The politicizing of insects as a protein source is the weirdest thing to me. There are a lot of far right conspiracies that the demon left wants to force your children to eat bugs, presumably to...
The politicizing of insects as a protein source is the weirdest thing to me. There are a lot of far right conspiracies that the demon left wants to force your children to eat bugs, presumably to weaken and or brainwash them. Just like vaccines and high school level education, just because it's becoming more available, it's apparently a threat to their way of life and must be fought.
I get people who don't want to try crickets because it isn't for them, but to fight the very idea that nobody else can it reeks of another conspiratorial non-issue. Nobody is forcing you to try new foods.
Crazy lizard-people conspiracies aside, there are several reasons to resist this kind of initiative: It's a highly processed protein source that's going to be fed the lowest quality feed stock. If...
Crazy lizard-people conspiracies aside, there are several reasons to resist this kind of initiative:
It's a highly processed protein source that's going to be fed the lowest quality feed stock. If a cow is sick or malnourished, you can tell by the quality of the meat. Crickets will be fed garbage and reduced to powder, hiding any evidence of nasty factory farm conditions.
We don't eat the cow's filtering system (liver, kidneys, thyroid, lymph nodes) which is where most toxic material will be. Crickets have a poorer filtering system in general, and their bodies will be processed whole which means all of it will go straight into the final product.
The people pushing bugs are framing it as a moral issue. "This new protein source might just save the planet! Don't you care about the environment?" is a common one. There are many other policies that would make a more significant impact on the environment than bug farming, so this stinks of manipulation.
Another fear is that this will become an additive similar to soy protein, used as a cheap filler to reduce the cost of meat. Taco Bell already uses something like 45% filler in their ground beef, and Subway was criticized when testing found zero tuna DNA in their tuna. If insect protein becomes ubiquitous, the desire for uncontaminated meat will drive its price up and become unavailable for most consumers.
This is what regulatory bodies like the FDA are for. To determine the safety of new foodstuffs before they come to market. Cows and crickets are not remotely the same animals. You know what other...
Exemplary
It's a highly processed protein source that's going to be fed the lowest quality feed stock. If a cow is sick or malnourished, you can tell by the quality of the meat. Crickets will be fed garbage and reduced to powder, hiding any evidence of nasty factory farm conditions.
This is what regulatory bodies like the FDA are for. To determine the safety of new foodstuffs before they come to market.
We don't eat the cow's filtering system (liver, kidneys, thyroid, lymph nodes) which is where most toxic material will be. Crickets have a poorer filtering system in general, and their bodies will be processed whole which means all of it will go straight into the final product.
Cows and crickets are not remotely the same animals. You know what other animals we regularly eat the full filtering system of? Shrimp. And they are biologically much closer to crickets than cows.
The people pushing bugs are framing it as a moral issue. "This new protein source might just save the planet! Don't you care about the environment?" is a common one. There are many other policies that would make a more significant impact on the environment than bug farming, so this stinks of manipulation.
Replacing beef with crickets actually would have a huge impact on any one person's carbon footprint. Beef is one of the most environmentally unfriendly foods in the world. Though I agree it would likely never become popular with enough people to make a meaningful dent, that isn't a reason to ban or even discourage people from eating crickets. I certainly won't be replacing my hamburgers and steaks with crickets any time soon.
Another fear is that this will become an additive similar to soy protein, used as a cheap filler to reduce the cost of meat. Taco Bell already uses something like 45% filler in their ground beef, and Subway was criticized when testing found zero tuna DNA in their tuna. If insect protein becomes ubiquitous, the desire for uncontaminated meat will drive its price up and become unavailable for most consumers.
The "36% beef" in Taco Bell meat is an urban legend. It's 88% beef, 3-5% water, 3-5% spices, and 3-5% oats and stabilizers. The Subway tuna DNA claim is also questionable. The testing methodology has been called into question, and tests conducted by other labs were able to determine that Subway's tuna is made from skipjack and yellowfin. While the book on this isn't closed yet, it's telling that the plaintiffs suing Subway over this have shifted their claims away from the meat content and towards Subway's sustainability claims.
