Once again, it seems that Channel 4 is out to shock its audience – this time amidst fears that it will do so at the expense of British farmers. The controversy began when advance publicity of a special 'food season' revealed that Jamie Oliver would put people off eating battery chickens by showing how they were produced; the phrase used by Channel 4 that was immediately seized upon by virtually every newspaper was 'the hideous realities of industrial chicken production'. This naturally set alarm bells ringing amongst British farmers as they wondered what the collateral damage might be. Loosely targeted accusations of low welfare standards can shake consumer confidence in
the whole industry.
However, Jamie Oliver himself has been quick to deny allegations that his programme aims to damage British farming. His message to
farmers was the programme aims "to support British farmers and to give clarity to the British consumer about what is going on in the farming industry today, so that they may then make more informed choices."
Look out for this series, to be screened in January, which Channel 4 describes as 'stimulating, innovative and campaigning food programming' that will 'challenge people to think
before they eat'. Battery farming methods look set to bear the brunt of the chefs' crusading; as well as coming under attack in Jamie's Fowl Dinners, they will also be the subject of a three-parter by Hugh Fearnley- Whittingstall (though the series is not
exclusively devoted to poultry: it also includes a hard-hitting look at the effects of obesity, with anatomist Dr Gunther von Hagens dissecting a human corpse; a report on how British junk-food addicts cope when they are sent to Northern Pakistan to
try the healthy diet of the Shimshai people; and a First Cut investigation into the 'Raw Food Diet', said to be the most extreme diet in Britain today).
Whilst all the indications are that Jamie and Hugh will be primarily concerned with poultry destined for the table, Andrew MacKenzie, head of factual entertainment at Channel 4, has already made a couple of specific references to egg production in his statements to the media – both very positive as far as Free Range is concerned, but ominous for the battery sector. "Jamie's simple message ... is, if you knew ... how your eggs are produced and what you eat, you would probably buy Free Range, organic chickens," he said. He also encourages consumers to look for Free Range not just in shell eggs but in foods containing processed
egg: "Even people who buy Free Range chicken may not know that
every time they eat cake, the eggs aren't likely to be Free Range, so they are essentially endorsing the battery hen."
What could turn out to be very interesting is the inclusion of footage of meetings at which Jamie Oliver lobbies decision-makers from within Sainsbury's to use their influence to change commercial chicken production methods. Look out, too, for Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall tackling supermarket about their
policies in sourcing the chicken they sell, and telling them they should all go Free Range. Many producers must have longed to be a fly on the wall when food sourcing is being discussed by supermarkets behind closed doors, so this might well be worth watching – although cynics will inevitably wonder how genuine the
discussion is, and to what extent the participants are acting for the cameras. Hugh says he wants to challenge the supermarkets and
consumers to change their behaviour; he accuses supermarkets of
'devaluing' chicken by selling it so cheaply, and points out that as long as this is the case, British farmers simply cannot afford to produce to higher welfare standards.
Readers who attended the BFREPA conference last month may have
noticed that these comments bear a striking resemblance to some of the comments made there: that food in Britain has been too cheap for too long, and this now has to change.
The media has also picked up on the message that people should be
prepared to pay a little more for food that has been produced to high welfare standards. Janet Street-Porter, writing in the Guardian, took an interesting and outspoken slant on this: "The majority of the British public has yet to make the connection ...
We'll happily shell out hundreds of pounds on the latest gadgetry such as iPods, phones, computer games and BlackBerrys, but we resent spending more than a certain amount on feeding the family," she writes.
"We think nothing of slapping cream on our faces costing £50 a pot – and then whinge when a free-range chicken costs £10, failing to spot how illogical it is to shove factory-reared
muck into a body wearing designer clothes."
Ahead of the programmes, it seems that Free Range producers have
nothing to worry about, although clearly the intensive sector is in for another rough ride. Let us hope that the programme content lives up to Channel 4's claim: "Using a series of demonstrations, and including the views of people from a wide range of backgrounds, including producers and retailers, the film aims to be a fair, open and honest debate about how
we produce and consume chicken and eggs in this country."
