Hi everyone,
Recently we discovered Sinergia has been making false claims about helping millions of animals.
We believe this is an important issue because Sinergia receives millions of dollars in grants from EA organizations. Just recently, Open Philanthropy awarded them a $3.3 million grant.
We hope you find time to read our article.
Sinergia’s response:
As promised, Sinergia Animal shared this response with Vetted Causes 24 hours before publishing it here. Vetted Causes published this new post approximately 10 hours after we shared our response with them.
In summary, Sinergia is an organization that does not take credit for existing policies, non-existent commitments, or engage in misleading calculations to overestimate our impact. Many colleagues from the animal protection movement, as well as our own team, felt that the approach taken by Vetted Causes was intimidating and sensationalist, seemingly aimed at discrediting us.
We encourage readers to review this text in full to better understand our responses to Vetted Causes’ unfair and mistaken accusations.
Sinergia Animal has always strived to avoid exaggerations or misleading claims, ensuring that all our statements are based on careful analysis and honesty. While, like any organization, we may occasionally make mistakes, we have consistently been transparent and open to feedback from third parties—such as Animal Charity Evaluators, FarmKind, and various foundations that provide us with grants—who wish to review and provide candid evaluation of our achievements and the methods we use to estimate impact. It would not have been different with Vetted Causes if they had contacted us and revealed their identities, and a more detailed mission and ethical guidelines applying to their evaluations.
We sincerely hope that other charities do not have to face a similar situation. Like many others in our field, we have dedicated teams focused on running bold initiatives to win victories for animals. We are dealing with significant challenges, including the threat of legal action from powerful corporations, all while managing a range of internal priorities.
In this context, we do not think our movement, which is often thin in financial and time resources, needs public attacks from third parties claiming to be part of an altruistic community, particularly when those attacks are made anonymously, without prior communication or an opportunity to respond.
We respectfully invite Vetted Causes to reconsider their methodology, particularly by providing charities with the right of reply before publishing reviews. We also encourage them to improve the accuracy of their assessments by conducting primary research with country specialists if they don’t want to rely exclusively on information provided by the evaluated charities, rather than relying solely on secondary online sources and Google Translate for technical translations.
Additionally, we call for greater transparency by revealing the individuals involved in their evaluation work, including their nationality, language skills, and brief biographies.
Finally, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the members of the community who raised concerns about these issues before we had the chance to respond. For those who may have been concerned by the accusations, we kindly ask that in the future they avoid jumping to conclusions before hearing the perspective of the organization involved.
“Vetted Causes: Example: JBS (Seara)
JBS is a multinational meat processing company.[9] Sinergia claims credit for securing two pig welfare commitments from JBS, both relating to their Brazilian brand Seara.[10]
We will address each of these alleged commitments below.
Alleged Commitment 1
Sinergia claims that “JBS published in 2023 the commitment to banning ear notching by 2023.”[11] As evidence for this claim, Sinergia provided a link to one of JBS’s animal welfare pages.[12] However, the link does not state JBS committed to this. We also checked every archived version of the link and could not find this commitment.[13] Further, in 2024, JBS stated that they still use ear notching due to “Difficulty in finding alternatives that ensure process traceability.”[14]
At one point, JBS had a tentative plan to stop ear notching by 2027, but it was later abandoned (currently, we are unsure if it has been reinstated).[14][15][16] This plan was the closest thing we could find to the commitment Sinergia alleges.
Although this commitment does not exist, Sinergia estimates that this commitment has helped 8,700,000 piglets per year since 2023, and claims 70% of the credit for helping these piglets.[17]”
Sinergia’s response:
Vetted Causes made an error in their analysis. JBS’ commitment to abolish ear cropping does exist. JBS clearly states in Brazilian Portuguese on its website: “100% da mossa abolida até 2027,” which translates to “100% of ear cropping will be abolished by 2027.” The term “mossa” refers to ear cropping in Brazilian Portuguese, and further explanations can be found on industry websites (1, 2). This commitment was also published in JBS’ 2022 Animal Welfare Report, published in October 2023 (page 33).
Sinergia’s Brazilian team, which is native in Portuguese but not English, made a minor mistake in the spreadsheet shared with ACE. It stated “Committed to banning ear notching by 2023,” when it should have said “Committed to banning ear notching in 2023.” Sinergia acknowledges that this mistake shifts the meaning of the sentence and it has since been corrected.
We strongly urge anyone analyzing our work, or the work of any animal welfare NGO operating in a language they are not native in, to consult an animal welfare specialist from the relevant country for technical translations. This is especially important when accusations, such as “taking credit for non-existing commitments,” are made without offering the charity an opportunity to respond.
The reference used by Vetted Causes, claiming that JBS told another NGO this commitment had been “abandoned,” is also incorrect. The report cited by Vetted Causes states that while JBS had initially set a deadline of 2027, they later indicated that no firm deadline is set due to “difficulty in finding alternatives that ensure process traceability.” At no point does the report say JBS declared the commitment has been abandoned.
When Sinergia monitored the commitment in 2023, we could not have predicted JBS’ 2024 declaration in this report. Moreover, officially, the commitment remains valid and unchanged on JBS’ website. Sinergia’s team in Brazil continues to work with JBS to ensure the commitment is upheld and implemented by 2027, despite JBS’ uncertainties about the deadline.
In summary: JBS’ commitment exists, as demonstrated above, and it was secured through numerous meetings between Sinergia and JBS, along with the pressure from the first edition of Pigs in Focus. Other NGOs have also engaged with JBS to secure this and other similar commitments.
Vetted Causes:
“Alleged Commitment 2
Sinergia claims that in 2023, JBS published a commitment to not use gestation crates in all
new projects, with a “Transition deadline” of 2023.[18]
As evidence for this claim, Sinergia provided a link to one of the JBS’s animal welfare pages.[12] However, the gestation crate policy that the alleged commitment references was already listed on JBS’s website in 2020, and has been in effect since that point.[19]
Thus, Sinergia is presenting a pre-existing company policy as a new commitment.
Sinergia claims that this alleged commitment has helped 290,000 sows (mother pigs) per year since 2023.[20] Further, Sinergia claims they deserve 70% of the credit for helping these sows.[21] However, Sinergia deserves no credit for helping these sows, since they are simply taking credit for ending a practice that had already ended.”
