Showing posts with label sentiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sentiency. Show all posts

Sunday, September 6, 2015

On Not Eating Oysters: Part III





I decided to write a post specifically about oysters because I primarily focused on mussels, sea urchins, and bivalves in general on my previous two posts,  Part I and Part II

I, again, try to make the case against vegans eating oysters based on scientific literature and further examine the idea that simple nervous systems and differences in body plans are not synonymous with not being able to react and experience the world. I directly quote the studies and other literature so that what I write is completely transparent and not made up or based on ideology.

Unlike plants, but like most other invertebrates, oysters do have nervous systems. As we established in Part I and Part II, how developed those systems are does not automatically reduce them to the level of plants. In addition, as further discussed in Part I and Part II, because they have simple nervous systems does not mean that one can deduce that they are unable to respond to stimuli or have the inability to experience their own environment, particularly because we are incapable of truly understanding what pain and sentience are in other animals. 

Just to mention the nervous system briefly, Carroll & Catapane (2007) state that, "Bivalve molluscs [this includes oysters] have a relatively simple bilaterally symmetrical nervous system composed of paired cerebral, visceral and pedal ganglia, and several pairs of nerves. The cerebral ganglia (CG) are connected to the visceral ganglia (VG) by a paired cerebrovisceral connective and the VG innervate each gill via branchial nerves."

Unfortunately, based on my review of the available data, there aren't that many studies focused on oysters. And those that exist seem to have an interest in human application or farming.  As of this date, I could not find a specific paper devoted to the examination of nociception in oysters per se. However, that is not conclusive proof that nociception does not exist in oysters. 

Here's why:

"The full length cDNA of a homologue of δ-opioid receptor (DOR) for [Met(5)]-enkaphalin was cloned from oyster Crassostrea gigas" by Liu et al (2015). These results, as outlined by Liu et al. (2015),  "collectively suggested that CgDOR for [Met(5)]-enkephalin could modulate the haemocyte phagocytic and antibacterial functions through the second messengers Ca(2+) and cAMP, which might be requisite for pathogen elimination and homeostasis maintenance in oyster." Varga et al. (2004) describe, "delta opioid receptor (DOR) agonists are attractive potential analgesics, since these compounds exhibit strong antinociceptive activity..." 

In addition, mu opioid receptors have been found in both blue mussels (Mantione et al. 2010) and oysters (Zhang 2012); these receptors are also antinociceptors. 

Opioid peptides have also been documented in oysters. Liu, Chen, & Xu's (2008) described that, "The nervous and immune systems of invertebrates can exchange information through neuropeptides. Furthermore, some opioid peptides can function as endogenous immune system messengers and participate in the regulation of the immune responses." Their study concluded that their "data strongly suggests an involvement of opioid peptides in the regulation of the antioxidant defence systems of the Pacific Oyster." Endogenous opioid peptides have been described as inducing, "analgesia in humans and antinociception in animals. These peptides act in several regions of the CNS to mediate pain control, because antinociception is observed in animals whether endogenous opioid peptides are administered into the peripheral circulation; into spinal sites; or into various regions of the brain, such as the raphe nuclei, PAG region, or medial preoptic area. Many events or stimuli that are experienced as painful, stressful, or traumatic can induce the release of endogenous opioid peptides. These peptides then act to make humans and animals less sensitive to noxious events by inducing euphoria and analgesia or antinociception (Froehlich 1997)." 

Why would oyters have any of these receptors or mechanism for antinociceptive activity? If they have antinociceptors, does that mean that they could have noticeptors as well?  Regardless, it has been established above that opioid receptors have been found in oysters (topic further discussed in Part I), and opiate systems may have a functional role in invertebrate nociception" (Fiorito, 1986; Kavaliers, 1988). 


In addition...

The following studies further show that oysters, although thought of as simplistic as plants by many, have nervous systems that are still complex and may use many of the same responses and regulations as other animal species.

 Harrison et al. (2008) found that their study confirmed and quantified, "histamine as an endogenous biogenic amine in C. virginica in the nervous system and innervated organs...Histamine is a biogenic amine found in a wide variety of invertebrates, where it has been found to be involved in local immune responses as well as regulating physiological function in the gut. It also functions as a neurotransmitter, especially for sensory systems. Histamine has been well studied in arthropods and gastropods, but has been rarely reported to be present or have a function in bivalves other than the limited reports identifying it in ganglia and nerve fibers of the Baltic clam." The authors further stated that, "Bivalves, including the oyster, Crassostrea virginica, contain dopamine, serotonin and other biogenic amines in their nervous system and peripheral tissues. These biogenic amines serve as neurotransmitters and neurohormones and are important in the physiological functioning of the animal." They also stated that,"The mantle rim of bivalves is a sensory structure containing various sensory receptors. The involvement of histamine in sensory systems of invertebrates, particularly gastropods, coupled with our preliminary physiology research, strongly suggest histamine to be a sensory neurotransmitter in the mantle rim of C. virginica."

In addition, Park et al. (2007) were able to clone and characterize, "Lipopolysaccharide-induced TNF-alpha factor (LITAF) is an important transcription factor that mediates the expression of inflammatory cytokines" in the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas." Interestingly, Zhang & An (2007) describe that, "there is significant evidence showing that certain cytokines/chemokines are involved in not only the initiation but also the persistence of pathologic pain by directly activating nociceptive sensory neurons.

Like in mussels, it has been shown that oysters control the beating of their cilia to draw in water, which they do as filter-feeders. Carroll & Catapane's (2007) study demonstrated that there is a "reciprocal serotonergic-dopaminergic innervation of the lateral ciliated cells, similar to that of M. edulis, originating in the cerebral and visceral ganglia of the animal..." This, therefore, means that ganglia (their nervous system) regulates movement/behavior. Perhaps, like in mussels (see Part I), oysters also have the ability to actively control, based on a form of decision-making, why they employ the types of ciliary movements they do.

