Interesting point and thanks for raising, Saulius. :)
That specific grant actually hasnât been made yet. Though we approved of it, I believe itâs waiting on the university to finalize something before the funds are allocated. So, I am going to strike it from the list of grants at the top of the report (I was meant to do this before but forgot to do this even though I removed it from the paragraphs of the payout report, my apologies).
To further address your point though, I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldnât confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes. Would be keen for folks to think about both of those more!
In terms of the quick case for the grant, I think it is more exploratory and probably helpful information to have in case there are significant increases in farmed carmine production in the future. Particularly, I thought that for carmine, it was like the case for wild-caught fish. As in, demand currently outstripes finite supply, so fluctuations in demand therefore mightnât impact current supply much. E.g.:
âHowever, demand is rising and because the supply is finiteâit is difficult for Peruvian farmers to substantially boost suppliesâthe price has soared in recent years.
Back in 2013 Peruâs exports of carmine totalled 531 tonnes, which was worth $22m. So over the past four years, the price per tonne has risen by 73%.â (link)
Further to that, occasionally, I think there are big spikes in price when exogenous events constrain supply. (link)
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
âHigh demand is fuelling the search for innovative production techniques in order to move away from dependence on the prickly pear, which carries a number of limitations.â (link)
ââHabitat for cacti is limited, growth of both host and parasite are slow, and extraction procedures are woefully inefficient,â Dapson says. âImprovements in extraction and purification have been made, but they donât address the core problem, which is production of the insects.ââ (link)
So, exploring alternatives now could more so contribute to reductions on the expansion on the farmed side in the future. Perhaps it, therefore, isnât too dependent on views around whether wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldnât confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I totally agree, this is all very speculative.
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
This makes sense and substantially increases my probability that the grant is net-positive.
One thing to think about here is whether to make the research public. If itâs public, Iâd still worry about it causing more suffering than it prevents because we donât know how it might impact the supply and what will be the future of carmine. But if itâs not public, then Iâm not sure how the research would make an impact. I imagine that it would be public because itâs by a university. I would consider first commissioning an economic analysis of how synthetic carmine would alter farmed and wild-caught quantities.
Interesting point and thanks for raising, Saulius. :)
That specific grant actually hasnât been made yet. Though we approved of it, I believe itâs waiting on the university to finalize something before the funds are allocated. So, I am going to strike it from the list of grants at the top of the report (I was meant to do this before but forgot to do this even though I removed it from the paragraphs of the payout report, my apologies).
To further address your point though, I think the counterfactuals here are tricky to think about and I wouldnât confidently claim that wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes. Would be keen for folks to think about both of those more!
In terms of the quick case for the grant, I think it is more exploratory and probably helpful information to have in case there are significant increases in farmed carmine production in the future. Particularly, I thought that for carmine, it was like the case for wild-caught fish. As in, demand currently outstripes finite supply, so fluctuations in demand therefore mightnât impact current supply much. E.g.:
âHowever, demand is rising and because the supply is finiteâit is difficult for Peruvian farmers to substantially boost suppliesâthe price has soared in recent years.
Back in 2013 Peruâs exports of carmine totalled 531 tonnes, which was worth $22m. So over the past four years, the price per tonne has risen by 73%.â (link)
Further to that, occasionally, I think there are big spikes in price when exogenous events constrain supply. (link)
And, if current demand were to sustain or increase it seems like a marginal increase in industry would come from the farmed side. E.g.,
âHigh demand is fuelling the search for innovative production techniques in order to move away from dependence on the prickly pear, which carries a number of limitations.â (link)
ââHabitat for cacti is limited, growth of both host and parasite are slow, and extraction procedures are woefully inefficient,â Dapson says. âImprovements in extraction and purification have been made, but they donât address the core problem, which is production of the insects.ââ (link)
So, exploring alternatives now could more so contribute to reductions on the expansion on the farmed side in the future. Perhaps it, therefore, isnât too dependent on views around whether wild harvesting prevents more suffering than it causes.
I totally agree, this is all very speculative.
This makes sense and substantially increases my probability that the grant is net-positive.
One thing to think about here is whether to make the research public. If itâs public, Iâd still worry about it causing more suffering than it prevents because we donât know how it might impact the supply and what will be the future of carmine. But if itâs not public, then Iâm not sure how the research would make an impact. I imagine that it would be public because itâs by a university. I would consider first commissioning an economic analysis of how synthetic carmine would alter farmed and wild-caught quantities.