[Passed] In-ovo sexing of chicks

[Simone Republic]

Please note that I am providing an explanation of the actual techniques that are to be banned by this resolution copied from Wikipedia.

Proposal under the consideration of European Union to ban chick culling
Proposal led by France, Germany and Portugal to the EU

For background, this paper is presented by the EU on the practice of chick culling and the effects on animal welfare:
EU briefing paper

The resolution refers to the practice of "chick culling": unwanted (usually male) chicks are usually killed in the intensive animal farming industry (around 7 billion male chicks are killed each year worldwide). This is because male chicks do not lay eggs. The male chicks are usually killed soon after they are born through one of three means

1. thrown into meat grinders (maceration, this is the most common method in the US)
2. breaking their necks (cervical dislocation)
3. gasing them to death with carbon dioxide (asphyxiation).

New technologies allow the sex of chicks to be determined while they are still on their eggs, called "in-ovo sexing" (ie, figuring out the sex of the egg before they hatch, and therefore avoid killing live male chicks).

This resolution effectively implements such a ban, and to require World Assembly member states share such technologies.

There are two Wikipedia articles that may be of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-ovo_sexing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling

Because of animal welfare concerns, there is societal opposition to chick culling. In the 2010s, scientists developed technologies to determine the sexes of chicks when they are still in their eggs (in-ovo sexing). As soon as these methods were available on a commercial scale, Germany and France jointly became the first countries in the world to prohibit all chick killing from 1 January 2022, and called on other EU member states to do the same.

To add the question asked earlier (on discord): a resolution that forces male chicks from breeds for eggs to be raised to full blown cocks would not work as they cannot compete against bigger cocks from breeds raised for meat in terms of meat content. For example, hybrid White Leghorns are used in egg production, while chickens raised for meat are commonly a hybrid between Cornish hens and Plymouth Rock breeds. Cocks from the Brahma breed can reach 12 pounds, but that's less common commercially.

Category: Moral Decency/Mild (the category was as advised by Gensec)

Draft 3

The World Assembly,

Noting that some member states in the multiverse engage in industrial farming of chicks, ducklings, goslings and other species for consumption of their eggs and/or meat (hereafter, collectively for convenience, "chicks" for all newborn and younger members of such species);

Concerned that in industrial farming, chicks of a particular sex are frequently culled after birth for economic reasons through techniques that may be considered inhumane, such as maceration, cervical dislocation and asphyxiation, and that alternatives such as raising male chicks for egg-laying breeds to full grown size may not be economical against breeds of bigger cocks specifically grown for meat;

Noting that recent advances in technologies regarding low-cost in-ovo sexing (the determination of the sex of chicks inside the egg prior to hatching) in some member states allow eggs that are not viable commercially to be destroyed before hatching, thus substantially reducing concerns over the welfare of chicks;

1. Hereby requires any member state that engages in industrial farming of chicks that has gained access to in-ovo sexing technologies, or other more advanced technologies that reduce animal suffering, to:
   
   
   1. start adopting such technologies as soon as reasonably practicable after it gains access; and
      
   2. to phase out the use of post-hatching chick culling techniques (including, but not limited to, maceration, cervical dislocation, asphyxiation and other less humane culling techniques), in favour of in-ovo sexing technologies, or other more advanced technologies, as soon as reasonably practicable;
   
   
2. Further, hereby encourages:
   
   
   1. Any member state that has in-ovo sexing technologies or other more advanced technologies to license or transfer such technologies to other member states lacking such technologies on reasonable commercial terms;
      
   2. Any member state that has not yet gained access to such technologies to acquire or license such technologies, as soon as reasonably practicable;
      
   3. Further research by member states into new technologies that improve animal welfare in industrial farming;
3. Hereby clarifies that this resolution does not affect any culling of chicks on the grounds of affecting public health and hygiene.

Draft 1

Draft 3 vs Draft 2: not changed much other than spelling out that this may include non avian species, just to cover for sci -fi RP concerns.

Draft 2 says: "Concerned that in industrial farming, chicks of a particular sex are frequently culled after birth for economic reasons through techniques that may be considered inhumane, such as marceration, cervical dislocation and asphyxiation, and that alternatives such as raising male chicks for egg-laying breeds to adult size may not be economical against breeds of bigger cocks specifically grown for meat;"

Draft 1 had the same in bullet form and had a more detailed description of how chicks are culled such as what marceration is. This has been removed.

[The Pacific Northwest]

I’m a bit tired so I apologize if this is incoherent or I misunderstood anything.

I am thinking of "in-oxo determination of gender in farming" because the term "sexing" might be misleading, although Wikipedia uses 'in-ovo sexing".

