Albert Schweitzer Foundation and Good Food Institute were both Top Charities in 2020 and are now neither Top nor Standout Charities. What changed for you to make this update?
Update 12/13: ACE has now posted an explanation on their blog stating “The crux of our decision for each organization was related to culture issues that we identified during our evaluation process.”
I left GFI in early 2021 for a new opportunity, but stay close with them. Nothing has drastically changed or degraded there. If truly one allegation of “retaliation” against an employee is enough to totally knock off Top Charity, I’m suspicious of the process. We know that The Counter article on the challenges to cultivated meat wasn’t the cause—as has been pointed out—because New Harvest (a cultivated meat NGO) is still a Standout Charity. Reading between the lines, it seems they think GFI is overfunded.
GFI plans to focus future expansions on their science and technology, corporate engagement, and policy programs, as well as several potential new programs. GFI also plans to expand GFI Asia Pacific, GFI India, GFI Israel, GFI Europe, and GFI Brazil. For donors influenced by ACE wishing to donate to GFI, we estimate that the organization can continue to effectively absorb funding that we expect to come with a recommendation status.
Based on i) GFI’s own projections that their projected revenue will cover their expenditures, ii) our assessment that they have sufficient reserves, and iii) our assumption that a loss of recommendation status would result in a decrease in funding, we believe that overall, GFI continues to have room for $2,424,000 of additional funding in 2022. See our Programs criterion for our assessment of the effectiveness of their programs.
It is possible that a charity could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or that they could come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. If a charity receives a recommendation as Top Charity, we check in mid-year about the funding they’ve received since the release of our recommendations, and we use the estimates presented below to indicate whether we still expect them to be able to effectively absorb additional funding at that time.
Looks like multiple people reporting retaliation and fear of retaliation for voicing disagreements at the organization:
We feel it’s important to note that several of GFI’s current and former employees have reached out to us to provide input on our evaluation of GFI. According to those who contacted ACE and responded to the culture survey, there appears to be several employees (current and former) reporting both retaliation and a fear of retaliation from top leadership for voicing disagreements at the organization. Because ACE prioritizes the confidentiality of those reports, we did not share details of the reports with GFI’s leadership, and therefore they have not conducted a full investigation to verify the reports.
We think that GFI’s focus on cell-cultured products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the longer term, as cell-cultured food potentially cause a considerable decrease in demand for farmed animal products. However, we are relatively uncertain about the price-competitiveness of cell-cultured products with conventional animal protein. Furthermore, the majority of impacts that GFI’s work has on animals are more indirect and may happen in the future. As such, the cost effectiveness of their work is more difficult to assess using our methods. We also have concerns about some reports of alleged retaliation by GFI’s top leadership toward current and former staff. We think that GFI could benefit from having an independent board. GFI has provided a detailed response to our assessment of their leadership and culture.
Their review for Albert Schweitzer Foundation gives the weaknesses as:
We have concerns about some reports of alleged discrimination or harassment that a few staff members believe were not handled appropriately. However, leadership has taken action to handle the complaints.
I’m pretty surprised ACE doesn’t discuss the reasoning behind the shift in this post, from Top to not even Standout seems like a major update and important to provide the reasoning for donors giving to these charities.
GFI would be happy to participate fully in an investigation of the complaints to better understand and address them, and we offered to hire an external investigator. ACE declined
Which makes is sound as though GFI were willing to make efforts to resolve/investigate these anonymous complaints but ACE were not willing to pursue this.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new, so it would be surprising if that was the real reason GFI was stripped of their title. Feels like ACE is burying the lede here.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new
For onlookers, articles that are strongly against cultured meat feasibility have appeared in the last 12 months:
The Counter article—“New research suggests the industry may be on a billion-dollar crash course with reality”.
Linch Zhang and Neil Dullaghan analysis—“Linch [turned] from a cultured meat optimist to being broadly pessimistic. Neil wants to be more agnostic until further research from Rethink Priorities and others.”
These two analysis draw a lot on the Humbird article, published in December 2020 , [Linch and Neil summarize] “Cheap at scale (<$200/kg) cultured meat with “wild-type” cells is simply not feasible”.
Linch and Neil at Rethink Priorities are very respected by EAs. At the same time, the non-EA, liberal Counter article also said the same thing with a distinct analysis, and I think EA opinion is further moved by corroborating “outside” views. The Humbird article is funded by Open Phil.
For changing EA opinion, I think the above is a very strong signal and would inform or change many minds. (This could explain changing ACE recommendations.)
I am writing this because onlookers may not get this sense of these updates in 2021.
My knowledge is not deep—honestly, Linch and Neil’s article is basically my education. If people don’t agree with the above, please let me know!
(Note: I agree with the concerns that currently dominate comments on this post and upvoted each such comment—there’s at least 5 different people who share them. The reason why New Harvest was recommended is not explained.)
