How I Learned to Love Shrimp

50th Episode Special: 5 leaders on key changes and opportunities in the animal movement

• Amy Odene & James Ozden

Share episode

To mark our 50th episode, we're bringing you something special: Five movement leaders talking about some of the biggest developments for animals in the past two years as well as what advocates should focus on next for the next two years. 

Highlighting advancements in policy, corporate campaigns, alternative proteins, and investment in overlooked species, this is an information-packed episode so don't miss out! 

Our guests:

  • David Coman-Hidy from The Navigation Fund
  • Carolina Galvani from Sinergia Animal
  • Alex Holst from The Good Food Institute Europe
  • Carley Betts from The Open Wing Alliance
  • Karolina Sarek from the Effective Altruism Animal Welfare Fund


Please give the podcast a positive review on your podcast provider of choice. You can also find us on YouTube if you want to see these podcasts in beautiful color and video.

If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating and review us - we would really appreciate it! Likewise, feel free to share it with anyone who you think might enjoy it. You can send us feedback and guest recommendations via Twitter or email us at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy!

Amy:

Hi, my name is Amy and my name is James, and this is how I Learned to Love Swim a podcast about promising ways to help animals and build the animal advocacy movement. Hi, everyone, it's a bit of an emotional update for me this week as I am sadly stepping away from hosting the podcast. It's been a real privilege to speak with not only the absolutely inspiring guests over the last 50 episodes, but also with all of you, the listeners, who've been so kind with all of your feedback and enthusiasm for our work. Rarely a week goes by without someone mentioning to me that they love it or recommending a guest or providing super useful feedback. So thank you so much for that. James will be continuing the podcast, albeit with less frequent episodes, so landing about once per month to continue the really important conversation so that we can all learn about the wonderful individuals powering this movement. So best of luck, james, and a special thank you for bringing me on this journey with you.

Amy:

Now for this week's episode. What a way to go out after interviewing five powerhouses in our space. So, in a 50th episode. First, we're speaking with five guests who each bring us their perspective on the last two years and what the future could hold for the next two. We speak with each guest in turn, asking the same two questions in a good old catch-up. So please join us today in celebrating the last two years in this milestone episode and hopefully you'll come away feeling motivated and excited about the next two Enjoy. And so the first question is what is one big development or change, positive or negative, that you've noticed for animals over the past two years and we're starting with David Coman-Hidy from the Navigation Fund-

David Coman-Hidy:

I think one thing I've been watching with great interest and some optimism around is the growing emphasis on policy advocacy in the movement.

David Coman-Hidy:

The corporate campaigns have driven really major wins over the last decade and are still a major focus in terms of where the most amount of money and advocate time is going. But I do think that there's been a rising recognition, especially in the last two years, that long-term change and kind of a next phase of the movement is going to require serious engagement with legislative and regulatory systems and working with administrations like in the US.

David Coman-Hidy:

In the EU you know the End the Cage Age campaign did not secure the final win but it did demonstrate really widespread public support and some political support for stronger animal welfare laws and I think a lot of groups in the EU now in the last two years are shifting focus to national level policy. It's kind of a clearer path forward, really lasting protections. But they provide a very strong unifying goal for advocacy groups beyond the corporate campaigns aiming for that larger level EU change. And in the US you know there isn't an equivalent of this kind of like national level validative policy. But what we are seeing is more exciting work happening than before, particularly around alternative proteins. I think is probably where the most exciting direct political advocacy is happening.

David Coman-Hidy:

There's a lot of increasing momentum behind unlocking public funding for meat alternatives. There's new initiatives to bring in really talented advocates in the space either early or mid-career. I think government investment has been such a major driver in technology in the past that this seems like a really great next strategic step. And then on the animal welfare side, we've seen more stuff happening at the city and state level. I think there's been some experiments with policy, results have been pretty mixed. I think the local factory farm bans, for example, did not succeed, which raises important strategic questions. But I do agree with the general direction of experimentation and policy that the movement is taking and I think that growing fluency among advocates and among donors in that world is really positive. So overall this is something I think is really good. It's been a pretty big change, I would say, from two years ago.

Amy:

Yeah, do you feel like that was always on the cards? I would say from two years ago, yeah, do you feel like that was always on the cards? I remember when working in corporate relations it was kind of a part of the strategy to have enough commitments to feel as though there was enough momentum to then start tackling the issue of the policy change, because we've kind of built up the momentum and kind of dissolved the likelihood of pushback from industry on certain reforms. Do you feel as though it's just been like a really great time, or has there been something else that's been like the catalyst for the increase in policy work?

David Coman-Hidy:

I think it's probably just a matter of a few people having positive experiences experimenting with lobbying or the excitement that we saw around the EU policy probably put something in the water, but I don't think it was always going to happen. I mean, two years ago I think it would have been a lot easier to fundraise for something like direct, individual vegan advocacy than it would be for like a new policy or lobbying initiative. I don't know if that's the case today. I think it's been a lot of smart people talking about this for a number of years, some experiments being had I think some of the funders in the animal space. Getting involved in political advocacy and building relationships with lawmakers has probably also been really important. Getting that kind of hand-on experience and seeing what access can get you in terms of just like raising the salience of our issue among lawmakers. So I think that's probably been a big factor. But we're a small enough world that it's really just like you know, a dozen people talking about it and trying things out can really alter the direction of things.

Amy:

yeah

Amy:

yeah sure

James:

I was on the eu side, maybe because it didn't pass is actually almost reignited. The reason actually we should be doing way more of this because we were so close to getting over the finish line, because of our lack of political power most probably as well as the opposition being very successful we didn't manage to actually win. So I think that was probably a reminder to us saying you know, we're good, but we're not quite good enough yet. So we should kind of invest more in this space.

