I was a bit dismissive of the idea that they can define sentience in a useful way, but their framework is right there on page 7 and it makes a lot of sense:
> 1) possession of nociceptors;
> 2) possession of integrative brain regions;
> 3) connections between nociceptors and integrative brain regions;
> 4) responses affected by potential local anaesthetics or analgesics;
> 5) motivational trade-offs that show a balancing of threat against opportunity for reward;
> 6) flexible self-protective behaviours in response to injury and threat;
> 7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation and sensitisation;
> 8) behaviour that shows the animal values local anaesthetics or analgesics when injured.
I'd be very curious what they'd find if they tested fish and even insects. Surely certain predatory fishes would exhibit thought provoking behaviour.
> This is an excellent report which argues that the
cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans
should be included in the UK animal welfare law in
an explicit way, based on a detailed and important
scientific and philosophical framework and
evaluation, coupled with extremely helpful
suggestions for improving best practice and
welfare, and for regulating existing practices that
currently raise widespread concerns about the
welfare of these animals.
Social wasps are known to meet at least five and maybe six of those criteria; I don't know offhand of research specifically investigating the question of nociception, but their behavior certainly offers no suggestion they lack that capacity. Their behavior with regard to analgesia isn't something I know firsthand to have yet been studied, but as an amateur and an autodidact in the field I wouldn't be surprised at all if such work exists and I simply haven't run across it.
> Wholesale and retail. We recommend a ban on the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers. For example, live decapod crustaceans can be ordered from online retailers. This practice inherently creates a risk of poor handling and inappropriate storage and slaughter methods. Ending this practice would be an effective intervention to improve the welfare of decapods.
Hmm, not a fan of this reasoning. The solution is to improve regulation of wholesale and retail, and educate consumers how to store and slaughter a crab or lobster. The same page even lists multiple ways to slaughter crustaceans, none of which require a high level of expertise and so requiring a ban on the practice is just excessive.
It's not about eating, it's about how we are treating them while they are alive.
There are rules, for instance, about how you can transport cows.
Sadly, in the UK, the transport network (both tube and trains) often (during the hot summer days) provide conditions for human transport that are inferior to the minimum legal requirements for cows.
I think it's more about the conditions that they're kept and transported in rather than us not killing and eating them.
> Eating something alive is wrong for it’s own reasons.
Whilst I agree in principle, there's a fuzzy line in what we consider to be alive. Bacteria certainly seem to be fair game with yoghurts being specifically sold as "live".
I don't know if animal welfare laws currently cover eating animals whilst they're still alive, though it sounds feasible.
> The review also evaluated the potential welfare implications of current commercial practices involving these animals. It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling without stunning. It also includes suggestions for best practices for transport, stunning and slaughter.
But this reads more like additional recommendations than required by law under the new classification.
I think the idea is to stop eating or cooking them live. I kind of disagree with this though, seafood like crabs and lobsters taste best when cooked live…
> It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling without stunning.
I mean, that's all well and good, but if you take the "sentience" part seriously, then surely we should also consider in scope:
- bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can casually kill large numbers of individuals
- ocean pollution
- warming oceans that may put whole populations at risk
Like, if the suffering of individuals is acknowledged, then surely reducing that suffering is important whether it's in a restaurant kitchen or on the sea-floor beneath a fishing boat. You don't get to ignore the harms your actions cause just because the effects are out of line-of-sight.
Bottom-trawling should be outlawed, like dynamite fishing. By-catch laws don't work, and the ecological harm is like hunting deer be putting the forest on fire.
Pollution is already illegal (but poorly enforced) and global warming should be illegal but enforcement is evem more tricky.
> “The Animal Welfare Sentience Bill provides a crucial assurance that animal wellbeing is rightly considered when developing new laws. The science is now clear that crustaceans and molluscs can feel pain and therefore it is only right they are covered by this vital piece of legislation.”
What does this mean practically in day-to-day? Will they be banned as food items or have to be killed in specific ways only, or something else?