Sinergia’s response:
Unfortunately, the issue here seems to stem from Vetted Causes drawing conclusions without consulting Brazilian specialists, including Sinergia or other NGOs working on this issue in Brazil.
The JBS webpage referenced by Vetted Causes states: “A Seara assumiu o compromisso de realizar a transição da gestação individual para gestação coletiva em 100% da produção de suínos até 2025… Novos projetos, ampliações e adequações já são construídos de acordo com esse padrão.” In English: “Seara committed to transitioning from individual gestation housing to group housing in 100% of its production by 2025… New projects, expansions, and adaptations will adhere to this standard.”
This group housing commitment was announced by JBS in 2015 (not 2020, as Vetted Causes claims). Sinergia’s founder, Carolina Galvani, and our entire team in Brazil are fully aware of this, as Carolina was directly involved in negotiating this commitment with JBS at the time (1, 2, 3). We would never claim credit for such an outdated commitment in 2023.
In Brazilian Portuguese, “gestação coletiva” means “group housing.” For Brazilian pig producers, including JBS, group housing usually means sows are kept in individual gestation crates for 28 to 42 days (35 days in JBS’ case) before transitioning to group housing.
Since 2018, Sinergia has been advocating for a better system, known as “cobre e solta” (pre-implantation system). In this system, sows are confined in gestation crates for no more than 7 days to confirm pregnancy, significantly reducing their suffering. This is a crucial improvement, as it limits their confinement to a much shorter period, compared to up to 42 days in the previous system.
In 2023, JBS made a new commitment, which Sinergia has clearly outlined. This commitment is the “cobre e solta” (pre-implantation) system, as stated on the JBS web page Sinergia provided to ACE. The page says: “O manejo ‘cobre e solta’ está inserido em todos os novos projetos,” meaning, “The pre-implantation system is integrated into all new projects.” This new commitment, finalized in 2023 after negotiations with Sinergia and other animal protection organizations, represents a real step forward.
Furthermore, JBS’s 2022 Animal Welfare Report, published in October 2023 (page 33), confirms this new commitment.
To clarify JBS’ progress: sows in existing units (under the 2015 policy) could be confined in gestation crates for up to 35 days (group housing). In newly built units, the maximum confinement is 7 days (pre-implantation system). While this is a step forward, Sinergia is not satisfied. We will continue advocating for all units, both new and existing, to adopt the pre-implantation system as the only true phase-out of gestation crates.
Regarding the impact of Sinergia’s work:
Sinergia includes the total number of sows in JBS’s supply chain in our 2023 impact spreadsheet, rather than focusing solely on the new units under the 2023 policy. This is because our Pigs In Focus program enforces all of JBS’ previous commitments, with a particular focus on gestation crates, the practice causing the most prolonged suffering for pigs.
Our team in Brazil works directly with companies, warning them that weakening or deleting any commitments will result in losing points in our Pigs in Focus ranking and possibly trigger a public pressure campaign exposing broken promises.
We have used this approach effectively before. For example, when Aurora moved its group housing commitment deadline from 2026 to 2045, Sinergia launched a successful online campaign urging them to revert to the original 2026 deadline.
Sinergia is deeply committed to the implementation of these policies. We will continue pressuring major pig producers in Brazil with various tactics. We have already started asking some to undergo independent audits to verify the full implementation of their commitments by their deadlines. If necessary, we will escalate the issue using public pressure tactics.
Vetted Causes:
“Other Meat Processors
Sinergia claims they secured pig welfare commitments from six other meat processors in 2023.[22] However, all of these claims exhibit issues similar to the ones above.
For brevity, we’ve highlighted just one issue with Sinergia’s claims for every other meat processor Sinergia allegedly secured a commitment from in 2023.
If there are ‘similar issues’ with six other commitments, please tell us what they are so we have the opportunity to check and provide explanations.
Practice Was Already Illegal Prior to Alleged Commitments
Sinergia claims credit for getting Alegra, Alibem, Master Agroindustrial, and Pif Paf Alimentos (all Brazilian meat processors) to end their use of teeth clipping on pigs.[23][40][41] However, teeth clipping pigs was already illegal in Brazil prior to the alleged commitments.[23][24][40][41]”
Sinergia’s Response:
Once again, we find that Vetted Causes’ secondary research tools are insufficient for addressing the complexity of this issue. Primary research, such as consulting with country specialists, would have been a more appropriate approach.
While teeth clipping has been declared ‘prohibited’ in Brazil, it remains widely practiced in pig farming. Vetted Causes refers to a normative (an administrative act) in Brazil that states:
“Art. 38. The procedure for trimming (grinding) the teeth of piglets shall be performed only when there is significant injury to the mother’s mammary apparatus or the piglets’ faces.
§1º Under the circumstances described in the main article, only the final third of the tooth may be trimmed.
§2º The practice of teeth clipping is prohibited.
Art. 39. The trimming of boar tusks shall only be carried out:
I—when necessary;
II—by a trained professional;
III—with anesthesia and analgesia to manage pain.”
Sinergia’s legal team has already analyzed this matter. The conclusion is that, without a formal law, companies can justify non-compliance by citing the normative’s lack of legal force. They can also argue that the absence of specific legislation on pig welfare allows them to disregard the normative.
However, since this normative is an administrative act, it can result in administrative sanctions within the body that issued it. Enforcement, though, requires a complaint or inspection, and even then, penalties are not guaranteed.
Furthermore, the oversight and enforcement of animal welfare regulations in Brazil’s animal agriculture sector are notoriously weak, which makes it difficult to hold farms accountable for practices like teeth clipping.
Sinergia Animal urges the largest pig producing companies to commit to banning teeth clipping and only carry out teeth grinding (trimming) in exceptional circumstances. This is critical for ensuring effective policy implementation, as the practice remains prevalent in Brazilian pig farms despite the existence of an unenforced normative that can be contested and fail to produce real consequences for non-compliant farms.
By demonstrating transparency and securing commitments from major pig producers, we can hold a significant share of the industry accountable and push for the elimination of this practice, until a comprehensive governmental ban is enacted, with enforceable consequences.
