Happy hens better for business

 

Pampered pigs and healthy hens severe economic disadvantage for European farmers not reported AgriFood economy Centre.

European Union rules require a higher standard of treatment for certain breeds of pigs and chickens. The animals with space to move or have access to fresh air and sunlight often make European pork, chicken and eggs more expensive.

Many of these premium brand be animals only within their national markets sold, but the economic downturn questions on whether now European products are imported animal products out competing.

"We have investigated the link between animal welfare regulation in the EU and competitiveness." "We have seen that the impact on competitiveness and on trade is very low, if it exists at all," says Anna Andersson, researcher at the Centre of AgriFood economy in a press release from University of Lund.

The research curls to block some feathers on the political debate on putting up trade barriers to imports or make economically competitive to make it more EU products more expensive in a movement.

BLOG: Animal production is the Earth limits push

Andersson's team explains putting up trade barriers to protect European companies from imports is not required.

"More trade barriers would increase prices, consumers would have less choice, the use of our agricultural resources would be less efficient and reduced competition would lead to a less dynamic industry is the pressure for improvement," said Andersson.

"EU protection of agricultural products already hits poor countries hardest and higher trade barriers would risk further deterioration of the situation," she added.

BLOG: Less gassy cows could combat climate change

Different types of caging operations affect costs and productivity, the study said. But a balance between free range and high density factory farming has been found that to be economically competitive.

For example, cages could ban in the case of egg laying hens, all increase the cost of eggs by around 8%. But the current practice of using "enriched" cages, cm room, a perch, nesting box, and throw providing at least 750 square was not found to increase retail prices significantly.

The "enriched" cages provide almost double the space of CAGES and cages in the Ukraine, India, Brazil and the United States, which average 300-400 square cm space per bird, according to the study.

The report found, the cost of feed-in fact was the largest costs for farmers.

No matter which animal welfare measures used the EU should continue to have a trade deficit in agricultural products. Most of this is due to the fact that Europeans love coffee, chocolate, tea, tropical fruits and other products, which will grow not in places where winter temperatures drop below freezing.

AgriFood economy Centre is a collaboration of the University of Lund and the Swedish University of agricultural sciences.

Image: a protected national breed, must be raised under strict standards for small businesses is chicken from Bresse, France. Due to their premium brand status get Bresse chicken about 15 euros ($21) per kilo. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

View the original article here

Happy hens better for business

Pampered pigs and healthy hens severe economic disadvantage for European farmers not reported AgriFood economy Centre.

European Union rules require a higher standard of treatment for certain breeds of pigs and chickens. The animals with space to move or have access to fresh air and sunlight often make European pork, chicken and eggs more expensive.

Many of these premium brand be animals only within their national markets sold, but the economic downturn questions on whether now European products are imported animal products out competing.

"We have investigated the link between animal welfare regulation in the EU and competitiveness." "We have seen that the impact on competitiveness and on trade is very low, if it exists at all," says Anna Andersson, researcher at the Centre of AgriFood economy in a press release from University of Lund.

The research curls to block some feathers on the political debate on putting up trade barriers to imports or make economically competitive to make it more EU products more expensive in a movement.

BLOG: Animal production is the Earth limits push

Andersson's team explains putting up trade barriers to protect European companies from imports is not required.

"More trade barriers would increase prices, consumers would have less choice, the use of our agricultural resources would be less efficient and reduced competition would lead to a less dynamic industry is the pressure for improvement," said Andersson.

"EU protection of agricultural products already hits poor countries hardest and higher trade barriers would risk further deterioration of the situation," she added.

BLOG: Less gassy cows could combat climate change

Different types of caging operations affect costs and productivity, the study said. But a balance between free range and high density factory farming has been found that to be economically competitive.

For example, cages could ban in the case of egg laying hens, all increase the cost of eggs by around 8%. But the current practice of using "enriched" cages, cm room, a perch, nesting box, and throw providing at least 750 square was not found to increase retail prices significantly.

The "enriched" cages provide almost double the space of CAGES and cages in the Ukraine, India, Brazil and the United States, which average 300-400 square cm space per bird, according to the study.

The report found, the cost of feed-in fact was the largest costs for farmers.

No matter which animal welfare measures used the EU should continue to have a trade deficit in agricultural products. Most of this is due to the fact that Europeans love coffee, chocolate, tea, tropical fruits and other products, which will grow not in places where winter temperatures drop below freezing.

AgriFood economy Centre is a collaboration of the University of Lund and the Swedish University of agricultural sciences.

Image: a protected national breed, must be raised under strict standards for small businesses is chicken from Bresse, France. Due to their premium brand status get Bresse chicken about 15 euros ($21) per kilo. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

View the original article here

Odd Alliance: Business Lobby and Tea Party

 

But a Tea Party group in the United States, the Institute for Liberty, has vigorously defended the freedom of a giant Indonesian paper company to sell its wares to Americans without paying tariffs. The institute set up Web sites, published reports and organized a petition drive attacking American businesses, unions and environmentalists critical of the company, Asia Pulp & Paper.

Last fall, the institute’s president, Andrew Langer, had himself videotaped on Long Wharf in Boston holding a copy of the Declaration of Independence as he compared Washington’s proposed tariff on paper from Indonesia and China to Britain’s colonial trade policies in 1776.

Tariff-free Asian paper may seem an unlikely cause for a nonprofit Tea Party group. But it is in keeping with a succession of pro-business campaigns — promoting commercial space flight, palm oil imports and genetically modified alfalfa — that have occupied the Institute for Liberty’s recent agenda.

The Tea Party movement is as deeply skeptical of big business as it is of big government. Yet an examination of the Institute for Liberty shows how Washington’s influence industry has adapted itself to the Tea Party era. In a quietly arranged marriage of seemingly disparate interests, the institute and kindred groups are increasingly the bearers of corporate messages wrapped in populist Tea Party themes.

In a few instances, their corporate partners are known — as with the billionaire Koch brothers’ support of Americans for Prosperity, one of the most visible advocacy groups. More often, though, their nonprofit tax status means they do not have to reveal who pays the bills.

Mr. Langer would not say who financed his Indonesian paper initiative. But his sudden interest in the issue coincided with a public relations push by Asia Pulp & Paper. And the institute’s work is remarkably similar to that produced by one of the company’s consultants, a former Australian diplomat named Alan Oxley who works closely with a Washington public affairs firm known for creating corporate campaigns presented as grass-roots efforts.

For the institute, the embrace of a foreign conglomerate’s agenda is a venture into new territory — and distinguishes it among Tea Party advocacy groups. The issue, Mr. Langer asserted, is important to working Americans who might have to pay more for everything from children’s books to fried-chicken buckets made of coated paper from Asia. He said the institute had not accepted money directly from Asia Pulp & Paper, though it was possible the company had paid others who then contributed to the institute.

“I suppose it could be,” he said, but added, “I don’t know about anybody else who may have gotten money from Asia Pulp & Paper who’s given money to us.”

Those on the receiving end of the institute’s attacks — strange bedfellows like Greenpeace, Staples and Asia Pulp & Paper’s American competitors — are unified in their skepticism of its motives.

“If you can spend as much money as you want and remain anonymous, then it doesn’t matter if you’re an overseas company or the Koch brothers, you pay the same network of anti-regulatory front groups,” said Scott Paul, director of Greenpeace’s forest campaign.

Seeing Tea Party Potential

Like many other nonprofit organizations on the Tea Party bandwagon, the Institute of Liberty predates the movement. It was created in 2005 by Jason Wright, an author of best-selling inspirational novels who had worked for Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative policy group.

In his three years at the institute, Mr. Wright said in an interview, he was often approached by public relations consultants pitching projects for clients. Typical, he said, were overtures from two consultants who wanted him to advocate for opposing positions on the regulation of “payday” loans, widely criticized for usurious terms that hurt low-income borrowers.

“A P.R. firm in D.C. offered me a ton of money to take the wrong side of that issue,” he said. “I did end up taking some corporate donations from the side of the issue I believed in — that the industry had completely lost control and had to be reined in.”

View the original article here