Sri Chinmoy

Our first subject of interest is the guru Sri Chinmoy, born in India in 1931 where he spent many years studying meditation and Hindu scriptures at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. In 1964 Chinmoy moved to the US and quickly took advantage of the popular New Age and hippy movement establishing the Sri Chinmoy Centre, promoting himself as a Guru of meditation. He soon attached himself to celebrities such as John McLaughlin and Carlos Santana and set himself up as the director of the “Sri Chinmoy: Peace Meditations at the United Nations” group, often using the position for self promotion and was even accused of misusing the UN logo. His empire grew to encompass thousands of followers and boast 400 meditation centres in 60 countries along with numerous businesses devoted to “divine enterprise” including many vegetarian restaurants. As part of his practice Chinmoy also preached vegetarianism stating,

When we eat meat, fish and so forth, the aggressive, animal consciousness enters into us. Our nerves become agitated; we unconsciously become restless and aggressive. The mild qualities of vegetables, on the other hand, help us to establish in our inner life as well as in our outer life, the qualities of sweetness, softness, simplicity and purity.

Upon visiting one his disciple’s restaurants the cult of Sri Chinmoy appear innocuous. Peaceful flute music and the smell of warm curry and veggie burgers fills the air, books on meditation are made available for reading, and the guru’s face adorns the walls, what could be so harmful about that? But a deeper examination uncovers accusations of manipulative behavior, sexual and emotional abuse, animal abuse, harassment of ex-devotees, homophobia, and hypocrisy. Chinmoy preached celibacy to his follows, but reportedly did not practice it himself. While Chinmoy has never been convicted of any sexual crime, a number of his ex-devotees have reported sexual impropriety and abuse. Though he preached compassion and vegetarianism he also collected exotic animals, including two monkeys, in his New York basement and used captive animals such as elephants in his stunts. Chinmoy reportedly advised followers generally against doctors and dentists as well, preferring homeopathy and meditation instead. Followers were also often advised to leave behind successful careers, dreams of college, family connections, and their native land in order to be closer to and serve Chinmoy. Despite claims of never asked for money documents reveal that Chinmoy was in fact a millionaire.

January 30, 1987, Sri Chinmoy allegedly lifts 7,063¾ pounds

Sri Chinmoy was quite the performer and was dubbed the “gonzo guru” for his media grabbing antics and extreme claims. Chinmoy is said to have produced at least 1200 books, 62,000 poems, 14,000 songs, 4,000,000 “peace bird” drawings and 150,000 paintings in his lifetime, though these figures vary depending on the source. Chinmoy often performed free concerts for the public and claimed to have played somewhere between 25 and 150 instrument during a single concert. He was also an avid athlete and runner and was well known for the grueling ultra-marathons he and his follows organized. Though perhaps Chinmoy is most famous for his many seemly impressive and unorthodox weight lifting stunts, including lifting elephants, hundreds of people, planes, cars, or just about anything that would look impressive in the newspaper. He claims to have once lifted 3½ tons with one arm at the age of 55 and has the pictures to prove it. Such a claim should draw immediate skepticism, this is not a simple feat of strength we are talking about but rather something which does not appear to be physically possible according to kinesiologists. Forget about having the muscle, his bone and tendons simply would not be able to handle the stress. But if there is no humanly way that Sri Chinmoy could lift as much as he claims, what are we to make of the photographs and video? Are they proof that he somehow has supernatural abilities? No, he simply cheated. Such trickery is a mainstay of professional gurus, the bed of nails and fire walking are more familiar examples, another famous trick is the levitating guru performed with the help of a special device. Chinmoy employed specially made machinery in his record breaking and media grabbing lifts that gave him considerable leverage. Beyond the use of these leverage devices Chinmoy was also reported to resort to the airbrushing of photos or outright lies, saying a video shows a successful lift where it clearly does not. While a number of professional weightlifters called Chinmoy out on his shenanigans, a few others were more interested in the inspirational quality of such huge lifts than pointing out the mechanical aids used by Chinmoy. Chinmoy’s followers have also made a habit of performing extreme stunts and breaking all kinds of obscure Guinness records to impress their guru and gain media coverage. The most prolific of these stuntmen was devotee Ashrita Furman who racked up hundreds of records over the years. Chinmoy’s philosophy of overcoming the psychical with the spiritual has lead some of his followers to put themselves in danger though, in 1979 one of Chinmoy’s devotees drowned while practicing a stunt. Chinmoy himself eventually ssuccumbed to a heart attack at the age 76 leaving behind over 2 million dollars in property.

Chinmoy lifts an airplane

My purpose in writing this is not to be a cynic or to call for a boycott of all religiously associated restaurants, but we need to be wary when our dollars may serve to enrich an abusive leader or perpetuate a manipulative organization. The ethics of consumption go beyond just animal flesh and byproducts. Many of us are well aware of some of these troubling ethical issues, human rights abuses in chocolate production, the toll of palm oil, labor abuses at Wal-Mart, ect. If the working conditions at places like Wal-Mart concern us, then we need to seriously consider claims that some cult-associated restaurants withhold tips, pay employees less than minimum wage, exploit immigrant labor, and fire employees who dare criticize the organization or leader. One of Chinmoy’s “divine enterprises” Ananda Fuara in San Francisco was sued in 2010 for some of these very same labor abuses. Ive actually eaten at Ananda Fuara before and they have a number of vegan options which are quite good. They serve some the best “beef” stroganoff is the best Ive had, but after doing my research for this post and reading about the lawsuit against Ananda Fuara I find myself seriously reconsidering eating there ever again.

Further Reading:
How fringe religious groups helped launch the healthy eating movement.  By Daniel Fromson
Leaving a Cult  By Jayanti Tamm
SRI CHINMOY EX-DISCIPLES FORUM
The Wild, Wacky & Questionable Claims of Sri Chinmoy at the Skeptic Tank
MO’ CHIN-UPS CHAPTER XII of Stripping the Gurus
Running Around in Circles: a Metaphor by Rebbecca Watson
Sri Chinmoy database at The Rick A. Ross Institute
Official website of Sri Chinmoy

*in this post I use the term “cult”, there is no agreed upon universal definition and competing lists of characteristics but for this post the definition most in mind is that laid out by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. The three primary criteria are as follows:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process of coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

It is important to remember there is a wide continuum of “cultishness”, not all groups fall on the Johnstown/Heavens Gate/Aum Shinrikyo extreme of the spectrum.

