Error

Thanks for sharing this write-up! It’s not easy to massively change direction in response to new evidence but it seems like you did a great job.

On the object level, for my interest: do you know why the egg density was so different between university and other catered meals?

Very engaging post! I appreciated how it covered the many different aspects of the decision-making and transition process: rational, practical, social and emotional. I feel like this would have value to animal advocates who are not particularly interested in EA, as it would be a very concrete way of introducing the difficult questions one grapples with when considering impact. However, I am not sure where else this could be posted in order for members of this wider audience to access it.

I hope this is not too much of a digression from the core of the post, but I was struck to see that you cited Brian Tomasik’s article as being more or less the spark that set the organization off on the course of reevaluating their interventions, and eventually changing their domain of action. I often notice individuals in EA organizations—or non-EA animal advocates—citing Tomasik as someone who has led them to reevaluate their considerations, and sometimes even to change the type of interventions that they put in place. He also seems to have come first in advocating for earning-to-give (in 2006), appears to be one of the most cited advocates for reducing wild-animal suffering (2009), created the second-ever table trying to evaluate direct suffering caused by animal foods (2007), and wrote the first article dedicated to s-risks (2013). These things have all been substantially expanded upon since, and some, such as Wild Animal Welfare, are even considered by somes as EA causes in their own right. Would I be wrong in considering Brian Tomasik’s influence as having been comparably far-reaching within the movement (especially on the level of ideas) as Toby Ord’s or Nick Bostrom’s ?

(Side note: I know this is probably not the most important subject to think about, but I find it helpful to get a clearer picture of where the core concepts and claims that make up Effective Altruism come from, in order to be more aware of the contingencies of the movement; also, trying to vaguely keep track of this helps me reflect on the influence that sharing ideas can have—and that is something where on the surface level, Tomasik’s record seems out of the ordinary, especially for someone who isn’t much of a public figure).

I followed the whole process and still I am super impressed by the whole approach!

Very few orgs go through the process of looking at everything that can be done and choosing the best opportunity. Especially with suffering reduction as the main goal. I’d love it if more orgs were able to do that.

Excellent post.

Thanks for sharing, Keyvan! I have just published a cost-effectiveness analysis of Veganuary and School Plates.

Great post, thanks.
Did your search for a new intervention include control /​ eradication of NWS (C. hominivorax)? It’s an endemic parasite in French Guayane (actually, I suspect that’s where Coquerel first identified it in XIX century), affecting wild and farmed animals alike (and killing at the very least 100 humans/​year), any large scale policy would eventually depend on /​ benefit from French (and perhaps EU) support, and almost no one is working on that from a animal welfare /​ rights POV (except for Screwworm Free Future is hiring for a Director — EA Forum).

Hey Keyvan, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I’m reminded of Kirsty’s reflections on stepping aside from her role at Anima because she thought that was the best decision for the animals; I really admire a culture that embraces humility, changing your mind, and staying focused on the animals.

Congrats on making a brave strategic change!

I’m wondering how you changed from Assiettes Végétales to Anima. Was it just a name change to better reflect the new strategy or a merger to Anima International (if it’s also called that in non-profits)?

Executive summary: After reassessing the effectiveness of their plant-based meal advocacy, Anima International in France pivoted their strategy to focus on ending the use of cages for laying hens, believing this to be a more impactful way to reduce animal suffering.

Key points:

1. Initial Focus on Plant-Based Meals: As Assiettes Végétales, the organization successfully increased the proportion of vegetarian meals in French university canteens, but struggled to expand further in a country with strong culinary traditions centered on animal products.

2. Reevaluating Impact: A deep analysis of collective catering menus and animal suffering data revealed that many vegetarian meals relied heavily on eggs, often from caged hens, reducing the net benefit of their campaign.

3. Strategic Shift Decision: A systematic review of 94 possible interventions led the team to choose cage-free advocacy as the most effective way to reduce suffering, despite initial emotional resistance to abandoning their previous work.

4. Implementation of the Cage-Free Campaign: Anima International now works with companies to ensure compliance with cage-free egg commitments and engages policymakers to push for a legislative ban on cages.

5. Reasons for the Shift: The cage-free campaign was selected due to its high tractability, clear measurable outcomes, significant suffering reduction, and alignment with global animal welfare progress.

6. Current Progress and Next Steps: Since launching the new campaign, Anima has engaged with companies, collected industry data, and started working with lawmakers to accelerate the transition away from cages.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.