On Predation...

"Bivalves readily utilize chemical exudates that ema nate from predators and from injured conspecifics to evaluate predation risk (Caro & Castilla 2004, Cheung et al. 2004, Smee & Weissburg 2006b) (Robinson et al. (2014). A study by Robinson et al. (2014) found that in the presence of predators, "oysters grew shells that required more force to crush and resultantly were afforded greater protection from crab predators." This supports recent studies that "have shown that oysters react to gastropod and crustacean predators by producing thicker, heavier shells (Newell et al. 2007, Johnson & Smee 2012, Lord & Whitlatch 2012)"(Robinson 2014).  Again, these are examples that oysters actively respond to their environment (predation in this case) as any other animal species would when threatened. 


The studies that I've quoted above are only bits and pieces of a large body of data that is yet to be uncovered or even studied. What all this means when put together is yet unknown because few studies have been done. However, it shows that although oysters have simple, yet efficient nervous system to respond to the type of lifestyle that they live,  they also have sensory structures and receptors like those found in other animal species. In essence, they are still nothing like plants regardless if they are sessile species (Review Part I and Part II). The fact that they are sessile still does not mean that they do not need to react to their environment if simply to protect themselves and carry out functions in order to survive. 

Pain in Invertebrates

It is important to note that, "the clear distinction that once existed between the terms “pain” and “nociception” has become blurred recently, to the point that many neuroscientists and clinicians no longer make a distinction; that is, most accept that nociception is equivalent to pain." (Sladky 2014)

In his essay examining pain and analgesia in fish and invertebrates, Dr. Sladky, from the University of Wisconsin, asks, "can we recognise pain in fish and invertebrates? Is the perception of pain by a fish or an invertebrate equivalent to that of a mammal? We will never be able to fully and objectively answer these questions, because the animals simply cannot tell us...Could it be that recognition of pain in fish and invertebrates is impeded by our inability to empathise with species that do not convey distress through facial expressions, do not vocalise in response to distress, and are not warm and fuzzy?"

Dr. Sladky states that "our limited understanding of pain and analgesia in fish and invertebrates should not obscure our clinical decisions, and we should err on the side of fish and invertebrate well-being by making the assumption that conditions considered painful in humans and other mammals should be assumed to be potentially painful across all other vertebrate and invertebrate species."

"Although peripheral nociceptors have not been identified in cephalopods, there are no published reports that anyone has investigated peripheral nociception in cephalopods. On the other hand, nociceptors have been identified in anemones, sea cucumbers, leeches, nematodes, Drosophila, and many other insects (Kavaliers 1988; Tobin & Bargmann 2004; Xu, et al. 2006; Smith & Lewin 2009; Puri & Faulkes 2010)...Many invertebrate species (earthworms, roundworms, molluscs, Drosophila) possess endogenous opioid receptors (Dalton & Widdowson 1989; Tobin & Bargmann 2004). Immunohistochemical staining indicated the presence of endogenous opioid receptors in nematodes (Prior et al. 2007). Mussels possess benzodiazepine and opioid receptors in their nervous systems (Gagne et al. 2010). In addition, there is genetic and physiologic evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates may have similar capacities with respect to pain and analgesia..." (Sladky  2014)

"Pain-associated behaviour of invertebrates has been described in multiple species. In sea anemones, crabs, crayfish, sea slugs, snails, flatworms, crickets, praying mantis and Drosophila, withdrawal responses are observed with thermal and mechanical noxious stimuli..."(Sladky 2014). 

The paper by Dr. Sladky is definitely worth the read because it is a nice summary of all the discoveries that have been made about fish and invertebrates with relation to pain. Read it here: http://anzccart.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sladky.pdf

In essence...

Albeit slowly, science has shown us that invertebrate species are not as simple as we once thought. So I ask, what basis is there for not erring on the side that potentially oysters, and other invertebrates, that have yet to be studied in detail, also have the ability for these mechanisms and behaviors?


Environmental Impacts of Oyster Farming

Refer to Part II for a look at the negative effects associated with oyster farming.


Qualifications

The author of this post has a B.S. in Biological Sciences with an emphasis in Marine Science and a M.Sc. in Conservation & Ecology with an emphasis in research. Other experiences include, but are not limited to, aquaculture, molecular biology, fungal and plant symbiosis, and invasive species ecology. The author is also vegan, which means the author does not consume or consciously exploits any species of animal. 

References


Carroll & Catapane (2007) The Nervous System Control of Lateral 
Ciliary Activity of the Gill of the Bivalve Mollusc, Crassostrea 
virginica, Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol, 148(2): 445–450.

Froehlich (1997) Opioid Peptides,Neurotransmitter review, Vol. 21, 2.

Harrison et al. (2015), The Presence of Histamine and a Histamine Receptor in the Bivalve Mollusc, Crassostrea virginica, In Vivo, 36(3): 123–130.

Liu et al. (2008), Effects of Leucine-enkephalin on Catalase Activity and Hydrogen Peroxide Levels in the Haemolymph of the Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas), Molecules.

Liu et al. (2015),  The immunomodulation mediated by a delta-opioid receptor for [Met(5)]-enkephalin in oyster Crassostrea gigas. Dev Comp Immunol. 2015 Apr;49(2):217-24. 
Mantione et al. (2010), Seasonal variations in mu opiate receptor 
signaling in the nervous system of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis: 
temperature controls physiological processes,  ISJ 7: 141-145.

Park et al. (2008), Cloning, characterization and expression analysis 
of the gene for a putative lipopolysaccharide-induced TNF-alpha factor 
of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2008 Jan;24(1):11-7. 