My mantra is “Read the original study”, whenever possible I like to track down the study and read it myself, not relying on journalists. This is one of the cases when reading the original paper can be enlightening. The paper starts out in the introduction saying, “The aim of this review is to set out information regarding the toxic potential of F and its effects on the nervous system, with special attention to populations exposed to the intake of this mineral at concentrations outside official guidelines.” The author goes on to cite studies of populations in areas with high natural fluoride concentrations and a few animal studies in which high doses were administered. At the end of the study the author concludes, “Fluorine is a chemical element found in high concentrations in the earth’s crust. In many countries where the main source of drinking water is hydrothermal, F concentrations exceed those contemplated by the corresponding official regulations…it is recommended that the geographical location of a given population and the quality of the water they drink should be taken into consideration so as to take preventive measures for its use and, in areas where the fluoride concentration exceeds 0.7 mg/L, to avoid the intake of the drinking water, fluorinated salt, and the use of toothpastes and articles containing F.“

As you can see, the misreporting of this study was simply another case of reading comprehension failure from the the fluoride fear-mongers. It does not serve as evidence that the current recommendations for fluoride use are significantly flawed or that such use is dangerous. Now repeat after me, read the original study, read the original study, read the original study, read the…

Another oft cited piece to bolster the claim regarding brain damage is an article titled “Indian study proves that fluoride consumption causes brain, neurological damage” that was reporting on a study titled “Neurodegenerative changes in different regions of brain, spinal cord and sciatic nerve of rats treated with sodium fluoride“. Contrary to what the anti-fluoridationists would have you assume this study was not about the suggested safe levels of artificial water fluoridation but rather about the toxic effects of exposure to excessively high levels at many times the recommend threshold of 0.7 ppm. You see India has many areas with naturally high fluoride levels, in some areas exceeding 20 ppm, resulting in some health problems. Knowledge of possible danger from high levels of natural fluoride in drinking water is nothing new. Health professionals and regulators are well aware of this issue and in many areas with naturally occurring fluoride filtration is used to lower fluoride content to safe levels. Additionally the study did not involve human subjects, rather its was a study that involved giving a group of 6 rats 20 ppm of sodium fluoride daily with another 6 rats acting as a control group. Given the nature and focus of the study and the tiny sample size it is simply not possible to extrapolate that the current practices of water fluoridation and use of dental fluoride are harmful. Once again we have a study taken out of context and misinterpreted to support the preconceived conspiratorial views of anti-fluoridation proponents.

Further Reading
When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature by Jason M Armfield

Objective The feasibility of a fluoride positron emission
tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for
imaging atherosclerosis has not been well documented.
The purpose of this study was to assess fluoride uptake of vascular calcification in various major arteries, including coronary arteries.

There you have it, the authors of the study we simply seeing if they could use fluorine-18 to image atherosclerosis rather than saying fluorine-18 induced atherosclerosis. But what about sodium fluoride? Sodium fluoride, along with hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate, is used in small quantities to fluoridate water supplies or salt depending on where you live. Fluoridation has rightfully been called one of the most successful and cost-effective public health measures, saving millions of dollars in dental work and preventing untold cavities. Fluoride’s safety has been well studied and when it comes to heart health numerous studies (1, 2, 3, 4) show no positive correlation between fluoridation and heart disease or increased mortality, in fact numerous studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8) show an inverse correlation with heart disease possibly resulting from reduced effects from dental infections. Contrary to what the anti-fluoridationists would have you believe, fluoride may actually have a protective effect for your heart. So next time you see a scary or sensational headline take a little time to look deeper, things often are not what they seem. Be skeptical, not susceptible.

Oh, and those claims some people make about how the Nazis used fluoride to dumb down prisoners? Totally and utterly baseless. Some people really do just make stuff up.

For more info please visit:
Fluoridation: Don’t Let the Poisonmongers Scare You on Quackwatch
All About Fluoridation on Skeptoid
fluoridation of water on the Skeptic’s Dictionary
Fluoridation Facts from the ADA
When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature by Jason M Armfield

To begin with, the term “pit bull” refers not to one breed but refers to several including the American pit bull terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire terrier (AmStaff), Staffordshire bull terrier (Staffie), and according to some definitions in legislation, any substantially similar dog. This makes for a somewhat vague category, though many of these dog do often share similar genetic backgrounds, they are often crossed with each other or with other breeds making for a good bit of variation. Originally bred largely for working and fighting, pit bulls are quite energetic and strong dogs, often prized for their “gameness“, or ability to persevere through difficult and painful tasks, a trait they share with other terrier breeds. But gameness, when combined with aggression creates the potential for sustained and deadly attacks often requiring extreme force to stop. The question of whether pit bulls have an increased potential for aggression is what has created much of the controversy.

In reaction to media reports some places have enacted breed specific legislation aimed at reducing serious attacks and deaths. One of the issues when talking about BSL is vagueness, the term “breed specific legislation” covers a variety of laws, anywhere from restricting felons from having certain breeds, mandatory spay/neuter, micro-chipping, insurance requirements, handling requirements, to outright breed bans, so we should be careful when making comparisons or drawing conclusions based on one community’s experience. It should also be noted that pit bulls are not the only breed targeted by BSL, many other breeds with fighting, hunting, or guarding history are mentioned in legislation in various places, including but not limited to the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, Presa Canario, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Doberman, German Shepherd,  Akita, and of particular interest, Wolfdogs.

Opponents of BSL cite evidence, largely from other nations, that such legislation does not work and is often counterproductive, leading to an increase in  bites and killing of pit bulls. They have even gone so far in some cases as to pass laws preventing the enactment of breed specific legislation. On the other hand, advocates say that there is plenty of data showing BSL to be an effective public safety tool for both humans and dogs. Advocates also claim that conflating dog bites with serious maiming and fatalities is disingenuous, as BSL is aimed at preventing the most serious of dog attacks. As evidence that pit bulls are particularly dangerous, BSL advocates tend to most often cite a study from 2000 titled Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 which concluded that pit bulls were indeed the breed responsible for the majority of reported dog bite related fatalities (DBRFs), followed somewhat closely by Rottweilers. Its should be noted though that the authors of the study all openly oppose BSL. While this study is often criticized for using media sourced reports it is not the only study to find a breed effect (others are listed at the end of this post), not just for pit bulls but for other breeds as well. Unfortunately its not easy to estimate the actual dog population by breed in the US  leaving us with a floating numerator. This is not to say individuals haven’t tried to make an estimate, some have used the AKC breed registry but this is highly skewed toward purebred owners who choose to register their dog and only represents a small percentage of the dog population. Others have used local dog licensing records, the accuracy of these numbers often depends on the level of compliance which in many cities is quite low. Some have attempted to use shelter intake numbers, which should be obviously problematic. Still others have used classified ads to calculate the amount of each breeds being sold, this too has its own issues. These various sources don’t give the most accurate numbers but viewed together they can give us some ranges in which to estimate. It should be noted that the breed effect seen in the 2000 CDC study and others has shifted over the years, possibly with the increased and decreasing popularity of some breeds but still shows a number of serious attacks for certain breeds disproportional to most reasonable estimates of breed prevalence.