Sinergia also noted that on its footnotes, Vetted Causes says: “Sinergia states that several companies committing to “banning teeth clipping/disbudding.” Teeth clipping and disbudding are two separate procedures, but disbudding is not a practice that can be done on pigs. Disbudding refers to horn removal, and pigs do not have horns. We would also like to note that in the alternative that Sinergia meant “teeth disbudding,” this is not a procedure that exists . Also, ACE interpreted what Sinergia said to be “disbudding” rather than “teeth disbudding” (see Cell AB12).”
Sinergia Animal would like to clarify that by ‘teeth disbudding,’ we meant ‘teeth grinding’ or ‘teeth trimming,’ a common practice in the Brazilian pig industry. We acknowledge that ‘grinding’ would have been a more accurate translation for an international audience. ACE was correct to consider this procedure, as it does exist.
Vetted Causes:
“Pre-Existing Policies Presented as New Commitments
Sinergia claims credit for getting Aurora to end their use of surgical castration on pigs, but the company’s website already indicated they don’t use the surgical castration on pigs prior to the alleged commitment.[25][26]”
Sinergia’s Reply:
The allegation presented above is incorrect.
In 2022, Aurora made the following statement regarding castration:
“Em relação à castração cirúrgica dos leitões, a Cooperativa preconiza a adoção da castração imunológica, promovendo maior conforto e menor estresse aos animais. Porém, quando não for possível, a prática deve ser realizada, por recomendação técnica, com uso de anestésico.”
Translation: “Regarding the surgical castration of piglets, the Aurora Cooperative recommends the adoption of immunological castration, providing greater comfort and less stress to the animals. However, when this is not possible, the practice should be carried out, according to technical recommendations, with the use of anesthetic.”
This was not considered a proper commitment by Sinergia Animal, as it was a recommendation and not a mandatory rule for all procedures. Additionally, it did not specify the use of analgesia (combined with anesthetic) during surgical castration.
In 2023, Aurora revised its position on its website, stating unequivocally that only immunocastration would be carried out, and eliminating the “recommendation” aspect. The revised statement reads:
“Surgical castration: Aurora Coop only uses immunocastration, as it is a less invasive practice for animals.”
Sinergia engaged in negotiations with the company to ensure this improvement. We now consider Aurora’s 2023 statement a proper commitment to ending surgical castration.
Vetted Causes:
“Sinergia claims credit for getting BRF to end their use of gestation crates in new projects, but BRF had already implemented a policy requiring this prior to the alleged commitment.[27][28] In all of these cases, Sinergia is taking credit for ending a practice that had already ended.”
Sinergia’s Reply:
Once again, Vetted Causes is making a poorly informed statement on this topic, similar to their comments regarding JBS. They are conflating two separate commitments from BRF, each addressing different systems: group housing and pre-implantation system.
In 2014, BRF committed to transitioning all of its units to group housing systems, which would eliminate the continuous use of gestation crates across all its units (not just new ones) by 2026. However, this commitment still allowed for sows to remain in gestation crates for up to 28 days. Sinergia is well aware of this commitment, as its founder was a key negotiator involved in securing it (1, 2, 3).
In 2023, BRF made a more substantial commitment, outlined on their website and in their 2023 Annual Report (page 66). This new commitment involves implementing the “cobre e solta” (pre-implantation) system in their new units, with immediate effect. As previously explained, this system represents an improvement for sow welfare, as it limits their time in gestation crates to just 7 days, compared to the previous 28 days.
It is unfair for an unknown third party to accuse Sinergia of ‘faking’ this new commitment. In reality, Sinergia’s team faced significant challenges, including being sued by BRF, when we launched one of our boldest campaigns targeting the company, which called for the adoption of the pre-implantation system as one of its key demands (1, 2).
Sinergia will continue to work with BRF and other companies to encourage the adoption of pre-implantation systems across all their units, rather than allowing a mixed group housing system that still permits sows to be confined in gestation crates for 28-42 days.
Vetted Causes:
“Sinergia Claims That With $1 They can “Liberat[e]” 354 Piglets from “Brutal Confinement”
Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) analyzed Sinergia’s work, and wrote them an evaluation.[42] According to ACE’s evaluation:
307.9 piglets affected per $1 is the “Lower bound” on the cost-effectiveness of Sinergia’s work in 2023 to secure pig welfare commitments, with a “Best guess” of 354.1 piglets affected per $1. [29]
Based on this, Sinergia claims that with $1, they are capable of “Liberating [...] 354 piglets [...] from brutal confinement and painful procedures.”[8]
This cost-effectiveness metric is inflated for several reasons, including:
This metric is based on false claims provided by Sinergia (see above).”
Sinergia’s response:
We don’t make false claims, as explained above.
Vetted Causes:
“This metric is based on false claims provided by ACE. For example, ACE claims that teeth clipping pigs is legal in Brazil until 2030, even though it has been illegal since February 1, 2021 (years prior to when this metric was calculated).[24][30][40][41] This resulted in ACE giving Sinergia credit for helping millions of piglets in Brazil through teeth clipping commitments, even though teeth clipping was already illegal prior to the alleged commitments.[24][31][40][41]”
Sinergia’s response:
This issue has already been explained above.
Vetted Causes:
“Under this metric, a factory farmed piglet (male or female) is considered to have been “Liberat[ed …] from brutal confinement” if they are simply not surgically castrated. [43]”
This issue has already been explained above.
Vetted Causes:
“Surgical castration involves removing piglets’ testicles, which female piglets do not have.[32][33] In spite of this, ACE gave Sinergia credit for helping over 30 million female piglets through surgical castration commitments that Sinergia allegedly secured.[34]”
Sinergia’s response:
Sinergia reviewed the spreadsheet and there was only one commitment (Aurora) that involved only surgical castration and female pigs were accounted for by Sinergia’s team. Other commitments involving mutilations still account for females, as they involve teeth clipping and ear cropping, which are likely to be applied to female piglets too.
We have been informed by ACE that their estimations are still correct because AIM’s SADs calculations already took into “prevalence” of castration (taking out female piglets) but the latter was stated incorrectly because they didn’t include the same discount. ACE will provide more details about this topic when they share their response.
Vetted Causes:
“Although ACE contributed to inflating this metric, Sinergia remains responsible since their claims played a key role in inflating it. Additionally, Sinergia should have validated ACE’s calculations before advertising this metric to donors.[8]”
Sinergia’s response:
Sinergia didn’t inflate anything. The accusation of not validating ACE’s calculations is wrong. We did review ACE’s calculations before they were released.
