Whoopi Goldberg has not touched lobster in years, and the reason is not philosophical. It is visceral. The EGOT winner and longtime co-host of The View revealed this week that her relationship with the crustacean ended the moment she was served one that had not been fully cooked and moved on her plate in front of her. She went home. She never ordered lobster again.
The disclosure came during an April 16 episode of The View, where the co-hosts gathered to debate a topic that has been gaining momentum in scientific and legislative circles: whether boiling lobsters alive causes them pain, and whether the practice should be banned.
What the science now says
The conversation was prompted by recent research showing that lobsters are capable of experiencing nociception, the neurological process through which living creatures register pain. The study found that administering pain-relieving medication to lobsters stopped them from reacting to electric stimulation in ways they otherwise would, suggesting not only that the animals feel pain but that the sensation can be pharmacologically reduced.
The findings have added scientific weight to a policy debate that has been building across multiple countries. Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and parts of Australia have already enacted bans on boiling live lobsters. England has been moving in the same direction, with animal welfare organizations there advocating for the use of electric stunning or chilling methods as more humane alternatives before cooking.
A divided table
Not everyone on the panel was ready to give up lobster. One co-host said that while she would hesitate to cook a lobster herself at home, ordering one in a restaurant felt different enough to justify. Another shared that her entire summer wardrobe plan for her newborn son was lobster-themed, and lamented that the research was making her feel conflicted about a food she has always loved. A third acknowledged that despite loving lobster deeply, the knowledge that several countries had already moved to ban the practice was shifting her thinking in real time.
The conversation took lighter turns as the co-hosts swapped ideas about more humane preparation methods, including stunning, chilling and even the suggestion that pain medication might one day become part of the cooking process. The exchange was both genuinely funny and quietly serious, the kind of table conversation that only works when the people having it are comfortable enough to disagree.
Goldberg’s rule and what it reflects
Goldberg’s position is the most absolute of the group. Beyond the lobster incident, she described a broader personal rule against eating anything with a visible face, a standard that extends to shrimp served with their heads still attached. Her reasoning is partly instinct and partly a kind of informal philosophy about not engaging with the discomfort of where food comes from if it can be avoided.
She acknowledged that earlier generations approached food differently, consuming whole animals without the option of selective squeamishness. But her view is that the availability of choice changes the moral calculus. If you do not have to participate in something that unsettles you, she suggested, you probably should not.
It is a personal ethic rather than an activist position. But coming amid a week when England moved closer to formally banning the live boiling of lobsters and scientists published new evidence of crustacean pain response, Goldberg’s years-old dinner story landed with more cultural resonance than she probably intended when she first shared it.
