Cause Priorities for ACE

The number of animals used or killed for food each year far exceeds the number of animals used for any other purpose. In the United States alone, over 9 billion mammals and birds are killed for food each year. That number is significantly greater when fish and other sea creatures are taken into consideration, especially because fishmeal, a product made from small wild-caught fish. However, only on the order of roughly tens of millions of animals are kept as companion animals and used in laboratories animals used in testing and vivisection. That means that over 99% of all domesticated animals in the United States are farmed animals. For more information, see: “Why Farmed Animals?“

In addition to the scale of the problem being very large, industrial agriculture is a system of animal use which is relatively easy for individuals to address on their own. Although it is a complicated and pervasive system, it is one which is supported in large part by the purchasing decisions of individual consumers.

Together, the scale and tractability of farmed animal advocacy makes it a particularly strong opportunity to reduce suffering. Because the scale of the problem is so large, a single law or policy change can affect enormous numbers of animals. Meanwhile, public outreach can have practical effects on animals even if it does not result directly in policy change, because any individual has many opportunities to choose to use fewer products of animal agriculture. (Read more about the effects of individual dietary change on our Dietary Impacts page.)

We evaluate as many organizations working to help farmed animals as possible, because we believe that looking into a variety groups employing a variety of strategies is the best way to find groups doing exceptionally effective work on behalf of animals.

For those interested in supporting farmed animal advocacy, we recommend Anima International, The Good Food Institute, The Humane League, Albert Schweitzer Foundation, Compassion in World Farming USA, and Faunalytics.

Wild animals matter too. The welfare of wild animals is often overlooked in calculations about the relative effectiveness of interventions to reduce suffering. The number of wild animals far exceeds the number of humans, farmed animals, and companion animals. And unfortunately, many wild animals (possibly the vast majority) live very short lives and experience painful deaths. Richard Dawkins is one of many who have remarked on the cruelty of nature: “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.”¹

Historically, ecologists have used the concepts of “K-selection” and “r-selection” to describe two different types of evolutionary “strategies”. In K-selected species, parents invest many resources in raising a few young. In r-selected species, parents have many young and invest few resources in each. Many of the more charismatic species of wild animals, like elephants and apes, are K-selected; they raise their young carefully and live relatively long lives. The charisma of these species may contribute to the common perception that life in the wild is not so bad. However, r-selected species are extremely common in nature and their populations are usually high, at least at times of year when their young have recently been born. The numbers in the following table suggest that much of the pleasure and pain in the world is experienced neither by humans nor domesticated animals, but by animals in the wild.

We currently do not recommend many charities who reduce wild animal suffering. That’s not because we don’t prioritize the welfare of wild animals; it’s simply because not many charities are working in this area yet. There are, however, several strategies that animal advocates are beginning to promote. First, some animal advocates work to spread concern for wild animals among the public, the advocacy community, and the academic community. Second, some advocates work to reduce or end human activities that cause wild animal suffering. Third, there are advocates who conduct research on potentially effective interventions to reduce wild animal suffering.

Promoting concern for wild animals now seems critical, especially because such concern is not widespread. Many people believe that human concern for non-human animals should be restricted to those animals whose suffering is directly caused by humans. Promoting concern for wild animals can help ensure that future generations—who may have more wealth, technology, and knowledge than we have now—will act rationally and humanely to reduce suffering in nature. Animal ethicist Oscar Horta explains: “Our job now is to prepare the grounds for forthcoming generations to take action where we may be currently unable to act.”

Some advocates are already working to end human activities that contribute to suffering in nature. This seems more tractable than promoting new activities to reduce wild animal suffering, since many people are opposed to “intervening” in nature.

We believe that research may be an especially promising way to help wild animals, since it can inform decisions about which interventions to pursue. Wild animal suffering has been a neglected issue, and we have more questions about it than answers. What types of animals suffer most? Which ecosystems have the most suffering? How do various human interventions impact suffering? Researching these questions could have a huge impact by guiding the animal advocacy movement.

