Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.


Progress for factory-farmed animals is far too slow. But it is happening. Practices that once seemed permanent — like battery cages and the killing of male chicks — are now on a slow path to extinction. Animals who were once ignored — like fish and even shrimp — are now finally seeing reforms, by the billions.

It’s easy to gloss over such numbers. So, as you read the wins below, I encourage you to consider each of these animals as an individual. A hen no longer confined to a cage, a chick no longer macerated alive, a fish no longer dying a prolonged death.

I also encourage you to reflect on the role you and your fellow advocates and funders played in these wins. I’m inspired by what you’ve achieved. I hope you will be too.

1. About Cluckin’ Time. Over 1,000 companies globally have now fulfilled their pledges to go cage-free. McDonald’s implemented its pledge in the US and Canada two years ahead of schedule, sparing seven million hens from cages. Subway implemented its pledge in Europe, the Middle East, Oceania, and Indonesia. Yum Brands, owner of KFC and Pizza Hut, reported that for 25,000 of its restaurants it is now 90% cage-free. These are not cheap changes: one UK retailer, Lidl, recently invested £1 billion just to transition part of its egg supply chain to free-range.

2. The Egg-sodus: Cracking Open Cages. In five of Europe’s seven biggest egg markets — France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK — at least two-thirds of hens are now cage-free. In the US, about 40% of hens are — up from a mere 6% a decade ago. In Brazil, where large-scale cage-free production didn’t exist a decade ago, about 15% of hens are now cage-free. And in Japan, where it still barely exists, the nation’s largest egg buyer, Kewpie, pledged to help quintuple the nation’s cage-free production. These changes matter: the most comprehensive analysis to date, by the Welfare Footprint Project, suggests that cage-free hens suffer less than half as much as their caged cousins.

Over 1,000 companies globally have now fulfilled their commitments to go cage-free, up from about 200 a decade ago. 
Source: The Open Wing Alliance.

3. Roomier Roosts for Half a Billion Birds. Almost all of the UK’s largest retailers, from Tesco to Aldi, pledged to cut crowding for the roughly 350 million chickens in their supply chains. The move, which gives each bird about 20% more space, seems modest. But studies suggest that even this small change can halve rates of footpad lesions, and Sainsbury’s reported that the move had already reduced sickness amongst its birds by 29%. Top four German retailers Rewe and Lidl went further, adopting comprehensive animal welfare reforms — including breed changes — that will improve the lives of about 165 million chickens every year.

4. Hatching Egg-citing Innovations. The number of male chicks killed in European hatcheries has fallen by about a fifth in recent years, as in-ovo sexing has reached 20% market penetration, per new research by Innovate Animal Ag. KAT, which certifies most laying hens in Germany, implemented its ban on chick killing, sparing 80 million chicks annually from the practice. The first US egg producer announced it will soon stop chick killing and, just last week, a US hatchery shared that it has installed the nation’s first in-ovo sexing system.

5. Peas Out, Meat; Soy Long, Dairy. Eleven Dutch supermarkets, which together sell 90% of the nation’s groceries, pledged to increase the share of their protein sales that are plant-based from about 40% today to 60% by 2030. Four of Germany’s largest retailers cut the price of their own-brand plant-based meats to match the price of meat. One of them, Lidl, said vegan product sales spiked 30% after it cut prices and placed plant-based meat alongside its meaty counterpart.

plant based price parity
A glimpse of the future? Plant-based meat paired next to more-expensive animal-based meat at German retailer Lidl. Source: GreenQueen.

6. Putting Green into Going Green. Governments invested over $200 million into research and infrastructure advancing alternative proteins, including in the US ($71M via DOC, DOD, and Massachusetts), Denmark (DKK 420M / $59M), Japan (¥7.87B / $51M), the UK (£27M / $34M via two grants), the EU (€12M / $13M) and Beijing (80M Yuan / $11M). New alternative protein research centers, funded by the Bezos Earth Fund, opened in London, North Carolina, and Singapore.

7. A New Top Dog for European Animals. The European Commission announced a new Health and Animal Welfare Commissioner — the first time animal welfare has been elevated to this rank. The new Commissioner, Hungarian populist Olivér Várhelyi, promised to deliver on a revision of the EU’s farm animal welfare laws, though he refused to commit to a timeline. Last week, 11 European countries called on the Commission to move forward with the revision.

8. A Constitutional Clause is a Claws for Celebration. Mexico’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies unanimously approved new clauses enshrining animal welfare in the Constitution, and President Claudia Sheinbaum signed them into law. While the clauses don’t mention farmed animals, they empower Mexico’s Congress to pass a general animal welfare law, which advocates hope will protect farmed animals.

