L214

How L214 Performs on our Criteria

Criterion 1: The charity has room for more funding and concrete plans for growth.

Before we can recommend a charity, we need to assess the extent to which they will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. Firstly, we look at existing programs that have a need for additional funding in order to fulfill their existing purpose; secondly, we look at potential areas for growth and expansion. It is important to determine whether the barriers limiting progress in these areas are solely monetary, or whether there are other factors such as time or talent shortages. Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, this estimate is speculative, not definitive. It’s possible that a group could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we have suggested. Our estimates are indicators of the point at which we would want to check in with a group to ensure that they have used the funds they’ve received and are still able to absorb additional funding.

Recent Financial History

L214 has seen significant growth in their income in recent years, which has consistently grown at an increasing rate, from $200,000 in 2013 to $2.7 million in 2016.^{1, 2} In 2016, their expenses totalled $1.9 million, however approximately $700,000 of this was for a legal retainer and wasn’t actually used, thus their true expenses were closer to $1.2 million.³ Through 2017, they are expecting that they will raise approximately $3 million and their expenses will increase to $3.3 million.

Planned Future Expenses

Up until 2016 L214 was paying their staff the French minimum wage, but since then they have been gradually increasing staff pay, with a target of reaching the median wage in France in order to provide a better quality of life for their staff.⁴ Based on their current rate of wage increase, we expect that they will achieve this in 1–2 years. When they were paying minimum wage, they found that they had relatively low turnover as they were hiring highly dedicated activists.⁵ However, as they expand they require more specialist roles to be filled and therefore are offering a higher wage for these roles, as well as for current employees.⁶ They estimate this will increase their wage expenses from $1.5 million to $2.1 million, assuming that the number of employees remains the same.⁷

Given further additional funding, L214 has several areas where they would reportedly put it to use. Firstly they would put it towards the launch of their broiler welfare campaign unit, supporting it with further hires of campaign coordinators. Secondly, they would increase the communications budget to improve media and public impact.⁸ They also have had plans to launch a fish welfare campaign, but other, more achievable projects have taken priority and the fish campaign has not been started.⁹ While this would represent quite a new direction for them, they feel that the number of animals affected would make this a worthwhile pursuit. Additional funding could therefore be used to put this campaign into action; however, we find it quite likely that a new campaign such as this would require a great deal of planning and research, and it is therefore likely that time would quickly become a limiting factor in its progression.

Conclusion

Overall we think that L214 could effectively use $700,000–$3 million split between the three mentioned areas of expansion.^{10, 11, 12}

Criterion 2: The charity engages in programs that seem likely to be highly impactful.

Before investigating the way a charity’s programs are implemented or the outcomes they’ve achieved, we consider the charity’s overall approach to animal advocacy. We expect effective charities to pursue approaches that seem likely to produce significant positive change for animals, though we note that there is significant uncertainty regarding the long-term effects of many interventions.

L214 focuses primarily on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area. L214 pursues many different avenues for creating change: they work to influence individuals, influence industry, build alliances, and influence policy. Pursuing more than one avenue for change seems to be a good idea because, if one proves to be ineffective, L214 still might be impactful. However, we don’t think that charities that pursue multiple avenues for change are necessarily more impactful than charities that focus on one.

To communicate the process by which we believe a charity creates change for animals, we use theory of change diagrams. It is important to note that these diagrams are not necessarily complete representations of real-world mechanisms of change. Rather, they are simplified models that ACE uses to represent our beliefs about mechanisms of change. For the sake of simplicity, some diagrams may not include relatively small or uncertain effects.

Influencing Public Opinion

L214 works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors. We think that the impact of such work may be relatively limited compared to the impact of efforts to influence industry or law. However, we still think it’s important for the animal movement to target some outreach toward individuals, as a shift in public attitudes could lead to greater support for new animal-friendly policies. Public outreach might even be a necessary precursor to achieving institutional change.

L214 conducts undercover investigations of conditions on factory farms, which we think is a particularly effective intervention. L214 works to get as much media exposure as possible for their investigations,¹³ and there is some evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat demand.¹⁴

L214 also works to effect change through online outreach and various forms of grassroots outreach, including leafleting, pay per view videos, publishing a magazine, and organizing marches and demonstrations. There is little evidence available about the effectiveness of these interventions, though we do not currently recommend the use of leafleting as we suspect that it is not as effective as some other means of public outreach.

Influencing Industry

Working to influence the food industry can help animals by leading to welfare reforms or, less directly, by creating a climate in which it is easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products. In the long term, putting pressure on the animal agriculture industry and paving the way for companies that produce alternatives to animal products could weaken the animal agriculture industry through the pressures of the marketplace, perhaps even without the presence of advocacy messages. Weakening the animal agriculture industry may enable stricter regulation of animal welfare.

L214 works with corporations and restaurants to adopt better animal welfare policies and increase the availability of plant-based alternatives to animal products.¹⁵ We believe that corporate outreach can be highly impactful when implemented thoughtfully, though we are less certain of the effects of promoting plant-based options in restaurants.

Building Alliances

We believe that the animal advocacy movement could benefit from building stronger coalitions with other movements. As a result of coalition-building, we can learn from other movements and perhaps even draw new activists into the animal advocacy movement. One way for animal advocates to help build coalitions is to advocate actively for other causes.

L214 engages in some multi-issue advocacy. For instance, they launched Viande.info to discuss the consequences of animal agriculture for public health, world hunger, and the environment. Similarly, they launched an ad campaign in the Paris metro about the effects of meat on the environment.¹⁶ We believe that multi-issue advocacy is important and relatively neglected in the animal advocacy movement.

Influencing Policy and Law

We think that encoding protections for animals into the law is a key component in creating a society that is just and caring towards animals. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we suspect its effects to be particularly long-lasting.

L214 launched a website called “Politique & Animaux,” which they use to track politicians’ voting histories on animal welfare legislation. They are also part of a coalition of groups engaged in political lobbying to put animal welfare issues on the agenda in France. While we think that legal work in general can be highly impactful, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of these particular interventions.

Criterion 3: The charity operates cost-effectively, according to our best estimates.

L214 runs several programs; we estimate cost-effectiveness separately for a number of these programs, and then combine our estimates to give a composite estimate of L214’s cost-effectiveness. Note that all the estimates factor in associated supporting costs including administrative and fundraising costs.¹⁷ We generally present our estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals (SCIs).^{18, 19} We think this quantitative perspective is a useful component of our overall evaluation because quantitative estimates of cost-effectiveness can be:

• Helpful in our mission to identify highly effective ways of helping animals,²⁰
• Useful in making direct comparisons between different charities or different interventions,²¹ and
• Helpful for increasing our transparency.²²

However, the estimates of equivalent animals spared per dollar should not be taken as our overall opinion of the charity’s effectiveness, especially given that we choose not to account for some less easily quantified kinds of impact in this section, leaving them for our qualitative evaluation. Furthermore, our cost-effectiveness estimates are highly uncertain approximations of some of the short term costs and short to medium-term benefits associated with L214’s programs. As we have excluded more indirect or long-term impacts, the overall impact may be an underestimate.There is a very limited amount of evidence pertaining to the effects of many common animal advocacy interventions, which means that in some cases we have mainly used our judgement to assign quantitative values to parameters. Because charities have varying proportions of different types of impact, this makes our quantitative estimates particularly difficult to use to compare charities with a higher proportion of long-term impact to charities with a higher proportion of short-term impact.

We are concerned that readers may think that we have a higher degree of confidence in this cost-effectiveness estimate than we actually do. To be clear, this is a very tentative cost-effectiveness estimate and it plays only a limited role in our overall opinions of which charities and interventions are most effective.²³

Legal Advocacy

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will allocate about 45% of their budget, for a total of around $1.7 million, towards use as a provision for financial risk arising from litigations.^{24, 25} L214 is involved in several lawsuits that include a slaughterhouse filing for trespassing and invasion of privacy, and lawsuits by slaughterhouses and farms that attempt to stop L214 from publishing their investigation.²⁶ In 2013, L214 lost a case that was similar to the latter mentioned and was made to pay a heavy fine and remove the footage of the investigation from the internet.²⁷

Corporate Outreach

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will spend about 23% of their budget, or $850,000, on corporate outreach.^{28, 29} This is associated with some companies adopting new policies, and these policies seem to result in reduced suffering for some farmed animals. We estimate that L214’s corporate outreach will help cause policy changes affecting between 4 million and 20 million laying hens.^{30, 31, 32} The policies focus on moving laying hens to cage-free systems.