Efforts to reduce wild animal suffering may be riskier than other causes because of the high uncertainty involved, but the potential positive impact is high, as well. We hope to see more animal advocates working to reduce wild animal suffering in the near future.¹⁰

Some organizations act on behalf of animals through legal and legislative means. These avenues have the potential to influence many animals at once by using the power of government to require a change in conditions. Some campaigns also try to achieve a shift in the way people think about animals’ status in society.

Legal and legislative means can be effective ways of achieving goals on behalf of animals. However, since many campaigns have relatively low visibility, they may have beneficial results only if entirely successful. Additionally, organizations doing a lot of legal and legislative work often address many different issues through their work, since the same skills are applicable in many different situations. The potential gains from these campaigns vary widely because the number of animals that would be affected varies widely.

Currently, ACE evaluates organizations doing legal and legislative work that has significant potential effects on farmed animals, because we believe this work has the largest potential upside.

For those interested in supporting charities that conduct legal and legislative work on behalf of animals, we currently recommend the Albert Schweitzer Foundation and The Good Food Institute.

Capacity-building charities, including ACE, work with donors and other organizations to aid them in helping animals. Some capacity-building charities fill gaps in the advocacy world—often with specialties such as conducting research or connecting funders to organizations in need of funding. They often help other organizations to function more efficiently, but they do not necessarily cause direct improvements for animals through their own work. We believe that investing funding in capacity building can ultimately provide high value per dollar donated, as conducting evaluative efforts and making recommendations to increase impact can result in broad and systematic changes with regard to how groups conduct their efforts.

We evaluate capacity-building activities and charities on a case-by-case basis. We conduct ongoing reviews of our own activities, but we do not consider ACE as a candidate for evaluation or recommendation, because of our clear conflict of interest. However, we do believe that for donors who share our values, funding ACE directly is likely to be among the most cost-effective capacity-building donation opportunities.

For those interested in supporting capacity-building work on behalf of animals, we currently recommend Anima International, Compassion in World Farming USA, Faunalytics, The Good Food Institute, and The Humane League.

Charities and other organizations promoting the development, production, and use of meat alternatives and cultured meat take a very specific approach to helping farmed animals. While they could thus be considered farmed animal organizations, the challenges of their work are in many ways distinct.

The development of any new technology, and particularly of cultured meat, involves many technical and scientific difficulties. An approach that appeared sound could prove to be fatally flawed. Scientific programs are never easy to evaluate before their completion, and even experts can be wrong about what will or will not work. Also, many times critical advances in a field are made by Researchers working on problems that did not initially seem related. It may not be the case that the best way to promote the development of cultured meat or meat alternatives is to fund Researchers working explicitly on those technologies.

Furthermore, even once a cultured meat or meat alternative exists, it will make a difference for animals only if it is successful at replacing meat produced on farms, not if it is simply commercially successful by replacing existing meat alternatives. Markets are complex, but it is not clear that existing products marketed as meat alternatives have had success by these standards. Although the market for meat alternatives appears to be growing, they may be replacing beans or another type of food product in people’s diets instead of actually replacing meat. The market for meat has not responded clearly to the presence of an increasing number of available alternatives.

ACE considers work on cultured meat and meat alternatives to be a high risk, high reward area. The challenges are substantial, but success could transform the way that our society relates to animals. While for-profit companies working on meat alternatives that have the potential to create significant change probably receive adequate funding through other avenues, we do evaluate nonprofits working in this area. We would also consider investigating specifically promising opportunities to promote change through organizations not registered as charities and which are otherwise underfunded.

For those interested in supporting charities that promote alternatives to animal products, we recommend supporting The Good Food Institute.

Animal testing and vivisection have historically been high-profile causes for protest within the animal advocacy movement. Many groups continue to direct some or all of their efforts toward restricting and ultimately ending the use of animals in laboratories. Such groups have made considerable progress in the past, causing an increasing number of people to consider animal testing to be wrong. For instance, between 2001 and 2013, support for animal testing among younger Americans dropped slowly but fairly steadily, from 66% to 47%, while support among older adults remained roughly constant. Such results suggest that animal advocates are successfully reframing at least some discussions to include the interests of animals.

