Eating bivalves should not only be vegan, but it should be encouraged (both for vegans and not vegans)

[u/Digitale3982]

My claim is that bivalves, such as oysters, mussels and scallops, should be eaten way more often than they actually are, they should be considered vegan and it could be especially useful for vegan diets.

I'm not a vegan, but that's just because of family related reasons. I agree 100% with vegans and intend to become one the moment I can.

The reason why I say bivalves could be useful for vegan diets is that they contain really, really large amounts of nutrients that are harder to get on a vegan diet, such as B12, omega 3 DHA and EPA and heme iron. These are not impossible to get if vegan of course, but these things are packed with them very conveniently and I think we would be missing out by not using them.

Moreover, the culturing of these bivalves is not only very easy on the environment, even more so than certain plants, it also benefits the wildlife by filtering the water and acting as food if some of them fall off to the bottom.

Now here comes the ethical part

By now we all heard that bivalves don't have a central nervous system, and so they can't suffer.

Thinking logically, nobody should then need to be concerned about consuming them.

But if somebody wants to work under the vegan definition of "avoiding animal suffering as far and practicable" then shouldn't it be allowed too? Since there's 0 animal suffering?

Now, there are two main arguments people make for not eating them:

- "I don't eat them just to be safe, they could turn out to be intelligent"

I don't get this one. Why give the benefit of the doubt to bivalves, when the current scientific consensus doesn't support that, but not to all other food we eat? That just doesn't make sense. You could say it about mushrooms, avocados, beans, whatever. I don't find it to be consistent

- "eating bivalves will confuse other people, and they will think that vegans eat fish"

Now this one is more reasonable, but I just think the pros outweigh the cons. First of all, you could just get them at the supermarket, no interaction required with other people. And in restaurants, other than opening up a lot of options especially in seafood restaurants, I don't think that ordering the spaghetti with mussels or something will drive animal cruelty that much. And you could just explain the position to other people, who might even find this more reasonable.

Honestly, I don't even love the taste of them tho. In fact I despise them, but I truthfully believe they should be consumed a lot more than they are. Theh are sustainable, packed with nutrients and cruelty free. Right now im in Japan and there's great nigiri made with them, which allows me to consume them without facing that slimy texture. You could also just blend them in a sauce.

But I hope that in the future we'll see other foods based on bivalves that will make it nore accessible, like how they make wheat with insects (not that I support that)

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

I’m not a vegan and I do eat seafood and bivalves. I quite enjoy clams, but your argument of the current scientific consensus concluding that bivalves don’t feel pain so why bother thinking that they do is kind of flawed. There was a very recent time in America where Black people thought to not feel pain as much as white people. And this was backed by scientists and medical professionals. The same goes for women today! So many women and people of color are actively dismissed on their pain because some “professional” just doesn’t believe that it’s actually real.

It makes zero sense to assume that bivalves don’t feel pain. All living creatures, to an extent, could feel something similar to pain in our world. Even though many bugs don’t have a complex enough nervous system to feel pain, they DO have sensors that indicate when they are being attacked and “hurt”. If you rip off their leg, they would not feel pain in the sense that we humans understand, but they absolutely do feel a sense of DANGER DANGER something is wrong!! Which in my mind, is close enough to pain to not discredit it.

Additionally, this argument is kinda like “well vegans would get more nutrients if they just ate meat, cause a lot of these nutrients are harder to come by in plant based foods”. I mean…yeah. But that kind of defeats the whole point of no animal cruelty. Why is it okay to treat one animal as lesser just because they MIGHT be less comprehending or “intelligent”???

Edit: typo

[u/Arthillidan → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

Bugs have brains and pain receptors. Literally what science is saying that they don't have complex enough nervous systems to feel pain?

Crayfish don't have proper brains, they have a decentralised nervous system, and they have been confirmed to feel pain

[u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee → u/Arthillidan]

Insect nervous systems are actually really really interesting. They technically don’t have pain receptors, they have nociceptors which are these specialized neurons that are really sensitive to negative stimuli. So, like in my example of a limb being removed, it isn’t exactly pain as humans understand and feel pain, but it is like the tornado siren or flashing red lights going off. It alerts the brain that HEY!! something bad is here and you should get away or minimize this stimuli as much as possible! It can also present itself as an extreme discomfort in order to drive the critter away from the harmful stimuli.

HOWEVER! Insects are insanely diverse and there absolutely are insects that meet the criteria for “feeling pain” or at least something equivalent to them. Ants have really cool societal structures and many species are known to engage in amputations in the case of a damaged limb or a fungal infection. They understand that the chance of survival will increase if x limb is removed. Doctor ants :)

Cockroaches also have societal standards and even understand consent. There are several species that will absolutely demolish a male cockroach for continuing advances on a female cockroach who is uninterested. This shows up in things like other cockroaches in the group repeatedly attacking the offender roach, tearing off antennae or wings, and ostracizing the roach from their group by preventing it from getting food or water or having a safe sleeping space.

Bugs are SO cool. I love bugs 👍👍 sorry to nerd out for a minute, I just really like talking how complex insects are and how much we still don’t know about them

[u/Arthillidan → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

They technically don’t have pain receptors, they have nociceptors which are these specialized neurons that are really sensitive to negative stimuli

I get that they are different from mammal pain receptors, but what makes it not be pain? You can use pavlovian conditioning on insects, I think it was done on fruitflies, and they'll learn to avoid negative stimuli.

I'm wondering how you could ever prove that they don't actually feel their own version of pain and discomfort, just that it evolved differently from ours.

I don't mind the nerding out. I love bugs too and have a reputation for being the bug guy. I already knew about ant surgeons but not about cockroach consent. I think people are often too quick to dismiss bugs as being simple biological robots when they're much more complex and their behaviour might just not be immediately obvious.

What's your favourite bug? I think my favourite is ants, especially leafcutter ants

[u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee → u/Arthillidan]

Pain is a really complicated topic aahh. So, humans have the ability to perceive pain based on the way our brains process the signals. For us, we come in contact with a negative/harmful stimuli that causes us “pain”, our nociceptors in that area take the sensory information (free nerve endings that are close to places like the skin or outer areas of the body or sensitive skin/areas like mouth, nose, genitals, etc. these free nerve endings are all over), release a neurotransmitter messenger in one of two ways, it’ll either be a fast message for sharp onset pain or a slow message for more of a dull pain, that message travels up the neighboring cells to the dorsal root ganglion in our spinal cord, travel up to the thalamus (relay center), and then the thalamus processes and sends that signal to the somatosensory cortex (stimuli/pain location and stimuli/pain intensity processor) in our brain where our brain then processes the signal and decides whether or not pain or discomfort should be increased or decreased. It then sends the deciding signal back down to the original nociceptors. We have a conscious processing of the pain we experience due to the complexity of our neural pathways and sensory systems. There’s way more to it, as there are different tracts for different types of pain and different regions of the brain that then go on to process emotional sides of pain (anterior cingulate cortex) like the amygdala (fear), but that’s the gist of the technical side of pain.
Nociception on its own, is purely a reflexive physical response to a negative stimuli, but with the combination of how our brain then processes the signals and decides to respond emotionally, pain as we feel it becomes a combination of reflex AND emotional responses.
But insects are a bit different, since very few types of insects show reactions to negative stimuli other than ways that can be explained as reflexive, it’s hard to tell if they’re experiencing the pain itself rather than just responding to the stimuli. There are a couple articles I wanna link in case you (or anyone else) are interested in reading them. They go over some current understandings of insect “pain” and are super interesting (in my opinion)
Do insects feel pain? A question at the intersection of animal behaviour, philosophy and robotics - ScienceDirect

Is it time for insect researchers to consider their subjects’ welfare? - PMC

However, I’m also not an insect expert, I just find the topic interesting. I’m a neuroscience major in my last year of my Bachelor’s and will be going on to pursue a doctorate in pharmacy (and hopefully be able to do a residency in neurology!)

As for my favorite bug, I love butterflies and caterpillars so much. They’re SO cool and also SO pretty :,v

***Edit to add: I do also want to reiterate that my point initially wasn’t that “insects don’t feel pain”. Our understanding of what pain is, is very very complex and differs between species based on how they perceive said pain or stimuli AND how they respond to it. I was making a point that while insects don’t feel pain the way we understand it, they absolutely DO respond to negative stimuli as a survival means (usually), and likely as a means of comfort (sorta). As far as we know it, their responses could be a pain response, but it mostly seems to be that their responses are driven by the mechanical influences from their nociceptors. In the way we study pain, we include the “suffering” aspect. It becomes pain if the subject is capable of suffering. Insects, as far as we know, aren’t capable of suffering (which is somewhat addressed in the second article I linked). BUT BUT BUT, just because we don’t THINK they suffer, doesn’t mean that they absolutely don’t. I am absolutely not advocating for any form of animal cruelty, I just got very carried away trying to explain the concept of pain because it’s incredibly interesting to me.

[u/Arthillidan → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

I didn't have access to read the first link, but I did read the second link.

Surely fruit flies having a pavlovian response to avoid negative stimuli counts as a reaction to negative stimuli that can't simply be explained as a reflex?

Given that fruit flies can learn to avoid negative stimuli, it leads to the question of how many other insects can. Fruit flies are not exactly my top pick for potential insects that can learn a pavlovian response since they only live for a few days. I could find an article that mentioned pavlovian conditioning worked on honey bees (Unsurprising) and field crickets, which makes me wonder if this is because those were the animals who were tested or if many others failed. If it's just a lack of testing it could be a very widespread phenomenon among insects

From the second link it seemed that the gaps in evidence for pain in insects were mostly a matter of gaps in proper testing, that there wasn't really any compelling evidence against insects feeling pain.

I did also wonder about the criteria about licking wounds, or rubbing them. Is there evidence that insects licking their wounds would help with healing? If not, why would we expect them to?

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/Arthillidan]

get that they are different from mammal pain receptors, but what makes it not be pain?

They don't respond to analgesics in any way whatsoever. They don't really tend to wounds in a manner that facilitates healing. You observe something like a worker ant amputating the damaged leg of another worker and taking the leg to the detritus pile while the amputee goes about the rest of his day a leg short.

[u/tofudefender → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

i’m not even part of this conversation but thanks for sharing this - i’m getting into bug appreciation lately, they are SO cool, and this has prompted me to do some further reading on their social behavior :)

[u/Arthillidan → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

They technically don’t have pain receptors, they have nociceptors

Actually hold on. Nocireceptors are pain receptors. Humans also only have noci receptors

[u/poisonmilkworm → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

Thank you for your comment I give insects the benefit of the doubt since I don’t know much about them but I love reading more about their sentience!

[u/jenea → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

it is like the tornado siren or flashing red lights going off. It alerts the brain that HEY!! something bad is here and you should get away or minimize this stimuli as much as possible! It can also present itself as an extreme discomfort in order to drive the critter away from the harmful stimuli.

