[AftHurrahWinch]

Did you read the linked evidence that the "animal welfare" program was fake? What part of it did you interpret as fake? What evidence supports your conclusion that this is an example of "propaganda for nefarious purposes"?

I agree with the description in the linked document - defendants presented "substantial evidence that grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards", companies like McDonald's, Walmart, and Kroger demanded or required the animal welfare standards, the program was developed with input from a "Scientific Advisory Committee" of experts in animal reproductive welfare, and there was pressure from animal-rights groups and consumers for better treatment of hens.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.26...

> For their part, Defendants argued at trial that the UEP Certified Program was a bona fide effort to satisfy customer demand. In Defendants’ view, the UEP Certified Program was a natural response to pressure from animal-welfare groups, buyers, and end consumers. According to Defendants, they felt pressure to make life better for hens.

> In that vein, Defendants presented substantial evidence that the grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards. So did consumers. And so did animal-rights groups.

> For example, before adoption of the UEP Certified Program, Cal-Maine lost McDonald’s as a customer after McDonald’s demanded producers expand the size of cages for their hens. See Defs.’ Ex. 182. And within a few years of the creation of the UEP Certified Program, grocery chains like Walmart and Kroger would purchase eggs only from UEP Certified producers. See Defs.’ Exs. 329, 374, 639.

> According to Defendants, they were simply responding to market demand when they implemented the cage-space restrictions in the UEP Certified Program. The jury heard evidence that the UEP Certified Program was a legitimate animal-welfare program. Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the UEP created the standard after following the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Committee.

> That Committee consisted of an all-star team. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3085:25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong) (“I was very, very pleased. We put our dream team together.”). It was chaired by a leader in the field, Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, who has degrees in physiology, and specializes in the reproductive physiology of farm animals. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3074:19-25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong). Reproductive physiology of farm animals is what it sounds like – how animal reproduction works. Id. at 3075:1-10.

> In sum, the jury learned about the UEP Certified program, and about its standards. And the jury heard dueling views about the purpose of the program.

> Again, Plaintiffs alleged that the UEP Certified Program was a backdoor way to restrict supply. Plaintiffs told the jury that the program required the birds to have more space. More space equals fewer hens in each cage. And fewer hens means fewer eggs.

[ccorcos]

I’m sure there is real demand for animal welfare. But presumably that would have hurt profits which is why they weren’t doing it in the first place.

But once they discovered that it’s a convenient excuse to raise their profit margins, they hopped onboard.

[AftHurrahWinch]

I think that's a more defensible position than "fake 'animal welfare'" and "propaganda for nefarious purposes". I suppose one could see giving hens room to move as "a convenient excuse to raise profit margins", but perhaps it's more like using sustainable packaging to reduce shipping costs.

[ccorcos]

I’m just quoting the article… I don’t think they’re saying that animal welfare didn’t improve, but that the purpose of the program was an excuse to raise profit margins.

It’s not exactly greenwashing but it is used as a political tool nevertheless.