However, ACE believes the ultimate scope for action on behalf of animals used for animal testing and vivisection is limited. Only a small number of animals are used in laboratories each year: about 1 for every 425 used in the food industry. Combining this with the amount of work that has already been done to oppose animal testing, ACE believes that the most effective actions on behalf of animals at the present time are not likely to be related to animal testing. We do not currently evaluate groups whose primary focus is animal testing or vivisection. However, we do believe that groups may be highly effective overall while focusing a smaller amount of their activities on animal testing or vivisection.

Animals used for entertainment are highly visible; they’re in zoos, circuses, and movies. A variety of groups protest or monitor the conditions of animals in the entertainment industry. Some protest any use of animals for entertainment. Others object only to particularly cruel conditions, such as confinement in small cages or training methods that rely on punishment.

Groups act on behalf of animals in the entertainment industry in many ways. Some publicly protest locations where animals are used or treated poorly. Others attempt to influence local or corporate policy to reduce the number of places where animals are subjected to the worst abuses. Still others set up monitoring schemes that are meant to detect animal cruelty in the industry and shame any offending parties.

Most interventions on behalf of animals used in entertainment help a relatively small group of animals. Any gains therefore have a relatively limited impact. Successful campaigns to alter public opinion may have somewhat larger impact, as they may influence beliefs about the appropriate ways to treat animals used for entertainment, or about whether it is appropriate to use certain animals for entertainment at all. These campaigns may have effects that spread into beliefs about the appropriate treatment of all animals, and in particular farmed animals. However, such campaigns often focus on charismatic species, especially large mammals, and may not alter beliefs about other animals, even if successful in their primary goals.

Most groups that address the use of animals in entertainment also address other ways in which animals are treated in society. ACE does not specifically evaluate these groups because of their focus on entertainment, but may evaluate them because of other focus areas. We believe that the use of animals in entertainment is not the most effective area to target, but that groups may still be effective overall while focusing some attention on the use of animals in entertainment.

The fur industry has historically been a high-visibility cause for protest within the animal advocacy movement. Prominent campaigns against fur reduced its use in fashion in the 1980s and 1990s. However, fur continues to be widely used, and the scale of production has increased since a low in the 1990s. At the same time, advocacy organizations campaigning against fur do seem to have made some progress in affecting public opinion, particularly in Europe and the U.S.: several European countries ban farming animals for fur; European fur producers have developed their own welfare regulations in response to consumer concerns; and a few U.S. cities have banned the sale of fur.

ACE believes that the impact of advocacy on behalf of animals farmed, trapped, or hunted for their fur is limited due to the fact that many fewer animals are affected by the fur industry than by other forces, in particular animal agriculture. We estimate that under 0.1% of domesticated animals used and killed by humans in the U.S. are used for their fur, while around 99.6% are used for food. While the relative sizes of industries vary by country, in the U.S. and countries with similar production and consumption patterns, we believe that the most effective actions advocates can take to help animals will generally not be on behalf of animals used for fur.

Most groups that address the use of animals in the fur industry also address other ways in which animals are treated in society. ACE does not specifically evaluate these groups because of their focus on the fur industry, but may evaluate them because of other focus areas. We believe that groups may be effective overall while focusing some attention on animals used for their fur. This is particularly true for organizations working in countries where fur farms are especially prevalent, in which case small animals farmed for fur may be more numerous locally than larger animals farmed for food.

For those interested in supporting charities that work on behalf of animals used in the fur industry, we currently recommend Anima International.

One important part of caring for animals generally is ensuring that they have a safe place to live and that they receive needed care. Sanctuaries, shelters, and humane societies work to fill this need for rescued farmed animals, wild animals, and companion animals. Most of these organizations use the majority of their resources to provide direct care to individual animals. While this has a clear and concrete impact on the lives of the animals rescued, we currently believe that, regardless of the animal, this type of intervention is unlikely to be among the most cost effective because of the relatively small number of animals each organization can reach. This concern has so far prevented us from evaluating organizations working in this area but that doesn’t mean there isn’t potential for important and high-impact work.

