The meat-eater problem is often overlooked in discussions of effective neartermist charities. If one takes the concern seriously and cares about animal welfare, saving human lives or increasing income in developing countries (e.g. bed nets) could be net-negative and create net (animal) suffering.
What are the most effective charities that (1) alleviate human suffering* and (2) don't have the meat-eater problem?
*I realize animal welfare charities would fit this description, but I want a "more normal" neartermist charity that I can easily recommend to non-EA-pilled people. That is, one that I can recommend to the average person without having to convince them of any non-standard moral arguments (e.g. longermism)?
Written very quickly, please interpret charitably.
Depression and other mental-health conditions often have a significant impact on productivity and income, though. This suggests that programs that alleviate them may have a significant effect on income (and thus meat consumption).
While I generally do not weigh the meat-eater problem much in evaluating global health charities, I think the indirect income-promoting effect would be of concern to some people.