Undercover Investigations

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will spend 9% of their budget, or around $330,000, on undercover investigations.^{33, 34} This will result in six to eight undercover investigations being released in 2017.^{35, 36, 37} We estimate that media coverage of these investigations will have the opportunity to be seen between 15 million and 64 million times, including all views when someone sees coverage of one or more investigations multiple times.^{38, 39, 40} This is an estimated cost of between $41,000 and $55,000 per investigation,⁴¹ but only $0.55 to $2.30 per 100 views.^{42, 43}

Grassroots Outreach

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will spend 14% of their budget, or around $540,000, on grassroots outreach.^{44, 45} As a result of their grassroots outreach, L214 will distribute between 400,000 to 2 million leaflets on vegan eating and factory farming.^{46, 47, 48} Additionally, they will distribute 70,000–600,000 L214 magazines,^{49, 50, 51} and their grassroots outreach will be associated with 3,300 to 14,000 pay-per-view watches.^{52, 53, 54} We estimate that the cost per person reached through any one of these grassroots outreach methods is $1.10 to $4.00.^{55, 56}

Vegan Pratique

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will spend about 6.6% of their budget, or around $210,000, on Vegan Pratique.^{57, 58} This appears to be closely related to 15,000–100,000 people signing up for the Veggie Challenge.^{59, 60, 61} This comes to a cost of $2.50–$18 per person signed up for the Veggie Challenge.^{62, 63}

VegOresto

We estimate that in 2017 L214 will spend about 2.6% of their budget, or around $97,000 on VegOresto.^{64, 65} We estimate that 75–225 restaurants will add a vegan meal to their permanent menu as a result of this.^{66, 67, 68} This comes to a cost of $430–$1,300 per restaurant that adds a vegan option to their menu.^{69, 70, 71}

Communications and Social Media

We estimate that in 2017 the videos that L214 shares via Facebook will receive 4 million–7.3 million unique views to 95% of the video length.^{72, 73, 74} However, we note that users also engaged with L214’s content in many other ways, such as watching parts of videos, reading text posts, and reading blog posts.

Changes Since 2016

Figure 3 shows the way in which L214’s budget size and allocation has changed since 2016.

All Activities Combined

To combine these estimates into one overall cost-effectiveness estimate, we need to translate them into comparable units. This will introduce several sources for errors and imprecision, so the resulting estimate should not be taken literally—it is a rough estimate, and not a precise calculation of cost effectiveness.⁷⁵ However, it will provide some information about whether L214’s efforts are comparable in efficiency to other charities’.⁷⁶

We use our estimate of the effectiveness of leaflets as the basis for our rough estimate that between -10 and 1 farmed animal(s) are spared per dollar L214 spent on grassroots outreach.^{77, 78, 79} We also use that estimate and a subjective adjustment factor⁸⁰ to roughly estimate that L214 spared between -10 and 0.30 farmed animals per dollar spent on investigations.^{81, 82, 83}

We consider multiple factors⁸⁴ to roughly estimate that L214 spares an equivalent of between -5 and 10 farmed animals per dollar spent on corporate outreach.^{85, 86, 87} We exclude results from VegOresto, Vegan Pratique, and legal advocacy in our cost-effectiveness estimate and don’t attempt to convert them into an equivalent animals spared figure. The majority of money used in L214’s legal advocacy is set aside in case they lose litigation battles, and so it is unclear how to estimate the effectiveness of those funds. In addition, we felt too uncertain about the impacts of L214’s VegOresto and Vegan Pratique.

We weight our estimates by the proportion of funding L214 spends on each activity; overall, we roughly estimate that, in the short term, after excluding the results of a number of their programs,⁸⁸ L214 spares between -2 and 2 farmed animals per dollar spent.^{89, 90, 91} This equates to between -2 and 3 farmed animal years averted per dollar spent.^{92, 93, 94} Because of extreme uncertainty even about the strongest parts of our calculations, we feel that there is currently limited value in further discussing these estimates. Instead, we give weight to our other criteria.

Criterion 4: The charity possesses a strong track record of success.

Have programs been well executed?

L214 appears to have a strong track record with their investigation work. From October 2015 to June 2017, they released eight undercover investigations of French slaughterhouses, all of which received national media coverage and resulted in some temporary closures.⁹⁵ This work led to the government launching a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee to find out how to improve welfare for animals in slaughterhouses; the committee later published a report which has led to CCTV cameras being included in draft legislation and approved by the National Assembly.⁹⁶ L214 has also pursued legal action against individuals filmed in the investigations, with the first trial resulting in one person being fined and banned from slaughterhouse work and the local administration which ran the slaughterhouse also being fined.⁹⁷ They are yet to see substantial success with their investigations into the foie gras industry, however.⁹⁸ L214 is the most prominent organization working on animal welfare investigations in France, and we can conclude with some confidence that their efforts caused these changes to come at least a few years sooner than they otherwise would have.

Corporate outreach makes up a smaller proportion of L214’s activities, but they have also seen some substantial successes with this program.⁹⁹ Their VegOresto initiative aims to get restaurants to offer a vegan alternative; they have convinced 825 restaurants to sign their charter in the last two years, and are now targeting larger chains.¹⁰⁰ They also are part of the Open Wing Alliance (OWA), and in 2016 (thanks in part to the guidance of The Humane League) they were able to secure cage-free commitments from all major French retailers¹⁰¹ and more than 80% of the food service sector.¹⁰² Most of these commitments will come into action between 2020 and 2025.¹⁰³

They also have a vegan outreach program, which centers around two initiatives—Vegan Pratique and the aforementioned VegOresto. Vegan Pratique serves as an educational resource about veganism, offering dietary information and recipes, and it currently attracts over 4,000 daily visitors.¹⁰⁴ They have recently started a “Veggie Challenge” program that provides daily information about diet change over 21 days. It currently has 10,000 subscribers,¹⁰⁵ which seems to be a promising number, as it was launched in July 2017.¹⁰⁶ As part of the VegOresto initiative, they have created a searchable website database to help consumers find restaurants offering vegan alternatives.¹⁰⁷ The plant-based options available in restaurants may help reduce vegetarian/vegan recidivism and will generally decrease animal product consumption, but we do not think its impact is as large as the impact of their other programs.

Have programs led to change for animals?

Undercover investigations have a history of inspiring stronger animal protection legislation and better corporate policies, both of which relieve some suffering for farmed animals.¹⁰⁸ There is weak evidence that the media attention generated by investigations may be correlated with a reduction in the demand for meat.¹⁰⁹ It is difficult to establish how investigations affect animals in both the short and long term, but we think that L214’s investigations have a strong record. In particular, the government inquiry and subsequent plan to introduce CCTV into slaughterhouses should help to reduce the suffering of animals, both through increasing public awareness of the abuses that take place in industrial agriculture, as well as making slaughterhouse workers more accountable for their actions, and so less likely to commit acts of cruelty in the future.

The commitments resulting from L214’s corporate outreach campaigns will likely affect a large number of animals once they have been implemented. As these commitments are not legally binding, it will be important to follow up with companies to ensure they are adhered to. As far as we are aware, L214 has not made explicit plans to follow up with companies yet; however, as most commitments are for 2020 to 2025, it is probable they will in the future. If these pledges are implemented, their corporate campaigns will have led to direct and measurable increases in the number of animals being raised under higher welfare standards. We estimate that the cage-free commitments they have secured will affect 4 million–16 million hens per year once implemented.¹¹⁰ While this work was carried out in conjunction with the OWA, the successes in France are likely mostly attributable to L214.

The change for animals as a result of L214’s institutional meat reduction work is less clear. Increasing the number of plant-based options available in restaurants may help reduce vegetarian/vegan recidivism, and will likely generally decrease animal product consumption; however, this is also dependent on consumer interest in plant-based options, and we don’t have a clear idea of this for France.

Outreach targeted to individuals, both locally and online, has less strongly documented effects for animals. Research so far suggests that some of these activities have a positive effect, whereas some—such as leafleting—may have a slightly net-negative effect.¹¹¹ Generally the research is not substantial enough for many of the interventions, and some have not been formally evaluated at all. However, we believe that changing individuals’ beliefs and behaviors is a crucial part of building a better world for animals, and we do not want to penalize groups doing this work for the inherent difficulties of measuring success.

Criterion 5: The charity identifies areas of success and failure and responds appropriately.

L214 sets concrete, relevant goals for most of their programs. They appear to use relevant measures to evaluate their programs’ outcomes, although we think they may benefit from setting goals or using metrics that more directly assess the number of animals affected by their programs. They have also demonstrated some willingness to respond to indicators of success and failure in the past.

