cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/9090168

370 billion crickets are farmed for food every year. Scientists have discovered they may feel pain

370 billion crickets are farmed for food every year. Scientists have discovered they may feel pain

House Cricket (Acheta domesticus). Credit: mani_raab/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

You’re cooking dinner, distracted, and your hand brushes a hot pan. Nerve signals race to your spinal cord and back to yank your arm away in a fraction of a second, with no thought required.

Then comes the pain. A sharp, spreading sting gives way to a pulsing ache, and you cradle your hand and run it under cold water until it subsides. That felt experience is distinct from the reflex that preceded it. While the reflex moved your body out of danger, pain drives you to protect the wound, recover, and learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

We readily accept that other people feel pain by reading cues in their behavior, like the inspection and nursing of an injury. We extend this to some animals too—a dog licking its paw or a cat favoring a limb rightly stir our sympathies. But what happens when we turn that lens on animals far less like us?

In our new study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, we searched for behavioral signs of pain in house crickets, one of the most widely farmed insects. After applying heat to an antenna, we found that crickets didn’t just reflexively flinch and recover. They nursed the harm, returning again and again to groom the affected site, much as we rub a burned hand.

The frontiers of feeling

French philosopher René Descartes considered animals unfeeling biological machines, and for centuries the circle of moral concern barely extended beyond our own species.

But the boundaries have steadily crept outward. Recognition that mammals experience pain came first, followed by birds. Fish too, once assumed to lack the necessary brain structures, are now widely accepted as capable of pain-like states.

The leap into invertebrates has been greater and more contentious. Their nervous systems bear little resemblance to our own, so arguments from brain anatomy alone don’t carry us far. Instead, we look to behavior. Does the animal respond to harm in ways that go beyond reflex, ways that are flexible, persistent, and sensitive to context?

Over the past decade, testable indicators for pain in non-humans have been developed and are increasingly accepted. These include learning from unpleasant events, trading off harms against rewards, and actively protecting the site of injury. Evidence meeting these criteria helped crabs and lobsters gain legal recognition as sentient under United Kingdom law in 2022.

Among insects, the evidence has been accumulating fast. Yet most of this evidence comes from bees. Bumblebees weigh the risk of harm against the richness of a food reward, and groom the site of an injury. Honeybees learn to associate particular smells with harmful stimuli and avoid them.

Far less attention has been paid to Orthoptera, the group that includes grasshoppers, locusts and crickets. That gap matters, because the house cricket (Acheta domesticus) is the world’s most widely farmed insect, with more than 370 billion reared annually.

Do crickets feel pain?

We tested 40 male and 40 female crickets, each experiencing three conditions in random order: a hot probe to a single antenna (65°C, to activate damage receptors but not cause lasting injury), the same probe unheated, or no contact at all.

We filmed their behavior for ten minutes. Observers scoring the footage did not know which treatment any animal had received.

The results were clear. After the hot probe, crickets were more than twice as likely to groom the affected antenna compared to controls, and spent roughly four times longer doing so.

Could this simply reflect general disturbance rather than targeted care? Unlikely: grooming was directed specifically at the heated side, not spread evenly across both antennae as it was after gentle touch or no contact.

And the behavior wasn’t a brief, reflexive reaction. It was elevated from the outset and tapered gradually over minutes, much like rubbing a burned hand as the felt sting slowly fades.

Small minds, big feelings

Subjective experience cannot be directly observed in any animal, not even humans.

But we have shown crickets respond to harm in a way that satisfies a key criterion many scientists and philosophers use to infer pain: flexible, directed self-protection. Combined with the knowledge that crickets possess damage receptors, can learn to avoid harms, and respond less to injury under morphine, the weight of evidence for an inner life is growing.

The practical stakes are real. Hundreds of billions of farmed insects are slaughtered each year by freezing, boiling and baking. Pesticides kill trillions more, optimized for lethality with no consideration of potential suffering.

If we take a precautionary approach, credible evidence of suffering should motivate proportionate protections well before we are certain.

