Do Lobsters Feel Pain?

[slkinsey]

In what way does an animal that barely has two nerve cells to rub together, and doesn't experience pain in any way that would be meaningful to us, "suffer"?

Perhaps more to the point, even if one accepts the premise that tossing a lobster into boiling water causes them to "suffer" -- on what basis can we assert that slapping them in the freezer for a while or slicing their heads in half causes them to "suffer" any less? All we can really say about this is that the person who suffers less in these cases is the human being, whose conscience is somehow eased.

Again, you have to have some understanding of the neurophysiology of a lobster to have any understanding of whether these things make any difference.

Slicing their heads in half, for example, may destroy one ganglion in the lobster's body (lobsters don't have brains), but there are other ganglia further back. How are we to know that the ganglion in the tail still isn't experiencing "pain" -- and perhaps even more so than if the head hadn't been sliced in half? (Answer: we don't.)

Similarly, chilling a lobster may cause a lobster to be sluggish, which means that it will die in the water before it has a chance to move around much. But, again, this has no bearing on whether or to what degree the lobster may "suffer" or experience "pain." How do we know this doesn't cause more "pain and suffering" instead of less? (Answer: we don't.)

What about getting the lobster "drunk" in wine? Again, we don't know.

All we know is that these things make some humans feel better about it. Personally, I would suggest that if you're going to feel bad about it... just don't eat them. Heck... considering how much incredibly more complex a pig is compared to a lobster -- there's simply no way that the most lovingly, humanely slaughtered pig doesn't suffer more than a lobster that is torn apart and tossed into a pot of boiling water while still alive.

[takadi]

I think this is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one, which can explain the miscommunication here. There is hardly a scientific fact that could prove or disprove the existence of a soul (people thought to be clinically brain dead wake up and have a emotion conversation with their families before they die). I think certain issues like this should be handled with extreme caution

[slkinsey]

The existence (or nonesixtence) of a "soul" is something that is inherrently unexaminable by scientific means, and impossible to attempt to understand in any scientific or rational ay. It's something you have to take on faith.

Whether or not an animal with an rudimentary neurological system can experience anything that is comparable to what we understand as "pain" is something that can be examined by science, and something we can attempt to understand to the extent possible by scientific and rational means.

If someone would like to take a viewpoint on the subject that is more based on, say, religion or spirituality, there's nothing wrong with that. But one has to acknowledge the basis of taking that viewpoint. To make an extreme example, Ione could just as easily say that I believe rocks have a soul and that we are causing them to suffer when we crush them into gravel. That's fine. A rock-animist is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. But one can still point out that rocks are not living organisms.

In my opinion, if you really want to step away from the science on this one you either have to (1) understand that you are taking it on pure faith that your way of killing lobsters (whether that be freezing, slicing, "drowning in wine" or whatever) is "more humane"; or (2) decide that you're just not going to eat them at all (and if you're going to go down that path in life, you're probably going to turn out a vegan).

Edited April 4, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[paulraphael]

Whether or not an animal with an rudimentary neurological  system can experience anything that is comparable to what we understand as "pain" is something that can be examined by science, and something we can attempt to understand to the extent possible by scientific and rational means.

The above post suggesting we discuss "suffering" instead of pain might on something more relevant. We know their nervous systems are completely different from ours, so it's unlikely that they experience pain the way we do, but we don't know if they experience something equally negative in response to certain kinds of trauma.

This isn't a topic as fundamentally inaccessible to science as the existence of a soul, but it's nevertheless a very, very difficult one to investigate.

People on both sides of the issue ... those proposing that lobsters don't suffer, and those proposing ways to ease suffering ... are operating almost entirely on conjecture.

No, this isn't helpful if you're trying to figure out the most humane way to eat something.

[pennylane]

Okay, so they're maybe suffering, maybe not. But is there enough of an improvement in taste to warrant this practice?

[slkinsey]

The above post suggesting we discuss "suffering" instead of pain might on something more relevant. We know their nervous systems are completely different from ours, so it's unlikely that they experience pain the way we do, but we don't know if they experience something equally negative in response to certain kinds of trauma.

"To suffer" in the sense that it is being used here means to undergo or endure something subjectively negative" such as pain, death, punishment, judgment, grief, etc.