L214 appears to set annual program goals that are plausibly achievable and are relevant to their mission of reducing animal product consumption and improving farmed animal welfare.¹¹² Some of the goals appear to be fairly specific and measurable, especially for their grassroots and restaurant outreach programs—although we think their goals to achieve a particular number of restaurant pledges might be more mission-relevant if they targeted the likely number of meals or customers affected instead.¹¹³ Our understanding is that they currently aim for their investigations to draw as much press coverage as possible.¹¹⁴ While this broadly aligns with their aim of drawing public attention to the mistreatment of animals, we think they could benefit from setting more concrete goals for their investigations program, which would help them to evaluate its progress relative to reasonable prior expectations.

L214 assesses their programs’ outcomes through a variety of relevant measures. For their non-slaughterhouse investigations, they focus on the effect they have had on the food industry, including evidence that one of their investigations lowered the reputation of the investigated corporation. Their slaughterhouse campaign is more focused on affecting public opinion and galvanizing political change.¹¹⁵ To our knowledge, they have not specified measures of success for this campaign,¹¹⁶ but we believe it was reasonable for them to continue the program despite this, given that it appears to have generated significant news coverage as well as a political response. L214 evaluates their corporate outreach program by the number of large companies that have signed their cage-free pledges,¹¹⁷ estimates the number of animals affected by the campaigns,¹¹⁸ and tracks the amount of media coverage and web traffic they receive as a result of publicized campaigns¹¹⁹—though they (reasonably, in our view) do not consider either form of coverage as a target metric.¹²⁰ They mainly evaluate their VegOresto restaurant outreach program by the number of restaurants that decide to offer vegan meals, and are conducting a survey to help evaluate their recent Vegan Pratique individual outreach campaign.¹²¹

These metrics provide useful information, but we think an organization prioritizing among many different interventions also could benefit from the use of metrics that are more directly related to their ultimate goals. L214 already estimates the number of animals affected by their corporate outreach campaign.¹²² Conducting similar estimates for programs such as individual outreach or encouraging vegan menu options might be useful for determining marginal cost-effectiveness and allocating marginal funds across programs.

We also have some evidence that L214 is willing to change their actions in response to relevant indicators of failure. For example, they reorganized a longstanding annual grassroots campaign against foie gras, deciding to target specific companies after they found that the campaign had begun to receive less media attention.¹²³ Similarly, for years their cage-free campaigning was focused on achieving a legal ban; after achieving little success for many years, they decided to target companies directly.¹²⁴

Criterion 6: The charity has strong leadership and a well-developed strategic vision.

L214 is committed to helping farmed animals,¹²⁵ and they appear to have some commitment to doing so effectively.¹²⁶ They also have a strong commitment to collaboration, sharing their knowledge and combining their efforts with other organizations in a wide variety of ways.^{127, 128, 129} Their board is occupationally diverse, and they appear to give their non-leadership staff a significant role in their strategic planning process.¹³⁰ However, the board does not appear to play a major role in the organization’s decision making.

The charity’s mission emphasizes effectively reducing suffering/helping animals.

Our understanding is that L214’s long-term mission is to “weaken and transform” the animal agriculture industry, which they target in particular because it accounts for the vast majority of animals exploited by humans.¹³¹ As mentioned in Criterion 2, many of the programs they carry out towards these goals are plausibly effective, although some are less so. As mentioned in Criterion 5, they appear to have responded well to indicators of success and failure in the past, although we believe they could be more active in seeking out out these indicators.

Given their mission and their history of conducting evidence-supported interventions, we expect L214 to remain committed to helping farmed animals, and we believe that they have some commitment to doing so effectively.

The strategy of the charity supports the growth of the animal advocacy movement as a whole.

L214 shares their knowledge and resources with a large number of animal advocacy organizations. They are part of the international Open Wing Alliance and have collaborated with the group by sharing relevant information and coordinating campaigns against French-based multinationals.¹³² Recently, they helped found a coalition of 26 French animal charities focused on political change. They contributed their expertise on farmed animal issues, writing several of the coalition’s political propositions.¹³³ They have also shared knowledge and collaborated with a variety of French and other European organizations on a smaller scale.¹³⁴

L214 shares all of their photos and videos from investigations under a Creative Commons license, enabling other organizations to make use of them; for example, their foie gras campaign materials helped several organizations worldwide campaign against foie gras.¹³⁵ In addition, they spend a significant portion of their budget on providing leaflets and other materials to support local action,¹³⁶ which appears to include actions conducted by local organizations otherwise unaffiliated with L214.

L214’s investigations help draw public attention to farmed animal welfare,¹³⁷ and some grassroots organizations organize protests to coordinate with their campaigns.¹³⁸ L214 has also told us that they are the only animal advocacy organization in France frequently conducting investigations,¹³⁹ making them contributors to a neglected area of animal advocacy. They also pursue some movement-building initiatives, such as the annual March to Close All Slaughterhouses.¹⁴⁰

The board of the charity includes members with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences.

L214 has an eight-person board. Its current members include the editor in chief of an antispeciesism magazine, two writers, an activist, a therapist, and two computer scientists, one of whom co-founded a local animal rights organization.¹⁴¹ The previous eighth Board Member joined L214 as a staff member in August, and they are electing a new Board Member to take his place.¹⁴²

According to U.S. best practices, nonprofit boards should be comprised of at least five people who have little overlap with an organization’s staff or other related parties.¹⁴³ However, there is only weak evidence that following these best practices is correlated with success, and if they are correlated, that may be because more competent organizations are more likely to both follow best practices and to succeed—rather than because following best practices leads to success. Since L214 is a French nonprofit, we think their board composition’s alignment with U.S. best practices does not provide significant evidence in favor of their effectiveness.

The evidence for the importance of board diversity is somewhat stronger than the evidence recommending board sizes of five or greater, in large part because there is a significant body of literature indicating that team diversity generally improves performance. However, the evidence we are aware of for the importance of board diversity on organizational performance specifically is less strong.¹⁴⁴ L214’s board appears to have a high level of occupational diversity, but the board does not play a large role in the organization’s decision making, making their variety of viewpoints and expertise less likely to benefit L214 than it otherwise would. Overall, this provides a small amount of evidence in favor of L214’s effectiveness as an organization.

The board of the charity participates regularly in formal strategic planning on behalf of the charity, and involves other stakeholders in that process.

Our impression is that L214’s board does not play a major role in actively deciding on the organization’s plans and strategy.¹⁴⁵ However, non-leadership staff are involved in the process; L214 reviews progress and sets goals biannually during weeklong all-staff meetings.¹⁴⁶ Decision-making otherwise appears to fall to the executive committee, which is composed of the organization’s Director and department leaders.¹⁴⁷ They meet for two days several times per year to discuss priorities, achievements, and strategy.¹⁴⁸

Criterion 7: The charity has a healthy culture and a sustainable structure.

L214 is a quickly growing organization, having roughly tripled in size between late 2015 and late 2017.¹⁴⁹ They’ve made efforts in the past two years to increase their stability and efficiency along with that growth, such as no longer paying everyone the local minimum wage and instituting more hierarchy and specialization in the organization.^{150, 151} The staff members we spoke with told us that they saw this process as having made the organization more effective, and allowing staff members to focus on what they were best at and most interested in.^{152, 153} Despite these changes, L214 still has a relatively non-hierarchical structure and expects to reorganize with a more formal structure in the near future to accommodate recent growth, which could increase efficiency but may also lead to unforeseen challenges.¹⁵⁴ This growth was fueled by (and likely contributed to) an increase in members and donations for the organization, leading to the present situation in which L214 is almost entirely donor-supported, but with a broad base of small donors.¹⁵⁵

The charity receives support from multiple and varied funding sources.

L214 receives support from donations and from some partnerships with businesses, although they tell us that the revenue generated by their business partnerships comprises a minimal part of their budget.¹⁵⁶ They are a membership organization, and members make a donation when they join.¹⁵⁷ As of 2016, they had over 25,000 members, roughly ten times as many as they had in 2013.¹⁵⁸ This growth in membership and donations allowed them to expand the organization, and we would agree that although their donations may come from very similar sources, they do have a large number of donors to rely on.¹⁵⁹

The charity provides staff and volunteers with opportunities for training and skill development, helping them grow as advocates.

L214 has provided staff with limited training opportunities so far, but intends to focus more on staff development in the near future.¹⁶⁰ Staff have been trained in specific areas like video editing and nutrition, and L214 has paid for staff to attend the International Animal Rights Conference.¹⁶¹ The two staff members we spoke with confidentially provided examples of receiving on-the-job training from coworkers, but they also reported having trouble either accessing further resources for training or finding the time to spend on it.¹⁶² We look forward to seeing increased efforts from L214 in this area, as taking time for training helps staff become more effective and efficient in their work.

The charity has staff from diverse backgrounds and with diverse personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age), and views diversity as a resource that can improve its performance.

