Should we ask people to offset their meat consumption instead of going vegan?

What if our diet change-ask is holding the animal movement back?

For many animal rights activists and vegans - especially those involved in online and grassroots activism - growing the movement is largely synonymous trying to get more people to go vegan. But what if asking people to change their diet isn't the most effective approach to help animals? This is what Thom Norman argues. Together with Aidan Alexander, he founded Farmkind, an organization that aims to get people—particularly non-vegans—to donate to animal causes. I asked Thom everything you want to know. His replies may challenge some of your assumptions about animal advocacy.

Thom Norman & Aidan Alexander from Farmkind

Thom, what’s your elevator pitch for Farmkind?

I start with this paradox: ending factory farming is technically possible, and it’s extremely popular. Around 75% of Americans oppose factory farming, and nearly half support a ban on new factory farms. Yet at the same time, more animals are factory farmed each year, and meat consumption is increasing. The number of vegans is stagnant at around 1%. Compared to past successful movements - like the fight for marriage equality - we have far more public support, yet we’re losing ground.

So what's going on?

There's a two-fold problem: when people agree with us that factory farming is wrong, we tell them they should stop consuming animal products - completely, immediately and forever. And we present this as the only option - unlike environmental campaigns that offer multiple actions, like recycle, turn off the lights, bike instead of drive… This whole approach sets the bar very high and it threatens people's sense of autonomy. And so our message often backfires. It can cause what I call the 3 D’s. The first is Denial: people try to explain away the problem or bury their head in the sand. Then there’s Despair: people believe the only path to ending factory farming is a boycott they can’t see succeeding. Third, Defiance: by robbing people of their sense of agency, we convert potential supporters into antagonists.

And your alternative is to ask people to donate.

That's right. We need to explore other meaningful ways for people to contribute beyond diet change. Instead, people can donate money. Just $23 a month - the cost of a Netflix Premium subscription - can have roughly the same impact as being vegan. It's a tangible way for people to align their actions with their values. This is the idea behind our Compassion Calculator, which lets people calculate how much they need to donate to offset the animal suffering caused by their consumption.

So for most, that’s about $23. How is that calculated?

In short, our Calculator combines data on the average Western diet with our recommended charities' estimated costs to help different animals. First we estimate how many animals are raised to produce the average omnivore’s diet, using United Nations FAO data for animal product availability and output per animal, combined with demographic data. We also factor in estimates of premature deaths in the supply chain.
Next we estimate how much it costs our recommended charities to help cows, pigs, chickens, fish or shrimp. We’ve used independent estimates of each charity’s cost-effectiveness where possible and adopted reasonable but conservative assumptions. Finally, we consider how much each charity helps each type of animal. Some charities displace animal consumption, preventing all the suffering the animal would have experienced in their life. Others improve welfare, only preventing a fraction of the suffering. For example, we estimate that you’d need to free three hens from cages to prevent as much suffering as a factory farmed egg-laying hen would experience in her life.*

I sometimes get in trouble for saying the go vegan ask may be ineffective, but you guys are saying that any diet change ask is ineffective?

I think this is a risk, at least for many audiences. Even reduction asks can trigger the Despair-response. The nonprofit Pax Fauna found that people's daily interaction with the food system creates an illusion of understanding. Based on that, they think: factory farming only changes if everyone changes their diet. When people realize their individual change won't affect the system, they wonder why they bother, feeling they are making sacrifices for nothing. Donating to effective charities bypasses this problem by creating a direct link between action and systemic impact. People need to see solutions that work. We need to eliminate the Despair.

But why would they feel like a sucker when they reduce meat or go vegan, but not when donating? They know most other people won’t donate.

Both are individual actions, but donating supports organizations that can create systemic change. When you donate to The Humane League, for example, you help them free millions of chickens from cages, regardless of what other people consume. Unlike diet change, which depends on mass participation, a donation directly funds activities that can systemically improve - or spare - animals' lives - whether this is about welfare campaigns, cultivated meat development, or policy initiatives. This creates a clearer connection between your action and impact.