Could you elaborate on why you feel using the term sexing would be misleading? Gender and sex are separate things, and gender is a social construct. I don’t think birds really have a concept of gender like humans, so I would say sexing is a more accurate term.

(hereafter, collectively for convenience, "chicks" for all young avian species and "aves" for adult species)

I would personally say young members of avian species (or young avian individuals), and adult members of avian species (or adult avian individuals), or something like that. Young species implies you’re referring to entire species that are young.

Noting that recent advances in technologies regarding low-cost in-ovo sexing (the determination of the gender of eggs inside the egg prior to hatching) in some member states allow chicks' gender to be determined inside the egg prior to hatching

I feel like that was intended to say chicks instead of eggs.

Disregarding the mistake there, this basically says the same thing twice. You could cut out what’s in parentheses and it would still explain what in-ovo sexing is.

[Simone Republic]

I’m a bit tired so I apologize if this is incoherent or I misunderstood anything.

I am thinking of "in-oxo determination of gender in farming" because the term "sexing" might be misleading, although Wikipedia uses 'in-ovo sexing".

Could you elaborate on why you feel using the term sexing would be misleading? Gender and sex are separate things, and gender is a social construct. I don’t think birds really have a concept of gender like humans, so I would say sexing is a more accurate term.

(hereafter, collectively for convenience, "chicks" for all young avian species and "aves" for adult species)

I would personally say young members of avian species (or young avian individuals), and adult members of avian species (or adult avian individuals), or something like that. Young species implies you’re referring to entire species that are young.

Noting that recent advances in technologies regarding low-cost in-ovo sexing (the determination of the gender of eggs inside the egg prior to hatching) in some member states allow chicks' gender to be determined inside the egg prior to hatching

I feel like that was intended to say chicks instead of eggs.

Disregarding the mistake there, this basically says the same thing twice. You could cut out what’s in parentheses and it would still explain what in-ovo sexing is.

All of the above fixed.. many thanks.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Clause 2c should end in a semicolon rather than a full stop. On both the premise and the execution, this has my full support.)

[The Ice States]

"We believe that 1b should apply to all forms of chick culling, not only maceration, cervical dislocation, and asphyxiation. The final clause, regarding "a competent authority", is also unnecessary and we believe it should be removed. Should these concerns be addressed, we would strongly support this measure."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

(OOC: Clause 2c should end in a semicolon rather than a full stop. On both the premise and the execution, this has my full support.)

Changed.

"We believe that 1b should apply to all forms of chick culling, not only maceration, cervical dislocation, and asphyxiation. The final clause, regarding "a competent authority", is also unnecessary and we believe it should be removed. Should these concerns be addressed, we would strongly support this measure."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

I changed it to "post-hatching chick culling techniques (including, but not limited to, marceration, cervical dislocation, and asphyxiation)". There are many other ways to kill chicks (marceration refers to using a grinder to grind chicks, cervical dislocation means breaking their neck once born) - about as many as you can use to kill people.

[The Ice States]

Thanks for the changes; I can support this in principle and as written.

[Pangurstan]

Why is this necessary?

[Simone Republic]

Why is this necessary?

Primarily because I don't want to see small billions of young chicks die each year in a meat grinder and there is a fairly broad and international trade in eggs. It is also a relatively cheap measure to implement in terms of technology. (OK I am not totally vegetarian but I rarely eat meat, especially red meat). The EU is moving towards the same requirement across all its members.

I am also more of a reluctant buyer of meat from industrial farming, but given the current food price inflation environment, I believe any major attempts to do so (such as encouraging organic farming) would face too push back. The average household simply cannot afford meat that is from pigs or chicks not raised in industrial settings. (The last vote on banning industrial farming failed anyway).

I concede that this resolution is more IntFed than my usually fairly Natsov perspective.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Starts to come back from inactivity.

Sees a proposal to micromanage agriculture by telling nations how and when they can single out certain animals as unwanted and fit for destruction.

"Sigh" - Deputy Ambassador Roweina

Slowly backs out of the chamber.

[Simone Republic]

Starts to come back from inactivity.

Sees a proposal to micromanage agriculture by telling nations how and when they can single out certain animals as unwanted and fit for destruction.

"Sigh" - Deputy Ambassador Roweina

Slowly backs out of the chamber.

Sorry about that.

Bump.

[The Ice States]

I think it would help to change the title to "Promoting in-ovo sexing of chicks" (or similar wording to that effect) for clarity.