Bugs are gross.
Nobody's making you eat them. I think artichokes are gross, but I'm not having my politicians make a stink about the fact that farms still grow them.
I would argue that the slippery slope here is already well proven. Let's use a different example: plastic bags at the grocery store. "Hey isn't it neat we have these reusable bags" "You should use...
I would argue that the slippery slope here is already well proven. Let's use a different example: plastic bags at the grocery store.
"Hey isn't it neat we have these reusable bags"
"You should use reusable bags for the environment, it's better"
"If you don't use green bags you're a bad person"
"Plastic bags now come with a $1 eco tax"
"Plastic bags are no longer available"
The people making environment-based arguments have a very clear intention of changing everyone's behavior, and if it can't be done through encouragement then it will eventually be done through taxation or other more forceful means.
This happens with all kinds of moral positions: cigarettes and liquor both get heavy "sin tax" applied to their price, because someone in government decided it should be discouraged. You can still smoke your cigarettes, nobody is taking them away from you. They just cost 2x more. Wait, 3x more.
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, and plastic bags have nothing to do with sustainable agriculture. You're just grasping at reasons to ban a food you don't want to eat. You have...
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, and plastic bags have nothing to do with sustainable agriculture.
You're just grasping at reasons to ban a food you don't want to eat. You have absolutely no evidence that allowing cricket flour on the market will lead to the end of cattle farming.
Editing your posts makes it very hard to actually address what you're saying. I'm not "grasping at reasons" here, I gave several at the very beginning related to feed stock material and the...
Editing your posts makes it very hard to actually address what you're saying.
I'm not "grasping at reasons" here, I gave several at the very beginning related to feed stock material and the transfer of chemicals into the final product. The only thing you've offered to deal with these issues is faith that the FDA will do their job properly - which I've also gone through proving they do the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep people happy.
If you want to eat bugs go ahead, but I absolutely agree with the Italian government here that it needs to be clearly marked in every material where it's present.
Every single one of your complaints is easily addressed by food safety and labeling regulations. You're worried that crickets will be used as filler in something? Well good news, that has to be...
Every single one of your complaints is easily addressed by food safety and labeling regulations.
You're worried that crickets will be used as filler in something? Well good news, that has to be declared on the packaging, so you don't have to buy it.
I absolutely agree with the Italian government here that it needs to be clearly marked in every material where it's present.
That isn't what the Italian government is doing. They aren't passing labeling laws, they want to ban the use of cricket flour entirely in the production of pizza and pasta, just like they are trying to outright ban lab grown meat.
The fair comprimise here is labeling laws, and that is what we already have in most countries. People have a right to know what is in their food. People also have aright to eat what they want. We should only be banning foodstuffs when they present a clear public health risk, not just because some people find them unpalatable.
And you haven't really proven anything about the FDA. The fact that people like to buy organic food does not really speak to the FDA's ability to regulate food safety. It speaks to a combination of people valuing other aspects (such as food quality or sustainability), susceptibility to marketing, or even belief in outright misinformation about the safety of non-organic foods. There is a reason organic food labeling is regulated by the USDA and not the FDA.
Sounds like we both agree that labeling laws would satisfy most issues. I still maintain that your faith in the FDA and other food regulators is extremely optimistic, but that's not really central...
Sounds like we both agree that labeling laws would satisfy most issues.
I still maintain that your faith in the FDA and other food regulators is extremely optimistic, but that's not really central to the point.
No, slippery slope arguments CAN be a fallacy. There are actual slippery slopes. It really gets to me when people think yelling "FALLACY" is some kind of argument.
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy
No, slippery slope arguments CAN be a fallacy.
There are actual slippery slopes.
It really gets to me when people think yelling "FALLACY" is some kind of argument.
It's true, slipperly slopes can happen, but when someone says "allowing cricket flour to be sold as food is a slippery slope to banning cattle farming", without a single iota of evidence to back...
