No, crows aren’t cleaning up cigarette butts in Sweden 61%

By Andrew Paul24%

7/14/2026, 4:01:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 44.2% saturation with 212 hits. Analysis detected 1,547 faulty-reasoning hits from 480 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.9% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,230 of 20,883 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.60% of the article peer group.

It’s best to never underestimate a crow. 
Mounting evidence shows the jet black birds display an intelligence rarely seen in other animals. 
The corvids have cognitive abilities similar to great apes, the ability to count and recognize human faces, and even use improvised tools. 
So it’s understandable if you didn’t think twice after recently reading about the Swedish town of Södertälje. 
According to resurfaced posts on social media, the town located about 20 miles southwest of Stockholm is currently training crows to clean up all the cigarette butts littering its sidewalks and streets. 
But while Södertälje isn’t actually overseeing the experimental public utility project, the claim contains a kernel of truth. 
As the debunkers at Snopes.com explain, the idea was put forth to local civic leaders a few years ago. 
In 2022, a behavioralist named Hans Christian Hanssen presented a pitch for “Corvid Cleaning” during the city’s annual Science Week. 
The proposed project involved training wild crows to pick up cigarette trash and deposit them in specialized bins. 
These receptacles would then dispense a small amount of seeds as a reward for the birds’ efforts. 
Multiple outlets and social media accounts soon picked up on the story and an accompanying video. 
There was even an independent research assessment of the concept published in the Emerging Economies Cases Journal in 2024 touting Corvid Cleaning’s “potential to revolutionize urban litter management.” 
But beyond the initial buzz, it doesn’t look like Hanssen’s proposal progressed much further. 
The official Corvid Cleaners business venture ultimately filed for bankruptcy in October 2025, although the story itself went viral online again only a few weeks later. 
Since then, claims that Södertälje is still piloting a crow-based custodian service regularly resurface. 
It’s unclear why Corvid Cleaning shuttered last year, although the 2024 assessment may provide some clues. 
The study’s authors cited the “ethical implications and potential health impacts on the crow” among their chief concerns, as well as the public’s acceptance of the idea. 
It's not the first instance of crows nabbing cigarettes, either. 
In 2018, a French historical theme park made headlines for debuting its own trash-grabbing crows. 
In the end, it’s not necessarily if humans can train crows to clean up their trash, but should they train them to do it. 
If nothing else, the online misunderstanding serves as a helpful reminder that cigarette waste remains a major health concern for both people and the planet itself. 
The World Health Organization estimates humans throw away around 4.5 trillion filters every year, and that number may soon double. 
Cigarette butts build up in populated areas, as well as in more remote waterways, oceans, and forests. 
Once there, they can take decades to fully decay, all while releasing harmful chemicals into the environment. 
Whether with the help of intelligent crows or not, it’s a pollution issue that requires addressing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias4.8%This article: 3.3%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias3.3%This article: 15.2%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 11.9%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic11.9%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 3.3%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 10.4%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias20.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.9%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.3%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority28.3%This article: 5.0%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma5.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 5.4%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring5.4%This article: 6.3%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon6.3%This article: 9.0%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.4%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.3%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.8%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.3%Anecdotal14.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.9%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground10.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 44.2%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.6%Unattributed Quote44.2%This article: 6.7%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 38.1%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice38.1%This article: 13.3%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination13.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.6%

480 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers12%attributed speech421writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSnopes.com • 19 words • 100.0% coverageHans Christian Hanssen • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWorld Health Organization • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words34% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +93.8 ptsWriter: 6.2%Hans Christian Hanssen: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.5 ptsWriter: 43.5%Hans Christian Hanssen: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-41.1 ptsWriter: 41.1%Hans Christian Hanssen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Hans Christian Hanssen: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Hans Christian Hanssen: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.