Single issue driven campaigns (ModVegan)

[brimstoneSalad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS_LUVmw6To

...

Overall a pretty good video, a few notes:

1. I think the word she needed to use (and the concept address) here is precedent, both socially and legally. It means something to ban a food or product, and even one ban (like foie gras) sets a court precedent that allows the government to expand that in the future. This is one of the reasons the anti-animal crowd were so up in arms over the ban in California (and why it was overturned, given the political weight behind the opposition). The question they tend to raise "what's next?" is a very real one. They're right to be worried, and when we make these small victories we should be right to celebrate them and ask ourselves "what's next" too.
Allying ourselves with people who may be ignorant of other harms can make sense to establish these precedents.

2. She's partially wrong on the welfare stuff, but this is a complex issue.
Any push (or at least most of them) on animal welfare laws increases the cost of production for meat, and that makes vegan alternatives more competitive in the market and reduces demand. We can nickel and dime the animal agriculture industry into its death bed.

I think it does give people the idea that those animals are so much better off

(sorry if I got that wrong).
To that I have to say two things:
A. Where's the evidence that this happens, and inspires complacency in ethical consumers? I have rarely seen any argument like this made by a carnist. Happy meat is marketing, not fact, and when they make arguments for happy meat they're referring to that myth, not coming to the table with evidence and references to legislation. Anybody who really looks into the actual conditions these laws mandate is probably not going to be put at ease by the additional knowledge.
B. Most consumers didn't care, and don't know (and still won't know), they just look at the price. You'd have to show that the increase in consumption from "ethical" consumers who are duped into thinking this is acceptable treatment (I don't think that increase exists, if it did, wouldn't it be the industry pushing for these regulations the hardest? Instead they tend to fight it.) exceeds the decreases from the vast majority due to the higher prices these measures inspire (and the loss of investment into the animal agriculture industry and advertisement that drives consumer behavior due to lower margins).

I'd even favor a law that required a religious minister to give last rights for an hour to every animal about the be slaughtered. Meaningless to the animals? Yes, but it increases the costs to these abusing industries, and that saves animals by influencing the market.
You have to think about it in broader terms. And when those increases in costs even make animals' lives slightly less miserable, that does even more good (even if it still is horrible overall. which anybody really looking into those conditions will see).

Where I think she is right is that vegans don't necessarily need to focus on those causes, since vegan outreach is probably much more effective. There are meat eaters and vegetarians, and even the odd industry reformer, focusing on those issues already; I just don't think we should get in their way or protest it.
I'd say support it, but maybe don't quit your main line of activism to devote any serious time to it.

[ModVegan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS_LUVmw6To

2. She's partially wrong on the welfare stuff, but this is a complex issue.
Any push (or at least most of them) on animal welfare laws increases the cost of production for meat, and that makes vegan alternatives more competitive in the market and reduces demand. We can nickel and dime the animal agriculture industry into its death bed.

I think it does give people the idea that those animals are so much better off

(sorry if I got that wrong).
To that I have to say two things:
A. Where's the evidence that this happens, and inspires complacency in ethical consumers? I have rarely seen any argument like this made by a carnist. Happy meat is marketing, not fact, and when they make arguments for happy meat they're referring to that myth, not coming to the table with evidence and references to legislation. Anybody who really looks into the actual conditions these laws mandate is probably not going to be put at ease by the additional knowledge.
B. Most consumers didn't care, and don't know (and still won't know), they just look at the price. You'd have to show that the increase in consumption from "ethical" consumers who are duped into thinking this is acceptable treatment (I don't think that increase exists, if it did, wouldn't it be the industry pushing for these regulations the hardest? Instead they tend to fight it.) exceeds the decreases from the vast majority due to the higher prices these measures inspire (and the loss of investment into the animal agriculture industry and advertisement that drives consumer behavior due to lower margins).

RE: A - I have not investigated the numbers, but in passing conversation with friends (perhaps because I'm vegan), friends often mention that they buy humanely raised animal products. It definitely makes them feel better about their consumption, and I even have friends who will forgo eating meat unless it's humane, local etc.

