Bugging the Strict Vegan

Abstract

Entomophagy—eating insects—is getting a lot of attention these days. However, strict vegans are often uncomfortable with entomophagy based on some version of the precautionary principle: if you aren’t sure that a being isn’t sentient, then you should treat it as though it is. But not only do precautionary principle-based arguments against entomophagy fail, they seem to support the opposite conclusion: strict vegans ought to eat bugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21620560-merits-and-challenges-turning-bugs-food-insect-mix-and-health.

  2. 2.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/edible_insects_and_seaweed_are_the_perfect_sustainable_foods_.html.

  3. 3.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/entomophagy/.

  4. 4.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/world-on-a-plate/2014/may/20/food-insects-entomophagy-fao-bugs-food-security.

  5. 5.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects?language=en.

  6. 6.

    Not all vegans will take this line. David DeGrazia, for example, argues for de facto veganism, and yet says that “[h]ighly virtuous people may wish to give [invertebrates] the benefit of the doubt and abstain from eating them. My view does not condemn eating these animals” (DeGrazia 1996, p. 289). However, there are others—like Gary Francione—who are committed to giving insects the benefit of the doubt. See, e.g., what he says here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/sentience/. In my experience, vegans differ over whether it’s permissible to eat bugs, but virtually all opt not to eat them themselves.

  7. 7.

    I use the terms “sentient” and “conscious” as synonyms, but as far as I can see, nothing substantive turns on that.

  8. 8.

    Davis writes for a North American audience. For a similar argument in an Australian context, see Archer (2011).

  9. 9.

    Sebo uses different numbers, but this formulation makes the point clearer.

  10. 10.

    See http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cropan15.pdf.

  11. 11.

    The strict vegan might also object that intentionally harming insects is worse than having harm be a unintended, though foreseen, consequence of plant production—a move based on the doctrine of double effect. The main problem with this objection is that it relies on the doctrine of double effect.

References

  1. Archer, M. (2011). Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands. The Conversation, Dec 15. http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659.

  2. Bradshaw, R. H. (1998). Consciousness in non-human animals: Adopting the precautionary principle. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(1), 108–114.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carruthers, P. (2007). Invertebrate minds: A challenge for ethical theory. The Journal of Ethics, 11, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carruthers, P. (2011). Animal mentality: Its character, extent, and moral significance. In T. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The oxford handbook of animal ethics (pp. 373–406). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, S. L. (2003). The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large herbivores, not a vegan diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DeGrazia, D. (1996). Taking animals seriously: Mental life and moral status. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Huebner, B. (2011). Minimal minds. In T. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The oxford handbook of animal ethics (pp. 441–468). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lamey, A. (2007). Food fight! Davis versus regan on the ethics of eating beef. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38(2), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Matheny, G. (2003). Least harm: A defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s omnivorous proposal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 505–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Meyers, C. D. (2013). Why it is morally good to eat (certain kinds of) meat: The case for entomophagy. Southwest Philosophy Review, 29(1), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearse, A. S. (1946). Observations on the microfauna of the duke forest. Ecological Monographs, 16, 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sabrosky, C. W. (1952). How many insects are there? In Insects: The yearbook of agriculture. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Agriculture.

  15. Sebo, Jeff. ms. Reconsider the Lobster (Unpublished manuscript).

Download references

Acknowledgments

For helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper, thanks to James McWilliams, Jeff Sebo, and three anonymous reviewers. For a wealth of information about insecticides, thanks to Marvin Harris.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bob Fischer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fischer, B. Bugging the Strict Vegan. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 255–263 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9599-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entomophagy
  • Insects
  • Veganism
  • Precautionary principle