitants of Earth's" which also makes sense since our soil is deeply connected with the rest of Earth's ecosystem as well as literally your neighbors's soil).
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Eisen_ko...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_eggs
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fipronil_eggs_contaminati...
I've always felt that it's a bit ironic for people consuming animal products to be critical of breeders. Kinda passing responsibilities on them so tadaaa ! No more consumer guilt.
If you really want to reduce animal exploitation and world GHG emission, cut down your consumption instead of putting even more pressure on producers without accepting to get more money out of your pocket for products. Because generally speaking, people don't want to spend more money on food, as there is so much other essential trash to buy. To each his priorities...
Its relative, not absolute, and history teaches us we need to be critical of farmers. The recent fipronil scandal only underlines that. Our government failed as well, don't get me wrong.
If you want to reduce harm done to sentient beings (or animals with a CNS) there are many ways to achieve that. Yes, the best way would be going vegan overnight, but that is tough for an individual and quite unrealistic to achieve society-wise. Right now, we are better off reducing meat consumption (ie. via 'meatless monday' initiative) since we don't need to consume that much meat to begin with. If you eat less meat, you can use that money to eat quality meat. Eventually we can irregularly eat lab meat. So, yes, we should be critical to ourselves as well. But that's a different, and very complex discussion (I'm on a Facebook group where this is the main subject, finding the grey between the two extremes and supporting each other).
(Also as a side note there are some non-animal products which are rather bad for GHG emission, btw.)
The recent fipronil scandal I'm not especially hostile to. It's like the horse meat thing, no risk for the consumer, it's simple fraud from the antiparasitics producer afaik and not latent farmer malignancy. You're way more exposed if you use antiflea products on your pets... And fipronil is really low risk for mammals overall. Oh, and of course this was in the cheap industry side of laying hens, so your wallet could vote on this beforehand.
Yet people still don't want to spend more on food. Most already shop first price, its just not a priority when you need to get a new phone and other stupid stuff. And this is the exact kind of consumer who can leisurely insist that we need to be critical of farmers. Oh, the irony. Sweep before your own door, you know.
But good on you, I hope your taking part in this Facebook group (probably known for it's high scientific and intellectual qualities, as everything that is on facebook) is comforting enough that you don't have to drastically change your consuming and behavior (and chronically, as "scandals" break out, underlines that farmers have a HUGE responsability in this), because what a shame that would be.
I never said farmers are 'evil' people. Farmers can do good (and if you read my post well you'd have seen my examples), but we live in a capitalist world where profit is an important factor, if not the most important factor. So we need others to force the farmers to keep checks and balances: consumers, NGOs, and the government. Case in point: the fipronil scandal, where ChickFriend was a cheap solution to a problem, and where the government (NVWA) failed to look into an anonymous tip in november 2016. If they did, we'd have a lot less economic damage as well as less potential health damage. Another example is as I explained how Wakker Dier's campaign stimulated the sales of free range eggs of type 2 and 3 (although first and foremost in fresh eggs; not products containing eggs), and how they managed to reduce the amount of 'plofkip' in grocery store.
Putting the blame on the farmers is wrong too. How on earth could they have known that what the cleaning company used was illegal?
From an evolutionary point of view you could say that cows, chickens, pigs (and cats, dogs, horses) are one of the most successful animals, exactly because we eat (or pet) them.
I mean yes, in the grand scheme of things, treating animals well before slaughtering them is better than treating them poorly, but it misses the forest for the trees.
It's only a matter of time until lab-grown meat is as good and cheap as the original, and then society will turn. Eating real animals will be something like hunting is now, a tiny thing and with huge image costs.
As anecdata, consider the outlawing of fox hunting in UK, declining hunting love in France[0], and a similar decline in the US[1].
The more hunting becomes unusual, the higher the number of people who will consider it in negative light compared to those who view it favourably.
[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37865215 [1] http://deerfarmer.com/wiki/hunting-decline
Furthermore, whilst it may not be obvious in activist circles, seeing the topic was about eating animal produce, the obvious counterpart in hunting would be game animals, and not a sport (which fox hunting is, more or less). My (unsourced) guess would be that most non-vegetarians do not condemn hunting, and it would also be a somewhat hypocritical stance. Furthermore, meat consumption isn't exactly on declining in the world, but you can make your own conclusions about that.
(I'm a city dweller, and haven't hunted anything in my life. I'm not saying that to validate my opinion, but regardless I know quite a bit about the realities of hunting that probably apply to most places, and the reason it is in decline may well not be because of a shift in the moral landscape. It is a consuming hobby, but that doesn't in itself imply that all non-hunters would automatically start to disapprove it more and more.)
It is obviously an opinion not a fact, but as an example, you can consider the attitude of people to eating animals that they ate in the past and not now (porcupine, turtle, cat, dog).
Not only it's considered disgusting, but it's often considered worse than eating other animals.
Perhaps that will convince me to stop eating meat. Meanwhile I have bigger worries.
I can dig the exact page from On Food and Cooking for reference if needed.
Stress should be avoided, don't get me wrong, but I don't think our tastebuds are this advanced.
From the farmers point of view.