Cheaper Labor, Humane Labels, and the Counterfactuals We Overlook at the Border
As a Mexican-American who has lived in Sonora and engages in cross-border business, I read the proposal about importing “humane” chicken from Mexico with interest and curiosity.
From an Effective Altruism lens, we should evaluate not just whether something sounds cheaper, but whether it meaningfully reduces suffering relative to the counterfactual. A few reflections:
Regulatory reality. It’s not as simple as “just import from Mexico.”
This can cut maybe 15–20% off costs in best cases, but if you pay truly “humane” wages (retention, safety, compliance), the gap narrows. So the promise is “marginally cheaper humane”, not “competitive with conventional.”
3. The local political economy matters
In Sonora, Bachoco dominates poultry production. They are vertically integrated across Sonora and Sinaloa and have been sanctioned for price-fixing collusion in the past (COFECE ruling, 2015 – Spanish: https://www.cofece.mx/cofece-sanciona-a-bachoco-y-tyson-por-practicas-monopolicas-absolutas Their fortunes are also tied to government contracts and community programs (DIF Sonora social support programs: https://difson.gob.mx which makes this less a “neutral market opportunity” and more a case study in moral entanglement.
4. Counterfactual impact
EA tools stress counterfactuals: would this intervention actually displace conventional chicken, or just increase total chicken consumption?
Poultry own-price elasticity is ~–0.68, so lowering humane chicken prices boosts demand significantly (Andreyeva et al. 2010, meta-analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20048671
This means cheaper “humane” chicken partly replaces conventional, but also increases total birds consumed.
5. Values trade-offs
Using “cheap Mexican labor” to create “humane U.S. chicken” is not neutral. It risks offloading welfare concerns for animals while ignoring welfare concerns for workers. From an EA perspective, we should not treat human dignity as an externality. Actual impact requires both animal and human welfare standards.
I don’t dismiss the instinct here, entrepreneurs should explore new levers. But when you run the counterfactual math, the idea of a Mexican humane chicken export sector seems:
Less cost-effective
Legally blocked (at least for raw product)
Politically entangled (Bachoco, government contracts)
Ethically fraught (animal vs. human welfare trade-offs)
If we want to help chickens, there are cleaner, higher-leverage ways than arbitraging low wages and complex trade rules, like corporate welfare reform or policy change (think OWA).
Note: I deleted my initial comment because I was experiencing formatting problems. This is the exact post with formatting fixes.
Appendix: Fuentes en Español
Para lectores hispanohablantes, aquí están algunas de las fuentes institucionales clave que sustentan el análisis:
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with some of your takes, some of which are in the post but some points of disagreement or at least partial disagreement.
”Less cost-effective”- this could operate at a profit and avoid taking philanthropic funds. So it wouldn’t compete with other interventions. So even if it was less impactful in terms of welfare, I think it would be more cost-effective.
Existing local producers- I would be happy if they entered this market or if new producers did-I don’t think my proposal of export-oriented humane chicken would affect current local producers in any negative way- mexico currently exports almost no chicken to the united states.
Elasticity- you cite the same sources in my post. the big questions are do you feel bad about chickens raised in “humane farms” being born or not? and what is the humane chicken own-price elasticity- I extrapolated from poultry in general but it could be higher or lower.
My apologies, and thanks for clarifying. I’m thinking in terms of impact-per-animal relative to alternatives like corporate campaigns. From your side, the emphasis seems to be that this could operate as a profit-making business and avoid relying on philanthropy.
In real-world execution terms, here are the barriers your proposal would face:
Industry incentives
Mexico is a net importer, not exporter, of poultry. USDA FAS (2023) states that Mexico imports ~20% of its poultry consumption, mainly from the U.S.
Mexican producers make more money domestically. Firms like Bachoco and Pilgrim’s Mexico face strong domestic demand, where consumers eat ~70 lbs of chicken per capita per year. There’s no surplus incentive to export north.
Politics and lobbying
U.S. producers (Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue) lobby heavily to protect domestic market share. Tyson alone spends about $2 million per year on lobbying. This is modest compared to tech or pharma but enormous relative to the rest of the poultry industry, giving it disproportionate influence over USDA trade and labeling rules (OpenSecrets). Even if Mexican poultry were eligible, U.S. trade policy has historically limited poultry imports (see anti-dumping disputes with China, Russia, etc.).
As mentioned before, Bachoco dominates poultry production in Mexico across Sonora and Sinaloa. It has been sanctioned for price-fixing collusion (COFECE, 2015) and maintains deep ties through government contracts and social programs (COFECE ruling, DIF Sonora)
That’s why I’ve kept my focus on the practical barriers. Big poultry on both sides shapes the rules.
Cheaper Labor, Humane Labels, and the Counterfactuals We Overlook at the Border
As a Mexican-American who has lived in Sonora and engages in cross-border business, I read the proposal about importing “humane” chicken from Mexico with interest and curiosity.
From an Effective Altruism lens, we should evaluate not just whether something sounds cheaper, but whether it meaningfully reduces suffering relative to the counterfactual. A few reflections:
Regulatory reality. It’s not as simple as “just import from Mexico.”
FSIS only allows processed poultry from Mexico, and only if the raw chicken was slaughtered in the U.S. or another eligible country. Mexico does not currently have equivalence for raw poultry slaughter FSIS Import Library – Mexico: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/import-export/import-export-library/mexico
APHIS rules technically allow poultry from Sonora and Sinaloa under Newcastle disease restrictions but that’s only one piece of the puzzle. 9 CFR §94.30, U.S. APHIS: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-94/section-94.30
This nuance alone changes the business case.