David Coman-Hidy:

I. I think that's exactly right. I think that's exactly right that there was an unexpected response from industry and, yeah, I think it was very motivating. I think that's completely right, James no-transcript.

James:

And, yeah, the ability to win stuff.

David Coman-Hidy:

Yeah, I do think that the movement has been in the US in a very defensive posture for the last I don't know six years, let's say, on policies of just doing things like fighting against amendments to the Farm Bill that would overturn our statewide laws. There has not been a major continuation fighting against amendments to the Farm Bill that would overturn our statewide laws. There has not been a major continuation of things like statewide ballot initiatives that we saw 10 or more years ago, and I think that there's a little bit more excitement coming around to more offensive work, which I'm very excited about.

Amy:

We're now asking that same question to Carolina Galvani from Synergia Animal.

Carolina Galvani:

Last year we had something very interesting happening in Colombia. So after we released an undercover investigation showing the conditions of animals being transported to slaughterhouses, the government announced that it will create a committee to improve the welfare conditions of animals transported in Colombia, and we are invited to be part of the committee to see how things can be improved. This is one example, and there are other promising opportunities in other countries where we operate. So this year we are going to be working with public policy for the first time in five of the countries where we are.

Carolina Galvani:

So we are going to be working in Argentina, brazil, colombia, thailand and Indonesia

James:

Nice, and I guess this is notable because this sparks, I guess, progression where before predominantly there was the public policy, was happening in countries where the movement was a bit more established, had been been working for longer and like we haven't been exploring that too much, mainly because maybe issues are more complicated. You know there's less awareness of these issues in policy, but you think that's that's changed enough. Actually it's worth embarking on policy and in these five countries in latin america and southeast asia,

Carolina Galvani:

yeah, yeah, I think they think they're promising opportunities.

Carolina Galvani:

I think what we have to keep in mind is that we don't know how long it's going to take. Like we are not talking about corporate policies here. It might take longer, but I think we can say that global South countries some of them are ready to make this investment.

Amy:

That's a great update. I think it's so important to be trying different tactics, which I think actually a lot of people have spoken to and alluded to in this particular episode, in terms of the people then. So how do you think that will change your organizational culture? Because, coming from a campaigning organization, then having policy people, I imagine they're just very different in terms of their makeup. Potentially, do you think there's going to be a shift there for Synergy Animal?

Carolina Galvani:

I don't think it's going to change so much. Our campaigning teams have been participating in meetings with governments in the past and I think this kind of division that if you campaign very hard it means that you cannot negotiate in a friendly manner it's not the case Like I think you can do both. I think it's not going to change so much. It is going to change the way we structure the teams internally to make sure that everybody has a very clear role on what they're going to do.

James:

Can you share any examples of the kinds of policies you think are ready to be worked on in these countries? And yeah, and maybe, maybe, why those ones specifically?

Carolina Galvani:

There's a lot of research to be done in terms of the opportunities that are there, but I already mentioned the example of Colombia. In Brazil, we have another promising example. So the Ministry of Environment created an animal welfare department and they have been very willing to engage with the civil society organization. So we have had several meetings with them. Nothing very concrete yet for farmed animals, but I think it's very promising that they're willing to have a dialogue with us.

Carolina Galvani:

Also, the Minister of Environment declared recently that the impact of the monocultures of grains like soy, for example, have a huge impact on the environment and that's something that Brazilians should consider. So I think she suggests that there could be potential for a diet change work, for example. Interesting potential for diet change work, for example, when we started working with cage-free in Thailand less than a year after the government decided to issue cage-free certification to support farmers that wanted to transition. So, yeah, I think these are friendly and promising governments and we should take the opportunity to see how far we can go and what else we can do. I think there's a lot of research, meetings and talks to see how far we can go and what else we can do. I think there's a lot of research, yeah, meetings and talks to see how we can explore the opportunities. Great.

Amy:

And now we hear from Alex Holst from the Good Food Institute.

Alex Holst:

One thing I'm really excited about is the rise of fermentation as a major pillar in the alternative protein sectors and the potential that has to really bring the whole sector forward.

James:

I guess people previously thought it was this kind of third one that's like the little child for cultivated and plant-based, but actually now people think it could be the next big thing or one of the main focus areas for the sector.

Alex Holst:

Yeah, I think that's right. So, both in terms of media coverage and what advocates have been excited about, plant-based obviously has been around for a long time and there has been huge progress in terms of the types of products that are on the supermarket. And cultivated meat then, of course, raises a lot of attention just by its novelty and also a lot of strong views, maybe on different sides of the political spectrum, right, but fermentation has been flying a bit under the radar. Where I see the most exciting development is not necessarily it being the next big thing, separate from plant-based and cultivated, but how it can help level up, like, for example, the taste profile of plant-based meat products, and that's where we have seen big challenges in the past and where fermentation can make a huge difference and and bring these products closer to what consumers want.

Amy:

Nice. Can you just give us a super brief summary of of the fermentation process, if that's even possible, or like how we? What are the key terms in order to differentiate it from the other two options?

Alex Holst:

At a basic level, fermentation just utilizes microorganisms to create new products or new ingredients and most people are familiar with, like the traditional foundation techniques that we've been using for a long time to produce cheese or yogurt or tempeh. But the new generation of fermentation and we're talking here about the two main subcategories, biomass fermentation and precision fermentation they are really taking this a step further. So, just very briefly, with biomass fermentation, what companies can do is they use microorganisms like fungi or yeast and they produce protein really at a massive scale and very efficient and fast process. So maybe the most famous company in the space that has been around for the longest is Quorn, originally a UK based company, and so they use a fungi to produce this mycoprotein, as they call it, and it has naturally quite a meaty textured structure. So that's one way of doing it.

