Bruce, it's refreshing to hear your recognition of dietary change activism. I wonder if you mean a continued reliance on consumer-facing outreach or a systemic approach that targets powerholders who are making the big deals and decisions about our food system on our behalf. Do you think that EA doesn't fund the latter because the donor class might oppose the kind of systemic change needed to have any real impact on animals, the planet and public health? Or asked another way, if the donor class is benefiting from things staying relatively the same, why would we expect them or the EA funders that rely on their money to spearhead anything but minor reforms that don't really shift power away from animal ag. (without a major social movement effort)?
The best argument for food system (“dietary”) change activism would be studying and leveraging actual real-world case studies, specifically the playbook and track record of the tobacco and meat industry and their proven ability to increase market share through successful marketing campaigns. The documentary, The Real Mad Men of Chicago, shows us exactly how this was done over the last several decades.
The important lesson here is that food industry powerholders hold the key to a major shift in the direction of a plant-based food system. Without a people-powered movement to influence their decisions, we don’t stand a chance to make meaningful change, and consumers will just continue to consume the animal-heavy diet that is marketed to them, despite all the consumer-facing outreach we have done and continue to do in the vegan movement (by default?). It sounds like EA testing has found this singular focus on consumer dietary change to be ineffective. If so, on that point, I would agree, it could never be enough on its own. But surely we were strategic enough to realize that much earlier on right?
To further build a mass movement, we would also need to better leverage potential trigger events that reflect the pains and anxieties of everyday working people such as bird flu, food price inflation and extreme weather events and effectively use messaging to tie this into a plant-based foods solution.
Lastly, I think we need to listen carefully to what the powerholders of the food system are telling us. For example, earlier this year, the leading spokesperson for the turkey industry John Zimmerman told Congress at a public hearing that if “we” don’t solve the bird flu problem, there will be no future for the chicken and egg industries. The industry is telling us what their greatest vulnerabilities are and we need to be leveraging them to our advantage. I don’t see that happening “at scale” or even on a micro level, yet.
Obviously there is much more to say, but I prefer real conversation over texting. It’s more effective to communicate face to face whenever possible.
Bruce, it's refreshing to hear your recognition of dietary change activism. I wonder if you mean a continued reliance on consumer-facing outreach or a systemic approach that targets powerholders who are making the big deals and decisions about our food system on our behalf. Do you think that EA doesn't fund the latter because the donor class might oppose the kind of systemic change needed to have any real impact on animals, the planet and public health? Or asked another way, if the donor class is benefiting from things staying relatively the same, why would we expect them or the EA funders that rely on their money to spearhead anything but minor reforms that don't really shift power away from animal ag. (without a major social movement effort)?
The best argument for food system (“dietary”) change activism would be studying and leveraging actual real-world case studies, specifically the playbook and track record of the tobacco and meat industry and their proven ability to increase market share through successful marketing campaigns. The documentary, The Real Mad Men of Chicago, shows us exactly how this was done over the last several decades.
The important lesson here is that food industry powerholders hold the key to a major shift in the direction of a plant-based food system. Without a people-powered movement to influence their decisions, we don’t stand a chance to make meaningful change, and consumers will just continue to consume the animal-heavy diet that is marketed to them, despite all the consumer-facing outreach we have done and continue to do in the vegan movement (by default?). It sounds like EA testing has found this singular focus on consumer dietary change to be ineffective. If so, on that point, I would agree, it could never be enough on its own. But surely we were strategic enough to realize that much earlier on right?
To further build a mass movement, we would also need to better leverage potential trigger events that reflect the pains and anxieties of everyday working people such as bird flu, food price inflation and extreme weather events and effectively use messaging to tie this into a plant-based foods solution.
Lastly, I think we need to listen carefully to what the powerholders of the food system are telling us. For example, earlier this year, the leading spokesperson for the turkey industry John Zimmerman told Congress at a public hearing that if “we” don’t solve the bird flu problem, there will be no future for the chicken and egg industries. The industry is telling us what their greatest vulnerabilities are and we need to be leveraging them to our advantage. I don’t see that happening “at scale” or even on a micro level, yet.
Obviously there is much more to say, but I prefer real conversation over texting. It’s more effective to communicate face to face whenever possible.