Yes, eradicating the New World screwworm was part of the initial 94 ideas we listed. This idea didn't make it to the second round because we have a preference for operating in France, and because navigating the Latin America context as French people seemed difficult.

I find this idea very promising as it could reduce a huge amount of animal suffering. Although I was wondering how sure we are that a death caused by the screwworm is worse than the average death in nature for those animals.

I'm not exactly sure why universities use fewer eggs than school canteens. My best guess would be that when school canteens offer vegetarian options, they're more of a side dish rather than a fully developed meal. They might not have the space, resources, or time to prepare a dish with multiple ingredients, so they rely on eggs and omelets as a quick and easy solution. Universities, on the other hand, are used to preparing several complete meals and generally have more staff available to do so.

We were already part of Anima International when we were Assiettes Végétales. So the name change was about better reflecting the new strategy. But we were also thinking for some time that having such a specific name tied to a specific strategy ("Assiettes Végétales") was bad for strategic flexibility. 

It's hard for me to assess how influential Brian is and was, but I agree it's probably big.

Many of his articles moved me a lot. He writes about animals with deep care and is really serious about not harming them. Even insects, which most people—including me—don’t naturally feel much empathy for. I remember feeling grateful several times while reading his articles that at least some people have such altruism for animals.

Thanks for your reply Elliot.
I was specifically asking about your views on why the problem animal advocates are trying to solve is much harder and disanalogous than the problem the emancipation and the gay marriage movements were tryng to solve.

Could you develop this part please? The "why this problem is much harder and disanalogous" part.

A lack of strategic clarity when developing a theory of change. For advocates who buy that we will end factory farming, this might mean that they are more likely to pursue interventions and theories of change that will do just that: end factory farming. This leads to conversations about how do we mimic previous social movements that have ‘won’ like the emancipation and gay marriage movements. While I think this work can be valuable, I often see it discussed in ways I think are insufficiently clear-eyed about why this problem is much harder and disanalogous. 

I found your article very useful.
Similar thoughts to the ones you express here led me to write this post: Fighting animal suffering: beyond the number of animals killed

I'm grateful for the articles @MichaelStJules writes on the forum. He seems to be motivated by a deep desire to understand what will benefit moral patients.

For example, I particularly value his sequence on the impact of fishing on fish welfare (The moral ambiguity of fishing on wild aquatic animal populations and other articles)

Thanks for the post. I'd like to see this topic discussed a bit more among the EA community. 
In particular, I'd like to see more of the following: 

• people explaining why they don't get involved / fund interventions aimed at cultural change for animals. I think there are good reasons not to get involved. But, in my opinion, it would be useful for the movement to explicitly states the arguments underlying this situation.
• a few organizations (not too many, so as not to cannibalize the robust and well proven work being done on cages or BCC for example) testing cultural change interventions, and doing their best to measure results. I like what the Social Change Lab is trying to do, for example.

I feel exactly the same as you :). Thanks Michael!