Alex Holst:

And precision fermentation it's a similar approach but the outcome is different. So instead of trying to produce protein at mass, you can use microorganisms, again like yeast, to express certain target molecules, like certain high value proteins that then can be added as an ingredient to plant-based products and really improve the taste. The most famous example is maybe Impossible Foods and its Impossible Burger. That is a plant-based product, but the key ingredient that gives it its characteristic taste and almost make it bleed like an animal product is its heme, and that is a molecule that is produced via a genetically modified yeast, via a fermentation process.

James:

And is that second pillar it seems like that's the one you're the most excited about is maybe not how it'll be as a standalone category, but maybe how it'll feed into and almost enhance the others, but maybe especially plant-based.

Alex Holst:

Yeah, that's definitely where we see a lot of our synergies between the these different product types. So that's why, when you think about plant-based cultivated and fermentation, I think it's really helpful to not think of those as three distinct categories, but more like how can they work together and how can these hybrid products really deliver?

Amy:

and so the cultivated meat doesn't necessarily need the fermented products, because that can create this kind of quality, the kind of meat-like quality on its own, but it's particularly helpful in plant-based, or could it also support cultivated?

Alex Holst:

That's actually a really good question. So there are some interesting synergies there as well, but they are maybe more on the production side. So one more technical example is that some of the inputs that go into the cell culture media for cultivated meat, these will be molecules that are being produced with precision fermentation, but it's essentially to like feed the cells and not necessarily to add certain flavors in the final product.

Amy:

Is there a country that's particularly like leading the field in this? Is there, like when you're talking about excitement for this change, is there a specific location where this seems to be happening more, or is it going to, you know, support the market in a particular location?

Alex Holst:

Does appear to happen in lots of different countries at the same time. Apart from, maybe, the product development, what's been exciting is that we've seen really public support and public funding in fermentation over the last few years ramp up. So in 2024, for the first time, public funding for fermentation technologies exceeded public funding for plant-based protein and this merges really trend in private investment generally as more attention turns to to these fermentation technologies okay, and I'm assuming that's going to continue to increase I mean, that's the hope um to be honest there is when it comes to public funding and government action, there's always a question of like, how can we sustain this kind of attention?

Alex Holst:

On the side of governments, but one example I think that makes me very optimistic is from Europe, and so what we've seen in terms of alternative protein funding, there's been a lot of attention on funding the research, and that's super important.

Alex Holst:

Right, there's still a lot of early access research that needs to be done, but what we've seen in Europe recently is support for scaling up the technology. So just to give two examples, from the European Investment Bank, which is the largest multilateral finance institution in the world, they recently gave two loans to fermentation startups in Europe One to the tune of 20 million euros to Metler Foods, a Danish biomass fermentation startup, and the other one to 35 million euros to Forma, a Germany-based startup that does produce cheese from fermentation. And so this is, like we hope, a real sign that governments start to take seriously the idea that these sectors have enormous economic potential, in addition to their potential to alleviate climate change, reduce animal suffering, et cetera, and really support the scale up of these technologies, similar to how they supported other clean tech technologies like renewable energy or electric vehicles.

Amy:

Let's hear what Carly Betts has to say from the Open Wing Alliance.

Carley Betts:

Something we've noticed over the past couple of years in the movement, I would say, is more fear and more apprehension to use pressure tactics against companies. It seems like it's becoming harder for groups to apply pressure to secure cage-free or ECC commitments. And by pressure I mean a variety of things media to pressure companies, writing public reports, launching petitions against companies, staging in-person protests when possible, or even just making it clear that if a company doesn't commit, a full-scale campaign could follow. To be upfront about that, securing new commitments at the moment feels harder than ever. Companies are stubborn.

Carley Betts:

We've already pulled a bunch of low-hanging fruit, but I would say we really need to work out how to win and how to use pressure to get what we want for animals In place of pressure tactics. I'll just say there seems to have been a shift towards more friendly engagement with companies and trying to secure commitments through dialogue. But the reality is when, looking at our history, almost every major commitment that we've seen has happened because of some kind of pressure, even just the threat of a campaign, and it's rare that impactful commitments have been won with friendly relationships and polite requests. So the shift we've seen, I think, is this reluctance to put pressure on companies, but the real need to do so.

Amy:

Yeah. Why do you think that reluctance is, and do we know that this is the kind of the winning formula?

Carley Betts:

Yeah, I asked a bunch of people about this. Is this a winning formula? Can we win big, impactful commitments without some form of pressure, even if that's a? If you don't commit, we're going to go after you with a massive campaign. I'm sorry, like that can be pressure, but we know that all of the commitments that we have won have been due to applying that pressure.

Carley Betts:

And why the reluctance to use it? Truly, there's like a bunch of very fair reasons, I would say. One big factor is that in some parts of the world, aggressive pressure tactics are not allowed or potentially against the law. An example of this is in Japan, where defamation laws mean that, even if what you're saying is true, publicly calling out a company could lead to you being sued. This, of course, makes it really difficult to groups to run strong campaigns against companies. Alongside this, we have seen some groups actually be sued by companies for their campaigns. The thought of a legal battle against a company with way more money and power than you is off-putting and scary, and it could result in an organization just becoming bankrupt.

Carley Betts:

Again, you can see that sometimes pressure feels very risky to pursue. Aside from legal risk, groups sometimes use friendly engagement after a company tells them that they can't fulfill their commitment due to failing to find a supply of cage-free eggs. So I'm seeing more and more that groups are starting to play, like the middle people, to connect companies to cage reproducers. Or maybe an organization has spent years building a good relationship with a company and doesn't want to risk ruining that, along the lines of keep your friends close, but your enemies closer, and any dialogue is better than none. I see a variety of reasons why this is happening, but I do know that pressure is important important and it's something we need to think about and overcome in the future.

