Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle
How the hell is not an attack on Canadian Beef when it's a certification that doesn't even exist in most jurisdictions? They are basically publicly telling the Canadian Beef industry that their standards are not good enough and they have to go elsewhere, when in actuality Canadian standards are higher.
|
Again, it's Alberta Beef farmers that decided they don't care enough to get certified. They left Earls no choice besides abandoning their plans or changing suppliers.
Also your last line is such horse ####. Obviously they're not or they would have been able to get this certification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
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.
|
I didn't miss the point. I agree with you that they don't really care about the treatment of animals. The whole reason any of these stupid certification things exist, whether it be this or the fair trade coffee or whatever else is out there is companies want the positive PR. Hence why they pay those institutions to do the leg work and certify these places.