DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternative Proteins

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alternative Proteins THE CASE FOR PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN ALTERNATIVE PROTEINS BY ALEX SMITH, SALONI SHAH AND DAN BLAUSTEIN-REJTO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report makes a comprehensive case for robust public investment in research and develop- ment for alternative proteins. It also provides a framework for how to spend these funds and maximize their benefit for reducing the environmental and health costs of meat consumption. Currently, the United States consumes more meat per capita than any other country in the world. The American diet’s emphasis on meat contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, health problems, animal suffering, local pollution, and poor labor conditions. In the past decade, however, the U.S. has seen a burgeoning alternative meat industry, includ- ing cultivated products from companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, Mosa Meat, Memphis Meats, Blue Nalu, and Eat Just. Despite the industry’s growth, these products — still more expensive than conventional meat and lacking diversity — have yet to meaningfully reduce U.S. meat consumption. Alternative Meats Mitigate Externalities Related to Animal Agriculture With sufficient research and development (R&D) for new and improved products and produc- tion, the benefits for the environment, public health, and animal welfare could be enormous. The externalities from animal agriculture, such as GHG emissions and health impacts, cost the American public at least $388 billion per year. Replacing 45% of beef with plant-based alter- natives could, for example, reduce U.S. GHG emissions from agriculture by around one sixth. Substantial replacement would also reduce deaths associated with air pollution; overuse of antibiotics by livestock producers; and rates of colorectal cancer, heart disease and other diet- related issues. To realize these benefits, the U.S. government should make sizable investments in alternative meat R&D. Public Investment in Alternative Meats Will Drive Economic Growth With the help of the federal government, the U.S. alternative meat industry can be a driving force for domestic economic growth by becoming an international leader in the fast-growing market for alternative meats. According to Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR), projections of future market share put alternative proteins — including milk and egg alternatives — between 16 and 62 percent of the global protein market by 2050. 2 A $50 million federal investment would create more than 2,000 jobs and add nearly $1.5 billion to the U.S. economy over 10 years. If the alternative meat market grows ten-fold by 2030, as some posit it can, the industry could create nearly 200,000 jobs in the U.S. The Federal Government is Uniquely Suited to Fund the Necessary Research High-risk, pre-competitive, and multidisciplinary R&D is key to the alternative meat sector overcoming its barriers to growth and widespread adoption. Such research often necessitates public support. For long-term growth, the cell- and plant-based meat industries must answer basic scientific questions about cell biology, genomic sequencing of potential inputs, and techniques to improve production processes. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the needed scientific research, alternative meat produc- ers and researchers are hard-pressed to find capable collaborators and partners. This is an issue the U.S. government has a proven track record of solving — a notable success story being the Advanced Manufacturing Institutes created by the Obama administration. How The Federal Government Should Invest To ensure that plant-based and cultivated meat can be a real alternative to conventional animal agriculture, we recommend that the federal government: • Fund and develop collaborative and multidisciplinary public-private partnerships aimed at alternative meat R&D. • Expand existing R&D funding for alternative meat at agencies such as the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation. • Apply a mission-oriented approach that targets innovations that could lead to price reductions, cell-line identification, and the development of whole-cut meat alternatives. Altogether, limiting the social, monetary, and ethical costs of animal agriculture and ensuring American competitiveness in the growing global market for alternative meats requires large- scale, organized public investment in plant-based and cultivated meats. 