James:

Applying pressure also, just like you know if it feels hard and when the results happen, you don't necessarily maybe experience as much, because they'll go to the person who's collaborative and say, you know, we're working with you, like we'll make progress, and then you almost don't get some of this direct feedback. There actually is progress behind the scenes, because all you're doing is almost like shouting and applying pressure from the outside and you don't know if there's movements, they're not talking to you anymore. So and.

James:

I guess sometimes, especially when movements are slow, right you, maybe you're doing this for like a year on the same company with no progress. I guess it feels demoralizing, right? Do you think there's a bit of like? There's like lack of motivation, that that's kind of playing into this too.

Carley Betts:

I thought about this as well. I don't really see a lack of motivation. I know how much people in our movement care. I met 200 OWA members last year and this year in our summits. The care, the real determination to win for animals is there. I think you're right. It can be harder to play the bad cop role and to have less access to companies, but I also think it it's something that Leo discussed on your podcast before like at the heart of it, activists are very nice people. They're compassionate people, and ruining an executive's day, making their life difficult, forcing them to do something they don't want to do, can be hard, and this conflict just doesn't come naturally to everybody.

James:

So I see it less about no motivation and more about it being something that like goes against the nature of some of the great people working in our movement yeah, I think that's a better framing, not motivation, but actually, like almost, you need to be disagreeable, like consistently, for like a year, which I think takes a level of, like I don't know, an interesting personality to maintain that.

Carley Betts:

I see that and easy for me to say, I think, because I would love if I were a campaigner. I would just be going after every organization in a bad cop way, getting very excited about ruining people's days. That says a lot about me.

Carley Betts:

But I think, it's like very easy for me to say that, like I said, it's hard. Around the world, cultural differences mean that being mean to people in companies is like out of the norm and applying pressure to companies could result in legal risk. So I'm always aware of like the global nature of our work and recognizing the difficulties, but despite that I still they need see the need for creativity and to overcome the resistance and and the difficulties around applying pressure.

Amy:

and finally, Karolina Sarik from the Effective Altruism Animal Welfare Fund

Karolina Sarek:

One of the most remarkable things I've seen happen is just how much progress we made on helping some of the most numerous but overlooked animals.

Karolina Sarek:

Well, maybe because of this podcast I won't be super surprised to say that I mean shrimp but when you think about the early 2021, there was essentially no organisations focusing on those animals and in 2024, we got to the point where over 2.5 billion shrimps are getting their welfare improved through various interventions. And I think this is just like really speaks to how quickly we can move from almost no attention to an issue to like create improvements in welfare of billions of animals. And, yeah, I think just sort of like how effective advocacy very quickly can create meaningful change. I think this is just like one of the most remarkable things about this movement.

Amy:

Do you think it's like a prioritization thing, because maybe somebody else you know say that shrimp hadn't been looked at by charity entrepreneurship as it was at the time. Do you think it's about finding that really specific way in which we can support that animal, because perhaps maybe one of the advocacy groups would have thought, oh, we should start talking to the public about shrimp, but I don't think we'd have the same figures to talk about welfare improvements as we would without being like really narrowly focused on their approach. Do you think that's played a part in the success?

Karolina Sarek:

sure, I think like super crucial thing is just having identified intervention network and I think that just really builds a momentum for a given campaign and for a given species, because of course, it's not just enough to want to help the most numerous animals, but it's also about that can we actually do something about it? And because, relatively quickly, from both our project, we're able to identify this, something that can be done, and it turns out that it's working. I think that's kind of what it really helps to build the momentum for for to work on the species. So I think this is, in a way, like super crucial element of that it's not just now.

James:

One organization, like you said, maybe shrimp welfare project is taking one approach, working quite collaboratively with retailers and other producers, and there's people who are working certifiers, people who are campaigning against companies. So, yeah, I guess in a few years it's gone. Basically, no one's actually having like a small ecosystem of and different actors all playing to their strengths, which I think is, yeah, particularly exciting and, as you're saying, kind of even actors from outside.

Karolina Sarek:

it's not just advocates pushing for it, it's also folks who are in from industry, producers, let's say, who are beginning to understand this actually could be aligned with what they want to do as well and really start kind of actively seek opportunities for improving like welfare of of shrimps, that they're kind of farming as well, which I think it's also like a very encouraging sign. It's not that we are just fighting, you know, to push for it, but there is actual interest that we can, you know we can harvest.

Amy:

Do you think that set a kind of a progression or maybe starting to be a bit of a status quo, of trying to push the boundaries of what that intervention actually is as well? Because for me the Shrimp Welfare Project was one of the first where it felt really novel in terms of their approach, actually like buying the the stunners I think it was quite controversial at the time. Do you think it is like also pushing us when we're going to these numerous species and having to deal with more complex topics? Is it also kind of pushing us to be a bit more adventurous in our advocacy?

Karolina Sarek:

to some extent like I'm out of case movement have been the victim of its own success because corporate campaigns for like cage free worked so, so well. It would be easy for us to keep thinking that actually the best way to bring change in the future is for the same roots as we've been having for that, and I think corporate campaigns will be absolute, crucial ways to to of bring in this change. But it doesn't have to be the only one, and I think it would be very easy for us to just, you know, stick with this because we know it works, perhaps in the more fringier areas or perhaps in like smaller scales first, and kind of proving that they can be done, and when that's described, kind of happening and scaling up to our species, other work, other, perhaps our geographies if they, if it is kind of applicable to in other regions as well. So, yeah, I think kind of to some extent it does tell us something that work that is different to the things we've been doing in the past can still be very effective. Of course, there's always kind of you know, some things will work out, some things will not, and it's just so much easier to talk about the things that have worked out than talk about the things that just maybe didn't go so well.

