Thanks! Claude deserves all the credit for the charts :)
LewisBollard
Karma: 3,554
I’m not wild about this campaign either. I’ve shared this feedback privately with Aidan and Thom, but think there’s value to doing so publicly to make clear that EA / the animal movement’s moderate wing / FarmKind’s funders don’t uniformly endorse this approach. (To be clear: I’m writing in my personal capacity and haven’t discussed the following with anyone else at Coefficient Giving.)
I’m a huge fan of FarmKind’s team. I’ve personally donated to them and directed funding to them via Coefficient Giving. I thought they did an incredible job during the Dwarkesh fundraiser earlier this year and I admire their ingenuity and grit in pursuing the very hard challenge of bringing in counterfactually new funds to effective animal advocacy. I appreciate that they meant well with this campaign, which I think they saw as using a a playful fake-feud with Veganuary to generate media.
But I thing this campaign was a mistake for three reasons:
This feels like an incitement to infighting, which has long plagued the animal movement. In recent years, I’ve seen the abolitionist / more radical wing of the animal movement take major good faith steps to reduce this infighting (see, e.g., my session with Wayne Hsiung at this year’s AVA). Whether Veganuary was in on this or not, I’m seeing vegan activists reasonably interpreting this as an attack on their advocacy. I think we should have a very high bar for deliberately starting a fight in the movement, and I don’t think this meets it.
This feels like an attack on vegans. I think we should also have a very high bar for attacking well-meaning people doing good in the world, whether vegans, EAs, organ donors, aid workers, or longtermists. I appreciate that attacking vegans wasn’t the campaign’s intent, but I think it was the predictable result, and certainly how the folks in the Daily Mail’s comments sections have (gleefully) interpreted it.
This feels dishonest. To be clear: I don’t think FarmKind intended it this way and I think the people behind it are deeply ethical people. But I think our movement is at its best when we hold ourselves to high standards and that includes not deliberately misleading people. And creating a fake “meat-eating campaign” feels like it crosses the line for me.
Again, this isn’t to question the intent or abilities of FarmKind’s team. Instead, I’m sharing how I personally feel about this campaign. I hope we can avoid campaigns like this in future, while continuing to pursue the innovation in tactics that the animal movement and EA needs.
Thanks David! That’s very kind of you :) And TBC: I wouldn’t have skipped the whole newsletter—just weighing on ideal protein consumption, which was a bit of a digression from the main point. (And I had actually considered just saying something like “I don’t know how much protein you should eat, but it doesn’t matter because we can’t influence it much.”)
Totally fair feedback. I agree that I should probably have just argued that the general concept of UPFs is nonsense. My sense is that most of the evidence for the harms of UPFs is correlational and based on studies that look at high consumption of fast food and other junk food that we know is based for you based on high sugar, salt, and caloric levels. (I.e. where you don’t need to add UPF to explain why they’d be unhealthy.)
My sense is also that the evidence for food additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners posing health risks is surprisingly weak given the public uproar. And while I agree that chicken doesn’t contain those things, chicken feed typically contains a whole different set of things that would scare people if they had to disclose them, like antibiotics, animal by-products, and lots of artificial ingredients to make up for nutritional deficiencies from a corn/soy-based diet. (Though, to be clear, I think the evidence that those feed additives pose direct health risks is also weak, with the possible exception of antibiotics contributing to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.)
Thanks David. Yeah I agree that something closer to 1.6 gram per kilogram is probably ideal for gaining muscle mass, per what your ChatGPT answers say. But my guess is that most Americans aren’t doing the required weights to actually gain muscle mass. And my guess would be that caloric restriction / GLP-1s are surer ways to loss weight. But I’m also far from an expert on any of this, so on reflection I should have just skipped weighing in on this point at all.
Only a relatively smaller number of breeding hens laying ~275 eggs each per year
Yep that’s about right. I think it’s roughly 7B new male chicks and 7B new female chicks each year. The population of egg-laying hens (~8B) is a big higher than the number of chicks because they each live for a bit longer than a year on average (though that’s partly offset by 5-10% annual mortality on egg farms).
Thanks Manuel! TED will post this on its YouTube channel in the next few weeks. (They stagger out posting talks across the year, and typically post them for a few weeks just on TED.com before they go on YouTube.)
Thanks for doing and publishing this study! It’s so helpful to get a clearer picture on this, even if we don’t like the answers. As a validation of your findings, in 2015, Chipotle told Vox that sofritas were 3.5% of sales, very close to your 3.8%.
Thanks Lizka and Ben! I found this post really thought-provoking. I’m curious to better understand the intuition behind discounting the post-AGI paradigm shift impacts to ~0.
My sense is that there’s still a pretty wide continuum of future possible outcomes, under some of which we should predictably expect current policies to endure. To simplify, consider six broad buckets of possible outcomes by the year 2050, applied to your example of whether the McDonald’s cage-free policy remains relevant.
No physical humans left. We’re all mind uploads or something more dystopian. Clearly the mind uploads won’t be needing cage-free McMuffins.
Humans remain but food is upended. We all eat cultivated meat, or rats (Terminator), or Taco Bell (Demolition Man). I also agree McDonald’s policy is irrelevant … though Taco Bell is cage-free too ;)
Radical change, people eat similar foods but no longer want McDonald’s. Maybe they have vast wealth and McDonald’s fails to keep up with their new luxurious tastes, or maybe they can’t afford even a cheap McMuffin. Either way, the cage-free policy is irrelevant.
Radical change, but McDonald’s survives. No matter how weird the future is, people still want cheap tasty convenient food, and have long established brand attachments to McDonald’s. Even if McDonald’s fires all its staff, it’s not clear to me why it would drop its cage-free policy.
AGI is more like the Internet. The cage-free McMuffins endure, just with some cool LLM-generated images on them.
No AGI.
I agree that scenarios 1-3 are possible, but they don’t seem obviously more likely to me than 4-6. At the very least, scenarios 4-6 don’t feel so unlikely that we should discount them to ~0. What am I missing?
Thank you! I’m not aware of any US certifiers using CCTV, though I know several use unannounced audits to follow up on farms with bad prior audits or allegations of abuse. My sense is that most European certifiers are similar, though I may be wrong.
Sadly both audits and CCTV footage are almost always kept private. My sense is that there’s not yet a big enough carrot (i.e. price premium on certified products) or stick (i.e. reputational harm from refusing public CCTV) to push certified farms to agree to this. My guess is it would require a retailer to say “we’ll only sell your products if you install CCTV and share the footage.” I hope they’ll eventually get there.
Thanks Neil. Good catch, and sorry I’m only replying now—I hadn’t checked the Forum over the break. I assumed that the original article was referring to all cage-free production because:
The 15% cage-free immediately follows a claim referring to all Brazilian production: “This type of production did not exist in Brazil until 2017. Mantiqueira was the first one. Seven years later, [cage-free] production represents almost 15% of the total.”
The next sentence reads: “We were a driving force.” This implies they were a driving force in an industry-wide change, and doesn’t really make sense if it refers to their production, i.e. “We were a driving force in getting ourselves to go 15% cage-free.”
But I think this could be a translation issue. And I don’t have any other sources, while the sources you found seem more likely to be accurate. So I suspect you’re right that sadly Brazil has made less progress thatn we thought.
Thanks for flagging that Hugh. I wavered on whether to include that grant given its inclusion of insect-based protein, which I agree is concerning.
Thankfully most alternative protein grants don’t include insects. (And, as CB points out, GFI doesn’t include insects in their definition.) But the term is increasingly contested, as insect producers—with the backing of the pet food and aquaculture industries that are their primary customers—are pushing for alt protein funds to cover them.
Thanks Fai! Yes I’m trying to express more often the deep appreciation that I feel for the incredible donors and advocates in our space. I’m glad to hear you find it encouraging :)
Hey Lucas, thanks for engaging with the newsletter. A few quick replies:
Rethink’s 8-20% support in a national poll seems consistent with the 36% result in Denver because (1) Denver is very liberal and very urban, which I expect are the two strongest predictors of support for a ban, (2) as Jason notes below, there are a lot of reasons why people might not want a slaughterhouse in their city, but would oppose banning them nationally, e.g. NIMBYism, (3) a lot of the campaign focused on things unique to this one slaughterhouse, e.g. its uniquely bad animal welfare and environmental record, and (4) this was a lamb slaughterhouse and lamb is both a niche meat and comes from an animal with more public sympathy (vs., e.g., banning a chicken slaughterhouse).
We’re not sitting on the biggest pile of animal-advocacy cash on the planet. One of the funders of the Denver slaughterhouse ban is. But you’re right that, presumably like them, we didn’t think this was the best use of marginal funds to help animals.
I’m sorry I missed the Berkeley initiative. Had I seen it I would have included it. I’m skeptical though that we can take a lot from a symbolic vote on whether to allow factory farms in a dense urban area that has no factory farms.
I agree that history is full of radical shifts. My personal read of history is that they involved lots of smaller wins and progress before advocates reached the point where they could achieve women’s suffrage or abolition. But I appreciate that I’m unlikely to persuade you there, and I agree this is a good debate for our movement to continue to have on strategy.
Great piece, thanks Tyler! I didn’t see this before sending out my take on the election results yesterday and, if I had, my take would have been better for it. I agree with most of your analysis, with the exception of this headline conclusion:
I fear the policy landscape for farmed animal protection work is looking more and more bleak.
I think that’s true of the EATS Act, which could really hurt state ballot initiative work. But I’m not sure it’s true more broadly:
I don’t think the abolitionist ballot measures did any worse than they would have if brought in prior years. “Banning meat” has always been incredibly unpopular. For the same reason, it’s not clear to me that politicians opposing banning meat indicates a change of opinion, vs. just an increase in salience of the debate, which may or may not be a good thing.
We’ve always had opponents on the left and the right in politics. As James Ozden points out, we now also have more public supporters on the right than ever before. I’m not sure if they’ll be able to affect policy, but we may have a better shot than in any prior administration.
The state cultivated meat bans are bad signals, though they’re almost certainly preempted by federal law. I agree there’s a risk that a Trump FDA could ban cultivated meat nationally. But I think it’s more likely they’ll deregulate FDA policy in a way that helps cultivated meat.
Of course, there’s huge uncertainty on all this. And none of the above makes me think we should prioritize US policy work for farmed animals. Instead, I continue to think that our best opportunities lie elsewhere.
Thanks for the feedback and interesting info! I agree I overstated the importance of 2004-12 R&D. I chose that time period because it felt most comparable to where alt proteins are at, but I should have clarified that earlier R&D was more important.
I based my assessment of the importance of govt R&D policies to reducing solar prices on this IEA analysis—mostly the graphs showing their assessment that govt R&D policies (both publicly-funding and market-stimulating policies) drove ~two thirds of solar cost-reductions from 1980-2012.
But you clearly know more about the broader literature here than I do. And the IEA’s analysis may be consistent with yours if their “R&D: market-stimulating policies” category includes deployment subsidies. Either way, thanks for the thoughtful reply!
Thanks Nick! I agree that “keep it positive” isn’t always the right call. In fact, it was very negative footage that first got me to care about factory farming.
My advice was intended for navigating social media algorithms and media editors, who both seem to favor the positive. But I agree the history of social movements suggests you also need to explain the gravity of the issue and elicit outrage.
Thanks Nathan! I like your idea of mapping the key arguments that stop people from helping farm animals. My sense is there are different blocking arguments depending on the ask. For high-welfare meat, I suspect the blockers are:
“I already buy humane meat” (easy to believe this when most meat is labeled with ‘all natural’ and other meaningless labels)
“High welfare meat is too expensive” (true of truly high-welfare, but not necessarily of med-welfare)
“I have no way of knowing which meat is high welfare” (it’s really hard because in most countries the meat industry is free to mislabel their products with fake certifications and lots of meaningless claims)
You’re absolutely right that a major challenge is that portions of the animal movement don’t negotiate. Some high welfare meat is easily 50% better, but if you claimed that on Twitter you’d get drowned out by abolitionists claiming it’s all equally bad.
I’m pessimistic about changing individual diets in general, whether to higher welfare meat or plant-based, simply because of the scale of people you need to reach. So I’m more excited about mobilizing people to support corporate and political change. I suspect there the biggest blockers are a mix of “my action won’t make any difference” and “I’m too busy with other stuff.”
I’d welcome any additional thoughts you have!
I agree that’s the best solution, but I think it’s unfortunately much less tractable in most places than corporate campaigns. In the one large producer where it is right now, the EU, we’re investing heavily in legislative work.