B. I agree that most consumers just care about the price. But when companies like McDonalds start using only free-range eggs, it makes consumers feel good about going there and increases their sales. Even people who would normally not choose to pay extra for it.

So when it comes to tiny /questionable improvements like this, I don't really see why vegans would want to be involved. McDonalds uses free-range eggs because they've done market studies and it improves their image and sales more than it hurts their bottom line. I think that will always be the case with most welfare reforms.

Where I think she is right is that vegans don't necessarily need to focus on those causes, since vegan outreach is probably much more effective. There are meat eaters and vegetarians, and even the odd industry reformer, focusing on those issues already; I just don't think we should get in their way or protest it.
I'd say support it, but maybe don't quit your main line of activism to devote any serious time to it.

I think this is the bottom line for me. I focus on talking with people about veganism, but there are plenty of people who want to focus on animal welfare, reducetariansm, anti-fur campaigns, etc.

And I have nothing against that. I do believe that small changes are helpful, but that vegans should continue to focus on veganism.

[brimstoneSalad]

RE: A - I have not investigated the numbers, but in passing conversation with friends (perhaps because I'm vegan), friends often mention that they buy humanely raised animal products. It definitely makes them feel better about their consumption, and I even have friends who will forgo eating meat unless it's humane, local etc.

I've only heard a couple people say that they "try", and they really don't, they just want to save face. It's rare to find somebody who will only buy meat they consider humane.

If people are actually avoiding meat that doesn't reach certain standards, though, that's a huge reduction on its own due to sheer inconvenience. I think I've met a couple people who have said they'd only eat hunted meat, but in practice that meant basically never eating meat. I've never met any of the people who credibly do this with free-range etc. but if they did, that would be very meaningful in itself just due to the reduction in consumption.

Also, once you take one step, you're more likely to take another. These people are likely going to be slightly more aware and easier to educate.

B. I agree that most consumers just care about the price. But when companies like McDonalds start using only free-range eggs, it makes consumers feel good about going there and increases their sales. Even people who would normally not choose to pay extra for it.

PETA owns stock in many of these corporations for just this kind of purpose. Corporations aren't 100% profit driven, they're also run by human beings; by getting their feet in the door, it's not impossible to guilt shareholders into voting with their consciences to improve animal welfare standards in their suppliers.

Aside from that, assuming it really does increase net sales and profit, increases in McDonals' sales are not necessarily an increase in fast food sales overall. They are in competition with other brands; by avoiding the bad PR and being the least of the evils, that pressure is put on their competition instead. Animal rights protesters aren't just hanging up their signs, and they shouldn't, but they have to put pressure on the worst offender.
Companies like this end up in a war of one-upmanship for having the least evil corporate values; and that can be a good thing. It's basically the good side of capitalistic competition. These companies are all on a slippery slope, they know it, and they can't get off it. On some level I'm sure they'd love to collude with each other and establish an industry standard of not giving into protest campaigns, but the federal trade commission outlaws such anti-competitive behavior. One company does better, and it forces the next one to, which forces them to do better again. It costs them money and they don't like it, but they can't do anything (legally) about it other than give in.

I think this is the bottom line for me. I focus on talking with people about veganism, but there are plenty of people who want to focus on animal welfare, reducetariansm, anti-fur campaigns, etc.

And I have nothing against that. I do believe that small changes are helpful, but that vegans should continue to focus on veganism.

I think this is a question of effective altruism, which is the important one to ask.
We should ask if this is the best use of our time -- and the answer is probably "no". But I don't think it's right to speculate on it actually being counterproductive without some evidence. You seemed to be pushing kind of hard on the idea (which has been circulating a lot in the vegan community, I think it has reached myth status) that welfare encourages more meat consumption. I don't think that has ever been shown, and it's very likely that the opposite is true. I would put money on it.

So I'd say it's also not a good use of our time to tell people they shouldn't support these small improvements or to repeat the myth that they're likely harmful to animals (at least until such a time as the myth is confirmed by evidence, although my money is on busted).