(I've moved this thread from octobot's news desk to the public forums)
I agree, it's happening more and more. I get it - they are tasty options when dining out and looking for something different (I stopped eating them in 2005).
I'm really curious / watching closely on whether the UK will actually adopt this. Seems REALLY hard to regulate this, and if they do, I wonder what that does to the ceph-keeping trade (i.e., that's where regulators may turn next).
This goes with one of the other threads Tonmo People should be allowed to do what they want when it comes to certain things. Do I eat Lobster or octopus no. Do I care that others do. No. That is there decision. Do I agree with the way animals are treated, maybe not. But my discomfort with it does not trump there right for them to do what they want. If you want to eat a live octopus or boil lobster, that is on you my guy.
I think there is compelling evidence from the food and livestock industry as well as from research animal protections that in fact, the only way to achieve meaningful improvements in animal welfare is through regulation and enforcement. Humans actually do not have "rights" to mistreat animals when there is evidence for suffering caused, either in the food industry or in research. The only reason it is not criminal is because the lack of enshrined rights for the animal in question.
In general appealing to people's better judgement and personal moral framework when there are economic, cultural and other complicating factors, has not proven to be a good means of improving animal welfare. Scientific evidence for suffering, followed by legislation, followed by regulation, followed by enforcement, is how that happens.
The point of this bill is to enshrine in UK law the rights of animals to a humane death. The press about crustaceans and cephalopods is due to a specific clause in bill that permits the inclusion of invertebrate animals where evidence for suffering at slaughter exists.
Since there is evidence for suffering now in both groups, the argument is that legislation is the next procedural step in ensuring their welfare is protected - thereby ensuring that the animal's humane death does not come down to a lottery of whether or not an individual human holds the view that the animal has that right. That is the point of having laws.
Seems REALLY hard to regulate this, and if they do, I wonder what that does to the ceph-keeping trade (i.e., that's where regulators may turn next).
Only hard to regulate in the home. If the regulation bars sale of live animals and regulates/enforces more humane fishing practices, the availability of live animals subject to unacceptable slaughter practices will be very limited.
In general legislation on companion animals is very separate from that of industrial-use animals, so I doubt very much if this will have any effect on hobbyists.
I am of the opinion that when it comes to food peoples rights do trump animals rights. It is that simple to me. People need to eat. Do I think proper slaughter is necessary, absolutely, but neither I, you, or any government has the right to enforce their will on people. People can make there own decisions. Especially when it comes to things like food. If you want to eat a live octopus by all means do. If you don't want to, don't. It is that simple. Imagine if they outlawed chocolate, something that a lot of peole enjoy. It would be wrong and unethical to enforce.
Using the assumption of an animals potential 'suffering' is not enough to take away peoples rights. Animals eat animals alive sometimes, that is nature. Rights are taken away from people nowadays for stupid reasons already.
This is just another path for taking more away from people.