4 ms·

> how paying just a bit more for meat or eggs drastically improves animals' living conditions Not exactly. Supermarkets also jack up prices without any improve

> how paying just a bit more for meat or eggs drastically improves animals' living conditions Not exactly. Supermarkets also jack up prices without any improvement at all. I.e. better conditions require higher prices, but higher prices can mean better conditions or more supermarket profit. And the supermarket is incentivized to pick profit, together with pretty pictures and words that "suggest" better conditions. Which is why I don't generally trust the wording on packages with regard to animal conditions. I'm not an expert in which exact phrases legally mean substantially better conditions, vs. which ones sound good but aren't meaningful at all. Nor should I be expected to. I'd much prefer the government just legislated conditions that are humane. Either animal welfare matters or it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers. A few people buying top-tier eggs isn't ever going to improve anything for the vast majority of hens.

liuxiansheng 2y ago
While it's true marketing can impact how your dollars could actually contribute to better living conditions, I'd just it's defeatist to just throw your hands up and say it doesn't matter. A consumer can look up certifications like Certified Humane which does audits on farms to ensure they're following the required standards. While I'm sure it's not a perfect system it does hold farms to some accountability. https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/consumer-resources/certified-farms-state https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/consumer-resources/c...
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Browsing that page, a state like New Hapshire has one pork farm and one beef farm listed and that's it. These seem like they're more for locals and farm-to-table restaurants? At my local supermarkets, even the nicer ones like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, I don't ever recall seeing any of those logos on eggs, chicken, beef, anything at all. I'd love to know if I just missed them, though.
  - liuxiansheng 2y ago
    I believe Certified Humane has one of the most stringent requirements for animal welfare so there'll be fewer farms. There's other certifications out there such as Animal Welfare Approved. I admit for a welfare-conscious consumer it's not easy to sift through all the noise by doing actual research. Wish things were better but at least it's been trending in the right direction in the last couple of decades.
    - alex77456 2y ago
      > I admit for a welfare-conscious consumer it's not easy to sift through all the noise by doing actual research Case in point, the first result I find on Certified Humane egg brands, is paywalled https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/eggs https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/eg...
      - tweetle_beetle 2y ago
        That doesn't mean it's not easy - you found it straight away. It means that independent journalism and research cost money.
  - gbear605 2y ago
    Certified Humane is quite likely available for some eggs wherever you’re shopping in the US (maybe not Alaska or Hawaii, and not at convenience stores). I exclusively buy certified eggs, and I’ve never found a normal grocery store that didn’t have them. Trader Joes and Whole Foods definitely do.
    - lisper 2y ago
      If you think Trader Joe's and Whole Foods are normal grocery stores, then you live a much more privileged life than you realize.
      - setopt 2y ago
MichaelZuo 2y ago
This doesn’t make sense in the real world… where dollars and financial outcomes are a lot easier to secure (and defend) than political outcomes. If the vast majority aren’t willing to use their wallets to back this or that… sacrificing something vastly rarer, for the average HN reader at least, is just nonsensical.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  To the contrary, that's the entire premise of government regulation and spending. Most people aren't going to voluntarily send money to the FDA, Social Security, or Medicare, or the courts, or the military, out of the goodness of their hearts. Left to their own devices, they'll freeload. But we all agree these things are important (as evidenced by how we vote), so we pay for them with mandatory taxes. So your idea that something is nonsensical "if the vast majority aren’t willing to use their wallets to back this or that" doesn't hold water at all. Most people won't use their wallets to back anything, if it's left up to them as individuals.
  - schmookeeg 2y ago
    I've always thought the solution to this was to fix a tax rate, but let the people apportion the spending themselves, to discover what they find important without letting them claw back the taxes, which I agree would be the default. Seems like it would shut down entire swaths of "I don't wanna pay for your <x>" bitterness and resentment.
    - lolc 2y ago
      This individual apportionment always seems neat when I think about it, until I realize the vote would not be per person anymore, but per tax paid. I want to force rich people to contribute to welfare. They might be inclined to just fund the police to protect their property.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Yeah, maybe in some ideal world where people never have more than one political priority at the same time…
ip26 2y ago
It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers I’m trying to think of a single example where one of these “vote with your wallet” certification movements have ultimately triumphed and become the new norm… I can’t think of one. Organic might be the biggest success, but even then it’s just an alternative, not a consumer-preference-driven revolution in all commercial agriculture.
- com2kid 2y ago
  > I’m trying to think of a single example where one of these “vote with your wallet” certification movements have ultimately triumphed and become the new norm… Kids toys. There are a lot of successful wood kids toys brands now that exist as a backlash against plastic toys. Even mainstream retailers now carry an assortment of wood toys. Melissa and Doug are one of the largest brands, but others exist as well.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Wood toys are a bad example because they are meaningfully distinct from plastic toys, and as such there is a fashion around wooden toys right now. (And I'm not even convinced using wood toys has any advantage over plastic toys in terms of environmental impact or exposition to pollutants for the kids. They are more expansive though, so they may be used less as disposal toys and live longer which is good, but their reusability won't outlive the fashion and I fully expect them to be regarded as “out of date” in less than a decade, like every trend).
    - com2kid 2y ago
      > Wood toys are a bad example because they are meaningfully distinct from plastic toys > And I'm not even convinced using wood toys has any advantage over plastic toys in terms of environmental impact or exposition to pollutants for the kids I think you just argued both sides. :D Regarding meats - Farm fresh meat is meaningfully distinct, it tastes better. You can get meat from different breeds of animals, heritage breeds or breeds that are not normally sold in the US but that are needed to replicate recipes from other countries. For toys, there is an arguable environmental improvement buying wood toys, similar to buying nicer organic meats. Lovevery, a fancy higher toy subscription service, has a lot of wood toys as part of their service, and they've been around since 2015. Melissa and Doug has likewise been going strong for around 25 years, with at least 10 years of mainstream success. > They are more expansive though, so they may be used less as disposal toys and live longer which is good, but their reusability won't outlive the fashion Because of how they are gifted to new families, baby and toddler goods have a lifetime that is basically "until they fall apart". As an example, my son has a playset from 1992! (Plastic for sure, but wow, durable thick plastic!) He also has some wooden blocks from his grandmother! (I was a bit surprised to find other kids playing with identical blocks from the same 60+ year old set, but I guess I shouldn't have been.)
readthenotes1 2y ago
"I'd much prefer the government just legislated conditions that are humane. Either animal welfare matters or it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers. A few people buying top-tier eggs isn't ever going to improve anything for the vast majority of hens." I assume you don't live in a country that forms a government based on elections. If animal welfare mattered enough, it'd be political. Popular sentiment has had some influence on the human animal, at least. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act
bgnn 2y ago
It's being talked about in the linkdd video.
shawnz 2y ago
Showing that you're willing to pay extra for green products (or products that respect animal welfare, etc) creates a competitive environment in which companies can compete on who provides the most green per dollar. Even if those marked up products are all just greenwashed today, it still creates a market opportunity for new companies to come in and outcompete today's greenwashers with products that deliver better green per dollar in the future.
ChrisClark 2y ago
Yes, that is all covered in that video.
slothtrop 2y ago
It's not that the price increase itself leads to better conditions, it's that better conditions necessitate price increases. There are ways to assess whether a product meets one's standards. They may not be your standards, but it would meet the median for consumers. I can purchase poultry from a local farm that has an on-site health inspector, where chickens are free-range. In ovo sexing is coming later for eggs. On the poultry side, life in battery cages by far leads to the most suffering. Absent that, given the right conditions, I find the poultry inoffensive and most consumers would too. I agree there should be legislation, and that has been happening at the state-level.
hammock 2y ago
Stop buying meat and eggs from supermarkets…
Frieren 2y ago
> together with pretty pictures and words that "suggest" better conditions. Regulations exists to avoid misleading or lying to customers. Many years of deregulation, thou, have increased the number of scams and increased the price of goods and services. Maybe it was not a good idea.

