I’m curious as to how you think about prioritizing different types of interventions that might reduce the suffering of farmed animals in very different ways, for example:
Working on reducing suffering through welfare reforms.
Working on reducing numbers of animals through diet change policies (e.g. plant-based default food policies) or behavior change messaging (e.g. pro-veg messages).
Working on reducing numbers of animals through increased alternative protein availability and consumption (e.g. plant-based meats, etc.).
Since each of these is a plausible way to help farmed animals, yet they’re very different strategic approaches, how do you all think about allocating your time and energy?
Thanks for your question. I think it is fair to say that the majority of RSPCA’s efforts to date have gone into your first option. We have skills, expertise, reach and resources to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of animals in this way through both our RSPCA Assured scheme, and through campaigning for changes to legislation and corporate behaviour. This work has resulted in real and significant (and evidenced) better lives for millions of animals than they would otherwise have lived.
However, we recognise that to get to a world without intensive farming, we also need to significantly reduce the number of animals farmed. We are developing our strategy here, but have already begun looking at the role of alternative protein in improving welfare (i.e. how could it have the most welfare benefit). For example we sponsored this report: https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/alt-proteins-animal-suffering/ which concludes: “If alternative proteins reach the 30% market share predicted by respondents by 2040, it would result in over 300 million fewer animals being raised in factory farms and slaughtered every year.”
As our strategy work develops in this area we will be considering how we best play our role in contributing to all three of these approaches.
Thanks for doing this AMA, Emma!
I’m curious as to how you think about prioritizing different types of interventions that might reduce the suffering of farmed animals in very different ways, for example:
Working on reducing suffering through welfare reforms.
Working on reducing numbers of animals through diet change policies (e.g. plant-based default food policies) or behavior change messaging (e.g. pro-veg messages).
Working on reducing numbers of animals through increased alternative protein availability and consumption (e.g. plant-based meats, etc.).
Since each of these is a plausible way to help farmed animals, yet they’re very different strategic approaches, how do you all think about allocating your time and energy?
Thanks for your question. I think it is fair to say that the majority of RSPCA’s efforts to date have gone into your first option. We have skills, expertise, reach and resources to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of animals in this way through both our RSPCA Assured scheme, and through campaigning for changes to legislation and corporate behaviour. This work has resulted in real and significant (and evidenced) better lives for millions of animals than they would otherwise have lived.
However, we recognise that to get to a world without intensive farming, we also need to significantly reduce the number of animals farmed. We are developing our strategy here, but have already begun looking at the role of alternative protein in improving welfare (i.e. how could it have the most welfare benefit). For example we sponsored this report: https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/alt-proteins-animal-suffering/ which concludes: “If alternative proteins reach the 30% market share predicted by respondents by 2040, it would result in over 300 million fewer animals being raised in factory farms and slaughtered every year.”
As our strategy work develops in this area we will be considering how we best play our role in contributing to all three of these approaches.