L214 has no particular programs in place to encourage diversity in their workforce, though they tell us that they oppose discrimination.^{163, 164} The staff members we spoke with confidentially told us that they found L214 staff to be diverse in terms of gender and sexual orientation, and that L214 allows staff and volunteers to freely be themselves, specifically with regard to sexuality and religion, the latter of which can be a contentious issue in France.¹⁶⁵ They also remarked on the lack of people of color on L214’s staff, though they noted that an increasing number of volunteers came from ethnic minorities in France, including some in positions of relative responsibility.¹⁶⁶

The charity works to protect employees from harassment and discrimination.

L214 currently has no specific policies in place to prevent harassment or discrimination.¹⁶⁷ We spoke with two non-leadership employees and performed some due diligence searches, and are not aware of any reports of harassment or discrimination at L214.¹⁶⁸

Questions for Further Consideration

Why does a significant portion of L214’s outreach focus on dietary change rather than directly shifting public attitudes?

Some argue that the effectiveness of a strong focus on individual behavior change (e.g., dietary change) isn’t supported by historical examples or other empirical evidence.^{169, 170, 171} They might argue that most successful social movements have focused their rhetoric on the institution they opposed rather than on individual behavior supporting that institution.¹⁷² Critics also believe it is difficult to build a mass movement when the perceived criteria for acceptance in the movement is a lifestyle change, and that a consumer focus provokes less moral outrage than focusing on the institution—thus missing an important driver of activism and subsequent social change.¹⁷³

It’s important to note that work on dietary change and on attitude change are not mutually exclusive; many animal advocacy activities, including many of L214’s programs, could plausibly lead to both types of change. In general, however, some of L214’s programs seem more focused on incremental change than on building a mass movement supporting institutional change.

According to L214’s interpretation of the relevant research, changes in behaviors can precede changes in attitudes.¹⁷⁴ This means that the development of vegan, meat-free or cage-free options and their progressive passing into the mainstream—whether in restaurants or supermarkets—creates a favorable framework for further long-term change.¹⁷⁵ These changes remove the dependence on animal products and make it easier for the public to sympathize with animals.¹⁷⁶ L214 believes though that both approaches are necessary to create a “virtuous circle,” and they dedicate a considerable part of their resources to awareness campaigns, through investigations and other type of public outreach.¹⁷⁷

Some of L214’s activities (particularly undercover investigations) have the potential to backfire, either by leading to legislation targeting activists or by negatively affecting public opinion of activists. Should donors support such activities?

Critics have argued that some tactics employed by animal advocates, including protests, risk turning public opinion against the animal advocacy movement.¹⁷⁸ While these activities make up a small proportion of L214’s work, they do organize and participate in protests and demonstrations.¹⁷⁹ Investigations make up a larger part of L214’s work and have sometimes led to a slightly different type of backlash in which industry and government respond by attempting to pass laws that target advocates, such as ag-gag legislation in the United States.¹⁸⁰ While L214 tries to maintain good relationships with media and the government, and France does not have ag-gag laws, they have sometimes been the target of lawsuits by industry because their footage is taken without permission.¹⁸¹ L214 has sometimes suffered negative consequences as a result of these lawsuits, such as fines or the requirement to take footage down from their website.^{182, 183}

L214 tries to conduct investigations in such a way that, when courts need to decide between protecting farms and slaughterhouses or protecting L214’s right to speech and the public’s right to information, they will decide in favor of free speech and information.¹⁸⁴ This means conducting the investigations seriously, recording information like dates, times, locations, veterinary concerns, and violations observed.¹⁸⁵ They also file legal complaints with each investigation.¹⁸⁶ Generally, this has led to judges finding in their favor.¹⁸⁷

As regards public opinion, while L214 agrees that there could be mistrust of advocates who film inside farms and slaughterhouses without consent, they have generally found that investigations increase public sympathy with the organization.¹⁸⁸ For example, L214 finds that releasing investigations tends to lead to an increase in donors to the organization.¹⁸⁹ They see a similar pattern with followers on social media.¹⁹⁰ Finally, they try to focus on systemic problems rather than individual farm or slaughterhouse workers, to avoid criticism related to human concerns.¹⁹¹

Does L214 worry that focusing on some of the most extreme confinement practices could lead to complacency with other forms of suffering farmed animals endure or with meat consumption?

Since pushing for welfare reforms often involves working directly with food industry companies, this work can give the public the impression that these companies treat their animals well when this is not the case, especially when animal advocates are incentivized to make the reforms seem like drastic improvements when animals still suffer substantially.¹⁹² Critics would also argue that, empirically, welfare reforms such as banning battery cages reduce only a very small portion of the harm of animal agriculture, if any, so they are not the most cost-effective use of time.^{193, 194, 195}

In addition, some argue that welfare reforms (e.g. bans on battery cages) might lead consumers to think that farmed animals no longer suffer and that helping them is no longer a priority.¹⁹⁶ They cite as evidence that some corporations market themselves as “humane” and “ethical,” which suggests that appearing to support animal welfare does benefit those companies.¹⁹⁷ However, this may only reflect gains to individual companies from positioning themselves as the most humane option.¹⁹⁸ There isn’t much evidence that this kind of marketing increases animal product consumption on the whole, and there is some evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat consumption.¹⁹⁹

On the other hand, some advocates argue that this work could increase the credibility of the animal advocacy movement by showing that it can make progress for animals on an institutional scale, not just an individual one.²⁰⁰ Single campaigns may not eliminate all suffering in a specific area, but they can provide useful information and momentum for future campaigns. The success of welfare reforms also establishes the moral aspects of animal agriculture as a topic in the public domain, which seems important for further progress.

L214 sees a focus on intense confinement practices as addressing the most common situations of farmed animals in France, where L214 says that 95% of pigs, 85% of chickens, 68% of hens and 99% of rabbits are farmed under intensive conditions.^{201, 202} They believe that creating incremental change for these large populations of animals harms the meat industry and also helps to increase public concern for animals.²⁰³ They aren’t aware of any evidence that this type of incremental change leads to complacency.²⁰⁴ However, they don’t limit their work to addressing extreme confinement practices; in their public outreach they include information that shows that the best way to help animals is not to use them at all.²⁰⁵ They also address some “higher welfare” operations in their investigations, such as organic-certified slaughterhouses.²⁰⁶

There are many more farmed fish than other species of farmed animals. Has L214 considered allocating more of its resources towards farmed fish advocacy?

Each year, an estimated 37 billion–120 billion finned fish are slaughtered in the animal agriculture system, compared to roughly 60 billion–80 billion land animals.^{207, 208, 209} While many organizations aim to maximize their impact by advocating for chickens, some argue that those organizations should instead focus more on farmed fish advocacy, as there are even more farmed fish than farmed chickens and the field is currently relatively unexplored.²¹⁰ We agree that helping fish is a valuable area that could potentially use much more work, though we think organizations might be understandably wary of the potential difficulty of campaigning for animals that people may be less likely to be concerned about, as well as the greater uncertainty regarding which changes should be prioritized.^{211, 212} Recently, several charities have entered this arena; Mercy For Animals has conducted a study on how messaging affects behavior and attitudes regarding fish, while the Albert Schweitzer Foundation conducts farmed fish advocacy programs informed by research on fish welfare.^{213, 214}

While L214 agrees it’s likely that the number of farmed fish exceeds the number of farmed land animals globally, they believe the number in France specifically to be smaller.²¹⁵ They also believe they are more likely to have success in campaigns that focus on land animals, at least at the present time.²¹⁶ However, L214 is considering investing resources in investigations and outreach related to farmed fish, and could begin such projects within the next few years.²¹⁷ In addition, they see their work related to veganism as benefiting all species of animals, including fish.²¹⁸

There are some who think that the scale of suffering in the wild is much greater than the scale of farmed animal suffering. What is L214 doing to address wild animal suffering?

There are so many wild animals that improving their welfare may be a large-scale cause area even if only a minority of them are in distress.²¹⁹ It is also a highly neglected cause area; although many organizations work to help wild animals in a general sense, few operate from a perspective that primarily values individual experience and that doesn’t focus on preserving charismatic species at the expense of more numerous ones.^{220, 221} However, wild animal suffering is also a relatively intractable problem, both because it is not directly caused by humans (so we can’t simply stop the actions that lead to it) and because there are currently few people working on it, so possible interventions are not well-developed or understood.²²² Even when we can think of things that seem like they would help wild animals fairly cost-effectively, there may be difficulties to implementing them that we simply don’t know about because they haven’t been attempted.²²³ ACE is also concerned that the general public has strong intuitions against intervention in the wild, and it’s not clear how easily these intuitions can be overcome through thoughtful advocacy, so convincing others to join in helping wild animals might be particularly difficult.²²⁴ Because the cause of wild animals is so large-scale and neglected, ACE thinks we should direct resources to it if we can find opportunities to contribute.

