The Queen on the Application of Compassion in World Farming Limited (Appellant) – and – The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent)

The claimants in this case were concerned for the welfare of broiler chickens. They were not concerned to try to stop the production of broiler chickens but to alleviate features detrimental to their welfare. They sought a determination that the Secretary of State had a policy which permitted those who reared broiler breeders to do so in contravention of a regulation relating to the manner in which they were fed. Breeders in the United Kingdom were subject to a restricted feeding regime for their first few weeks of life. If female broiler breeders were fed ad libitum then egg production and hatchability were poor and mortality was high. After their first weeks of being broody and after the point of lay, their feed was increased but controlled. It was not in dispute that the restricted feeding of broiler breeders resulted in hunger, but there was a significant dispute about what “hunger” meant, when applied to broiler breeders, and further whether the state of "hunger" infringed EU Directives and was contrary to domestic law. The claimants emphasized that the respondent accepted that broiler breeders reared in this way could be chronically hungry during most of the first weeks of their lives and that this was detrimental to their welfare. The Court was of the view that, if an owner fed broiler breeders so that their diet was appropriate and sufficient to maintain good health and satisfy nutritional needs, there was no unlawful contravention by the owner of the relevant regulations. An over-fed chicken could be an unhealthy chicken, even if being over-fed, it could be temporarily happy. If broiler breeders were fed more, that would tend to be detrimental to their health and welfare and could cause them unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. It could be desirable to change the normally used genotype of chicken, but that was a question of policy whose enforcement against the Secretary of State would require different legislation. The appeal was dismissed.