This post summarizes a new meta-analysis from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab. We analyze the most rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to reduce consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). We conclude that no theoretical approach, delivery mechanism, or persuasive message should be considered a well-validated means of reducing MAP consumption. By contrast, reducing consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) appears to be an easier target. However, if RPM reductions lead to more consumption of chicken and fish, this is likely bad for animal welfare and doesn’t ameliorate zoonotic outbreak or land and water pollution. We also find that many promising approaches await rigorous evaluation.
This post updates a post from a year ago. We first summarize the current paper, and then describe how the project and its findings have evolved.
What is a rigorous RCT?
We operationalize “rigorous RCT” as any study that:
* Randomly assigns participants to a treatment and control group
* Measures consumption directly -- rather than (or in addition to) attitudes, intentions, or hypothetical choices -- at least a single day after treatment begins
* Has at least 25 subjects in both treatment and control, or, in the case of cluster-assigned studies (e.g. university classes that all attend a lecture together or not), at least 10 clusters in total.
Additionally, studies needed to intend to reduce MAP consumption, rather than (e.g.) encouraging people to switch from beef to chicken, and be publicly available by December 2023.
We found 35 papers, comprising 41 studies and 112 interventions, that met these criteria. 18 of 35 papers have been published since 2020.
The main theoretical approaches:
Broadly speaking, studies used Persuasion, Choice Architecture, Psychology, and a combination of Persuasion and Psychology to try to change eating behavior.
Persuasion studies typically provide arguments about animal welfare, health, and environmental welfare reason
Martingale, this kind of an effort seems quite a bit different from the core efforts of effective altruism. Consequently, I suspect that this question won't get much traction that you probably won't get many useful suggestions. An additional factor is that volunteering in distant places for a short period of time has some complications involved in it. You can read here if you want an introduction to some of the ideas, or explore the book Ours to Explore: Privilege, Power, and the Paradox of Voluntourism if you want a more in-depth exploration. In general, I'd encourage you to have different mental buckets for "doing good" and for "travel/leisure."
However, if you are set on using your time/effort to volunteer in Argentina, I think that the subreddit for Argentina might be able to give you some suggestions. I'm guessing that most NGOs or non-profit organizations wouldn't find it a good use of their resources to provide financial help to your kids, but you can try reaching out to Habitat for Humanity in Argentina, or to organizations like International Volunteer HQ.