writing at Animal Currents and Messy Hope
Gabe The Ape
Karma: 138
This seems directionality correct. I would love some qualitative responses as well to try to gauge how people are understanding the question.
Because sentience is a binary question, and intensity of subjective experience is a scale, I feel like that should also be asked separately. People might being conflating the two by giving a low confidence probability in sentience, when they really mean they are sentience but just have experiences which aren’t that intense.
Hey, have you written out your reasoning for why you believe shrimp have a 20% chance of sentience? I appreciate all the work you have done in this space, and am curious how you approach this.
2011 is pretty old, do know of any other issues or now updated info regarding Compassion, by the Pound?
Thank you for doing this research! Stunning not consider halal isn’t something I would have expected but valuable to know. Any plans on open accessing the data so anyone could analyze it?
That’s an example of a stat illustrating impact, but I’m looking for examples that support the statement it is often the case that if you have impacts there are stats to illustrate that.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this James. It was refreshing to read.
However, I am not sure that impact is often measurable. What evidence do you have for that intuition? Can you provide any examples to illuminate this point?
My prior is that measurement in the social sciences is really, really hard, and people often update too much on social science statistics. And that the social world has a lot of uncertainty. It seems that people update too much on them because the social scientists who end up promoting findings to the public aren’t that forthcoming about their limitations and the ongoing disagreements in the field. One examples is social media’s affect of minors’ mental health, and the ongoing debate between Jon Haidt and Candice Odgers.
Thank you for sharing Ulf. I found your comment validating and clarifying.
Hi-quality post that deserves more upvotes! Thanks for taking the time to research this. I wish it explored the counter-argument more tho.
I appreciate y’all continuing to think about this, and this is a solid draft as it got my brain thinking which is what good drafts do.
some thoughts:A) “Science and technology could accelerate farmed animal welfare work, especially through alternative proteins.” There seems to be implication here that powerful AI equates to a greater likelihood of the end of factory farming. Perhaps, but I think there is also an argument to make that conventional factory farming could benefit from powerful AI as much or more so (it doesn’t suffer from a number of limitations that alt-proteins face). To have more faith in powerful AI helping alt-proteins net more than factory farming, I would like to see a robust attempt at making the case that it will help factory farming more.
B) “As AI’s capabilities in causal inference and behavioral prediction grow, all kinds of high-quality, granular data (for example, on consumer behavior, psychological drivers, policy responses, and market trends) will be incredibly valuable. Rather than only measuring direct impacts, campaigns can be designed to capture rich behavioral data and test messaging at scale, feeding into AI models that refine strategies and uncover new leverage points. Done well, today’s direct work could reduce short-term animal suffering while also serving as the training ground for smarter, faster advocacy in the years ahead.”
I would love to see this expanded on as well because to me feels like these arguments at face value are getting into powerful AI as magic territory.
“[...] campaigns can be designed to capture rich behavioral data and test messaging at scale.” This implies there is rich-enough data that could be captured today. That seems far from obvious to me. Some of the reason the social media well-being research is so constrained is because of the privacy concerns that would come with getting rich enough data to answer some of the well being questions with confidence. And social media or digital environments generally are an ideal environments because there is so much data, but (A) it is not clear how useful all that data is at changing behavior, especially a complex behavior like voting or diet, and (B) a lot of the behavior the animal welfare movement is interested happens offline (we would need to make the offline word much more data rich in types and invade privacy even more) and (C) of the rich data that currently exists offline and online exists in various silos and combining them isn’t necessarily technological issues, but a political and social one in some aspects. In addition, it is also a problem within the animal welfare movement because it would take really good project and data management, which are skill sets that hard to come by.
But even if you had (A) incredibly rich behavioral data that was practically achievable to get and (B) at a cost our movement could afford it and had the operational capacity, it is not obvious the epistemic metaphysics of social science would allow for anything close to a social science Laplace’s demon, which using data to change voting and diet seems close to IMO. There might be hard limits to what is possible to know in the social sciences, and therefore ability to influence behavior, whether we are in a world where AGI exists or doesn’t.