2. Labor savings are real but capped
Feed makes up 60–70% of broiler costs (USDA ERS – Poultry Sector: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/g445cd121/6395z2696/sj13bz31x/LDP-M-367.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In small- or mid-scale pastured/humane systems, extension budgets suggest labor can account for 15–25% of total costs, depending on wage assumptions.
https://ucanr.edu/sites/default/files/2017-12/275180.pdf
Mexican minimum wage in 2025 is MXN 278.80/day (~US$13–14/day) (CONASAMI, Gobierno de México: https://www.gob.mx/conasami compared to U.S. farm wages of ~$18/hr (USDA NASS Farm Labor, May 2024: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/x920fw89s/gt54kx978/s1787g66r/FarmLabor-05-23-2024.pdf
This can cut maybe 15–20% off costs in best cases, but if you pay truly “humane” wages (retention, safety, compliance), the gap narrows. So the promise is “marginally cheaper humane”, not “competitive with conventional.”
3. The local political economy matters
In Sonora, Bachoco dominates poultry production. They are vertically integrated across Sonora and Sinaloa and have been sanctioned for price-fixing collusion in the past (COFECE ruling, 2015 – Spanish: https://www.cofece.mx/cofece-sanciona-a-bachoco-y-tyson-por-practicas-monopolicas-absolutas
Their fortunes are also tied to government contracts and community programs (DIF Sonora social support programs: https://difson.gob.mx which makes this less a “neutral market opportunity” and more a case study in moral entanglement.
4. Counterfactual impact
EA tools stress counterfactuals: would this intervention actually displace conventional chicken, or just increase total chicken consumption?
Poultry own-price elasticity is ~–0.68, so lowering humane chicken prices boosts demand significantly (Andreyeva et al. 2010, meta-analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20048671
Cross-price elasticity between organic and conventional chicken has been estimated at ~0.15 (Vukina & Oh 2018, Agricultural & Applied Economics Association: https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/ecaqec/vhtml10.3280-ecag2018-001005.html
This means cheaper “humane” chicken partly replaces conventional, but also increases total birds consumed.
5. Values trade-offs
Using “cheap Mexican labor” to create “humane U.S. chicken” is not neutral. It risks offloading welfare concerns for animals while ignoring welfare concerns for workers. From an EA perspective, we should not treat human dignity as an externality. Actual impact requires both animal and human welfare standards.
I don’t dismiss the instinct here, entrepreneurs should explore new levers. But when you run the counterfactual math, the idea of a Mexican humane chicken export sector seems:
Less cost-effective
Legally blocked (at least for raw product)
Politically entangled (Bachoco, government contracts)
Ethically fraught (animal vs. human welfare trade-offs)
If we want to help chickens, there are cleaner, higher-leverage ways than arbitraging low wages and complex trade rules, like corporate welfare reform or policy change (think OWA).
Note: I deleted my initial comment because I was experiencing formatting problems. This is the exact post with formatting fixes.
Appendix: Fuentes en Español
Para lectores hispanohablantes, aquí están algunas de las fuentes institucionales clave que sustentan el análisis:
Salario mínimo en 2025 (México): Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI) – https://www.gob.mx/conasami
Resolución COFECE contra Bachoco y Tyson (2015): Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica – https://www.cofece.mx/cofece-sanciona-a-bachoco-y-tyson-por-practicas-monopolicas-absolutas/
Regulación sanitaria de importación (Sonora y Sinaloa): Diario Oficial de la Federación / USDA APHIS – https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-94/section-94.30
Programas sociales en Sonora (ej. DIF Sonora): https://difson.gob.mx/
Estas referencias muestran que el tema no es solamente comercial, sino también legal, político y social.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with some of your takes, some of which are in the post but some points of disagreement or at least partial disagreement.
”Less cost-effective”- this could operate at a profit and avoid taking philanthropic funds. So it wouldn’t compete with other interventions. So even if it was less impactful in terms of welfare, I think it would be more cost-effective.
Existing local producers- I would be happy if they entered this market or if new producers did-I don’t think my proposal of export-oriented humane chicken would affect current local producers in any negative way- mexico currently exports almost no chicken to the united states.
Elasticity- you cite the same sources in my post. the big questions are do you feel bad about chickens raised in “humane farms” being born or not? and what is the humane chicken own-price elasticity- I extrapolated from poultry in general but it could be higher or lower.
My apologies, and thanks for clarifying. I’m thinking in terms of impact-per-animal relative to alternatives like corporate campaigns. From your side, the emphasis seems to be that this could operate as a profit-making business and avoid relying on philanthropy.
In real-world execution terms, here are the barriers your proposal would face:
Industry incentives
Mexico is a net importer, not exporter, of poultry. USDA FAS (2023) states that Mexico imports ~20% of its poultry consumption, mainly from the U.S.
Mexican producers make more money domestically. Firms like Bachoco and Pilgrim’s Mexico face strong domestic demand, where consumers eat ~70 lbs of chicken per capita per year. There’s no surplus incentive to export north.
Politics and lobbying
U.S. producers (Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue) lobby heavily to protect domestic market share. Tyson alone spends about $2 million per year on lobbying. This is modest compared to tech or pharma but enormous relative to the rest of the poultry industry, giving it disproportionate influence over USDA trade and labeling rules (OpenSecrets). Even if Mexican poultry were eligible, U.S. trade policy has historically limited poultry imports (see anti-dumping disputes with China, Russia, etc.).
As mentioned before, Bachoco dominates poultry production in Mexico across Sonora and Sinaloa. It has been sanctioned for price-fixing collusion (COFECE, 2015) and maintains deep ties through government contracts and social programs (COFECE ruling, DIF Sonora)
That’s why I’ve kept my focus on the practical barriers. Big poultry on both sides shapes the rules.