I don't think it's clear that any concrete policy will be set as a result of this, but it will hopefully ensure that animal wellbeing is considered appropriately in the development of the United Kingdom's society.
Likely more regulation around handling and slaughter, like the article says.
Most farm animals are also considered sentient, but obviously still eaten throughout the country, but unlike with a lobster or octopus you currently can't just start hacking at a cow or pig with a knife while it is still alive to cut off a part to eat.
It's an improvement, but if you're a vegan you'd likely want to go much further.
More humane slaughter for now. Eventually, eating them will doubtless be banned. You can tell from the sentience in the name of the law what the intent is.
I’ve seen some argue that there are such key details to recreate genuine British fish & chips such as use of stale oil, and leaving battered fish too long, and that efforts to recreate such British cuisine still leaves a hurdle that improperly slaughtered fish has to be used, which may not be available outside UK.
There must be an emotional starting point where suggestions like this must have come from. I… wonder if somebody had a moment of life experience with stale lobsters.
> Zoo is an entirely ridiculous show. So in the interest of maintaining some level of professional dignity, I will be upfront and say Zoo probably won’t blow your mind so far as thematic nuance goes. But let me be clear when I say Zoo will definitely blow your mind with a chaotic swarm of kamikaze bats, telepathic lions, 70-foot invisible snakes, and so very much more.
There's some pretty horrifying YouTube videos of people torturing and eating live animals which I think we'd be better off banning. If you want to see examples just look up "eating live octopus". Incredibly disturbing.
Seems a lot of people with opinions on this topic have little experience crabbing, fishing, and hunting, that is, looking these creatures in the eye. I can assure you, all of them are sentient.
Octopus I can understand (and is why I can't bring myself to eat them), but I've never seen crabs and lobsters demonstrating octopus-level sentience. What have I missed?
Great, now that this one's done they can go back to ignoring: broken housing market, ridiculous inflation measures that just make the rich richer, tax the rich, fix welfare state problems, stop selling public resources to foreign companies, focus on green energy and reducing rampant plastic packaging problems, build more houses, etc.
[+] [-] underbluewaters|2 years ago|reply
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/News-Assets/PDFs/2021/Sentience-i...
I was a bit dismissive of the idea that they can define sentience in a useful way, but their framework is right there on page 7 and it makes a lot of sense:
> 1) possession of nociceptors; > 2) possession of integrative brain regions; > 3) connections between nociceptors and integrative brain regions; > 4) responses affected by potential local anaesthetics or analgesics; > 5) motivational trade-offs that show a balancing of threat against opportunity for reward; > 6) flexible self-protective behaviours in response to injury and threat; > 7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation and sensitisation; > 8) behaviour that shows the animal values local anaesthetics or analgesics when injured.
I'd be very curious what they'd find if they tested fish and even insects. Surely certain predatory fishes would exhibit thought provoking behaviour.
[+] [-] m463|2 years ago|reply
For example, what if chickens suddenly went off the food market?
(many bird species exhibit really intelligent behavior - would they fit the bill?)
[+] [-] jdnier|2 years ago|reply
> This is an excellent report which argues that the cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be included in the UK animal welfare law in an explicit way, based on a detailed and important scientific and philosophical framework and evaluation, coupled with extremely helpful suggestions for improving best practice and welfare, and for regulating existing practices that currently raise widespread concerns about the welfare of these animals.
[+] [-] throwanem|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dieselgate|2 years ago|reply
Edit: personally feel researcher could observe sentience by the standards defined in above post
[+] [-] hanniabu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calf|2 years ago|reply
Hmm, not a fan of this reasoning. The solution is to improve regulation of wholesale and retail, and educate consumers how to store and slaughter a crab or lobster. The same page even lists multiple ways to slaughter crustaceans, none of which require a high level of expertise and so requiring a ban on the practice is just excessive.
[+] [-] koolba|2 years ago|reply
Eating something alive is wrong for it’s own reasons. The majority of religions consider it a sin too!