Karolina Sarek:

But I think there's so much learning and value from those experiments that didn't work out, and it doesn't mean that they were not valuable, it just means that you know, in a sense, knowing that something doesn't work perhaps is equally important to knowing that something is working. I would worry about the future where we would only kind of stick to one way to try to bring in change. Because, yeah, maybe one day we might wake up and figure out, well, these things we've been working on for years actually might not work in this particular context or this particular species, and then in a way we might start to have to work from there. But that will already cause some delays. So I'm happy for part of the movement to kind of experiment on different approaches as well, and I think, as you're saying, I think this was just like what ShrimpWolf Project did was a really nice case of what could be the results of those experiments.

James:

Big time. I mean, it's hard to think of a bigger success story than, like I said, two and a half billion shrimp having a better life each year as well, so yeah, it's pretty impressive. And the second question that we've asked all our guests is what's one thing that more advocates should be paying attention to or doing over the next two years? And let's start again with Dave Cohen-Heide from the Navigation Fund.

David Coman-Hidy:

Another good question with a ton of potential answers.

David Coman-Hidy:

I'll share something that's been top of mind for me, that I've been discussing with Jesse Marks, who you've had on your show, who is my colleague at Navigation Fund. I think, in addition to the policy work, that as advocates, we should be paying more attention to rebuilding a really strong media strategy for the movement and embracing, potentially, campaigns or initiatives where broad coverage or impactful coverage is in itself, a goal. I think that's something that we've lost sight of in the last decade. I think a lot of the movement is focused on these corporate campaigns or even some of the policy work that can win without needing significant media attention. That hasn't been one of the core tactics and while that's been really effective, it's also meant that fewer advocates are really developing the skills and relationships required to really utilize media or content landscape you could call it now for our issue and at the same time, the environment has become much more complicated. You know, the traditional press that maybe a group like PETA was using back in the day is fragmented. Now the audiences are distracted and fragmented as well. The old ways of getting coverage don't work as well. I'm talking about a very US context here, but it's probably applicable in a lot of other places as well. I think that just means we need to be more strategic.

David Coman-Hidy:

So, looking to new metrics for coverage, I think we should be thinking about, you know, of course, the widely viewed conversations that are happening out there, like places where there are large numbers of viewers. You know, major YouTube channels, viral things happening on Twitter X, popular podcasts, like you all, of course, of course, and then you've got the highly influential conversations, so you know, like elite focused venues, so other kinds of podcasts, sub stack communities, long form interviews that really shape the points of view of highly wealthy people or influential networked people, the Aspen Ideas Festival, etc. The places where the elites are. We're just we have some of this going on. Don't get me wrong. There's lots of hard work happening and there are moments where we break through, but we're not seeing a really consistent representation of our issue in either of those venues and I think of right now, media has seen more of like an afterthought or a bonus to some of our campaigns. Yeah, and it's less seen as a core objective, and, I think, especially compared to how things were in the past.

James:

Can you say more about why you think it's so important, maybe on the first camp of general media, Because I can see the reason for elite media being influential just because these people are politicians, wealthy, et cetera, et cetera. But, what's like the reason why general or broad media, mainstream media, whatever you want to call it is really powerful or something we should focus on.

David Coman-Hidy:

Yeah, I mean for what it's worth. The second category is probably the one I'm more excited about, and it seems also more tractable and easier to control, so that's probably where I would want to invest more time. I do still think that let's take Bird Flu as an example. I think that we should have nimble teams with a lot of PR and media expertise that are ready for rapid response to issues like bird flu. I mean, it's an issue that is very closely tied to factory farming and the kinds of housing that birds are living in and their treatment, which no one cares more about that than the three of us and our few dozen friends. Right Like that's really like our thing.

David Coman-Hidy:

And the fact that we are not out there as spokespeople, like our team, broadly speaking every day, reaching a broad audience with our issue, that seems there's kind of like a missed opportunity. We just don't have that kind of capacity as a movement right now. So when I think about broad media coverage, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. We should have the relationships with journalists and have the infrastructure to have these kind of nimble response teams to deal with breaking news. But I think, as far as a planned strategy, the elites focus is one that I think is a little bit more tractable. Probably, at the end of the day, we want to shape public discourse on animal issues. Ultimately, that should be one of our major goals as a movement, and we can't wait for the media to come to us right. We need to be out there taking advantage of these opportunities as well as executing our own kind of like aggressive strategy to get onto the right platforms.

Amy:

Yeah, yeah, and like shape that narrative, I think we maybe lost control over what it was. The opposition have then decided what that is for us, the terminology that's going to be used.

David Coman-Hidy:

Yeah, and again, like I'm really speaking about the US at the moment, I think groups like Animal Rising have done a good job in the UK of kind of capturing public attention. I think DXC was doing that in the US for a period of time. So there have been attempts and successes. Don't get me wrong. I just think it's something that is undervalued, broadly speaking, within the movement.

James:

Yeah yeah, it's funny, maybe it's my own personal experience, but I guess lots of my work at Animal, at animal rebellion, was trying to get kind of like high profile media coverage and I feel like we did a pretty good job and you know, some of our actions were like top news story for bbc and all that. But then now become more jaded, is like actually how useful was that? Like what, what, what, what was the point? Like what do we achieve? So maybe I was like overvaluing it and now I've corrected, but I I don't really know. But I guess I feel more jaded on like how useful that stuff actually is.

David Coman-Hidy:

Well, I don't think it's, so maybe I should reframe, because at the beginning I said that we should see the like the this coverage as a goal in itself of an initiative. That's actually probably not exactly what I mean. I think that this works best when it's paired with a really clear policy agenda. Yeah, so I think you have to be in service of that.

James:

Yeah, okay, because I think some of our stuff wasn't in service. It was more like what can we do? That's so crazy. It will get media attention. Not like this is a neat campaign where this media coverage actually adds additional pressure to this company or to this government.

