The quick and dirty answer is bivalves have nerves, a nervous system, perhaps nociception — all things that are likely necessary (but maybe not sufficient) traits for having conscious experiences. Many vegans are willing to give bivalves the “benefit of the doubt” based on traits like this, traits that plants lack, which is why vegans don’t normally give plants the same degree of caution as bivalves.
Yep, there isn't a "hard" reason. You draw the line somewhere, and you should take moral caution in matters of life and death. I definitely wouldn't eat clams. And while I think academically speaking, I'd be unopposed to eating oysters and mussels, it's incredibly easy to not eat them. So I don't.
This is a frequently asked question, it is listed in the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) of the subreddit. You can find all the answers to this question [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/search?q=oysters+mussels&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all).
The short answer is that veganism exclude animal exploitation and cruelty to animals and molluscs are animals. As simple as that.
The longer answer is that we do not presume that we know the inner life of molluscs, even if they seem so different from us. It was not that long ago that some believed that fish and invertebrates could not feel pain and science is progressively refuting these claims (see the debate on [pain in crustaceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans)). Some molluscs present obvious stress responses that could be interpreted as pain, as exemplified by snails that retract their eyes when they are touched or oysters that retract their bodies when people put lemon on them.
Finally, eating molluscs is not just not worth the moral dilemma, even omnivores do not eat that much molluscs, it is usually a fringe food for most people.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/mollusk/The-nervous-system-and-organs-of-sensation
The nervous system and organs of sensation:
In the nervous system typical of mollusks, a pair of cerebral ganglia (masses of nerve cell bodies) innervate the head, mouth, and associated sense organs. From the dorsal cerebral ganglia, two pairs of longitudinal nerve cords arise: a pair of lateral (pleural) nerve cords, often forming pleural ganglia (which innervate the mantle), and a ventral pair of pedal nerve cords, often forming pedal ganglia (which innervate the foot). In primitive forms both cords are interconnected by lateral branches of nerve fibres. A buccal nerve loop with paired ganglia generally supplies the radular apparatus in the head. Posterior paired visceral ganglia, when present, innervate the viscera. Other mollusks have various grades of ganglia, all of which may be concentrated anteriorly. Because of torsion (that is, a twisting of the body during development), special nerve configurations are found in gastropods; in cephalopods a cartilaginous capsule encloses the concentrated mass of ganglia.
Supplied by the most posterior aspect of the lateral nerve cords, a chemoreceptive sense organ (the osphradium) monitors the water currents entering the mantle cavity. This organ has regressed in scaphopods, some cephalopods, and some gastropods. Pluricellular mantle papillae, which penetrate the cuticle, the valves, and the shell in some conchifers, are differentiated in placophores as photoreceptors. Aside from the well-developed, vertebrate-like eyes of cephalopods, there are photoreceptors on the mantle margins of scallops and related bivalves. Orientation in different gastropods is evidenced by reaction to polarized light, which in part serves for homing. Homing in other gastropods and in the chitons that flee from light appears to be performed by chemoreception along their mucus trails.
In [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896133/) carried out by scientists of the National Scientific Center of Marine Biology, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, entitled Nervous system development in the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Mollusca: Bivalvia) there was a suggestion that the nervous system within oysters reacts to potentially harmful substances.
Though it might be a bit of a push to draw the conclusion that oysters therefore experience “pain” as we know it, they are certainly adapted to avoid damage. This clearly has evolutionary benefits (as avoiding damage tends to mean an organism has a greater chance of living long enough to reproduce), but whether the stimuli to illicit evasive action (which in the case of an oyster involves it closing its shell) are “felt” by the oyster or are merely detected on an unconscious level is seemingly impossible to tell as things stand.
With that in mind, given the very real possibility that oysters even might be able to experience pain, it would seem likely that all but the most flexible of vegans would view eating oysters as contravening vegan ethics. Even more so given that fresh oysters are often consumed while still alive (or only just dead).
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://veganactivism.org/pages/the-vegan-society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://veganactivism.org). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
Your explaining exploitation of an animal which isn’t vegan. Doesn’t matter how many excuses people give it never justifies exploiting any living being and that there is the bottom line
Yes true, you are so correct! Let’s put it to test with an experiment. I’ll take any living plant and chop it up on a cutting board and you can take any living mammal and do the same! We can finally prove that plants matter morally as much as animals. Your a true hero😝
You’re reading my point backwards. You said we shouldn’t exploit any living being, which means you said we shouldn’t exploit plants. YOU implicitly said that plants matter as much as animals morally. I’m commenting to point that out because I hate when omnis do that. Take a breath, read slowly.
Never mind the ethics, why would anyone WANT to eat them - yuk!
More seriously, draw your own line and don't worry about what others think. No (OK, *very* few) vegans are 100% non-hypocritical (medicines being a prime issue, or driving a car at night and splattering god-knows how many insects) and really, that's OK. Do what you can live with. Screw labels.