liuxiansheng 2y ago

While it's true marketing can impact how your dollars could actually contribute to better living conditions, I'd just it's defeatist to just throw your hands up and say it doesn't matter. A consumer can look up certifications like Certified Humane which does audits on farms to ensure they're following the required standards. While I'm sure it's not a perfect system it does hold farms to some accountability. https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/consumer-resources/certified-farms-state https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/consumer-resources/c...

crazygringo 2y ago
Browsing that page, a state like New Hapshire has one pork farm and one beef farm listed and that's it. These seem like they're more for locals and farm-to-table restaurants? At my local supermarkets, even the nicer ones like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, I don't ever recall seeing any of those logos on eggs, chicken, beef, anything at all. I'd love to know if I just missed them, though.
- liuxiansheng 2y ago
  I believe Certified Humane has one of the most stringent requirements for animal welfare so there'll be fewer farms. There's other certifications out there such as Animal Welfare Approved. I admit for a welfare-conscious consumer it's not easy to sift through all the noise by doing actual research. Wish things were better but at least it's been trending in the right direction in the last couple of decades.
  - alex77456 2y ago
    > I admit for a welfare-conscious consumer it's not easy to sift through all the noise by doing actual research Case in point, the first result I find on Certified Humane egg brands, is paywalled https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/eggs https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/eg...
    - tweetle_beetle 2y ago
      That doesn't mean it's not easy - you found it straight away. It means that independent journalism and research cost money.
- gbear605 2y ago
  Certified Humane is quite likely available for some eggs wherever you’re shopping in the US (maybe not Alaska or Hawaii, and not at convenience stores). I exclusively buy certified eggs, and I’ve never found a normal grocery store that didn’t have them. Trader Joes and Whole Foods definitely do.
  - lisper 2y ago
    If you think Trader Joe's and Whole Foods are normal grocery stores, then you live a much more privileged life than you realize.
    - setopt 2y ago

MichaelZuo 2y ago

This doesn’t make sense in the real world… where dollars and financial outcomes are a lot easier to secure (and defend) than political outcomes. If the vast majority aren’t willing to use their wallets to back this or that… sacrificing something vastly rarer, for the average HN reader at least, is just nonsensical.

