Fears of British chicken shortages as farmers warn of supply crunch
Supermarkets are facing a shortage of British chicken after farming bosses said planning red tape was curtailing their ability to rear more birds.
Poultry producers are demanding the Government speed up a planning overhaul to allow farmers to build bigger poultry sheds and produce more chickens to stave off a supply crisis.
Without such a move, grocers could be forced to source more chicken from overseas as supplies from UK farms start to drop.
Cranswick, one of Britain's largest meat producers, said shoppers would '100pc' see more chicken on sale that was imported from overseas because of the sheds planning hold-up.
Adam Couch, the Cranswick chief executive, said 'There is white shelf space now because chicken is in huge short supply and farmers can't expand any more because we can't get planning permission,' he said.
'On poultry, the UK is around 65pc to 70pc self-sufficient and that's reducing at the moment.'
The warning comes as Donald Trump presses Sir Keir Starmer to allow chlorinated US chickens to be sold in Britain.
As part of his tariff offensive, the US president has claimed that restrictions on chlorine-washed poultry, which are banned in the UK, are based on 'non-science-based standards' and has called for them to be removed.
The current UK shortages are understood to have followed a change across major supermarkets to adopt higher welfare standards.
Over the past 18 months, supermarkets including Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrisons have lowered their bird stocking densities so that chickens are given more space in sheds.
It means chicken producers need to open more sites to keep up production levels.
Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary, pledged earlier this year to loosen planning regulations, allowing farmers to build larger chicken sheds.
However, supermarket bosses and farming chiefs are understood to be pressing ministers to deliver the pledge more quickly as without it Britain will face a chicken supply crunch.
Already, Asda has started sourcing chicken reared in Germany after two decades of selling 100pc British chicken. It said this was a temporary measure taken on its Essentials range.
However, as recently as this month, producers have been thwarted in attempts to get projects approved.
In Norfolk, Cranswick's scheme for a 'mega-farm' to rear 700,000 chickens was this month blocked by local officials.
Councillors unanimously rejected the plans for the farm, siding with critics who raised issues including its odour, animal welfare, pollution, flood risk, health and traffic.
Prior to the decision, Cranswick had written to MPs raising concerns over the risk to the UK's food security.
In the briefing note, it said escalating trade tensions meant 'now is the time Britain needs to produce more food at home'.
However Mr Couch said the warning had fallen on deaf ears in Westminster.
He said claims that ministers were ripping up red tape to boost investment were 'all well and good, but the action on the ground isn't following through'.
'It's a real food security issue that we have here,' he said.
James Mottershead, of the National Farmers' Union, said it was important that the UK is able to keep up with the demand for welfare driven, environmentally friendly and nutritious proteins.
He said: 'At a time when shoppers are understandably nervous about increased imports of chicken which have been produced in ways which would be illegal here, and when the Government has repeatedly stated that food security is national security, it's vital that the planning system enables poultry producers to maintain a strong supply of home grown chicken.'
A government spokesman said: 'Food security is national security, and for too long existing planning rules have got in the way of increasing food production.
'That's why we will consult on national planning reforms to make it quicker for farmers to build infrastructure they need to boost their food production.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British Netflix series Adolescence to be shown in French schools, says minister of education
Following UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcoming plans to air Netflix's hit show Adolescence in secondary schools, France is following suit, with French Minister of Education Élisabeth Borne stating yesterday that the mini-series will be screened from secondary school level upwards. In an interview for LCI news channel, Borne explained that the producer of the series 'gave us the rights' and that the Ministry of Education was therefore going to 'offer five educational sequences for young people based on this series'.These extracts from Adolescence, which have already been shown in British schools to stimulate debate and try to 'prevent young boys from being dragged into a whirlpool of hatred and misogyny,' are 'very representative of the violence that can exist among young people', according to Borne. The aim is to help raise awareness of the problem of 'overexposure to screens and the trivialisation of violence on these social networks,' as well as the spread of masculinist theories and misogyny, argues Borne. The four-part series follows how a father deals with the fallout of his 13-year-old son being suspected of stabbing one of his classmates to death. Beyond the spot-on acting, the show has felt like a cultural wake-up call, as it has prompted a wider discussion about toxic masculinity and the devastating influence of the so-called 'manosphere' on young minds who are faced with websites and online forums promoting misogyny and ultra-conservative models of masculinity that flirt with far-right ideologies. When it was confirmed that Netflix would be making the series available to all UK secondary schools, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrote a column for the Daily Mail saying that he didn't see the good in the initiative, calling the show 'tosh'. He wrote: 'In making this announcement with full prime ministerial authority amid the ancient solemnity of the cabinet room, Keir Starmer has perfectly encapsulated the fundamental flatulence of the government, and its emetic finger-wagging mixture of humbug and wokery.' Johnson went on to say that he believes the move to show the series in school time demonstrates the government's 'cruel indifference to the real educational needs of children today,' adding: 'In case you haven't watched Adolescence I can save you the bother. It's tosh - well-acted tosh.' Predictably, Johnson also introduced race to his argument, saying that 'unlike the teenage couple in this drama, the victims and perpetrators are disproportionately young black males.' The show's co-creator Jack Thorne has already spoken out on this theory, saying, 'It's absurd to say that (knife crime) is only committed by black boys. It's not true and history shows a lot of cases of kids from all races committing these crimes.' Thorne also stated that the goal of the show was not about 'making a point about race' but to make a point 'about masculinity.' 