'Are cheap chicks chic?' Poll discussion & results 14 January 2008 at 12:57PM in Money Saving Polls 104 replies 11.8K views

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll between 14-21 January 2008: Are cheap chicks chic?

A collection of TV chefs, including Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall are campaigning about the poor way our chickens are kept. Yet this helps keep prices down.

Which of the following is closest to your view?

A. Keep it cheap. Regardless of the chickens’ conditions. 9% (721 votes)

B. Don’t up the cost much: I’d pay £1 a chicken more for better conditions. 39% (3245 votes)

C. Conditions must improve: I don’t care about price, chicken welfare comes first. 48% (3910 votes)

D. I don’t eat chicken anyway. 5% (417 votes)

Vote here or click reply to discuss below.

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

absolutebounder

I thought this was going to be about slappers

Saucepot

It would be more fun if it was about introducing yourself to young ladies of questionable upbringing and even more questionable morals.

brooksie77

I'd pay more for quality. If better conditions leads to better taste, then fair enough. This has not been proven conclusively. There are men in prison more densely packed together than battery chickens. Not to mention my journey on the tube to and from work every day.

Coveredinbees!!!!

The conditions must be acceptable or the farms would be shut down so what's the problem??

MARTINS_DOLL

brooksie77 wrote: »

I'd pay more for quality. If better conditions leads to better taste, then fair enough. This has not been proven conclusively. There are men in prison more densely packed together than battery chickens. Not to mention my journey on the tube to and from work every day.

The difference being though is that the poor Chickens have not committed any crime to be treated so appallingly...

In my view you cannot make a comparison, Prisoners have done the crime, and are doing the time.
They deserve to be locked up.

DenBo_4

I agree. Years ago (when chickens were treated better - no battery run farms then) chicken was a luxury. If it helps chickens to have a better quality of life then I think most people won't mind if it becomes a luxury again. Today's chickens (cheap ones) are full of fat, water and chemicals anyway, so they probably have no discernible health value anyway.

ceridwen

Cannot believe that 9% of people so far dont give a damn about what conditions chickens are kept in! and a noticeable number of others dont care enough to spend noticeably more if need be (or give up chicken).

:idea: hmmmm....just got an idea for another "litmus test" of which people are possible new friends ..... to go along with the "do you agree with hunting?" one.

gritts

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote: »

The conditions must be acceptable or the farms would be shut down so what's the problem??

Who decides on what is acceptable? And do 'they' ever get things wrong?

It seems so far 80%+ may think the chickens deserve a better level of acceptability.

gritts

brooksie77 wrote: »

I'd pay more for quality. If better conditions leads to better taste, then fair enough. This has not been proven conclusively. There are men in prison more densely packed together than battery chickens. Not to mention my journey on the tube to and from work every day.

If you were offered a chicken slowly grown on a completely free range organic diet for the same price as a similar sized chicken raised in just 40 days in the crap conditions shown last week on Channel 4, What would you chose? Thought so - The first option. Why?

simondo

I fail to see the difference it makes as regardless of how they kept, they are executed after approx, 40 days. The solution is not to eat any meat.