David Coman-Hidy:

Yeah, I think that you know. There's a world where we use bird flu being one of the biggest stories in the United States to push a clear agenda on reforming factory farming and addressing some of the conditions that the chickens are living in. I think that that, to me, is where the proactive media work dovetails with a strong policy agenda and campaign work.

James:

And now over to Carolina Galvani from Synergia Animal.

Carolina Galvani:

I think we need to think very carefully about people and the sustainability of how we manage people in the movement. I don't know if it's the best way to say it, but what I see, both at Synergia and in other organizations that concerns me a lot, is there are many cases of burnout. So I did spend a lot of time studying burnout. I did an MBA two years ago on burnout prevention and I think there are many things organizations can do. I think that this is a long topic. We don't have time to discuss it here many things organizations can do.

Carolina Galvani:

I think that this is a long topic. We don't have time to discuss it here, but I think we should be paying attention at what organizations can do and how we can support individuals as well. On the role of individuals, what I see is that even when we ask people please don't work too hard, respect your limits I think we carry a very strong duty of responsibility and the problem is so big. So, even when the organization is there, individuals sometimes fail to listen and I think we do need to tackle that very seriously, because it is about keeping people in the movement. We cannot have people coming and going all the time, because you get knowledge over time and expertise. So I think we should invest some resources to prevent that.

Carolina Galvani:

And the other trend I see is that we do have a lot of talent, but there is somehow resistance or maybe a fear to become a leader, because it carries a lot of responsibility as well. To become a leader because it carries a lot of responsibility as well. What we see, at least, at least in Synergy, is that not everybody is willing to, to get into people management. So there is a fear there, a concern, and I think that's something we should try to overcome as well. I know there are a lot of internal talks, like in the movement, like I'm a great campaigner.

Carolina Galvani:

Should I be a leader? Maybe not, but I think we should. I think we should build knowledge and capacity over time and I think bringing people from the private sector, for example, can be useful, but I don't think they should be the majority inside organizations. So I think we need to develop ourselves as well. At Synergia, for example, we spend a lot of time Every year. We have at least two topics that leadership will get training on and will have the opportunity to develop themselves. So leadership training should be a top priority.

Amy:

In terms of you being a leader. How easy do you find it to demonstrate best practice so that your team feel comfortable enough to do the same?

Carolina Galvani:

so that your team feel comfortable enough to do the same.

James:

It's a very good question, amy, a very important one.

Carolina Galvani:

Well, I try to show the team that I take my holidays very seriously, like I don't skip my holidays, I share with them when I take time off. I don't do it so much internally but, for example, when I meet leaders of other organizations and they tell me I work 12 hours a day, the first thing I say is please stop like it should seven to eight hours max.

Carolina Galvani:

It's gonna be productive now, but after some years you know you're no longer gonna be there and we need you to to be there. It's about having open talks and really like when, when people say you know, highly effective organizations have people that work many hours and don't take many breaks because they don't have time, we should really stop them and encourage them to think in a different way. But what we are going to do internally is to create, like, yeah, an educational series about burnout prevention and what we can do as an organization and what individuals can do as well.

James:

You said, many people are reticent to step up into leadership roles. Do you have any hypotheses on why this is and anything you're doing to try to fix this?

Carolina Galvani:

I read an article recently that says it is a generational thing. It's very common in all sectors now that people don't want to be leaders. I think we kind of evolved a lot as a society and I think there is a feeling that you know if you are a leader or if you have power, maybe you're not a good person anymore. And I think a lot of us, especially in our movement, we tend to think like that. I think I thought you know that. You know I had this pattern for many years. So I think the challenge is to show that, yes, you can be a good leader. It doesn't mean you're going to be a bad person. Sometimes you will have to take some difficult decisions that are not going to be loved by everybody, but that's part of the process. So you can be a fair leader. I think fair is better than good.

James:

Being a fair leader is possible. Next up is Alex Holst from the Good Food Institute, europe.

Alex Holst:

How can we make the right arguments to advance all proteins? I think a lot goes through competitiveness, scaling up biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and that actually applies not just in Europe but across the world.

James:

I mean, rather than, I guess, focusing on all the I guess the social benefits which we all know and care about, whether it's, you know, pandemics, animals, climate you're saying maybe we should be focusing more on the, I guess, more material like economic, national security, I guess, things that you know, people who are maybe less altruistic, but there's other kind of quite material benefits to the world. Is that kind of things that advocates should be talking about more and more?

Alex Holst:

Yeah, I think so, and that doesn't mean to like shy away from saying that this is really important from a sustainability or animal point of view, but the arguments that gain political traction in many places right now they are exactly as you said national security, strategic autonomy, economic competitiveness. So that's what advocates who want to see ultra-infrared genes thrive. They need to put that forward.

Amy:

How do you encourage organizations to engage in that conversation, because I feel as though even just explaining it today there's like a lot of terminology, it's like fairly complex I imagine sort of standard animal advocacy organization it would take quite a while to get clued up on all of the technical language. Is there something orgs in this position can draw from to try and demonstrate the worth of this particular moment or sector? That's a bit easier to grasp.

Alex Holst:

When it comes to communicating these benefits, it's useful to look at other sectors and other examples. I mentioned electrical vehicles earlier and I think that's been an interesting case where there has been for a long time a sustainable mobility and sustainable transportation movement right. But this really embracing of electric vehicles essentially like electrifying transportation and then decarbonizing the electricity system that has been like a maybe 10-year, 15-year kind of project. And so looking at again, not shying away from saying this is important from a climate point of view, from an animal point of view, but here are all the benefits for the economy. I think there are ways to be very clear about that and that's what advocates should do more of. My colleague, saren Kahl, did a deep dive on fermentation and fermentation technology last year at the ATK podcast, so I would recommend anyone to listen to that and we can hopefully link it below.

Amy:

Yeah, great.

