Better Chicken, Worse Rivers?

A line-up of British icons - Paul Whitehouse, Jo Brand, Joanna Lumley, Chris Packham, Liz Bonnin, George Monbiot, Johnny Flynn, Dominic West, Jim Murray, and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall - has called out Nando’s for harming the River Wye through intensive chicken farming. Their demand? That the chain switch to something akin to the “Better Chicken Commitment” for river pollution. 

Here’s the lesser-known twist: many of these same celebrities have also championed the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) itself, believing it to reduce suffering while helping the planet.

Unfortunately, the BCC tends to do the opposite when it comes to pollution. Why? Because so-called “better” conditions often mean chickens live longer and grow more slowly, consuming more crops, water, and other resources. The more feed needed, the more farmland is diverted to grow it, and the more waste and run-off end up in our rivers. Exactly the crisis we’re seeing on the Wye.

This isn’t about vilifying well-intentioned voices. Rather, it’s about spotlighting the unintended consequences of welfare measures that expand an already massive industry. More space and extra days of life can sound positive. Yet, when millions of birds are involved, we’re effectively producing more pollution per chicken, more excrement, and more greenhouse gas emissions in the process.

Improving animal welfare often leads to worse environmental issues because:

1. Land Usage: Enhancing welfare by reducing animal density requires more land, displacing wildlife and expanding agricultural impact.

2. Increased Resource Consumption: Animals like chickens and pigs, when allowed to grow slower or live longer for welfare reasons, consume more food. This necessitates additional agricultural land for feed, further encroaching on natural habitats.

3. Pollution: With animals living longer and consuming more, the volume of waste increases, exacerbating pollution issues.

4. Greater Numbers: To maintain production levels with animals living longer, more animals are bred, which increases the demand for housing and feed, and intensifies environmental degradation.

Thus, better welfare under the paradigm of continued animal use leads to increased environmental costs without addressing the fundamental issue of exploitation.

Nando’s is certainly on the hook for greenwashing if it’s claiming “sustainability” while sidestepping its role in river pollution. But a genuine solution goes beyond simple tweaking. 

If this coalition of famous names truly wants to protect rivers, and the living beings who depend on them, it might be worth re-examining whether “improved” chicken farming can ever be a meaningful fix. No condemnation here: only an invitation to look more deeply at why the current system is failing the Wye and to question if “better chicken” is actually better for our waterways, the animals, or the planet. 

Until we stop tinkering with “kinder” ways to industrially breed and kill sentient individuals and instead question why we’re doing this at all, the Wye will keep on dying, and so will every other river in its path.