UK food retailer Waitrose recently announced that it is on track to meet the requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) this year, earlier than planned. BCC requires poultry farmers to adopt a range of additional, welfare-friendly measures for broiler chicken production, including the use of slower-growing breeds. But research has shown that implementing BCC standards comes at a significant environmental and economic cost, and this may be a barrier to its uptake. Waitrose’s statement that, through this move, it is “contributing to higher welfare and a more sustainable food system” does not reflect the significant increase in land use, water use, feed inputs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the switch to BCC requirements. Shoppers must not be misled into thinking that, by paying more for higher welfare standards, they are also helping the environment. Thanks to the innovation taking place in modern broiler breeding and production systems, consumers do not necessarily need to make those trade-offs. We don’t need to turn the clock back to less efficient, old-fashioned breeds and farming systems. Progress in genetic and other technologies can deliver better outcomes for both animal welfare and the environment. This more positive, forward-looking approach, with poultry breeders, producers and retailers working together to deliver these aims, offers a much stronger message for Waitrose and other retailers to share with their customers, argue livestock geneticist Professor Helen Sang and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall. 

 

The high-end UK food retailer Waitrose, part of the John Lewis Partnership, recently announced that it is on track to meet the requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) this year, rather than in 2026 as originally planned.

 

This will also make Waitrose the first major UK supermarket to fulfil BCC criteria across its entire chicken offering, including fresh and frozen, as well as chicken used as an ingredient, for example in ready meals and sandwiches.

 

BCC requires poultry farmers to adopt a range of additional, welfare-friendly measures for broiler chicken production. These include allocating more space per bird, providing access to natural light and enrichments that encourage natural behaviours, plus the use of slower-growing breeds.

 

But as with other ethically-motivated food choices, implementing BCC standards comes at a cost. And not only a cost in terms of the higher price people must pay for the resulting chicken.

 

The additional costs to the environment of the Better Chicken Commitment, when compared to birds reared in current standard conditions, are very significant indeed.   

 

In March last year, UK agricultural and environmental consultants ADAS produced an impact assessment report quantifying the additional costs and likely implications of adopting BCC requirements, or their equivalent at EU level, on broiler chicken production.

 

For each kilogram of poultry meat produced, ADAS concluded that compared to conventional systems, implementing BCC requirements would result in:

 

• additional production costs of 37.5%

• a 35.4% increase in water consumption

• a 35.5% increase in feed consumption

• a 24.4% rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The ADAS report also estimated that a switch to BCC would lead to a 44% reduction in total meat produced compared to standard broiler production methods, requiring significant investment in new poultry production units to maintain current production levels.

 

When farmers everywhere are expected to reduce their carbon footprint, and to optimise the use of precious natural resources such as land and water, are these trade-offs clear to consumers?

  

Waitrose aims to support transparency, as its BCC announcement is accompanied by the launch of “clear, visual labels” differentiating between different production systems, from standard indoor, more space indoor, BCC-compliant, free-range, and organic.

 

These new labels are “empowering customers to make informed choices”, and reinforce a “leading and long-standing dedication to animal welfare and transparency”.

 

Waitrose warns that “without this widespread transparency, welfare standards risk being overlooked and customers, who are otherwise keen to support higher welfare, lose out or even worse are misled.” This is important for informing customers about improving welfare standards in poultry meat production.  

 

The statement is less clear about the environmental costs and implications of the BCC switch, equating the adoption of higher welfare standards with more environmentally sustainable food production, which the ADAS report clearly refutes.

 

The announcement indicates that, through this move, Waitrose is “contributing to higher welfare and a more sustainable food system” (emphasis added). Waitrose chief commercial officer Charlotte Di Cello said it was about creating “a more compassionate and sustainable future for all”.

 

This statement does not take into account the significant increase in land use, water use, feed inputs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the switch to BCC requirements that cannot be construed as more environmentally sustainable.

 

Nor is it more economically sustainable. The ADAS report adds that the cumulative effects on both production costs and volume will inevitably lead to higher retail prices, potentially excluding a large proportion of consumers from buying chicken meat, or drastically increasing imports from third countries, adversely affecting the nation’s balance of payments and losing influence over welfare standards in production.

 

Jo Hilditch, a member of the NFU Poultry Board who has trialled slower growing breeds, recently told Country Life magazine:

 

“BCC may be a better option for some, but a 20% longer life span on top of 20% lower stocking density will have a dramatic effect on supplies. If everyone is going to follow this trend we simply don’t have the space on the ground. It’s all very well saying Britain is the standard bearer for the industry, but if we don’t produce enough chicken it opens the floodgates to imports.”

 

We need to ensure that consumers are properly informed about the consequences of their food choices for the planet and for future generations. 

 

It highlights the need for transparency about the environmental impacts of different farming and food production systems.

 

Consumers must not be misled into thinking that, by paying more for higher welfare standards under the Better Chicken Commitment, they are also helping the environment.

 

The outcomes associated with adopting the Better Chicken Commitment, and the switch to slower-growing breeds in particular, clearly point in the opposite direction.     

 

These issues were highlighted in a recent study led by researchers at the Royal Veterinary College, published in the journal Frontiers in Animal Science, which sought to investigate why, despite commitments by 104 UK retailers, restaurants and food service providers, a wide-scale transition to slower-growing broiler chickens has not occurred in the UK. The realities of increased economic and environmental costs of production, the requirement to meet legislated carbon emission commitments, and the need to provide adequate supplies of affordable food, were all flagged as barriers to more widespread adoption of BCC standards.     

 

Thanks to the pioneering science and innovation taking place in modern broiler breeding and production systems, consumers do not necessarily need to make those trade-offs.

 

As a result of breeding advances, for example, it is estimated that today’s broiler has a 55% lower carbon footprint than the equivalent bird in the 1970s. On a global basis, this equates to some 13 million tonnes less carbon emissions each year.

 

But this does not need to be at the expense of poorer welfare.

 

A recent peer-reviewed paper describes how improvements in our scientific understanding of genetic and genomic function have enabled poultry breeders to broaden the scope of selection programmes from mainly production-related breeding goals to cover a range of other characteristics, including welfare-related traits such as foot health and leg strength, contact dermatitis, gait, cardiovascular health, and robustness. 

 

Alongside genetic improvements, continuous innovation in housing and environmental technologies are helping to reduce the environmental footprint of poultry production still further, while the introduction of advanced imaging and AI technology allows producers to track individual birds’ mobility, growth rates and health status, so providing early warning of potential welfare issues.

 

The application of science and innovation can support access to healthy, affordable supplies of poultry meat with an assurance that both animal welfare and environmental sustainability can be safeguarded and improved.

 

We don’t need to turn the clock back to less efficient, old-fashioned breeds and farming systems. The modern reality is that progress in genetic and other technologies can deliver better outcomes for animal welfare and the environment, not worse.

 

This more positive, forward-looking approach, with poultry breeders, producers and retailers working together to deliver these aims, will be a much stronger message for Waitrose and other retailers to share with their customers. 

 

Retired livestock geneticist Professor Helen Sang OBE FRSE FRSB previously led a research programme at The Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) on the development and application of genetic technologies in the chicken. This research included applications in basic biological research, in biotechnology and in the potential of developing genetically disease resistant chickens, with funding from Government (mainly UKRI-BBSRC) and industry. She is a member of the Science for Sustainable Agriculture advisory group. 

 

Daniel Pearsall is an independent consultant specialising in communication and policy development in the farming, food chain and agri-science sectors. He runs a small livestock farm in Scotland. He co-ordinates the Science for Sustainable Agriculture initiative.