I'm sharing an article by Rose Patterson from Animal Rising (AR), which responds to an EA criticism of AR's campaigns to block new factory farms in the UK.

When we started our Communities Against Factory Farming campaign to stop every new factory farm from being built, we thought it would be a crowd-pleaser! Who in the animal movement could argue that this could actually be a bad thing? However, we’ve heard it repeatedly over the past year, particularly coming from some in the Effective Altruist community: “The production will just move to other countries, where conditions are even worse.”

This argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how social movements work and what we’re actually trying to achieve. Let me explain why.

Rose goes on to cover several counter-arguments: that some lives will be "saved" before production elsewhere scales up, that campaigns to block new factory farms can be coupled with campaigns to prohibit low welfare imports, and that the campaigns help to build the animal movement and set an important precedent.

I think that the piece is discussing an important criticism. As context, here's a version of the argument from Martin Gould at Open Philanthropy:

Halting plans for a large, polluting factory farm feels like a clear win — no ammonia-laden air burning residents’ lungs, no waste runoff contaminating local drinking water, and seemingly fewer animals suffering in industrial confinement. But that last assumption deserves scrutiny. What protects one community might actually condemn more animals to worse conditions elsewhere.

Consider the UK: Local groups celebrate blocking new chicken farms. But because UK chicken demand keeps growing — it rose 24% from 2012-2022 — the result of fewer new UK chicken farms is just that the UK imports more chicken: it almost doubled its chicken imports over the same time period. While most chicken imported into the UK comes from the EU, where conditions for chickens are similar, a growing share comes from Brazil and Thailand, where regulations are nonexistent. Blocking local farms may slightly reduce demand via higher prices, but it also risks sentencing animals to worse conditions abroad.

The same problem haunts government welfare reforms — stronger standards in one country can just shift production to places with worse standards. But advocates are getting smarter about this. They're pushing for laws that tackle both production and imports at once. US states like California have done this — when it banned battery cages, it also banned selling eggs from hens caged anywhere. The EU is considering the same approach. It's a crucial shift: without these import restrictions, both farm bans and welfare reforms risk exporting animal suffering to places with even worse conditions. And advocates have prioritized corporate policies, which avoid this problem, as companies pledge to stop selling products associated with the worst animal suffering (like caged eggs), regardless of where they are produced.

Saulius also discusses relevant concerns in this piece.