Are Bivalves Vegan? ft. Gary Yourofsky & The Vegan Black Metal Chef

[Bite Size Vegan]

are bivalves considered vegan? are they sentient? do oysters, clams, and mollusks have a place in a vegan diet? in this interview, vegan activist Gary Yourofsky and the Vegan Black Metal Chef share their 2 cents on this controversial topic.

 

[Veggietorials]

I love Brian... he can't help but pepper the conversation with F-bombs! Another great video Emily.

 

[Bite Size Vegan]

I love Brian... he can't help but pepper the conversation with F-bombs! Another great video Emily.

ha! me too Veggitorials- he's great. and i personally always have to restrain myself to not F-off my entire videos!

 

[beancounter]

Bivalves eat plankton and therefore are not vegan.

 

[flyingsnail]

Well, as usual, Gary doesn't seriously address anything. But he is right on one front.....assuming you define vegan as one that doesn't use any animal derived products then bivalves aren't vegan by definition. But so what? Do vegans just arbitrary avoid animal products or are they doing it for a reason? If the latter, well, what reason? How do bivalves fit in with that reason? etc. Those are the real questions.

In any case, I think the bivalve topic makes veganism look something more akin to religion than a philosophy/science based moral system....which is probably why it keeps coming up. I think vegans should drop it......it trivializes important issues in animal rights/welfare.

 

[Clueless Git]

Here's (with apologies if i got my evolutionary tree *** about face) my tuppence worth ...

If a bi-valve why not an arthropod?

If an arthropod why not a crustacean?

If a crustacean why not a fish?

If a fish why not a reptile?

If a reptile why not anything cold blooded?

If anything cold blooded why not the simplest of the warm blooded?

If, say, a mouse why not a rat ... rabbit ... chicken ... sheep ... pig ... cow ...?

And so on and so forth untill "having the neighbours for dinner" means exactly how it sounds.

Sole point being that once the animal/plant kingdom dividing line is crossed then the 'slippery slope' begins.

 

[Bite Size Vegan]

Here's (with apologies if i got my evolutionary tree *** about face) my tuppence worth ...

If a bi-valve why not an arthropod?

If an arthropod why not a crustacean?

If a crustacean why not a fish?

If a fish why not a reptile?

If a reptile why not anything cold blooded?

If anything cold blooded why not the simplest of the warm blooded?

If, say, a mouse why not a rat ... rabbit ... chicken ... sheep ... pig ... cow ...?

And so on and so forth untill "having the neighbours for dinner" means exactly how it sounds.

Sole point being that once the animal/plant kingdom dividing line is crossed then the 'slippery slope' begins.

good point...

 

[Scorpius]

If it's an animal, I'm not eating it. End of story. I don't get why this is such an 'issue'.

 

[Second Summer]

I suppose it's an issue for those who argue that the elusive sentience is what determines whether a creature is worthy of consideration, i.e. should not be exploited for food or any other reason.

If someone asks us why we shouldn't eat bivalves, and we respond that we shouldn't eat them because they're animals, then that isn't a very good argument, on its own. If we reply that we shouldn't eat them because they are animals, and animals can suffer, and eating them will cause suffering, then that is a stronger argument, because many will agree that causing suffering is indefensible when it's not necessary.

But then, assuming bivalves can't suffer, which is the argument put forward by some, is eating bivalves as ethically OK as eating carrots? It's not "vegan", as defined historically, so therefore, as the argument goes, we should re-define "vegan" so that bivalves are henceforth on the menu. And those who insist on the old definition are "religious", "dogmatic" etc. because they can't back up their argument with scientific evidence.

 

[flyingsnail]

If we reply that we shouldn't eat them because they are animals, and animals can suffer, and eating them will cause suffering, then that is a stronger argument, because many will agree that causing suffering is indefensible when it's not necessary.

This is a bit vague, to avoid a logical fallacy you'd have to state that all animals can suffer.....but such a claim isn't supported by the evidence.

And those who insist on the old definition are "religious", "dogmatic" etc. because they can't back up their argument with scientific evidence.

Vegan + bivalve can be just as dogmatic as the original....it all depends on its relationship with the evidence and reason. Dogmas are based on tenets, for example "don't use animal based products", where as science and philosophy is based on theory.

 

[Clueless Git]

And those who insist on the old definition are "religious", "dogmatic" etc. because they can't back up their argument with scientific evidence.

Scientificaly the only way to be 100% sure you are eating no sentient animals is a 100% animal exclusive diet.

It requires the religious dogma of man having god like rights to decide which animals are food and which are not from that point on.

 

[Bite Size Vegan]

this is a fascinating debate

 

[Second Summer]

This is a bit vague, to avoid a logical fallacy you'd have to state that all animals can suffer.....but such a claim isn't supported by the evidence.

The "all" is implicit. And I never said the claim was supported by evidence. Neither did I say the opposite, for that matter. The intention of my post was to explain the controversy in plain language.

 

[flyingsnail]

The "all" is implicit. And I never said the claim was supported by evidence. Neither did I say the opposite, for that matter. The intention of my post was to explain the controversy in plain language.

Sure, I just like the logical structure to be explicit. In any case, I don't think that controversy has much to do with bivalves in particular but rather bivalves are being used as a rhetorical device for a more general issue.

Scientificaly the only way to be 100% sure you are eating no sentient animals is a 100% animal exclusive diet.

Science isn't "100% sure" of anything and there is nothing, scientifically speaking, that precludes sentience in other kingdoms.

 

[das_nut]

I'd say just to be on the safe side, don't eat them since they are an animal. But that's a rather broad view of veganism, and if we discovered a plant with a brain tomorrow, I doubt many of us would claim it's vegan to eat it. A more nuanced view of veganism would examine why we don't eat animals, which probably boils down to their capability to experience pain in some sort of sentient manner. Some "animals" don't appear to be able to experience pain - sponges are a good example, technically animals, but they don't even have a nervous system and thus can't experience pain.

As for bivalves, some of them are sessile, and probably can experience pain. Others may not. But the science, for me, isn't conclusive, and I'm not going to eat them.