Making a Difference #
Against Inefficacy Objections: The Real Economic Impact of Individual Consumer Choices on Animal Agriculture #
The actual probability of being on a threshold […] can be estimated using some basic knowledge of current industry practice. In the poultry industry, the large “growers” of “broiler” chickens produce, on average, 329,000 chickens per year (The Pew Environment Group 2013b). If the finest adjustment that a chicken distributor can make is to delay a shipment of birds to the grower by one day, then that means the threshold size will be one day’s worth of birds for one farm. This number comes out close to 900 birds. As a result, it is likely that a consumer, when choosing to buy a chicken, has close to a 1/900 chance of being on the threshold, and if a consumer decision triggers the threshold event, the impact will be that 900 fewer chickens will be sold that year.
[…]
A choice to not buy a chicken might not prevent the grocer from ordering more chickens that day, if the person is not on the threshold. But when the grocer orders, they will still have one additional chicken in inventory, which may impact their next ordering decision, or the one after. This is to say that all consumer actions contribute to some future threshold crossing.
[…]
Additionally, our actions have impacts on other consumers. Each decision to abstain from meat sends a signal to grocery stores and restaurants to provide more vegetarian food options. This in turn makes it easier for other people to make the same choice, because those foods are more readily available. […] If there is a critical mass of local vegetarians, restaurants will be sure to include suitable options on their menus. Case studies have shown that, producers make choices about marketing and space in response to consumer actions (Moretti 2010).
Moreover, even apart from considerations of marketing and product availability, there is substantial evidence that there are social effects of consumption decisions that will, in aggregate, multiply the effect of individual choices. Social scientists have identified mechanisms through which conspicuous or visible consumption choices influence the choices of peers (Grinblatt et al. 2008). These effects are especially pronounced for choices where consumers are uncertain, and thus make consumption decisions by “following” peers (Banerjee 1992; Bikhchandani et al. 1992). This “network effect” thus refers to all of the ways in which our consumption choices have spillover effects on other consumers. Conformity is economical, and so early vegetarians actually make it easier for others to follow in their footsteps.
[…]
Though many may share the intuition that the economy is too large and complex for one consumer to have a real effect on the lives of animals, or that the probability of having an effect is just too small, we believe that these conclusions are not warranted by the way animal agricultural supply chains actually work.