3 CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Introduction 6 SECTION I: THE NEED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN ALTERNATIVE MEAT FOR INDUSTRY GROWTH 9 State of the Industry 9 The Potential for Further Growth 11 The Barriers to Growth and the Need for R&D 12 Consumer Acceptance 12 Product Quality 13 Cost 14 Production Capacity 14 Scientific Barriers 15 SECTION II: WHY ALTERNATIVE MEAT R&D SHOULD BE PUBLICLY FUNDED 17 Alternative Meats Can Mitigate Externalities Related to Animal Agriculture 17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 19 Land Use and Conservation 21 Water Use 23 Air and Water Pollution 23 Nutrition and Public Health 24 Animal Welfare 25 Externalities in Totality — Estimating the Costs of Animal Agriculture 26 4 Public Investment in Alternative Meat Can Drive Economic Growth 27 The Federal Government Is Uniquely Suited to Fund the Necessary Research 29 Governments Fund High Risk and Pre-Competitive R&D 29 Government Funding Solves Network Failures 30 SECTION III: HOW FEDERAL INVESTMENT SHOULD BE SPENT TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT 32 Fund Networks 33 Expand Existing R&D Programs to Include Alternative Meat 33 Apply a Mission-Oriented Approach to Innovate Towards Price Reductions and Cell Line Development 34 Appendix 1: Opportunities for Public Investment in Specific Research Questions 36 5 INTRODUCTION Currently, the United States consumes more meat, per capita than any other country in the world.1 The American emphasis on meat is linked with greater GHG emissions, health impacts, disregard for animal welfare, local pollution, and poor labor conditions. Alternative meats, namely plant-based and cultivated meats, present a rare opportunity for large-scale consumption shifts. Alternative meats are of two types. Plant-based meats, defined for this report as meat alternatives that attempt to mimic meat without utilizing animal prod- ucts, have already found success across the United States. On the other hand, cultivated meat — alternatives to conventional meat that are composed of actual animal cells grown completely in a cell-culturing facility — is a relatively new and emerging technology. With animal agriculture responsible for GHG emissions, local pollution, widespread COVID-19 outbreaks at facilities, and the unethical treatment of billions of animals, alternative meats rep- resent a real pathway towards a greener, cleaner, and friendlier food system. Yet, barriers remain for technological growth, product taste and texture, cost parity, and production processes. Federal investment in alternative meats could help firms overcome these barriers, mitigating the externalities related to animal agriculture while also growing a nascent industry and bene- fiting the U.S. economy. Currently, the federal government provides almost no funding for alternative meats R&D.2 Although the U.S. federal government has provided funding in the past — and recently, the NSF even provided a $3.5 million grant to researchers at UC Davis to study cultivated meat produc- tion — alternative meat has been a mainly private venture.3 In this report, we make a comprehensive case for robust public investment in R&D for alternative meats. We also provide a framework for how to spend these funds and maximize their benefit for reducing the environmental and health costs of meat consumption. In Section I, we outline the state of the plant-based and cultivated alternative meat industries and why their continued growth requires further R&D. In the short term, we suggest that target- ing fast food and institutional dining markets can drive adoption of meat alternatives by taking advantage of existing and efficient supply chains. But increasing consumption of alternatives — and subsequently reducing demand for animal-based meats — means that the industry must 6 overcome barriers related to consumer acceptance, product taste and diversity, cost, production capacity, and basic science. All of this requires significant research and development. In Section II, we explain why the federal government should fund alternative meat R&D. First and foremost, alternative meats provide a unique opportunity to mitigate the environmental, social, and ethical costs of animal agriculture. Public investment could create a domestic alternative meat industry capable of growing the U.S. economy by meeting rising demand from international markets. The federal government is also best suited to fund the needed research. Private investment is unlikely to be as effective because the plant-based and cultivated meat industries are young industries, requiring high-risk research. Further, the research is multidis- ciplinary and collaborative, which can lead to the kind of “network failures”4 the federal govern- ment has successfully mitigated over several decades of research in technological innovation. Finally, in Section III, we outline recommendations for federal investment to maximize its impact. We argue the federal government should take three steps. First, invest in research and commercial networks capable of improving the possibilities of collaboration and cooperation between firms and researchers working on alternative meats. Second, appropriately
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'
    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings
    Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings July 2018 Authors: Jo Anderson & Chris Bryant Research team: Jo Anderson (Faunalytics), Chris Bryant (University of Bath), Kathryn Asher (Animal Charity Evaluators; formerly Faunalytics), Che Green (Faunalytics), Kris Gasteratos (Cellular Agriculture Society), Bruce Friedrich (The Good Food Institute), Jeff Rotman (Deakin University), Jamie Macfarlane (The Good Food Institute). Funding: We gratefully acknowledge Animal Charity Evaluators and the Animal Advocacy Research Fund for their assistance in funding this project. Introduction Studies of clean meat (also called Contents cultured meat, in vitro meat, etc.) to date Key Findings (page 3) have found that consumers’ willingness to eat it is uncertain (Pew Research, Methodology (page 4) 2014; Slade, 2018; Surveygoo, 2018; Terminology The Grocer, 2017; Wilks & Phillips, 2017; Sample & Procedure YouGov, 2013). Results (page 6) Did Participants Believe the Messages? One of consumers’ primary concerns Perceived Unnaturalness of Clean Meat about clean meat is its alleged Perceived Unnaturalness of Conventional Meat unnaturalness. This is a theme that has Perceived Importance of Meat Naturalness been seen in many qualitative studies Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Clean Meat (Laestadius, 2015; Verbeke, Marcu, et Behavioral Intentions al., 2015) and cited as one of the most Beliefs about Clean Meat common reasons for rejecting clean meat Attitude in surveys (The Grocer, 2017). Indeed, Affect Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017) have Overall Pattern of Results: Supplementary demonstrated that the perceived Analysis unnaturalness of clean meat explains a Conclusions (page 16) great deal of consumers’ safety Experimental Messages concerns. Further, Siegrist, Sütterlin, and Implications Hartmann (2018) show that this Limitations perception evokes disgust and likely Future Directions causes rejection of clean meat in References (page 19) practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivated Meat
    2019 State of the Industry Report Cultivated Meat Photo credit: Memphis Meats Contents Section 1: Introduction 3 Box 1: What Is Cultivated Meat? 4 Section 2: Companies 6 Overview 6 Table 1: Current Competitive Landscape for Cultivated Meat Industry 7 Global Perspective 11 Figure 1: Geographic Distribution of Cultivated Meat Companies 11 Product Focus: A Growing Field but Still Plenty of White Space 12 Companies Embrace Opportunities in the Cultivated Meat Value Chain 12 Box 2: Example Value-Chain Entry Points 14 Looking Ahead 15 Section 3: Investments 16 Overview 16 Figure 2: Cultivated Meat Industry Investment Overview (2016–2019) 16 Figure 3: Investments in Cultivated Meat Companies (2016–2019) 17 Deals 18 Investors 19 Figure 4: Cultivated Meat Company Investor Composition (2016–2019) 19 Table 2: Investors in Cultivated Meat Companies 20 Box 3: New Venture Funds Bring Dry Powder into 2020 24 Global Snapshot 25 Figure 5: Top Investing Countries by Number of Unique Investors 25 Box 4: Belgian Consortium Aligns Diverse Partners to Bring 26 Cultivated Foie Gras to Market Looking Ahead 26 State of the Industry Report Cultivated Meat Contents 1 Contents Section 4: Science and Technology 27 Overview 27 Research Highlights 29 Box 5: Technical Opportunities for Seafood Research in 2020 30 Looking Ahead 30 Box 6: Cultivated Milk Is an Emerging Application for Cell 31 Culture Technology Section 5: Regulation 32 Overview 32 Federal Regulation of Cultivated Meat 32 International Regulation of Cultivated Meat 32 State Label Censorship 32 Box 7: AMPS
    [Show full text]
  • Open Philanthropy Project
    NYC research event 2016-12-5 Open Phil half GiveWell NYC Research Event, December 5, 2016 – Open Philanthropy Project 06/07/17 Page 1 of 14 NYC research event 2016-12-5 Open Phil half This transcript was compiled by an outside contractor, and GiveWell did not review it in full before publishing, so it is possible that parts of the audio were inaccurately transcribed. If you have questions about any part of this transcript, please review the original audio recording that was posted along with these notes. 0:00:01 Holden Karnofsky: Okay, so yeah, now I'm going to talk about the Open Philanthropy project. Basically the story of the Open Philanthropy project. Elie and I founded GiveWell in 2007 and then in 2011 we met Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz. Dustin is the co-founder of Facebook and Asana and they were asking kind of a similar question to what had made us start GiveWell but very different also. When we started GiveWell we were asking, "Hey, I want to give a few thousand dollars, I have a few hours to think about it. What do I do to do the most good?" 0:00:31 HK: And they were asking more something like, "We are giving away billions of dollars. We have our whole lives to think about this, all the time. What do we do to do the most good?" That is a question we obviously found very interesting and had a similar challenge around it in the sense that if you want to read people arguing about what our public policy should be, what our trade policy should be, there's an infinite amount to read.