Vetted Causes:
“Below are several examples of Sinergia’s advertisements.
Sinergia’s Response:
To clarify, the numbers highlighted in this post were accurate during the match funding campaign that we ran in Nov-Dec 2024. This is not an issue raised in this post, but we wanted to be sure we addressed the apparent discrepancy in case readers were confused.
“Pigs in Brazil live in horrible conditions, and it is inappropriate for Sinergia to make false claims about “Liberating” them.
a factory farmed piglet (male or female) is considered to have been “Liberat[ed …] from brutal confinement” if they are simply not surgically castrated.”
This claim relates to a line in our EA Forum post published in December 2024. The full sentence reads:
Every $1 you donate to Sinergia Animal impacts…[...]Liberating 21 mother pigs (or 354 piglets) from brutal confinement and painful procedures
We concede that this sentence could have been better worded. But, “Liberating mother pigs from brutal confinement” is a fair depiction of our work, much of which involves securing commitments to prevent the long-term confinement of sows in gestation crates.
”Liberating piglets from painful procedures” is also a fair description, given that our work also involves securing commitments to spare piglets from painful mutilations. The use of the word “liberate” here can be debated, given the extreme inherent cruelty of factory farming, but we stand by its use in this context. Sows are spared confinement through our work; piglets are spared from painful procedures.
This sentence could have been split in two; to make it clearer who was being liberated from what (mother pigs or piglets, from confinement or pain).
We are grateful this has been brought to our attention, and upon publishing this response, we will edit our EA Forum post to make this wording clearer to all. We do not believe we have repeated this wording in other places, but we will review our other fundraising materials to make sure.
At all times, we referred potential donors to our ACE review, which makes clear the distinction between our work on sows and piglets. We hope this has averted any potential confusion, but if not, then we hope that this response and our edits to the EA Forum post will correct the issue.
Instances where we correctly distinguish between our work on sows and piglets (and have done since the ACE review was published):
Our main donation page
Our 2024 annual report*
ACE’s “best guess” is that our campaigns could impact 53.5 hens per $1. In ACE’s cost-effectiveness summary, they initially quoted the figure of 54 hens per dollar, so we did too in order not to cause confusion. However, ACE has now edited this summary, and we have made the decision internally to under-estimate the figure. We now say that we impact 53 hens per $1.
Sinergia’s Additional Information on Our Pig Welfare Program Impact:
Sinergia would like to offer additional context regarding the impact of our pig welfare program, which was not adequately addressed in Vetted Causes’ evaluation.
Rather than inflating our numbers, Sinergia chose not to provide estimates for three major commitments secured in 2023, despite ACE’s request. These are:
Grupo Dia – One of the world’s largest food retailers, with over 240 locations in Brazil, committed to phasing out the continuous use of gestation crates by 2028 across all operations in Brazil.
Habib’s – One of Brazil’s largest fast food chains, with over 300 restaurants, committed to phasing out the continuous use of gestation crates by 2026.
Ceratti – A major processed meat brand in Brazil, committed to ceasing the purchase of pig meat from producers using gestation crates continuously by 2028.
While ACE requested estimations of animals impacted by these commitments, Sinergia refrained from providing these figures due to the absence of a reliable methodology for accurate calculations. This decision reflects our commitment to transparency and integrity, as we prioritize presenting data we can confidently support. We would rather leave some of our impact uncalculated than risk overstating it.
Additionally, we would like to address a comment regarding the number of piglets impacted by Pif Paf’s commitments. Our team made an error in reporting the number of piglets on the spreadsheet (22 piglets per sow instead of 30 piglets per sow, the correct number we used to estimate the impact) , which has now been corrected. We adopt the following formula to estimate the number of piglets impacted per year per commitment:
Total number of sows x 2.5 (deliveries per year) x 12 (weaned piglets per delivery) = 30 piglets per sow per year
Applying this formula to Pif Paf’s case (34,090 sows) results in an estimated 1,022,700 piglets, as we stated. To the best of our knowledge, there is no mistake in this calculation when considering the methodology used.
The genetic potential of sows in Brazil today allows them to have 2 to 2.5 deliveries per year [1,2] and reach an average of 14.5 piglets per litter [1, 2] and 12.5 weaned piglets [1] [2]. To avoid exaggerations, our calculations were based on a conservative approach as we use the number of weaned piglets (which in Brazil usually occurs between 21 and 28 after birth) instead of piglets born alive. The mutilations that these animals undergo on farms generally occur in the first week of life, [1] that is, before weaning. In other words, the final number of piglets positively impacted by policies to end mutilations is possibly lower than the actual impact.
We also explored another method for calculating this figure and found a similar conclusion regarding the policies’ positive impact on piglets’ lives. For instance, let’s consider Pif Paf, which has 34,090 sows. By applying the formula mentioned above and using the average rate of deliveries per sow per year (2.2 deliveries per sow per year), along with the average number of piglets born alive per delivery (14 piglets), we estimate that 1,049,972 piglets would be spared from painful mutilations. This results in around 30.8 piglets per sow per year.
The total figure of around 30 piglets per sow per year that Sinergia works with is corroborated by academic research [1] conducted in Brazil which indicates that in well-managed Brazilian herds (such as those expected from suppliers of leading producers), sows typically deliver about 32.5 live-born piglets and 30.5 weaned piglets per sow per year.
Vetted Causes:
“Conclusion
Brazil is the world’s 4th largest pork producer.[35] In 2023, they slaughtered 46.5 million pigs.[36] Sinergia estimates that the commitments they secured in 2023 alone help over 30 million piglets per year—all in Brazil, and claims they deserve 70% of the credit for helping these piglets.[37]
Pigs in Brazil live in horrible conditions, and it is inappropriate for Sinergia to make false claims about “Liberating” them.[4][8][38][39] Furthermore, Sinergia makes these claims to advertise their charity and encourage donations.[4][8]
Charities must be diligent when making claims about their effectiveness. Donors trust charities to report their achievements and impact accurately. Charities that seriously violate this trust should not be funded. Accordingly, we do not recommend donating to Sinergia.”
Sinergia’s response:
Sinergia firmly believes that our efforts have been integral in securing these commitments, and we possess documented evidence to substantiate this.