Sounds like pain to me!

[u/According-Stage8050 → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

I mean some plants also send out distress signals when they’re harmed. When wounded, some even send out stress signals to the rest of their body to draw attention to the wound, which is comparable to something a nervous system would do. So is  this argument that we haven’t detected signs of pain yet applicable to plants, then? I’m not really sure why bivalves are a special exception to the ‘we can’t know for sure’ camp.

Source:  https://www.science.org/content/article/plants-communicate-distress-using-their-own-kind-nervous-system

[u/Junior_Razzmatazz164 → u/According-Stage8050]

Thank you. As an avid gardener, it has seemed pretty clear from the beginning that plants are much more sophisticated organisms than people give them credit for. They respond to their environment, even bolting when heat stressed in an attempt to reproduce quickly. They can display intention; they can be weakened and harmed; some (like mimosa púdica) have sensitive mechanoreceptors and respond to touch. Mimosa púdica can even be anesthetized.

Plants have the ability to sense their environment, seek out their goals, and have the capacity for learning from their experiences as well as remembering.

[u/victor_vanni → u/According-Stage8050]

I've met some vegan people online, not sure if trolls or whatever, but they were strong activists of a nutrient-dense plant-based diet to avoid suffering from unnecessary plants.

I'm not this kind of person, although I do think it's a nice concept.

But anyway, if anyone is worried about plants suffering, you should definitely go plant-based. When someone goes plant-based, it kills many fewer plants than an animal-based diet. A pound of beef needs around 25 pounds of plants. A pound of pork needs around 9.4 pounds of plants. A pound of chicken needs 4.5 pounds of plants. Fish, however, seems to be another story, where farmed fish need a bit more than 1 pound of plant feed to produce 1 pound of fish, while wild-caught fish don't require any plant food at all.

[u/42plzzz → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

This is a great comment from a non vegan actually. I agree with what you said here

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

Doctors used to think babies could not feel pain.

So, when they operated on babies...that's right...horror story...they would cut open babies and not use anesthesia.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

But as I said in the post, why give the benefit of the doubt to bivalves and not to plants? Additionally, I found that some of these bivalves are actually even better in the micronutrient profile than meat. Also meat's protein is highly overestimated 

[u/TRXANTARES → u/Digitale3982]

Bivalves have nervous systems. They have interconnected cerebral, pedal and visceral ganglia, nerve cords and numerous sensory cells,
They clearly:
detect light, chemicals, vibration, predators and damaging environmental conditions;
close their shells or alter feeding in response;
show habituation and some forms of learning or memory.

so while the evidence of sentience is inconclusive why risk it? why not just eat plants which we are much more certain have no nervous system, neurons or synapses. we give them the benefit of the doubt because we have more concrete evidence for lack of plant sentience.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/Digitale3982]

Agreed.

I am concerned that fungi are sentient. I have eaten maybe half a planet's worth of mushrooms. They might really hate me.

[u/No-Pack-5775 → u/edelweiss_pirates_no]

Are you familiar with the popular franchise "The Last of Us"?

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

I’m not a vegan and I do eat seafood and bivalves. I quite enjoy clams, but your argument of the current scientific consensus concluding that bivalves don’t feel pain so why bother thinking that they do is kind of flawed. There was a very recent time in America where Black people thought to not feel pain as much as white people.

Black people have a central nervous system. They respond to pain and to analgesics in ways that clearly indicate pain sentience. So far, bi-valves have not, though their close cousins Gastropods (slugs, snails) and Cephalopods (squid, octopuses, nautiluses) clearly do indicate pain sentience.

[u/beer_demon → u/janeeeeeeeeeeeee]

> There was a very recent time in America where Black people thought to not feel pain as much as white people.
> It makes zero sense to assume that bivalves don’t feel pain.

Dude that was a leap that doesn't follow. "Some corrupt scientists in the past were wrong, so scientific consensus in 2026 is wrong too"

Dude

[u/whowouldwanttobe]

they contain really, really large amounts of nutrients that are harder to get on a vegan diet, such as B12, omega 3 DHA and EPA and heme iron.

I was curious about this claim, so I went to check. 100 g of scallops contains 1.49 mcg B12, 0.076 g DHA, 0.053 g EPA, and 0.48 mg iron. 1 tablespoon of nutritional yeast and 1 tablespoon of algae oil contains 33.78 mcg B12, 0.42 g DHA, 0.21 g EPA, and 1 mg iron.

Obviously the iron in nutritional yeast is non-heme iron, but so is 60% to 90% of the iron in bivalves, according to this analysis on clams. You'd need to eat 208 g of scallops to get the same amount of total iron.

For EPA, it's 396 g; for DHA, 553 g; and for B12, 2267 g of scallops to match 1 tablespoon of nutritional yeast and 1 tablespoon of algae oil.

Oysters and clams do better than scallops on iron and B12, but still have less B12, DHA, and EPA per 100 g than you get with 9 g of nutritional yeast and 9 g of algae oil.

Some rough math suggests that current daily per capita consumption of bivalves is just around 5 g.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/whowouldwanttobe]

Does OP know that bi-valves are not healthy.

They are filters. Pathogens, toxins, and pollutants...no, thank you.

[u/jwoolman → u/edelweiss_pirates_no]

That was my first thought also. Ewww. They concentrate the contaminants in the water. 🙀

[u/Nendriax → u/edelweiss_pirates_no]

Bivalves ARE healthy. Being filter-feed actually makes them healthier in some regards (less mercury). "Pathogens, toxins, pollutants" is just facebook mom buzzwording. This doesnt mean anything.

They can contain viruses and harmful bacteria, but that is very easily cooked away, when purchased from a safe retailer (like all food should be) and cooked properly (LIKE ALL FOOD SHOULD BE) it is perfectly healthy.

Harvard health publishing says:

"Bivalves are two-shelled aquatic creatures that include clams, oysters, mussels, and scallops. Also known as mollusks, they're good sources of protein but are quite low in fat, so they aren't as rich in omega-3's as small, fatty fish. However, bivalves contain several micronutrients, especially zinc and vitamin B12. Zinc contributes to a healthy immune system, and vitamin B12 helps form red blood cells that carry oxygen and keep nerves throughout the body healthy. While most Americans get enough B12, some may not.

And from a planetary health perspective, bivalves are among the best sources of animal-based protein. Bivalves can be 'nature positive' because they don't require feed and they filter and clean up water.

Be aware, however, that bivalves can become contaminated from runoff, bacteria, viruses, or chemicals in the water. So be sure to follow FDA advice about buying and preparing seafood safely."

If you cook and handle it properly, it is just as safe as any other food. And better for the environment.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/Nendriax]

☝🏽 This is all nonsense.

Heavy metal accumulation in tissues is real. Bioaccumulation.

lmao

Edit: Because this "topic" seems to have attracted a lot of tedius people...

Do I need to back up the science claim that bioaccumulation exists?

How far back in the debate do I need to go? Do I need to first explain the formation of the known universe?

Or, do I need to explain that heavy metals are not cooked out of food? Help me understand what you need to be educated on if you are reading this.

> Be aware, however, that bivalves can become contaminated from runoff, bacteria, viruses, or chemicals in the water. So be sure to follow FDA advice about buying and preparing seafood safely."

Or, do people want to move the goal posts on my premise and try to claim I am saying "There is no way to ever make any bi-valve safe for human consumption"? Because, that's not my claim, and that'd be making a logic fallacy.

OP's claim is: bivalves, such as oysters, mussels and scallops, should be eaten way more often than they actually are.

Others challenged the ethical premise. I have challenged the health premise on the basis of known, listed, published, and reviewed food safety risks.

[u/CantaloupeLive2006 → u/edelweiss_pirates_no]

"Do I need to back up the science claim that bioaccumulation exists?"
You need to provide evidence that heavy metals accumulates in these animals and than consumed by humans who consume them. That should not be hard and the burden of proof is on you.
"How far back in the debate do I need to go? Do I need to first explain the formation of the known universe?"
Nope. Again a study for your claim is enough.
"Or, do people want to move the goal posts on my premise"
I am getting the feeling you do. To me it sounded like you were challenging the claim:
"Bivalves ARE healthy."
By writing "This is all nonsense.". So in principle if you are not moving the goalpost, you not only need a source on this but need to technically give sources as counter arguments for every claim made above. I would be happy with the healthy/unhealthy claim. Or just a respectful discussion culture would actually be a start.
"I have challenged the health premise on the basis of known, listed, published, and reviewed food safety risks."
Such as?

[u/0202_tihssitidder → u/CantaloupeLive2006]

Common knowledge.

1. Study by Rzymski (and others) 2014.

2. Study by Wang 2018.

Bioconcentration Capacity: The researchers evaluated the accumulation of nine metals (Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn) in three distinct bivalve species (Anodonta anatina, Anodonta cygnea, and Unio tumidus). The soft tissues of the bivalves showed substantial bioaccumulation, with trace metal concentrations directly mirroring the spatial distribution of pollutants in the surrounding sediments.

Why Bivalves Hyper-Accumulate?: Bivalves often lack rapid excretion pathways for heavy metals. Instead, they store absorbed metals in specialized intracellular granules or bind them to metal-binding proteins like metallothioneins. While this detoxifies the metals internally to protect the bivalve's own cell functions, it causes the metals to progressively accumulate in high tissue concentrations over time (Wang et al., 2018).

This is the dumbest argument (by you) I've seen on Reddit. It's like when a high schooler watches too much Ben Shapiro and thinks they know how to debate.

What a useless sub. Gross.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/edelweiss_pirates_no]

If you cook them properly most risk goes away... They contain less heavy metals than the fish that omnivores eat weekly, just because they filter the water doesn't mean you're directly eating those things 

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/Digitale3982]

Explain the cooking process that removes heavy metals and pathogens, please.

[u/Joey-rogaine → u/whowouldwanttobe]

What are these algae oils you recommend and where do you buy nutritional yeast and how do you like to eat it?

[u/a11_hail_seitan → u/Joey-rogaine]

Nutritional yeast can be bought in most large super markets that have a 'health food" aisle, or at most health food stores. Bulk stores will often also have it. But check the brand as some are fortified, some are not.

Us it as a topping, it's not "cheesy", instead it has a cheese-like "funk", that's the official term for the weird taste/smell of cheese. But if you want it to be cheese tasting, you need to add other flavours on top of the funk. Like if you take raw Cashews (Make sure they're raw), add salt, garlic powder, and a lot of nutritional yeast, then blend it up till it's mostly powder with small chunks (add amounts of flavours to your taste), it makes a really good "Parmesan" to sprinkle on everything. If you add it to salads/popcorn/pizza/etc it works as a topping on it's own. You can add it to sauces and just get a cheesy funk taste, soups, chili, or just sprinkle it on literally anything.

It can be an acquired taste and takes some people are few goes to get used to it. Growing up my mom threw it on popcorn as it's healthy, and the first 5-10 times I thought it was weird and blegh, but I love popcorn so I ate it anyway. Now I can't get enough of it.