    [Show full text]
  • C​Ellular​ A​Griculture​ N
    C​ELLULAR ​ A​GRICULTURE ​ N​OMENCLATURE:​ Optimizing Consumer Acceptance Published September 2018 Updated January 2020 Keri Szejda, Ph.D. Senior Consumer Research Scientist The Good Food Institute Executive Summary The purpose of this research project was to better understand consumer perceptions of names used to describe meat produced through cellular agriculture. We generated a comprehensive list of potential names and then conducted a series of consumer studies to test name outcomes. The study included four distinct phases. Phase 1 was a stakeholder study, which generated a list of 74 names to consider for consumer testing. Phase 2 was a consumer survey to assess viability of a shorter list of 31 names selected from the Phase 1 list. Phases 3 and 4 were consumer experiments testing the top five selected names from the Phase 2 survey. These five names were: “clean meat,” “cell-based meat,” “craft meat,” “cultured meat,” and “slaughter-free meat.” These experiments were designed to test the unique influence of each of these names on consumers’ perception of the name itself (including the degree to which the name sounds appealing, accurately describes the product, and differentiates from conventional meat). The experiments also tested the unique influence of each of the names on consumers’ behavioral intentions, including likelihood of trying and of purchasing the product. The results from Phase 3 replicated in the Phase 4 experiment, lending additional validity to the results. Overall, “slaughter-free,” “craft,” “clean,” and “cultured” performed best in name appeal, “slaughter-free” and “cell-based” performed best in descriptiveness and differentiation, and “slaughter-free” and “craft” performed best in likelihood of trying and of purchasing the product.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Conference Program
    EAGxBoston 2019 Conference Program Saturday April 27th Time Session 9:00- Breakfast and Registration 9:30 Main Gathering Area Welcome; Introduction to Effective Altruism 9:30- Chris Bakerlee; Holly Elmore 9:50 B103 First Keynote Presentation 9:50- Philanthropy, Philosophy and Cash Transfers 10:35 Michael Faye B103 10:35- Break 11:10 Main Gathering Area Advocacy for Climate Policy 11:10- Lightning Talks Michael Green 11:50 B101 B103 11:50- Lunch 1:15 Main Gathering Area Plant-based and Cell-based Meat Policy: Learning States: Latest Developments and Opportunities for 1:15- Enabling Smart Solutions for Policy Impact Impact 1:55 Asim Ijaz Khwaja Cameron Meyer Shorb B103 B101 1:55- Informal Breakout Discussions: Cause Areas 2:45 Main Gathering Area Why Banning Lethal Autonomous Personal Giving Panel Discussion 2:45- Weapons Should Be a Top EA Priority Cullen O'Keefe, Jason Ketola, and Julia Wise 3:25 Max Tegmark B101 B103 3:25- Informal Breakout Discussions: Interest Areas 4:15 Main Gathering Area Retrospective on Elected Office: Charity Entrepreneurship 4:15- Successes and Failures Scott Weathers 4:55 Elizabeth Edwards B103 B101 4:55- Break 5:20 Main Gathering Area Information Hazards, Coordination Problems, Self-Care for Altruists: 5:20- and Mitigating Catastrophic Bio-Risks A Discussion on Well-Being in EA 6:00 Kevin Esvelt Julia Wise B103 B101 6:00- Brief Closing Remarks 6:05 Separately, in B103 and B101 1 Sunday April 28th Time Session 9:00- Breakfast and Registration 9:30 Main Gathering Area Second Keynote Presentation 9:30- Fireside
    [Show full text]
  • GFI's Reporting of Financials (2020) This Document Contains Responses Written by the Charity
    GFI's Reporting of Financials (2020) This document contains responses written by the charity. ACE has made no content changes other than the removal of confidential information. Program 1 Program name: Policy Program expenses (2019): $1,358,617 Proportion of expenses that go to non-staff costs (2019): 58% $705,872 was used for an attorney and consultants for state label censorship laws and federal regulations and legislation. Program expenses (first 6 months of 2020): $495,988 Proportion of expenses that go to non-staff costs (first 6 months of 2020): 36% (this is not reflecting the costs of donated legal services which we only collect at year-end). $133,804 was used for a paid attorney and consultants for state label censorship laws and federal regulations and legislation. Approximate number of staff hours invested (2019): 14,680 Approximate number of staff hours invested (first 6 months of 2020): 8,320 Approximate number of volunteer hours invested (2019): 1,262 Approximate number of volunteer hours invested (first 6 months of 2020): ​ 767 Most important outcomes/accomplishments (2019 and the first 6 months of 2020): GFI’s theory of change is based on the idea that consumers will choose alternative proteins when they are as inexpensive, delicious, and ubiquitous as animal products. From a policy perspective, we will achieve success when alternative proteins are on a level playing field with animal products. Our Policy Department therefore exists to ensure that the government does not impose hurdles that drive up the costs or prevent access to these foods, and that, so long as the government supports R&D in conventional animal agriculture, equal public support is devoted to accelerating progress on alternative proteins.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Year in Review Animal Charity Evaluators 00 Contents
