5 ms·

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” certifica

by 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live longer which is good, but their reusability won't outlive the fashion and I fully expect them to be regarded as “out of date” in less than a decade, like every trend).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.)
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > I think you just argued both sides. :D Both sides of what? Whether the comparison is valid? Saying "those shouldn't be directly compared but if you do it anyway it goes the wrong way" isn't arguing both sides. (And a few words to specify less confidence don't change that.)
      - com2kid 2y ago
        He said kids toys are a bad example because wood toys are meaningfully distinct from non-wood toys, and then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level, which I brought back around to the differences between organic/non-organic food (e.g. feel good and possibly environmentalism). All that said, my initial reply was wrong because I ignored the "certification movements" part of the phrase I quoted (I honestly didn't notice that) and beyond fear mongering amongst parents (which is pretty easy to do from a marketing standpoint), I also cannot think of any other examples!
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level Which part of the comment did this? I don't see it. The second line you quoted definitely doesn't do that. It talks about the environmental/pollution factor being small, but the environmental/pollution factor is not why they said the toys are meaningfully distinct. The factors making them meaningfully distinct don't get elaborated on at all, let alone elaborated on in a way that contradicts the original claim.
Ray20 2y ago
Take almost any secular country with a predominantly Muslim population - and this is exactly what is happening there. In all commercial livestock production slaughter is carried out by special workers with special religious education - purely in order to put a mark of a religious certification center on the packaging.
decimalenough 2y ago
In Australia, "free range", "cage free" and "cage" eggs are all legally defined terms. Consumer preference for free range is so strong that mainstream supermarkets stock mostly free range, with cage free for the price-conscious, and no cage eggs at all. The "free range" definition is still pretty permissive, and if you go into the local Trader Joes equivalent (Harris Farms) you'll get a chart prominently comparing how various farms treat their chickens as an explanation why some free range eggs cost $6/dozen while others are $16.
postexitus 2y ago
when you have the option to do something rather than nothing, it's not a good excuse to not proceed because it will not fix it all. "Let's topple this dictator" "No no no, it won't free all the people under authoritarian governments"

by ip26 2y ago

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.)
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > I think you just argued both sides. :D Both sides of what? Whether the comparison is valid? Saying "those shouldn't be directly compared but if you do it anyway it goes the wrong way" isn't arguing both sides. (And a few words to specify less confidence don't change that.)
    - com2kid 2y ago
      He said kids toys are a bad example because wood toys are meaningfully distinct from non-wood toys, and then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level, which I brought back around to the differences between organic/non-organic food (e.g. feel good and possibly environmentalism). All that said, my initial reply was wrong because I ignored the "certification movements" part of the phrase I quoted (I honestly didn't notice that) and beyond fear mongering amongst parents (which is pretty easy to do from a marketing standpoint), I also cannot think of any other examples!
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level Which part of the comment did this? I don't see it. The second line you quoted definitely doesn't do that. It talks about the environmental/pollution factor being small, but the environmental/pollution factor is not why they said the toys are meaningfully distinct. The factors making them meaningfully distinct don't get elaborated on at all, let alone elaborated on in a way that contradicts the original claim.

Ray20 2y ago

Take almost any secular country with a predominantly Muslim population - and this is exactly what is happening there. In all commercial livestock production slaughter is carried out by special workers with special religious education - purely in order to put a mark of a religious certification center on the packaging.

decimalenough 2y ago

In Australia, "free range", "cage free" and "cage" eggs are all legally defined terms. Consumer preference for free range is so strong that mainstream supermarkets stock mostly free range, with cage free for the price-conscious, and no cage eggs at all. The "free range" definition is still pretty permissive, and if you go into the local Trader Joes equivalent (Harris Farms) you'll get a chart prominently comparing how various farms treat their chickens as an explanation why some free range eggs cost $6/dozen while others are $16.

postexitus 2y ago

when you have the option to do something rather than nothing, it's not a good excuse to not proceed because it will not fix it all. "Let's topple this dictator" "No no no, it won't free all the people under authoritarian governments"