Longtime MFA supporter Dan Phillips is a dog lover, vegan, and tax lawyer. Dan has a dozen marathons and two ultramarathons on his resume but claims he needs to run that much to burn off all the Indian food he eats.
Q – Tell us about yourself and how you became interested in animal issues.
A – I grew up in rural Ohio, where I hunted, fished, and raised livestock for 4-H. I thought people needed to eat animal products to be healthy.
I read Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation about 15 years ago, and it changed my life. The logic in his argument that animals are deserving of the same consideration as humans is inescapable, and through his book I learned how horribly animals on factory farms were treated. When I finished the book, I was a vegan. Shortly thereafter, I went to an animal rights conference and began to learn more about farmed animal issues and different animal groups.
Q – What attracted you to MFA?
A – MFA is always focused on how to reduce the most animal suffering per dollar. They are constantly evaluating their programs and tactics to find what’s most effective. I love their analytical approach to online ads—repeatedly trying new messages and analyzing the results to find what works best. Similarly, MFA is expanding into Asia and Latin America, where meat consumption is rising but outreach costs are low.
Q – Which MFA programs are you most excited about?
A – I spent several months in India learning about the animal movement there and am thrilled that MFA is starting to do more work in India. Meat consumption in India is growing at 8–10% per year, and the vast majority of the meat eaten is factory-farmed chicken. Work in India could have a huge payoff for two reasons. First, it will be easier to prevent Indians from eating a lot of meat than it will be to try to convince them to stop eating meat once it is an established practice. Second, Indians already know how to be vegetarian so there isn’t the “what will I eat? hurdle that is faced in the U.S.
Q – What is the most important thing activists can do?
A – We could reduce more animal suffering if we were less rigid when asking others to reduce their consumption of animal products. If someone is willing to forego chicken, we shouldn’t be too critical if they aren’t ready to give up cheese. And if someone insists on continuing to eat meat, they can still reduce a huge amount of suffering by not eating chicken and fish.