An example of possible limitations would be how RCTs are required for studying a social science intervention in a statistically robust way, but also might be crippling said intervention’s ability from having even medium-sized impact in the world at scale, which is the scale we are interested in. See: Cause, Effect, and The Structure Of The Social World by Megan T. Stevenson: (paper) H/T Seth Green. I’m not saying that is the definitely the case but I don’t think it is safe to assume it isn’t, and is worthy of exploring before saying AGI would be incredibly valuable for the animal welfare movement’s ability to understand and influence behavior.
Approved GMO Cultivated Meat
Your comments are giving me ideas for forecasting questions:
- Will the first cultivated meat GMO product contain GMOs?
- What percentage of the first 10 cultivated meats approved by US regulators will contain GMOs?
Are GMO cell lines important for scaling? I don’t know, but I agree it likely makes it easier. I need to look into this more.
Somebody to watch on this note is Meatly who is selling GMO-free cultivated meat pet food in Europe and Asia. And I have a somewhat uncertain belief cultivated pet food will reach larger scale faster than cultivated meat for humans so could be a preview.
Btw, found this map of GMO grown around the world (here)
Trump and Cultivated MeatYou have a valid point that they regulatory agencies are not more public-facing politicians, but it does show that the power dynamics in MAGA are far from completely against cultivated meat. (A little review of that here)
I have only done some searching, but it is worth noting CATO has came out against state bans, and Vivek Ramaswamy has been very pro it (though it is unclear me how much power he holds in MAGA, he might run for a governorship though).
It is worth noting some of those Republican officials who are doing things that seem part of the culture war, like mandated labels, also think it will become part of the American diet. “The way we’re headed, lab-grown meat is going to become a part of life whether we like it or not,” said Neyer, R-Shepherd. “But we have to make sure people have the ability to choose whether they consume it or not.” (source)
Btw, I would appreciate it if you would consider making a forecast related to state bans—see here. Your view point would make a healthy counter to my more bullish views.
Other
A big reason why people don’t like GMOs is because of their associations with pesticides and chemicals, and the concern about pesticides is much more general than GMOs. RFK Jr. said cultivated meat was “pesticide-laden ingredients” which is absurd. Why would you need pesticides when the food is grown in a sparking clean lab? Especially compared to the all the crops animals need to eat.
So pesticides and chemicals, specifically the lack of coming in contact with them, could be a very large selling point for some of the public (5% to 20% i would guess). A decent portion of Americans are reasonable and aren’t anti-vax, and would be open to hearing out this line of persuasion in my opinion.
Thank you for taking the time to write this as I learned a lot! I do have some quips, some of which I wrote down below.
Cultivated Meat Approved by US Regulators Is Mostly Non-GMO
“This piece is about drawing an analogy between cultivated meat and GMOs, but in fact this isn’t just an analogy, as about half of the companies working on cultivated meat use genetic modification of the cultivated cells! So not only is cultivated meat an unsettling new technology, it also uses a technology which consumers famously hate.”
The cited source: “A 2023 survey found that nearly half of cultivated meat companies are exploring genetic engineering for either R&D or commercial use, and several patents describing various engineering approaches have been filed. Ultimately, the extent of genetic engineering and types of modifications incorporated into final products will depend on the regulatory approval process for engineered products and consumer perceptions in different regions.”
There have been five cultivated meats approved in the US, three are GMO-free, one likely uses a GMO cell line and one I don’t know. For the uncertain ones, I’m learning towards they do use GMOs because if they were free of that why wouldn’t they make that very clear?
Three are Non-GMO
Mission Barns ““The fact that our process is Non GMO is attractive to potential partners in Asia and Europe.” (source)
Believer Meats is not GMO (source)
Good Meat
Not Certain, But I Would Guess Are GMO
Upside does seem to be considered to be GMO (source)
Wildtype – no public information I could find.
Europe
Only two cultivated meat companies have applied for approval, Gourmey and Mosa Meats, and both are non-GMO. Source for Gourmey (source) and Mosa Meats (source).
Rest of the world
Also, remember there is cultivated meat research, business and regulatory activity in India, China, and other parts of the world which I haven’t checked. But are likely self-aware about their country’s stance on GMO, and if they aren’t their investors will make them so since they want a return on their investment, and therefore probably won’t use GMO cell lines.
Trump’s FDA Has Approved More Cultivated Meat Than Biden’s FDA
“RFK Jr (the US Secretary of Health) has also made negative comments about cultivated meat before taking office. The fact that cultivated meat is becoming a culture war issue before making it onto supermarket shelves doesn’t bode well.”
RFK Jr.’s negative and strange remarks about “pesticide filled” cultivated meat has been a very poor indicator of what the FDA has done under his indirect leadership (FDA is under HHS). Biden’s FDA approved two cultivated meats in his 4 year term, while RFK Jr’s FDA has approved 3 cultivated meats in less than a year.
The FDA under RFK Jr. has approved so many cultivated meats RFK Jr’s own media outlet, Children’s Health Defense, called the government agency “captured” by industry on the news of Wildtype’s approval. What is behind this strange mismatch between rhetoric and actions? I only have theories and they mainly revolve around cross political pressure.
Under Biden (Though Started Under Trump’s First Term)
UPSIDE Food
Started: 2015
FDA approval: Nov. 16, 2022
FDA press release (source)
Good Meat (A Brand of Just Eat)
Started: 2017(?)
FDA Approval: March 21st, 2023(source)
Under Trump’s Second Term/RFK Jr.
Mission Barn
Started: 2018
FDA: March 7, 2025 (source)
Wildtype
Started: 2016
FDA: May 29th, 2025 (source)
Believer Meats (was Future Meat Technologies)
Started: 2018
FDA: July 24th, 2025 (source)
(Placeholder For More Critiques)
I think there are more facts that have been left out in your post that make your case less strong, and support a more moderate position. But I am too lazy at the moment to write these out and dig up sources so here are some crude bullet points:
EU government investment in startups and partnering government agencies with those startups with the explicit goal of bringing it to market. (Counter point: the EU government has historically been more pro-GMO than individual member countries so might end up true of cultivated meat too.)
Texas and Indiana’s cultivated meats have an expiration date of 2027 while the other bans are indefinite. That is a big difference when it comes to possibly legalizing cultivated meat in those states.
There are more reasons to think GMOs are going to be treated differently by the public, like some of the same reasons people dislike GMOs they might like cultivated meat. But I am too lazy at the moment to write these out.
People eat more GMOs than is given credit for. Tons of foods in Walmart that working class people eat all the time contain GMOs. Like many health concerns, a smaller portion of people actually care enough and/or have enough energy to change behavior and many can’t be bothered no matter how they respond to a survey question.
I want to end by saying I appreciate the effort you put in your post, and I am glad to see more discussion/debate around this. Even though I got my quips, I have updated significantly in the direction of being fearful that cultivated meat might end up like GMOs because of your arguments. And your post pushed me to think harder in the areas where I disagreed. I need to explore this topic more.
thank you! I will give it a read
Thank you for the studies, will take a look. I would think you could find either adding a new meat-based products and its affects in the marketing literature or something analogous—though I haven’t looked.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. My view hasn’t changed to much, but I have updated towards more uncertainty.
Regards (2) however, I think the text being subtle is the opposite of “experimental realism” as when businesses introduce a new product they often give it a graphic treatment that highlights it and explain its value to customers.
Also, regarding Lewis’ comment, I don’t know how much a figure from 2015, a decade ago, when there was far less familiarity and knowledge of PMA can be regarded as converging evidence for your outcome.
Excited to more research in this area! : )
Thank you for your work on this!
I appreciate y’all studying this and helping us learn more about what we can do to advance plant-based options, and I especially love that it is open access. I do have some questions tho.
(A) “Despite widespread optimism, simply increasing the number of PMAs on restaurant menus may not consistently reduce meat selection.” Is this a reasonable expectation of any new food ingredient? Are there studies that show just adding a new ingredient, any ingredient whether plant-based or not, to a menu would result in uptake of it?
It seems to me, and I could be missing something, that this study might be studying the habitual nature of consumers, and less so their preferences about plant-based meat. A possible way to have controlled for this would be to have a new animal meat item and see how many people chose it.
If your general model of consumers, or people generally, is that they are cognitive misers, it seems that model would predict this result regardless if the additional items were plant based or meat based. So the casual factor would be habit, not the kind of protein. That would still be informative for plant-adoption and be a large barrier, but it be saying less about plant-based preferences and more about just needing to do proper UX and marketing.
(B) I saw y’all did awareness checks on what people thought the point of the study was, but curious why y’all didn’t do an awareness check on whether they noticed if there was a plant-based option in the menu or not? Like how many people are taking the time to read the small grey on white text? And with steak or chicken, you don’t need to because those are familiar and instantly understood. Without that, it is unclear to me, whether you are testing people’s preference for plant-based options or their ability to notice new items.
Hi Elif, my chaotic ADHD brain found it easy to follow because of how well structured it is, thank you for taking the time and effort to write this!
I did have some notes on data the survey section,
“In fact, national surveys in the United States show that most people believe it is “very important” (52%) or “important” (32%) to prevent farm animals from suffering (Animal Welfare Institute). Data from the Center for a Livable Future shows that 57% of voters support stricter regulation of industrial farms, and 43% support banning new ones altogether. Given that the share of vegans in the total population is still very small, these findings are striking. This suggests there’s far more potential than we might assume, but perhaps not enough “thresholds” have been crossed yet for these views to turn into action.”For the first figures, I believe you are referring to a 2015 survey that was not done by AWI but by Consumer Reports National Research Center, and cited by AWI (source). The latter by John Hopkin’s Livable Future Center (source) in 2019.
I don’t think these are the highest quality surveys on this topic, and probably don’t reflect an accurate picture of American attitudes towards.
In 2022, Rethink Priorities did surveys with a more rigorous methodological design (see here). In addition to them asking if they supported banning slaughterhouses, for example, they also had participants to explain their reasoning. They found that when asked to explain their reasoning only about 8% of people supported the banning of slaughterhouses, and in the control, where they didn’t ask them to explain their reasoning it was 20%. Rethink Priorities also pre-registered their study so that others could hold them accountable if they p-hacked or messed with the methodology to get the results they wanted.
8% is far better than nothing, but it is closer to the percentage of the population that is either vegan or vegetarian.
Adding this study to the paragraph with the other studies you included will give readers a more rounded perspective on what the literature says, helping them to avoid, what is in effect, the publication bias.
Feel free to include welfare concerns. The UK government has been moving in that direction so regulations that require a welfare assessment could be impactful.
The reason why a welfare argument is not included is honestly a mess up on my end.
Originally I thought the welfare argument, while the most convincing personally, is the least politically viable. I still believe that but another advocate argued it should be included and I ended up agreeing, and planned on adding it. I ended up forgetting to add it however.
I appreciate you pushing back on the idea that insects live net-negative lives. However, when I opened my door to leave my apartment today, I crushed the legs of a bug that I didn’t know was by the hinge of the door. I saw it limping it away on the door. I didn’t kill it, but not sure that was the right decision.
I think these types of injuries are a stronger argument for wild animals living net-negative lives than violent deaths. (Though I am uncertain on the manner.)
Edit: A candidate for a net-positive insect life: “Because juvenile cicadas (known as “nymphs”) live underground, Yanega says that they “are probably almost never eaten by predators.” This is a potential indicator that periodical cicadas could have better welfare expectancy than many other insect species. Periodical cicadas spend 99.5% of their unusually long lives underground, enjoying an abundance of food and a relative lack of predators. It’s likely that predation becomes a serious threat only in the final few weeks of their lives, when they emerge and become adults.” Source: WAI