Also, perhaps it’s a bit weird to use it as a benchmark because it’s the consumers who pay most of the cost for chicken welfare reforms (and, to a lesser extent, farmers, retailers, and sometimes governments). So the comparison with something like AMF is not very clean. Corporate campaigns are a bit more similar to lobbying governments to distribute bednets. Ugh, I notice that I’m a bit confused about this right now.
Nice point. I suspect your confusion comes from wondering whether the cost to the consumers and others should be considered as part of the cost or harms of the intervention. My understanding is that cost-effectiveness analyses only include in the cost of the intervention money coming from the people making the decision about whether to fund the intervention, so I would consider the cost to the consumers as part of the harms of the intervention. I also believe this would only minorly decrease the cost-effectiveness:
I would say the benefits to the chickens are way larger than the harms linked to having to buy marginally more expenside chicken meat and eggs (or no longer being able to buy these).
I assume there may also be beneficial health and economic effects to humans due to decreased consumption of chicken meat and eggs, depending on what foods are consumed instead.
Also, perhaps it’s a bit weird to use it as a benchmark because it’s the consumers who pay most of the cost for chicken welfare reforms (and, to a lesser extent, farmers, retailers, and sometimes governments). So the comparison with something like AMF is not very clean. Corporate campaigns are a bit more similar to lobbying governments to distribute bednets. Ugh, I notice that I’m a bit confused about this right now.
Nice point. I suspect your confusion comes from wondering whether the cost to the consumers and others should be considered as part of the cost or harms of the intervention. My understanding is that cost-effectiveness analyses only include in the cost of the intervention money coming from the people making the decision about whether to fund the intervention, so I would consider the cost to the consumers as part of the harms of the intervention. I also believe this would only minorly decrease the cost-effectiveness:
I would say the benefits to the chickens are way larger than the harms linked to having to buy marginally more expenside chicken meat and eggs (or no longer being able to buy these).
I assume there may also be beneficial health and economic effects to humans due to decreased consumption of chicken meat and eggs, depending on what foods are consumed instead.