Our fundraising team is highly skilled at crafting clear, impactful, and truthful messages to engage potential donors. It is important to emphasize that not all of these donors are part of the Effective Altruism (EA) community. While we have no immediate plans to alter our approach, we remain open to feedback and will address any relevant concerns brought to our attention by external parties.
We maintain a strong, transparent relationship with our donors, inviting them to participate in biannual calls with our Executive Director, where they are encouraged to ask any questions they deem important. Therefore, we respectfully reject the unfounded accusation that we have violated anyone’s trust.
Regarding the perception of Brazil as a ‘low-trust’ country, as some comments suggest, we would like to note that there are numerous dedicated and professional animal protection advocates operating here. Additionally, we believe it is important to share the credentials of our team responsible for pig welfare in Brazil. The combined experience of Sinergia’s Brazilian team exceeds 60 years of unwavering dedication to advancing farmed animal protection, as outlined in our documentation.
Finally, while we are not endorsed by Vetted Causes, we welcome this distinction, as we have significant concerns about their lack of transparency—particularly regarding their identity and motivations—and their approach to evaluations. Specifically, we question their failure to provide charities an opportunity to respond to critiques, as well as the adequacy of their research methods.
Although Sinergia downplays this as a “minor mistake,” it results in Sinergia receiving credit for helping millions of JBS’s pigs who were not impacted (i.e. JBS pigs who have their ears notched from 2023 to 2026)..[1] This is not a “minor mistake.” Further, Sinergia claims that this mistake has been corrected, but all that was fixed was changing the phrase “by 2023” to “in 2023” in Cell K10.[2] The impact calculations were not fixed, and still incorrectly credit Sinergia for helping millions of JBS’s pigs who were not impacted.[1]
Sinergia/ACE (meaning Sinergia or ACE) also deleted evidence that suggests this was not a mistake/translation issue. Sinergia’s original spreadsheet contained a cell that included the following statement: “JBS published in 2023 the commitment to banning ear notching by 2023.” This was Cell W10, but it was deleted right before Sinergia responded. [3]
If this was a mistake/translation issue, why did Sinergia know how to use “by” and “in” in Cell W10, but not in the Cell with the alleged mistake? Additionally, why did Sinergia/ACE delete Cell W10 right before you published your response, and not make any note stating Cell W10 was deleted? Column W is the only part of the spreadsheet that has been deleted, and all other changes in the spreadsheet have been explicitly noted in the spreadsheet.
Note: Cell R5 of the spreadsheet further suggests this was not a mistake/translation issue, as it states the “Transition deadline” for the JBS’s alleged ear notching commitment is 2023.
Pig Welfare Commitments Sinergia Allegedly Secured in 2023 - See Cells R10 Through Y10
Pig Welfare Commitments Sinergia Allegedly Secured in 2023 - See Row 10
Sinergia/ACE deleted Column W (which contained Cell W10) shortly before Sinergia published their response. We know that Column W had not been deleted as of 3/15/2025, as we took a screen recording of the spreadsheet on that date (skip to 1:39, notice Column W has not been deleted yet). We know that Column W had been deleted as of 3/20/2025 (the day before Sinergia published their response) since we downloaded the spreadsheet on that date. We also have a recording of Sinergia’s spreadsheet from 3/21/2025 where Column W has been deleted. Sinergia published their response on 3/21/2025.
“JBS published in 2023 the commitment to banning ear notching by 2023” is a really clunky way of saying two things about the same year (ie I’d expect “by the end of the year” or something, instead of “by 2023”), how sure are you the 2nd 2023 couldn’t be a typo?
First, I want to commend Vetted Causes for doing this. The EA community loves criticism as a concept but rarely likes it when it comes to the object level. This is quite the object level critique and we see how our soldier mindset quickly arose. I’m hesitant to give any pushback on this since I want the cost to doing this work (which is quite hard) to be as low as possible. With that said, I want to
When it comes to Sinergia, I have quite the strong prior that they would be effective. Sinergia is what you would get if you took THL-style corporate campaigns, put them in the Global South where most of the animals on Earth live, in worse conditions than in the Global North, get way cheaper talent since salaries are lower and put in a kick-ass CEO in Carolina. This is kind of a recipe for an effective charity.
For Vetted Causes, I think your critiques would do better, be more productive for the community and frankly, be better received by the EA community if you would first get feedback from the organization that you are evaluating. You don’t even need to change anything based on what they reply. I would recommend you use your judgement in evaluating what they have to say if it corrects any factual errors but the rights to the final wording of the post remain your own. This has three main advantages
It corrects factual errors that might not be public
It gives the organization a chance to give their perspective on things to the public
The community wants this as a norm (for reasons 1&2 and you should want a strong reason to violate a norm) and so your critique will be better accepted if you do this. Again, you don’t need to make any changes if the organizations response isn’t convincing from your POV.
I again want to commend VettedCauses for doing these. They aren’t easy. I’ll pre-commit at least $1000 USD to VettedCauses for their next critique (provided it’s a serious one) and they run it by the organization in question for feedback.
(I don’t really want to engage much on this because I found it pretty emotionally draining last time — I’ll just leave this comment and stop here):
I think asking for feedback prior to publishing these seems really important. To be clear, I’m very sympathetic to the overall claim! I suspect that most published estimates of the impact of marginal dollars in the farmed animal space are way too high (maybe even by orders of magnitude)
I also think the items you raise are important questions for Sinergia to answer!
But, I think getting feedback would be really helpful for you:
You cite multiple places where Sinergia claims impact, but you cite evidence to the contrary, such as company statements on their sites either existing prior to Sinergia’s claimed date, or not existing at all.
The experience of corporate campaigners universally is that the degree to which you should take company statements about their animal welfare commitments seriously is relatively low. It’s just a regular fact of corporate campaigning in many countries that companies have statements on their websites that they either don’t follow or don’t intend to follow. Often, companies have weaselly language that lets them get out of a commitment, e.g. “we aspire to do X by Y year,” etc.
The language in company statements matter a ton — when I ran corporate campaigns, a major US restaurant company I was campaigning on put up a verbatim version of the Better Chicken Commitment with all of the specifics removed (e.g. “reduce stocking density” instead of “reduce stocking density to X lbs/sqft”) and did nothing in their supply chain. This allowed them to tell journalists / others that we were just lying that they had not made the commitment. I worry that Google translating pages loses nuance that might matter here. Google Translating Brazilian law also seems like a huge stretch as evidence — and taking the law at face value as a non-Brazilian lawyer (and not evidence about the interpretation and enforcement of the law) seems like a mistake.
Getting a commitment on the website is important, but it’s only a portion of work. Actually getting the company to make the change is way more work.
I know nothing about the JBS case, but can tell you that there are many times where a company has a commitment, then behind the scenes the actual work is several years of getting them to honor it. It seems completely plausible, and even routine, that the actual impact credit should go to an organization working to get a company to act on an existing policy, as opposed to getting them to put up the policy in the first place. I don’t know anything about Sinergia’s claims here, but seems totally plausible that much of their impact comes from this invisible work that you wouldn’t learn about without asking them.
I suspect that in your critique, some of your claims are warranted, but others might have much more complicated stories behind them, such as an organization getting a company to actually follow through on a commitment, or getting a law to be enforced. I think that feedback would help draw out where these critiques are accurate, and where they are missing the mark.
I just want to add some colour as someone from a Western country (Canada) that has lived a couple years in Latin America. The rule of law is simply followed far less and it is a far lower trust society. However much American companies follow corporate commitments, I expect less of Brazilian ones.
Also, companies in Western countries don’t follow the law all the time. In Latin America, the law is a bit of a joke and there is more corruption. The fact that it was already illegal updates me ~0 on what a factory farm in Brazil is doing.
Serious question: doesn’t that cut against the efficacy of corporate campaigns? How would an organization ever know if the company was respecting their promise?
Yeah, this is a big challenge in the corporate campaign space, especially in places with weak legal systems and low enforcement. But this links to why corporate campaigns can be more effective than policy campaigns. Getting policy commitments on paper in a country with poor rule of law might have very limited impact because no-one’s incentivised to uphold the laws, but there’s a decent chance that an international, or niche company with high reputational awareness is incentivised to try and maintain a higher welfare supply chain.
So you might get a high-end hotel chain in a lower-income country that genuinely wants to shift to cage-free eggs after a campaign. They make a commitment, you arrange meetings with them and their suppliers to help them meet these commitments, and track whether their numbers match up. This can work even if the legal system functions poorly.
People in the Bharat Initiative for Accountability (BIA) and Global Food Partners (GFP) are doing stuff like this in India and Southeast Asia. It takes loads of work on both the supply and demand side, as you might expect, which might cut against the higher-end effectiveness estimates, but it’s definitely something people have in mind.
People from these teams spoke about this recently on the How I Learned To Love Shrimp podcast (here and here).
I think the problem of entities lying about what they’re doing (especially in low trust regions) is wider than just corporate campaigns. Ultimately charities have to make some sort of decision on how and if to audit whether the outcomes they’re expecting are the ones they’re getting.
Asking whether Sinergia had any way to evaluate whether companies were complying (before or after their intervention) is I think the main reason that it would have been good for VettedCauses to share their initial findings before publication. Sinergia appear to have Brazilian staff focused on this specific issue so they shouldn’t have been ignorant of the relevant law, but it’s possible they intentionally targeted companies they suspected were noncompliant (this is the whole theory of change behind Legal Impact for Chickens) and had some success. It is also possible they targeted companies they suspected were noncompliant and simply believed what the companies said in response. It is also possible there are loopholes and exemptions in the law. But I’d still have to agree that taking 70% of the credit for campaigning against something already made illegal is a bold claim, and some of the other claims Sinergia made don’t seem justifiable either.
Hi David, thank you for taking the time to read our article. You make some interesting points.
In terms of the work Sinergia did to claim credit for helping millions of pigs, it is listed in Column W of this spreadsheet.
For example, in Cell W5: “After the impacts of Pigs in Focus rank 1st edition and dozen of meetings, Aurora published in 2023 the commitment to banning surgical castration in pigs. Alianima engaged positively with the company.”
Most of the descriptions are quite similar to this. Note that “Pigs in Focus” is an annual report that Sinergia began publishing in 2022.
Hi Marcus, thank you for your reply. We agree with you on a lot of what you’ve said. However, we would like to clarify something.
As we noted in our review, Sinergia allegedly secured a teeth clipping commitment from Pif Paf Alimentos (PPA).
Sinergia estimates that this commitment has helped over 1,000,000 piglets per year since 2023. Sinergia cites a source for their estimate, but the source states PPA slaughters only 750,000 pigs per year.[1] This makes it questionable if PPA even has 1,000,000 piglets that could be teeth clipped each year.
Thus, Sinergia’s estimate appears to rely on the assumption that without this commitment, PPA would have immediately started using teeth clipping on 100% of their piglets, but that with the commitment they will use teeth clipping on 0% of their piglets.
Sinergia appears to make this same assumption for all of the piglet/sow welfare commitments they allegedly secured.
Note: teeth clipping was also illegal in Brazil (PPA’s country) prior to the alleged commitment[2], and an archived version of the web page Sinergia cites for the commitment shows that the alleged commitment was already on PPA’s website prior to when the commitment was allegedly published[3].
This information can be found in Row 12 of Sinergia’s spreadsheet. Please let us know if there is anything we can clarify.
See Article 38Section 2 and Article 54 of Normative Instruction 113/2020.
Archived web page from PPA’s website from October 24, 2022.
Regarding this point:
I think there might be a misunderstanding in the analysis regarding the number of piglets and the slaughter figures. A 25% pre-slaughter mortality rate is quite common in pig farming. [E.g. Pre-weaning piglet mortality varies largely between farms and ranges from 5 % to 35 %. European Parliament, The EU Pig Meat Sector, Sep 2020] This means it’s entirely possible that 1,000,000 piglets are born each year, and 25% (250,000) die before reaching slaughter age, leaving 750,000 to be slaughtered.
Therefore, Sinergia’s estimate that 1,000,000 piglets per year benefit from teeth clipping could still be accurate. The 1,000,000 figure likely refers to the total number of piglets born, all of whom could potentially have their teeth clipped, rather than the number that survive to slaughter.
Thank you for your response Johannes! We really appreciate it when people take the time to read our analysis, and question specific points. We encourage everyone to do the same.