Another oft cited resource by BSL advocates is the Clifton Report, compiled by the editor of Animal People magazine, which states that “pit bulls & close pit mixes” are responsible for 47% of fatal attacks and 56% of maimings. The Clifton Report has its own issues of accuracy and is heavily criticized by pit bull advocates though I find these criticisms at times logically fallacious, this is not to say it is the most robust data set either. There are confounding factors with these studies that should be noted such as the difficulty of visually assessing breed accurately, but DNA testing for breed identification has itself also been criticized as next to worthless. Besides breed, which as noted was not always a stable factor in studies, other potentially relevant factors that can be gleaned from the research is the dog’s reproductive status, sex, age, and socialization. The human factor while not perfectly studied has been of interest as well including, the effect of the involvement of unsupervised children, whether the dog was chained or not, type of enclosure, provocation, socioeconomic status, ect. We must always remember that “correlation does not imply causation”, if the effect we see in these studies does correlate with breed it still doesn’t tell us why, but we  should also not use such skeptical mantras to dismiss an uncomfortable idea out of hand. Nor should we too quickly dismiss the possibility of better data and further research on the excuse that it is impractical, out of fear that it may reveal something inconvenient to our established beliefs. Being a cynic is easy but being a skeptic requires “hard intellectual work” and willingness to consider that we may be wrong.

Because of their history and actual and/or perceived attributes pit bulls have become the dog of choice among those looking for a “strong and tough” dog, whether for use as a fashion accessory or as an actual weapon. This is not to say all  pit bull owners are like this, rather that they have become the dog of choice among people most likely to be bad “owners”. Despite begin outlawed dog fighting is still in existence and pit bulls are still generally the fighting dog of choice though other physically similar dogs are used as well. When dog fighters are actually take to court they too often will get off easy or have charges dropped due to technicalities or biased judges and cops and when they do, the dog fighting community openly cheers. Between dog fighters breeding for the next champ and backyard breeders doing it for a buck the pit bull population has risen and with it increased numbers ending up in shelters and on death row. These people should be the enemy of any animal rights advocate and pit bull lover but too often breeders and dog fighters use pit bull advocacy and rescue as a cover. In one case the then Director of the Fulton County Animal shelter and anti-BSL activist, Jere Alexander, was accused of mismanaging aggressive dogs at the shelter resulting in five dogs killed in fights and injuries to staff. She was found to have personal dog fighting connections after she resigned in disgrace. While on staff an aggressive pit bull being held as evidence in a dog fighting case along with 83 cats were taken by her from the shelter, leading to some gruesome speculations. Unfortunately Alexander is not the only animal shelter director allegedly found to be involved in dog fighting. In another case, Donald D. Chambers duped Best Friends Animal Sanctuary into giving him $36,720 and 28 rescued dogs following Hurricane Katrina supposedly in hopes of finding them good homes, but in the end only 3 dogs made it to new home and 3 were given back to Best Friends. Chambers was eventually caught & prosecuted but it was too late for the 6 dogs that went missing and the rest that died or were killed. Other victims of post-Katrina fraud and cruelty include a number of pit bulls being “cared for” by William and Sandra Coy on behalf of the Louisiana Humane Society, the issue came to light when investigators responded to a report of foul odor coming from their property. Investigators found a dead dog still on its chain and many others in dire need on a 100+ degree day. In the end 37 pit bulls, several of which ended up dying, 1 German Shepherd, and 8 puppies were confiscated, the couple got off light and then simply moved to another state where they continued their cruelty.

Along with BSL the issue of spay and neuter is another common one in the pit bull discussion. There is a general consensus among veterinarians that the benefits of spay and neuter outweigh the risks and that it is an acceptable form of population control, additionally spay and neuter has been embraced by the majority of animal rights and welfare organizations. How big an effect sterilization actually has on aggression has been questioned, though it seems most experts still agree it can be of help in reducing aggression. While we only have evidence of a correlation, given that over 90% of fatal dog attacks appear to involve a sexually intact dog it still seems reasonable that one possible way to help reduce both dog bites and fatalities is an intensive spay and neuter campaign. Whether spaying and neutering should be advocated for through public education and voluntary compliance or by imposing mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) legislation is quite controversial, not to mention whether it will be breed-specific or all inclusive. MSN is often seen as a conspiracy by the animal rights crowd to eliminate all pet ownership, not that some activists don’t actually hold such a desire, but I don’t think it is quite that simple to dismiss. MSN laws differ from community to community and the term “mandatory” is often a misnomer as it often actually involves differential licensing fees for intact animals. Breeders, dog fighters, the AVMA, the ASPCA,  and no-kill organizations in general oppose MSN. Opponents of MSN also point to the lack of supporting formal research and claim that shelter admission and kill rates increase following passage of MSN legislation along with a decrease in licensing and rabies vaccination rates, citing Los Angles as an example. It should be noted that the Los Angles case coincides with a nationwide upswing in shelter admissions amid the housing crisis, though it is not the only city claimed to see such a counter-intuitive effect from MSN. On the other side groups such as HSVMA, HSUS, and PETA support forms of MSN legislation and point to successful examples such as San Francisco, Tulsa, Santa Cruz, and other places. The issue of mandatory spay/neuter laws is complex one that probably deserves its own post in the future.

So what is my conclusion? There does not seem to be adequate evidence to support breed bans at this time*, however some forms of breed specific legislation may be appropriate for some communities to consider based on their individual needs and resources. I feel that the focus of many pro-pit bull activist on stopping BSL is a misuse of energy and misses the heart of the issue, breeding. Public education campaigns on responsible dog care along with spay and neuter campaigns are also vital to promoting canine and human health. I would like to see advocates on both sides tone down the sensationalist rhetoric, take some time to look at the other side, and engage in a civil debate. Be careful what slogans you repeat, perpetuating falsehoods muddles up the public dialog and may actually serve the purposes of dog fighters and breeders. I would also advise pit bull advocates to be careful who they associate with or donate to, not every self proclaimed pit bull lover is actually out to help the dogs. Most of all be realistic and be a responsible caretaker, take proper precautions with your dog and around others, failure to do so can result in tragedy.

*an exception to this may be Wolfdogs, but they are not the focus of this post

Further studies on dog bite and fatality prevalence:

Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994.
“Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).” based on combined data from vital records, the HSUS, and media reports

Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988.
“Pit bull breeds were involved in 42 (41.6%) of 101 deaths where dog breed was reported” based on combined data from the National Center for Health Statistics and media reports

Fatal dog attacks in Canada, 1990-2007.
“as pit bull-type dogs gradually, and almost singularly, came under legislation in several Canadian jurisdictions, this breed-type’s ranking in the present retrospective study cannot be compared easily with the ranking from the earlier US-based study. In nonfatal aggressive incidents, the pit bull did rank highest in 2000 and 2001 (2.84 bite incidents per 100 licensed dogs of this breed type) in 1 Canadian municipality (Edmonton, Alberta). Other breeds that followed in this municipality included the rottweiler (1.60 bite incidents per 100 licensed), Akita (1.52), mastiff (1.47), Dalmatian (1.40), and Great Dane (1.21). The rottweiler, by causing 21 of the 72 non-fatal injuries attributed to dogs from known breeds, ranked 1st in a hospital-based summary of dog bites in children” based on media reports

Dog bite-related fatalities: a 15-year review of Kentucky medical examiner cases.
“Pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities.” based on medical records

Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
“Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).”

Dog Bites in Urban Children
“More than 12 different purebreeds or crossbreeds were identified as perpetrators, including German shepherds (n = 35), pit bulls (n = 33), rottweilers (n = 9), and Dobermans (n = 7). “

Canine and human factors related to dog bite injuries.
“Risk factors associated with biting dogs included breed (terrier, working, herding, and nonsporting breeds), being a sexually intact male, and purebred status. “

Dog bite injuries in children: a preliminary survey.
“Pit bulls caused 25 per cent of the bite injuries. Large dogs were responsible for 88 per cent of the attacks.”

Which Dogs Bite? A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors
“Compared with controls, biting dogs were more likely to be German Shepherd (adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 16.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 71.4) or Chow Chow (OR_a = 4.0, 95% CI 1.2 to 13.7) predominant breeds, male (OR_a 6.2, 95% CI 2.5 to 15.1), unneutered (OR_a = 2.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.3), residing in a house with ≥1 children (OR_a 3.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 7.5), and chained while in the yard (OR_a = 2.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 8.1). “

Texas Department of Health Zoonosis Control Division Severe Animal Attack and Bite Surveillance Summary
Chows, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds consistently makeup the majority of dog bites in each years report.

Further reading: Please note that I am posting the following links to provide a starting place for research and some further perspective. I am not endorsing the views of any particular author.

Pit Bull Attack! on Skeptoid
Should pit bulls be banned? on Animal Voices
Between Two Lies, Lost Opportunity for Pit Bulls by Terrierman
woo groups and pit bulls part 1,  part 2, part 3, & part 4 by Skeptifem
BADRAP member killed by her pit bull by Skeptifem
Pit Bull Belonging to Families Against Breed Bans Activist Attacks Dog
Debunking Find the Pit Bull on Craven Desires
The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed on Craven Desires
The Ethology and Epidemiology of Canine Aggression by Randall Lockwood
Benefits & Risks of Neutering–What does the science say? by Skepvet
More adoptions will not end shelter killing of pit bulls by Merritt Clifton
Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon by Ingrid Newkirk
A community approach to dog bite prevention by AVMA
What pit bulls can teach us about profiling by Malcom Gladwell
Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified Experience – by Kory A. Nelson
Punish the Deed… of Breeding Pit Bulls for Cash
The breeds most likely to kill by Kenneth Phillips
Publications on Dog Bites at the CDC
Are pit bulls really all that dangerous? on The Straight Dope
Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S. Weiss
Spay and Neuter Laws Work? by Sharon Seltzer
Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won’t Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma by Safia Gray Hussain
Making the Dogman Heel: Recommendations for Improving the Effectiveness of Dogfighting Laws by Francesca Ortiz
A community approach to dog bite prevention from the AVMA
Dogmen: The Rationalization of Deviance by Craig J. Forsythe and Rhonda D. Evans
Will breed-specific legislation reduce dog bites?

He also held critical attitudes toward at least some vivisection, especially primate research and was a supporter of the Great Ape Project which attempts to extend basic rights to Great Apes. Having received bone marrow transplants developed using animal models, he questioned the justice of medical research, saying he felt “very conflicted on this issue”.

PETA used to have him on a list of prominent vegans but have since removed him for lack of evidence. Sagan by reports wasn’t a big meat eater but wasn’t vegan either, he advocated “humane treatment” rather than “non-exploitation” and generally took a measured approach to controversial issues in his life.

Near the end of his life in 1996 Sagan wrote “In my writings, I have tried to show how closely related we are to other animals…and how morally bankrupt it is to slaughter them, say, to manufacture lipstick.” We would all do well to contemplate Carl Sagan’s words and their implications on our and other lives. He was an important and intelligent man with much to contribute to science, philosophy and general culture. Happy Birthday Carl, you are missed!

*please note this is a re-post from last year

When I went to high school in Georgia my biology textbook came with a warning label (pictured below). The label was the result of the efforts of a vocal group of Intelligent Design(ID) proponents who wished to use the label to instill false doubts in the minds of school children regarding the strength of the scientific case for evolution.

Proponents of Intelligent Design want “equal time” for their own idea of what passes for a scientific theory, in a similar way GMO labeling activists want their own food concerns to be given the same credence in labeling as other food concerns with scientifically established health implications, such as presence of allergens and nutritional content. While GMO labeling advocates campaign for their “right2know”, ID proponents like The Discovery Institute say “Students have a right to know” about intelligent design as well.  The focus on genetical engineering, in exclusion to other forms of genetic modification such as hybridization, marker assisted selection, embryo rescue, and mutagenesis, is also scientifically unjustified and reminiscent of the focus of ID proponents on the perceived problems of evolution but not other scientific theories. Those who fought to have the sticker included in my biology book didn’t think it important to include phrasing skeptical of germ theory as well, yet it certainly has its many deniers in alt med circles, or a sticker in the Earth Science textbook stating, “Plate tectonics is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of continental drift and earthquakes.” We could go on and on creating parody stickers for many other “scientific controversies” out there such as heliocentrism or the age, shape, and solidity of the earth.