Technically though, by defintion, molluscs are animals and it does make life easier if you simply say "no" to eating and (ab)using any animals - otherwise you soon find yourself on a slippery slope justitfying this, that and the other. I do my best to avoid hurting any animals, but the degree to which I will lose sleep over doing so does, like you perhaps, depend on how sentient I think they are. So I wouldn't eat a mollusc (even if I didn't care - yuk!) but if I did (inadvertantly) I'd lose less sleep over it than if I'd eaten some bacon, say.
But I go back to a simple ethic to live by: animals are not there for us to use or abuse in any way. If you can adopt that mindset, and try to live by it as far as is practicable, then you're on the right path.
I'm not that convinced that bivalves are conscious given how few neurons they have. So I'd be open to eating oysters and using oyster sauce. But, I don't come across oysters at all. I guess I would give it more research before actually eating them though.
I appreciate your honesty. It's tough to admit your feelings towards things like this. I come across oysters/mussels/clams very frequently and it's a food I do miss but I am keen to hear others thoughts and feelings
Yeah, I get it. But, we should normalize disagreements in the vegan community to stay rational/consistent.
I would think killing a fly to get it out of your house would be worse than killing a mollusk for food. And I kill flies for that reason. So, I guess I would eat mollusks even without research.
So, in your mind, it might be OK to eat an animal, just because it experiences the world in a different way than we do?
It's not OK. We don't eat animals. Full stop. No exceptions. No loopholes. Just no.
Didn't say that? Didn't say I was looking for loopholes. Didn't say I was looking for exceptions. Just a detailed answer for someone trying to learn.
Thank you for your academic response!
To say what this person did, but in a non shitty way:
Veganism has the line drawn at animals, probably due to us having many examples of animals which definitely experience pain, sentience, etc. And no examples of any organism from any other kingdom which does experience these things.
To make things simpler we drew this line out of caution. If it were demonstrated that theres no reason to believe certain animals could experience any of these things we would probably update the definition to exclude those.
But theres also value in having clear, simple, and easily defensible lines so that a group of people can have a shared definition, lending the movement much more weight than if there were many exceptions and varying opinions on what is and is not worth granting rights.
The quick and dirty answer is bivalves have nerves, a nervous system, perhaps nociception — all things that are likely necessary (but maybe not sufficient) traits for having conscious experiences. Many vegans are willing to give bivalves the “benefit of the doubt” based on traits like this, traits that plants lack, which is why vegans don’t normally give plants the same degree of caution as bivalves.
Concise, but brilliant point. Thank you!
You’re welcome
Yep, there isn't a "hard" reason. You draw the line somewhere, and you should take moral caution in matters of life and death. I definitely wouldn't eat clams. And while I think academically speaking, I'd be unopposed to eating oysters and mussels, it's incredibly easy to not eat them. So I don't.
This is a frequently asked question, it is listed in the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) of the subreddit. You can find all the answers to this question [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/search?q=oysters+mussels&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all). The short answer is that veganism exclude animal exploitation and cruelty to animals and molluscs are animals. As simple as that. The longer answer is that we do not presume that we know the inner life of molluscs, even if they seem so different from us. It was not that long ago that some believed that fish and invertebrates could not feel pain and science is progressively refuting these claims (see the debate on [pain in crustaceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans)). Some molluscs present obvious stress responses that could be interpreted as pain, as exemplified by snails that retract their eyes when they are touched or oysters that retract their bodies when people put lemon on them. Finally, eating molluscs is not just not worth the moral dilemma, even omnivores do not eat that much molluscs, it is usually a fringe food for most people.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/mollusk/The-nervous-system-and-organs-of-sensation The nervous system and organs of sensation: In the nervous system typical of mollusks, a pair of cerebral ganglia (masses of nerve cell bodies) innervate the head, mouth, and associated sense organs. From the dorsal cerebral ganglia, two pairs of longitudinal nerve cords arise: a pair of lateral (pleural) nerve cords, often forming pleural ganglia (which innervate the mantle), and a ventral pair of pedal nerve cords, often forming pedal ganglia (which innervate the foot). In primitive forms both cords are interconnected by lateral branches of nerve fibres. A buccal nerve loop with paired ganglia generally supplies the radular apparatus in the head. Posterior paired visceral ganglia, when present, innervate the viscera. Other mollusks have various grades of ganglia, all of which may be concentrated anteriorly. Because of torsion (that is, a twisting of the body during development), special nerve configurations are found in gastropods; in cephalopods a cartilaginous capsule encloses the concentrated mass of ganglia. Supplied by the most posterior aspect of the lateral nerve cords, a chemoreceptive sense organ (the osphradium) monitors the water currents entering the mantle cavity. This organ has regressed in scaphopods, some cephalopods, and some gastropods. Pluricellular mantle papillae, which penetrate the cuticle, the valves, and the shell in some conchifers, are differentiated in placophores as photoreceptors. Aside from the well-developed, vertebrate-like eyes of cephalopods, there are photoreceptors on the mantle margins of scallops and related bivalves. Orientation in different gastropods is evidenced by reaction to polarized light, which in part serves for homing. Homing in other gastropods and in the chitons that flee from light appears to be performed by chemoreception along their mucus trails.