9. Trout-standing Progress. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council, one of the world’s largest sustainability certifiers, finalized its new farm standard, which will improve the welfare of an estimated 1.2 billion fish once implemented. The Council will start rolling it out next year. Aqualande, the largest rainbow trout producer in France, committed to using electrical stunning before slaughter on all of its farms, as did another major aquaculture producer.

10. Raising the Bar for Bottom Dwellers. The UK’s two largest retailers, Tesco and Sainsbury’s, adopted two of the world’s first crustacean welfare policies. They pledged to eliminate the creatively barbaric practice of eyestalk ablation and ensure that the perhaps eight billion shrimp in their supply chains are stunned before slaughter. They also pledged to not sell live crabs or lobsters in store.

Our dog Hope was rescued from a South Korean dog meat farm almost a decade ago. This year South Korea’s Parliament voted to phase out dog meat farms.

Against the giant wrongs of factory farming, these wins may appear small. But for the animals affected, they’re a big deal. And they were all achieved by a small group of advocates operating with less funding than Harvard spent renovating a single residential house.

Many of these advocates and funders read this newsletter. So, this holiday season, let me tell you how much I appreciate and admire what you do. You could easily have chosen to ignore the plight of factory-farmed animals, to dismiss their cause as someone else’s problem, and to focus on helping yourself. Most people do.

But you didn’t. You chose to devote your most precious resources — your time and money — to the cause of a group of individuals ignored by most of society. Individuals who you’ll never meet and who will never thank you or even know your name.

Throughout history, small groups of morally courageous people have made the same choice. They’ve challenged atrocities accepted or ignored by society at large. They’ve toiled endlessly in obscurity and quiet despair — until, eventually, they’ve won.

I know our cause can feel endless too. But you made the right choice. Thanks to you, many animals will suffer less and, one day, we too will win. That’s worth being grateful for. Thank you for all you do, and happy holidays.

Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I notice that one of the UK grants for alernative proteins which you cite says, "Cultured meat, insect-based proteins and proteins made by fermentation" (my emphasis). I find this quite concerning.

I didn't previously realise the term "alternative proteins" includes insects. Has this always been the case? Is the definition contested or is a different term needed?

From the NAPIC website, they include Entocycle, "a world-leading provider of insect farming technology", as one of their partners (though this may not be representative). Interestingly Entocycle do have two pages on insect welfare

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.

Oh, that's a good catch.

Insect based foods tend to apply to alternative protein grants - although the share of the insect market dedicated to meat substitutes is very small. From what I've seen, The Good Food Institute doesn't include insects in their definition of alternative proteins (since, well, they are animal proteins).

It also wouldn't be very strategic to include insects in the list since they perform worse than plant based alternatives from an environmental and, most importantly, acceptability standpoint. I'm on mobile so I don't have a source right now but it was from a Smetana 2023 paper on meat substitutes iirc.

I was pretty positively surprised to read "In Brazil, where large-scale cage-free production didn’t exist a decade ago, about 15% of hens are now cage-free." So I hope I'm wrong about the point below.

To me the article cited seems to instead say just that Mantiqueira, the largest egg producer in Brazil, has almost 15% cage-free production (and will reach 20% with the additional of 3 new cage-free units discussed in the article), not that total Brazilian production is 15% cage-free. (A Bloomberg article suggests the company has 5% organic and 15% "happyEggs" for a total of 20% cage-free production.)

Other sources seem to suggest the total Brazilian hen population is closer to 5% cage-free (e.g., the Latin American Egg Institute says 95% caged referencing 2023 production). Luiz Mazzon, president of the Certified Humane Brasil Institute in an article in May 2024 said “In Brazil, 5% of egg production comes from cage-free or free-range farms",  and this 2023 paper says the same thing (95% in conventional cages). Though this is where it was in 2019 (see this 2019 government-associated report) so maybe they're all referencing old data, not that the share of cage-free production hasn't increased at all (though also consistent with cage-free production increasing, just not as much as non-cage free production increased)

It's still great that the largest egg producer reached the 2.5M cage-free hen goal a year and a half ahead of schedule, and doesn't take much away from the genuine progress in cage-free. I assume these statistics above are old data and don't capture some of the progress that's happening and the projected increase in cage-free from the 35 cage-free commitments that have been fulfilled & 56 reporting (according to ChickenWatch). If you (or anyone in Brazil) have another source on the 15% that'd be really encouraging to read. 

 

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.

Thank you for writing this! 

I want to point out that besides the informational value, I find it personally encouraging and heartwarming to read the part where you expressed your appreciation to donors and advocates in the space, and your vision. I think I might learn from you and try doing more of this in some of my writings. Thank you for doing that.

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 :)

Great list - Always good to see the stuff that is working and that we can make a difference !

I just wanted to say thank you so much for this newsletter and it's crazy Harvard is spending over $800 million renovating one house

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies