Effective Altruism (EA) has made significant progress in identifying high-impact interventions across animal welfare, global health, and existential risk. Within food systems, much of this attention has understandably focused on supply-side solutions, including alternative protein development, corporate campaigns, and policy reform. This prioritization was not mistaken. In fact, it was likely necessary: without viable, accessible, and appealing alternatives to animal products, efforts to shift demand would have had limited practical traction. However, supply-side work is increasingly focused on reducing barriers related to taste, price, accessibility, and scale, meaning the next constraint may lie not only in production, but in adoption (Good Food Institute, 2025). If consumers remain unfamiliar with plant-based proteins, skeptical of their nutritional adequacy, or socially attached to conventional animal products, even strong supply-side innovations may fail to achieve their full impact.
In this article, I argue that agricultural and nutrition education, particularly when delivered through institutional settings like schools, represents a promising demand-side complement to EA’s existing food system priorities. The claim is not that EA has been wrong to focus on supply, but that the movement may now be well-positioned to unlock the next stage of impact by investing more seriously in demand creation. By influencing dietary norms early in life, education can generate persistent, potentially intergenerational changes in consumption patterns, with downstream effects on animal welfare, environmental sustainability, human health, and existential risk reduction. In EA terms, the case is increasingly compelling: the problem is large, the intervention remains comparatively underexplored, and there is growing evidence that well-designed education paired with exposure can shift attitudes and behavior.
The scale of harms associated with current food systems is immense. Industrial animal agriculture alone involves more than 80 billion land animals slaughtered annually, in addition to trillions of fish (FAO, 2023). These animals are overwhelmingly raised in intensive systems associated with severe welfare constraints. Within EA discourse, philosopher Evan G. Williams argued in his paper “The possibility of an ongoing moral catastrophe” that animal agriculture may qualify as “cause X,” given its scale, tractability, and relative neglect (Williams, 2015). Given the sheer number of sentient beings affected, even marginal reductions in demand could yield large reductions in total suffering.
The environmental impacts are similarly large. Food systems account for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock production a major contributor (IPCC, 2022). Livestock also occupies roughly 77% of global agricultural land while producing a minority of calories (Poore & Nemecek, 2018), making it a major driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation. Meanwhile, the World Resources Institute identifies dietary change, particularly reduced consumption of animal products, as one of the most effective demand-side strategies for mitigating these impacts (Searchinger et al., 2019).
The human health burden further reinforces the scale of the problem. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study, poor diet is a leading global risk factor, contributing to millions of deaths annually through cardiovascular disease, cancer, and metabolic disorders (GBD, 2019). The World Health Organization has classified processed meat as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic (WHO, 2015), while dietary shifts toward plant-based patterns could prevent approximately 11 million premature deaths per year (Willett et al., 2019).
Food systems also intersect with risks of particular importance to longtermist EA. Intensive animal farming can create conditions that facilitate the spread of zoonotic pathogens, especially in high-density livestock systems where humans, animals, and ecosystems interact closely (FAO, 2025). In parallel, antibiotic use in animal agriculture accelerates antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which the United Nations has identified as a major global threat (UN, 2019). These pathways connect food systems not only to present-day harms, but also to systemic risks with potentially long-term consequences.
Crucially, these harms persist because demand persists. Production responds to consumption patterns, meaning that durable reductions in demand could generate benefits across animal welfare, climate, public health, and biosecurity. Supply-side work helps reduce barriers related to cost, quality, accessibility, and availability (Good Food Institute, 2025). Yet, if remaining barriers are increasingly social, psychological, and educational, then demand-side interventions deserve greater attention as part of a complete theory of change.
Education operates at a powerful leverage point because it shapes preferences themselves. Unlike interventions that target behavior only at the point of decision, education can influence early-life norm formation, establish habits that persist over time, and contribute to the social transmission of dietary patterns across households and communities. This is especially important in food systems, where choices are rarely based on information alone, but shaped by familiarity, identity, perceived norms, convenience, and assumptions about nutrition (Higgs, 2015).
One especially important barrier is the “protein myth”: the widespread belief that plant-based foods cannot provide adequate protein or support strength, health, or athletic performance. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that appropriately planned vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns can be nutritionally adequate and offer long-term health benefits. Yet, misconceptions about protein adequacy continue to shape whether people view plant-based foods as realistic substitutes or as niche, inferior alternatives (Raj et al., 2025). This matters, as misconceptions about protein are not only informational but also social and experiential. People may need to see plant-based eating modelled credibly, encounter it in familiar settings, and experience the food itself before viewing it as a realistic part of their own lives.
A useful example comes from the work of professional speaker and advocate Jason Fonger, who has implemented food literacy workshops focused on plant-based eating and alternative proteins across Ontario high schools. According to his reported impact, this program has reached more than 3,000 students across over 20 school boards through more than 130 workshops (Fonger, 2026). These sessions are intentionally non-prescriptive: they do not dictate dietary choices, but instead expand awareness, normalize plant-based eating patterns, and support informed decision-making. They combine evidence-based instruction with direct exposure to plant-based foods through taste testing and structured student feedback.
Fonger’s personal credibility as a plant-based endurance athlete is not incidental to the intervention, but part of the mechanism. Because one of the most persistent objections to plant-based eating concerns protein adequacy, seeing a high-performing athlete fueled by plants directly challenges a barrier that abstract nutrition education may leave untouched. In this respect, the intervention does not merely tell students that plant-based protein is possible, but demonstrates that plant-based protein can support athletic performance.
This combination of instruction, exposure, and credibility appears important, since dietary preferences are shaped by familiarity, perceived norms, and accessibility. By pairing information with experiential exposure, the intervention reduces both informational and psychological barriers to change (Higgs, 2015). The reported results are notable: post-workshop survey data indicate that 57% of students report plans to increase plant-based consumption, while an additional 36% report considering dietary changes, meaning that 93% of participants express openness to shifting their eating habits (Fonger, 2026).
Importantly, this model is beginning to extend beyond individual-level attitude change toward institutional impact. As Canada invests in a National School Food Program, including $1 billion over five years to provide meals to up to 400,000 more children, school food systems are becoming a more important site for decisions about menus, procurement, and food literacy (Government of Canada, 2026). Jason is also working with Forward Food, a program by Humane World for Animals, to encourage and support K-12 schools across Canada in serving more plant-based foods through cafeteria and meal programs, while also strengthening food literacy initiatives that help students understand the benefits of plant-based eating and make informed meal choices (Humane World for Animals, 2026). Forward Food provides free support and resources to food service operations, including training, recipes, marketing support, and educational sessions, and asks participating operations to sign a pledge committing to purchase or serve more plant-based foods (Humane World for Animals, 2026). Since 2017, over 100 food service operations across Canada have signed the Forward Food pledge, and together these organizations serve over 30 million meals each year (Humane World for Animals, 2026).
From an EA perspective, the significance lies not only in immediate attitude change, but in the trajectory-shaping nature of the intervention. Schools function as norm-setting environments, and adolescence is a critical period for habit formation. Interventions at this stage may influence dietary patterns over decades and potentially across households as students transmit preferences and knowledge to family members. In this way, educational programs can act as force multipliers, amplifying the long-term impact of individual behavior change, institutional procurement shifts, and parallel interventions such as alternative protein development.
Despite its potential, agricultural and nutrition education remains comparatively underprioritized within both EA and broader food system transformation efforts. The point is not that EA has ignored animal agriculture or food systems. Rather, EA’s food-related work has often focused more heavily on supply-side strategies, including alternative proteins, corporate welfare reforms, and policy advocacy. This emphasis made sense when alternatives were less available, less affordable, or less appealing. However, as the supply-side landscape improves, demand may become a more important bottleneck.