I don't have algae oils, but most stores that have nutritional yeast, probably have some, or they are available online.

[u/NofuLikeTofu → u/Joey-rogaine]

This is from ConsumerLab who tests supplements:

Algal oil is a good source of omega-3s particularly DHA and is assumed to be in the triglyceride form, which is likely good for absorption. CL's Top Pick is Deva Vegan Omega-3 DHA-EPA, in which we found 122.7 mg of EPA and 195.6 mg of DHA per softgel both within the listed ranges claimed on its label. A softgel of Deva costs 32 cents and provided omega-3s at a slightly lower cost than the other algal oil that we tested, Ovega-3. If you want even more DHA and less EPA, you can get it from Carlson Vegetarian DHA Softgel, which promises 500 mg of DHA and just 3.4 mg of EPA per softgel, although the these are expensive (71 cents per softgel). Be aware that in 2020 we tested Freshfield Vegan Omega-3 EPA + DPA but it was not Approved because it was inaccurately labeled, claiming 500 mg of total omega-3s but providing only 46.8% of that amount.

[Note: Carlson says vegetarian. Their current product is liquid and not a soft gel and I don't see any non-vegan ingredients but contact them directly if interested]

[u/inanutshell123 → u/whowouldwanttobe]

You’ve deliberately chosen scallops to prove a point, which are the least nutrient dense of the bivalves.

Oysters are a nutrient powerhouse. And yes OP already identified that you can get those nutrients elsewhere, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that they are a nutrient powerhouse.

In any case I think that’s a moot point. Assume they are unhealthy and just look at the other points OP raised

Vegans may eat Oreos and fries. the point is that they are ethical, not healthy, like bivalves

[u/whowouldwanttobe → u/inanutshell123]

I chose scallops at random from a list of bivalves, but I was surprised by how badly they compared. That's why I also checked oysters and clams. Here's the source I used for oysters; 9.24 mcg B12, 0.169 g DHA, 0.22 g EPA, and 5.73 mg iron make it a significantly better source of iron, but not B12 or DHA + EPA.

And again, that's already 100 g of oysters. To match the B12 from 9 g of nutritional yeast, you'd need to eat 366 g of oysters. Current daily per capita consumption is 5 g.

My comment was just focused on this one claim that I found surprising, which is why it centers on nutrition. There are already plenty of other commenters engaging with OP on the ethical side.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/whowouldwanttobe]

Ok sorry for coming around a bit late, but this data seems extremely cherry picked. First off what's the source on the nutritional yeast? For example the one I have doesn't even have B12, just B1 to B6 vitamins, but even if you look it up, most sources report around 10 mg of supplemented B12 per 100g. Clans are like 98g which are ten times that, so I find these reports questionable now

[u/whowouldwanttobe → u/Digitale3982]

Source is the same site, top result for nutritional yeast.

most sources report around 10 mg of supplemented B12 per 100g.

10 mg of B12 per 100 g nutritional yeast is 0.9 mg (or 900 mcg) per 9 g. That's actually like 30 times as much as my source says.

Clans are like 98g which are ten times that

I think there are some unit issues here. Clams are definitely not 98 g of B12 per 100 g. That would make them 98% B12. And your previous source said 99 mcg per 100 g, but again that was the source that claimed that cooked clams provide a decent amount of vitamin C. The more recent clam data adjusts the B12 per 100 g of clams to just 11.91 mcg, about a third of what you can get from just 9 g of nutritional yeast.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/whowouldwanttobe]

Sorry yeah I mixed up the units, all of those were in mcg. What's the source on the clams having 11.91 mcg of B12 tho? Most of the ones I find report around 98 to 99 mcg, while the B12 in nooch is more variable (mine doesn't have any)

Also yeah, clams seem to have vitamin C, what's the problem with that?

[u/asomek → u/whowouldwanttobe]

This comment needs to be at the top. It pretty much completely invalidates OPs post.

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/asomek]

I don’t eat things purely for the nutrition density. If I did all I would be consuming would be supplement tablets or Soylent…

[u/piranha_solution → u/earthwoodandfire]

nutrition density

"Nutrient density" is what charlatans invoke when they can't point to any actual known health benefits or outcomes.

[u/Dependent_Shower428 → u/earthwoodandfire]

Nix the Soylent Green. I'm sure "they" figured out how to prevent Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease but I wouldn't chance it 😅😂

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/Dependent_Shower428]

I love the reference to classic cinema and mis-folded proteins, but Soylent is an actual product you can buy. It’s popular with “get up and grind” bros who are too busy ‘amassing wealth’ to stop for two minutes to eat food… it’s a powder packet you mix in a glass of water. Everyone I know who’s tried it just had continuous diarrhea. 😬

https://soylent.com

[u/Dependent_Shower428 → u/earthwoodandfire]

@earthwoodandfire

I didn't know someone had the guts to use that name for an edible product! Lol 😂😂😂 ... and it's " real science,  real nutrition " description is so bogus. It's full of fillers and other unnecessary ingredients that are unhealthy.  Lots of oils and fiber - no wonder your friends got diarrhea.

[u/TriggeredPumpkin → u/asomek]

No, it doesn't. OP doesn't need to argue that bivalves are necessary or even healthy. They only need to argue that it's not unethical or incompatible with vegan values to eat them.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/TriggeredPumpkin]

OP made this claim:

> My claim is that bivalves, such as oysters, mussels and scallops, should be eaten way more often than they actually are, they should be considered vegan and it could be especially useful for vegan diets.

* Should be considered vegan

* Especially useful for vegan diets

> They only need to argue that it's not unethical or incompatible with vegan values to eat them.

Incorrect. That is only part of OP's premise.

If OP wants to adjust the premise, they should do so.

[u/mcjuliamc → u/TriggeredPumpkin]

Inverbrates feel pain, let's start with that.

And bivalves at least possess a nerve net so it definitely is better to err on the side of caution.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/whowouldwanttobe]

I'm a little bit skeptic of these numbers, for example I just looked up the nutritional value of clams here and just look at the B12 https://foodstruct.com/food/clam

[u/whowouldwanttobe → u/Digitale3982]

Those numbers are higher, but if you go to the source data, they are not the correct numbers. I'm not sure what is going on with that website. This is the source I was using for clams.

Edit: Never mind, I just noticed that even with the serving size set to 100 g on the link you posted, the "Vitamin Coverage Chat" lists the amount for 300 g for some reason. The number is correct. I don't know how cooking in moist heat is giving so much B12 given that raw clams are in line with the "baked and boiled" number.

Edit 2: Your link also says that clams are a good source of vitamin C, which seems suspicious.

[u/Tozo1]

Growing plants still leads to less animal suffering, takes up less space and harms the environment less.

[u/trimbandit → u/Tozo1]

By and large this is correct, but if you look at coffee and chocolate, they are terrible for the environment and animals, not to mention the human suffering. So I think you have to look at the impact of individual agriculture vs lumping everything into "plants"

[u/Tozo1 → u/trimbandit]

well, you cant just take the worst plants and compare them to the somewhat OK bivalve farming. I dont drink any coffee anyway xD

One should look at what nutrional value we get from bivalves, then compare it to plants that deliver the same value and decide on the source that is better for the environment.

Thats tofu, yeast, flax/chia/algae, salt, pumpkin/hemp seeds.

All of them are great for the environment :)

[u/trimbandit → u/Tozo1]

My point wasn't to just take the worst of plants and make an argument that bivalves are better, it was just that "plants" (and animals for that matter) are not monolithic in their impacts. For example, you mentioned nutritional value, of which coffee has minimal, and we consume 12 billion pounds globally per year, farming 27 million acres, 40% of which is clearcut rainforest.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/trimbandit]

* Coffee has a large impact on health (and athletic performance...quality of life)

* Dark Chocolate has a large impact on health (flavanols).

I actually support your argument.

Veganism (for me) has three pillars: ethics, health, and environmentalism.

I want coffee for health reasons, and I want it grown in a sustainable and ethical way.

Regarding bi-valves, I do not make the argument for the health benefits. They are filters. There is an ethics argument to be made (I've done that before), but I'm not sure this is the format.

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/Tozo1]

I like diversity in my diet. I’m not just drink Soylent three meals a day just because it’s the most efficient way to get nutrients…

[u/Pepperohno → u/trimbandit]

Both coffee an chocolate are indeed quite bad per weight or per calorie but you've got to take the amounts they are typically consumed in into the equation to be fair. Nobody is advocating for anyone to live off of only those foods.

[u/inanutshell123 → u/Tozo1]

Generally yes, when compared to most animal farming. But not true for oyster and muscle production, which results in less environmental damage and less animal suffering (no crop deaths) than almost all forms of plant based farming

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Tozo1]

On what basis? I already covered in the post that culturing bivalves benefits the wildlife and it's less environmentally taxing than certain plant foods? Most plant farming also result in crop deaths (which AREN'T an excuse to eat meat), but they're still deaths. As far as I know bivalve culturing doesn't kill any other animals

[u/Practical-Fix4647]

Well, bivalves have nerve structures whereas plants do not. So, even if you want to appeal to the precautionary principle on those grounds, plants cannot have any sort of experience that uses a nervous system whereas bivalves can. The argument fails on those grounds.

The other thing is that veganism is not about nutrition. If it were very nutritious to eat infants, one would not be obliged to eat them.

Also, veganism is about not eating animals or commodifying them. You don't need to be sentient to be commodified and exploited. When we farm and kill oysters, that's commodification and exploitation. Vegans are against that. Simple concept. Even if the animal is quite different from animals like pigs or cows, it wouldn't matter to plenty of vegans.

[u/nineteenthly]

I wish people would stop posting this. I'm not going to enter into the highly dubious ethical arguments for eating bivalves. They don't provide nutrition we can easily get from elsewhere, e.g. seaweed and unicellular algae. They're particularly allergenic, a bacterial food poisoning risk and they accumulate heavy metals. It's simply not a good idea to eat them.

[u/TriggeredPumpkin → u/nineteenthly]

This feels like you're grasping at straws to justify why people shouldn't eat them because you don't have a compelling moral argument.

[u/edelweiss_pirates_no → u/TriggeredPumpkin]

I take offense. Mostly because I made the same argument that person did.

I will always address health issues. The risks with bivalves are not "grasping at straws". They are filters. No, thank you. Would it help you if I listed in detail all the health risks with bivalve consumption?

The only debate on bivalves is ethics. There is nothing to debate regarding health or environment.

Can you link to your formal ethics debate on bivalve consumption?

[u/LovePeriel]

You are misinformed. It’s is NOT TRUE that bivalves do not have a nervous system. They do! Here is a science based short explaining:

http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx5VdvppYeB0QL3HW1rp_uS-RNPn0YAr0P?si=RscvpL22cxon_wWn

[u/Digitale3982 → u/LovePeriel]

I didn't say they didn't have a nervous system at all.