If an organism doesn't have consciousness and therefore cannot have a subjective experience, how can it suffer? Simply reacting to stimuli -- even stimuli that we, as conscious organisms, would perceive as intensely negative -- does not equate to consciousness, "suffering" and "pain." Even organisms as rudimentary as simple bacteria react to stimuli. If a flagellate reacts to a high temperature that would be painful to a human being, and is even high enough to eventually kill the flagellate -- does that mean that this single-celled organism is suffering and experiencing pain?

Okay, so they're maybe suffering, maybe not.  But is there enough of an improvement in taste to warrant this practice?

These both bring up the same question: How are we to know that one way is any better than another way? Maybe freezing them is best. Maybe it isn't. Maybe splitting the heads is best. Maybe it isn't. Maybe throwing them into boiling water is best. Maybe it isn't. Maybe there's no difference.

Edited April 4, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[pennylane]

If an organism doesn't have consciousness and therefore cannot have a subjective experience, how can it suffer?  Simply reacting to stimuli -- even stimuli that we, as conscious organisms, would perceive as intensely negative -- does not equate to consciousness, "suffering" and "pain."  Even organisms as rudimentary as simple bacteria react to stimuli.  If a flagellate reacts to a high temperature that would be painful to a human being, and is even high enough to eventually kill the flagellate -- does that mean that this single-celled organism is suffering and experiencing pain?

I understand the point you're making, but are you saying that lobsters don't have consciousness? Surely they're a step above bacteria?

And anyway, I'm sure most people eating live lobsters etc. don't have a degree in malacostracan crustacean neurophysiology. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that they really don't care whether lobsters feel pain. It's really just this attitude that's a little shocking to some of us, I guess.

[ghostrider]

Somewhere in the mass of stuff I read on this topic last night, I've lost track of where, someone said that lobsters don't have pain receptors as we mammalian types do, but they do have stress receptors. So perhaps it's a matter of degree rather than a simple question of what they do / do not "feel" when we drop them alive into a vat of boiling water.

OTOH as I noted in the previous thread, adult lobsters eat their young without a "thought."

I'm still unsure as to where to place all this on the great scale of morality, but I suspect that I'll still be eating lobster rolls as I ponder the question more deeply up in Maine this summer.

[cathrynapple]

Although there isn't a way for at home cooks to accurately judge the level of an animal's suffering while cooking it at home, is there a reason not to take a five minute measure on the chance that it may improve the situation?

I guess I'm confused about the hostility towards taking these measures (freezer, head chopping, etc.) if they might help.

Are those of us who put the lobster in the freezer beforehand idiot?

Are those of us who buy factory farmed pork idiots? (there is a thread about that, too.)

[paulraphael]

If an organism doesn't have consciousness and therefore cannot have a subjective experience, how can it suffer?

You could be right that a lobster isn't conscious, but by asserting it you're presuming to be more certain than any researchers in the field of animal cognition. It's an immature science, and a difficult one practice.

At any rate, there are a number of recent studies that support the idea that lobsters feel pain. Some focus on the presence of opioid receptors in the lobster, others examine response to trauma. Like this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...ac7081b826bde99

None of these studies is conclusive. In fact no one currently knows how to conduct a study on the topic that would be conclusive. That includes you and me!

Edited April 6, 2008 by paulraphael (log)

[WiscoNole]

Lobsters' nervous systems are far too primitive to perceive pain.

[Katie Meadow]

Whoa, this thread is running the gamut from "Ewww!" to "You should be able to look your protein in the eye before...etc." An NPR report back in November claimed the latest scientific evidence is that lobsters do indeed feel pain, along with other crustacea. This is how most creatures manage to stay alive: they respond to pain or discomfort by gettin' the hell outta Dodge. They turn tail, retreat or scuttle away as the case may be.

If this isn't a hoax, there's a object marketed mainly to the restaurant trade called a CrustaStun, which sends a 3-5 amp/110 volt shock to the critter, killing it in a hurry. There's a picture of it but I didn't want to study it long enough to figure out how it worked.

I have never tackled a lobster and I probably never will, but I do cook Dungeness crabs. I put them in the freezer for about 15 minutes first and then drop them in boiling water. I was never told that it stopped them from feeling pain; I always thought it was just so I could get them out of the bag and into the pot without too much trauma. My trauma, that is.

[cathrynapple]

Well, how do YOU know? The studies found have been inconclusive. Do you have inside information?