Edit: How does 1b apply when a nation has access to "other more advanced technologies that reduce animal suffering", but not necessarily in-ovo sexing techniques? The resolution also misspells "marceration"; it should say "maceration".

[Araraukar]

OOC: The first preamble clause has "other species" when it should have "other avian species" given it talks about chicks.

Looking at existing techniques, ignoring the feasibility of needing a movable MRI machine or puncturing each egg (the latter of which to me sounds almost analogous of injecting the eggs with salmonella), the correct guessing is between 90-98.5%, the latter figure being for a method requiring puncturing the eggs.

In RL about 7,000,000,000 male chicks are culled per year, so that's the number to look at. 1.5% (assuming no females are erroneously labeled as males, which is likely to happen but the amount is unknown) for the method that is correct 98.5% of the time, amounts to 105,000,000 male chicks being born anyway. What should be done about them?

If the whole point of the resolution is to prevent day-old chicks being tossed into a meatgrinder, wouldn't the more obvious solution be to require a more humane culling method? The non-invasive sexing techniques also cut the pre-hatching culling very close to the point where the unborn chick can feel pain.

These numbers of course apply only to chicken eggs. I found stuff about non-invasive duck egg sexing, but at the time of writing of the articles, it was yet to be commercially successful. The problem is a thicker shell of the egg.

It greatly amuses me that the culled male eggs are very likely to be used in the production of chicken feed...

There's also no mention one way or another of culling hatched chicks that are malformed or too weak and sickly to be worth the effort of raising them. Such chicks include female ones.

Rather than trying to make this fit into Environmental (how does this fit environmental anyway?) you might as well go for Moral Decency as it seems to be an ethics issue.

About to fall asleep, hope this comment was at least mostly coherent.

[The Ice States]

The author can and should safely ignore Araraukar's comments, which fail to present a rational or substantive argument for amendments to be effected to the draft.

Looking at existing techniques, ignoring the feasibility of needing a movable MRI machine or puncturing each egg (the latter of which to me sounds almost analogous of injecting the eggs with salmonella), the correct guessing is between 90-98.5%, the latter figure being for a method requiring puncturing the eggs.

In RL about 7,000,000,000 male chicks are culled per year, so that's the number to look at. 1.5% (assuming no females are erroneously labeled as males, which is likely to happen but the amount is unknown) for the method that is correct 98.5% of the time, amounts to 105,000,000 male chicks being born anyway. What should be done about them?

The proposal here does not require chick culling to be instantly prohibited, but rather "phased out". It seems reasonable that a member nation could permit post-hatching culling only for those chicks wrongly assumed to be female, while in-ovo sexing techniques become more accurate.

If the whole point of the resolution is to prevent day-old chicks being tossed into a meatgrinder, wouldn't the more obvious solution be to require a more humane culling method? The non-invasive sexing techniques also cut the pre-hatching culling very close to the point where the unborn chick can feel pain.

Other than perhaps electrocution, there is no "more humane culling method". The primary alternatives are asphyxiation and suffocation, which are hardly "humane" for rather obvious reasons; and cervical dislocation, which can often take a longer time to render the brain insensitive.[1] That maceration seems inhumane does not mean that there is a "more humane culling method" it would be worth universally mandating.

This response also does not address the proposal. Even if there was some method where a magic spell could make male chicks literally disappear into thin air without experiencing any form of pain in the process, the ethical issues surrounding culling male chicks in principle remain. This proposal would therefore still be merited.

There's also no mention one way or another of culling hatched chicks that are malformed or too weak and sickly to be worth the effort of raising them. Such chicks include female ones.

This is a fair point -- I would not mind if the author could include an exception in Section 3 for euthanasia of permanently unhealthy chicks.

Rather than trying to make this fit into Environmental (how does this fit environmental anyway?) you might as well go for Moral Decency as it seems to be an ethics issue.

This, however, is nonsensical. Per the GenSec guide to categories, Moral Decency and Civil Rights both address "[government] control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects". It is hardly a "personal aspect of one's life" to engage in chick culling, which almost entirely takes place in large-scale industrial operations.

[Heidgaudr]

Category: All Business/Mild (I think Agriculture would be slightly off because industrial farming is not really agriculture but it's not entirely just industry either)

Agriculture doesn't stop at growing crops. It also includes raising livestock. This absolutely should be Environmental - Agriculture.

[Simone Republic]

I've settled on "moral decency - mild" as category as per all the discussions on Discord.

[Reventus Koth]

Banning maceration and other such inhumane culling techniques is good, inshallah this is the beginning of enforcing full veganism across the NS multiverse.

Support.

EDIT: Worth pointing out on that note that the term is maceration, not "marceration".

