Confusion was ranging free last week as it emerged that YUSU have accepted and passed motions – for things that have already been achieved.
Last Thursday on the YUSU website the Environment and Ethics officer posted a congratulatory message over the “egg-cellent news” that, thanks to a UGM motion to remove unethical eggs from campus, Costcutter have decided to stop stocking eggs from caged hens.
The motion was originally proposed by Jason Rose back in February, and was seconded by Luke Capps.
The two argued that, since animal cruelty is no yolk, and battery hens suffer some of the worst living conditions of all farming animals, a campaign should be initiated to encourage the university to crack down on the cruel practice and begin to stock and use eggs from free range hens only. However, members of the campaign are left with egg on their faces as Vision reveals that Costcutter had already egg-ceeded the free range target – over four months before YUSU claimed credit for it.
Indeed, Costcutter has admitted that it changed its policy on free range eggs back in February, as a result of a Vision enquiry.
February’s edition of Vision reported that People and Planet Society hoped to hold a debate over whether or not stocking only free range eggs in Costcutter would infringe upon our right to choose, but accepted that the opportunity to actually lobby the university for change was at the mercy of a UGM proposal.
After going to print in February, Vision reporters approached Costcutter to enquire about the possibility of running a trial period of selling solely free range eggs. The idea was accepted, and Costcutter managers later made the idea a permanent fixture in the store as a result of this enquiry, at least three months before the UGM motion managed to pass through the voting process.
When asked about the distinctly scrambled situation, Jason Rose said “I wouldn’t give the entire credit to Vision,” claiming that he put forward the motion before the trial run, and it was only delays in the motion reaching quoracy that caused Vision to poach the campaign.
Yet this doesn’t change the fact that YUSU bureaucracy meant they took months focusing on something that had already been achieved! You could probably have fried an egg on their faces!
It was actually written on the suggestions board in the staff room over a year ago, along with various other eco-friendly ideas.
“Costcutter didn’t only stock free-range eggs when the motion was proposed. They hadn’t even done a trial run when I proposed the motion!…I wouldn’t give the entire credit to Vision since People and Planet were campaigning for it over the course of two terms!”
My context was that whilst YUSU don’t deserve the full credit, the UGM wasn’t proposed after the changes were made and it’s People and Planet that got the trial run and everything else sorted. Vision didn’t even *have* a campaign.
We also never said that animal cruelty was “no yolk” and I think that if you’re going to mention animal cruelty it should be done with a little more taste – we didn’t focus on something that had already been achieved and more importantly the policy lasts for years, in case Costcutter ever decide to cancel their current arrangement.
Altogether, I don’t really find this either a) accurate or b) news. Apologies if I misunderstand the situation in any way, though I don’t think I’ve got any details wrong?
Also, can I just say thanks to Costcutter for being receptive to ecological, environmental and ethical ideas and it’s good to see an organisation that is willing to make the steps *without* 6 months of campaigning. If it was on their staff room board, then that’s a bonus…
But again I stress proper kudos to P&P, who ran a term-long campaign involving full chicken costumes and masses of petitions whilst Vision didn’t do anything – well done People and Planet and well done Costcutter!
Badly written and factually incorrect. This article makes me want to gouge out my eyes.