crazygringo 2y ago
To the contrary, that's the entire premise of government regulation and spending. Most people aren't going to voluntarily send money to the FDA, Social Security, or Medicare, or the courts, or the military, out of the goodness of their hearts. Left to their own devices, they'll freeload. But we all agree these things are important (as evidenced by how we vote), so we pay for them with mandatory taxes. So your idea that something is nonsensical "if the vast majority aren’t willing to use their wallets to back this or that" doesn't hold water at all. Most people won't use their wallets to back anything, if it's left up to them as individuals.
- schmookeeg 2y ago
  I've always thought the solution to this was to fix a tax rate, but let the people apportion the spending themselves, to discover what they find important without letting them claw back the taxes, which I agree would be the default. Seems like it would shut down entire swaths of "I don't wanna pay for your <x>" bitterness and resentment.
  - lolc 2y ago
    This individual apportionment always seems neat when I think about it, until I realize the vote would not be per person anymore, but per tax paid. I want to force rich people to contribute to welfare. They might be inclined to just fund the police to protect their property.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Yeah, maybe in some ideal world where people never have more than one political priority at the same time…

ip26 2y ago

It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers I’m trying to think of a single example where one of these “vote with your wallet” certification movements have ultimately triumphed and become the new norm… I can’t think of one. Organic might be the biggest success, but even then it’s just an alternative, not a consumer-preference-driven revolution in all commercial agriculture.

com2kid 2y ago
> I’m trying to think of a single example where one of these “vote with your wallet” certification movements have ultimately triumphed and become the new norm… Kids toys. There are a lot of successful wood kids toys brands now that exist as a backlash against plastic toys. Even mainstream retailers now carry an assortment of wood toys. Melissa and Doug are one of the largest brands, but others exist as well.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Wood toys are a bad example because they are meaningfully distinct from plastic toys, and as such there is a fashion around wooden toys right now. (And I'm not even convinced using wood toys has any advantage over plastic toys in terms of environmental impact or exposition to pollutants for the kids. They are more expansive though, so they may be used less as disposal toys and live longer which is good, but their reusability won't outlive the fashion and I fully expect them to be regarded as “out of date” in less than a decade, like every trend).
  - com2kid 2y ago
    > Wood toys are a bad example because they are meaningfully distinct from plastic toys > And I'm not even convinced using wood toys has any advantage over plastic toys in terms of environmental impact or exposition to pollutants for the kids I think you just argued both sides. :D Regarding meats - Farm fresh meat is meaningfully distinct, it tastes better. You can get meat from different breeds of animals, heritage breeds or breeds that are not normally sold in the US but that are needed to replicate recipes from other countries. For toys, there is an arguable environmental improvement buying wood toys, similar to buying nicer organic meats. Lovevery, a fancy higher toy subscription service, has a lot of wood toys as part of their service, and they've been around since 2015. Melissa and Doug has likewise been going strong for around 25 years, with at least 10 years of mainstream success. > They are more expansive though, so they may be used less as disposal toys and live longer which is good, but their reusability won't outlive the fashion Because of how they are gifted to new families, baby and toddler goods have a lifetime that is basically "until they fall apart". As an example, my son has a playset from 1992! (Plastic for sure, but wow, durable thick plastic!) He also has some wooden blocks from his grandmother! (I was a bit surprised to find other kids playing with identical blocks from the same 60+ year old set, but I guess I shouldn't have been.)

readthenotes1 2y ago

"I'd much prefer the government just legislated conditions that are humane. Either animal welfare matters or it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers. A few people buying top-tier eggs isn't ever going to improve anything for the vast majority of hens." I assume you don't live in a country that forms a government based on elections. If animal welfare mattered enough, it'd be political. Popular sentiment has had some influence on the human animal, at least. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act

bgnn 2y ago

It's being talked about in the linkdd video.

shawnz 2y ago

Showing that you're willing to pay extra for green products (or products that respect animal welfare, etc) creates a competitive environment in which companies can compete on who provides the most green per dollar. Even if those marked up products are all just greenwashed today, it still creates a market opportunity for new companies to come in and outcompete today's greenwashers with products that deliver better green per dollar in the future.

ChrisClark 2y ago

Yes, that is all covered in that video.

slothtrop 2y ago

It's not that the price increase itself leads to better conditions, it's that better conditions necessitate price increases. There are ways to assess whether a product meets one's standards. They may not be your standards, but it would meet the median for consumers. I can purchase poultry from a local farm that has an on-site health inspector, where chickens are free-range. In ovo sexing is coming later for eggs. On the poultry side, life in battery cages by far leads to the most suffering. Absent that, given the right conditions, I find the poultry inoffensive and most consumers would too. I agree there should be legislation, and that has been happening at the state-level.

hammock 2y ago

Stop buying meat and eggs from supermarkets…

Frieren 2y ago

> together with pretty pictures and words that "suggest" better conditions. Regulations exists to avoid misleading or lying to customers. Many years of deregulation, thou, have increased the number of scams and increased the price of goods and services. Maybe it was not a good idea.