In the case of farmed animal rescues and sanctuaries devoted to caring for and providing homes to rescued farmed animals, we expect that the potential for biggest impact could result from outreach work that influences people through learning about the conditions of farmed animals, or about the animals themselves. For many people, a visit to a farmed animal sanctuary may provide the first personal encounter and chance for connection with animals such as pigs and cows that mainstream culture portrays as objects and potential sources of food rather than subjects and potential friends. A current limitation to this type of impact stems from the fact that many rescues are not widely publicized and many sanctuaries are located in rural areas where it is difficult for them to reach a large audience in person.¹¹

Parallel work is done to address wild animal suffering, with many animal charities devoting some or all of their efforts to rescuing and sheltering wild animals. Similar to farmed animal sanctuaries, there is opportunity here for impact beyond the animals who are helped directly. This kind of work can help promote a culture of compassion for all animals regardless of species. These organizations can help to educate the public about the suffering experienced in the wild and can provide an alternative model for interacting with wild animals. Some wild animal rescues also engage in actions such as attempting to influence policy decisions and public beliefs about wild animals. However, as with farmed animal sanctuaries, the focus for most wild animal rescue organizations is on sheltering and rehabilitating individual animals, which limits the cost-effectiveness in terms of addressing animal suffering in general.

A much more common type of shelter serves companion animals such as cats and dogs. In fact the majority of animal charities in the United States are humane societies and groups that run companion animal shelters as a significant portion of their activities. These groups receive a very large proportion of the overall funding for animal charities in the United States. At this time, ACE is not planning to evaluate any of these groups individually, for several reasons. First, these groups already receive a very high level of funding, relative to other animal charities and relative to the number of animals they affect. Any funding redirected to them by our recommendation would be a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the funding that already exists. Second, ACE believes that all animals deserve to be equally well cared for, regardless of species membership. This is a relatively uncommon view in our society, so an important action animal charities can take is to spread this idea. Charities devoted to caring for companion animals, and especially for dogs and cats, do less in this area than other groups, because many people already believe dogs and cats deserve a high level of care. Third, because people already care more about companion animals and expend more resources upon their well-being, it is likely that the cheapest and easiest opportunities to benefit these animals have already been used. Thus, the marginal impact of new funding would likely be small.

Sanctuaries and shelters for farmed animals, wild animals, and companion animals all do important work that directly affects the animals they serve. We see farmed animal sanctuaries and wild animal sanctuaries in particular as having promise for being able to be a part of potentially powerful outreach experiences that promote care for other species. However we currently do not prioritize shelters and sanctuaries due largely to concerns around cost-effectiveness, and in the case of companion animal shelters also because they are relatively less neglected. Instead, we try to find opportunities where charities can persuade other people to take actions that benefit animals, spreading societal change and making a larger overall difference.

Some organizations focus on helping animals primarily through improving veterinary care options, either through new research or through making care easier to access. They help to train veterinary care personnel, bring mobile clinics to communities where assistance is hard to access, or simply help fund care at veterinary hospitals. The concentration of these benefits appears to be for companion animals, who already receive much better medical care on average than do most animals, specifically farmed animals and wild animals. We do not currently evaluate veterinary charities focused on companion animals, for some of the same reasons that we do not evaluate companion animal shelters. While we value companion animals as much as other species of animals, we think that given the large amount of resources already devoted to companion animal care, these groups are unlikely to be the most cost effective opportunities to help animals. We would consider evaluating veterinary charities focused on other types of animals on a case-by-case basis.

Some charities work on what we call “general animal advocacy.” This usually means that they work on behalf of a wide range of animal populations and/or employ a wide range of interventions. When a group is active in many areas, we decide whether or not to evaluate and recommend that group based primarily on its activities in the areas that we find most promising. Of course, we still take into account the work that they do in other areas, both because they may have accomplishments in those other areas and because they may expend resources in those other areas.