We actually did account for pre-slaughter mortality rates in our analysis, but we used data specific to Brazil since that is where PPA is located. According to the study Swine Mortality and Productivity in Brazil – Benchmarks and Nutritional Solutions, the average pre-weaning mortality percentage is 8.91%, and the average growing-finishing mortality percentage is 3%.
We acknowledge it is possible over 1,000,000 piglets could be teeth clipped each year at PPA. However, based on the available data, we think it is questionable (as we stated above).
Our main point in bringing up the slaughter numbers was to show that Sinergia’s estimate for the alleged commitment’s impact appears to rely on the assumption that without this commitment, PPA would have immediately started using teeth clipping on 100% of their piglets, but that with the commitment they will use teeth clipping on 0% of their piglets. This seems implausible given that PPA had already stated they don’t use teeth clipping prior to the alleged commitment, and teeth clipping was already illegal in Brazil prior to the alleged commitment.
We’d also like to note that there are cases where Sinergia’s estimates are likely more than 100% of the pigs that could be affected. In the JBS example we used in our article, Sinergia estimates that a commitment to not use gestation crates in new projects impacts 290,000 sows per year (see Cell L10). To justify this, Sinergia cites Alianima’s 2023 report, which states JBS has total 290,000 sows (see Cell P10). However, it seems very unlikely that JBS has 290,000 sows that are a part of new projects. We also checked the Alianima’s 2024 report, and it states JBS has 297,000 sows. This leads us to believe JBS is starting new projects at a much lower rate than Sinergia estimated.
With that being said, as we noted in our review, “the gestation crate policy that the alleged commitment references was already listed on JBS’s website in 2020, and has been in effect since that point.” In spite of this, Sinergia claims that JBS published a commitment for this in 2023 with a “Transition deadline” of 2023 (see Row 10).
We can provide other examples of estimates from Sinergia that we suspect are inflated if you’d like. The critique we published contains only a small fraction of our full analysis, because brevity is a top priority in our reviews.
Thanks for the clarification!
Hi Abraham, thank you for taking the time to read our article and reply to this thread. We’re sorry for engaging with you negatively on our previous thread.
The only thing we’d like to say for this thread is that we spent several hundred hours working on this review, and we can assure you that we did a lot of work to verify that what we said is true. We did not just Google translate documents and accept the translations as factual. For the “Brazilian law” you reference, Sinergia themselves stated in their 2023 report that “teeth clipping is prohibited” under Normative Instruction 113/2020.
If you’d like, we can provide additional sources stating this (one of our other sources cited in our article actually already does state this). However, the original writing of Normative Instruction 113/2020 is in only in Portuguese, so we are unable to provide an English version.
Hi everyone,
I’m Carolina, International Executive Director of Sinergia Animal.
I want to acknowledge that members of this community have shared this post with us, and we truly appreciate your engagement and interest in our work. A deep commitment to create real change, transparency and honesty have always been central to our approach, and we will address all concerns accordingly.
To clarify in advance, we have never taken credit for pre-existing or non-existent policies, and we will explain this in our response. We always strive to estimate our impact in good faith and will carefully review our methodology based on this feedback to address any concerns, if valid.
This discussion comes at a particularly busy time for us, as we have been attending EA Global while continuing our critical work across eight countries. We appreciate your patience as we prepare a thorough response.
As a best practice, we believe organizations mentioned by others in posts should have the chance to respond before content is published. We take the principle of the right to reply so seriously that we even extend it to companies targeted in our campaigns or enforcement programs. In that spirit, we will share our response with Vetted Causes via the email provided on their website 24 hours (or as much time as Vetted Causes prefers) before publishing it on the Forum.
The EA community has been a vital supporter of our work, and we hope this serves as an constructive opportunity to provide further insight into our efforts and approach.
Best,
Carolina
To echo some of the other comments, I also think this kind of detailed, external “red teaming” of cost-effectiveness calculations is great in general, and I’d like to see more of it. As someone who has supported Sinergia in the past, I was concerned about some of the claims, and took a few hours to do some shallow research of my own. Tl;dr, my personal opinion of Sinergia hasn’t changed much, pending their response.
To address the specific criticisms:
I
Sinergia’s claim in Committed Companies 2023:
Subsequent calculations assume that this commitment went into effect in 2023, well in advance of Brazil’s legal deadline of 2030. However, Pig Watch 2023 states that JBS intended for this commitment to take effect in 2027, and Pig Watch 2024 updates this to “no longer has a defined deadline”.
Depending on the timing, this could tell a consistent story in which JBS committed to the 2023 deadline, then changed it to 2027/undefined after Sinergia published the Committed Companies 2023 sheet. However, I would have expected the 2024 edition of Pigs in Focus to reduce JBS’s ear notching ranking, but they still receive the full three points (which may suggest that Sinergia is not closely monitoring all of their existing commitments).
II
Sinergia’s claim in Committed Companies 2023:
From the (translated) link to JBS’s 2020 policy:
I admit to not totally understanding the nuances here, but I read this as: Sinergia acknowledges that JBS already had a commitment to transition from individual to collective gestation (they refer to this as a “mixed system”, I think because it still involves some use of gestation crates?) by 2025, and is not taking credit for this change. They do claim partial responsibility for JBS’s commitment to adopt crate-free systems for all new units starting in 2023.
While this does sound like a distinct policy, I don’t understand exactly how it relates to the “Para novos Projetos de Unidades de Produção de Leitões” (For new Piglet Production Unit Projects) section on JBS’s current animal welfare page.
III
In Committed Companies 2023, Sinergia does include claims about teeth clipping from these four companies, usually as part of a broader list of “Multilations banned” (including surgical castration and ear notching).
Re: Alegra specifically, from Pig Watch 2022:
Alegra’s rating in Pigs in Focus changed from one to three points between 2022 and 2023, so it seems at least plausible that Sinergia helped persuade them to end grinding. And indeed Pig Watch 2023 confirms:
Note: the company appears to have backtracked on this commitment in 2024, which (unlike #1 above) is reflected in the latest Pigs in Focus (though I’m not sure what happened with the 2022 column).
IV
Sinergia says:
Sinergia’s criteria for full points on its “Criterion 4: Banning surgical castration” Pigs in Focus metric:
In the 2022 version of Pigs in Focus, Sinergia says of Aurora:
And then in the 2023 edition:
So the way I read this, Aurora already had a policy recommending immunocastration prior to 2022, but still allowed surgical castration with anesthesia (but not analgesia) to be performed in some cases. I’m not clear what Sinergia claims changed in Aurora’s 2023 commitment, but it plausibly could be either a complete ban on surgical castration, or the introduction of analgesia?
