Hide table of contents

Actions that have a large impact sometimes don't feel like much. To counteract that bias, I'm sharing arguably the best use of two minutes this month for those in the U.S.

Background

In May, the US Supreme Court upheld the ability of US states to require certain standards for animal products sold within their borders, e.g. California's Prop 12, which banned the sale of animal products that involve certain intensive confinement practices.

It was a huge victory! But after their defeat in the Supreme Court, the animal farming industry has turned to Congress, pushing the EATS Act.

The proposed legislation would take away state power to regulate the kind of agricultural products that enter their borders. Essentially, if any one state permits the production or sale of a particular agricultural product, every other state could have to do so as well, regardless of how dangerous or unethical the product is and regardless of existing state legislation.

 Just a small sample of laws that could be subverted by the EATS Act include those governing:

  • Chemicals in baby food containers
  • Harmful pesticides in communities and applying them directly to crops for human consumption
  • Arsenic in feed for animals slaughtered for food and other poison control
  • Child labor
  • Puppy mills
  • Wildlife protection
  • Pollutant and emissions standards, e.g., bans on spraying sewage on crops directly before they are sold to people
  • Fire hazards
  • Drugs that contain opioid properties and alcohol and tobacco sales to minors

And, of course, legislation like Proposition 12 that improves animal welfare requirements and has been a dominant focus of the pro-animal movement.


2 Minutes of Action

10 seconds: Send a written message to your legislators

~1.5 minutes: Call your legislators

  1. Find them
  2. Call your one U.S. representative and two U.S. senators (found in the federal section), ideally during business hours
  3. Read a script like this one:

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression' (EATS) Act (S. 2619/HR 4999). This is a dangerous, regressive bill that will undo decades of protections for farmed animals and cause them to endure even more suffering for the profits of animal agricultural interests. It would also have devastating consequences for humans and the environment.”

*Note that there is another bill known as the EATS Act of 2023, which is Enhance Access To SNAP. Please be specific that you are asking them to oppose the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act.

For more information, see: (1), (2), (3).

Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This seems like a reasonable ask, good luck with it! I can't help myself, unfortunately.

However, I did bounce off the clickbaity title of this post. I wouldn't like an EA forum where I had to open each link to work out whether it was worth reading or taking action on. I much prefer posts which try to make transparent what the ask is. In this case, I think "Call on U.S. legislators to protect farmed animal welfare" would've been more transparent and possibly even more attractive to some.

I totally agree and almost didn't proceed with this title. However, I would like to see more posts like this that present short, actionable ways to have an impact outside of donations and in a way that was a primary point of the post. How cool would it be if we had ten more posts like this? I'd happily spend that 20+ minutes each month completing the full list. Also, I'm unsure if there's evidence of this but I have a general assumption people are more willing to take action for a cause area they don't prioritize if they've already loosely committed to taking an action, such that not IDing the cause in the title might lead to more action. But very happy to be proven wrong on that!

FYI, Manifold now has a market on the likelihood of the act becoming law:
 

FYI in the future I think it's probably a good idea to link readers to the bill in question (here, I believe) in addition to secondary sources.

Just a small sample of laws that could be subverted by the EATS Act include those governing:

  • Chemicals in baby food containers
  • ...
  • Fire hazards
  • Drugs that contain opioid properties and alcohol and tobacco sales to minors

Could you explain how it could affect these rules? By my reading the bill is solely about agricultural pre-harvest standards, and would not affect packaging or fire hazards, which are typically post-harvest. Similarly, I would assume most rules about alcohol and tobacco are about how they can be sold or consumed, not how they can be produced (and are often federal anyway) so it's a bit surprising to me that they might be materially affected by this bill.

For reference here is what I think is the relevant section of the text:

(b) Prohibition.—The government of a State or a unit of local government within a State shall not impose a standard or condition on the preharvest production of any agricultural products sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce if—

(1) the production occurs in another State; and

(2) subject to subsection (c), the standard or condition is in addition to the standards and conditions applicable to the production pursuant to—

(A) Federal law; and

(B) the laws of the State and unit of local government in which the production occurs.

Looks like that list of possible things that could be impacted was copied from this source:
https://www.exploreveg.org/2023/06/26/urgent-alert-animal-welfare-and-state-rights-under-threat-from-eats-act/
 

GPT4 says it's unlikely that those would be impacted by the bill: https://chat.openai.com/share/49d449b2-c753-4fc3-bee3-61179832fa5d

This seems more accurate in terms of discussion of what laws may be impacted:
https://sentientmedia.org/8-key-laws-threatened-by-eats-act/
 

Thanks!

Yeah, clicking through one of the examples of a bill that would supposedly be impacted I don't see the relevance of pre-harvesting regulation.

I've done this!

Me too

Done, thanks for the nudge. 

Thank you for sharing Rocky -- very easy and I will re-post this to the New Roots Institute summer fellows to take this action today!

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while