This paper has argued on the basis of empirical and ethical considerations that animal activists should shift some resources from the predominant individual approach to an institutional approach. This shift does not mean forsaking individual change altogether. Footnote 6 For example, in the call to action of an overall institutional-leaning message, such as, ‘End factory farming’, one can discuss individual diet change as one possible action to take, though in some cases activists might prioritize a different call to action, such as supporting a current policy campaign. Similarly, if one is working to change an institution such as a company or government, boycotts can be an important tool in the activist toolbelt to pressure the institution into changing, at least if they are framed as a symbolic action in the service of that targeted goal rather than as a personal choice. Most large-scale activist campaigns and roadmaps incorporate both individual and institutional tactics. If these technologies continue to grow in popularity, displacing conventional meat, dairy, and egg products, then the farmed animal movement and society as a whole will need to contend with a variety of ethical considerations. For example, major food companies Tyson Foods and Cargill have already invested in Beyond Meat and Memphis Meats, respectively (Reese, 2018a, pp. 54–90). These investments could spur innovation and increase market share, but if these large companies acquire sufficient control, then they may also have the ability to quash the technologies if they are seen as competing with the conventional industry, as well as the ability to derail the ethical potential of these technologies, such as by producing them with unsustainable or unethical methods. Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB et al. (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x

Animals are dying by the billions, none without a fight, for human motives. As soon as it is economically feasible, clean meat will dramatically cut down on animal slaughter, eliminate the need to continually breed animals for their meat, and enables previously suffering animals to live fuller, more enjoyable lives.But this is only a nonparticipation effect (i.e., doing good by not committing a harmful action), rather than doing good beyond what would happen if one had never come into existence. Institutional actions, on the other hand, such as campaigning for an ethical food system or simply signing a petition for cage-free eggs, does good that would not otherwise occur according to the values of the farmed animal movement. Reese’s opposition to animal farming is categorical. This is not a book about ending inhumane farming (though we should do that), but about ending animal farming entirely. This is for several reasons. First, he argues, humane farming is simply not possible at the scale necessary to feed humanity, given how much more resource-intensive it would be than our destructive current practices. It’s also in many ways a myth. Reese recounts a personal visit to a supposedly humane farm that turned out not to be very humane at all, and notes reasons that “in some ways cage-free sheds are even worse than battery cages,” though they are better overall. The existence of “humane” farming methods also allows people “psychological refuge” to avoid confronting the core moral issue. About 75 percent of people say they only consume “humane” animal products even though only 1 percent of farm animals are raised in “humane” facilities. Finally, Reese argues that taking animal lives is simply wrong: If a smarter alien race came down to earth, captured human beings and raised them for food, we would object to the killing and eating and not just the “conditions” in which we were imprisoned. In addition to providing a clean source of nutrition, a major promise of clean meat is increasing human awareness of animal treatment in the intensive factory farming context. Initially, the rebellion is a success: The animals complete the harvest and meet every Sunday to debate farm policy. The pigs, because of their intelligence, become the supervisors of the farm. Napoleon, however, proves to be a power-hungry leader who steals the cows' milk and a number of apples to feed himself and the other pigs. He also enlists the services of Squealer, a pig with the ability to persuade the other animals that the pigs are always moral and correct in their decisions.

From vegan food tech founders to animal advocates hard at work, the landscape around animal farming is changing. And like many other political landscapes in American history, there is a fight ahead. The hope is that the fight will build a bridge between humans and advocates. For now, advocates and CEO walk across the bridge on the shoulder of giants—Peter Singer and Tom Regan—to a world more moral than this one. In this new world, there is no animal suffering. Humans care for the billions of animals suffering around us instead of eating them. The End of Animal Farming is written from the "effective altruist" point of view, and carries both that movement's best and worst tendencies. At their best, the effective altruists help hone our moral reasoning, and focus on being useful rather than seeming virtuous. You can see that in Reese's approach: He wants to convince you that ending animal farming is possible, and lay out a series of steps by which it might be achieved, not just show that it's important. In fact, he spends little time making the moral case, which is quite simple, and the bulk of the book is dedicated to solutions. Unfortunately, the "effective altruists '" frustrating qualities are on display too. In a chapter on how we might further "expand our moral circle," Reese discusses some of the EA movement's other pet causes (such as preventing an artificially intelligent creature from enslaving humanity) and mulls on moral questions about space colonization and the civil rights of future robot servants. This eccentric altruism is not based on evidence, but upon thought experiments about possible distant futures (Reese mentions "whole brain emulation"), and causes some EA adherents to think their time is wisely spent trying to help prevent far-fetched hypothetical future-suffering rather than actual present-suffering. Factory farming has produced swine and avian flu (named because they most likely started from hog farms and poultry farms). These diseases along have killed thousands around the world. When Will I Be Able to Buy Clean Meat?Here there’s very good news indeed: Meat alternatives are improving all the time. Plant-based burgers no longer taste like plants. The Impossible Burger , for instance, has come extremely close to replicating the experience of eating hamburger meat, and is about to be made available in stores. I’ve had one (if you’re in New Orleans, they’re here ), and thought it was phenomenal. It’s been a decade since I had a “real” one, of course, so I’m not a reliable judge. But I have noticed that veggie burgers are getting better. I never used to like eating them, and I mostly live on pasta and rice dishes, but the new ones like Beyond Meat are in a whole different class. Clean meat is a logical solution for ending factory farming. It is a huge step in the right direction. The process of creating clean meat is different depending on the company cultivating it, but it involves much of the same technology. Cells Are Extracted From Real Animals There are two more interesting cases of social movements focusing on individual change. First, much environmental discussion focuses on personal consumption changes, including recycling, purchasing eco-friendly appliances, abstinence from high-emission activities such as flying and eating red meat, and abstinence from everyday uses of plastic, such as plastic cutlery and straws at restaurants. However, environmentalists have recently railed against this approach, condemning it as ‘green consumerism’ and calling for what they have seen to be a more effective tactic: institutional change, particularly government regulation and taxation of private industry (Monbiot, 2009).