Insects have been around for more than 400 million years and are far more behaviorally and cognitively sophisticated than once assumed. The question, then, may not be whether some insects feel, but why we ever assumed they couldn’t.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 days ago

      As far as animal studies go, I think getting bopped in the antenna with 65 degree thing might be as good as it gets, but I’m not a cricket, maybe that’s the worst feeling ever

    • LetThereBeNick@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Crickets MAY lament the cruel twist of fate that brought them to the jaws of your pet bearded dragon. They MAY silently cry out in anguish at the loss of all future opportunity, expected gandparentage of a large brood, the sudden looming question of an afterlife.

      Or they may experience a relatively simple and brief pain, while displaying features so alien to ours that it does not prime people to be calloused to human suffering.

    • Pyr@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Eh depends what you define as pain. It could be completely different from what we feel as humans. Like, does a tree feel the same as we would feel if a chainsaw cut off our leg? Probably not, but it probably feels something. Does a bacterium feel pain as it explodes when coming into contact with certain chemicals like we would with a grenade going off in our torso? Probably not.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        Everything is different (read: unknowable) to our experience as humans. Plants are well known to react to stimulus and damage, some are very sensitive to it and have sofisticated methods to communicate the stimulus. From a philosophical perspective, there’s no way to know that they would “feel” in those situations.

        Does a lack of physical agency evolve into a tranquil fatalist acceptance or do they suffer in an agonizing silence? Similarly, does the limited insect cognition of crickets let them feel the dread of lurking predators or dull the intrinsic terror their ecological niche?

        This is the problem I have with discussions on animal cruelty. There’s an assumption that we can project our human experience onto almost anything. We have the hubris to implicitly or explicitly anthropomorphize creatures to the point of personhood. Why does a tree limb have to be a human limb in order for us to ethically consider it?


        In my opinion, the only useful discussion is about our human reaction to cruelty/perceived cruelty. The shades of acceptance or repulsion will vary by our personal lived experiences (a bird might be a crop stealing pest or a beloved companion), but that doesn’t mean we can’t reach a stochastic answer on which behaviors towards others beings we find ethical.

        An average person in a certain country in the 21st century finds human torture morally abhorrent, mammal abuse to be disturbing and the chemical genocide of many insect species to be mundane. Another person in a different place and time might disagree. Maybe our resulting ethical framework is objectively correct or entirely inverted, but the exercise shows us more about ourselves and builds our empathetic awareness.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        depends what you define as pain

        No need to redefine the goalposts. Pain has a scientific definition, right?

        • elixir_fan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          Pain has a scientific definition, right?

          Scientifically speaking, pain requires pain receptors, nerves and the like, so trees feel no pain. But the point that other people are trying to make, if I understand correctly, is that plants have agency and can perceive their environment and adapt in a way that’s not too dissimilar from animals, and you may think of the stimulus that causes them to adapt to survive as analogous to pain. Personally I find where we draw lines in scientific knowledge arbitrary at times, such as with some taxonomy, or how viruses are often not thought of as alive because they don’t fit a definition that’s man-made. So I can see why people would say plants may feel some kind of pain, just not the way we do as animals, and that depending on how we agree to define pain it may or may not count.

  • Routhinator@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    Pain is a signal that a life form has been damaged. I should think that most if not all multicellular life forms have some method of detecting when they are damaged or dying, else their survival would be highly unlikely.

    What I don’t fathom is why some scientists do not approach all life on earth with basic assumptions of self-preserving behaviour and the implications therein.

    A creature does not need to be able to point at you and go “ooga booga” to have feelings.

      • HoopyFrood@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I think Werner Herzog says it best:

        of course there is a lot of misery [in nature]; but it is the same misery that is all around us. The trees are in misery. The birds are in misery: i don’t think they sing, they just screech in pain

        • krakloskewm@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Werner Herzog is possibly the bleakest, most depressing person on the planet and he never ceases to bring me joy.

  • manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    The question, then, may not be whether some insects feel, but why we ever assumed they couldn’t.

    oh gee i wonder why the civilization that invented eugenics was eugenic

  • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 days ago

    I had a friend who was convinced þat crickets existed only to be food for oþer animals. I mean, moreso þan þe usual circle-of-life. He had a number of semi-exotic pets (legal ones, like tarantulas and snakes) and everyþing just ate crickets. It was like þe only food he ever needed to buy for his pets. It was an oddly religious-level conviction for an athiest.