Hide table of contents

The Rapid Effective Action Development Initiative (READI) recently completed a meta-review of interventions that influence animal-product consumption.

The work was led by Emily Grundy and conducted in collaboration with EA-aligned researchers and organisations.

We screened 11989 papers to find 18 relevant reviews.  

We planned to convert effect sizes from reviews to a common metric and conduct meta-meta-analyses, however we needed to deviate from our protocol because so few reviews reported effect sizes of primary studies. 

Instead, we undertook vote counting based on direction of effect— an acceptable statistical synthesis method for when meta-analysis of effect estimates is not possible  and consistent effect measures or data are not reported across studies.

Summary of evidence for interventions 

Below is a quick visual summary of the evidence for the each of interventions covered (see PowerPoint here, or table here).

Providing information

 

Implicitly emphasising animal welfare

 

Goal-setting and self-monitoring

 

Social consequences of eating meat

 

Default plant-based meals

 

Providing meat alternatives

 

Description of meat / meat alternatives

 

Economic interventions

 

Personalised messaging

 

Individual lifestyle counselling

 

Reducing meat portion sizes

 

References

¹Harguess and colleagues (2020), ²Bianchi and colleagues (2018), ³Hartmann and Siegrist (2017), ⁴ Veul (2018), ⁵Graça and colleagues (2019), ⁶Valli and colleagues (2019), ⁷Taufik and colleagues (2019, ⁸Wynes and colleagues (2018), ⁹Nisa and colleagues (2019), ¹⁰Bianchi and colleagues (2018b), ¹¹Sanchez-Sabate and Sabaté (2019) ,¹²Byerly and colleagues (2018). Full citations are available in the preprint.

A detailed academic report on the project is being revised for submission. Here is a preview  (PDF here):

 

 

Depending on feedback, we may release a longer plain language summary in the future or develop a related database to help researchers and practitioners to build on the research.

Feedback

If you have any feedback on this post, our research, or anything else then please complete our short feedback form or comment below.

Previous and ongoing READI work

We have previously completed a review and public summary for 'What works to promote charitable donations?

In the Survey of COVID-19 Responses to Understand Behaviour (SCRUB)  we aim to provide current and future policy makers with actionable insights into public attitudes and behaviours relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past 16 months, we (mainly Emily Grundy and Alexander Saeri) have been receiving ongoing funding (as employees of BehaviourWorks Australia) from the Victorian Government in Australia to run the survey periodically . Our results directly inform Covid-19 response policy. Several related publications (e.g., 1, 2, ,3) have been accepted in academic journals. Several more are planned once data embargoes are lifted.

Our next project is likely to focus on Improving Institutional Decision Making (IIDM). 

Opportunities to engage with future research

If relevant then please consider applying for Micheal's PhD Scholarships for EA projects in psychology, health, IIDM, or education

Help us with our website

We are evaluating the priority of improving our website. As part of this we are curious about how our current website affects our impact. Please complete this short form to help.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone involved in completing and supporting the research: Emily A. C. Grundy1, Peter Slattery1, Alexander K. Saeri1, Kieren Watkins2, Thomas Houlden3, Neil Farr, Henry Askin, Joannie Lee3, Alexandria Mintoft-Jones, Sophia Cyna4, Alyssa Dziegielewski5, Romy Gelber3, Amy Rowe6, Maya B. Mathur7, Shane Timmons8, 9, Kun Zhao1, Matti Wilks10, Jacob Peacock11, Jamie Harris12, Daniel L. Rosenfeld13, Chris Bryant14, David Moss15, Michael Noetel16

1BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, 2School of Agriculture and Food, University of Melbourne, 3University of New South Wales, 4University of Sydney, 5Macquarie University, 6University of Adelaide, 7Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, 8Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, 9School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland., 10Yale University,  11Director of The Humane League Labs, 12Sentience Institute, 13Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 14Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK, 15Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University, 16School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Australian Catholic University

We thank Annet Hoek and Jo Anderson for their contributions to the research direction of this project and the manuscript.

Disclaimer

I wrote this summary quickly with relatively little oversight from the rest of the research team. I take responsibility for any mistakes or misrepresentation.
 

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Great work everyone! Very interesting

Thanks Rowan!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
Relevant opportunities
13
82
· · 3m read