'We're trying to get inside a problem,' he added. 'We're not saying this is one thing or another, we're saying that this is about boys.' The decision to show the series in French schools comes after Laëtitia Curetti, who has a 13-year-old son, wrote to Borne and launched an online petition to have the series shown in secondary schools across France. Curetti stated she believes the series could be an 'excellent educational tool' to raise awareness of the dangers of social networking, sexism, bullying and violence in schools. The discussion surrounding knife crime has increased since the success of the series in France. It has been further amplified after a 16-year-old stabbed a high school student to death and injured three other fellow students at the lycée Notre-Dame de Toutes Aides in Nantes on 24 April. "My thoughts go out first to the teenager who lost her life, to the three students who were injured, and I want to express all my support and solidarity to these victims, their families and their loved ones," declared Borne at the school, before paying tribute to the "establishment staff who intervened and neutralized the attacker." French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau spoke of "a tragedy that rocks us." He said he was "appalled" and "shocked" by "the violence that has been unleashed," before adding that the tragic incident was "not a mere news item but a societal issue."
Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament
NEW YORK (AP) — Philadelphia's host city executive for the 2026 World Cup says organizers accept that an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump's administration may be among the outside events that impact next year's tournament. 'There are certainly things that are happening at the national level, the international level, there are going to be geopolitical issues that we don't even know right now that are going affect the tournament next year, so we recognize that we're planning within uncertainty,' Meg Kane said Monday at a gathering of the 11 U.S. host city leaders, one year and two days ahead of the tournament opener. The World Cup will be played at 16 stadiums in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19 next year, a tournament expanded to 48 nations and 104 games. All matches from the quarterfinals on will be in the U.S., with the final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. 'Whether it's the Olympics, whether it's a World Cup, whether it's a Super Bowl, you name it, anytime you've got a major international sporting event, geopolitics is going to have a role,' said Alex Vasry, CEO of the New York/New Jersey host committee. Kane said the host committees must adapt to decisions made by others. 'One of the things that I think we all recognize is that we have to be really good at operating within that uncertainty,' Kane said. 'I think for each of our cities, we want to be prepared to make any person that is coming and makes the decision to come to the United States or come to this World Cup feel that they are welcome. We do not play a role necessarily in what is happening in terms of the decisions that are made.' Trump's travel ban on citizens from 12 countries exempted athletes, coaches, staff and relatives while not mentioning fans. 'We allow for FIFA to continue having constructive conversations with the administrations around visas, around workforce, around tourism,' Kane said. FIFA is running the World Cup for the first time without a local organizing committee in the host nation. Asked in late April whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino was available to discuss the tournament, FIFA director of media relations Bryan Swanson forwarded the request to a member of the media relations staff, who did not make Infantino available. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting action in the Senate would appropriate $625 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'for security, planning, and other costs related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.' The 11 U.S. host committees have been consulting with each other on issues such as transportation for teams and VIPs, and for arranging fan fests. At the last major soccer tournament in the U.S., the 2024 Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, started 82 minutes late after fans breached security gates. 'Certainly we were not involved in the planning or the logistics for that particular match,' said Alina Hudak, CEO of the Miami World Cup host committee. She said local police 'have done an extensive review of the after-action reports related to that in collaboration with the stadium and so all of the things that happened are in fact being reviewed and addressed and I can assure you that everything is being done within our power to make sure that the appropriate measures are being placed, the appropriate perimeters.' ___ AP soccer:
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass deportations are an unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free
