*10/9/10 The NYtimes Clean Living in Hen House article gets at the issue of animal waste, which is a valid issue with meeting the demand for eggs and I don't think was covered in the scorecard.
Cornucopia did a round-up of how well egg producers comply with their organic and free-range marketing: http://www.cornucopia.org/organic-egg-scorecard/
I definitely think this is a step in the right direction to move past all of the marketing hype behind the organic and free-range terms, but the Cornucopia analysis still is shallow and completely biased.
Why for example, does a family farm, get higher points than an investor owned one? This just seems like the rather romantic view of the "good ol' days" being better than today's corporate America. (See "In Praise of Fast Food" Article)
Also, I completely agree with free-range in theory. I believe that all animals should have a humane environment, even if we end up eating them, but I also wonder how free-range affects quality control. Specifically, can farmers as easily control animals from getting parasites, interacting with other animal waste-products, natural animal rivalry/fighting/injury and other cons of more "natural" animal living?
Again, I do think more transparency is needed when it comes to our food sources and that this round makes some progress, but I also think that these types of study need to take into account the entire picture of the situation.