What is CIWF trying to do? From our Italian correspondence we receive a report of one of the many activities of CIWF (recognised as the largest international non-governmental organisation for the welfare of farm animals), which for years has been energetically campaigning against intensive farming…
Those that CIWF fights by calling them intensive are, however, the same farms that the unprejudiced define as ‘protected’, a less suggestive and yet clearer term because the animals that are bred there receive care in order to safeguard their welfare.
MAC’s position, however, is one of transparency and commitment to unmasking the many fabrications and fakes that the poultry sector has long been subject to.
M.A.C. therefore has no difficulty in talking about that initiative, which you can find at the link below:
“Fine Corsa per l’allevamento intensivo: al via la nuova campagna”.
We gladly highlight it because it allows us to make those who follow us reflect on the inaccuracies, superficialities and instrumental arguments that CIWF uses against those who know little about the nature and function of Protected Poultry Farms.
If you have read the text to which the link takes you, we will immediately point out the most studied points to strike at people’s emotions:
- CIWF launches an international survey on a voluntary basis, developed by an institute that has no specific expertise on the subject and which produces a series of pre-directed questions that are evidently answered almost exclusively by people informed by CIWF content.
- The petition asks for a signature on a vague topic and claims to be a solution to an alleged problem to which it does not submit the possible solution (which for CIWF is to close the protected farms)
- CIWF has the favourable support of ‘celebrities’ who are certainly free to have a thought but whose expertise and knowledge are of no scientific relevance
- CIWF highlights the activities, in support of its intentions, carried out by various protesters in some cities. Specifically, the protesters criticise the climate impact. Certainly meritorious intentions, but conducted on unreliable assumptions. In support of our observation, we reproduce below the graphs of data provided by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/), a UN (United Nations) body for the assessment of climate change science, according to which the first polluter is the energy/electricity sector (1st graph) and agriculture (agriculture as a whole, not just livestock farming) comes second.
However, if we spread the energy pollution over the various production sectors according to their consumption, the situation changes and we arrive at the 2nd graph:
- CIWF then states that livestock farms have their hours counted, when the reality is that as far as the poultry sector is concerned, livestock farms are expanding worldwide due to their important support of the world’s need for healthy, nutritious and easily accessible food.
- CIWF claims that protected farms (which they call intensive) are among the main causes of wildlife loss, a claim that bears no relation to the existence of farms.
- CIWF states that the people contacted by their survey ‘are not convinced by the industry’ that ‘intensive’ farms are necessary to feed the world. This claim is not supported by proposals for concrete and sustainable alternatives.
- CIWF points the finger at the economic interests of the breeders who, they say, do not care about the impact on the climate, human health and animal welfare. As if livestock farming were a place specifically designed by self-defeating interests.
Visitors to M.A.C. (More About Chicken) can find answers to many of the questions that CIWF and other associations periodically raise. For this reason, we provide a link to our FAQ section
FAQ, and remain available to provide further answers to those who wish to ask us questions via our dedicated space CONTACT
We are of course open and available to answer everyone, including associations.
The editorial staff
