Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
Thats what they pay the people who issue the certification to do.
Kinda the point....
|
And, predictably, you missed the point.
If humane treatment of animals was Earls real and primary goal, they could have worked with Canadian producers to ensure they worked only with companies that met their standards. They didn't even try. The lack of a random American lobby's registered trademark does not indicate a lack of humane treatment.
Personally, I think they wanted to condense down to a single supplier - which is their right - and wanted someone that could meet their needs on both sides of the border - which is also their right. And I think they hoped that buying into the "certified humane" trademark would generate positive press for them, especially with that 'modern hippy' demographic I already noted.
But they overestimated the value of that trademark - especially given it is a foreign one - and massively underestimated the blow back they would receive for abandoning Canadian producers.