The recent vote on Measure J in Sonoma County, California, bears striking similarities to our own 2022 ballot initiative to abolish factory farming in Switzerland. Both campaigns sought to reshape the landscape of animal agriculture, prioritising animal welfare and environmental concerns. The shared purpose and challenges faced by both initiatives offer valuable insights for the future of animal advocacy.

In 2022, Sentience Politics led a nationwide ballot in Switzerland to abolish factory farming, granting a 25-year transitional period. Similarly, Measure J in Sonoma County aimed to ban Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) outside the Coastal Zone, affecting approximately 20 large producers. 

Both initiatives faced significant opposition from agricultural interests, given the entrenched nature of industrial farming practices. In Switzerland, our initiative garnered 37.1% of the vote, whilst early returns in Sonoma County showed 85% opposing Measure J. 

Both campaigns faced a stark contrast in financial resources. In Sonoma County, the 'No on J' campaign outspent supporters by an 8-to-1 ratio, raising over $2.2 million from large agricultural corporations and trade groups. This mirrors our experience in Switzerland, where we faced a similarly well-funded opposition.

The Sonoma campaign's reliance on smaller donations, typically ranging from $100 to $200 from individuals, echoes our own grassroots funding approach. This financial difference underscores the significant challenge faced by animal welfare advocates when confronting the economic might of the agricultural industry. We were therefore encouraged, rather than disheartened, that over a third of voters said ‘yes’ to our Initiative. One can only imagine how the overall outcome may have differed with financial parity. 

As an organisation that has navigated similar terrain, Sentience Politics was honoured to offer advisory support to the Sonoma County campaign. Our shared experiences show the importance of early alliance-building, transparent communication about farming conditions, and strategic framing of the issues.

Both campaigns emphasised the ethical and environmental implications of industrial farming, aiming to spark public discourse on a topic that is so often ignored. The Sonoma initiative, like ours, sought to redefine minimum standards for animal welfare, demonstrating a common approach to legislative change.

Whilst the immediate outcomes of these initiatives may seem disappointing, they represent significant steps in the ongoing dialogue about animal welfare in agriculture. The Sonoma vote, much like our Swiss initiative, has raised awareness and sparked crucial conversations about the future of farming and animal rights.

As a political voice for animals in Switzerland, Sentience Politics recognises the value of these shared experiences. The Sonoma campaign has shown the power of grassroots movements to challenge the status quo, even in the face of formidable opposition.

Moving forward, we must continue to build on these experiences, refining our strategies and broadening our coalitions. The lessons learned from both campaigns will be invaluable as we continue to advocate for animal welfare reforms, not just in Switzerland, but as part of a global movement towards more ethical and sustainable farming practices.

In conclusion, whilst the Sonoma County vote did not yield the desired outcome, it, along with our Swiss initiative, represents a crucial step in the ongoing journey towards better treatment of farm animals. We remain committed to learning from and supporting similar efforts worldwide, united in our vision of a more compassionate future for all animals.

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I don't want to be pessimistic, but I am not currently convinced these campaigns were good uses of activist time and donor money, given how badly they were defeated. 

I see the point that "we were vastly outspent" can go somewhere to explain why campaigns failed, but surely this was known before hand? If so, then it would have been an argument against doing them in the first place.

Can you elaborate a bit more on any tangible advantages you see beyond "raising awareness/starting conversations"?

Also, how do we actually know that this has been a significantly beneficial step re: "raising awareness/starting conversations" ? 

My own experience is that all non vegans I mentioned this said something that can be summarised as "what a ridiculous thing to do, there was no way that would work, don't these crazy activists have something better to do with their time?". Which is very weak evidence that this may have spawned many negative conversations for animals.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
Omnizoid
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Edit 1/29: Funding is back, baby!  Crossposted from my blog.   (This could end up being the most important thing I’ve ever written. Please like and restack it—if you have a big blog, please write about it). A mother holds her sick baby to her chest. She knows he doesn’t have long to live. She hears him coughing—those body-wracking coughs—that expel mucus and phlegm, leaving him desperately gasping for air. He is just a few months old. And yet that’s how old he will be when he dies. The aforementioned scene is likely to become increasingly common in the coming years. Fortunately, there is still hope. Trump recently signed an executive order shutting off almost all foreign aid. Most terrifyingly, this included shutting off the PEPFAR program—the single most successful foreign aid program in my lifetime. PEPFAR provides treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS—it has saved about 25 million people since its implementation in 2001, despite only taking less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Every single day that it is operative, PEPFAR supports: > * More than 222,000 people on treatment in the program collecting ARVs to stay healthy; > * More than 224,000 HIV tests, newly diagnosing 4,374 people with HIV – 10% of whom are pregnant women attending antenatal clinic visits; > * Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV; > * 7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results; > * Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. The most important thing PEPFAR does is provide life-saving anti-retroviral treatments to millions of victims of HIV. More than 20 million people living with HIV globally depend on daily anti-retrovirals, including over half a million children. These children, facing a deadly illness in desperately poor countries, are now going
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Note: I'm crossposting this from the United States of Exception Substack with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. I'm posting this because I thought it was interesting and relevant, and don't necessarily agree with any specific points made. ---------------------------------------- A good and wholesome K-strategist. I am a climate change catastrophist, but I’m not like all the others. I don’t think climate change is going to wipe out all life on Earth (as 35% of Americans say they believe) or end the human race (as 31% believe). Nor do I think it’s going to end human life on Earth but that human beings will continue to exist somewhere else in the universe (which at least 4% of Americans would logically have to believe). Nevertheless, I think global warming is among the worst things in the world — if not #1 — and addressing it should be among our top priorities. Friend of the blog Bentham's Bulldog argues that this is silly, because even though climate change is very bad, it’s not the worst thing ever. The worst thing ever is factory farming, and climate change “rounds down to zero” when compared to factory farming. I disagree. I think there is a plausible case that climate change is orders of magnitude worse than factory farming. In fact, I think I can convince Bentham of this (that it’s plausible, not that it’s definitely true) by the end of the following sentence: Climate change creates conditions that favor r-selected over K-selected traits and species in most environments, and these effects can be expected to last for several million years. I don’t know if I’ve already convinced him. For most people, that sentence is probably nonsense. But if you’re familiar at all with the concept of wild animal suffering, it should start to raise some alarm bells. Biologists describe species’ reproductive strategies along a continuum of r-selection to K-selection, based on how a species trades off between quantity and quali
Recent opportunities in Animal welfare