The shrimp welfare project

This two thousand word article boils down to, 1) every dollar donated saves ~1,500 shrimp per year from agony in perpituaty and 2) saving 32 shrimp from agony is morally equivalent to saving 1 human from agony.

Neither of these points are well supported by the article. Nor are they well supported by the copious links scattered through the blog post.

For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved.

> For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved.

It's in the exact webpage linked there. You just didn't scroll down enough.

> Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum.

https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-we...

The purpose of a citation is to provide further evidence supporting the claim. This instead links to a ~thousand word article. A single sentence of which is relevant. Instead of supporting the claim, it instead restates the claim.

It's a primary source from the organization doing the partnership with Tesco. Why would they cite anything? Who would they cite?

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/293...

> It's a primary source

It's not a primary source. It's a one sentence summary of a secondary source. This[1] is the primary source of the Tesco commitment.

[1] https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/t...