Hi Chad, 

I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts, too. Two of the funds in this post (The Navigation Fund and the EA Animal Welfare Fund) don't invest in the alternative protein theory of change. Coefficient Giving does, and some of ACE's recommended charities are involved in alternative proteins as well.

While I can't speak for any of the funds, my understanding is that government funding is still making headway around the world, at around $500M in 2024 alone (for context, this is just an estimated 5% of public funding needed for alternative proteins to scale (more here, without an aggregated number for 2026 due to increasingly complicated tracking and categorization, but see the public investment database for more detail). For philanthropic dollars, we generally expect a ~5x ROI in terms of public funding secured per philanthropic dollar spent on advocacy.

With that said, I know other foundations directly support alternative protein R&D with philanthropic dollars, such as Novo Nordisk Foundation and Bezos Earth Fund. Not quite direct philanthropic investment in startups, though. 

Agreed, Fai! I appreciate you championing this issue, it's large-scale, neglected, and we're at a pivotal moment to change the trajectory of this practice.

Hi Vasco, Senterra Funders' FAQ should answer your questions.

Hi Vasco,

Some of the funders who evaluated proposals for the funding circle did cost-effectiveness BOTECs, but not all. 

Farmed Animal Funders is a network made up of a diverse range of funders with differing theories of change, values, and priorities. They're united in the mission to reform and replace factory farming with a more humane, sustainable food system. As each member makes their own independent funding decisions, we do not prescribe evaluation criteria nor methodologies for our members. However, in one-on-one philanthropic advising, I do incorporate cost-effectiveness estimates in charity evaluations and bespoke portfolio recommendations when these are a priority for the advisee. 

You can read more about FAF's approach on our website. 

Hi Vasco, 

Farmed Animal Funders is focused on addressing the harms of factory farms, so wild animals are not within scope. With that said, several members include wild animals in their philanthropic portfolios. (Separately, within my work at the EA Animal Welfare Fund, wild animals are within scope.)

A few of our members consider wild animal effects when making strategic funding decisions for farmed animals; however, this is not a widespread consideration amongst our membership. 

I’d like to dig into your post when I have more time, though, to fully consider your arguments about wild animal impacts of farmed animal welfare interventions.

Hi John, 

Anecdotally and from my perspective, infighting within the animal protection movement has decreased notably over the last decade, but this doesn’t mean it’s gone. Additionally, as you know (but sharing for those reading), infighting is not the only contributor to mental health challenges in our space.

The EA Animal Welfare Fund historically has not funded advocate mental health work directly. Given our limited funds and our niche within the wider funder communities for both the animal protection and effective altruism movements, the EA Animal Welfare Fund is not currently prioritizing funding direct mental health assistance for advocates. However, we are not fundamentally opposed to funding this kind of work if we were to review a strong application demonstrating (amongst other criteria) movement need, an excellent track record, cost-effectiveness (in terms of expected indirect animal impact), and inability to secure sufficient funding from other sources.

With that said, we have funded capacity-building organizations, like Scarlet Spark, where part of their services include improvements to team wellbeing. 

Additionally, the EA Animal Welfare Fund considers interpersonal dynamics and organizational cultures when conducting grant evaluations, whether this means conflicts between individuals within an organization or conflicts between organizations. The community health team at the Centre for Effective Altruism has supported our fund managers in investigating conflict allegations regarding applicants and navigating funding recommendation options (including exit grants and full rejections). We have declined to fund several applications when we see organizations not engaging as respectful team players within the wider movement space. We have also phased out funding for at least one organization where we observed organizational cultural issues that were detrimental to employee well-being and mental health and, in our estimation, the long-term sustainability of the organization’s impact on animals. 

Thank you for caring about the mental health of our animal advocate community. I know your organization, Overcome, coaches at least some animal advocates through mental health challenges, and I have heard (anecdotal) positive testimonials from advocates receiving coaching. To your point of “willingness to use existing services is low,” I encourage animal advocates reading this, who might be in need of mental health support, to reach out to Overcome to assess fit for support.