This imbalance is reflected in the broader literature. The Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization emphasize that dietary patterns are central drivers of food system outcomes, yet interventions targeting these behaviors, particularly through education, remain underdeveloped relative to their importance (FAO & WHO, 2019). Similarly, the World Resources Institute notes that while dietary shifts are essential for achieving climate goals, policy and investment have lagged in addressing demand-side change compared to production-focused strategies (Searchinger et al., 2019).
This creates a structural gap. While supply-side innovations depend on consumer uptake to achieve impact, relatively few resources are devoted to ensuring that such uptake occurs. If alternative proteins exist but are not chosen, normalized, or trusted, their impact will remain limited. Demand-side education is therefore not a rival to supply-side innovation, but one of the mechanisms through which supply-side innovation becomes effective.
The neglect of education is further compounded by structural biases within existing systems. Nutrition education has historically been influenced by industry actors, with evidence showing that corporate interests have shaped dietary guidance and public understanding (Kearns et al., 2016). Agricultural industries have also established a strong presence in schools through sponsored programming that reinforces conventional consumption patterns. As a result, students are often exposed to messaging that normalizes animal product consumption while underexposing them to alternatives. This contributes to persistent misconceptions about plant-based nutrition, underestimation of the broader impacts of food choices, and the widespread effects of “humane-washing” in consumer perception.
There is increasing evidence that interventions in this space are tractable, with behavioral research showing that relatively small changes in choice environments can produce substantial shifts in behavior. For example, a randomized controlled trial found that making vegetarian meals the default meal option at conferences significantly increased plant-based selection, largely through harnessing norm signaling (Kurz et al., 2022). This suggests that interventions targeting perceived norms and defaults can achieve meaningful results at relatively low cost.
Educational interventions appear particularly effective when combined with direct exposure, as demonstrated in the program described above. Schools are willing to engage, students are receptive, and measurable attitudinal shifts can be achieved in relatively short timeframes. A strong theory of change is not simply that education causes behaviour change. Rather, education increases awareness, exposure reduces unfamiliarity, credible messengers counter misconceptions, institutional food service increases accessibility, and repeated availability helps normalize new choices.
From a policy perspective, these interventions are well aligned with existing incentives. Plant-based foods are often less resource-intensive, making them attractive to governments seeking to meet public health and climate targets (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). There is also evidence that schools can reduce the environmental footprint and cost of meals through small menu shifts and reductions in food waste, suggesting that sustainability-oriented school meal changes can align with budgetary constraints rather than necessarily conflicting with them (Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, 2025). Programs such as Forward Food further strengthen this pathway by helping food service providers translate intention into implementation through practical support, recipes, training, and procurement guidance (Humane World for Animals, 2026).
The pathway to scale is also unusually clear. Educational programs can be piloted, evaluated, and iteratively improved before being expanded through school systems and national food programs. Data collection on student behavior and preferences can support further funding and policy integration, creating a feedback loop that enables expansion. This model closely aligns with EA priorities of measurability, replicability, and leverage. It is also strategically timed: as Canada invests in a National School Food Program, early decisions about menus, procurement, and food literacy may shape norms for years to come (Government of Canada, 2026).
One objection is that education may not translate into sustained behavior change. This is a serious concern, seeing as Intention-behavior gaps are real, and one-off classroom interventions are unlikely to transform food systems on their own. However, the strongest version of demand-side education is not a single information session. It combines early-life education with direct exposure, credible messengers, institutional reinforcement, and changes in the food environment. Combining education with structural nudges, such as default options, can significantly increase follow-through (Kurz et al., 2022).
A second concern is that supply-side interventions are more direct and therefore more impactful. However, supply-side solutions ultimately depend on demand for adoption. Without shifts in consumer preferences, even highly effective technologies may fail to scale. Education should therefore be viewed as complementary, increasing the effectiveness of existing EA investments rather than competing with them. In this respect, demand-side education is not a claim that EA’s past priorities were mistaken, but that the success of those priorities increasingly depends on whether people actually choose the alternatives being created.