    2018 Year in Review Animal Charity Evaluators 00 Contents 3 Introduction 4 Noteable Accomplishments 17 Mistakes 19 Looking Ahead ACE YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 2 01 Introduction For ACE, 2018 was a year of record-setting accomplishments. For the first time, we recommended four Top Charities doing outstanding work around the globe to effectively reduce animal suffering. We celebrated our most successful Giving Tuesday yet, thanks to the incredible coordination and support of the EA community. With the support of a most generous year-end matching challenge donor, our new Effective Animal Advocacy Fund vastly exceeded all expectations. Last year, we influenced more donations in the effective animal advocacy movement than ever before. There was certainly a lot to celebrate! Last year was also a time of transition. After five years of outstanding leadership, ACE’s executive director, Jon Bockman, took on a new role as a member of our board of directors. As the very first paid staff member, Jon guided the organization from its early days as “Effective Animal Activism” through rebranding and strategic visioning to create a solid foundation on which we can continue to build. We are all deeply grateful to Jon for his years of service and we look forward to many more years of growth and success. We hope that you enjoy ACE’s 2018 Year in Review. It highlights our achievements for animals, all of which were made possible by your generous support. Thank you for your belief in our work and for your tireless commitment to reducing animal suffering. ACE YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 3 02 Notable Accomplishments PHILANTHROPY Gifts influenced In 2018, ACE helped to influence $6.5 million in donations to a variety of impactful charities working around the world to reduce animal suffering, including our recommended charities and the grant recipients of our new Effective Animal Advocacy Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • 8Th Annual Leadership Summit: Virtual Serieis July 22 – August 26, 2020 Wednesdays, 10 AM – 12:30 PM PDT
    8th Annual Leadership Summit: Virtual Serieis July 22 – August 26, 2020 Wednesdays, 10 AM – 12:30 PM PDT www.menusofchange.org PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES OMER ALKALAY is culinary chef of Google Israel, working under Yarzin-Sella. Yarzin- Sella provides culinary solutions for the world’s leading high-tech companies. Omer discovered his passion for cooking while on vacation in New Zealand, where he bonded with a chef mentor, who took him on an exciting, two-year journey, focused on local sourcing. Upon his return to Israel, Oelleymer was presented with the opportunity to lead as executive chef in opening a new fine-dining restaurant, Chloelys, at Hilton Tel- Aviv. Omer’s cooking approach is to keep his dishes simple and fresh, providing the stage for the ingredients to speak. Omer maintains close contact with his growers, in order to keep up with best agricultural practices yielding top ingredients, allowing him to maintain balanced and delicious dishes. As a chef at Yarzin-Sella for Google, Omer has found a great marriage between his approach to cooking and the food program at Google. (Tel Aviv, Israel) DAN ALTSCHULER MALEK is a managing partner at Unovis Partners & New Crop Capital, a global investment firm that provides early-stage funding to entrepreneurs developing plant-based and cultured meat alternatives to foods derived from conventional animal agriculture including beef, chicken, pork, dairy, egg, fish, and shellfish products. Through its initial fund, New Crop Capital, the team has invested in more than 40 companies including Beyond Meat, Memphis Meats, BlueNalu, Good Catch, Nova Meats, Alpha Foods, Zero Egg, Aleph Farms, and Miyoko’s.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethical Argument for in Vitro Meat