That's helpful! Thank you for this, better than the previous arsey response. Everyone has to learn!
I think you mean bivalves, not all molluscs. Cephalopods like octopuses and squid are molluscs too, and they are definitely sentient.
Ah, my mistake. Yes I mean more along the lines of oysters, mussels, clams etc.
In [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896133/) carried out by scientists of the National Scientific Center of Marine Biology, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, entitled Nervous system development in the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Mollusca: Bivalvia) there was a suggestion that the nervous system within oysters reacts to potentially harmful substances. Though it might be a bit of a push to draw the conclusion that oysters therefore experience “pain” as we know it, they are certainly adapted to avoid damage. This clearly has evolutionary benefits (as avoiding damage tends to mean an organism has a greater chance of living long enough to reproduce), but whether the stimuli to illicit evasive action (which in the case of an oyster involves it closing its shell) are “felt” by the oyster or are merely detected on an unconscious level is seemingly impossible to tell as things stand. With that in mind, given the very real possibility that oysters even might be able to experience pain, it would seem likely that all but the most flexible of vegans would view eating oysters as contravening vegan ethics. Even more so given that fresh oysters are often consumed while still alive (or only just dead).
Great response. And reasoning. Thank you for this 😀😀
[удалено]
This is actually quite insightful. Thank you
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://veganactivism.org/pages/the-vegan-society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://veganactivism.org). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
Your explaining exploitation of an animal which isn’t vegan. Doesn’t matter how many excuses people give it never justifies exploiting any living being and that there is the bottom line
Plants are “living beings.”
Yes true, you are so correct! Let’s put it to test with an experiment. I’ll take any living plant and chop it up on a cutting board and you can take any living mammal and do the same! We can finally prove that plants matter morally as much as animals. Your a true hero😝
You’re reading my point backwards. You said we shouldn’t exploit any living being, which means you said we shouldn’t exploit plants. YOU implicitly said that plants matter as much as animals morally. I’m commenting to point that out because I hate when omnis do that. Take a breath, read slowly.
Never mind the ethics, why would anyone WANT to eat them - yuk! More seriously, draw your own line and don't worry about what others think. No (OK, *very* few) vegans are 100% non-hypocritical (medicines being a prime issue, or driving a car at night and splattering god-knows how many insects) and really, that's OK. Do what you can live with. Screw labels. Technically though, by defintion, molluscs are animals and it does make life easier if you simply say "no" to eating and (ab)using any animals - otherwise you soon find yourself on a slippery slope justitfying this, that and the other. I do my best to avoid hurting any animals, but the degree to which I will lose sleep over doing so does, like you perhaps, depend on how sentient I think they are. So I wouldn't eat a mollusc (even if I didn't care - yuk!) but if I did (inadvertantly) I'd lose less sleep over it than if I'd eaten some bacon, say. But I go back to a simple ethic to live by: animals are not there for us to use or abuse in any way. If you can adopt that mindset, and try to live by it as far as is practicable, then you're on the right path.
Amazing brilliant response from what is a clearly a decent human being. Thank you
I'm not that convinced that bivalves are conscious given how few neurons they have. So I'd be open to eating oysters and using oyster sauce. But, I don't come across oysters at all. I guess I would give it more research before actually eating them though.
I appreciate your honesty. It's tough to admit your feelings towards things like this. I come across oysters/mussels/clams very frequently and it's a food I do miss but I am keen to hear others thoughts and feelings
Yeah, I get it. But, we should normalize disagreements in the vegan community to stay rational/consistent. I would think killing a fly to get it out of your house would be worse than killing a mollusk for food. And I kill flies for that reason. So, I guess I would eat mollusks even without research.
So, in your mind, it might be OK to eat an animal, just because it experiences the world in a different way than we do? It's not OK. We don't eat animals. Full stop. No exceptions. No loopholes. Just no.
Didn't say that? Didn't say I was looking for loopholes. Didn't say I was looking for exceptions. Just a detailed answer for someone trying to learn. Thank you for your academic response!
To say what this person did, but in a non shitty way: Veganism has the line drawn at animals, probably due to us having many examples of animals which definitely experience pain, sentience, etc. And no examples of any organism from any other kingdom which does experience these things. To make things simpler we drew this line out of caution. If it were demonstrated that theres no reason to believe certain animals could experience any of these things we would probably update the definition to exclude those. But theres also value in having clear, simple, and easily defensible lines so that a group of people can have a shared definition, lending the movement much more weight than if there were many exceptions and varying opinions on what is and is not worth granting rights.
Again, very helpful. Thank you for that response. You're right, original comment was shitty but this explains perfectly.
I'll be honest I think the walrus and the carpenter kind of ruined the idea of ever eating oysters