A third objection is that education is slow relative to other interventions. While this is true in the short term, education can produce compounding effects over decades. From a longtermist perspective, interventions that shape future preferences may be particularly valuable, as they influence trajectories rather than isolated outcomes. This is especially relevant in schools, where students are still forming habits, identities, and assumptions about what counts as normal or desirable food.
Agricultural and nutrition education represents a compelling but underexplored opportunity within Effective Altruism. It addresses problems of exceptional scale, remains comparatively neglected relative to its importance, and benefits from growing evidence of tractability. The strongest case for it is not that EA has ignored food systems, nor that supply-side interventions were the wrong priority. Rather, the case is that supply-side progress has created the conditions under which demand-side interventions may now be especially valuable.
Most importantly, education operates through a distinct mechanism: norm formation and intergenerational change. By shaping the preferences that drive demand, education has the capacity to influence food systems at their root, generating cascading benefits across animal welfare, environmental sustainability, human health, and existential risk mitigation. When paired with institutional food service change, credible messengers, and direct exposure to plant-based foods, it can also help ensure that alternative proteins and plant-based options are not merely available, but chosen.
If Effective Altruism aims to prioritize interventions that are scalable, evidence-based, and capable of reshaping systems over the long term, then education-driven food system change deserves greater attention. From a funding perspective, this space offers clear and actionable opportunities: supporting pilot programs in schools, investing in rigorous evaluation of behavioral and institutional outcomes, and enabling early-stage scaling through partnerships with governments and foodservice providers. Given the relatively low cost and high leverage of education-based interventions, even modest investments could generate substantial long-term returns across multiple EA cause areas. EA helped build the supply, but the next opportunity may be to build the demand.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2023). FAOSTAT database. https://www.fao.org/faostat/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). Understanding zoonotic diseases: A global health challenge. https://www.fao.org/one-health/highlights/understanding-zoonotic-diseases/en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Sustainable healthy diets: Guiding principles. https://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf
Fonger, J. (2026). Impact. https://www.jasonfonger.com/impact
GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. (2020). Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis. The Lancet, 396(10258), 1223-1249. https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30752-2/fulltext
Good Food Institute. (2025). 2024 State of alternative proteins report. https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-state-of-alternative-proteins-report.pdf
Government of Canada. (2026). Feeding the future today: Canada’s National School Food Program. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/school-food/feeding-future.html
Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite, 86, 38-44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666314005017
Humane World for Animals. (2026). About Forward Food. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:42b55e56-77ea-426c-9e5d-34c1b26b66dd
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. (2025). Reducing the environmental footprint and cost of school meals. https://clf.jhsph.edu/publications/reducing-environmental-footprint-and-cost-school-meals
Kearns, C. E., Schmidt, L. A., & Glantz, S. A. (2016). Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: A historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(11), 1680-1685. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
Kurz, V., Prosser, A. M. B., Rabinovich, A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2022). Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: Three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian default. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117059119
O’Neill, J. (2016). Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: Final report and recommendations. Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. https://amr-review.org/Publications
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Raj, S., Guest, N. S., Landry, M. J., Mangels, A. R., Pawlak, R., & Rozga, M. (2025). Vegetarian dietary patterns for adults: A position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2025.02.002
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., & Matthews, E. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/research/creating-sustainable-food-future
United Nations (UN). (2019). No time to wait: Securing the future from drug-resistant infections. Interagency Coordination Group on Antimicrobial Resistance. https://www.un.org/pga/73/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2019/04/Antimicrobial-Resistance.pdf
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Williams, E. G. (2015). The possibility of an ongoing moral catastrophe. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(5), 971-982. https://philpapers.org/rec/WILTPO-101
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-red-meat-and-processed-meat