You mention cage free campaigns, but not everyone is a fan of such welfare campaigns.

With the money people donate to us, we support two kinds of initiatives. There’s the organisations helping animals in the here and now, like the Shrimp Welfare Project and The Humane League, with their corporate welfare campaigns. But we also have charities focused on evolving the food system to a new place without animal farming - for instance the Good Food Institute, the Danish Vegetarian Society working on the plant-based transition for farmers, or Sinergia Animal, providing more plant-based meals through institutional engagement. In my view, the aim is to get to a point where there is no human-caused animal suffering in our industrial, economic systems.

Why would Farmkind be more successful at fundraising for the animals than other organizations?

For the record, we’re far from sure that we will be. However, we think that with our approach we’ve identified a way to reach new audiences in new ways that stand out from typical donation asks. Research by Rethink Priorities shows people view donating and diet change as equally impactful, but find donating easier and more appealing. Young people especially respond well, so we might bring in new donors into the movement. Also, rather than saying "please give us money," we frame it as "we're solving a problem for you." People concerned about animal treatment can use our offset to align their values with their actions in a simple way.

What are the results so far?

We haven't met our extremely high initial ambitions, but now, with a more sober head, we see good initial signals. We’ve been raising for less than a year and are already averaging over $10,000 a month. Our donor base is about 40% monthly recurring donors which is a strong start for an organisation focused primarily on small donors.

Speaking about that, at the moment, probably most of the money in the animal movement comes from a small number of big donors, who may give hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Does this have any implications for what you’re doing?

The global budget for farmed animals is around 300 million dollars per year and the vast majority of this indeed comes from a small number of large donors. This makes our movement more fragile. It means that a handful of grantmakers and funders heavily influence what gets funded and which ideas are pursued. It also exposes us to significant risk if something goes wrong with just one particular funder. Given the environment of uncertainty we face, including AI and other factors, we should aim for a more stable and broader donor base.

Farmkind’s Compassion Calculater

I remember one donor telling me he's never convinced a non-vegan to donate to the animal movement. I guess on one hand, meat eaters might donate to offset what they perceive as their own harmful actions; on the other, it’s harder for someone to be against something they are complicit in. Other movements typically target issues where people are less personally implicated. What has your experience been with non-vegans donating to animal causes?

Recently I spoke with someone who cared about animals but wasn't vegan. They'd considered donating but felt hypocritical doing so while eating animal products. Our website showed them diet and donating can be separate actions. This separation is crucial - what you eat and how you care about factory farming don't have to be connected. I think the view that people are complicit understates the systemic environment we live in, which may make making better choices quite difficult. Also, in the same way that the oil industry tries to make climate change about your individual actions while ignoring that they're the ones digging up the oil, we are making a mistake when we put the responsibility for this industry on individuals. It's a systemic issue and it has to be dealt with at the systemic level. If we see this as a problem of individual choices, I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere.

What part of your donors are non-vegan?

We deliberately don't ask about dietary choices, but in a dozen user experience interviews I did, they were about 50-50 vegan/non-vegan. Many people may care about animals but couldn't maintain a vegan diet due to cultural or practical barriers. One donor tried veganism several times over five years without success and had given up until finding our initiative, which offered another way to make a difference.

But do people need your initiative to realize they can make a difference by donating?

Many people simply don't consider donation as an option. Our calculator shows them precisely how much they need to donate to match the impact of dietary changes. This often creates an "aha moment" for people. By connecting the dots, demonstrating how straightforward it is, and illustrating how effective even modest donations can be—that's the service we provide.

And why would vegans donate to you?

Some want to offset their pre-vegan animal consumption. Others make a donation as a present to family members, to offset their meat consumption. But in general, many vegans also want to have a bigger impact beyond just their dietary choices.

One obvious objection you must get from some vegans is that you are legitimizing animal consumption.

