The Problem Was Never Just the Cage
The UK government is consulting on phasing out caged egg production by 2032. Colony cages, which still confine more than 7 million hens a year, could finally be scrapped.
On paper, this is historic.
In reality, it is the softest possible confrontation with the hardest possible truth.
Colony cages can hold up to 80 or 90 hens at once. Each bird is allotted roughly the space of a single A4 sheet of paper. They never leave. Not for sunlight. Not for soil. Not for distance. They remain there until slaughter.
Ending that specific system is welcome. But let’s be honest about what is happening.
The state is not questioning whether hens should be bred into existence to produce eggs for us. It is questioning the dimensions of the cage.
That distinction matters.
The Comfort of “Humane”
We have been here before. Battery cages were banned in 2012. They were replaced with “enriched” colony cages. Perches were added. Scratch mats installed. The square footage shifted. The underlying principle did not.
The language changes first.
The property status remains.
We are told this is the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. We are told we are a nation of animal lovers. We are told hens will benefit annually.
But what does “benefit” mean in a system that still ends in slaughter?
The concept of humane exploitation is a contradiction. A softer cage is still a cage. A gentler killing is still a killing.
Industry-approved “high welfare” includes gas chambers. Carbon dioxide stunning, described by witnesses as burning from the inside out. Birds thrash. This is considered acceptable within the welfare framework.
When organisations sell assurance labels and call it progress, the public relaxes. The conscience is soothed. The demand continues.
The Golden Cage Problem
There is a deeper issue that almost nobody wants to discuss.
Improving conditions without reducing demand increases cost. Slower-growing birds eat more feed. Lower densities require more land. Longer lifespans produce more waste.
Everything that goes in one end comes out of the other.
Land that could sustain free living animals is diverted. Feed crops expand. Pollution intensifies. The environmental footprint grows.
Factory farming is grotesque. It is also the most resource-efficient way to farm animals. That is not a defence. It is an indictment of the entire premise.
We are left with three options:
1. Confinement in sheds while wildlife is displaced to feed them.
2. Confinement in fields while even more land is cleared to sustain them.
3. Stop breeding them into the system in the first place.
The consultation does not address this. It addresses cage design. That is the golden cage problem. We polish the bars and call it reform.
Eggs Are Not Essential
There is also the practical myth underpinning all of this. The idea that eggs are indispensable.
They are not.
If eggs are the centre of your breakfast, tofu scramble does the job. Chickpea flour makes a convincing omelette. Plant-based liquid alternatives now scramble and fold like the original.
In baking, eggs provide four functions: leavening, moisture, binding, fat. Plants do all four. Baking soda and vinegar for rise. Aquafaba for lightness. Mashed banana or applesauce for moisture. Flaxseed gel for binding. Nut butters and plant fats for richness.
There are thousands of tested recipes that require no adaptation at all.
Eggs are not a biological necessity. They are a cultural habit. Habits can change.
Welfare Is Not Rights
The government’s wider strategy also includes phasing out pig farrowing crates, humane slaughter requirements for fish, and ending certain hunting practices. Again, these are improvements within use.
They do not challenge the underlying assumption that animals are commodities.
When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speaks of supporting farmers to produce food “sustainably, profitably,” it reveals the boundary. Animals remain units of production. Profit remains central. Welfare is calibrated within that frame.
This is why businesses routinely fail to meet their welfare commitments. Because the incentives point elsewhere.
If exploitation remains legal and profitable, it will persist.
The Consultation Is Not the Finish Line
Ending colony cages would remove one of the most visible symbols of confinement in the egg industry. It would matter to the individuals currently trapped inside them.
But it will not end the breeding of hens whose bodies have been engineered to produce far more eggs than their bodies can sustain. It will not end the killing of male chicks at birth. It will not end slaughter when egg output drops.
It will not address bird flu risks inherent to dense animal populations. It will not remove the environmental burden of feeding and housing millions of birds for a product we do not need.
It will simply change the architecture.
There is a reason welfare campaigns focus on cages. Cages are visible. They photograph well. They are easy to condemn. The philosophical cage is harder to dismantle.
Ending the Cage Age, Properly
“Ending the cage age” has been a slogan for years. It has been literal. Perhaps it is time to consider its deeper meaning.
A caged existence is not defined solely by wire. It is defined by ownership. By breeding someone into a system for extraction. By denying them autonomy from birth to death. If we are serious about ending cages, we must question the right to use.
The UK may eliminate caged eggs by 2032. That would be progress within a narrow frame. But progress measured in centimetres of cage space is not the same as justice.
The real shift does not begin with consultation documents. It begins with rejecting the premise that eggs, or any animal product, are ours to take.
We can redesign sheds indefinitely. Or we can stop filling them. Those are the choices.
Only one of them actually ends the cage.