A big part of social movement success is working with and springboarding off of other movements and communities, so I would like to see more religiously inclined animal advocates working to encourage change in this area.Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!" Reese J (2016) Our initial thoughts on the mercy for animals facebook ads study. Animal Charity Evaluators. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/our-initial-thoughts-on-the-mfa-facebook-ads-study/. Accessed 22 Feb 2019 Thus, rhetoric against animal exploitation institutions—corporations, industries, governments, other organizations, or society as a whole—could spark more moral outrage by placing the blame or guilt on those institutions rather than on the individual. Whether an individual or institutional approach is most effective hinges on the specific context of the social movement, some of which may necessitate a specific approach. For example, the movement against the death penalty would not be able to achieve success via individual consumer change because the death penalty does not require specific consumer choices. As he walks around feeding and talking a little French to his 28 sows (according to Scheepens, “ neuf”, is their grunt of confirmation, and “ huit, huit” is them asking for more) the place seems idyllic. The pigs are fed on produce being thrown away by organic supermarket Ekoplaza: boxes of white cabbages, slightly wilted beans, veggie-balls, 500kg of Canadian lentils, overripe mangoes from Burkina Faso, hundreds of tubs of peach mango soy yoghurt, and boxes of apricots. A couple of cats and dogs wander around. Meanwhile, in a forested nature reserve area, 45 Angus cows have just calved.

Cells by themselves aren’t meat — whether the clean or “unclean” variety. Columns, called scaffolding, are used to manipulate the cells so they grow into muscles. The process seeks to mimic the process of an animal growing and developing before slaughter. The satellite cells used in most processes actually need an anchor, a structure where they can hang on to, and that’s also why scaffolding is necessary. Harvesting Muscle Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks The most basic argument of this book is that we can take the scientific approach used in fields like medicine and apply it to social change. We can diagnose a social movement, assess its strengths and weaknesses, and prescribe evidence-based solutions.” What changes can we expect to see in our lifetime?Borough and Oma are here to stay,” he says, squelching to his farthest field, where the two 400kg-plus animals squeeze into their shed. “I’ve given them a name and when you give a name to a pig, I cannot butcher it any more. I had three boars, David, Att and Borough. David and Att are already in heaven but ‘Bro’ is still here.” The second case is the free produce movement (FPM), a submovement of 18th and 19th century abolitionists who advocated abstinence from slave-made products (Crothers, 2006). This approach is analogous to veganism, as FPM activists believed consumers of slave-made products were individually culpable for the atrocity of slavery. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison said in 1831, ‘[E]ntire abstinence from the products of slavery is the duty of every individual. In no other way can our example or influence be exerted so beneficially’. However, by the late 1840s, these same activists called for a switch to other approaches. Garrison himself wrote in 1847 that he had ‘erred in judgement’ by focusing on FPM, and that it was ‘wasting time’. He presciently suggested that a focus on abstinence might have a moral licensing effect, saying that abstinence ‘furnishes [abstainers] with a pretext to do nothing more for the slave, because they do so much’. In fact, he made the seemingly radical claim that abolitionists are in fact the only ones who can ‘innocently use’ slave-made goods (The Non-slaveholder, 1847). If you have a pet, such as a dog, think about your relationship. You work cooperatively in your day-to-day lives. Your pet provides love, companionship, entertainment, and loyalty. In turn, you offer those same things in addition to food, water, shelter, and access to things your pets can’t get on their own.