Roaming chickens

That obviously clashes with the idea of crowding them together in a manner that we might liken to humans in a bar or at a sporting match. While we may subject ourselves to such conditions, we apparently don't want our future food to go through it. Although perhaps the chicken meat industry will point out that even when crowded together in this fashion, we continue to be more or less free to roam.

I suggest the ACCC may be heading for a lesson in humility in this case, similar to the Metcash-Franklins case. It will be asking the court to rule on notions of freedom, something that is highly contested even for humans. Courts are typically reluctant to become involved in issues that ultimately belong in the political domain.

I am also at a loss to understand what possible benefit might be achieved by spending taxpayers' money on this case. Even if the ACCC succeeds, chicken producers can simply stop using the "free to roam" claim. This will have no impact whatsoever on chicken consumption. Even the fact that three-quarters of consumers mistakenly think chickens are treated with hormones has not done that.

Moreover, success in court will more or less include an obligation to give producers some guidance as to how much space is needed before the claim can be used legitimately. No doubt the ACCC will consider it can offer advice on that as well.

Given such guidance, it would then be a commercial decision for producers as to whether the additional cost of providing more space can be recouped by once again appealing to ignorant consumers using the free to roam description.

I think the ACCC needs to take a good hard look at its employment policies and start hiring people with some understanding of the real world. Suing chicken farmers for trying to please consumers suggests it has lost touch with reality.