Impact of Consultation: The UK government is considering enabling investment in insect farming based on the outcome of this public consultation. That investment would likely mean trillions of more insects suffering, which we already see in the United States, France, and Spain.
Impact of you filling out the consultation: A December 2024 Scottish consultation about insect farming had only 44 public responses, and roughly half were pro-insect farming. You filling out the consultation about the negative aspects of insect farming will matter and could tip the outcome towards compassion.
Effort: Takes less than 10 minutes and there is only 3 questions that need to be filled out: 2 multiple choice questions, and 1 written question, which we have pre-made answers for (see here).
Deadline: April 1st (3 days away from 3/28)
Convinced it is worth 10 minutes of your time? Open the UK consultation in one tab (click here) and our guide in another (click here), and fill it out. When you are done, pat yourself on the back for helping animals overlooked by many. May there come a day when insect farming and all factory farming is a distant memory for humanity.
Not convinced it is worth your time? Read below.
- 560 professors and other academics signed a declaration stating there is enough empirical evidence for a realistic possibility of sentience in many invertebrates, including insects. And because of that we have a responsibility to not ignore the ethics of our treatment of these animals.
– The London School of Economics and Political Science released a report in 2023 finding strong evidence for sentience in invertebrates, including insects like files which are one of the most common farmed insect species.
A portion of the LSE report reads, “There is also striking evidence for sentience in insects. In a recent study led by PhD student Matilda Gibbons, we discovered that bumblebee responses to heat depend on other motivations[11]. We gave bumblebees four feeders: two heated and two unheated. Each feeder dispensed sugar water, which bumblebees love. When every feeder contained the same concentration of sugar water, bees avoided the two heated feeders. But, when the heated feeders dispensed sweeter sugar water than the unheated feeders, bumblebees often chose the heated feeders. Their love of sugar outweighed their hatred of heat. This suggests bees feel pain, because (like humans) their responses were more than just reflexes. Bees also remembered the heated and unheated feeders, and they used this memory to decide which to feed from. So, the trade-off happened in the brain – where pain is generated in humans.”
If you are convinced now, here is the link to the consultation (click here) and here is our guide (click here).
Whether you fill out the consultation or not, thank you for reading this post and considering the consultation. Have a good weekend!
I think this is the same consultation flagged by James here, right? If so, might be worth flagging that.
I really appreciate having these flagged on the forum, so thank you, I think it's a valuable public service
For people who haven't clicked through, it might be worth mentioning that this is about insects being used as livestock for other animals.
This matters because you might consider insect farming for human consumption to be more morally ambiguous. (If insects turn out not to be sentient, and insect consumptions displaces consumption of larger, actually-sentient animals, this could be a positive for the world).
However, insects being used as livestock is more clearly negative.
This is an impactful opportunity, worth dedicating a little amount of time!
I was just going to fill this out but got a bit confused: I thought this was about insect welfare but the guide you linked basically only talks about environmental impacts and risks to humans. Is this just a strategic choice because you expect the government to not take responses talking about potential insect welfare seriously?
Feel free to include welfare concerns. The UK government has been moving in that direction so regulations that require a welfare assessment could be impactful.
The reason why a welfare argument is not included is honestly a mess up on my end.
Originally I thought the welfare argument, while the most convincing personally, is the least politically viable. I still believe that but another advocate argued it should be included and I ended up agreeing, and planned on adding it. I ended up forgetting to add it however.
Great, I'll just write something myself then :) Thanks for the quick clarification!