Robinson et al. (2014), Eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica deter crab
 predators by altering their morphology in response to crab cues, Aquatic 
Biology, Vol. 20: 111–118.

Sladky (2014),“I’ll have the fish and shrimps”: pain and analgesia in 
invertebrates and fish,  http://anzccart.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sladky.pdf

Varga et al. (2004), Agonist-specific regulation of the δ-opioid receptor, Life Sciences, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Pages 599–612.

Zhang & An (2007), Cytokines, Inflammation and Pain, Int Anesthesiol Clin.;
 45(2): 27–37.



Thursday, September 3, 2015

Animalists: Those Pesky Omnivores!


This is Part II on The Case for Eating  Oysters, Mussels, and Other Invertebrates? NOPE, Here's Some Science. 

Edit: Part III is now available: On NOT Eating Oysters

The Sentientist shared a new blog post on her public Facebook profile (I'm not on her friends list and was directed to her page by another fellow vegan),  written by someone that calls himself  The Animalist, and described it as, "A round up of evidence for and against eating bivalves linking to my sentientist blogs." Excuse me, but I just want to ask,  What evidence? Opinions based on personal beliefs do not count as reliable evidence. Neither do wikipedia links or citing links to other blogs, but that's just the scientist in me, I guess?



On reading this "evidence"...

I have to admit that, as a scientist and someone that holds established and reliable sources as the best means to support an argument, I found the Animalist's post in support of eating invertebrates all over the place and mostly opinion-based without much reliable scientific evidence to back most statements. Hence, most of his points are based on opinions that are based on the convenience that we will most likely never be able to prove that invertebrates, such as bivalves and echinoderms, do not experience life in the same way that vertebrates do.

I am very much confused by his stance on what he labels himself. The Animalist claims to not want to be vegan but is OK in being labelled a vegetarian, yet refuses to accept that he is actually an omnivore. Remember in biology class when we learned that if an animal eats plants and other animals, then they are omnivores? Me too, but somehow he ignores that basic, established fact.


Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

The other thing that baffles my mind is this closing statement at the bottom of this image (we'll go back to vertebrates in a moment):


Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

The Animalist refuses to use concrete evidence and examples based on science, research, etc. in his claims that invertebrates are not sentient, yet he demands that if you disagree with his opinion-based stance, that you provide him with "concrete examples and evidence". Kind of not an even playing field, is it? This also means that whatever anyone says won't be enough even if it based on scientific literature.

Regardless, with this post, I attempt to show how unscientific the Animalist's case is. In support, I describe in agreement on why he is NOT a pescatarian or even a vegetarian because, as someone that eats animals, he is an omnivore. 


If you would like a scientific view on why there isn't an ethical case in eating mussels, oysters, and other bivalves as vegans, please refer to Part I, HERE, which discusses the Sentientist's blog posts on eating bivalves. 

In the same post, I establish why it doesn't make sense to attempt to apply the same definition of sentience to invertebrate species based on a world-view defined by human sentience. 

I also establish that bivalves are not synonymous to plants.

Statements are fully supported by scientific evidence and literature. 


 NOTE: As with my first article, I will directly quote reliable scientific literature and direct quotes from experts in the corresponding fields just so you know I'm not just making things up...
.


Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."


Invertebrates & the Animal Kingdom

 How do I know mollusks and echinoderms are animals and not plants? Because they have been classified under the Animal Kingdom.  In current times, classification of living beings is based on morphology and molecular data, which are used to establish evolutionary relationships between them. Let's have a look:



                                        Images: http://tolweb.org

Again, both echinoderms and bivalves are clearly under the Animal Kingdom as determined by experts that study the evolutionary relationships of living beings. Plants, however, are not in the animal kingdom. 

Image: http://nai.arc.nasa.gov


The Definition of Omnivore

                                      Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

Omnivores are defined as animals (like humans) that eat plants and other animals (like bivalves and echinoderms).

Vegans do not eat, use, or wear animals. Vegetarians do not eat animals but may eat and use animal products, such as eggs and dairy, leather, etc.; however, animals are not animal products, they are the actual animals. Pescatarians eat fish, but invertebrates aren't fish. Fish are vertebrates, and they are animals. Therefore, pescatarians are just omnivores that prefer fish. Someone that consumes invertebrates, which are well established as animals, then simply, still eats animals, and is therefore, an omnivore - like the Animalist. 

Back to the animal kingdom for a second...

What does the Animalist mean when mussels, oysters, clams, or sea urchins are not comparable to fish? They are clearly both animals for a reason, or does he mean that one is an invertebrate and the other one is a vertebrate, and therefore, have completely different physiologies? How does he determine that all those species are sentient? Where is the evidence? What basis does he use?

And WHO is everyone that has looked into this? Where is the research and the literature to back this claim?


                                              Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

The Animalist would like us to accept that because they don't have, eyes, brains/nervous systems like the ones humans and other animal species have, sea urchins (and bivalves) are just like plants. Except, sea urchins are nothing like plants, they are animals with nervous systems. Plants are not animals and do not have any kind of nervous system. 



Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

Note: I'm going to skip on the explanation that animals are not plants because I hope that we all realize by now that plants are in the plant kingdom and animals are in the animal kingdom. You can look more into that topic in Part I.


Sea Urchins & Brains




Although I am unsure how the Animalist determines which species are "sentient" or not since I'm not aware of any crab or shrimp that has a central nervous system or a brain, as in humans, I'd like to show you the story that science has to tell us about sea urchins...

When it comes to sea urchins, no they do not have eyes in the sense that we and other animals have eyes, but "it looks like the entire surface of their bodies are acting as one big eye..." said researcher Sönke Johnsen, a marine biologist at Duke University."  Johnsen is further quoted by the same article saying, "We think of animals that have a head with centralized nervous systems and all their sense organs on top as being the ones capable of sophisticated behavior, but we're finding more and more some animals can do pretty complex behaviors using a completely different style." (Choi 2009)

Blevins & Johnsen (2010) state that their research study is the "first demonstration of spatial vision in an echinoderm sheds further light on the complex optical structures and photobehaviors found in this phylum."


