Hi, 

I’ve been thinking about the current direction of the effective altruism (EA) movement, and I feel that it places heavy emphasis on donating to effective charities as the primary lever to improve the world (other than its weird and strange focus on some sci-fi doomsday scenarios regarding AI). While this focus makes sense given EA’s commitment to measurable impact, I’ve been wondering why there isn’t more attention on reducing harm through consumer choices—specifically, by avoiding or boycotting industries that actively cause harm to people or the planet.

The one area where EA consistently promotes boycotting is veganism, which encourages avoiding animal products to reduce animal suffering. While this is important, I rarely see similar discussions about boycotting companies that contribute to human rights violations or environmental destruction.

Take Nestlé, for example. Many people boycott the company due to its long record of controversies. A major concern is Nestlé’s role in water privatization. The company has extracted groundwater from drought-stricken regions—including parts of California—at extremely low cost, even when local communities object. Critics argue that Nestlé treats water, a basic human necessity, as a commodity for profit.

Nestlé has also faced decades of allegations regarding labor abuses, particularly in the cocoa industry. Reports of child labor and unsafe working conditions in West Africa have persisted despite company pledges to improve. Progress has been slow, and many believe Nestlé has known about these issues far longer than its public commitments suggest.

The infant formula scandal remains another defining example. Nestlé aggressively marketed baby formula in developing countries, sometimes implying it was healthier than breast milk. Families often diluted formula to stretch supply or mixed it with unsafe water, leading to malnutrition and illness in infants. Although this scandal is older, it continues to symbolize corporate irresponsibility.

Environmental and ethical criticisms add to the list. Nestlé’s massive production of bottled water and packaged foods contributes substantially to plastic waste, and the company has been tied to deforestation, carbon emissions, and unsustainable agricultural practices in its palm oil, cocoa, and dairy supply chains. Its marketing tactics—especially toward children in low-income countries—and concerns over animal welfare further motivate people to avoid its products.

Despite all this, I rarely see EA discussions about Nestlé or similar companies. Veganism is widely promoted, but the human-centered ethical concerns around businesses like Nestlé seem far less visible within EA spaces.

Coca-Cola faces similar public criticism. Environmental concerns are a major factor. In parts of India, Mexico, and Africa, communities have accused Coca-Cola of depleting groundwater and harming local agriculture due to the immense water demands of bottling plants. Labor-rights controversies have also surfaced—ranging from union-busting to allegations of violence linked to bottling operations in certain countries.

There are also political and social-justice dimensions. Some advocacy groups, including those aligned with the BDS movement, have called for boycotting Coca-Cola due to operations tied to contested regions involved in the Israel–Palestine conflict. For these individuals, purchasing Coca-Cola products feels like indirectly supporting policies they find unjust.

More broadly, I have noticed that EA spaces rarely discuss the BDS movement, boycotts related to human rights issues, or charitable giving aimed at supporting Palestinians. It makes me wonder whether the community holds an unintentional bias, or whether EA views these charities as ineffective, or something else entirely.

Boycotts extend even beyond global corporations. Avocados, for instance, have become controversial because cartel groups in certain regions of Mexico—particularly Michoacán—have infiltrated and extorted the avocado industry. Some consumers avoid avocados to avoid indirectly supporting criminal organizations that exploit farmers and use violence to control the supply chain.

Another example is Tesla, which some people boycott specifically because of human-rights concerns linked to cobalt mining. A significant portion of the cobalt used in lithium-ion batteries comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where mining often involves dangerous working conditions, low wages, and, in some cases, child labor. Even though Tesla—like most EV manufacturers—has taken steps to reduce or track cobalt use, critics argue that the supply chain remains opaque and that cobalt-dependent battery production continues to rely on exploitative labor systems. For these individuals, avoiding Tesla is a way to avoid contributing to a battery industry tied to human suffering.

Grok and other large language models developed by xAI are also subject to boycott discussions, mainly due to environmental concerns. Training and operating advanced AI models consumes enormous amounts of electricity and water, and requires large data centers that generate substantial carbon emissions. Some researchers estimate that training a single cutting-edge model can emit as much carbon as several cars do over their entire lifetimes. For this reason, some people avoid using Grok or refuse to financially support xAI, believing that doing so reduces demand for energy-intensive AI systems that contribute to climate damage.

An entire list of ongoing boycotts can be found on Ethical Consumer’s website ( https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/boycotts ), and many revolve around human rights, environmental harm, or the Israel–Palestine conflict. Yet EA discussions tend to focus almost exclusively on animal-related boycotts.

So my question is: why does EA emphasize one type of boycott (avoiding animal products) but largely ignore other forms of harm reduction through consumer behavior? I’m not trying to downplay the importance of animal welfare. However, it strikes me as inconsistent that EA strongly promotes veganism while offering little guidance on boycotts related to human rights abuses.

I understand that no one can make perfectly ethical choices and that tradeoffs are inevitable. We can’t avoid every harmful industry, and attempting total purity would be unsustainable. But does this mean that consumer boycotts have so little impact that they’re not worth promoting within EA? If so, why is veganism treated differently?

One could argue that individuals can “offset” their harmful consumption by donating to effective charities, but this mindset feels uncomfortable to me. If we can easily avoid a harm, shouldn’t we? It seems strange to justify a questionable purchase by saying, “I’ll just donate to make up for it.” At the same time, I agree that people need reasonable freedom—just as we don’t expect anyone to donate their entire income or adopt extreme asceticism.

Still, some boycotts do seem capable of yielding meaningful marginal reductions in harm. For example, reducing consumption of Nestlé chocolate at least slightly decreases demand for cocoa linked to child labor. Other boycotts may be less meaningful—such as avoiding a company solely because it has stores in Israel without any broader connection to harm.

Overall, I’m trying to understand whether EA’s focus on donations over boycotts is due to evidence, practicality, impact measurement, or something else. And if boycotts generally have minimal effect, why is veganism considered an exception?

In conclusion, what exactly am I expected to boycott to be considered an effective altruist, and what freedoms am still mine to enjoy? Naturally, I want to live with as much personal freedom as possible, but I also don’t want to neglect my moral obligations. Being vegan is already a significant commitment for me, and I’m unsure whether I’m ready to add avoiding AI tools, avocados, Coca-Cola, or Nestlé products to the list. I still want to have a life.

Thanks.