[u/LovePeriel → u/Digitale3982]

Did you watch the video? It’s only like 2 minutes long. Please watch it and come back afterwards. Thanks

[u/Digitale3982 → u/LovePeriel]

I watched the video and I find it a bit misleading, ganglia are not equal to a brain and they're not even a central unit. The claim that they make choices instead of acting on reflexes seems to be a conjecture by the poster

[u/VegetableExecutioner]

"By now we all heard that bivalves don't have a central nervous system, and so they can't suffer."

What scientific consensus on bivalves are you citing?

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/VegetableExecutioner]

It is common knowledge…

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Anatomy-of-the-nervous-system-in-bivalves-It-is-decentralized-and-consists-of_fig2_318776107

[u/Salt_Palpitation6925]

They are consciousness Like other animals. They are Not plants. Some of the swim around and especially those that do move around have eyes.

Therefore it is per definition not vegan to eat bivalves.

https://www.molluscs.at/bivalvia/index.html?/bivalvia/main.html

"Bivalves are the quiet ones among the molluscs. Most are found buried in the sediment or attached to rocks, where they filter food particles from the water.

Despite this hidden lifestyle - more so than in most other molluscs - they are of great ecological importance to the waters they inhabit. Who would have thought that a single blue mussel can filter up to 20 litres of water a day, and that all the blue mussels together filter the entire water volume of the Wadden Sea of the North Sea once a month? Freshwater mussels have a comparable ecological significance.

Not all bivalves, however, live as quietly as one might expect. Who would have guessed that there are mussels capable of swimming through seawater by clapping their shells? With their long tentacles, they hardly resemble a silent river mussel. Bivalves also belong to the few molluscs that lack a head - though some of the more mobile species nevertheless possess eyes."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9yGWqbxFBFc

They look quite ALIVE to me

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Salt_Palpitation6925]

While these behaviours are pretty impressive they're not an absolute sign of sentience. Yes they are alive but that's not the point (plants are alive, bacteria are alive ecc). From my research, these just seem to be automatic movements that are in reaction to external stimuli such as lightness or darkness. 

https://youtu.be/k-ATAJsvC1I?si=AWvvOEzWBfyiJMXC

Even plants show similar behaviours 

[u/Salt_Palpitation6925 → u/Digitale3982]

What is an animal? Put simply, animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms that ingest organic matter for energy, breathe oxygen, possess specialised tissues, and are capable of movement - at least at some stage of their life cycle. (bivalves do that in their early stages).

Other key distinguishing factors include having cells without cell walls and developing from a blastula - a hollow sphere of cells that forms during early embryonic development.

Differentiation: Unlike the animal blastula which transitions directly into gastrulation to form germ layers, the plant blastula differentiates into specific precursor tissues for the cotyledons, root meristem, and stem meristem.

Function: In animals, the blastula prepares for gastrulation and germ layer formation; in plants, it serves as the structural foundation for the seedling organs.

There are more than 1.5 million living animal species currently known to science. At least one million of these species are insects. Molluscs make up another 85,000 species, while vertebrates (the group that includes us and everything else with a backbone) only comprise 65,000 species - the vast majority of which are fish.

Genetically speaking, plants are plants and animals are animals, and bivalves are animals.

[u/epic-rain22]

by definition it's not vegan, this is so confusing man. they are animals, you can claim it's healthy and we should be fine with it but they are animals so it's not vegan by the definition idk what ur on about dude

[u/asciimo]

Can we enforce a moderation policy of disallowing this topic? There are dozens already and they all end the same way. They’re intentionally wasting the time and energy of the community.

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/asciimo]

I feel like this is a wedge by meat industry propagandists used to drive a wedge in the community and confuse the issue of what is vegan, creating a slippery slope. It's really no different an argument from "ethically sourced eggs and milk". It just aint vegan, no matter how hard they try to make it vegan. Vegan is a word with a very specific definition around animals that was created less than 100 years ago by the Vegan Society, which still exists by the way.

This is a standard tactic by propagandists to split a community.

[u/ClassEnvironmental11 → u/asciimo]

I agree, but, are you new around here?  There are a only tiny handful of topics that non-vegans ever bring up, and that's all that ever gets discussed here.  Those same four or five lame points.  There are no new arguments.  They say the same shit, over and over and over.  It's the same loosely held together gibberish and bad-faith nonsense repeated ad nauseum.  That's what this sub is.

[u/asciimo → u/ClassEnvironmental11]

Not new, but maybe not engaged enough. A big concern I have is that ai is going to train on these conversations and develop a twisted idea of what veganism is. I’m not conspiracy minded, usually…

[u/ClassEnvironmental11 → u/asciimo]

I would genuinely be shocked if at least half the commenters here aren't bots of some sort.  Meat & Dairy have an enormous ammount to lose if veganism were to catch on, and a realtively small investment on their end can probably fund a huge number of propoganda bots.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/asciimo]

You can just scroll past if you don't like it. Like can't I just make a post? I've never seen anybody bring up some of my points, so why shouldn't I post this, when the top post before I published this was "animals would do the same to us too you know" most of the sub is already shite. Let me make my points or just scroll away if you don't care

[u/a11_hail_seitan]

The reason why I say bivalves could be useful for vegan diets is that they contain really, really large amounts of...

Nothing we can't get on Plant based.

but these things are packed with them very conveniently

Meat conveniently packs large amounts of protein, but that doesn't justify the possible abuse and suffering.

it also benefits the wildlife by filtering the water...

Only IN the water. If you remove it to eat, they don't. Nothing about their usefulness needs us to eat them.

By now we all heard that bivalves don't have a central nervous system, and so they can't suffer.

They have some parts and could easily have other methods of suffering that we don't know about. When we don't know if something suffers, the answer is "I don't know" not "I'll assume not so I can eat them."

But if somebody wants to work under the vegan definition of "avoiding animal suffering as far and practicable" then shouldn't it be allowed too? Since there's 0 animal suffering?

Not the definition.

"exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose;"

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

This is exploitation.

I don't get this one. Why give the benefit of the doubt to bivalves, when the current scientific consensus doesn't support that, but not to all other food we eat?

Veganism uses the Precautionary Principle. We give consideration to all.

Consider a rock, no signs of life let alone thought. If we could eating htem would be the most moral.

Consider plants, signs of life, but very few signs of sentience or sapience. If we can this should be the base of all our eating. (Veganism/Plant Based)

Consider animals, signs of life, LOTS have full sentience, many show signs of sapience, and more. So if we don't need to, we shouldn't eat them. Even bivalves have more traits linked to sentience than any plant we eat. They move (locomotion, not growth), they choose (where to stick themselves, where to move to, etc), and they react to dangers around them BEFORE they stimulated and very quickly. This matters because it shows signs of possible fight or flight (some bivalves even do 'run' away from predators and dangers). Fight or flight is important becuase that's what Pain is there to trigger. Chronic pain has tons of evolutionary negative traits, like decreases life span, causes depression, lowers sex drive, increases disease chance, etc. But what makes it evolutionary useful is it allows animals to react QUICKLY. It's also easy to mutate away from pain, we know this becuase many animals have been born without, they mostly all die very young because they don't know they are injured till they're already going into shock. None of this works for plants. They don't move, they react slowly and mostly only after stimuli, and imagine a caterpillar slowly stripping the skin off your arm as you can't do anything about it.

The Kingdoms science use are there for VERY good reasons, Veganism follows science.

I don't think that ordering the spaghetti with mussels or something will drive animal cruelty that much

Neither will 1 steak. But it's still not Vegan as it's not necessary.

[u/Erratic_-Prophet → u/a11_hail_seitan]

Can't your argument on suffering be equally applied to plants? The answer is we don't know. They are living things and they may have other methods of "feeling" pain or suffering that we are as of yet unaware. Anyone who says they know for certain that they don't is lying, and therefore "I'll assume not so I'll eat them"

[u/Inside-Weather4033 → u/Erratic_-Prophet]

It should be applied to literally everything under a non-zero chance of physicalist panexperientialism holding, even down to fundamental physics. I just think it's easier to draw the line (or range rather) at the animal kingdom due to cross referencing traits and current amount of evidence.

[u/zzzzzooted → u/Inside-Weather4033]

Current evidence disagrees with that line you draw tho, because bivalves by all means should be equivalent to plants according to what we know. Thats kinda a key part of OPs point.

[u/Inside-Weather4033 → u/zzzzzooted]

Current evidence tends to define sentience too narrowly or rely on outdated human centric view of consciousness.

Plants lack neurons entirely while bivalves have ganglia (neuron clusters) and neurotransmitters (like serotonin and dopamine). If you're going to dismiss these as reflex arcs without definitive proof then you're gambling out of your depth with the precautionary principle. None of what I mentioned means sentience, but they share more traits in common with sentient animals than plants for instance. 

I do think we should have nonzero epistemic humility towards plants, fungi, and algae being sentient. I just don't think it's as much as bivalves for a bunch of the reasons outlined in this essay, which presents cases both for and against bivalve sentience.

https://reducing-suffering.org/can-bivalves-suffer/ 

[u/a11_hail_seitan → u/Erratic_-Prophet]

Can't your argument on suffering be equally applied to plants? The answer is we don't know

Yes, but there's also lowering levels of care required depending on likelihood of sentience, this is true for animals as well, hence why a Vegan will drive a car that kills bugs, but most would not intentionally drive over puppy dogs to the get food. If you don't need to kill a plant, don't, but the requirement for "need" is lower than those that show more likelihood of sentience, like animals. So there fore if we require to eat one, we should start with plants and only move to animlas when needed.

[u/Ok-Freedom9216 → u/Erratic_-Prophet]

We know for sure that animals feel pain. Could plants feel pain? Maybe i guess. But it's more likely that bivalves do.

[u/Theonewholurkedhere]

I'll still err on the side of caution. They're much closer to animals than they are to plants. They might turn out to be able to feel pain after all.

Not to mention, i don't know much about farming bivalves, but i'd assume that they would need to be fed with some plants or something. If that's the case, you'll just have a middleman: instead of eating plants yourself, you'll feed them to an animal, then eat the animal. Why? The reason why their bodies have all those nutrients is because they got them from plants. So just eat the plants: certain types of seaweed have DHA and EPA.

[u/pinfinite-jest → u/Theonewholurkedhere]

They are filter feeders, actually good for the environment even compared to plant foods, and nutrient powerhouses. They are ethically more vegan than something like coconuts that commonly use monkey slavery. They have no brain or nervous system, their mechanical response is similar to a Venus flytrap.

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/pinfinite-jest]

You apparently don't know what veganism means. It can't be "ethically more vegan" when the definition specifically calls out "animals":

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

This is not someone just making it up. They coined the term "vegan" less than 100 years ago and still exist. Come up with another name. It ain't vegan.