Across the country, immigration enforcement raids have sparked growing protests. Militarized federal agents, often in a confusingly ramshackle assortment of gear and uniforms, have been met by angry crowds shouting them down with chants of 'shame!' Over the weekend in Los Angeles, the federal government for the first time since 1965 deployed the National Guard over the objection of a state's governor. President Donald Trump "is sending 2,000 National Guard troops into LA County — not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Sunday. 'He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control.' The division and disorder on display are the culmination of an absurd premise which has long gone unchallenged: the whole concept of immigration restriction. This policy of segregation by place of birth presents a choice between three basic options. You can muddle along with de facto nonenforcement, putting swaths of the population and economy into a legal gray area and creating underground black markets. You can take the Trumpian tact of aggressive enforcement against millions of people, at the cost of civil liberties and social peace. Or you can confront the elephant in the room: the reality that these laws are unjust, unnecessary and an affront to the freedom of not just immigrants, but also citizens and our democratic republic. Mass removal is a profoundly unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free. Mass deportation and large-scale immigration enforcement require nothing less than a police state, and the more of a crackdown you demand, the more obviously it will look and act like a police state. When the government sends paramilitary-style law enforcement units into people's neighborhoods, this is no longer some abstract argument about 'the border.' It's Boyle Heights. It's Queens. It's Milwaukee. It's San Ysidro. It's armored vehicles and flash-bangs outside your grocery store. The administration's frequent line — including from Trump himself — is that only United States citizens possess legal and constitutional rights, such as due process. This is wrong as a matter of law and at best dubious as a matter of morality. Making the mere entry and presence of people illegal, turning millions who've committed no other offense into marginalized outlaws, undermines the foundations of a free society. But suppose, for argument's sake, you care only about the freedoms of native-born Americans. Any attempt to seriously enforce restrictionist immigration laws impinges on your liberties. The enforcement of such a sweeping prohibition, the division of society it entails, can only be accomplished with a massive enforcement machine to match. And citizens can be, and frequently are, caught up in that machine's grinding gears. Those horrified by the more physical means of enforcement may imagine that other, less direct methods can be sufficient to 'secure the border.' But policymakers have attempted for decades to impose administrative barriers to accomplish the exclusionary goal with fewer actual arrests. All 50 states now issue REAL ID-compliant identity cards, which are checked constantly in daily life. E-Verify, tenant screenings, banking rules and benefit restrictions are all burdens created to make undocumented life less desirable in hopes that people will simply leave of their own accord. Yet, millions remain, because even such burdens pale in comparison to tin-pot dictatorships, civil war or simply grinding poverty. When the paperwork fails, the boots arrive. To make mass deportation a reality, the government inevitably must send militarized agents into peaceful neighborhoods to sweep up cashiers, day laborers and housekeepers. It must unleash tear gas and violence in the streets when communities push back against raids on apartment buildings and local restaurants. It must intrude on personal relationships and violate privacy, freedom of association and economic liberty. It must tear away parents, traumatize innocent kids and shred trust in the law. To keep the assembly line of deportations moving, the government needs to trample due process with the truncated procedures offered by executive branch immigration courts, created to sidestep the independence of regular federal courts. It diverts law enforcement agencies from chasing real criminals. And it wastes tax money and sabotages the economy — all to no real benefit nothing except morally repellent abstractions about bloodlines and race. These destructive social dynamics always show up in the context of enforcing victimless offenses. Aside from marijuana use (another absurdly unenforceable federal prohibition), undocumented presence is probably America's most common victimless offense — unlike violent crimes or property crimes, which immigrants commit at a lower rate than native-born Americans, and which can and should be prosecuted in their own right. Claims about drains on resources ignore their real economic contributions to the tax base and exclusion from benefits. Social Security, for example, is actually subsidized by immigrants, including undocumented immigrants who still pay taxes. There is one truth on the other side of the equation: it is indeed corrosive to have laws on the books which go unenforced and widely flouted. That has been the reality of our immigration regime for far too long. But we now see that the solution isn't to tear apart our society while trying to enforce bad laws. Instead, we should repeal them. Every time we ban peaceful, voluntary conduct — crossing a border, renting a home, taking a job — we expand government power and shrink liberty. The trade-off is unavoidable. Across history, one of the main arcs of moral progress has been the advancement of legal equality regardless of arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Nothing is more arbitrary or immutable than your place of birth or whom you were born to. Our civic creed insists all are created equal. Anything else shackles us all to illiberal impositions and societal dysfunction. Push hard enough on mass deportation and Americans will meet ICE with human chains to protect their neighbors. Tear apart people's lives and communities, and they will start to fight back. Try to commandeer regular police, and states and localities will refuse. Produce endless horror stories and scenes of dystopian authoritarianism, and you can't keep pretending this is merely about building a wall through the desert. This has never been about just controlling the border, it's about controlling America, and at the end of the day Americans are not a people who like to be controlled. The reconstruction of a post-Trump America will require a radical liberalization of immigration laws. Our aspirations to be a free country and our reality of being a nation of immigrants are, and always will be, inseparable. This article was originally published on