A tactic common to both creationism/ID proponents and GMO labeling activists is the use of sensational and misleading imagery that does not in anyway honestly represent evolution or genetic engineering. The most notorious example of this from the anti-evolution side is when Kirk Cameron presented the now famous “crocoduck” argument. That Cameron would even present such a photo as an argument seems to indicate he has no real grasp on evolutionary theory or that he is being intentionally hyperbolic and misleading. GMO labeling advocates similarly make constant use of pictures of animal-vegetable chimeras, non-GE produce falsely presented as being GMOs, and hypodermic needle imagery betraying their ignorance of the methodology behind genetic engineering and misleading about the nature and current state of genetically engineered food. Another common tactic is the use of polls and appeals to popularity to lend them an air of public support. Additionally the insistence of GMO labeling advocates that we should only eat “foods from nature” also seems to display about as much awareness of how modern foods were shaped as the Banana Man Ray Comfort.

Aside from the lack of any significant nutritional difference between current GE and non-GE crops, industry and some consumer advocates often argue that mandatory GMO labeling is undesirable because it may increase food costs. Requiring a label that reads “contains genetically engineered ingredients” for the benefit of those that wish to avoid GMOs may be unfair both to food producers and consumers without a concern about genetically engineered food if the added cost is borne by the producer and consumers of such GE foods.  It should also be noted that there are conflicting studies on the question of how much mandatory labeling would increase costs and whether such labels would have a significant impact on consumer habits, so it is by no means a slam dunk argument nor I think the appropriate one to be making. On the other hand simply allowing a product to be labeled as “not produced using biotechnology” or “not made with genetically engineered ingredients”, within certain guidelines, puts any added burden on those that choose to seek out such foods or companies wishing to cash in on unfounded fears surround genetically engineered food. Consider Kosher or Halal labeling, should those who have no concern for Kosher or Halal guidelines be forced to pay any added cost of a nationally imposed labeling system?

This brings to mind the issue of labeling in regards to animal products. I’m well acquainted with the frustrations of trying to avoid animal products in a society in which consumption of animals is taken for granted. I’ve read countless food packages, Ive called and emailed many companies, I used to walk around with a copy of Animal Ingredients A to Z in my bag, Ive abstained when I just wasn’t sure, but among all this what Ive never done is demand that the government require a label clearly denoting the presence of animal products. Does it make sense in the context of food labeling law? Not really. Would such label even be desirable? Perhaps, though perhaps not. No doubt numerous vegetarians and vegans have expressed their desire for such labels and I would find them convenient but I foresee issues as well. Would it be a pragmatic use of energy and resources? I doubt it. Perhaps in the future I shall explore this tangent in more depth.

When GMO labeling advocates make claims that they are having “GMOs shoved down” their throat and that they are being “forced” and “lied to” they are just playing the (lazy) victim. Failing to make an effort to inform oneself about the foods they are buying is neither an outside imposition of force nor deception. As noted by Steve Savage “GMO food is actually already labeled if you know a few rules“. Vegans can read ingredient labels and call the company to ask about questionable ingredients that may come from multiple sources such as lecithin or monoglycerides, Non-GMO eaters can read ingredient labels and call the company to ask about sourcing of questionable ingredients such as soy or maltodextrin. Non-GMO folks have also learned a few quick tricks for avoiding GMOs such as looking for an organic label, similarly vegans have their own quick tricks to help avoid animal products such as checking for cholesterol or looking for a Parve label. There are many food companies which label their food as “vegan” themselves or who use third party vegan certification labels which can help in making quick choices in the store. Similarly there are many companies which are choosing to proudly label their food as “Non-GMO” and many who are getting third party certification through organizations such as the Non-GMO Project.  In the end vegans tend to get by just fine avoiding animal products, I see no reason why those with fears of GMOs can not do the same.

Further reading:
Science: What’s it up to? by Karl Haro von Mogel
What’s in a label? by Anastasia Bodnar
Ethics of Labeling by Anastasia Bodnar
To Label or Not to Label by Pamela Ronald
Obama will (probably) not label GE foods by Karl Haro von Mogel
GMO Food Is Actually Already Labeled If You Know A Few Rules by Steve Savage
The Right to Know: Why GMO Labeling Law Isn’t So Black and White by Rob Hebert

According to data from India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) during 1996-2007  yearly farmers’ suicides increased from 13,622 to 17,060, a growth rate of 2.5%, suicides among the whole population rose from 95,829 to 118,112 in 1997-2006, a 2.4% increase. Between 1991 and 2001 Indian had an annual population growth rate of 1.93%. From the data we can see that while there has been an increase in farmer suicides it is modest and is not significantly greater than the rise in suicide in the general population. Even as India grows increasingly urbanized, farmer suicides remain around 15% but with a decreasing trend that will hopefully continue. The claim that there has been a dramatic increase in farmer suicides is not supported by the data.

So far the case against Bt cotton has been based largely on a perceived correlation, but simple correlation does not equal causation so we must dig deeper. That is exactly what the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) did in their 2008 study titled Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence. The IFPRI concluded that Bt cotton was not to blame and may have actually lead to a reduction in the expected number of suicides saying, “the reported share of farmer suicides has in fact been decreasing.” I highly recommend you read the full study. In the discussion section they report,

…our analysis is sufficiently well documented to discredit the possibility of a naïve direct causal or reciprocal relationship between Bt cotton and farmer suicides. First, adopting Bt cotton is not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides in India. It is estimated that about 1 million farmers have planted Bt cotton, whereas a cumulative total of 90,000 farmers are reported to have committed suicide between 2002 (year of the commercialization of Bt cotton) and 2007. More important, the trend in farmer suicides in India appears to have slowed down since the year when Bt cotton was introduced, which would certainly not have happened if Bt cotton were responsible for increasing farmer suicides. Second, the adoption of Bt cotton is not, nor has it ever been, a necessary condition for farmer suicides in India. Farmer suicides occurred in various states of India long before the introduction of Bt cotton.

One of the oft-pointed to hotspots for farmer suicides in India is the state of Maharashtra, a major cotton producer. Suicide rates there are quite high and this has been blamed on Bt cotton production yet suicide rates in neighboring Gujarat, another major cotton producer, are far lower. One proposed relevant difference is that farmers in Maharashtra must sell their cotton to the Maharashtra State Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme and are barred from selling it out of state even when they can get better prices and often must pay bribes to receive favorable grading of their cotton and thus get a good price. Farmers in Gujarat on the other hand have access to more open markets and have been able to achieve bountiful yields and profits.

An investigation titled Farmers Suicide: Facts and Possible Policy Interventions, published in 2006, found that the suicides are not “confined to one district, One state or one particular crop” and “while indebtedness was rampant, there was little clarity” pointing out that each suicide was a unique occurrence with complex confounding factors such as lack of personal and institutional support, mental illness, family problems, medical issues, and other financial expenses.

