歐洲爆雞蛋荒 食品供應陷危
2012年3月5日 明報
歐盟維護動物權益的新措施，意外引發歐洲多國陷入雞蛋荒。歐盟今年元旦起禁用「集中營式」層架雞籠，但在財政緊絀下，很多蛋商都沒錢添置「較為人道」的新雞籠，很多蛋場甚至寧可大舉殺雞結業，令英法等國都鬧蛋荒，蛋價暴漲直接衝擊蛋糕、雪糕等食品製造。英國《觀察家報》昨警告，受缺蛋危機影響，英國超市大批食品可能在1個月內出現嚴重短缺。
雞蛋（包括液狀和粉狀）是製造餅乾、蛋糕、麵條、蛋黃醬等多種食品的原材料。在供應緊張下，歐盟的雞蛋批發價格，一周內飇升近四倍，1公斤售超過4歐元（41港元）。在英國，一打大雞蛋零售價，也由去年賣45便士，上漲一倍至現時的97便士。一名分銷商說﹕「除非情况不久好轉，否則我們會見到一些企業很快就倒閉。我們從未遇過像如今的這回事。小麥呀、糖呀那些商品價格縱有升有跌，但這個卻不同。」一名匿名業內人士更說﹕「現在不再是價錢問題，是供應問題。我估計在3至4周內，一些（食品生產）公司便將處於存亡臨界點。」
價飈難頂 麵餅蛋糕商有難
這場食物供應鏈危機，始於今年元旦歐盟落實執行「生蛋母雞福祉指令」。指令禁止歐盟成員國雞農繼續採用傳統的多層式金屬雞籠，要求他們改用「較人道寬敞」的雞寵，又或以圈養法等模式，飼養母雞。
新法贏得保護動物權益人士歡迎，強調雞隻不應再被困在連活動轉身也有困難的集中營式雞籠中，但雞農、蛋農卻極度苦惱，因購置新雞籠或新雞欄成本太高，這在陷入財困的歐洲國家情况尤其嚴重。英國農民工會直言，英國雞蛋商為符合新規定，已花了4億鎊（49億港元）。由於不少農場無法符合新規定，遂放棄生產雞蛋業務。西班牙更有大批農民選擇殺掉母雞結業，令該國由雞蛋淨出口國變為淨進口國。《觀察家報》稱，英國一間食品商最近接觸了十家雞蛋供應商，但八家均表示無法供貨。有些食品商甚至因負擔不起「昂貴」的雞蛋成本，自身的製成品又無法大幅加價（以免嚇走消費者），因而被迫停產。
「集中營式」雞籠被禁肇禍
法國蛋農組織SNIPO亦表示，現時法國一周缺蛋約2100萬隻（相當於總量的一成），警告「失衡情况可能持續大半年以上」，促請政府緊急行動，增加短期雞蛋供應。
資料顯示，香港2010年輸入約19億隻雞蛋，當中約67％來自內地，18％來自美國，約7％為泰國蛋，雖有從歐洲輸入雞蛋，但百分比不算高。香港豐貴堂蛋業商會理事長楊金炎稱，本港雞蛋供應來源多元化，令價格保持穩定。他說香港已多年沒從英國入口雞蛋，估計歐洲生產雞蛋數量銳減，對本港供應及價格均影響不大。
思考問題:
歐盟落實執行「生蛋母雞福祉指令」令部分陷入財困的歐洲國家如西班牙有農民選擇殺掉母雞結業。「較人道寬敞」養雞或人道殺雞才為人類的福祉呢?(From: Vicky Ho)
When human slaves were freed from plantations, sudden shock followed by adjustment in the market economics happened as could be expected.
回覆刪除When animal slaves (like chickens laying eggs in staggering cages) were killed and less chickens (but all in healthier and improved conditions) were kept in poultry farming, within a short period, sudden shock followed by adjustment in the market economics could happen, and be similarly expected.
What is NOT right should be rid, at whatever cost!
What is NOT right is "the slave or serf system we have been fettering our animals and husbandries".
Animals can be kept as workers but workers still need a decent life, NEVER a horrible life of slavery.
I found and quoted below Tom Regan's similar thought in his "Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection", page 88-89, Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Cohen A. I. & Wellman, C. H. (eds.), MA: Blackwell.
回覆刪除"The implications of animal rights for vivisection are both clear and uncmpromising. [This is Regan's own assertion only. I raise doubt about animal rights equal to human rights and I also query about why animal rights should be absolute without qualifications].
Vivisection is morally wrong. It should never have begun and , like all great speciesist evils, it ought to end, the sooner, the better. [What is NOT right should be rid, at whatever cost.]
To reply that 'there are no alternatives' not only misses the point, it is false. [What is NOT right should be rid, at whatever cost.]
It misses the point because it assumes that the benefits humans derive from vivisection are derived morally when they are not, and it is false because , apart from using already existing and developing new non-animal research techniques, there is another, more fundamental alternative to vivisection. This is to stop doing it. [What is NOT right should be rid, at whatever cost.]
When all is said and done, the only adequate moral response to vivisection is empty cages, not larger ones."
[According to Regan's belief, using similar logical reasoning, it may be extended to the case here:- no caged chickens, and even if the cages are larger and also without staggering are still NOT acceptable. That means we should let chickens build their own nests for laying eggs and/or pick up scattered eggs laid on grassland when chickens are free to run about everywhere in the farm. 只准養走地雞及吃走地雞蛋!]
這世界很難取得一個兩全其美的方法,要推行人道的政策,又要不對那些剝削者有影響,這是困難的。這個個案看似是人類利益及動物利益的衝突,但我認為這其實是道德及利益的問題。道德及人道立場上,我們為了大規模養飼雞隻以供應我們一己之慾,便要用不人道的手法不斷擴大生產,這是不道德的。人是否不依靠這種手法養雞,就無法提供雞隻食用呢?說穿了也是企業模式下人類為了獲得最大的利益而把生命漠視,當成工具。這種工具化其實已經從動物及至人身上,幸好現時已經有部分人醒過來反思這問題,也許這會帶來陣痛,如某部分人的經濟損失,但為了人類長遠發展(包括道德發展),這是必須的。
回覆刪除