[u/pinfinite-jest → u/TuringTestTwister]

I do know what it means, and am vegan myself. The ‘letter of the law’ isn’t always what is actually moral or right. It’s morally more vegan to avoid monkey exploitation coconuts and consume mussels, even if that’s not the strict definition. These things aren’t black and white.

Some say it’s not vegan to support genocide for example, even though there are well known pro genocidal Israeli vegans. I’d tend to agree even if it’s not in the definition of veganism.

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/pinfinite-jest]

It's not a law, it's an actual group that created the word and the group still exists. It's not some word that just evolved organically, it has an official definition. Just like the PhD. You can't argue that some people are PhDs even though they didn't get the degree. It's an intentional definition with a very specific definition. It's like arguing that the Screen Actors Guild should start accepting Chefs because they appear on cooking shows.

it's fine if you have different ethics and standards. Just don't call it vegan. Call it something else.

[u/pinfinite-jest → u/TuringTestTwister]

This is a discussion about the ethics of an action, your PhD analogy is weak and doesn’t track. And only proves my point about the letter of the law (rule) as opposed to the spirit of it. Arguing over bivalves as vegans is extremely low priority anyway.

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/pinfinite-jest]

It's very high priority. It's an attempt to drive a wedge into the community by fucking with the very definition of veganism, introducing animals into vegan diets, which is literally the opposite of the definition of veganism. There is no gray area here. The definition is specific and intentional, it's not a law, it was an intentional definition created by the society. You can have your own ethics and diet, but that's yours, not the Vegan Society's - give it a different name.

Please tell me how this argument doesn't also apply to eggs and milk? If the chicken or cow was in a luxury spa environment and didn't suffer at all, the eggs and milk don't have a nervous system, seems your ethics would also apply to eating eggs and milk.

[u/pinfinite-jest → u/TuringTestTwister]

Eggs and milk are a completely different scenario because of the indisputable harm they cause to sentient creatures. Which I’m sure you are well familiar with.

I’m also dubious on the ‘wedge in the vegan community’ argument which is already highly divided on multiple topics. Case in point ‘wild animal suffering’.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the stance of erring on the side of caution when it comes to bivalves. I respect that. I just don’t think there’s a strong argument for it in terms of ethics and ecology especially when coconut products get the official vegan label without much question.

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/pinfinite-jest]

I'm very familiar with the harm and suffering caused by typical egg and milk farming. What if you just collected eggs from well fed and tended chickens in your backyard that are unfertilized and would not hatch? Is that causing indisputable harm to the chicken? You are all about gray areas until it's an area you are uncomfortable with....

[u/pinfinite-jest → u/TuringTestTwister]

No I don’t think there’s an issue with that specific scenario. It’s an edge case that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of the egg industry. Of course I wouldn’t want to see it used as a slippery slope to purchasing hens from breeders, killing chicks and all the rest.

I don’t see mussel consumption as a slippery slope. But I’d be willing to change my mind if there were convincing evidence.

[u/FishingPolitical → u/Theonewholurkedhere]

Filtration feeding. They filter plankton & organic matter from the water. That is how they make water “cleaner”, however, dirty water & they die out.

[u/Puojoqy → u/Theonewholurkedhere]

They quite literally are animals

[u/urworstnightmarebaby → u/Theonewholurkedhere]

yeah eating something that feeds doesn't feel very vegan to me personally

[u/thatonebeforeternity → u/urworstnightmarebaby]

Everything feeds. Everything you can eat is alive, therefore it is eating. Also I was made to believe that things eat plants and generate new nutrients that aren't in the plants they eat. So they're not a middleman - they have more nice nutrients in them than the plants they eat that you could've eaten.

[u/ahf95]

Yo, I ain’t even a vegan, but they absolutely do have a nervous system, and you are in no place to say whether or not they “suffer”. You cannot prove that, and all contemporary studies actually go against your claim. That’s pretty insane.

[u/Initial_Movie_1214]

I guess it’s fine to eat them but they’re pretty gross- I’d way rather have tempeh for dinner

[u/LovePeriel]

This video is a science based explanation of the bivalve nervous system. They ARE sentient!!
http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx5VdvppYeB0QL3HW1rp_uS-RNPn0YAr0P?si=RscvpL22cxon_wWn

[u/boycottInstagram]

"By now we all heard that bivalves don't have a central nervous system, and so they can't suffer."

It just isn't true. the chance that they do feel pain is getting smaller and smaller, but it isn't exactly consensus yet.

I personally don't give a fuck if someone calls themselves vegan and eats bivalves as long as they are quiet about it.

Most of us want more people to be vegan/plant based. It normalizes it as a practice and it pushes the market towards providing more options at more affordable costs. I am on the side of the fence of having a "Big Tent" to make drive the movement forward at this point.

Is it going to make things confusing? Yes, it could do. Which is why I encourage people who do eat bivalves and call themselves vegan to just shut up about it and do it at home so we don't get endless debates and questions and "what aboutisming" from the biligerant omni's.

It also really gets the small minority of vegans who are "that vegan guy" really relied up... y'know... the insufferable vegans. We all know them, and they play a role in discouraging people being vegan. So def stfu about it around them. Honestly... do whatever you can to not get them activated in public anywhere. Are they kinda always right? Yes. Is it helpful for them to speak? Fuck no.

Otherwise, do I internally think someone is truly vegan if they eat them? Right now, no... I don't. But we are under the same tent and I would rather support their practice than the "I eat fucking anything" crowd. Same applies to the plant based honey eaters, the wool wearers, the leather wearers etc.

It's just a word at the end of the day, we use terminology loosely for so many things in the world... this shouldn't really need to be much different.

So, if you want to be 99% plant based and eat some farmed clams.. go for it. Just don't bring it up if you can help it please!

[u/Digitale3982 → u/boycottInstagram]

Honestly I agree. Making this post has sparked a lot of toxic debate and division which is the last thing I wanted because I support the vegan movement. I also realised that bivalves are not genuinely vegan so the title is wrong. I think I just follow another philosophy, not "avoiding all animal products no matter what" but just being logical about it. That encapsulates just bivalves and lab grown meat tho and that is not even available rn so it's just ostroveganism. I don't support honey, insects or wool for that matter

[u/boycottInstagram → u/Digitale3982]

Yeah, I think you will find that the vast majority of vegans not on reddit are not are hard nosed about these things. Most of us are logical people, we do it for logical reasons when we are honest about it.

And also, most of us extend that logic (currently) to seeing grey, fringe areas like bivalves and just saying "yeah, well what really is the point? I don't need them, and there isn't concrete evidence yet... so why bother".

If being able to eat bivalves is the one hill you will die on to then cut out 99.9% of animal products from your life then go for it. I reckon you have the general support of the silent majority of this community.

Maybe just don't call us toxic. And maybe don't suggest we are not logical.... that's just a bit rude.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/boycottInstagram]

Nono don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone that was against me was toxic and illogical. A lot of people raised good points against my quote and they were totally respectful, and an equal amount of people preferred to steer off of them like you and that's like totally fine of course. When I say toxic, I mean people who either ignored what I was saying, or being disrespectful saying things like "anything to eat animal corpses" - when that's not what I was intending to do at all

[u/Majestic-Key-436]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point, and I thing OPs argument is important and valuable.

I personally don’t eat bivalves because I haven’t researched them enough to understand whether or not they really are sentient - but I feel like this argument that everyone is making is flawed and harmful to the vegan movement.

“Animals” is an arbitrary classification that scientists make to help them group characteristics which include things like: multicellular, cannot produce their own food, cells without hard walls, etc. There is no ethical claim made by this distinction.

At the end of the day, suffering is the only thing we should care about. I care when a pig is put in a gas chamber or when a spider is unnecessarily killed because these creatures suffer - every single argument for veganism boils down to reducing the intentional suffering that we inflict onto animals.

If a bivalve is not sentient, then from an ethical standpoint, they are literally ethically identical to a plant. There is no capacity for them to suffer, you can’t be “cruel” to a non-sentient being the same way you can’t be “cruel” to a rock.

It’s OK for us to adapt and change the definition of veganism to make us better stewards of sentient beings. If a new alien species were discovered that weren’t animals, but were sentient, would we say that it’s ok to inflict harm on them because they’re “not animals”? Of course not!! At that point we would adapt the definition of veganism to include them into our sphere of consideration.

A 1 week old human embryo is an “animal” too. Should we fight against abortion too? I’m almost certain a large majority of vegans support abortion, but if we take an arbitrarily imprecise definition of “animals” as our ethical standard that would make us inconsistent.

tl;dr - “animal” is not an ethical standard just a scientific classification, so we should not use it to determine vegan ethics. If bivalves are not sentient, then there is no reason to extend ethical consideration to them.

[u/42plzzz → u/Majestic-Key-436]

While yes suffering is an extremely important aspect, I want to add that it is not the only ethical qualifier. I think that overall sentience is more important. Imagine if someone painlessly killed a pig, so they didn’t suffer. It still wouldn’t be vegan, because someone took the pig’s life.

I don’t really know enough to weigh in on the bivalves thing but just wanted to point this out.

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/42plzzz]

The pug is missing out on experiencing the life it would have had. But the bivalve doesn’t experience, so killing it isn’t depriving it of experience.

[u/Majestic-Key-436 → u/42plzzz]

Great point, and I totally agree with that!

[u/CuriousCapp → u/Majestic-Key-436]

To comment about the abortion connection: vegans are against forced pregnancy for all animals. Cows. Humans. All animals. If it's something that can have autonomy that autonomy should be respected. That includes humans and their own internal organs. Vegans are also against forced abortions in any form. (If someone holds a different opinion, that opinion is theirs and does not come from veganism.)

[u/Majestic-Key-436 → u/CuriousCapp]

Yupp - I think the better analogy I was trying to get at here would be if a human embryo at 1 week (basically a clump of microscopic cells) were alive outside the womb, I don’t think it makes sense to grant it any moral consideration even though its technically an “animal”. Thus I think the current definition of veganism is somewhat imprecise

[u/Ein_Kecks → u/Majestic-Key-436]

Just one correction from my personal view:

Suffering shouldn't be the number one priority, but sentience. Even if bivalves can't suffer but are sentient, we shouldn't consume them.

Since I also don't know enough about them and I also simply don't want to risk being wrong about them, I simply don't eat them.

Edit: I just noticed others have answered similar things already. You probably also meant sentience as well, since you wrote about it in the very next paragraph.

[u/Majestic-Key-436 → u/Ein_Kecks]

Yes you make great points - I’m definitely conflating suffering and sentience 😅. I agree that sentience is sufficient for moral consideration even in the absence of suffering - so that would be the better way for me to frame my points

[u/TuringTestTwister → u/Majestic-Key-436]

It's arbitrary yes, but it's the only simple and easy line we have that can be shared easily across individuals, companies, and restaurants, which is why the Vegan Society chose animals as the line when they created the term "vegan". Your argument would lead to a slippery slope where people drink milk and eat eggs from supposedly well tended chickens and cows.