Our answer is that the people using our offset system were not going to change their diet. Some of them literally tell us this, and statistically we can be pretty confident this is the case. What we're choosing between is somebody carrying on eating meat and somebody carrying on eating meat and also donating to help factory farmed animals.

It could also function as a so-called foot-in-the-door approach…

Yes, it's definitely possible that doing things like donating to animals reinforces people's views that they're somebody who cares about animals and causes them to take further steps which may include diet change as part of that. It could be a gateway into broader engagement with the movement.

You're deliberately targeting people who already care about animals rather than trying to raise money from those outside the animal movement.

Yes, we decided to focus on animal welfare as the main reason. It's hard for a small organization to go for different audiences at the same time. Maybe other initiatives could target people who particularly care about the climate, zoonoses, or about how workers in the animal industry are treated.

If our movement stopped focusing on consumer demand, wouldn't that negatively impact alt protein companies and that theory of change?

I think the way to attract consumers isn't by making them feel guilty about their choices, but by giving them positive reasons to buy your product. Consumer demand comes from creating things people actually want—products that taste excellent and offer good value.

You’re saying it’s more pull than push?

Exactly. The evidence clearly shows it's difficult to persuade people to go vegan. While some might reduce their meat consumption, this doesn't happen without cost. Research indicates there's a spectrum: some people are persuadable, others are completely unreachable, and many fall somewhere in between. "Go vegan" or even general diet change messages risk alienating those middle-ground individuals. We need to create easier entry points—simple, effective actions people can take—before asking them to consider changing their diet.

If you believe we should shift largely from a diet change ask to donation ask, what would you like to see happen in our ecosystem at large?

We should stop emphasizing diet change in our current approach. We have a brand problem - everyone associates our movement with veganism - and need to correct course by shifting away from this messaging. Rather than centering veganism in our conversations, we should focus on other actions people can take. Perhaps in the future, diet change can return as one option among many. But for now, we may need to subvert people's expectations by deliberately avoiding this topic for a while.

Are there other actions people can take, apart from diet change and donating?

The most impact people have is through their career, but I just heard that Anima International had 1,300 applicants for a single job opening. So here again it comes down to money. There are loads of really talented people who want to work in the space but can't find jobs because our movement doesn’t have money to employ them all. There definitely are talent gaps, but clearly funding is a massive bottleneck in this space.

What about volunteer political activism?

Yes, people could engage their local politicians. Speaking from the UK context, we have constituency MPs who look after an area and are often massively influenced by the emails they get in their inbox. This can genuinely move the needle. Even if you don't have a specifically pro-animal party, you can tell candidates that you'll be voting for the party with the best manifesto for animals, or tell your MP that you really care about this animal issue.

Final question: what do you think is realistic for you to see in your lifetime?

I’m fairly sure that the way we treat animals will look unrecognisable by the end of my lifetime. We’re entering a period of profound uncertainty. AI seems poised to transform the entire economy, and that will include animal agriculture. This could mean huge improvements for animals. AI might help us overcome technical challenges in cultivated meat. It could enable real-time monitoring to detect animals in pain or distress and make it easier to intervene. It might even help us understand what animals are trying to communicate, something that could shift our moral and cultural attitudes in a lasting way. But AI could also be extremely harmful. More efficient factory farms might lead to even more animals kept in even more intensive conditions. So it’s really important that we do what we can now to steer the future toward better outcomes. We need to build the biggest tent possible and increase the chances that decisions are made with animal welfare in mind. By growing our movement’s funding, we can build a resilient, adaptive infrastructure that can respond to this moment of change and seize opportunities to make animals’ lives better. Finding ways to turn public sympathy into concrete support can be be transformative for animals. And this will only become more important in the years ahead.

Whatever you eat, you can make a donation through Farmkind to help systemic change for animals. You can learn more and donate at farmkind.giving.

* read more on the methodology here and see underlying calculations and sources here.