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Electronic Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers 6-3-2018 An Ethical Argument for In Vitro Meat Christian Vido University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Vido, Christian, "An Ethical Argument for In Vitro Meat" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 7484. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7484 This online database contains the full-text of PhD dissertations and Masters’ theses of University of Windsor students from 1954 forward. These documents are made available for personal study and research purposes only, in accordance with the Canadian Copyright Act and the Creative Commons license—CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works). Under this license, works must always be attributed to the copyright holder (original author), cannot be used for any commercial purposes, and may not be altered. Any other use would require the permission of the copyright holder. Students may inquire about withdrawing their dissertation and/or thesis from this database. For additional inquiries, please contact the repository administrator via email ([email protected]) or by telephone at 519-253-3000ext. 3208. An Ethical Argument for In Vitro Meat by Christian Vido A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies through the Department of Philosophy in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada © 2018 Christian Vido An Ethical Argument for In Vitro Meat by Christian Vido APPROVED BY: __________________________________________________ B. Daly Faculty of Education __________________________________________________ P.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review TABLE of CONTENTS
    2018-2019Year in Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Executive Summary 3 People 4 New Animal Law & Policy Clinic 6 Program Work and Achievements 8 Academic Courses 12 Animal Law & Policy Program in the Media 15 Policy and Practice 20 Scholarship and Presentations 22 Program Events 37 Placement 45 In Recognition 46 Looking Forward to the 2019–2020 Academic Year 47 Cover Photo by: Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals 2 Animal Law & Policy Program | Harvard Law School | Year in Review 2018-2019 INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As we complete our fourth year, the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program (ALPP) has broadened its existing focus on the welfare of animals raised for food to include the regulation of plant-based and cell-based alternatives to animal products, along with federal legislation that could have rolled back scores of state farmed animal welfare laws. This attention included convening a closed-door “Clean Meat Regulatory Roundtable” that included a former US Secretary of Agriculture, and witnessing the impact of our first formal policy report from May 2018 that identified over 3,000 different state and local laws that potentially could have been nullified under the King Amendment to the 2018 US Farm Bill. This year we also expanded our faculty and staff by hiring a Clinical Director and Clinical Instructor, to begin the next fiscal year, as well as hosting five Visiting Fellows and Visiting Researchers. We are all now in a new Harvard Law School building that just was completed this year and is the home of both the Animal Law & Policy Program and Clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • J.Savoie,K.Sarek,October2019
    J. Savoie, K. Sarek, October 2019 Animal Research Page 2 Scope of the research and description of the approach: Using research is a meta-approach aimed at helping animal organizations, activists, and donors do more good in the long term. There are numerous ways of performing research to benefit animals, and many organizations are working on different components. Conducting and publicizing research results can inform decision-makers, making research impactful through translating it into concrete action and change. Research can vary from empirical, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on online ads, to softer research, such as examining crucial considerations that might affect the animal movement. The main areas we considered were: Animal Ask Institute Funder-directed research Animal research agenda creation Randomized controlled trials for animal issues Deeper intervention reports Macro data research Impact evaluations for animal organizations Hiring a research organization (internal to the animal advocacy movement) Hiring a research organization (external to the movement) Research on other movements Field establishment research Cross-cutting animal research Gene-modification research Tools of research Charity evaluation research Creating a research database Throughout this report, we consider crucial considerations that cut across different types of research. We dive deeper into each of these possibilities using a number of methods, including expert interviews, to eventually narrow down the most promising approaches for a new research organization. Page 3 Crucial considerations Remaining crucial considerations affecting this area How will research be applied to decision-making? Funders, particularly more EA-aligned ones, seem more open to using research in their decisions than they have been in the past.
    [Show full text]