[+] [-] NVHacker|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndsipa_pomu|2 years ago|reply
> Eating something alive is wrong for it’s own reasons.
Whilst I agree in principle, there's a fuzzy line in what we consider to be alive. Bacteria certainly seem to be fair game with yoghurts being specifically sold as "live".
I don't know if animal welfare laws currently cover eating animals whilst they're still alive, though it sounds feasible.
[+] [-] liquidise|2 years ago|reply
> The review also evaluated the potential welfare implications of current commercial practices involving these animals. It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling without stunning. It also includes suggestions for best practices for transport, stunning and slaughter.
But this reads more like additional recommendations than required by law under the new classification.
[+] [-] UberFly|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeron|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 35997279|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abeppu|2 years ago|reply
I mean, that's all well and good, but if you take the "sentience" part seriously, then surely we should also consider in scope:
- bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can casually kill large numbers of individuals
- ocean pollution
- warming oceans that may put whole populations at risk
Like, if the suffering of individuals is acknowledged, then surely reducing that suffering is important whether it's in a restaurant kitchen or on the sea-floor beneath a fishing boat. You don't get to ignore the harms your actions cause just because the effects are out of line-of-sight.
[+] [-] AeroNotix|2 years ago|reply
Let's start somewhere and build on it rather than throwing a perfectly actionable plan away just because it doesn't solve literally all problems.
[+] [-] belorn|2 years ago|reply
Pollution is already illegal (but poorly enforced) and global warming should be illegal but enforcement is evem more tricky.
[+] [-] hermitcrab|2 years ago|reply
On the other hand the proposed large-scale farming of Octopus in the Canary Islands is a step in the wrong direction: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64814781
[+] [-] politelemon|2 years ago|reply
What does this mean practically in day-to-day? Will they be banned as food items or have to be killed in specific ways only, or something else?
[+] [-] ikesau|2 years ago|reply
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/22/enacted#section...
I don't think it's clear that any concrete policy will be set as a result of this, but it will hopefully ensure that animal wellbeing is considered appropriately in the development of the United Kingdom's society.
[+] [-] moate|2 years ago|reply
Most farm animals are also considered sentient, but obviously still eaten throughout the country, but unlike with a lobster or octopus you currently can't just start hacking at a cow or pig with a knife while it is still alive to cut off a part to eat.
It's an improvement, but if you're a vegan you'd likely want to go much further.
[+] [-] dangitnotagain|2 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter
Such is the cycle of civilization.
[+] [-] NotYourLawyer|2 years ago|reply
Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
[+] [-] protonbob|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asynchronous|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmcphers|2 years ago|reply
http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
[+] [-] nervousvarun|2 years ago|reply
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/acceler...
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoImmatureAdHom|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinmchugh|2 years ago|reply
https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood...
[+] [-] the_doctah|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eatbitseveryday|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fricken|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yamazakiwi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcticbull|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calf|2 years ago|reply
What's the reason for this? I'm am home cook and learned to kill a lobster the way many chefs do it, the knife method. Would even that be banned?
[+] [-] user6723|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sacnoradhq|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numpad0|2 years ago|reply
There must be an emotional starting point where suggestions like this must have come from. I… wonder if somebody had a moment of life experience with stale lobsters.
[+] [-] remram|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredgrott|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anyoneamous|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] walterbell|2 years ago|reply
> professionals who investigate the mysterious outbreak of violent animal attacks upon humans all over the world.
https://www.vox.com/2017/9/27/16360684/zoo-cbs-season-3-revi...
> Zoo is an entirely ridiculous show. So in the interest of maintaining some level of professional dignity, I will be upfront and say Zoo probably won’t blow your mind so far as thematic nuance goes. But let me be clear when I say Zoo will definitely blow your mind with a chaotic swarm of kamikaze bats, telepathic lions, 70-foot invisible snakes, and so very much more.
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOfZfNXMP4
[+] [-] User23|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uberdru|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zamalek|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fennecfoxy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmaly|2 years ago|reply
Nothing beats lobster with warm butter.