L214 believes that in all likelihood, the amount of suffering happening in the wild is greater than the suffering experienced by farmed animals, and shares the opinion that all sentient beings matter, whether their suffering is caused by humans or by other factors.²²⁵ However, considering that practical solutions to wild animal suffering are scarce and that the organization’s field of expertise lies in field activism and outreach rather than in research, L214 favors a pragmatic approach—aiming to achieve concrete results, mostly for farmed animals.²²⁶ On a limited scale, L214 provides the public with advice to limit the suffering of wild animals who coexist with humans.²²⁷

---

1. Private communication with L214, 2017 

2. Private communication with L214, 2017 

3. “Our expenses for 2016 were around EUR 1.9 million. This number includes about EUR 700,000 “litigation money” or money we are legally obliged to keep until the court investigation procedure is over.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

4. The net median wage in France in 2015 was approximately 1,800 EUR/month which equates to $25,000 USD annually. 

5. “Despite the low wages, the turnover rate has been low because the organization employs very dedicated activists.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

6. “Despite the low wages, the turnover rate has been low because the organization employs very dedicated activists. However, considering its growth, L214 needs to hire specialists for very specific tasks.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

7. Private communication with L214, 2017 

8. “This has been a point of discussion within the organization, because we submitted a funding proposal to a foundation recently. If that materializes, the money from that foundation will be used for the broiler campaign mentioned above. If we got more funding than anticipated, we would use it to hire more staff for that campaign, including coordinators. We would also increase the campaign’s communication budget—which is currently set at a minimum—in order to improve the media and public impact.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

9. “Additional funding would also enable us to launch a campaign on fish, which is not possible this year given the current budget. L214 has been discussing such a project for a long time, but decided to prioritize more achievable goals—even though the number of animals affected is highest in the fish sector. Also, as Mercy For Animals and Animal Equality have demonstrated, investigations can have a large impact on how people think about fish.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

10. This estimation is based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

11. This range is a subjective confidence interval (SCI). An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

12. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

13. “In the past years, L214 investigated several slaughterhouses, reaching a large audience and generating a lot of national media coverage. For example, we were invited to participate in TV discussions on the conditions for farm animals in France.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

14. See, for example:
    Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products. Animal Charity Evaluators.
    Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
    Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
    Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

15. “The VegOresto project helped us gain experience in reaching out to individual restaurants, but we want to achieve better results by focusing on restaurant chains. Six chains already participate in the VegOresto campaign, but L214 wants to redirect our efforts to target the largest franchises in France.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

16. Private communication with L214, 2017 

17. We assume that these costs are evenly allocated across the interventions, and distribute them as such. 

18. An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

19. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

20. Because we are committed to the principles of effective altruism, one of our primary goals is to identify the most effective ways to help animals, given limited resources. We consider all seven of our evaluation criteria to be indicators of cost effectiveness. If we were able to model charities’ actual cost effectiveness with very high confidence, we would make our recommendations based heavily on our CEEs. The most cost-effective charities are, after all, the ones that allow donors to have the greatest positive impact with their donations. Even given the risks and uncertainties described above, directly estimating cost effectiveness is one of the best ways we know of to identify highly cost-effective programs. 

21. Cost-effectiveness estimates are sometimes useful for comparing different charities or interventions to one another. We develop CEEs using consistent methodology and data so that our CEEs for similar charities are meaningfully comparable. Though there are many sources of error that might influence our estimates of the effects of a given charity or intervention, some sources of error may be unlikely to influence our CEEs of charities relative to one another.
    Suppose, for example, that Charities A and B both spend 100% of their funds on leafleting, but we estimate that Charity A spares 1–3 animals per dollar and Charity B spares 8–10 animals per dollar. Our estimate of the effectiveness of distributing leaflets might be too high or too low, but it would appear that Charity B is more cost-effective than Charity A, regardless. They might be distributing more leaflets than Charity A at the same cost.
    It’s also possible that, in some cases, our use of CEEs skews our comparison between charities. We are not able to make CEEs for every charity we evaluate. We do not attempt to estimate the cost effectiveness of charities that have mostly long-term or indirect outcomes. It’s not always clear how we should think about the effectiveness of these charities relative to the effectiveness of charities for which we’ve made CEEs. 

22. We find that, in some ways, the quantitative components of our evaluations are easier for our readers to interpret than the qualitative components. Assigning numbers to uncertain values allows us to be clear about the effects we expect an intervention to have. It allows our readers to identify specific points on which they may disagree. If our evaluations were entirely qualitative in nature, it might be harder for people who disagree with us about the effectiveness of a program to pinpoint the source of their disagreement, since our qualitative statements are more open to interpretation than our quantitative ones. 

23. Further information about our use of cost-effectiveness estimates is available here. 

24. Private communication with L214, 2017 

25. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we assumed that the money allocated to investigations would be distributed in the same way that it was in 2016. This information can be found in L214’s Expenses (2016). This means we assumed that ~86% of the money L214 allocated to investigations would be spent on litigations. In calculating the overall amount L214 spent on litigations, we also account for non-direct costs of programs, such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management, by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

26. Private communication with L214, 2017 

27. Private communication with L214, 2017 

28. Private communication with L214, 2017 

29. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we assumed that the money allocated to campaigns would be distributed in the same way that it was in 2016. This information can be found in L214’s Expenses (2016). This means we assumed that approximately 59% of the money L214 allocated to campaigns would be spent on corporate campaigns. In calculating the overall amount L214 spent on corporate campaigns, we also account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

30. Private communication with L214, 2017 

31. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we use L214’s estimate of the number of chickens affected by these policy changes in the first six months of 2017 to make an estimate for the entire year of 2017. 

32. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 4.3 million to 17 million, 4.1 million to 17 million, 4.2 million to 16 million, 4.1 million to 17 million, and 4.1 million to 17 million layer hens affected annually. 

33. Private communication with L214, 2017 

34. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we assumed that the money allocated to investigations would be distributed in the same way that it was in 2016. This information can be found in L214’s Expenses (2016). This means we assumed that ~14% of the money L214 allocated to investigations would be spent on undercover investigations. In calculating the overall amount L214 spent on undercover investigations, we also account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

35. In November 2017 L214 reported that 6 investigations had already been revealed in 2017:

    • https://www.l214.com/enquetes/2017/elevage-made-in-france/henaff/
    • https://multi-restauration-services.stopcruaute.com/
    • https://www.l214.com/enquetes/2017/abattoir-made-in-france/houdan-gaz-co2/
    • https://www.l214.com/enquetes/2017/abattoir-made-in-france/houdan/
    • https://www.l214.com/enquetes/2017/elevage-made-in-france/quimper/
    • https://www.l214.com/enquetes/2017/elevage-made-in-france/poulets-doux/

    At that time L214 also said that they expected to reveal one more by the end of the year. 

36. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we used the information we had to estimate how many investigations L214 would release in 2017. 

37. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 6 to 8, 6 to 8, 6 to 8, 6.1 to 8, and 6 to 8.1 investigations. 

38. L214 provided evidence that on several platforms, videos of their investigations reached several million views. When cumulating Facebook and Youtube views, some investigations count more than 5 million views. This information can be found in L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

39. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we used the information about the number of views over Facebook and Youtube to estimate how many views L214’s investigations would release in 2017. 

40. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 16 million to 61 million, 16 million to 63 million, 16 million to 64 million, 15 million to 64 million, and 15 million to 59 million views. 

41. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $41,000 to $55,000, $41,000 to $55,000, $41,000 to $54,000, $41,000 to $55,000, and $41,000 to $55,000 per investigation. 

42. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate this range by dividing 100 times our estimate of the amount of money L214 allocated to undercover investigations by our estimate of the number of views L214’s investigations would receive in 2017. 

43. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $0.57 to $2.30, $0.55 to $2.20, $0.56 to $2.20, $0.55 to $2.20, and $0.59 to $2.30 per investigation. 

44. Private communication with L214, 2017 

45. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

46. L214 reported that in their 2016 grassroots outreach figures that the number of leaflets distributed was 780,000. This information can be found in L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). Our understanding is the the proportion of the 2016 grassroots outreach budget allocated to leaflet distribution was roughly the same as it was in 2017. 

47. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we use L214’s estimate of their number of leaflets distributed in 2016 and the increase in funding directed towards this program area in 2017 to estimate how many leaflets L214 will distribute in 2017. 

48. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 420,000 to 2 million, 380,000 to 2 million, 350,000 to 2 million, 390,000 to 2 million, and 400,000 to 2 million leaflets distributed. 

49. Private communication with L214, 2017 

50. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we use L214’s estimate of their number of magazines distributed in 2016 and the increase in funding directed towards this program area in 2017 to estimate how many magazines L214 will distribute in 2017. 

51. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 74,000 to 540,000, 76,000 to 540,000, 75,000 to 530,000, 75,000 to 560,000, and 72,000 to 550,000 L214 magazines distributed. 

52. Private communication with L214, 2017 

53. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we use L214’s estimate of their number of pay-per-view video views in 2016 and the increase in funding directed towards this program area in 2017 to estimate how many pay-per-view video views they will receive in 2017. 

54. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 3,400 to 14,000, 3,400 to 14,000, 3,500 to 14,000, 3,500 to 14,000, and 3,300 to 14,000 L214 pay-per-view watches. 

55. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate this range by dividing our estimate of the total costs of this program by our estimate of how many people will be reached through this program. 

56. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $1.1 to $4.2, $1.1 to $4.2, $1.1 to $4.2, $1.1 to $4.1, and $1.1 to $4.1 per person reached through grassroots outreach. 

57. Private communication with L214, 2017 

58. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we assumed that the money allocated to campaigns would be distributed in the same way that it was in 2016. This information can be found in L214’s Expenses (2016). This means we assumed that ~17% of the money L214 allocated to campaigns would be spent on corporate campaigns. In calculating the overall amount L214 spent on Vegan Pratique, we also account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

59. Private communication with L214, 2017 

60. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we use L214’s reported number of Veggie Challenge sign ups for late June 2017 to early October 2017 to roughly estimate how many Veggie Challenge sign ups L214 would receive for the entire year of 2017. 

61. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 16,000 to 110,000, 16,000 to 110,000, 16,000 to 110,000, 16,000 to 110,000, and 16,000 to 110,000 sign-ups to the Veggie Challenge. 

62. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate this range by dividing our estimate of the the total costs of this program for 2017 by our estimate of the number of Veggie Challenge sign-ups L214 would receive in 2017. 

63. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $2.6 to $17, $2.6 to $17, $2.5 to $17, $2.5 to $18, and $2.5 to $18 per sign-up to the Veggie Challenge. 

64. Private communication with L214, 2017  

65. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we assumed that the money allocated to campaigns would be distributed in the same way that it was in 2016. This information can be found in L214’s Expenses (2016). This means we assumed that ~6.7% of the money L214 allocated to campaigns would be spent on corporate campaigns. In calculating the overall amount L214 spent on VegOresto, we also account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, general expenses, and donor management by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such.  

66. L214 reported that in about two years, 840 restaurants have signed the VegOresto pledge. They also reported that although some restaurants already had a vegan option on their menu and just had to sign up, a significant number of restaurants actually added a vegan option after being contacted by L214. This information can be found in L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

67. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we guessed that the rate of restaurant sign-ups L214 had so far experienced would continue throughout 2017. 

68. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 77 to 240, 75 to 230, 76 to 230, 76 to 230, and 78 to 230 restaurants. 

69. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate this range by dividing our estimate of the total costs of this program by our estimate of the number of restaurant sign ups L214 would receive in 2017. 

70. L214 notes: “VegOresto pursues other objectives such as:

    • Building momentum
    • Local media coverage (single restaurants and local events are an easy way to reach the public through local media)
    • Helping consumers find their nearest restaurant (thanks to website)
    • Providing visibility to restaurants

    Providing practical advice to restaurants 

71. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $430 to $1,300, $430 to $1,300, $440 to $1,300, $440 to $1,300, and $440 to $1,300 per restaurant. 

72. From the Facebook data that L214 provided we estimated that in the previous 90 days they had had approximately 1.4 million unique video views to 95% of the length of the video. 

73. In our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate we extrapolate from our estimate of the number of views that L214’s videos received over Facebook in the previous 90 days to roughly estimate how many views to 95% L214’s videos shared over Facebook would receive for the entire year of 2017. 

74. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 4 million to 7.3 million, 3.9 million to 7.3 million, 3.9 million to 7.3 million, 3.9 million to 7.4 million, and 3.8 million to 7.3 million unique video views to 95% of the video’s length. 

75. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates to this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time L214 employees spend on each activity we have described and about how administrative and fundraising costs should be assigned to the various areas. However, the amount of error in our following estimates can be expected to be considerably greater. 

76. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

77. Here is our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using the reported budget and achievements provided by L214. 

78. Note that these numbers reflect our estimate of the dietary effects of L214’s outreach work, and not the effects of movement building, which were not estimated. 

79. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -12 to 1.4, -9 to 1.4, -14 to 0.99, -11 to 1.3, and -12 to 1.1 farmed animals spared per dollar L214 spent on grassroots outreach. 

80. This factor attempts to account for the difference in depth and content of reports of investigations (i.e., less focus on reasons to reduce or eliminate animal product consumption) through the media. 

81. Here is our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using the reported budget and achievements provided by L214. 

82. We use our cost-effectiveness estimate for leafleting to inform cost-effectiveness estimates for similar interventions because, currently, the leafleting estimate is the most evidence-based estimate for how brief exposure to animal advocacy material effects short term animal product consumption. 

83. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -5.3 to 0.28, -7.8 to 0.26, -7.7 to 0.21, -6.8 to 0.27, and -3.9 to 0.27 farmed animals spared per dollar L214 spent on investigations. 

84. These factors include the number of animals affected by corporate policy changes associated with L214, the extent to which L214 worked with other groups to achieve those victories, the extent to which these policy changes are accelerated as a result, and the proportion of suffering alleviated by those policy changes. 

85. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

86. Here is our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using the reported budget and achievements provided by L214. 

87. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -3.9 to 8.9, -3.4 to 9.6, -5 to 8, -4.5 to 8, and -3.7 to 9.9 farmed animals spared per dollar L214 spent on corporate campaigns. 

88. For example, this estimate doesn’t include the effects of the print media coverage of L214’s work. 

89. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

90. Here is our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using the reported budget and achievements provided by L214. 

91. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -1.9 to 1.8, -1.6 to 2.3, -2.3 to 1.7, -1.9 to 1.9, and -1.5 to 2.1 farmed animals spared per dollar L214 spent. 

92. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

93. Here is our 2017 L214 cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using the reported budget and achievements provided by L214. 

94. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -2 to 3.3, -2.1 to 3.4, -1.9 to 3.5, -2.3 to 2.9, and -2.4 to 2.8 farmed animal years averted per dollar L214 spent. 

95. “Between October 2015 and June 2017, L214 released 8 undercover investigations filmed in several slaughterhouses: Alès, Le Vigan, Mauléon-Licharre, Pezenas, Mercantour, Le Vigeant, Limoges and Houdan. This led to the immediate temporary closure of 3 slaughterhouses: Alès, Le Vigan and Mauléon-Licharre.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

96. Here is the news report of the commitment to have CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses. 

97. “One employee was found guilty of 17 infringements and was sentenced to a 5-year prohibition to work in a slaughterhouse, a heavy fine and a 8-month conditional sentence. […] The local administration (manager of the slaughterhouse) was also fined, convicted for 5 regulatory offenses.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

98. “L214 has reframed some of our campaigns, such as the foie gras initiative. L214 has been campaigning against foie gras since our beginning and we even trace our origin to a grassroot campaign called Stop Gavage. Since then, we have been active every year during the festive season, although media attention has been lower in recent years due to the repetition. We therefore decided to make significant changes—such as targeting specific companies.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

99. See Criterion 3. 

100. “We continued the VegOresto campaign, which encourages restaurants to include a vegan option in their menus. So far, more than 800 restaurants have signed up to the charter and offer vegan alternatives for all courses, from starters to desserts. […] The VegOresto project helped us gain experience in reaching out to individual restaurants, but we want to achieve better results by focusing on restaurant chains. Six chains already participate in the VegOresto campaign, but L214 wants to redirect our efforts to target the largest franchises in France.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

101. “Between 2016 and 2017, every major retailer published a cage-free policy including: 

102. “Following L214 and THL’s work, more than 80% of the Food Service sector in France has now a public cage-free policy.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

103. “Although this paper does not detail the deadlines for each company, deadlines for cage-free commitments are usually 2020 or more often 2025.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

104. Private communication with L214, 2017 

105. “In a few weeks, more than 10,000 people have subscribed to the Challenge and the Facebook group counts 2,900 members.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

106. “June 2017: launch of the Veggie Challenge which is closely related to Vegan Pratique.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

107. Private communication with L214, 2017 

108. For further information please see our review of undercover investigations. 

109. See, for example:
     Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products. Animal Charity Evaluators.
     Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
     Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
     Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

110. See Criterion 3. 

111. For further information please see our updated leafleting intervention report. 

112. When considering how well charities assess success and failure, one useful consideration is whether their goals are SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Specific, well-defined goals help guide an organization’s actions, and can help them determine which areas or programs have succeeded and failed. Setting a measurable target allows organizations to determine to what extent they’ve met their goals. It is also important that goals be plausibly achievable; goals that are predictably over- or undershot tell an organization little about how well their programs have done. Goals should be relevant to the organization’s longer-term mission, both to guide their actions and to help them evaluate success. Finally, including time limits is especially important, as it keeps a charity accountable to their expectations of success. 