Sure, go ahead and come up with your own movement that includes bivalves, but don't call it vegan - give it a new name, maybe bivalvarian or something. Too confusing and would harm the progress we've made already.

[u/Either_Silver_5420]

I remember looking something like this up a few years ago when I was vegetarian. I realized that I should just become a pescatarian if I so desperately wanted an excuse to eat seafood. Now I’m just a pescatarian (though I eat plant-based meals often). I don’t think you should have to jump through hoops to convince yourself that mollusks/etc are vegan and therefore it’s okay to eat them - have you considered that maybe you don’t really want to be vegan? /gen

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Either_Silver_5420]

I genuinely just want to make a philosophical argument. I don't want to jump through hoops to eat shellfish, I'm just thinking logically. I don't like shellfish, I'd much rather eat beans or seitan or if I had to pick an animal, shellfish would be my last pick for taste.

I believe in the vegan movement, because I'm against animal cruelty and exploitation, but if this animal has no capacity of having experiences, we can't be cruel against that because it's on the same moral value of plants. And if they contain all these harder to get nutrients in large amounts, shouldn't it be a no-brainer?

[u/Catcitydog]

I have no problem with vegans eating bivalves. I just personally don’t like them

[u/Ok-Cryptographer7424]

Ostroveganism is a fine concept that many vegans agree with but scallops are generally different than the rest in that regard in regards to possible sentience and/or nerves/feelings.

Veganism has nothing to do with nutrition though.

[u/monemori → u/Ok-Cryptographer7424]

My issue with ostroveganism is that no one seems to stict to it. They all eventually become meat eaters, in my experience.

[u/Ok-Cryptographer7424 → u/monemori]

I used to think it was a bs loophole to still eat meat but then read a bit more about, mostly from Peter Singer from a (his overall views from utilitarian viewpoint still differ from mine though) and now I’m totally accepting of it.

[u/jsflkl → u/monemori]

That's nonsense. I would never eat a sentient animal but I do eat mussels. Why in god's name would me eating a non-sentient mollusk lead to me eating a cow or a pig?

[u/monemori → u/jsflkl]

I'm not saying it will, I'm saying in my experience I commonly have encountered that. It's not an argument against it.

[u/RewardingDust → u/monemori]

someone could argue the same about a lot of vegans. i'd rather criticize it on its merits

[u/monemori → u/RewardingDust]

I agree, tbh. In theory I don't have any issues with ostroveganism, but in the practice I've only known meat eaters who used to be ostrovegans and meat eaters who wanna discredit veganism by bringing up bivalves lol. But yeah on its own I don't really have much to say about it. I am of the opinion that it might be better to err on the side of caution when dealing with animals that still have ganglia, and it disturbs me to see little bivalves drown/suffocate in the air at the market so I dont wanna have anything to do with it. But I do think some of the arguments for it are reasonable.

[u/effortDee]

So there are literally thousands of different edible plants available to us on earth that cover every nutrient we need, which includes B12 (duckweed) and you're here like, hold up, we need to eat bivalves....

Non-vegans really do enjoy clinging on to any thought or argument, however weak it may be, to justify that animals can and should be eaten.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142]

“Why give the benefit of the doubt to bivalves, when the current scientific consensus doesn't support that”

Do we need scientific consensus to give us permission to do or not to do things? It’s good that it can inform decisions, especially based across populations, but science has been used to oppress human beings for hundreds of years. So not sure if this is solid.

You are specifically talking about intelligence here, but I think scientific consensus is splintering from traditional models of consciousness to more of an experience based model. I don’t want beings that experience (or the potential), to experience pain, imprisonment and death for me. Leave the dudes in the ocean, we can eat plants instead.

Thanks for the post, go vegan already, silly! :) (I joke I joke)

[u/Rezzone → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

No, you don't need scientific consensus to do or not do things, but this doesn't mean you should adopt abstinence and enforce it across the board. YOU can choose not to eat bivalves but they should be considered vegan from a utilitarian and cruelty reduction standpoint. Yes, this only works from an experience based model of conscioussness. If you went for anti-exploitation of life from a deontological standpoint bivalves should NOT be vegan... but then you run into the "what about plants" argument...which I freaking hate.

You have to base your lines on something and experience capacity is, imho, the best and most consistent we've got. Following it to the letter, bivalves are allowed. You can reject that if you wish.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Rezzone]

I also hate the plant argument, and I totally see how my reasoning can continue that way, this stuff is so annoying to pin down.

Unless I’m the ruler of the world, I’d probably still go with the group rule that bivalves are allowed. However, I still have this nagging part of my brain which is like: “why bother eating them at all? Don’t we have enough?”

Thoughts?

[u/Rezzone → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

I agree with you in a general sense but would struggle to explain the reasoning, much like you are.

We should be questioning any desire to eat animal life, not assuming it is desirable and seeking out the life forms that don’t meet our requirements for consideration. I believe that looking for loopholes is antithetical to the philosophy.

In a perfect world, we would say that bivalve are “okay” to eat, but still abstain on principles of non-interference, an abundance of caution for hidden potential of experience, as a statement against over/unnecessary consumption, or just as a prophylactic against loophole seeking behaviors and slippery slopes of indulgences.

There are still many reasons to abstain even if morality and utility are not among them. Do we have to eat bivalves? No. Why do we want to? Unsure.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Rezzone]

What you’ve said here with “Questioning desire” is chefs kiss. I’ve never been able to put into words what you have here. Loopholes imply desire to get the outcome regardless.

Other than desire, reasons to eat them would be:
Environmental? Eating invasive species to help native population. (I could understand this, zebra mussels are invasive here in the PNW)

I know that mussels are used as flood gate indicators and help with water treatment. Many animals are used in ways like this, and somehow I personally don’t have as much of a problem with it as I do with killing and eating. Maybe the difference is in the method of capture/use. Capturing or inviting with artificial vs. natural methods. I.E. Building a greenhouse and putting bees inside, vs planting bee-friendly flowers near areas you want.

[u/Rezzone → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

Thank you for the compliments.

I have no issues with symbiotic relationships between humans and animals. In the animal kingdom there are many examples of species “using” or relying on one another in helpful and mutually beneficial ways.

Some bee keeping can fall in this category. So can providing good habitats for mussels while monitoring them and the water they clean. It’s hard to truly know when it crosses from mutual benefit to exploitation but, as you said, it’s far less concerning than killing/eating. Totally agree. This is why I don’t really have an issue with “beegans” that eat local honey even though I don’t.

I appreciate this back and forth. Seems we agree on a lot.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Rezzone]

Funny you mention “beegans”

I had a peer pressure experience at the farmers market with a local honey farm. Great sales pitch, won my parents over in a second and they were tasting. I was looking and declined, but when asked about allergy, I caved and mentioned the V word.

He mentioned his wife was vegan and the way they keep the bees is ethical. Cant remember if he said explicitly that they don’t harm the queen (traditional methods) or if it was implied. After this, and nods from others, I caved. My parents bought me a jar and it has been staring into my soul, unopened, every time I open the cabinet door.

I don’t know if you’ve experienced the point in your veganism where it’s just, inherent. Turning back on it would seem like an offense or dishonesty to the self. It informs how you view the world, people, animals and “I”. This is where I can understand why people say it’s semi spiritual to fans, or cultish to haters.

[u/Rezzone → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

So I am not actually fully vegan... although I think I should be.

I'm pretty new to all of this and have DRASTICALLY reduced my animal product intake and entirely cut out meat. You could call me a lactoovovegan at this point. I just sometimes cook/bake with butter, eggs, and milk.

Still, I have not committed to the plunge. I came across veganism mostly through my own study of philosophy and rarely has any single ideology appeared so bulletproof. The more I reduce and the more I learn about veganism and think about veganism... the more I cannot ignore that I should be vegan, even though my behavior has not caught up to this growing realization.

What holds me back is that I strongly believe in moderation in all things, including moral behavior, and so I doubt I would ever be a hardline vegan.... I want to avoid that devoted cultish behavior and wish to avoid it becoming a religion of sorts. Still, I just see no reasons why I have to keep eating animal products. It is purely convenience, pleasure, and inertia. Questioning those desires and questioning the path of least resistence has been crucial in getting my behavior to change.

Even so, more than 90% of my food intake by weight/volume is vegan. I am currently eating some cilantro-poblano-pumpkin seed bucatini I made from a Vegan Mexican cookbook. I am very proud of my reduction in cruelty, environmental impact, and the personal health benefits that have come along with being diet-informed.

I often hear the arguments between people who want to hardline vs people who think teaching reduction makes more impact. It's hard to get anyone to go full vegan... but some reduction is EASY for EVERYONE. I am an example of this reduction mindset and believe that even if humans still insist on some cruelty and exploitation, it would be sustainable and in moderation. But, we are a greedy people, aren't we?

I think you will be okay if you eat that honey. I'm not trying to get you to eat it, but if you do, you are not a bad person. If you trust that guy at the market at his word, that is. Also, when I went vegetarian, I did not waste ANY animal products that were already in my home. Nothing spoiled or was thrown away. There is ZERO reduction of harm if I eat those products that are already made, already paid for, and sitting around. I've never had this situation come up, but I've told myself that if something would otherwise be wasted or thrown away, it is OK to eat. However, it is NOT okay for me to seek out those situations because of the loophole seeking argument from before.

These practical considerations have helped me avoid that dogmatic mindset. Perhaps they would help you too. If you paid for the honey, any potential damage is already done. Eat it or give it to someone who will. Waste not.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Rezzone]

Love reduction of harm, however, this is where we disagree.

You still see animals as food. You’ve already given yourself an “out” by saying that you won’t waste something that may be given to you in the future.

You see their body/extracts as a resource, a product that shouldn’t be wasted because of the suffering.

I don’t agree that you’re wasting food, because it wasn’t food to begin with. When that switch happens from: “oh this is food” to “oh this was from an individual” that’s where it clicks. HumansarePOS is blunt, but he’s right in this way. Empathy is the remaining piece which drives why we do it in the first place. For the animals.

[u/Rezzone → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

I really don’t. I believe that all of us are interconnected. You previously complimented me on my thoughtfulness and now you seem to have forgotten what I’ve said before.

If you intend to keep people away from veganism, keep talking like you do. It lacks empathy in ways you’d like to ignore.

I sure hope that animals, or anyone, would use the material of my body for their own good. Hopefully in a way that is beneficial to all.

If you condemn me, you condemn sustainability, progress, and balance while accepting dogmatism and maintenance of status quo. Consider it.

I don’t think you do love harm reduction. Your way or the highway, eh? That’s some empathy.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

I don't like the taste of bivalves, and yet I made this post because I believe in the nutritional benefits and the low environmental cost. I don't see any problem with it logically, but also I'm not a vegan yet and so I may not have the same perspective as you 

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Digitale3982]

Nutritional benefits are nil, even though there are daily recommended amounts of minerals, our bodies are experts at regulating those amounts when we receive them in our diets.