What was that again about no eyes, Animalist?

"It appears that sea urchins may use the whole surface of their bodies as a compound eye, and the animals' spines may shield their bodies from light coming from wide angles to enable them to pick out relatively fine visual detail....Some of the animals may interpret the object as a predator and flee, while others identify it as shelter and head towards it. What is more surprising is that the urchins' vision is as good as Nautilus and horseshoe crab vision, which is quite impressive for an echinoid that has turned its whole body into an eye." (Knight 2010) 


And on the claim that they "do not have centralized nervous systems" as basis for the Animalist to decide it's ok to eat them, the fact remains that sea urchins and ALL echinoderms, HAVE nervous systems:


Johnsen stated that, "Although sea urchins don't have brains, "it could be their entire nervous system more or less acts as a brain," Johnsen said. "In our case, we vertebrates have nervous systems that are more or less controlled by a central brain, but sea urchins have a pretty diffuse nerve net, where no region looks like a central processing unit as far as we can tell." (Choi 2009)



"The adult echinoid nervous system is comprised of 5 radial nerve cords, which are joined at their base by commissures that form a ring surrounding the mouth (Cobb, 1970Cavey and Markel, 1994)... Tube feet, spines and pedicellariae have ganglia and a complement of sensory and motor neurons...The arrangement of the nervous system in echinoderms is a feature that distinguishes them from other deuterostomes (chordates and hemichordates). Echinoderm nervous systems are dispersed, but they are not a simple nerve net. The adult is not cephalized, yet the radial nerves are segmentally organized (Burke et al 2006)."


Johnsen also states that, "We think of animals that have a head with centralized nervous systems and all their sense organs on top as being the ones capable of sophisticated behavior, but we're finding more and more some animals can do pretty complex behaviors using a completely different style...In the beginning, people built robots like they would humans, with powerful central processing units, complex sensors and fairly complex rules for doing things...Now they're finding it might be a lot better with a distributed system with many little processors and simpler sensors and simple rules, which end up creating fairly complicated behaviors as emergent properties, just as how a flock of birds can make intricate patterns without any one bird choosing these patterns." (Choi 2009)



So basically, not having a nervous system with a brain does not mean you are a living plant-like rock creature incapable of experiencing the world...plants don't have nervous systems. Echinoderms (and Bivalves) DO HAVE nervous systems regardless of how simple you believe they are. 

As I quoted on Part I





On the Environmental Aspects

The issue that I have with using Wikipedia as the sole evidence for a claim is that Wikipedia articles, such as the one linked on the Animalist's post, do not always cite reliable evidence, reliable sources, scientific research, or official publications. They can also be very one sided if written by someone with a specific interest, or they can just be outdated.

                                             
                                           Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

I do have to make a clarification that the article quoted on the Animalist's blog post above makes reference to eating these sea urchins because they are aggressive invasive species outcompeting local species of sea urchins in a region they once were not found in. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/professor-philip-hayward-believes-australians-should-be-eating-cane-toads-camel-meat-and-sea-urchins/story-fneuz8wn-1226989957895 However, I find making the case of eating sea urchins because they are invasives is a stepping stone to making the case to kill other invasive animal species, such as lion fish, which have become an ecological nightmare in parts of the United States. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/news/articles/2010/1002_Lionfish.htm  

Regardless, intensive oyster farming is NOT free of negative impacts as the Animalist claims. 

It is unclear where the Animalist gets the scientific data to claim that not a single "sentient" being is harmed or killed during oyster and mussel farming since the oysters and mussels have not been established to be non-sentient and are, well, killed (see Part I). Either way, intensive farming of these animals does have negative impacts, which affect other species.

A review of the ecological effects of oyster aquaculture in New Zealand, which was commissioned by the Northland Regional Council (Forrest, Elmetri, Clark (2007)) found that their: 

"review indicates that, other than a field investigation of seabed impacts in Mahurangi Harbour, little is known about the actual effects of oyster farming in New Zealand....Although the general effects of oyster farming are known, and their ecological significance can be evaluated, it is evident from our assessment that there are many knowledge gaps and areas of uncertainty."

Collectively, these sources of information reveal key areas of actual or potential risk from intertidal oyster cultivation as:

 Image: Page iii  excerpt from the " Review of the Ecological Effects of Intertidal Oyster Aquaculture in New Zealand"

I'm not going to go through each issue because I am only trying to point out that one cannot make claims that oyster farming or any other kind of farming does not have any kind of impact. 

What would farming these animals look like for 7 billion people - hand harvesting oysters for 7 billion people? Not likely. How would that affect the ecology? Lastly, it would be naive to think that the same types of farming systems would apply world-wide since marine environments and animal species vary depending on the region. 

As for mussel farming, please review the potential negative effects, which includes a research study as reliable literature, briefly discussed in Part I

Although, to supplement my previous argument, a Sweden-based study by Carlsson et al. (2012) found that, "the establishment of the Lysekil mussel farms increased the local sedimentation rates and affected underlying sediment by consistently increasing benthic oxygen demand and nutrient release...the continuous loading of mussel biodeposits gradually in creases the demand for oxygen to reoxidize reduced compounds, leading to oxygen depletion and stimulating the production of sulfide...study supports the correlation between elevated TOU [oxygen uptake], SRRs [sulfate reduction rate] and nutrient release, and negative effects on benthic RPD [redox potential discontinuity (RPD) layer indicates the depth of oxidized sediment] and BQI [benthic quality index]. (Hargrave et al. 2008). " I fail to see how anyone can claim no animal is harmed or killed with events, such as oxygen depletion in bethic zones. 


Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

Lastly, I will say that these are just a few examples. I do not want to get too deep into the environmental impacts of farming/aquaculture because I do not believe that has any relevance in making a case of eating an animal species or not as it relates to veganism. 

In Conclusion

The Animalist excludes certain animal species from his "activism against speciesism" by applying unsupported ideologies of sentience to animal species that are NOT humans or even vertebrates because their nervous systems are set up different to our own - all based on zero evidence. He also fails to make a case for the claim that bivalve farming is free from "killing or harming or depriving one single sentient being" or any "sentient casualty".

The Animalist also makes it clear that he and the others mentioned below support an omnivorous diet for themselves since, as the scientific community has established, bivalves and ALL invertebrates are animals. Vegans, do not eat animals, and once again, invertebrates are all animals.

Image: Excerpt from the Animalist's Blog Post "Those Pesky Bivalves."

Note to the Animalist & Sentientist:

It's not personal, so I hope there will be no hard feelings. I went into science for the biodiversity, and I stayed because of ecology. I just want to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate scientific information, particularly when it is being used as the basis to exploit a species of animal.


Qualifications

The author of this post has a B.S. in Biological Sciences with an emphasis in Marine Science and a M.Sc. in Conservation & Ecology with an emphasis in research. Other experiences include, but are not limited to, aquaculture, molecular biology, fungal and plant symbiosis, and invasive species ecology. The author is also vegan, which means the author does not consume or consciously exploits any species of animal. 


References

Blevins & Johnsen (2010), Spatial vision in the echinoid genus Echinometra,  J Exp Biol 2074249-4253.

Burke R et al. (2006), A Genomic View of the Sea Urchin Nervous System.  Developmental biology; 300(1):434-460.

Carlsson et al. (2012), Effects of mussel farms on the benthic nitrogen cycle on the Swedish west coast, Aquacult Environ Interact, Vol. 2: 177–191.



Forrest, Elmetri, & Clark (2007), Review of the Ecological Effects of Intertidal Oyster Aquaculture. Prepared for Northland Regional Council. Cawthron Report No. 1275, 25p.

Knight (2010), Sea Urchins Use Whole Body As Eye, J Exp Biol 213i-ii.

Smith (1991), A Question of Pain in Invertebrates, ILAR J, 33 (1-2): 25-31.





Wednesday, September 2, 2015

The Case for Vegans Eating Oysters, Mussels, & Other Invertebrates?

Nope, Here’s Some Science. 

Update: See Part II for a continuation on this topic and further discussion on sentience and environmental impacts.

Part III on NOT eating Oysters


                           



This topic has come up numerous times in the last few days. After reading the comments on a few discussion groups, I realized that a lack of understanding of simple science and biology is being used to justify the addition of bivalves into the vegan food chain

Some of the misinformation is in part spread by the most quoted blog post written by a psychologist that calls herself the Sentientist. On her blog, she tries to make the ethical case for eating some bivalve species. Unfortunately, the rest of the unsupported argument is being spread by readers of the blog that don't realize there really isn't much there based on any reliable evidence. I believe I only found one reference to a published paper when I checked the sources earlier this week. 

To counter this misinformation and bring accurate science into the discussion, below, I attempt to set the science straight and provide examples that tear down most one of the Sentientist's points in support of eating these bivalves. I am purposely copying and pasting portions of actual scientific literature to clearly show that my statements are not based on ideology and made up or non-existent data. I also do not try to make the case (or not) for sentience because it just doesn't make sense...You'll see what I mean. 

I also mostly directly quote research studies and use the Sentientist's own sources to show how cherry-picking data that you may not understand makes for bad arguments. I begin, however, by addressing some of the most erroneous statements surrounding conversations that I've witnesses on discussions surrounding this topic.

Classification

Proponents of eating bivalves seem to believe that classification of living beings is based on archaic methods from the 18th century, as one of them put it. However, in current times, classification of living beings is based on morphology and molecular data, which are used to establish evolutionary relationships between them. And guess what? Mollusks, including bivalves, are still in the Animal Kingdom. I'm not aware of any connection to plants when it comes to the phylogenetic tree of mollusks, including bivalves. You can read all about mollusk phylogeny and evolutionary asociations here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10382.html 

Spoiler alert: You're not going to find anything about plants. 

Image: Photo of a comment  in a facebook group discussion trying to justify eating mussels and oysters as a vegan.


Image: http://tolweb.org/Animals/2374

Bivalves Are Not Plants

"Are they plants of the sea?" "Aren’t they just like plants?" These are the types of questions and statements that I continue to find in threads that discuss whether vegans should eat bivalves. 



Image: Photo of a comment in a facebook group discussion asking for more information on the ethics of eating bivalves.


No. Bivalves, as we established above, are animals. They are not, I repeat, are not plants. And where does someone get that they have roots? Perhaps they meant a byssus? However, byssus are not roots and are nothing like plant roots.

For some reason, bivalve eating supporters have this idea that oysters and mussels are basically plants or have more in common with plants, but let’s look at that image again: 

Image: http://tolweb.org/Animals/2374


Still not plants; otherwise, they would be classified as such...I'm going to go with the experts on this one.

Regardless, the Sentientist (by providing a link to wikipedia about general plant responses) alludes that the closing and opening mechanism in sessile bivalves is as simple an action as that in carnivorous plants. However, conveniently, she does not go further into the topic. Here is why that statement is false...and just shows a lack of basic understanding of biology, as well as, animal and plant physiology. 