[cathrynapple]

Uh, my response was to wisconole, to clarify.

[takadi]

If an organism doesn't have consciousness and therefore cannot have a subjective experience, how can it suffer?

You could be right that a lobster isn't conscious, but by asserting it you're presuming to be more certain than any researchers in the field of animal cognition. It's an immature science, and a difficult one practice.

At any rate, there are a number of recent studies that support the idea that lobsters feel pain. Some focus on the presence of opioid receptors in the lobster, others examine response to trauma. Like this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...ac7081b826bde99

None of these studies is conclusive. In fact no one currently knows how to conduct a study on the topic that would be conclusive. That includes you and me!

←

I think the problem is that it's next to impossible to know what exactly IS consciousness. The very act of observing our very own consciousness automatically makes us a poor candidate for controlled research, not to mention that there is no real measurement for such a concept for other physical creatures. Again, it's a philosophical debate, just like trying to prove the existence of God.

[Milagai]

You don't have to achieve certainty on the issue of whether crustaceans or molluscs have consciousness / feel pain, and don't have to get deep into philosophy or neuroscience to answer the question.

As long as there is doubt and a possibility that the creature can feel pain, then act as if it can, and minimize cruelty. Why is there any reluctance about such practice?

Edited April 7, 2008 by Milagai (log)

[insomniac]

You don't have to achieve certainty on the issue of whether crustaceans or molluscs have consciousness / feel pain, and don't have to get deep into philosophy or neuroscience to answer the question.

As long as there is doubt and a possibility that the creature can feel pain, then act as if it can, and minimize cruelty.  Why is there any reluctance about  such practice?

←

to me that has got to be the bottom line...

[takadi]

Because out of compassion, alot of people feel a need to speak out and act against such acts they perceive as cruel. It wouldn't be an issue for the "live and let live" types, but there are quite a few who feel morally obligated to fight against injustices.

To some, serving a live lobster or fish with half of its body cut up and its flesh being eaten in front of its eyes is a delicacy, a show without any further thought. It can even be a revered cultural practice. To others it is a crime. I'd hate to polarize the issue, but when controversy is added to the mix, the end result is always two extreme sides feuding with one another nonstop.

[paulraphael]

James Peterson's Fish and Shellfish book shows how to split the lobster's head with a single insertion of the knife right before dunking into the boiling water.

Of course we don't know for sure that this is a painless (or more painless) way to kill a lobster, since we don't even know for sure if pain is an issue, or how the creature's nervous system works. But it seems to me like a pretty good bet. I don't think It's completely anthrocentric to guess that a quickly severed central nerve would lead to less pain than being boiled alive.

Until I learn something that contradicts these assumptions, this would be my method of choice.

[cathrynapple]

Uh, to me it seems that more people are speaking out AGAINST making things more humane in this thread. And this I cannot fathom.

[annecros]

Uh, to me it seems that more people are speaking out AGAINST making things more humane in this thread.  And this I cannot fathom.

←

I don't know. Are more people speaking out against making things more humane, or are more people speaking out against imposing moral standards upon another person?

I don't know. Still trying to suss it all out!

[takadi]

Annecros, I think both are right!

[Ohba]

Uh, to me it seems that more people are speaking out AGAINST making things more humane in this thread.  And this I cannot fathom.

←

On the contrary, it seems to me that people are suggesting - with some scientific backup - that one method of killing a lobster is little different from another in terms of pain and/or suffering inflicted. That is very different from arguing against being humane, because it denies that method A is more humane than method B. I haven't seen any very convincing scientific argument to refute that yet.

[jsmith]

To some, serving a live lobster or fish with half of its body cut up and its flesh being eaten in front of its eyes is a delicacy, a show without any further thought. It can even be a revered cultural practice. To others it is a crime. I'd hate to polarize the issue, but when controversy is added to the mix, the end result is always two extreme sides feuding with one another nonstop.

←

I'm still not convinced that the original lobster that started this thread was alive when it was served. All that was stated was that it was twitching.

[takadi]

Then you'd have to define the meaning of "alive", something which can go on for centuries if it could, as witnessed by the abortion debate.

Pain and suffering a two totally different things, and as Slkinsey has pointed out, suffering is a construct that comes with conscious existence. Consciousness is already a philosophical debate.

What is amazing is how deep a conversation about lobster can go though. Food truly binds the universe together