Alex Holst:

One other thing that I'm incredibly optimistic about is what's happening in Asia, particularly in China. So China has been really quietly laying the groundwork to be a major player in the autonomous protein sector, and there have been some really recent milestones that I can talk about more. But I think if China really goes all in on all protein, that would be an absolute game changer, not just because of what the country can do by itself, just in terms of manufacturing capacity and like innovation capacity, but also the effect it would have on its competitors across the globe, including in the US and in the EU, to say well, if China wants to be leading in this, maybe we need to also ramp up our own public support in this area.

James:

I guess the similar analogy is how China dominates in terms of EV production, solar panels, and it was great for the world because the cost of those technologies have kind of plummeted rapidly. So I guess the hope is right if they can focus their I guess knowledge and experience on this sector. That's amazing, right.

Alex Holst:

Absolutely, and we've seen just very recently, some signs in that direction. So, just in January this year, the country launched its first all-protein innovation facility in Beijing, to the tune, I think, of 11 million US dollars. And, in terms of strategic policy, there were these two political guidance documents that were brought out by the leading Communist Party in China a couple of weeks ago, and they do include broad commitments to diversify food supply systems, to invest in biotechnology and in novel foods, and so that is really something that I personally think would be an amazing development if they follow through on that.

James:

Here's what Carly Betts from the Open Wing Alliance had to say.

Carley Betts:

Something we've been thinking about in the OWA and I've been having some interesting discussions with people about is shifting away from the binary good cop, bad cop approach, and I want to say this model works well at times it definitely does, but I think it has its limitations.

Carley Betts:

There are some groups out there doing good cop or bad cop work exclusively with a lot of success, but I think in some cases we need to reframe things and recognize that it's beneficial to be adaptable and responsive to the unique country and situation that we're in to keep momentum going.

Carley Betts:

How this might play out is that, instead of me thinking, okay, I'm a good cop, that's my identity, I instead view myself as a very adaptable, creative force for animals, with a very big box of tactics that I can pull from, according to the campaign. So I might try to be a good cop, but if that doesn't work, I'll abandon it and I'll instead write a report comparing companies that are fulfilled versus those that haven't. Or, if that doesn't work, I'll launch an online petition. If that doesn't work, I'll protest. If that doesn't work, I'll flood their social media or reach out to their board members. I think this adaptability and creativity and pushing ourselves as far as we can safely go without doing anything that's illegal is far more likely to succeed than really having a strong identity as either like I'm a good cop at all costs, or I'm a bad cop, and that's a role that I play.

James:

I've kind of heard people say things like you know it takes a long time to build trust and and you can, but you lose it very quickly. So for me I almost it only ratchets kind of one way right. I can't imagine you start very collaborative, then you end up being like applying loads of pressure, going to one of these like a bad cop ends, and then kind of going back so easily like you get a sense.

Carley Betts:

Actually you can go back and forth or it's actually a bit harder to go back towards a good cop approach yeah, I think it definitely is hard, and in some cases it might be that you can never go back to being a good cop.

Carley Betts:

You could destroy a relationship overnight that you've taken a year or two to build. And I'm not saying that we should do that easily. But what I am saying in light of my previous answer, it's like what is the value in working with a company for two or three years, holding their hand to help them supply cage-free eggs and really not seeing any traction and like having a response to an email once a month but then really not taking you seriously.

Carley Betts:

I don't think that we should be playing the role of holding companies' hands and that middle person connecting them with the catering suppliers. I believe we should be playing the role of powerful organizations, mighty like the OWA. We're mighty when we come together with campaign threats and willing to escalate to the point that companies will do what we tell them to. And I know I make it sound easy. I totally get it's not easy, but I think if you've been a good cop for one, two, three years and you're not seeing traction, I just think you need to adapt and be willing to risk things.

Amy:

So are you saying it only works in that way then? So you're actually talking about an escalation from a good cop role to a bad cop role, but not the other way, because I have been a part of campaigns, like at the Humane League, where we're doing bad cop pressure campaigns and nothing's happening. So it's kind of the same. It's like we're not seeing progress on the bad cop side either. And so are you suggesting that they should abandon like bad cop tactics and maybe try a bit of hand-holding if that's going to get us like, does that sense of flexibility and creativity work both ways?

Carley Betts:

I get that. It's hard to switch identities, but it's about being creative and being willing to do so when the impact feels worthwhile. Because, honestly, we are so limited in our resources, I just don't see the value in two or three years of having positive relationships with companies that are causing a lot of animal suffering and looking like they're not willing to change it. I just I don't see the value in that. So I think being creative and willing to damage relationships is potentially worthwhile, but obviously think about pros and cons in a like, a very deep way yeah, yeah, I mean, I've heard this kind of comment before.

James:

It's like you know, it's actually the easiest thing for the companies do to like placate us is to like send this email once a month being like, hey, no, we're working on it, it's very hard, we need some more time. It's like all these supply chain challenges, xyz. And then you know you can be like, you're like, you know, fair enough, okay, I'll give you some more time, and then this drags on for a while and I I totally agree that this should only happen for so long before we say I think we're getting, you know, led down some uh, like false path and you'll take action and it's like a bit back to basics.

Carley Betts:

But sometimes I just like to think like what would chickens tell me to do? What would laying hens tell me to do in this situation? Would they be like yeah, like stay close to them for another year or two?

Carley Betts:

I think they'd be like unleash all hell if you can and like I think you need to be willing to do that, but in a smart way, like I said, that keeps safety in mind, that keeps legalities in mind, um. So yeah, sometimes I like to take it back to basics and think what would the animals tell me to do?

James:

and finally, we will finish with carolina serek from the effective altruism animal welfare fund.

Karolina Sarek:

not to risk sounding too boring, I'll still have to say shrimp.

Karolina Sarek:

But not only shrimp.