As we discussed above, plants are in the plant kingdom while bivalves are in the animal kingdom. By now, it should be common knowledge that plants have absolutely NO nervous system - at all. Bivalves DO have a nervous system regardless of how simply it may be. There are many species of carnivorous plants that don't have a closing mechanism, but I will assume that the plant that is being discussed is the venus flytrap. Volkov et al. (2008) stated that, "Plants can react to mechanical stimuli (Ksenzhek and Volkov, 1998Braam, 2005) with the use of mechanosensitive channels... Mechanosensory ion channels in plants are activated by mechanical stress and transduce the sensed information into electrical signals (Volkov and Haack, 1995)....Touching trigger hairs protruding from the upper leaf epidermis of the Venus flytrap activates mechanosensitive ion channels and generates receptor potentials, which induce an action potential (AP; Burdon-Sanderson, 18741882Burdon-Sanderson and Page, 1876Stuhlman and Darden, 1950Jacobson, 1965Sibaoka, 1966Volkov et al., 2007)." It's basically a spring-like mechanism caused by electrical signals.

Meanwhile, to explain it as simply as possible, in mollusks, closing of the shell is done by muscles. In blue mussels, the nerve fibers in the nerve within the anterior byssus retractor muscle control the opening and closing of the shell via the release of seratonin (Schmidt-Nielsen 1997). 

This is not the same thing at all. Again, plants have NO nervous system while bivalves, such as mussels and oysters DO have a nervous system. One closing mechanism is done by electrical signals triggered by hairs on the plant (no nerves or muscles) while the others one is guided by nerves/nerve fibers and muscles. Most importantly, mussels need to engage their muscles actively to keep the shells closed. 

Also, it has been documented that mussels will close their shells " by contraction of “quick” muscles in response to perceived danger. This reaction is supported by the literature, which documents that mussels rapidly close their valves when threatened (Ruppert etal.2004)." (Robson, Wilson, and Leaniz 2007)... 

This (contraction due to the perceived danger of a predator) is NOT the same in anyway to a simple response (guided by membrane proteins responding to mechanical stress, i.e. hairs being pushed down on to cause a reaction) that a venus fly trap will have by the simple action of sensory touch to a minimum of 3 of it's protruding modified leaf hairs simply because an insect (or any thing else that can cause pressure on the leaves) happens to fly by. 


Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"



Now that we’ve established a few things…

The Sentientist and other supporters of bivalve eating in the vegan community claim that mussels and oysters are not sentient because they do not have “brains.” No, mussels and oyster do not have a brain. However, they do have ganglia. Ganglia, in simple terms, is basically their form of a brain – how they get their systems to function and respond when they need to. Yes, invertebrates have much simpler nervous systems than vertebrates, but they still have nervous systems. How developed their nervous system is depends on the species.

More specifically, mussels, for example, have “sensory systems such as pallial tentacles with primary ciliary receptor cells as mechanoreceptors (Ruppert etal.2004), pallial eyes (ocelli), cerebral eyes(cephalic eyes) and chemoreceptors, possibly including osphradia [olfactory organ in mollusks] (Ruppert etal.2004; Leonard 1999), which may be used to assess environmental quality so it is appropriate that these animals display an appropriately complex behavioural response.” (from Robson, Wilson, and Garcia de Leaniz 2007) <- I didn’t make that up based on made-up ideology. Experts in the field made that statement.

Mobility, Evolution, and Pain

In the case of oysters and mussels, the Sentientist attempts to establish that, because of their lack of mobility, they did not develop the ability for pain. However, she then edits her article to admit that freshwater mussels do move and that “these facts make [her] less confident in the motility argument,” which is a pretty huge chunk of her whole argument that fails right from the start.


Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


Evolution has nothing to do with motility or with an individual. Evolution is not dependent on whether an organism feels pain or not. It has to do with a whole species and what is the cheapest means to reproduce efficiently. "Sessile macrofauna probably developed originally as en adaptive condition to unstable and scattered substrata, under the influence of unpredictable physico-chemical factors and followed a generalist (r-selected), opportunistic strategy" (Sara 1984). Evolution would, therefore, favor that a sessile or slower moving lifestyle conserve energy and produce large quantities of offspring. However, reproduction, and whether they move or not does not establish that well, "they must just not be capable of reacting to any stimuli, which must mean no pain." Even if you are a fully sessile organism, stress responses are vital to survival. What happens if a siphon gets clogged or an influx of food comes by – it would be necessary for negative stimuli to arise so the animal, in this case an oyster or mussel, responds to and deals with the clogged siphon or whatever other issue arises. Without any stimuli, why would blue mussels move or do anything else?

Well, guess what, “Most, if not all, invertebrates have the capacity to detect and respond to noxious or aversive stimuli. That is, like vertebrates, they are capable of ‘nociception” (Smith 1991).  Responses to negative stimuli, such as pain, which is very subjective depending on the individual, can indicate that something more than a simple nociceptive reflex is involved. Together, they may help the animal to recover from damage caused by the painful event and avoid being harmed in the future” (Smith 1991). While invertebrates probably do not feel pain in the same way humans do, Smith states that, the issue isn’t closed. He further states that, “Mather (1989) suggests, we should simply accept that these animals ‘are different from us, and wait for more data.’ 

It would be ridiculous to apply the same guidelines of pain that we apply to ourselves and other vertebrates to species that are completely different to us. Smith (1991) warns that, "pain might incorrectly be denied in certain invertebrates simply because they are so different from us and because we cannot imagine pain experienced in anything other than the vertebrate or, specifically, human sense.

Unfortunately,reports are notably lacking in sessile molluscs, primarily due to the difficulty of quantification of behaviours that occur in these generally small animals whose behaviour is characterized by minimal movement carried out over comparatively long time periods. Such movement may, however, be critical in survival and its quantification may provide insights into strategies and environmental conditions of consequence for this important animal group (Robson, Wilson, and Garcia de Leaniz 2007).

