41 ms·

> Most of us want to know that the food we purchase and serve to our families does not come at the expense of wildlife. I suspect this is correct but I do not

> Most of us want to know that the food we purchase and serve to our families does not come at the expense of wildlife. I suspect this is correct but I do not share this sentiment, and in fact, I find it absurd. Most people only want to harm specifically raised and genetically modify living things for their entire miserable lives in captivity OR make sure that only a very select group of free living things is killed due to a narrow sense of cultural aesthetics. I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising.

facepalm 11y ago
Except the article claims dolphin deaths fell sharply when the label was introduced, so it does seem to have an effect.
- philh 11y ago
  vonklaus is talking about consumer response to the label, not government response. What had an effect was that the US forbade tuna that didn't fulfill the dolphin-safe requirements. The label itself is incidental to that.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    OK hadn't read that, sorry.
jonathankoren 11y ago
>I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising. So you're discounting the advertising advantage of saying "We don't kill dolphins like the other guys"? That's strange. I'm old enough to remember when dolphin-safe tuna was a cause celeb. Advertising you were dolphin-safe had big time marketing push. I think even Charlie the Tuna got in on the act. For a more contemporary example, we can look at GMOs and "organic" food. There's no science saying that GMOs are dangerous or that "organic" food is healthier or safer, but that doesn't stop them from being a market differentiator that drives sales.

facepalm 11y ago

Except the article claims dolphin deaths fell sharply when the label was introduced, so it does seem to have an effect.

philh 11y ago
vonklaus is talking about consumer response to the label, not government response. What had an effect was that the US forbade tuna that didn't fulfill the dolphin-safe requirements. The label itself is incidental to that.
- facepalm 11y ago
  OK hadn't read that, sorry.

jonathankoren 11y ago

>I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising. So you're discounting the advertising advantage of saying "We don't kill dolphins like the other guys"? That's strange. I'm old enough to remember when dolphin-safe tuna was a cause celeb. Advertising you were dolphin-safe had big time marketing push. I think even Charlie the Tuna got in on the act. For a more contemporary example, we can look at GMOs and "organic" food. There's no science saying that GMOs are dangerous or that "organic" food is healthier or safer, but that doesn't stop them from being a market differentiator that drives sales.