-cause

In your opinion, what is it that determines whether or not a creature deserves to be given equal consideration for the opportunity to a life free of suffering?

To follow up with a related question, there is often a lot of talk about whether or not it is permissible to eat animals that lack central nervous systems and thus, most likely do not experience pain in a way which resembles the way we experience pain; examples often used are oysters and mussels. Could you perhaps clear up the confusion here?

In a 2009 interview with Slow Food International, you state that, "The vegan diet, especially buying organically produced plant foods, does solve more of the ethical problems about eating than any other. But I admit that it is not for everyone, and it will take a long time before it becomes widespread."

Perhaps this is an odd question but, reading through this interview made me wonder, what sort of diet do you yourself have? Are you a vegan, lactovegetarian, ovo-lactovegetarian, ect.?

On a similar note, what are your thoughts on in vitro meat and in what are your thoughts on the impact it might have in the future?

In your book Animal Liberation you state that, "the researcher's central dilemma exists in an especially acute form in psychology: either the animal is not like us, in which case there is no reason for performing the experiment; or else the animal is like us, in which case we ought not to perform on the animal an experiment that would be considered outrageous if performed on one of us".

My question is, do you think that, under certain circumstances, an experiment performed on animals could be considered permissible even if that experiment was one which we would consider outrageous if performed on humans? If so, under what circumstances would you consider experiments such as these to be justifiable and, how can we go about drawing the line between what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to experimentation on animals; especially when some (albeit, very few) of the experiments in question have made significant progress in the field of medicine in recent years; or could perhaps make significant progress in the near future (both for humans and non-humans)?

^{edit: a word}

There has been a lot of recent debate on the topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically in relation to foods. You yourself have written a decent amount on GMOs and your opinion, more or less (correct me if I'm wrong), is that "regulations to protect the environment and the health of consumers should be maintained. Caution is reasonable. What needs to be rethought, however, is blanket opposition to the very idea of GMOs."

Personally, I agree. What my concern is, and I will admit that my knowledge on the subject of genetically modified foods is quite limited, is that I'm not sure about how these modified crops are effecting wild animals. Often referenced are animals such as bees and butterflies which GMOs may be harming unintentionally.

With that in mind, my question is, do we know whether or not genetically modified crops are effecting ecosystems in negative ways and, if we are unsure, do you think that it is ethically permissible to grow genetically modified crops in the ways that we do now when biodiversity is put at a possible risk by GMOs and thus, ecosystems and the sustainability of other species is put at a possible risk?

I realize that my question may be better suited for someone working in the related scientific fields of study, yet, given that you have discussed GMOs in depth in the past, I figured that you might be able to address my concern at least in accordance to the ethics involved.