> one would be be nice.

Stops grocery stores from selling live crabs to home cooks. That is one.

Stops kitchens from boiling lobsters alive without stunning. That is two.

Stops the practice of destroying the eyestalks of female shrimp. That is three.

If you belive that they can experience pain any of these is terrible.

The reason why crabs and lobsters are sold alive is that their quality deteriorate extremely quickly once they are dead (30 minutes and they start smelling funky and tasting weird)

I've quite a bit of experience on the subject. I've caught and cooked crabs and lobsters since I was a teen.

I generally don't trust the quality of pre-cooked crustaceans.

And while I agree that it is best to reduce the overall suffering of animals, I don't think that boiling is the worst part. They die in less than two seconds.

My understanding is that precooked crustacean meat is a byproduct of shipping loss (sh*t this crab looks like it's not going to make it, let's cook it before it dies). So yeah, not the freshest.

What is the worst part then?

The worst part is the agony, slowly dying and then be thrown away or hastily cooked to be sold cheaper.

The humane way would be to avoid eating crabs and lobsters off-season.

Killing with a knife or boiling water really is quick, unless you really don't know what you're doing.

> The worst part is the agony, slowly dying and then be thrown away or hastily cooked to be sold cheaper.

Certainly, that is worse.

There seems to be some uncertainty over the speed at which boiling will kill. From [1]:

> Scientists have found that it can take lobsters between 35 – 45 seconds to die when plunged into a pot of boiling water — and if they are dismembered their nervous system can still function for up to an hour.

This wasn't the only one, another claimed hours (and it wasn't an animal welfare page either). Difficult to track down the source of any claims though.

[1] https://cookchefgirl.com/boil/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-lo...

The speed at which boiling water kills an animal is directly related to the ratio between the contact surface and the volume.

For usual crabs and lobsters the volume is low enough and the contact surface quite large, their bodies are not sealed, boiling water enter directly inside.

I think it can take a few seconds longer for huge crabs, especially if the water volume is not so large.

If you cut the head of a lobster, I think it can suffer for an extended time before dying, but not if you cut it in half longitudinally, as this is usually done when cooking them grilled.

I've carefully observed the process, and there is no question about it.

>If you belive that they can experience pain any of these is terrible.

Sure, I believe they experience pain. I don't see these as major issues, however.

- who cares if it's the butcher or the home cook who kills the crab? I imagine the kinds of cooks buying live seafood care about that freshness (I have never bought live seafood). If they torture the food afterwards, that's on the cook, not the vendor.

- I don't have strong feelings about how the metaphoical sausage is made out back. I am aware that I am eating a once living being. As long as it's dead and properly cooked to not make me sick, what a chef in the backrooms does what they need to do.

- Same as above. They are being killed, they probably do need to take out the face before serving. I'd rather do it quick and painlessly, but I'm not on that side of the industry.

So yea, not strongly convinced here.

>So your argument is "I don't personally experience any of this, so I'm not convinced it's a problem"?

no, it's more along the lines of "I don't see the larger impact being imparted here". the counterarguments here haven't given me reason as of now to see it either. I just see it as some way to pretend to be nice to animals while proceeding to mass fish them to extiction regardless.

I just watched a youtube chef mangle and torture a live lobster the other day, all while claiming to be informed on how to humanely kill them.

I'm reminded of an episode of Masterchef where the cooks are given live crabs to prepare a dish with (as part of the meal, not as an assistant). Most contestants left the crab alone until it was time to boil them. One starts ripping the crab apart. Gordon Ramsay had to come up to her and explain that the crab was alive and what she was doing constituted torture.

>(as part of the meal, not as an assistant)

Did that really need to be said?

Sometimes I wonder how future generations will judge our meat industry practices once they figure out artificial meat production and also have a more accurate picture of consciousness/sentience and hence the suffering we cause. It's quite plausible that their judgement will be just as harsh, if not hasher, as how present day humans look at "savages" of the past.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next big division among generations is vegan vs. carnivores. Meat substitutes are getting better, and when/if the political subsidies for live farms ends and makes real meat cheaper then we'll see a lot of restaurants shift to those substitutes being the default. so real meat will become some sort of delicacy to have on very special occasions, for those don't simply forgo it altogether.

But then again, by then we'll be the metaphorical boomers, and a lot of our generation eats meat very casually. We may not see such reform in our lifetime as zoomers/millennials start to become the main body forming law. But probably some shifts in that direction.

On top of all the suffering, our habit of killing animals to eat them generates a lot of pollution (emissions), unnecessary land use, and water waste.

any metric you use other than the selfish “but it tastes good” shows that this is an absurdly negative thing we keep on doing casually and defending.

So is the issue lack of education on how to humanely kill, or youtube allowing that to be broadcast and/or monitized? Neither seem to be resolved with this new law.