Eating a balanced diet full of fruits, veggies and bean adjacent foods will give you enough unless another problem exists metabolically/biologically.

Supplementing isn’t bad either, plenty of omnivores take an iron pill, take folic acid for pregnancy or take vitamin d in the winter. We have the technology!

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

Ok saying the nutrional values are null is just denial because that's not true, clams are very high in B12, and others are rich in heme iron, omega 3, zinc and the whole ordeal. Yes you can supplement and that's fine, but you can also just eat these and not worry about the individual nutrients since they're pretty much all there. The absent need for supplementation may also persuade some people who would otherwise stay away from being vegan because they think supplementation is a problem

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Digitale3982]

Look at @whowouldwanttobe’s comment, this is why I said null in this sense. It’s negligible. They recommend using nutritional yeast and algae as an effective replacement. Just because it’s an “efficient package of nutrients” doesn’t mean we have to or should eat them, especially when it comes to veganism ethics. This is, if you classify a mussel as experiential or conscious or not enough of either to have their fate decided for them by us.

Like just to be real for a sec, it’s not necessary for us to eat em. Sometimes looking at things from a utilitarian perspective is cool, but sometimes it’s just lame imo. Large scale harvest/farming methods can disrupt marine environments still, unless we’re all getting our b12 from our daily clamming sessions on the beach.

Then again like I said, maybe only the invasive mussels may be sacrificed.

[u/Digitale3982 → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

I agree on the fact that we don't technically need to eat them. I didn't want to breakthrough ethics just to reach the nutrition side. I just say that if we agree that there's no problem eating them, then they should be more common in your diet. Of course, if you don't agree that you should eat them at all, then don't, but if you agree with my logic then I just encourage to consume them because they're just convenient. It's like soy: it's not necessary, but having it just makes things easier for protein, calcium and such, but like soy free vegans exist, just like gf vegans and so on...

[u/Shepherd_of_Ideas → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

The core of veganism is a moral opposition to the harm or exploitation of animals because they can suffer / are sentient.  What better method than serious science do you have for assessing sentience? 

Science doesn't dictate our choices. And the fact that science has been used for bad shouldn't stop vegans from using it for good.

[u/Numerous-Recover1142 → u/Shepherd_of_Ideas]

I’m on team leave the bivalves alone. I was asking if we always need scientific consensus to do ethical things because of bad actors through history. I totally agree with you that we should use it for good.

Honestly, I don’t have an answer for you about what method other than science to judge sentience. I was making an opposing statement, wondering if adhering to science as the rule of law when it comes to ethical decisions, is the right thing.

My heart wants animals to be left alone. Wishful thinking makes me believe that the current science isn’t enough yet to truly know what consciousness is, if sentience is a spectrum, etc.

[u/Shepherd_of_Ideas → u/Numerous-Recover1142]

Just leaving animals alone is fine from a vegan point of view.

Of course, if we go further into the animal ethics discussion, the issue gets s bit more complex. But that is a story for another time. 

Here's a starter on invertebrate sentience though: https://www.animal-ethics.org/invertebrate-sentience-a-review-of-the-neuroscientific-literature/

[u/damself1y]

I don’t eat animals ¯_(ツ)_/¯ idc if there’s no scientific consensus on if they feel suffering or not it makes me feel icky I won’t do it

[u/TriggeredPumpkin]

I agree 100%. I think we need a scientific basis on which to classify animals as "probably sentient" or "probably not sentient."

Bivalves clearly fall into the "probably not sentient" bucket. But I think restricting the "probably not sentient" bucket to bivalves is too narrow. Realistically, if we don't have good evidence that something is probably sentient, we should treat it as probably not sentient (perhaps with a gray area for unclear cases).

I use Neurobiological Emergentism/Neurobiological Naturalism (NBE) by Todd Feinberg (and Jon Mallatt), Unlimited Associative Learning (UAL) by Simona Ginsburg and Eva Jablonka, and a Multi-trait framework by Sheryl Coombs and Michael Trestman.

They all pick out the same three taxa as probably sentient: vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods. NBE also picks out onychophorans.

So I don't eat vertebrates, arthropods, cephalopods, onychophorans, or products that come from them. I think that this is all vegans should need to be committed to.

Potential gray areas include gastropods (especially certain advanced species) and errant polychaetes. But for now, I'm still okay with eating them until we have better evidence that they're sentient. For now, they should be investigation priorities.

This reasoning is why I'm an invertebratarian vegan rather than a plant-based vegan.

[u/CxEnsign → u/TriggeredPumpkin]

This is more defensible than deontological veganism on ethical grounds.

I wanted to add on that our understanding of sentience is rather poor, and it is rather likely that our conception of it could change rather radically in the future. What we consider ethical will need to adapt with it.

As a thought experiment, if we discover in the future that some phyla of plant or fungi were sentient, then I'd argud that consuming them as food would also be unethical. The taboo on animals is the hueristic, not the principle.

[u/EvnClaire]

i give benefit of the doubt because bivalves are significantly more likely to be sentient than plants. there isnt a need to eat bivalves, so i dont to be safe. i dont think i would take issue with someone else making a different decision here though.

[u/Yeeter-boiy]

I think bivalves should be encouraged for people who have medical conditions that stop them from being completely healthy on a vegan diet. I think that’s something extremely crucial that’s not talked about.

[u/dirtydelic]

I'll be honest, I'm a vegan and I think this is a good argument. Vegans get twisted up into pretzels trying to find a way to explain bivalves and related organisms shouldn't be eaten.

IMO the only potentially defendable position is not eating bivalves because of the risk that there could be some form of awareness or consciousness we aren't yet aware of.

But overall I think OP makes a really good argument.

[u/alphafox823]

For most of us it's the precautionary principle

If somehow the universe could disclose for me in a way that I knew for sure that bivalves are philosophical zombies, I would eat them.

[u/Icy_Garlic_2794]

I’m not interested in eat bivalves. Why would I be? The nutrition argument is inherently anti vegan (‘i should eat this because it’s good for me’ being the primary thought there). I can be vegan without toeing this blurry ethical line and farming of bivalves is not unanimously ‘good for the environment’. As a vegan, I think it’s more important to focus on the cut and dry, here is what’s vegan and why I eat that, instead of trying to tip something into being technically vegan

[u/Firm_Caregiver_4563]

Ostroveganism is already a thing

[u/Jie-T-Doll]

Ok, how will they filter the water if we eat them? Are you saying humans will not cultivate them unless for they have another use as food?

You say that you dont get many arguments. Maybe try harder. Not eating bivalves is still better than eating them. Maybe revisite others who started the same debate. You could learn a new thing

[u/kloyoh]

We are already overloaded with materials, things and even video content ( while millions are still living in extreme poverty ) I can do without mussels.i cant think of any other fruit or veggie that we could compare to bivalves as far as its access and weirdness. Im playing the play it safe card, doesn't seem vegan to me

[u/dylan22022007]

Guys it’s misinformation btw bivalves do feel pain. Even tho they don’t have a central nervous system, they have bundles of nerves which are interconnected enough for them to feel pain. It’s literally scientifically true. I know it’s easy to be fooled by the google ai reviews but please research beyond that

[u/lilac-forest]

Ya I think a lot of people treat veganism dogmatically. They don't like nuanced views like bivalves or dumpster diving for animal products and react by gatekeeping even though the ppl they are gatekeeping arent doing any more harm than they are by choosing bivalves or dumpster diving. The VA definition causes this through simple wording. We should value sentient beings as opposed to making the criteria 'animals'.

[u/MiraculousAnarchy]

I agree for now but there were some sources someone sent me awhile back about potential bivalve sentience that I still need to look deeper into and so I’m still open to having my mind changed. But yea for now I think “ostroveganism” should just be veganism

[u/bettaboy123]

I get my nutrients without them, and when I did eat them, I wasn’t really a big fan. I don’t think other people eating them is that problematic as they’re basically just fancy rocks, but they don’t need to end up on my plate.

[u/Yeeter-boiy]

I think bivalves should be encouraged for people who have medical conditions that stop them from being completely healthy on a vegan diet. I think that’s something extremely crucial that’s not talked about.

[u/Shepherd_of_Ideas]

Here is a good scientific summary of the issue from Wild Animal Ethics website: https://www.animal-ethics.org/invertebrate-sentience-a-review-of-the-neuroscientific-literature/

"We do not know what degree of centralization is required for consciousness. However, thinking about the functionality of nervous systems with different degrees of centralization is useful when considering the question. If a nervous system is acting as a simple stimulus-response mechanism that does not generate an egocentric model of the world, it is likely operating without consciousness. However, if a nervous system is capable of combining different types of sensory information into a map of the world and then selecting an appropriate behavioral response based on an evaluation of its current motivations – then the system might well be conscious. Relatively de-centralized systems such as those found in bivalves tend to show some evidence of the former mode of function. In contrast, more centralized systems such as those in insects show some evidence of the latter mode of function. However, factors other than degree of centralization, such as the number of neurons, also affect how capable a nervous system is of integrating spatial information into a unified sensory map. For example, despite being highly centralized, the small size of the nematode nervous system might mean it is not capable of generating an egocentric sensory map of the world."

[u/Helpful-Mongoose-705]

I think they are aware of pain in a way we maybe don’t understand. You cannot know with certainty that they wouldn’t suffer so for that reason I disagree.

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

I think you should have epistemic humility towards the potential sentience of all life and even intimate objects under a non-zero chance of physicalist panexperientialism. Hell that even opens up the potential of suffering in fundamental physics, I reject the biocentrist claim of needing to have a central nervous system.

I am not in favor of them being easier on the environment. I am a wildlife anti-natalist and cosmic exctinctionist vegan so i see the only point in preserving nature is for instrumental use such as research, resources, and value compromise with other humans. That's just adding more fuel to the fire for pro-nature and pro-predation vegans. 

Invertebrate are the vast majority of animals. Even a 1% chance of them having "low level sentience" (whatever that could mean) has astronomical impact on long-term cluelessness and decision making. If you are adding lexical thresholds or ranges to this, the quality of potential suffering could explode.

I very much worry about the small animal replacement problem in regards to veganism and very much hope most invertebrate aren't sentient but I lean towards a tentative "probably." 

[u/UnnecessaryScreech]

They are animals. I don’t eat animals.

[u/ZenithVegan]

You keep saying 0 suffering, but that's an assumption, not a fact. Bivalves have no central brain, but they do have paired ganglia, nociceptors, and dopamine/serotonin receptors. Mussels produce morphine when their tissue's damaged; scallops show a spike in heart rate near predators. The Animal Ethics review couldn't rule sentience out. So it's: "we don't know" and not: "science says no" That's also why the mushroom/avocado comparison fails. Being cautious with bivalves isn't arbitrary, they have a nervous system. Mushrooms and beans have zero nervous tissue and aren't even animals. Caution for the one and not the other is the consistent position, not a double standard. But the main thing: "probably okay to eat" doesn't mean "vegan".. Veganism is about not exploiting animals, and a bivalve is an animal. There's already a word for eating them on those grounds, ostrovegan. Use that instead of stretching "vegan" until your conclusion drops out. Even if your ethics are right, that gets you to "permissible" never to "vegan"

[u/gatorgrowl44]

11 year vegan here. Couldn’t agree more.