If they were nothing but barely living filtering rocks without the ability to respond to, well, anything, as the Sentientist wants you to believe, why do mussels have a need to detect and respond to predators, or even respond to stress at all? The Sentientist claims mussels and oysters cannot respond to stimuli simply because their reaction to it doesn't stem from a central nervous system while ignoring the fact that they do have a nervous system.





Images: Excerpts from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


Gartner & Litvaikis (2013) found that blue mussels “selectively alter byssal thread production and movement in the presence of injured conspecifics and potential predators.In addition, Robson, Wilson, and Garcia de Leaniz (2007) found that “mussel response to predation is graded and complex and may well indicate animal-based assessments of the trade-off between effective feeding and the likelihood of predation." <-- isn't this a form of decision-making?

Opioid receptors have also been observed and studied in mussels (Aiello 1986; Cadet and Stefano 1999) AND to quote the Sentientist herself, Many animals have opiate receptors, indicating they are making painkillers and regulating pain within their own nervous system.

Well, investigations have shown that similar opiate systems may have a functional role in invertebrate nociception (Fiorito, 1986; Kavaliers, 1988). In addition, “Opiate binding sites, with properties similar to those of mammalian opiate receptors, have been shown to be present in the neural tissue of the marine mollusk Mytilus edulis (Kavaliers et al., 1985)”
 – M. edulis is a species of mussel!



Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"

Yet AGAIN, the Sentientist admits that she's not even confident in her statements! And she really shouldn't be because they are based on pretty much no reliable evidence. 

Unfortunately, the Sentientist actually misunderstands her own quote, which she tries to use to convince the reader that bivalves are not capable of response to pain. Cronk & Walters (2011) state, “to our knowledge there are no published descriptions of  behavioral or neurophysiological responses to tissue injury in bivalves.” That certainly does NOT mean, as she states, “previous studies have not shown this kind of response in bivalves.” What they say is that there are no published studies, as in, no studies have been published. Therefore, at the time of publication of their paper, no publications existed that had established neurophysiological or behavioral responses to tissue injury in bivalves. They just did not exist, so they could not determine whether they react or not to tissue injury with pain. If previous studies had determined a lack of response, the authors would have stated something like, “previous studies have determined a lack of response to tissue injury in bivalves.” How else does one know no studies exist(ed)? Because the authors do not cite any research at the end of the statement. They are simply saying the research hasn't/had not been published.

Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"



The same article quoted by the Sentientist above as proof that some bivalves are OK to eat as vegans, concludes, ironically, that, Scientifically accepted definitions of pain and nociception neatly distinguish these concepts (e.g., Merskey and Bogduk 1994), but drawing a line between the two can be difficult in practice. Furthermore, no experimental observation of nonverbal animals (nonhumans) can demonstrate conclusively whether a subject experiences conscious pain (Allen 2004). Suggestive evidence for painlike experiences in some animals is available, and nociceptive responses measured at the neural and behavioral levels in molluscs have provided evidence that is both consistent and inconsistent with painlike states and functions. Unfortunately, inferences drawn from the relatively small body of relevant data in molluscs are limited and prone to anthropocentrism. Identifying signs of pain becomes increasingly difficult as the behavior and associated neural structures and physiology diverge from familiar mammalian patterns of behavior, physiology, and anatomy, making interpretation of responses in molluscs particularly difficult." This does not only refer to cephalopods though. This is a general statement inclusive of all mollusks.

A “disembodied finger,” which the Sentientist describes akin to oysters and mussels, doesn’t have any reaction to anything because it's basically dead. As I have cited, we have studies that show the opposite of what the Sentientist claims. Mussels have responses to stimuli (Stephano 2002), including stress (Anestis et al. 2008), and as we have seen, may make decisions based on threats of predation ((Gartner & Litvaikis (2013)Robson, Wilson, and Garcia de Leaniz (2007))

Last time I checked, a disembodied finger doesn’t respond to stimuli or display any behavior at all.




Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


Sentience in Veganism

Veganism is a lifestyle that stands up against the exploitation of nonhuman animals. Exploitation and Animals are the key words when it comes to a vegan lifestyle. Nowhere does the definition include a lack of sentience as a determining factor in which to exploit an animal species or not. Are oysters, mussels, and other species sentient in the way that we are? I have no idea, but there isn’t a single published study that will establish that they are not sentient or that will full out tell you they don’t have the ability to respond to their environment or react in a non-automatic way. Research is still on going. Read more in Part II of this topic.

A lack of research and VERY vague ideology based on

unsupported statements does NOT justify adding an 

animal species to the vegan food chain.


Sources – where is your proof?

I keep reading about all that research that has been done, but no one seems to be able to provide me with all these studies that have determined oysters and mussels are basically rocks with plant-like features mistakenly classified as animals. Who classified these animals as the lowest sentient beings? The only multi-cellular animal without a nervous system are sponges, not any of the bivalves.

The key issue that continues to surface is sentience based on unsupported comments like “No brain, no pain,” as someone claimed, but where is the conclusive data?

WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?


Image: Photo comment used by someone on a facebook group discussion to justify the Sentientist's article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


Also, mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungi; therefore, mushrooms are not comparable to animals or even plants in any shape or form. 


Environmental impacts

I’m not going to go very much into this because as an ethical vegan, an environmental stance is not above direct harm to a living being. However, fecal matter accumulation from mussel farms can lead to problems of sedimentation for species not adapted to dealing with low oxygen levels caused by sedimentation and large quantities of waste products. This is one example of a negative impact that such farming can have: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/411.full.pdf 

What would farming mussels and oysters look like for 7 billion people? 

The Sentientist made assumptions that such farming may be more beneficial, but made no calculations or further looked into it to provide any credible evidence. She also did not take into account the negative impacts that have already been recorded from such farming practices.

