Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Would you buy a chicken genetically modified not to feel pain?


Recommended Posts

I was chatting to a colleague today about someone we mutually admire - the bioethicist Peter Singer. He told me about Singer's argument that factory farmed chickens should be genetically engineered so that they do not feel pain. I was intrigued and did some googling when I came home. I found a link where the thesis is expanded upon and discussed - here.

What do you think? Would you buy and eat such a chicken, or does the thought of it give you the heebie-jeebies?

There is no love more sincere than the love of food - George Bernard Shaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something about the article carries the faintest whiff of Swift's Modest Proposal. Leaving that aside (and so far, I've only read the abstract and conclusion, and just skimmed the rest), even though there's acknowledgement of the fact that there is more to suffering than [physical] pain, the article seems to keep drifting into a conflation of the two, and the lousy living conditions of a lot of chickens probably causes at least as much suffering as their being slaughtered.

The conclusion drawn here is puzzling (p. 2, end of column I):

Since an interest in avoiding a life of suffering is presumably stronger than an interest in a particular gustatory preference, it follows on this account that we should choose not to eat meat that comes from factory farms where animals endure a substantial amount of suffering.

I believe that the author means 'preventing', rather than 'avoiding' ('avoiding' makes the object of the suffering extremely blurry), but even so, my suspicion is that most people don't care that much about the quality of the lives of the chickens they eat.

I doubt I'd buy such a bird, and frankly, I think the only people who would really care about this enough to seek out such chickens (and possibly pay a premium for the privilege) are those who are already concerned enough about animal welfare prefer birds that aren't raised in batteries/are humanely slaughtered.

Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy, this makes me squirm. Is "feeling pain" the key metric of humane treatment? I sure hope not. I'd think any animal breeding or engineering designed to eliminate pain is obviously self-limiting. How would such a creature survive the ordinary knocks and bumps of life? Humans without pain receptors live difficult, dangerous lives (see a long NY Times piece on one such girl: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/magazine/ashlyn-blocker-feels-no-pain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )

We have an obligation to treat animals well, even if they don't feel pain. And eating meat still requires ending a life, even if pain isn't part of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total lunacy!!!!!!!

What's going to happen when a chicken pecks on the another (which they very frequently do.)

The victim will have no reason to escape, will become severely maimed or even killed!!!!!

THAT IS CRUEL!!!!

There are several other similar scenarios that I can imagine!

Pure Craziness!!!!!

~Martin

~Martin :)

I just don't want to look back and think "I could have eaten that."

Unsupervised, rebellious, radical agrarian experimenter, minimalist penny-pincher, and adventurous cook. Crotchety, cantankerous, terse curmudgeon, non-conformist, and contrarian who questions everything!

The best thing about a vegetable garden is all the meat you can hunt and trap out of it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering about the pecking issue; normally, it's kind of limited by the fact that there's at least the possiblity of retaliation, but in the absence of pain, it seems unlikely to happen. Even looked at from a striclty utilitarian standpoint, this seems likely to be a terrible idea, just in terms of loss.

Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole field of bioethics is an interesting one. It is a recent invention with no intellectual history compared to other fields like philosophy and religion...the groups that used to be entrusted with analysis of ethical behavior.

I'm not sure what bioethicists actually contribute other than a ready quote for journalists trying to fill out a story. In Philly, no medical controversy is complete with out comment from a couple of these guys who basically have spent a career publicly reinforcing the Golden Rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I color myself skeptical about the ethics of bioethics. When they lay down some falsifiable markers in the way of scholarship that moves beyond opinion, then perhaps I could take them seriously. A field concerning itself with ethics, that itself exhibits none is a bit too deconstructionist for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shades of Hitchhiker's Guide....

Personally, I think it's not such a great idea, for reasons stated above. We know from studying humans with congenital anaesthesia that they're more likely to injure themselves gravely without really noticing - why on earth would it be a good idea to give that to poultry, which are not bright to begin with and prone to pecking one another?

Elizabeth Campbell, baking 10,000 feet up at 1° South latitude.

My eG Food Blog (2011)My eG Foodblog (2012)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...