Anima International became increasingly worried that any effort to displace carp consumption may lead to increased animal suffering due to salmon farming requiring fish feed.
One could argue banning live carp sales is good due to improving attitudes towards animals, even if it may decrease the welfare of farmed animals. I think the case for chicken welfare reforms increasing animal welfare accounting for effects on non-target beneficiaries is also very uncertain. I estimate the effects on soil animals are much larger than those on chickens, and I have very little idea about whether the effects on soil animals are positive or negative. It might still make sense to prioritise banning live carp sales less relative to chicken welfare reforms if one is concerned about effects on non-target beneficiaries, and increasing animal welfare robustly. However, in this case, I think it makes much more sense to prioritise chicken welfare reforms less (at the margin) relative to understanding effects on soil animals, and decreasing uncertainty about interspecies welfare comparisons.
Great post, Jakub and Weronika!
One could argue banning live carp sales is good due to improving attitudes towards animals, even if it may decrease the welfare of farmed animals. I think the case for chicken welfare reforms increasing animal welfare accounting for effects on non-target beneficiaries is also very uncertain. I estimate the effects on soil animals are much larger than those on chickens, and I have very little idea about whether the effects on soil animals are positive or negative. It might still make sense to prioritise banning live carp sales less relative to chicken welfare reforms if one is concerned about effects on non-target beneficiaries, and increasing animal welfare robustly. However, in this case, I think it makes much more sense to prioritise chicken welfare reforms less (at the margin) relative to understanding effects on soil animals, and decreasing uncertainty about interspecies welfare comparisons.