[Simone Republic]

I think it would help to change the title to "Promoting in-ovo sexing of chicks" (or similar wording to that effect) for clarity.

Edit: How does 1b apply when a nation has access to "other more advanced technologies that reduce animal suffering", but not necessarily in-ovo sexing techniques? The resolution also misspells "marceration"; it should say "maceration".

Banning maceration and other such inhumane culling techniques is good, inshallah this is the beginning of enforcing full veganism across the NS multiverse.

Support.

EDIT: Worth pointing out on that note that the term is maceration, not "marceration".

I changed 1b to: "to phase out the use of post-hatching chick culling techniques (including, but not limited to, maceration, cervical dislocation, and asphyxiation) and other less humane culling techniques, in favour of in-ovo sexing technologies, or other more advanced technologies, as soon as reasonably practicable" to make it clearer

Typo corrected.

I changed the last clause to "affecting public health and hygiene" rather than "affecting the health of sapient specie".

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[Tinhampton]

Office of the President of Sophia & WA Affairs Ministry of the Empire of Great Britain
WORLD ASSEMBLY VOTING RECOMMENDATION

---

General Assembly: In-Ovo Sexing of Chicks (Moral Decency; Mild), by Simone Republic

Recommendation: AGAINST

Rationale: New technologies require new solutions... or do they? This proposal is not the latest comment on an ongoing GA debate; it is, instead, a reaction to real-world chick culling (for non-disease reasons, such as farming, as Article 3 makes clear). Only a few countries have actually banned chick culls, and all of them have phased in a ban: Germany in 2021 (for 2022), France in 2021 (for 2023) and Italy in 2022 (for 2026).

Similarly, Article 1 requires that members who have "gained access to in-ovo sexing technologies, or other more advanced technologies that reduce animal suffering," implement them and phase out chick culling "as soon as reasonably practicable." While we do not object to measures to promote animal welfare across the WA, this proposal goes about doing so in an overly specific and demanding manner. The most obvious moral objection is that, despite GA#499 "Access to Abortion" allowing member states to forbid sex-selective abortions of sapient beings, this proposal would require member states that can engage in selecting the sex of farmed, non-sapient chicks to do so.

Article 1 also covers member states that gain access to these technologies in any quantity. Suppose that Dinnerstan demands 100 million eggs per week. The technologies it has available to it can only sex 5 million eggs per week and cannot be easily scaled up. How is Dinnerstan to close the 95-million-egg shortfall? Through either continuing to cull or by importing from other states, including those that (for whatever reason) do not require in-ovo sexing. Increasing dependence on farming methods that harm animal welfare should not be resulting from proposals to ban those methods.

Despite Article 1 nominally only applying to members "that engage[] in industrial farming of chicks," the transition it requires does not only apply to industrial farming, hence requiring all farms, regardless of size or scale, to take part. There is no mention of how member states or the WA can provide support to farmers who need help with phasing in in-ovo sexing (and indeed the entire proposal is worded as if member states are the sole drivers of farming and agricultural innovation, which they rarely are in practice).

Article 2 thankfully only recommends that member states with these technologies attempt to export them to members without them. At worst, this could lead to unduly outside-influenced attempts to "pick winners" in animal welfare technology. Member states working on highly advanced chick sexing techniques should not be so hasty as to accept normal in-ovo sexing technology and the members offering them should not expect that their offers will always be accepted, even "on reasonable commercial terms."

And on the subject of less-advanced technology, in-ovo sexing is not 100% accurate in 100% of cases. If chicks of the "undesired" sex emerge, would it still be acceptable to cull them as a result? The phase-out demands are, in themselves, vague enough that we cannot tell for certain. Fattening them up to make them viable could be another possibility, but this is dismissed as "not be[ing] economical" and it's unclear if this would be allowed instead of in-ovo sexing (or similar technologies) in any event.

All in all, this is a proposal we cannot support. It mandates imperfect and arguably immoral technologies and assumes that members will jump to adopt them in any form at all, even if they do not actually want them or the scale of their adoption would still leave a large short-term market for culled chicks. A broader, less prescriptive resolution on animal welfare or industrial farming would do nicely for our purposes. We could even see a good case being made for an outright ban on culling without any of the follies that populate this proposal. Alas, what we have in front of us does not quite cut the mustard.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by Tinhampton, the President of Sophia; and The Hinterplace, the Prime Minister of Empire of Great Britain. If you liked this, please upvote our recommendation dispatch here!

This resolution will be at vote between the major updates of June 9th 2023 and June 13th 2023.

