Great post, and rhymes with some of the challenges I’ve observed in my own area of interest, tobacco harm reduction, particularly this part:
As far as I can tell, the movement responded to this by calling it humanewashing, and pushed harder for the BCC. But if McDonald’s actually did do all the things they said they would, the impact on the broilers would likely be more impactful than the BCC.
A number of large tobacco companies have developed products they claim are significantly less harmful than cigarettes and can serve to transition smokers away from them. If this is true, it’s a boon for public health, but many organizations in the field, including the WHO from which many regulators in LMICs take their cue, support banning them altogether despite criticism from non-industry affiliated experts who see their potential in reducing death and disease from smoking.
I get the impression that pragmatists in drug policy and animal welfare have quite a bit to learn from each other in advocating for sensible policies that avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The animal welfare situation strikes me as more complex than the tobacco policy analogue. Companies will often flock to the least demanding standard, and it’s questionable that most consumers will treat competing certifications as much more than acceptable vs. illegitimate. So one could worry that giving legitimacy to a McWelfare proposal would have undermined the attractiveness of the BCC for companies and consumers.
It strikes me as considerably less likely that consumers would fail to distinguish between full-harm tobacco, lower-harm tobacco, and abstinence. They are pretty self-evidently different in germane ways, minimizing the risk of consumer confusion or companies being able to pass off higher-harm interventions via safetywashing.
I think there’s some complexity (and a lot of confusion) in the tobacco story as well. The industry did try to trick consumers and regulators in the 1970′s that light cigarettes were less harmful when they themselves had evidence that that wasn’t the case. And now, the opposite is happening as misinformation has resulted in majorities of doctors believing nicotine causes cancer and majorities of consumers believing vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking.
Great post, and rhymes with some of the challenges I’ve observed in my own area of interest, tobacco harm reduction, particularly this part:
A number of large tobacco companies have developed products they claim are significantly less harmful than cigarettes and can serve to transition smokers away from them. If this is true, it’s a boon for public health, but many organizations in the field, including the WHO from which many regulators in LMICs take their cue, support banning them altogether despite criticism from non-industry affiliated experts who see their potential in reducing death and disease from smoking.
I get the impression that pragmatists in drug policy and animal welfare have quite a bit to learn from each other in advocating for sensible policies that avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The animal welfare situation strikes me as more complex than the tobacco policy analogue. Companies will often flock to the least demanding standard, and it’s questionable that most consumers will treat competing certifications as much more than acceptable vs. illegitimate. So one could worry that giving legitimacy to a McWelfare proposal would have undermined the attractiveness of the BCC for companies and consumers.
It strikes me as considerably less likely that consumers would fail to distinguish between full-harm tobacco, lower-harm tobacco, and abstinence. They are pretty self-evidently different in germane ways, minimizing the risk of consumer confusion or companies being able to pass off higher-harm interventions via safetywashing.
I think there’s some complexity (and a lot of confusion) in the tobacco story as well. The industry did try to trick consumers and regulators in the 1970′s that light cigarettes were less harmful when they themselves had evidence that that wasn’t the case. And now, the opposite is happening as misinformation has resulted in majorities of doctors believing nicotine causes cancer and majorities of consumers believing vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking.