Lewis, this piece nails the big picture. It lays out both the momentum and the messy challenges still ahead by making sense of a pivotal moment for animal welfare. It clearly triangulates where we stand on the road to change. Thank you.
Thanks for this report. It's an excellent, grounded summary of our 10 years, and I'm especially grateful for its honest look at both progress and setbacks. Admitting these challenges makes us smarter and drives us to find better answers. It's how we gain the wisdom and resilience to keep pushing forward, even in areas challenges lie. The collective focus, wisdom, brains, energy, passion, and kindness are the invaluable heart of this movement. Thank you.
Thank you for this fascinating overview. Your arguments and support cases for negating justifications by corporate bigwigs for not fulfilling commitments are perfect and we can use them in our upcoming communications. A great piece.
Thanks for this article! Just wanted to note that the caption under the egg carton photo has some incorrect info. Giant Food and The Giant Company are both brands of Ahold Delhaize, but Giant Eagle is a privately-held company that is completely separate. Thanks!
Thanks for flagging that! My mistake. These eggs were actually at a Giant store in NY (so part of Ahold Delhaize) ... I just wrote Giant Eagle because I thought that was just the full name of Giant.
Grocery stores need to stop using the word "Giant" in their names! It IS confusing. I only know this because I led a campaign against Giant Eagle and am now working on the Ahold campaigns.
I'm a big fan of the EA Animal Welfare Fund for individual donors (I personally donate there). I also like all the groups that Animal Charity Evaluators recommends, as well as many they don't (e.g. The Humane League, Good Food Institute, Mercy for Animals).
Thanks for the recs Lewis. I'll check out the EA Animal Welfare Fund. I used to give to the Humane League and GFI but then a colleague of mine who works in animal welfare told me that the Humane League is bloated and slow due to their growth and that GFI is over funded. Do you have any thoughts?
I've got some many thoughts :) I still think very highly of the Humane League and GFI, but there are plenty of valid different takes. Glad we're connecting offline.
I'd just like to note your incredible conclusion for later: In 13 years "the movement waged campaigns that have now spared over 300 million hens from cages. That’s over 300,000 hens per advocate"
And also the size of the USA's population. "Wayne Hsiung, who initially opposed cage-free campaigns, recently called them 'in terms of influence on the industry … likely the most successful campaign in animal rights history.'"
"This is a big deal. Because this progress has compounded over multiple generations of hens, well over 300 million individual birds have now been spared life in a battery cage. And, assuming this progress sticks, it won’t be long before that number is a billion. I think this will be the most animals any animal welfare intervention has ever helped."
"Then advocates got to work. With fewer than a thousand full-time advocates globally, the movement waged campaigns that have now spared over 300 million hens from cages. That’s over 300,000 hens per advocate."
Nice estimate! For 13 years, and 2 k hours or work per year, that is 11.5 hens per hour (= 300*10^3/13/(2*10^3)). For 25 $/h, and 10 years of advancement, that is 4.6 hen-years improved per $ (= 11.5*10/25), which is 42.6 % (= 4.6/10.8) of what I estimated in my analysis.
Thanks Vasco! The 300 million hens equates 109.5 billion days of suffering reduced, whereas the (incredible) work of the Shrimp Welfare Project I think still accounts for <5 billion days of suffering. (Of course the comparison by minutes of suffering reduced would be even more skewed.) You're right though that I should have said "most days of animal suffering any animal welfare intervention has ever helped," which is what I care about, not just "most animals," which is what I said.
For your second estimate, I think you're assuming there were 1,000 advocates full-time on this every year since 2015. There weren't. Back then, there were probably ~20 advocates working on this, which has steadily increased to somewhere between 300 and 1000 today (why I just said "fewer than a thousand"). And of course this is just impact realized to date, whereas the vast majority of this work's impact will be in the future.
For my estimate of 0.0426 DALYs averted per shrimp helped by SWP (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EbQysXxofbSqkbAiT/cost-effectiveness-of-shrimp-welfare-project-s-humane), SWP has averted 141 MDALY (= 0.0426*3.3*10^9). For my estimates of 0.452 DALYs averter per laying-hen-year improved, and 1.34 hen-years per hen (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8FqWSqv9AeLowgajn/cost-effectiveness-of-corporate-campaigns-for-chicken), the benefits of cage-free corporate campaigns are 0.606 DALYs averted per hen (= 0.452*1.34). So I calculate the total benefits are 182 MDALY (= 0.606*300*10^6), 1.29 (= 182/141) times the total benefits from SWP's past work. There is lots of uncertainty in many numbers. So I would describe the situation as SWP over the past few years having helped animals roughly as much as all cage-free campaigns over the past decade or so, ignoring effects on wild animals.
Accounting for soil nematodes, mites, and springtails, I think GiveWell's top charities have helped way more animal-years, and increased animal welfare much more than cage-free corporate campaigns. I estimated GiveWell's top charities improve 8.05 (= 1.69/0.210) times as many animal-years per $ (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Rjutj7Jd2v2KHvDyA/cost-effectiveness-accounting-for-soil-nematodes-mites-and), and increase welfare 8.05 times as much per $ as cage-free corporate campaigns accounting for those soil animals. I also think GiveWell's top charities have received much more funding, such that their cumulative impact has been much more than that of cage-free corporate campaigns.
Assuming the number of advocates increased linearly from 0 to 1000 over the 13 years, the mean number of advocates would be 50 % the final number of advocates, and therefore the cost-effectiveness would become 2 times as high, 85.2 % (= 0.426*2) of what I estimated in my analysis.
Lewis, this piece nails the big picture. It lays out both the momentum and the messy challenges still ahead by making sense of a pivotal moment for animal welfare. It clearly triangulates where we stand on the road to change. Thank you.
Thanks for this report. It's an excellent, grounded summary of our 10 years, and I'm especially grateful for its honest look at both progress and setbacks. Admitting these challenges makes us smarter and drives us to find better answers. It's how we gain the wisdom and resilience to keep pushing forward, even in areas challenges lie. The collective focus, wisdom, brains, energy, passion, and kindness are the invaluable heart of this movement. Thank you.
Thank you for this fascinating overview. Your arguments and support cases for negating justifications by corporate bigwigs for not fulfilling commitments are perfect and we can use them in our upcoming communications. A great piece.
What we do on our family farm is chop their feet so cages aren't necessary. It is as painless as a circumcision.
Thanks for this article! Just wanted to note that the caption under the egg carton photo has some incorrect info. Giant Food and The Giant Company are both brands of Ahold Delhaize, but Giant Eagle is a privately-held company that is completely separate. Thanks!
Thanks for flagging that! My mistake. These eggs were actually at a Giant store in NY (so part of Ahold Delhaize) ... I just wrote Giant Eagle because I thought that was just the full name of Giant.
Grocery stores need to stop using the word "Giant" in their names! It IS confusing. I only know this because I led a campaign against Giant Eagle and am now working on the Ahold campaigns.
Excellent article. Thank you.
Great piece. Thanks for sharing. What Animal Welfare non-profits do you donate do?
I'm a big fan of the EA Animal Welfare Fund for individual donors (I personally donate there). I also like all the groups that Animal Charity Evaluators recommends, as well as many they don't (e.g. The Humane League, Good Food Institute, Mercy for Animals).
Thanks for the recs Lewis. I'll check out the EA Animal Welfare Fund. I used to give to the Humane League and GFI but then a colleague of mine who works in animal welfare told me that the Humane League is bloated and slow due to their growth and that GFI is over funded. Do you have any thoughts?
I've got some many thoughts :) I still think very highly of the Humane League and GFI, but there are plenty of valid different takes. Glad we're connecting offline.
Amazing article as always.
I'd just like to note your incredible conclusion for later: In 13 years "the movement waged campaigns that have now spared over 300 million hens from cages. That’s over 300,000 hens per advocate"
And also the size of the USA's population. "Wayne Hsiung, who initially opposed cage-free campaigns, recently called them 'in terms of influence on the industry … likely the most successful campaign in animal rights history.'"
Thanks for the great post, Emma and Lewis!
"This is a big deal. Because this progress has compounded over multiple generations of hens, well over 300 million individual birds have now been spared life in a battery cage. And, assuming this progress sticks, it won’t be long before that number is a billion. I think this will be the most animals any animal welfare intervention has ever helped."
The Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) estimates the electrical stunners they bought will be helping 3.3 billion shrimp per year once they are all operational (https://www.shrimpwelfareproject.org/shrimpact). Somewhat relatedly, I estimate SWP's Humane Slaughter Initiative has been 139 times as cost-effective as cage-free corporate campaigns accounting only for target beneficiaries (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EbQysXxofbSqkbAiT/cost-effectiveness-of-shrimp-welfare-project-s-humane), and 4.76 (= 1/0.210) times as cost-effective accounting for target beneficiaries and soil animals (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EbQysXxofbSqkbAiT/cost-effectiveness-of-shrimp-welfare-project-s-humane).
"Then advocates got to work. With fewer than a thousand full-time advocates globally, the movement waged campaigns that have now spared over 300 million hens from cages. That’s over 300,000 hens per advocate."
Nice estimate! For 13 years, and 2 k hours or work per year, that is 11.5 hens per hour (= 300*10^3/13/(2*10^3)). For 25 $/h, and 10 years of advancement, that is 4.6 hen-years improved per $ (= 11.5*10/25), which is 42.6 % (= 4.6/10.8) of what I estimated in my analysis.
Thanks Vasco! The 300 million hens equates 109.5 billion days of suffering reduced, whereas the (incredible) work of the Shrimp Welfare Project I think still accounts for <5 billion days of suffering. (Of course the comparison by minutes of suffering reduced would be even more skewed.) You're right though that I should have said "most days of animal suffering any animal welfare intervention has ever helped," which is what I care about, not just "most animals," which is what I said.
For your second estimate, I think you're assuming there were 1,000 advocates full-time on this every year since 2015. There weren't. Back then, there were probably ~20 advocates working on this, which has steadily increased to somewhere between 300 and 1000 today (why I just said "fewer than a thousand"). And of course this is just impact realized to date, whereas the vast majority of this work's impact will be in the future.
Thanks, Lewis!
For my estimate of 0.0426 DALYs averted per shrimp helped by SWP (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EbQysXxofbSqkbAiT/cost-effectiveness-of-shrimp-welfare-project-s-humane), SWP has averted 141 MDALY (= 0.0426*3.3*10^9). For my estimates of 0.452 DALYs averter per laying-hen-year improved, and 1.34 hen-years per hen (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8FqWSqv9AeLowgajn/cost-effectiveness-of-corporate-campaigns-for-chicken), the benefits of cage-free corporate campaigns are 0.606 DALYs averted per hen (= 0.452*1.34). So I calculate the total benefits are 182 MDALY (= 0.606*300*10^6), 1.29 (= 182/141) times the total benefits from SWP's past work. There is lots of uncertainty in many numbers. So I would describe the situation as SWP over the past few years having helped animals roughly as much as all cage-free campaigns over the past decade or so, ignoring effects on wild animals.
Accounting for soil nematodes, mites, and springtails, I think GiveWell's top charities have helped way more animal-years, and increased animal welfare much more than cage-free corporate campaigns. I estimated GiveWell's top charities improve 8.05 (= 1.69/0.210) times as many animal-years per $ (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Rjutj7Jd2v2KHvDyA/cost-effectiveness-accounting-for-soil-nematodes-mites-and), and increase welfare 8.05 times as much per $ as cage-free corporate campaigns accounting for those soil animals. I also think GiveWell's top charities have received much more funding, such that their cumulative impact has been much more than that of cage-free corporate campaigns.
Assuming the number of advocates increased linearly from 0 to 1000 over the 13 years, the mean number of advocates would be 50 % the final number of advocates, and therefore the cost-effectiveness would become 2 times as high, 85.2 % (= 0.426*2) of what I estimated in my analysis.