V
From Sinergia in Committed Companies 2023:
Note: assuming “JBS” here is just a copy-paste error, but it could be something more fundamental.
From Pigs in Focus 2023:
Like #2 above, Sinergia seems to be making a more limited claim that BRF is transitioning to crate-free (not just group housing or collective gestation) for new units starting in 2023. This at least seems consistent with BRF’s 2019 commitments (prior to Sinergia’s involvement), translated:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comment. We will look at your analysis too.
I want to acknowledge that members of this community have shared this post with us, and we truly appreciate your engagement and interest in our work. A deep commitment to create real change, transparency and honesty have always been central to our approach, and we will address all concerns accordingly.
To clarify in advance, we have never taken credit for pre-existing or non-existent policies, and we will explain this in our response. We always strive to estimate our impact in good faith and will carefully review our methodology based on this feedback to address any concerns, if valid.
This discussion comes at a particularly busy time for us, as we have been attending EA Global while continuing our critical work across eight countries. We appreciate your patience as we prepare a thorough response.
As a best practice, we believe organizations mentioned by others in posts should have the chance to respond before content is published. We take the principle of the right to reply so seriously that we even extend it to companies targeted in our campaigns or enforcement programs. In that spirit, we will share our response with Vetted Causes via the email provided on their website 24 hours (or as much time as Vetted Causes prefers) before publishing it on the Forum.
The EA community has been a vital supporter of our work, and we hope this serves as an constructive opportunity to provide further insight into our efforts and approach.
Best,
Carolina
Hi,
When do you plan to publish your response?
Hi Dan, thank you for your reply.
Page 40-41 of Pig Watch 2024 indicates Alegra has not banned teeth grinding, and plans to follow Normative Instruction 113 (which allows teeth grinding in certain circumstances). Alegra is legally required to follow Normative Instruction 113.
Additionally, we noticed that you reference Sinergia’s Pigs in Focus quite a lot, and wanted to caution you that from what we’ve found, Pigs in Focus is not a reliable source.
For example, on page 30 of Alibem’s Sustainability Report, Alibem states they will “Maintain immunocastration instead of surgical castration – a procedure that was voluntarily eliminated from the Company’s protocols in 2010.”
However, on page 20 of Pigs in Focus 2023, Sinergia indicates that in 2022 Alibem had not banned surgical castration, but in 2023 Alibem had banned surgical castration. Further, Sinergia took credit for getting Alibem to ban surgical castration “by 2023” (see Cell K4).
As was mentioned by several commenters on your last article, I think it would be valuable to share your article with ACE or Sinergia Animal before publishing it here.
Sharing evaluations with the evaluated org before publishing would likely make your analyses both more useful and more accurate, I’m curious to know why you decided against this.
Thank you for your comment, Lorenzo.
We chose not to share the article with Sinergia or ACE before publishing it because:
The claims we critique were publicly made—we are evaluating what Sinergia has already presented to donors, not private internal data.
The evidence is verifiable—our conclusions are based on independently verifiable sources (archived web pages, legal regulations, etc.) that are cited throughout the article.
Independent analysis is critical—allowing organizations to review critiques before publication can introduce biases that weaken accountability.
With that being said, we’re open to engagement. If Sinergia, ACE or anyone else believes any specific fact is incorrect, we’d be happy to review their evidence.
Do you think Sinergia and ACE almost certainly have no information you don’t that could lead to different conclusions or interpretations of claims, in ways more favourable to Sinergia and/or ACE? Do you think there’s no room for reasonable disagreement about whether the claims you call false are actually false?
E.g. see Abraham’s comment.
Hi Michael, thank you for your reply. We definitely agree with you that there are potential benefits to reaching out to a charity before writing a review on them; our answer to both of your questions is “no.”
We have provided more information regarding the thought process behind our decision here.
While I think reasons (1) and (2) are relevant to the degree of importance/value in advance notification is necessary, I just don’t see any legitimate reason to rush to press here. If Singeria had just dropped new claims (especially during/just before the end of year fundraising period), or was in the public spotlight for some related reasons, then there would be a stronger argument for appreciable costs to delaying publication by a week. I don’t see any justifications like that offered. I think you need some meaningful alleged harm from delay or advance notification before mitigating factors like (1) and (2) could come into play.
Reason (3) is unexplained—why do you think hearing from the charity “can introduce biases”? Moreover, even if you believe that, I don’t see why you couldn’t at least send an advance copy to Singeria a week in advance with a pre-commitment that you were not going to change the text absent proof of a clear factual error. That would allow Singeria to prepare a response for submission concurrently with your critique, and for the reader to see both sides of the dispute at once. Choosing not to do so means that a decent number of readers who see your charges will not see Singeria’s response, a state of affairs that does not further truth discovery.
As for myself, I am increasingly inclined not to read substantive critiques of this sort absent either good cause for not providing an advance copy or the passage of enough time for the organization to respond. If my Forum viewing habits mean I don’t see the response (and don’t remember to reopen the post after a week or so), then that’s OK. I think the downside of missing some critiques is likely outweighed by avoiding the cognitive biases that can come with delayed presentation of the other side of the story and/or the risk of missing the other side when it comes out.
Hi Jason, thank you for your reply.
We believe we have addressed your questions here. Please let us know if there is anything we missed.
Very interesting.
I’d prefer if you pasted the post’s content directly into the forum so I could avoid an unnecessary click (plus, the post isn’t that long).
However, the post makes compelling arguments, and at least based on your data, it seems Sinergia makes overblown claims. Worth digging into.
I’d love to see how ACE and Sinergia respond to this.
Update: Several people have contacted us asking about our intentions regarding this review
To be clear, we release negative reviews not because we enjoy calling people out, but because we want problems to be fixed. Everyone makes mistakes, and most mistakes can be recovered from. If every charity shut down after they made a major mistake, there would be very few charities left.
We hope the charities we’ve reviewed address the problems we’ve detailed. In the future, we may review them again, and hope that we are able to recommend them for doing great work.
We acknowledge that we may have not gone about this in the best manner. Still, we hope all of the concerns we have raised are properly addressed.