The first of the concerns listed in the quoted paragraph predated this review, so it can’t be one of the considerations adduced for demoting GFI. From their 2020 review:
Work on cell-cultured products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the long term. If cell-cultured animal products become a competitive alternative, they could reach consumers with various food preferences and attitudes and reduce the consumption of animal products significantly. However, our impression is that it is relatively uncertain when cell-cultured animal products will be competitive because their success depends on progress in research, development, and legal conditions.
New Harvest is also listed as a standout charity in spite of (my impression is) an even narrower focus on cell-cultured product innovation than GFI (which also supports plant-based meat substitutes). I too would love some clarity from ACE on this.
New Harvest, which I think is great, also discontinued what I consider to be their major program (research grants) this year, so it’s a head scratcher.
Thanks! I’ve been thinking about my Pledge donations today, so this was helpful.
I feel pretty conflicted about this. There are lots of reasons one might not want to recommend charities with bad cultures – reputational risks and the effect of culture on effectiveness being two of the biggest.
That said, it’s striking to me that this justification makes absolutely no mention of the effectiveness of these organisations at helping animals.
Albert Schweitzer Foundation and Good Food Institute were both Top Charities in 2020 and are now neither Top nor Standout Charities. What changed for you to make this update?
Update 12/13: ACE has now posted an explanation on their blog stating “The crux of our decision for each organization was related to culture issues that we identified during our evaluation process.”
I left GFI in early 2021 for a new opportunity, but stay close with them. Nothing has drastically changed or degraded there. If truly one allegation of “retaliation” against an employee is enough to totally knock off Top Charity, I’m suspicious of the process. We know that The Counter article on the challenges to cultivated meat wasn’t the cause—as has been pointed out—because New Harvest (a cultivated meat NGO) is still a Standout Charity. Reading between the lines, it seems they think GFI is overfunded.
ACE concluded GFI had enough room for more funding:
Looks like multiple people reporting retaliation and fear of retaliation for voicing disagreements at the organization:
Their review for GFI gives the weaknesses as:
Their review for Albert Schweitzer Foundation gives the weaknesses as:
I’m pretty surprised ACE doesn’t discuss the reasoning behind the shift in this post, from Top to not even Standout seems like a major update and important to provide the reasoning for donors giving to these charities.
Of note: “ACE is not able to share any additional information about any of the anonymous allegations”, and yet ACE turned down GFI’s offer to investigate the complaints further:
Which makes is sound as though GFI were willing to make efforts to resolve/investigate these anonymous complaints but ACE were not willing to pursue this.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new, so it would be surprising if that was the real reason GFI was stripped of their title. Feels like ACE is burying the lede here.
For onlookers, articles that are strongly against cultured meat feasibility have appeared in the last 12 months:
The Counter article—“New research suggests the industry may be on a billion-dollar crash course with reality”.
Linch Zhang and Neil Dullaghan analysis—“Linch [turned] from a cultured meat optimist to being broadly pessimistic. Neil wants to be more agnostic until further research from Rethink Priorities and others.”
These two analysis draw a lot on the Humbird article, published in December 2020 , [Linch and Neil summarize] “Cheap at scale (<$200/kg) cultured meat with “wild-type” cells is simply not feasible”.
Linch and Neil at Rethink Priorities are very respected by EAs. At the same time, the non-EA, liberal Counter article also said the same thing with a distinct analysis, and I think EA opinion is further moved by corroborating “outside” views. The Humbird article is funded by Open Phil.
For changing EA opinion, I think the above is a very strong signal and would inform or change many minds. (This could explain changing ACE recommendations.)
I am writing this because onlookers may not get this sense of these updates in 2021.
My knowledge is not deep—honestly, Linch and Neil’s article is basically my education. If people don’t agree with the above, please let me know!
(Note: I agree with the concerns that currently dominate comments on this post and upvoted each such comment—there’s at least 5 different people who share them. The reason why New Harvest was recommended is not explained.)
The first of the concerns listed in the quoted paragraph predated this review, so it can’t be one of the considerations adduced for demoting GFI. From their 2020 review:
New Harvest is also listed as a standout charity in spite of (my impression is) an even narrower focus on cell-cultured product innovation than GFI (which also supports plant-based meat substitutes). I too would love some clarity from ACE on this.
New Harvest, which I think is great, also discontinued what I consider to be their major program (research grants) this year, so it’s a head scratcher.
ACE has now, after two weeks, posted an explanation on their blog. I’m also surprised that it took so long to provide an explaination.
Thanks! I’ve been thinking about my Pledge donations today, so this was helpful.
I feel pretty conflicted about this. There are lots of reasons one might not want to recommend charities with bad cultures – reputational risks and the effect of culture on effectiveness being two of the biggest.
That said, it’s striking to me that this justification makes absolutely no mention of the effectiveness of these organisations at helping animals.