113. Private communication with L214, 2017 

114. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017  

115. Private communication with L214, 2017

     They have also described “reaching a large audience and generating a lot of national media coverage” with their slaughterhouse campaign as a major accomplishment in the past year, going on to describe the news coverage and the resulting legal changes. This information can be found in Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017). 

116. Private communication with L214, 2017 

117. “For the cage-free campaign, success is measured by the number of companies that commit to only using eggs from cage-free farms. […] [L214] has since shifted to targeting the leaders in each sector first.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

118. L214 shared an internal document with ACE that listed estimates of the number of animals affected for most of their corporate campaigns. 

119. Private communication with L214, 2017 

120. L214 did not mention press coverage or social media interest when asked about how they measure their programs’ outcomes. 

121. “For VegOresto, success is quantified by the number of restaurants that signed up. L214 also makes sure they comply with their commitments. […] [Vegan Pratique] subscribers are also sent a survey to determine how they perceived the initiative and what impact it had on them. Since the program has only been started recently, the survey has not produced any results yet.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

122. L214 shared an internal document with ACE that listed estimates of the number of animals affected for most of their corporate campaigns. 

123. Private communication with L214, 2017 

124. “The cage-free campaign has undergone a shift of focus as well. For years, it had been run as a political campaign to ban cages, without yielding many successes. Therefore, L214 decided to redirect it to target the companies directly.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

125. Private communication with L214, 2017 

126. See our discussion of their programs’ plausible effectiveness in Criterion 2, and our discussion of their willingness to respond to indicators of success and failure in Criterion 5. 

127. “In 2016, L214 joined forces with The Humane League and other organizations within the Open Wing Alliance, a coalition aimed at ending cages worldwide. This enabled L214 to […] get and share valuable knowledge and intelligence in a very globalized market.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

128. Private communication with L214, 2017 

129. Private communication with L214, 2017 

130. Private communication with L214, 2017 

131. Private communication with L214, 2017 

132. “In 2016, L214 joined forces with The Humane League and other organizations within the Open Wing Alliance, a coalition aimed at ending cages worldwide. This enabled L214 to […] get and share valuable knowledge and intelligence in a very globalized market.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017)
     “L214 continues partnering with THL and OWA to secure global commitment from French-based multinationals.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

133. Private communication with L214, 2017  

134. Private communication with L214, 2017  

135. Private communication with L214, 2017 

136. “2016 Grassroots Outreach figures:

     • 2,000 volunteers
     • 40 local grassroot groups
     • 780,000 leaflets and brochures on vegan eating and factory farming distributed”

     —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

137. “Each of [L214’s slaughterhouse investigations] received national and international attention, representing hundreds of press articles, radio and TV reports. L214 spokespersons were invited for debates at numerous national TV and radio shows […] On several platforms, L214 videos reached several million views. When cumulating facebook and Youtube views, some investigations count more than 5 million views.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

138. Private communication with L214, 2017 

139. Private communication with L214, 2017 

140. Private communication with L214, 2017 

141. Private communication with L214, 2017 

142. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

143. See these three standards for nonprofits in the U.S. suggesting between five and seven Board Members as a minimum. 

144. We’re aware of two studies of nonprofit board diversity that found that diverse boards are associated with better fundraising and social performance, as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making. 

145. Private communication with L214, 2017 

146. Private communication with L214, 2017 

147. Private communication with L214, 2017 

148. Private communication with L214, 2017 

149. Private communication with L214, 2017 

150. “Originally, we were paid the legal minimum wage in France, but salaries have been raised this year. In the long term, L214 aims to pay its employees the median wage. The organization considers investments in people as a strength. Despite the low wages, the turnover rate has been low because the organization employs very dedicated activists. However, considering its growth, L214 needs to hire specialists for very specific tasks.” —Conversation with Brigitte Gothière and Johanne Mielcarek of L214 (2017) 

151. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

152. This year we attempted to speak confidentially with two non-leadership staff members from each comprehensively evaluated charity. To protect their confidentiality, what we learned in these conversations is paraphrased in the review, and references to these conversations are identified only as “Private communication with an employee of [Charity], 2017.” For more information, see our blog post discussing this change. 

153. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

154. Private communication with L214, 2017 

155. Private communication with L214, 2017 

156. Private communication with L214, 2017 

157. According to L214’s website, “A membership gives you the status of an L214 member, allows you to participate in general meetings, and increases the legitimacy of the association with regard to our various interlocutors. You join or extend your membership by making a donation of the amount of your choice[.]” This text was originally in French, and read: “Une adhésion vous donne le statut de membre de L214, vous permet de participer aux assemblées générales et augmente la légitimité de l’association face à nos différents interlocuteurs. On adhère ou prolonge son adhésion en faisant un don du montant de son choix[.]” 

158. Private communication with L214, 2017 

159. Private communication with L214, 2017 

160. Private communication with L214, 2017 

161. Private communication with L214, 2017 

162. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

163. Private communication with L214, 2017 

164. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

165. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

166. Private communication with an employee of L214, 2017 

167. Private communication with L214, 2017 

168. During our review process we performed Google searches wherein we paired the terms “harassment,” “discrimination,” and “lawsuit” with the names of senior members of each organization’s leadership. For L214, we performed this search in both English and French. 

169. “In any event, consumer action alone is unlikely to constitute the sole, or even the greatest, response to the animal welfare issue.”—Anderson, J. (2011). Protection for the Powerless: Political Economy History Lessons for the Animal Welfare Movement. Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy, 4(1). 

170. “Moreover, the movement’s focus on mass consumer dietary change has little historical or empirical basis, despite being our movement’s main strategy.” —Burns, B. (2015). Why Beyonce Going Vegan is Bad for Animals. Direct Action Everywhere. 

171. “Most abolitionists did not see the free produce movement as being vital to the cause. A few dedicated proponents were able to stay completely away from slave goods but a number of other abolitionists endorsed the concept only when convenient. Many more ignored the issue altogether. The movement never grew large enough to gain the benefit of the economies of scale, and the cost of ‘free produce’ was always higher than competing goods. Though William Lloyd Garrison in Boston, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, initially proclaimed at a convention in 1840 that his wool suit was made without slave labor, he later examined the results of the movement and criticized it as an ineffective method to fight slavery, and as a distraction from more important work.”—Wikipedia entry on the free produce movement, a relatively well-studied historical example of a movement focused on individual changes in consumption. 

172. Jacy Reese mentions the example of the anti-slavery movement which, from its beginnings, focused on its opposition to slavery as an institution. “From its inception, however, the [anti-slavery] activists focused on a radical call for complete abolition, rather than incremental reform for slaves or individually changing the behavior of slave-owners or consumers of slave-produced goods.”—Reese, J. ( 2015). Confrontation, Consumer Action, and Triggering Events. Academia.edu. 

173. “Moral outrage is also described as “a response to the behavior of others, never one’s own.” It seems natural that institutional messaging would be more likely to spark the emotion because it puts the blame for the issue on an outside institution or one that the audience member is only a small part of, usually the animal agriculture industry or society as a whole.”—Reese, J. (2016). The Animal-Free Food Movement Should Move towards an Institutional Message. Medium. 

174. Private communication with L214, 2017 

175. Private communication with L214, 2017 

176. Private communication with L214, 2017 

177. Private communication with L214, 2017 

178. “Taking a page from human rights efforts, disruptive protest and civil disobedience tactics have had a resurgence within the animal rights movement, largely due to the efforts of Direct Action Everywhere […] In fact, continuing to use these tactics risks stunting our movement’s growth and making it more difficult to sway the public to our side.”—Felsinger, A. (2016). Direct Action Leading Where? Medium. 

179. For example, they organize a yearly protest of slaughterhouses in general. 

180. “Between October 2015 and June 2017, L214 released 8 undercover investigations filmed in several slaughterhouses: Alès, Le Vigan, Mauléon-Licharre, Pezenas, Mercantour, Le Vigeant, Limoges and Houdan […] In 2016 and 2017, L214 revealed two investigations showing cage farming operations.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

181. Private communication with L214, 2017 

182. “The Versailles Criminal Court on Monday (October 9th) sentenced two activists of the L214 animal welfare association to a fine of 6,000 euros, including 5,000 suspended, for ‘violation of domicile’.” —Le Monde. (2017). Deux militants de l’association L214 condamnés à une amende pour s’être introduits dans un abattoir. Le Monde.