"There is a considerable body of research on the environmental effects of mussel farming within and outside New Zealand, reviewed in detail elsewhere (Morrisey & Swales 1997; Kaiser et al. 1998; Inglis et al. 2000; Sinner 2000; Cole 2001; Kaiser 2001; Broekhuizen et al. 2002). Environmental effects may arise from mussel feeding habits, farm structures or activities associated with mussel cultivation. Documented environmental effects include: phytoplankton depletion, modifying the benthic environment and species assemblages, altering local hydrodynamics, increasing marine litter, and facilitating the spread of unwanted organisms. The severity and extent of environmental effects is influenced by many factors including size and age of the farm, stocking densities, water depth and flow regimes, season and climatic conditions." http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/musselfarms04.pdf 

Sorry, but what was that about no negative impacts? The above is for rope-cultured mussels, by the way. 

It would be naive to assume that because species like phytoplankton (most likely categorized as non-sentient and therefore, unimportant...?) are some of the species affected that an impact on them would not affect macrospecies in anyway. This is particularly true because phytoplankton form the basis for many, if not most, marine and fresh water food chains. However, I can only guess what "non-sentient" species the Sentientist was talking about since she didn't bother to say.

Read more about this topic in Part II.

Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


In Essence…

I'm a scientist, and I believe in showing evidence to back my claims and actually doing research before making statements that can't even be determined and might lead a whole group of species to even more exploitation and death.  

Saying vegans don't eat any species of animal has nothing to do with being a purist; the fact remains that ALL bivalves are animals and regardless of being "less developed" than us, vegans don't eat animals. If you want to eat animals and plants, as science has established, you are an omnivore. 

Sentiency for non-invertebrates is something that, as I've explained above, is a concept that may not be applicable to species that are physiologically completely different to us in the same way because we, living life as vertebrates, can't understand how they would process it or how it would manifest in a completely different life form.   


The Sentientist, hailed as an authority on the ethics of eating bivalves fails to make a case for eating mussels and other bivalves since her stance is riddled with errors, unsupportive statements, misinterpretation of theories and misunderstanding of published reports. She does a poor job of providing any evidence for all of her arguments. Her disembodied finger comment does not help the case either since bivalves are living animals while a dead finger is just a dead finger.

Linking to definitions in text books, blog posts from slate, or quoting philosophers, doesn't a sound argument make...I checked her citations/links, and they include wikipedia definitions, text book descriptions of terms, blogs, and more that are not considered reliable evidence for the statements that she makes.

Image: An excerpt from the Sentientist's Article "The ethical case for eating oysters and mussels"


Some of her sources/footnotes are also somewhat confusing. I don't understand what many of them have to do with her arguments and still lack evidence/reliability. I find it particularly confusing when she includes a random quote about tunicates to make a failing case about brains not being biologically expansive (what does this have anything to do with tunicates - why didn't she discuss it as it relates to them if it is so vital to her argument?). 

When making an argument, which would impact an animal species so greatly, one should always be able to back their position with science literature and other reliable evidence and sources. 

It's also important to note that non-exploitation and animals are keywords in veganism.


Qualifications

The author of this post has a B.S. in Biological Sciences with an emphasis in Marine Science and a M.Sc. in Conservation & Ecology with an emphasis in research. Other experiences include, but are not limited to, aquaculture, molecular biology, fungal and plant symbiosis, and invasive species ecology. The author is also vegan, which means the author does not consume or consciously exploits any species of animal. 

References (that are not linked above, please let me know if I missed something!)

Aiello, Hager, Akiwumi & Stefano (1986), An Opioid Mechanism Modulates Central and Not Peripheral Dopaminergic Control of Ciliary Activity in the Marine Mussel Mytilus Edulis, Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, Volume 6, Issue 1, 17-30.

Anestis, Pörtner, Lazou1 & Michaelidis (2008), Metabolic and molecular stress responses of sublittoral bearded horse mussel Modiolus barbatus to warming sea water: implications for vertical zonation, Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 2889-2898.

Croock & Walters (2011), Nociceptive behavior and physiology of molluscs: Animal welfare implications, ILAR J, 52(2):185-95.

Gartner & Litvaikis (2013), Effects of injured conspecifics and predators on byssogenesis, attachment strength and movement in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulisJournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 448, October 2013, Pages 136-140.

Robson, Wilson, & Garcia de Leaniz(2007), Mussels flexing their muscles: a new method for quantifying bivalve behaviour, Mar Biol., 151:1195–1204. 

Sara (1984) Reproductive strategies in sessile macrofauna, Boll. ZOO. 51: 213-248.

Schmidt-Nielsen (1997), Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment, Cambridge University Press, Apr 10,  pp 421-423 (Note: I have this book from university, so I had to summarize the information instead of quoting it directly into the text)

Smith (1991), A Question of Pain in Invertebrates, ILAR J, 33 (1-2): 25-31.

Stefano , Cadet, Zhu, Rialas, Mantione, Benz,  Fuentes, Casares, Fricchione, Fulop, & Slingsby (2002), The blueprint for stress can be found in invertebrates, Neuro Endocrinol Lett., 23(2):85-93.

Volkov, Adesina, Vladislav, Markin, & Jovanov (2008), Kinetics and Mechanism of Dionaea muscipula Trap Closing, Plant Physiology, February, vol. 146 no. 2 694-702.



"Invertebrates are not ‘simple animals’, but they are indeed masters of economy: their small nervous systems contain many fewer nerve cells than those of even the tiniest vertebrates, yet these animals solve all of the same survival problems, can live in highly organized societies and can communicate complex messages. The goal of this article is to outline general features of the nervous systems of invertebrates, and to begin to ask how these tiny information-processing systems drive such diverse behaviour." 
- Thomas Matheson, University of Cambridge, on invertebrate nervous systems