This recommendation was jointly issued between Sophia and Empire of Great Britain. This does not mean that the President's opinion of this resolution was influenced by what Empire of Great Britain believes. Under the Constitution, the President must always cast their vote in line with the interests of Sophia, not some other region; this recommendation reflects the sincere beliefs of all regions involved.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

We support any and all efforts to end the abhorrent practice of culling and we are glad to see the international community taking steps to ensure animal welfare in all nations.

The hooded figure disappears into the crowd of ambassadors.

[El Lazaro]

Question: how will this affect the WA’s abortion policies?

Edit: nvm I posted this as a joke, but apparently it’s already been mentioned in a serious manner

[Fractalnavel]

At vote now.

Remind me to leave the WA before it passes if it threatens to do so.

[Herby]

alternatives such as raising male chicks for egg-laying breeds to full grown size may not be economical against breeds of bigger cocks specifically grown for meat

Heh. Heh heh heh heh. Yeah I voted for cuz we could all use bigger ehhhhhhhhhhhhh never mind.

[Hammadian]

Esteemed member states of the World Assembly,

I implore each and every one of you to cast your vote in favor of the proposal set forth by Simone Republic. This is an opportunity for us to demonstrate our commitment to ethical practices and animal welfare within industrial farming. By supporting this resolution, we can collectively address the inhumane culling of chicks and embrace the advancements in low-cost in-ovo sexing technologies. Let us stand united in our pursuit of a more compassionate and humane multiverse, where the well-being of all living beings is valued and protected. Your vote matters, and together, we can pave the way for a brighter future. Vote in favor of this proposal and make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless vulnerable creatures.

Distinguished delegates of the World Assembly and esteemed representatives of member states,

I stand before you today as Sultan Ali Abbas Ishaq II, deeply committed to advocating for the welfare of animals and urging your support for the proposal on industrial farming practices outlined before us. This resolution presents a crucial opportunity for us to address the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of chicks, ducklings, goslings, and other vulnerable species within our multiverse.

Industrial farming has become a prevalent practice among some member states, where the farming of these young animals for their eggs and meat is commonplace. However, the methods employed in this industry often involve the inhumane culling of chicks based on their sex, through techniques such as maceration, cervical dislocation, and asphyxiation. We cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering inflicted upon these innocent beings in the pursuit of economic interests.

Today, we have the privilege of witnessing recent advancements in low-cost in-ovo sexing technologies, offering a viable solution to alleviate the concerns surrounding the welfare of chicks. By determining the sex of the chicks inside the egg prior to hatching, member states can identify non-viable eggs that are not commercially viable and ensure they are destroyed before any suffering occurs. This breakthrough significantly reduces the need for post-hatching chick culling and paves the way for a more compassionate approach to industrial farming.

I urge member states that engage in industrial farming and have access to these in-ovo sexing technologies or other advanced methods to adopt them without delay. It is our collective responsibility to prioritize the welfare of these animals and phase out the use of less humane culling techniques as soon as reasonably practicable. By embracing these technologies, we can create a multiverse where compassion and empathy prevail over profit-driven practices.

Moreover, I call upon member states that possess in-ovo sexing technologies or other advanced solutions to demonstrate solidarity and compassion by licensing or transferring these technologies to those states that currently lack them. It is through fair and reasonable commercial terms that we can ensure equitable access for all, regardless of their current capabilities. Let us forge a path of cooperation, guided by a shared commitment to improving animal welfare.

To those member states that have not yet gained access to these technologies, I implore you to take immediate action. Acquire or license these advancements as soon as reasonably practicable, for in doing so, you will join the ranks of those striving to create a more humane future for all living beings.

I also encourage further research by member states into new technologies that enhance animal welfare in the realm of industrial farming. Our dedication to innovation and scientific progress is paramount to continually improving the conditions in which these vulnerable creatures are raised and nurtured. Let us invest in the development of groundbreaking solutions that prioritize compassion and respect for all forms of life.

It is important to note that this resolution does not impede any culling practices undertaken for the purpose of public health and hygiene. We understand the complexities and intricacies involved in ensuring the well-being of both animals and human societies. This resolution seeks to strike a balance, enabling us to protect public health while concurrently striving for a more compassionate approach to industrial farming.

In conclusion, esteemed delegates and representatives, the proposal before us represents a critical opportunity to address the ethical concerns surrounding industrial farming practices. As Sultan Ali Abbas Ishaq II, I urge each and every one of you to support this resolution and pave the way for a future where the welfare of every living being is valued and protected. Together, let us champion compassion, embrace technological advancements, and work hand in hand to create a multiverse where our actions reflect our shared values.

Thank you.