Karolina Sarek:

I mean kind of autoinvertebrates as well, and I think kind of, when we think about it, the scale here is absolutely huge and, as I mentioned, I mean autoinvertebrates as well.

Karolina Sarek:

But just to take shrimps for simplicity and as an example, we're talking about trillions of sentient beings, like approximately 440 billion farm shrimp and estimated 27 trillion wild-caught shrimp. This is just like something our brains have not evolved to understand, numbers like this. But I've heard, like a good comparison, that like per year, that's four times more than people ever who, people who ever lived on earth. This helps us understand the scale a little bit better, but it's still kind of what is not easy to grasp is just those are real individuals, you know, with their ability to experience pain and pleasure, with their preference not to suffer. I don't even want to start thinking about on an individual level just because I think it just gets very daunting very quickly, but I think on some level I think we have to remember that. And yeah, and this is just not shrimp I'm talking about. As I mentioned, there are other invertebrates as well.

Amy:

And when you're talking about working on them, then encouraging advocates to work on them. Is this in a wide and broad range of different approaches again, or do we need, as a movement, to be doing more research to understand, like what are those high impact opportunities for these invertebrates?

Karolina Sarek:

research is important and I think if not for the early stage research on invertebrate work, we wouldn't even know, like, what is the scale of that problem. And I kind of think that if we really seriously care about reducing suffering, we first must acknowledge where it exists at the largest scale, and for that, of course, we need to research. But like, equally important thing is kind of asking ourselves whether we can do anything about it. And that's kind of why I'm excited about the sort of work that Shrimp World Project initiated but now, as James mentioned, so much more organizations working on, because it really kind of shows that something can be done and this something can be effective and help a lot of animals.

Karolina Sarek:

So I think kind of we need diversity approaches here as well, especially perhaps on the kind of newer areas of intervertebrate welfare where we still not sure what theory of change is going to be most promising here. And in a sense this is like a perfect example where we should be investing in many approaches that can be promising and then just rigorously evaluating which of them actually work and then doubling down on things that are kind of having the most impact. But yeah, but definitely kind of I think we're still at that stage where I am not sure what's going to be the most the best thing to do in this area. So I do kind of encourage, as long as we're thinking about risks, as long as we're taking care about unintended consequences, to kind of think about different approaches, different theories of change and kind of rigorously putting them into practice and testing them out.

James:

To help make this a bit more concrete is there like one or two specific ideas or interventions or flavors of things you'd be curious people to test out?

Karolina Sarek:

test out. Yeah, I think, working with producers on welfare improvements, working with certifiers to kind of solidify some of the like welfare practices in their contact, but also when it comes to some more novel ways to affect animals, I think perhaps working with investors in some cases for like, especially for new industries, I think that could be interesting approach that I think is worth testing. So I think there is there more. We should be open to different approaches.

Amy:

One challenge we could face is obviously focusing on new, novel interventions, forgetting about the really high impact potential opportunities of existing things like cage free. Is there some risk to focusing too much on the next big thing and not maybe following through on enforcement? Do you think that could be a concern?

Karolina Sarek:

100%. In a way, that's almost like a tragically bad thing in the charity space that we are chasing the new shiny thing, forgetting about the things that are boring but very impactful. So I really don't think that, while I think we should be putting greater focus on invertebrate work, I don't think it means that we should be deprioritizing any other work. I think the success of the last couple of years I think really speaks to that that we can push for change on multiple angles and still be able to bring that change. So I really kind of hope that more people who care about animals will be actively joining active work toward helping them as well. The moment we go, there'll be more organizations pushing for change for animals as well, maybe kind of like to speak about. One of the things that definitely we should not be forgetting, especially in 2025, is the cage free accountability work, and I think we really need to just drive home this movement wide victory.

Karolina Sarek:

2025 is such an important year for for3 work. Perhaps a lot of listeners already know that, but the 2025 is the date when a lot of the corporate policies have their deadline. That's when they're due and in fact, I believe there's about like 1,000 companies who have K3 commitments due this year. That's like 40% of all policies ever made. So, yeah, just massive concentration. I think this year is going to be very important and I also think that you know we already made staggering progress in holding companies accountable. Last year, open Wing Alliance reported that 89% of cage recommitsments with deadline in 2023 or earlier have been fulfilled, which is this is just like hundreds of millions of hands being spared from cages. At the same time, in this report report, they also mentioned that for the companies that had deadlines like closer to the end dates 2023, 2022 the reporting rate has been like a little lower. So I think that just really kind of signals that we have to keep pushing for it. It's just not going to happen by itself.

Karolina Sarek:

So I think this is, yeah, this is really important.

Karolina Sarek:

I think cage free is becoming the norm. All of that is just due to remarkable work of all the advocates and I think, yeah, it will happen by itself. And I guess maybe, similarly, as I see the shrimp stuff to be like meaning something more about the movement, I also think that, like what K3 corporate campaigns are to the movement is also more than helping the you know, hundreds of millions of hands. This is huge, this is super important. But I also think it also says something about how we will act if companies will not keep their commitments in the future. Because, yeah, show the movement strength now. I think that that will also kind of say what sort of movement we are and that will be helping them kind of holding them accountable, and I think you know that will be helping them, uh, kind of holding them accountable, and I think you know that's not going to have the, of course, not only have the impact on the hands right now, but also for for other animals in the future for those who've made it this far.

James:

Thank you so much for being a loyal listener and hearing all the amazing insights from our five guests, who were again David Coman-Hidy, Carolina Galvani, Alex Holst, Carley Betts and Karolina Sarek. So thank you to all of our amazing guests who came on and shared these insights with us. Thank you to everyone who listened and, as always, if you enjoy the content, please give it a positive review on your podcast provider of choice. We also have a YouTube channel if you want to see these podcasts in beautiful color and video. And, as always, thank you for listening and thanks for the work you do to help animals.