Now that we have examined the alleged connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides lets turn our eye to Bt cotton itself. Developed using genes from a common soil bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt cotton produces Cry proteins which affects certain insects, though not humans or most non-target insects. Its mechanism of action is explained fairly simply here. Even before genetically engineered crops B. thuringiensis was used to make insecticides and is still commonly used as a topical spray in conventional and organic agriculture, but topical spraying can have disadvantages, it can increase input cost and must be applied in large amount. Some other issues with topical application include reduced effectiveness from rapid degradation in the presence of UV radiation and lack of protection for the roots and interior of the plant. Modern Bt cotton is more targeted, can reduce input cost, increase yields, and reduce environmental and human health impact from chemical insecticides. There is good evidence that growing Bt cotton might be saving many lives through reduced incidences of pesticide poisoning. Is pest resistance an issue we need to worry about? Yes, but it an not just an issue related to GMOs but to all agriculture. Use of topically sprayed Bt preparations in non-GM agriculture has led to the Diamondback Moth being the first insect to evolve Bt resistance in the field. Abandoning genetic engineering will not solve agricultural problems with resistant insects. What is needed is better management schemes, one such method is to provide refuges for susceptible insects.

There are also claims that Bt cotton is poisoning livestock in India. The most oft-cited sources I see are reports of sheep and cattle that allegedly died after consuming Bt cotton. It should be noted that the reports are anecdotal and toxicologists haven’t pointed the finger at the Bt cotton itself, instead nitrate, gossypol, or pesticide poisoning were ruled the most likely culprits. Such deaths are also not isolated to GM fields and livestock poisonings have occurred before the introduction of GM crops.

Cotton is important to India both as a source of fiber for their massive textile industry and as a source of edible oil. Even before Bt cotton was legally introduced, engineered seeds were reportedly spreading from farmer to farmer on the black market. Farmer were willing to risk prosecution and are still are willing to pay the much higher price for Bt cotton seed year after year because of the benefits they see. A study from The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India found that 93% of Bt cotton farmers were satisfied with the end result. Individual cases of crop failure may have many causes other than failure of Bt cotton itself, inclement weather, planting of fraudulent seeds, or planting of lower quality second generation mixed Bt seed that is not approved.

Possibly the strangest claim about Bt cotton is that it is the cause of Morgellons disease, a condition characterized by a crawling sensation on the skin and open sores often with fibers protruding. There is no known cause of Morgellon’s but the best evidence points to it being psychosomatic in nature and that the fibers are from the environment, clothes, furniture, ect. Therapy for stress and in some cases psychiatric medication appears to be the most promising treatment. Adverse reactions to Bt seem quite rare as there appears to have only been 2 reports regarding Bt to the EPA, one person was found to have a previous diagnosed illness and the other was found to have allergies to other constituents of the Bt spray. There just is no good evidence to connect Bt cotton and Morgellons or any widespread allergic reaction, in the end Bt cotton is safer than the inputs used for non-Bt cotton.

Ultimately the focus on genetically engineered crops as the primary cause of suicide in India is overly simplistic and unsupported by the data.

Further Reading:
Frankenfood Fears My previous post on the subject
Farmer Suicides in India by Anastasia Bodnar
P. Sainath and Farmers’ Suicides in India by Siddhartha Shome
Persistent Narratives: Why is the “Failure of Bt Cotton in India” Story Still with Us? by Ron Herring
Bt cotton now helps to avoid several million cases of pesticide poisoning in India every year by GMO Pundit
Morgellons by Steven Novella
Morgellons by Sarah

Genetic engineering, put simply, is when humans transfer genes between organisms in a controlled manner through a variety of methods in the laboratory. Such technology has been put to use in many ways such as medicine, research, industry, and agriculture. For a basic over-view of what genetic engineering is go here. I will be dealing with just a few of the objections to genetic engineering for now and presenting some potential benefits they may offer. If you don’t see your pet issue or objection addressed here, be patient, it is a complex issue and more post are on the way soon.

A common argument against genetic engineering is that it is too risky to alter organisms at the genetic level since we can not fully predict the consequences. This ignores that genetic engineering only transfers a small, known packet of genes while traditional methods of plant breeding involve transferring or mutating large amounts of genes in an uncontrolled manner. This may be achieved through cross breeding species to create many now common hybrids, another method is induced mutation using radiation or chemical mutagens to alter existing genes rather than transplant known genes, one common example of this process is Mentha piperita, peppermint. Grafting plants can exchange genes in an uncontrolled manner as well. Gene transfer also occurs in nature through bacterial, viral, or fungal routes and even between different trees in a process know as inosculation. All these methods create potentially greater amounts of unpredictable genetic change than controlled gene transfer in the lab. These more traditional methods are actually considered more risky that genetic engineering. Even traditionally bred crops have the potential to introduce new sources of allergens or undesirable changes, yet crops that are altered in such traditional ways are not subject to the same scrutiny as genetically engineered crops. Genetic engineering on the other hand has the potential to create reduced-allergen foods and reduce anti-nutrient content.

People have asked, “Why can’t we stick with traditional plant breeding methods, they seem to have worked fine so far?” The problem is that we face an inevitable short term growth in population and massive environmental problems related to resource usage. Hybrid crops and synthetic inputs helped provide the needed increase in food supply starting in the 1930′s but it is just not cutting it anymore, we need something more. When people say GMOs aren’t natural they are failing to recognize that humans have been manipulating our food supply for thousands of years, now we are just doing it smarter. Without human intervention the barley edible wild ancestors of a large percentage of your local produce market’s stock would be all but unrecognizable to you. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collards, kale are all selectively breed variations of the same wild ancestor. The mighty corn is the descent of the scraggly teosinte and just try comparing a wild banana and Cavendish banana. How many genes had to change to produce such vast differences? We must put GMOs in perspective.

Another common complaint is that GMOs have not been shown to be 100% biologically safe, but such a complaint stems from a misunderstanding of how science works and possibly ignorance of the hundreds of published safety assessments. What is being asked is that we prove a negative, that GMOs are not dangerous in any way, this is not only impractical but logically not possible and unrealistic to ask for. What we can do is show that despite all our research we have little evidence of harm and given our current data and understanding there is little reason to expect harm. This could change in the future, but for now the preponderance of the best research points to GMOs being generally as safe as conventional plant breeding.

GMOs are not only the focus of much public debate but also a major focus for environmental and political activists. Groups such as Greenpeace and the Earth Liberation Front in particular have targeted GMOs by cutting, burning, and otherwise destroying test crops. Wearing ominous looking, but entirely unnecessary,  bio-hazard suits while destroying the crop is just a scare tactic that helps to bolster the public’s perceptions that there is something dangerous or infectious about such crops. Such actions are largely futile and distract from actions that are focused on aiding sentient beings. Images of liberated monkeys and puppies gained animal liberationists and direct action much public sentiment while also directly aiding sentient beings in captivity. What does crop destruction do? While I do not agree with GM crop destruction being sensationalized as “terrorism”, a word thrown around a lot these days, I can not in any way support it, it’s just pointlessly destructive and I wish activists would put their energy elsewhere.

In addition to some of the commonly known applications of transgenic technology such as herbicide resistant soy or  Bt corn there are other beneficial applications. While fear mongers have made unsupported claims that eating GMOs can cause diabetes, scientists have been hard at work to treat diabetes with that very same technology. Insulin production used to involve killing a lot of pigs, but thanks to genetically modified bacteria this is no longer necessary for most people. Genetic engineering hasn’t stopped there with diabetes, insulin producing lettuce has been produced as well as rice that would cause less of an insulin spike after eating. Others use poor evidence to falsely cite GMOs as causing Crohn’s and IBD while ignoring how genetic engineering may very soon help treat such conditions. Another common but often ignored benefit of genetic engineering is the bacteria that produces the B12 which is used to fortify many foods, vitamin pills, and nutritional yeast, affectionately know as “nooch”. This is important as B12 is one of the few micro-nutrients vegans have to be significantly concerned about. Other benefits vegans have to look forward to include long chain omega-3 fortified plants and plant-derived vaccines such as for the flu and even HPV. Some of the other potential and actual benefits of  GMOs include a shift in input profile towards less dangerous substances, reduced tillage, increased yields, better nutrition, disease resistance, and even fighting pollution.

Another common issue that muddles the conversation over genetic engineering is the improper equation of transgenic technology with large corporations like Monsanto. The claims range from reasonable suspicion of corporate misconduct to grand conspiracies to sicken or control the populace. Invoking Monsanto is like the Godwin’s Law of GMOs. We must be careful to separate our political ideologies from the issue of whether genetic engineering actually works and is safe. The same goes for patent issues, which is certainly not unique to the field of GMOs. A lot of research and development goes in to genetic engineering, just as with new inventions or software the manufacture wishes to recoup their investment, and then some. There is a good deal of public dialog over patent law already especially in the medical and computer software fields. Such concerns would mean addressing patent law and other regulations rather than the scientific validly of transgenic technology itself.

Is genetic engineering the answer the all our agricultural problems? No, but it can serve a useful role and also need not be seen as the mortal enemy of organic agriculture as can be attested by Pamela C. Ronald, a plant genetic scientist, and R. W. Adamchak, an organic farmer, authors of Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. Overall the current level of fear and sensational rhetoric surrounding the issue is scientifically unjustified, as always we must be skeptical not susceptible.

Please read my follow up post Bt Cotton, Farmer Suicides, and Fluffy Thinking

Further reading:
The IRRI – Conducting Genetic Modification We Can All Support by Vegan Skeptic
Alexey Surov and GM Soy – A Recurrent Tale Against GM Foods by Vegan Skeptic
Vegan GMO Redux by Dave D
You Say Tomahto, I Say Flavr Savr by Dave D
Frankenfood- a talk given by Kevin Folta to a joint gathering of Chicago Skeptics & Vegan Chicago
Skeptically Speaking: Episode #71 Genetically Modified Foods
Vegans Who Support GMO’s (Say What?)
WHO: 20 questions on genetically modified foods
Way Too Much Angst About GMO Crops
The Genetically Modified Alfalfa Scare: Don’t Panic
Tomorrow’s Table by Pamela C. Ronald & R. W. Adamchak
Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly By James McWilliams

I’m back from The Amaz!ng Meeting 9 and Pythagorean Posse meet-up in Vegas and I’m just now catching up on my sleep so excuse me if I’m a little late at getting this post up. I want to start out by thanking some folks, first for his amazing generosity I can’t thank Jamie Kilstein of Citizen Radio enough. I want to thank DJ Grothe for his personal generosity and kindness in the midst of being so busy running one heck of a skeptical meeting too. I also want to thank Dave of Pythagorean Crank for many things including making some pretty cool buttons for us. More thanks go out to Shane P. Brady, Michael Lin, and everyone who came to TAM in general.

The Amaz!ng Meeting 9 was a wonderful success. It attracted over 1,600 people, with over 40% being female and a mix of ages. There were so many great presentations but I would have to say my favorite was one given by union organizer and Skeptically Speaking host Desiree Schell titled “Out of the Blog and Onto the Streets: What Skepticism Can Learn from Social Movements.”  The presentation was I’m sure a bit controversial, activism itself is not always seen in a good light. At one point she even dropped the bomb, “Militancy can help the skeptical movement” to the response of scattered but enthusiastic applause, later adding “I’m not saying we should take up arms to take the homeopathic pigs down…though that would be fun.” She gave a nod to the Ten23 Campaign which engaged in public demonstrations, “overdosing” on homeopathic preparations in front of stores that stock such products. She also spoke of how past movements have had successes because they used a “diversity of tactics” tailored to their situations and that often neither the moderates or militants could get the job done without each other. She gave the example of how some suffragettes wrote letters to housewives inspiring them to stand up for their dignity while other women were chaining themselves to the white house fence (and lets not forget the women in England who torched mailboxes and broke windows to be heard). She was very clear that she was not comparing racial segregation or women’s oppression to homeopathy or chiropractic, just saying that movements can learn from each other. Desiree also moderated the diversity panel in which I was glad to see the issue of ethnic background and class brought along with many other good issues. I personally can not do her presentation or the panel justice in such a short description and would not want to misreport what was said, more TAM videos should be online soon from what I’ve read and I will post them when available.

Other great presentations included one by James Randi about a hoax on parapsychology  researchers called Project Alpha featuring two magicians,  Banachek and Michael Edwards, who posed as psychics. It was really interesting hearing the various ways they were able fool the researchers. Richard Dawkins was also quite interesting, setting aside his popular anti-theist rants for some basic science education, he talked about his upcoming  book The Magic of Reality which looked like a great gift for children. It was also announced that the Richard Dawkins Foundation would be working to provide child care at future skeptic and science meetings which hopefully will help enable more women to attend.  The live recording of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe was also really good, its certainly one of my favorite podcasts.  Bill Nye (The Science Guy!) gave a very entertaining presentation. The “Our Future in Space” panel moderated by Phil Plate featuring Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and Pamela Gay was just plain amazing and quite funny, I hope others will get to see the video. Tyson also gave a presentation of his own which was quite good, he is a really engaging speaker. Other presentations and panels included Michael Shermer, Eugenie Scott, Jennifer Michael Hecht, PZ Meyers, Sadie Crabtree, Richard Wiseman, Steven Novella, Sara E. Mayhew, Jennifer Ouellette, Elizabeth Loftus, Susana Martinez-Conde, Stephen Macknik, Harriet Hall, Karen Stollznow, Heidi Anderson, Rachael Dunlop, David Gorski, Jen McCreight, Ben Radford, Jamy Ian Swiss, Ginger Campbell, Elyse Anders, Richard Saunders, Amy Davis Roth, Greta Christina, Joe Nickell, Justin Trottier, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey, Sean Faircloth, Mark Crislip, Julia Galef, Hemant Mehta, Carol Tavris, and Maria Walters

I did not  attend any of the numerous workshops but I hope to attend some next year. I did however go to some of the after-events such as the ¡SATIRISTAS! comedy show in which Jamie Kilstein performed and killed it! Billy the Mime was also very funny, the best mime act Ive ever seen. I even attended Penn’s Bacon & Donut party and saw his band play a few songs. Don’t worry I had plenty of Ronald’s donuts to tide me over.

The Pythagorean Posse meet-up was awesome. On Saturday we met at one of the casino bars, the Del Mar, before heading out to Atmoic#7 for some great vegan ice cream. I met some great folks and had some good conversations. While everyone else headed back to the hotel Michael and I headed to Yayo taco and I got a really yummy tofu taco platter to take back to  Max Maven’s magic show Thinking in Person, he blew my mind and was also quite funny.

Vegas itself was deadly hot, I nearly killed myself on a mile walk in 117 degree heat to get a veggie sub. The hotel didn’t have too much to offer vegans but the beer was quite cheap, I highly suggest they add a tofu pup to their hotdog cart. Once I got my bearings and met some folks with cars I didn’t do too bad on food though I think bringing a hot plate might be a good idea for the future.

Overall I had an Amaz!ng time and I don’t know about you but I’ve already started saving up for next year.

Further reading: The Diversity Skeptics Rarely Talk About

“Still, it is not clear if the lobster can feel pain…we may be mistaken in assuming that invertebrates have a reduced capacity to experience suffering. Suffering is a private experience, or a negative mental state that cannot be measured directly. The responses of invertebrates to noxious conditions are often strikingly similar to those of vertebrates. Several experimental studies have shown that invertebrates such as cockroaches, flies and slugs have short and long-term memory, have ability of spatial and social learning, perform appropriately on preference tests, and may exhibit behavioural and physiological responses indicative of pain. The similarity of these responses to those of vertebrates may indicate a level of consciousness or suffering that is normally not attributed to invertebrates.” and added “there is apparently a paucity of exact knowledge on sentience in crustaceans, and more research is needed”

In commenting on the 2005 CNN article and the “No brain, no pain” meme, one Associate Professor of Biology who specializes in crustacean neurobiology at The University of Texas-Pan American wrote, “I won’t comment on the pain portion, but as to the claim that a lobster has no brain? It is wrong. It is false. It is incorrect. It is untrue. I don’t know how much more flatly I can say it. Lobsters have brains. So do crabs and crayfish and other crustaceans”

There have been numerous studies relevant to crustacean nociception, pain, and sentience but they have had mixed results, some of the positive studies made conclusions such as “We conclude that there is considerable similarity of function, although different systems are used, and thus there might be a similar experience in terms of suffering.“, “The results are consistent with the idea of pain in these animals.“, and “These findings are consistent with the idea of a pain experience rather than a nociceptive reflex.” A 2009 review of the published evidence lead one researcher to write

“A number of studies, although not specifically directed to the issue of pain, shows the ability of crustacean decapods to display such a rich behavioural repertoire that, if exhibited by vertebrates, would have been considered to be indicative of higher mental faculties. Again, the underlying rationale is that animals that possess such behaviours are sentient and may experience pain. Understandably, complexity in behaviour does not indicate consciousness but it may set out the basis for it”.

One  study published in Animal Behavior in 2008, showed that when acetic acid was applied to the antenna of prawns that they would groom the afflicted antenna and rub it on the side of the tank. Benzocaine, a local anesthetic, was found to inhibit this grooming and rubbing response without altering their general swimming activity. The researchers concluded, “The inhibition by a local anaesthetic is similar to observations on vertebrates and is consistent with the idea that these crustaceans can experience pain.”

On the other hand a similar study from 2010, looking at different species than the 2008 study, found “no change in behaviour… compared to controls“, concluding that,  “previously reported responses to extreme pH are either not consistently evoked across species or were mischaracterized as nociception. There was no behavioural or physiological evidence that the antennae contained specialized nociceptors that responded to pH.”  Unfortunately the nuance was lost on many and the author felt the need to clarify by pointing out on their blog a critical point from the paper, “we are not claiming that crustaceans do not have nociceptors. We are not claiming that crustaceans do not feel pain. Indeed, as we have emphasized, there are many reasons to expect that they could, making the results presented here all the more surprising.”

Similarly, experiments looking at changes in defensive behavior after administering injections of morphine and naloxone to crabs has yielded mixed results (1, 2, 3). Other evidence seems to demonstrates that crustaceans also may not be merely mindless automatons but rather posses some degree of agency, i.e. the ability to act outside of unconscious reaction & instinct. All that being said, pain is only one aspect of sentience and we should also be aware that different species cant develop widely different capacities and ways of interacting with the world. We also must be wary of being anthropocentric or vertebracentric (as some have called it) by only making direct comparisons to vertebrate physiology which are not always appropriate since nerves and brain regions can be co-opted for different purposes among different species.

So what does this all mean? We are left in the position of making an educated guess. We have to weigh the evidence and consider the potential ethical ramifications. Most of all we must learn to become comfortable with a degree of uncertainty. But even without perfect evidence we eventually need to make the decision of whether we will eat lobster and crab or not. To me, evidence of the possibility of some form of sentience in crustaceans and the potential costs of imposing suffering and ending an experience of life are just too great to ignore. I think Peter Singer had it right when he wrote,

“If crustacea can suffer, there must be a great deal of suffering involved, not only in the method by which they are killed, but also in the ways in which they are transported and kept alive at markets. To keep them fresh they are frequently simply packed, alive, on top of each other. So even if there is some room for doubt about the capacity of these animals to feel pain, the fact that they may be suffering a great deal, combined with the absence of any need to eat them on our part, makes the verdict plain: they should receive the benefit of the doubt.“