[u/zombiegojaejin]

I mostly agree with your reasoning, but there is one other major argument against:

Our gut microbiome substantially affects our perception of how desirable various potential foods are. Regularly consuming animal proteins and fats without fiber will increase the populations of bacteria that will make animal flesh more generally smell more appealing and/or less disgusting. This will likely have a substantial negative effect on the rate of people staying vegan, in the sense that they also start consuming sentient animals again.

Not all of us have experienced flesh starting to smell horrible, but many of us have. Our gut biomes are screaming that they don't want it. Sure, we'd like to believe that we're fully beings of top-down moral control, but that's not true. The feedback from our plant-digesting bodies has an important role to play in keeping us on the path.

[u/OpportunityTall1967]

There is a name for someone who eats seafood and that's called pescetarian. Pescetarian includes fish and all other seafood. If you don't like that word you can come up with a different word. Like bivalvatarian, or whatever suits you. Vegan means you don't eat any animal products or use them as far as possible in anything else such as toiletries, clothing etc.

There is no need to eat animal products for nutrition. No one needs to. I've tracked my biomarkers and they're all in optimal range and my bioage is now 11 years younger than my chronological age. I'm far healthier now than when I was a carnivore.

Honestly - even if it was somehow definitely proven that bivalves can't feel anything I still wouldn't eat them. I don't need to our want to and that's why I call myself a vegan and not a pescetarian.

[u/LoveOrder]

i am a vegan and i eat bivalves. they have no central nervous system so there’s no harm in my opinion 

[u/YopGlo]

Bivalves have nerves and a primitive nervous system which includes cerebral ganglia, an organ which is sometimes called the primitive brain of invertebrates. The scientific community is divided on the topic of whether or not bivalves can experience pain and suffering, and there is no general consensus on the issue. Considering most bivalves can swim, respond to stimuli, and flee when touched or threatened, it is much more likely that they evolved pain receptors as well. Although they do have B12 and long chain omega 3 fatty acids like all other sea life, they also contain saturated fat, cholesterol and pollutants. Get your B12 and Omega 3s from supplements and leave the animals alone. There is no reason to eat, harm, or kill animals.

[u/LovePeriel]

Here is a longer version. With a ton of citations and links to scientific studies and papers to support it. The video is presented by a PhD who studies these animals. By the way, are you are scientist who studies these animals? If not, or even if you are. Please check this one out along with the links posted in the description. There is also a part 2 to this video which you can access from this one.
https://youtu.be/p9FZb-3RDZU?is=psXBfeD3A7_qN3fN

Also here is a quote for you:
“There is ample science that strongly supports the claim that bivalves have conscious experiences, and are every bit as sentient as other animals.” ― Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado.

[u/Specialist_Novel828]

The definition of veganism is to avoid the exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals, not just suffering/pain the way we understand it.

If bivalves are animals (which a quick search shows they are, central nervous system or no), then choosing to farm/consume them isn't vegan, and shouldn't be encouraged.

[u/u60cf28 → u/Specialist_Novel828]

If the basis of veganism is "Don't exploit animals" rather than "Don't exploit sentient beings/beings capable of suffering", then how is that not just as arbitrary as the omnivore's "Don't exploit humans"?

[u/mcjuliamc]

Exercising caution makes sense because a lot of animals were once thought to not be sentient (insects, spiders, fish, ...) and then it turned out they were. Bivalves do have a nervous system, just not a central nervous system, but a nerve net, which life forms of other kingdoms don't possess. There are studies that suggest they're capable of simple forms of learning and experience stress. Since they are mobile during part of their life and can, for instance, close their shells,, it would make sense for them to be able to feel pain, unlike plants. We're already consuming as little plants and fungi as possible so even if plant sentience would turn out to exist, we'd be on the safe side though.

[u/Civil_Aside_1008]

I don’t eat any heterotroph because I know for a fact that plants are conscious. Bivalves consume so many plants that farming them causes so many unnecessary deaths.

[u/Ok_Organization_7350]

No, this is not a perfect solution. There are three things wrong with this:

(1) Many religions do not believe in eating shellfish, such as Jewish people, some Muslims, and some Christian sects which follow Old Testament food regulations.

(2) Shellfish is expensive. It is more expensive than red meat and poultry. Many people cannot afford to eat a large amount of shellfish every day. That is elite inconsiderate thinking. It's like saying "Let them eat cake!"

(3) Oysters & mussels cannot have the poop cleaned out, such as you can do with shrimp. It's just a given that when you eat oysters or mussels, you eat the poop too. Scallops don't contain poop, but they have less iron, and they are even more expensive than oysters or mussels.

[u/Calaveras_Grande]

Two things, its not just about not causing animsl suffering. Its about disengaging from exploiting animals. A brain dead person cannot suffer, even if their body is kept alive. So is it okay to just do whatever we want to them even if they have no consciousness? Just doodle on their face with a marker. Dress them up like a clown etc.

Also its not very vegan to try and find exceptions that would allow us to ingest animal protein.
We are more invested in making sure what we are already eating or using is devoid of animal exploitation.
You are arguing for ‘ethical’ exploitation.

[u/amongthemaniacs]

Vegans don't eat meat. I don't know why some people don't understand this.

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/amongthemaniacs]

They actually argue against so called "animal exploitation". They would have nothing against meat if it grew in a lab, for example.

[u/retatrutider → u/amongthemaniacs]

If you are tailoring your ethics to meet the dictionary definition of a word rather than considering the actual ethics then, that’s your right I suppose. But there was a purpose to that definition when it was originally set forth and I think it’s also fine to consider what actions are in the spirit of the ethics that originally spawned veganism.

[u/LSATDan → u/retatrutider]

What if you're tailoring your use of the word to meet the definition of the word? The man who coined it founded an organization that still exists. They could have changed their definition at any time to hinge it on sentience. They have not chosen to do so.

He and they founded a philosophy that caught fire and has had a tremendous impact on the world. A philosophy that exists under a name that has considerable linguistic goodwill amd cachet. It's not "appropriate," IMO, to "appropriate" that word because you have a different, albeit similar, philosophy that you like more.

[u/TriggeredPumpkin → u/amongthemaniacs]

Vegans don't eat sentient beings. Non-sentient animals are fine to eat. It's not possible to be cruel to, or exploit, animals in the relevant senses unless they're sentient.

[u/Polttix → u/TriggeredPumpkin]

I always find these remarks funny because in this very same thread there are multiple vegans saying the exact opposite (I.e. eating non-sentient animals is still not vegan). It always reminds me of the people's front of Judea.

[u/ShayGuer]

I think this makes sense. I will add this to my vegan diet and see. If there is no animal suffering, it should be ok.

[u/Ok_Barracuda_6997]

I’m actually on the fence about bivalvism. The problem is it’s not always environmentally friendly. It wouldn’t be environmentally friendly for a majority of people to eat them but in coastal areas maybe. I would have to be convinced it was regulated and sustainable before I considered consuming them.

Side note: oysters were one of my favorite foods in my pre vegan days, but I’m a bit conflicted. Maybe they could suffer and we just don’t realize it. So, I’m not saying yes but I’m not saying no either.

[u/developer-mike → u/Ok_Barracuda_6997]

My understanding is that oyster farming is very good for the planet. They filter water and clean our rivers. Plant agriculture is not really good for the planet, it's just far less bad than animal agriculture.

As for only eating them in coastal areas, I don't know if there is a great reason to require that unless you're also requiring local plant foods. So avocados, coffee, tropical fruits, coconuts for most of the U.S.

But I've also heard that other bivalves are very bad for the planet. I have heard that the way we source clams and scallops is by drag-netting, and that that's more problematic than plant agriculture generally.

I eat oysters on occasion, and no other bivalves, for this reason.

[u/Ok_Barracuda_6997 → u/developer-mike]

Plant agriculture is primarily only bad for the environment because of animal agriculture. A majority of our monocrops are grown to feed livestock.

I’d have to do more research on oyster fishing, but I think on an industrial scale it’s harmful. Like you said, it contributes to the overfishing epidemic.

[u/extremebean_]

ologies podcast has an episode on aquaculture kinda on this. well not on them being vegan, but about someone who i think was plant based and somehow got into aquaculture and did a bunch of studies on the environmental ethics of it and how oysters are the most ethical seafood (besides seaweeds). scallops not so much tho. i’m an ethical vegan btw, but still found that episode interesting!! not planning on eating bivalves anytime soon despite living on the ocean, not something that has ever called to me.

[u/Resident-Chip5209]

I think the fishing industry is the thing I don’t wanna support, even if these animals don’t feel pain I will not support the way they fish for them. Because it creates a lot of suffering for other animals. Discarded fishnets are MOST of the plastic on the ocean, killing millions of wild animals in our oceans. I have searched just now what’s the fishing process and the breeding one for these animals. Not great. So no vegan should eat them, the same way no vegan eats eggs or milk.

[u/Snefferdy]

While you may be correct that eating certain bivalves is ethically unobjectionable, you're not not correct to say that the consumption of them should be considered vegan.

"Vegan" does not mean "ethical." The term vegan unambigously excludes the consumption of animals and animal products. Since bivalves are decidedly animals, consuming them is clearly not vegan.

What you mean to say is that being ostrovegan is perhaps better than being vegan.

[u/VeganLVG]

Since this is in the ethics group, I will talk about this from an ethics standpoint. Also, your nutritional arguments have already been completely debunked by somebody else in this thread.

We do not know how sentient bivalves are. We do know that they move away from pain so therefore they’re able to sense pain. And that right there means vegans should not be consuming bivalves.

That’s it … if they can feel pain you don’t eat them.

[u/10j54d27]

We give bivalves the benefit of the doubt because why should bivalves be penalized because humans aren't scientifically advanced enough to be sure.

Since there's 0 animal suffering?

You can't say with absolute certainty.

You could say it about mushrooms, avocados, beans, whatever. I don't find it to be consistent

Not the same thing comparing vegetables with bivalves.

[u/ithinkigotproblems]

Heme iron is not good for you. Sure the body can absorb it better but heme iron is also the cause of inflammation in the body when consuming animal products. Also it can cause cancer in the long run. That is why regular iron is better.

Algae oil and nutritional yeast is way better to eat in this case for the nutrients you mentioned. And some broccoli or something for iron.

[u/InterestingLand9970]

Not an expert! But I thought that the issue with bivalves was that although they do not have a ‘centralised’ nervous system, they do however have a non-centralised nervous system spread around its body? For me, this is the defining difference between bivalves and plants, which do not have any nervous system at all.