     Original text: “Le tribunal correctionnel de Versailles a condamné, lundi 9 octobre, deux militants de l’association de défense des animaux L214 à une amende de 6 000 euros, dont 5 000 avec sursis, pour « violation de domicile ».” 

183. Private communication with L214, 2017 

184. Private communication with L214, 2017 

185. Private communication with L214, 2017 

186. Private communication with L214, 2017 

187. Private communication with L214, 2017 

188. Private communication with L214, 2017 

189. Private communication with L214, 2017 

190. Private communication with L214, 2017 

191. Private communication with L214, 2017 

192. “Animal advocates give awards to slaughterhouse designers and publicly praise supermarket chains that sell supposed “humanely” raised and slaughtered corpses and other “happy” animal products. This approach does not lead people incrementally in the right direction. Rather, it gives them a reason to justify going backwards. It focuses on animal treatment rather than animal use and deludes people into thinking that welfare regulations are actually resulting in significant protection for animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

193. “While cage free eggs may be more humane than battery cage eggs, they are still far from ideal…Offering minor improvements for the way we treat farmed animals is a small step, however, it should not be misinterpreted as a win.” —Buff, E. (2015). Why California’s New Animal Welfare Law is a HUGE Lesson for Animal Activists. One Green Planet. 

194. Although most advocates agree that it is less bad for an animal to be raised for food with less suffering, some believe that the act of farming animals is intrinsically harmful and even if we reduced or eliminated suffering in animal agriculture, it would still be very bad. Gary Francione has made claims that seem to suggest this view, such as: “They are angry that I am what they call an “absolutist” who maintains that we cannot justify *any* animal use. They are right. I am an absolutist in this regard—just as I am an “absolutist” with respect to rape, child molestation, and other violations of fundamental human rights. Indeed, I would not have it any other way. Absolutism is the only morally acceptable response to the violation of fundamental rights whether of humans or nonhumans.” —Francione, G. (2015). A Lot of People Are Angry With Me—And They Are Right. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

195. Cage-free systems might also cause or increase some welfare issues. For instance, in cage-free systems, “hens stir up dust while walking on the floor, which contains some of the birds’ manure, elevating ammonia levels.” —Kesmodel, D. (2015). Cage-Free Hens Study Finds Little Difference in Egg Quality. Wall Street Journal. 

196. We ourselves have expressed this concern, such as in our report on corporate outreach, even though we believe overall that humane reform has a net benefit on the likelihood of further improvements for animals. 

197. “Is it not just a little ironic that a representative of the Meat and Livestock Commission understands perfectly what is going on here? “Happy” meat makes “the whole thing look more acceptable.” “Happy” meat means more meat eaters and more slaughtered animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

198. “There is a clear trend that suggests Chipotle and McDonald’s are playing something close to a zero-sum game for customers. U.S. bar and restaurant sales grew just 2.9% in 2014, according to Technomic. After inflation, restaurants are fighting for a larger slice of a fixed pie.” —Cooper, T. (2015). Why Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Will Eat McDonald’s Corporation’s Lunch. The Motley Fool. 

199. See, for example:
     Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products. Animal Charity Evaluators.
     Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
     Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
     Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

200. “For example, thanks to Josh Balk’s [of Hampton Creek Foods] relationship with Compass Group, Compass Group has switched to Just Mayo for all their mayonnaise, which has removed an unbelievable number of eggs from the supply chain. Similarly, THL is campaigning for Shake Shack to sell veggie burgers at the moment. This kind of work would be very valuable: directly, for the animals involved, and indirectly, for the news coverage produced.” —Conversation with David Coman-Hidy of The Humane League (2015) 

201. Private communication with L214, 2017 

202. ACE has not independently verified the claim about how many farmed animals are farmed under intensive conditions in France, though it is consistent with what we would expect to see. For example, the FAO estimated in 2015 that nearly 80 percent of poultry and pigs in OECD nations were raised in “landless intensive” systems, with a majority of other animal agriculture in those countries happening in “mixed” systems. See Figure 282. —FAO. (2015). The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, edited by B.D. Scherf & D. Pilling. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. 

203. Private communication with L214, 2017 

204. Private communication with L214, 2017 

205. Private communication with L214, 2017 

206. Private communication with L214, 2017 

207. This does not include the number of wild fish caught and processed into food for farmed fish. It is likely that many fish are killed this way; we estimated ten for every farmed fish consumed in the U.S. However, empirical data is scarce and ethical opinions differ when it comes to helping wild fish. We believe it is highly unclear whether process leads to overall worse outcomes for fish, given that the alternative may be a similar or worse death later on, and the additional lifespan won may be net negative for the fish. However, some argue that our obligation is to reduce the harm caused by humans to animals, rather than the overall suffering they experience. Given the high uncertainty involved in attempting to help wild fish, we focused on asking charities about improving the well-being of farmed fish. 

208. The estimate of 37 billion–120 billion fish is based on 2010 data. The Open Philanthropy Project has adjusted this estimate for growth since 2010 and estimates that now 50 billion–170 billion fish are farmed annually. However, the methodology they’ve used for this adjustment is not public. 

209. The number of land animals comes from FAO’s 2014 data, accessed here. They provide estimates of 326,294,875 animals slaughtered for beef and buffalo meat, 66,234,895,000 animals slaughtered for poultry meat, and 989,247,558 animals slaughtered for sheep and goat meat, as well as 7,253,785,000 active laying hens and 765,916,303 active milk animals.

     The number of land animals does not include farmed insects, which may also add up to the billions—and are also not a major target of campaigns at present. 

210. “So far, effective altruists concerned with animal suffering have seen these criteria as supporting interventions that improve the lives of layer hens, and they now seem to think that these criteria support directing efforts toward broilers. In this paper, however, we argue that the effective altruist framework commits animal advocates to focus at least as much attention—if not more—on fish.” —Elder, M., & Fischer, B. (2017). Focus on Fish: A Call to Effective Altruists. Essays in Philosophy, 18(1). 

211. We think advocates’ views on which animals the public is likely to be concerned about are likely primarily influenced by intuition and experience, though MFA has conducted a survey that provided some evidence suggesting that the people tend to find fish less intelligent and less able to feel than other common animals used for food. 

212. For example, in our 2016 review of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, we noted that they had developed a program for improving trout welfare, and they were considering developing programs for other species—but they expected that this would need to be a separate project, meaning that affecting the aquaculture industry as a whole might be a deceptively large project. 

213. The Mercy For Animals study is presented in two parts, one section on neutral messaging and one on activist messaging. 

214. For more on the Albert Schweitzer Foundation’s programs, see our 2016 review. 

215. Private communication with L214, 2017 

216. Private communication with L214, 2017 

217. Private communication with L214, 2017 

218. Private communication with L214, 2017 

219. On our page regarding cause prioritization, we estimated that there are around 10 trillion wild vertebrates and even more wild invertebrates, compared to about 30 billion farmed animals and fewer animals in other categories. See the section on Scale. 

220. We know of one charity, Animal Ethics, that does advocate for wild animals from a perspective that primarily values individual experience. For more, see ACE’s 2017 Review of Animal Ethics. 

221. “The problem is that the wild-animal welfare space includes maybe a dozen people, nearly all of whom are dividing their time between wild-animal suffering and something else. As far as I know exactly one of us is a biologist; most people who do research about wild animal suffering are, by training, philosophers, social scientists, or programmers.” —Frantz, O. (2017). We Have No Idea If There Are Cost-Effective Interventions into Wild-Animal Suffering. Thing of Things—Wordpress. 

222. “Humans presently lack the knowledge and technical ability to seriously “solve” the problem of wild-animal suffering without potentially disastrous consequences. However, this may not be the case in the future, as people develop a deeper understanding of ecology and welfare assessment.” —Tomasik, B. (2015). The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3(2). 

223. Some are concerned that even cautious methods like educational outreach could do more harm than good in some circumstances. “There may be a danger here of raising the wild-animal issue before the general public is ready. Indeed, the cruelty of nature is often used as a reductio by meat-eaters against consequentialist vegetarianism. Suggesting that ethical consideration for animals could require us to expend resources toward long-term research aimed at helping wildlife might turn off entirely people who would otherwise have given some consideration to at least those animals that they affect through dietary choices (Greger 2005).” —Tomasik, B. (2015). The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3(2). 

224. This is particularly evident in thinking that implies an situation can have moral weight only if it is caused by an actor who can be expected to think in terms of good or bad actions. For instance: “The judgment calls of “good” and “bad” are human judgments. The answer is no more that “just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s bad”—the answer is that it is nature, and it is neither.” —Matthews, S. (2015). Nature Can’t Exist Without Suffering—And We Can’t Change That. Audubon. 

225. Private communication with L214, 2017 

226. Private communication with L214, 2017 

227. Private communication with L214, 2017