It's true, slipperly slopes can happen, but when someone says "allowing cricket flour to be sold as food is a slippery slope to banning cattle farming", without a single iota of evidence to back it up, we can pretty readily dismiss it as nonsense. When you present an argument predicated entirely on a slippery slope fallacy, you fail to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. That is why they can be so easily dismissed.
(This comment is noise / off-topic) I'm just really curious about what you said re. shrimp! Is it common for people to also eat the parts inside the head (where most of the organs are), rather...
(This comment is noise / off-topic) I'm just really curious about what you said re. shrimp! Is it common for people to also eat the parts inside the head (where most of the organs are), rather than just the meat in the tail?
I personally really enjoy eating shrimp so I also wonder why crickets aren't as delicious considering the biological similarities between insects and crustaceans.
I've tried crickets, ants, and mealworms, didn't like any of them unfortunately :< It might be because the crickets were ground up including the shell? I don't enjoy eating crustaceans with shells...
I've tried crickets, ants, and mealworms, didn't like any of them unfortunately :<
It might be because the crickets were ground up including the shell? I don't enjoy eating crustaceans with shells even when they're prepared in a way that makes the shells edible, I only like eating the meat part. I suppose insects are commonly eaten with shells because they're small so it's impractical to try to extract only the meat part?
I got curious and looked up insect flavor and found this page with a long list of insects and descriptions of how they taste! If I try eating insects again I would prefer a herbivore, with no shell or very soft shell, and that doesn't have to be powdered or deep fried. Based on the list, sago worms might be the best candidate for me :)
Depends. I've seen it done - but it's fairly uncommon. There's very little water around my area so I can't speak from much experience, just the touristy stuff I've seen/eaten when I go to the ocean.
Depends. I've seen it done - but it's fairly uncommon.
There's very little water around my area so I can't speak from much experience, just the touristy stuff I've seen/eaten when I go to the ocean.
It's actually fairly common here in the Philippines, but I thought it was uncommon elsewhere as a lot of foreigners who come here express surprise that shrimp heads don't just get discarded....
It's actually fairly common here in the Philippines, but I thought it was uncommon elsewhere as a lot of foreigners who come here express surprise that shrimp heads don't just get discarded. (Though I prefer just the tail meat, myself.) I don't know why I feel like crustaceans are "cleaner" than insects just because they're in the ocean :))
I call bull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo Meat is one of the things that made us humans we are today.
Replacing beef with crickets actually would have a huge impact on any one person's carbon footprint. Beef is one of the most environmentally unfriendly foods in the world.
There is also ample evidence that farming meat, particularly larger livestock like cattle is a far more energy intensive process than growing foodplants. And while you may disagree with me, I...
There is also ample evidence that farming meat, particularly larger livestock like cattle is a far more energy intensive process than growing foodplants. And while you may disagree with me, I believe the FAO is a more reputable organization than a random YouTube channel with videos about Jordan Peterson and "low testosterone".
But I'm not advocating for the end of beef production. I think we will have a lot more success adopting more sustainable farming practices, de-carbonizing energy production, and altering the diets of our livestock. My argument is that nobody has provided a good reason for why the government should outright ban people from eating crickets. Even if beef was magically less energy intensive than growing corn, it wouldn't change this simple fact.
For your first point, is this not exactly the kind of thing the FDA is for? Additionally, it infers that the quality of the feed actually makes a difference in the quality of the cricket. For...
For your first point, is this not exactly the kind of thing the FDA is for? Additionally, it infers that the quality of the feed actually makes a difference in the quality of the cricket. For safety and nutrition purposes, again this is exactly what the FDA is for. Beyond basics, would you or I even be able to tell between a the cricket equivalent of "factory farm" and "grass fed free range"?
We talk about these differences when discussing the quality of beef because our cultures have spent millennia cultivating and exploring the nuance of what makes a good steak. We have no similar body of cultural knowledge for cricket flour. We might be starting to create one, but it's small.
Your second point is interesting and I hadn't thought about before. If as you say their filtering is worse, does that mean more stuff ends up in their body, or it gets excreted, or both? Either way, this seems like an issue that could be mitigated by regulating what can be used as feed stock in the first place.
If you trust the FDA is doing its job, yes. But what kind of conditions are being reported right now in factory farms? Pretty terrible ones. Since people don't have the same empathy for bugs that...
If you trust the FDA is doing its job, yes. But what kind of conditions are being reported right now in factory farms? Pretty terrible ones. Since people don't have the same empathy for bugs that they do for cows, these cricket farms would be even more disgusting.
And yes, there would be no difference in taste between the different kinds of cricket - especially since the first few commercials offerings have been powders like cricket flour - but would there be a difference in heavy metals? Prions? Parasites?
Insects in general can't regulate the ingress of molecules into their body as well as mammals. Their exoskeleton has holes they breathe through, which is the point of entry for all kinds of things. Most insecticides are just regular toxins that have been attached to a large molecule so mammals can easily block it out.
My larger point, though, is that the implementation of this will be truly disgusting once it reaches large scale. Bulldozers pushing rotting food scraps and garbage into a "bug pit" and sucking up everything that crawls out, then mash them into a paste and add maple sausage flavoring! Yum.
In fact I do, the FDA generally has a very good track record for these kinds of things. The introduction of the FDA has been an enormous win for food safety not just in the US, but around the...
If you trust the FDA is doing its job, yes.
In fact I do, the FDA generally has a very good track record for these kinds of things. The introduction of the FDA has been an enormous win for food safety not just in the US, but around the world where many countries defer to the FDA's guidelines.
When is the last time you pulled something off the shelf at a grocery store and wondered if it would kill you?
That's a rather extreme example - of course there's nothing lethal being sold on grocery shelves, and that certainly wasn't my argument! The explosion of organic, hormone-free, pesticide-free, and...
When is the last time you pulled something off the shelf at a grocery store and wondered if it would kill you?
That's a rather extreme example - of course there's nothing lethal being sold on grocery shelves, and that certainly wasn't my argument!
The explosion of organic, hormone-free, pesticide-free, and other specialty food labels in recent years tells us that consumers believe there are negative compounds making their way to us through our food.
As someone who's worked on and around the industrial side of foods production, I can tell you that the safety screenings we do is pretty minimal. 1oz grab samples don't always represent the entire truckload of corn, and these samples are often taken by the same operators who have a vested interest in keeping the process moving. See a clump of wet or rotten corn? Just don't sample from that side, come on man my engine's running let's get this done.
It does tell us what consumers believe, but it doesn't tell us much about the actual safety of what's coming from their grocery stores. A lot of idiots are also skeptical of vaccines, that doesn't...
The explosion of organic, hormone-free, pesticide-free, and other specialty food labels in recent years tells us that consumers believe there are negative compounds making their way to us through our food.
It does tell us what consumers believe, but it doesn't tell us much about the actual safety of what's coming from their grocery stores. A lot of idiots are also skeptical of vaccines, that doesn't make them enlightened or smarter than the CDC, it just means they are susceptible to misinformation or good marketing.
This one honestly irritates me the most. People don't want to replace meat with the many plants that contain protein, why on earth would they replace it with bugs? You know, the things we almost...
The people pushing bugs are framing it as a moral issue. "This new protein source might just save the planet! Don't you care about the environment?" is a common one. There are many other policies that would make a more significant impact on the environment than bug farming, so this stinks of manipulation.
This one honestly irritates me the most. People don't want to replace meat with the many plants that contain protein, why on earth would they replace it with bugs? You know, the things we almost universally consider to be pests and are also a common phobia and generally a source of disgust. Most Americans eat far more protein than their bodies need; protein deficiency is incredibly rare.
I feel like the goalposts in this thread are being radically moved from where they are set in the article. The issue at hand is the Italian government wanting to ban cricket flour altogether,...
I feel like the goalposts in this thread are being radically moved from where they are set in the article. The issue at hand is the Italian government wanting to ban cricket flour altogether, rather than letting people make their own decisions about where they get their protein.
You actually raise some valid points (other than 5 which I agree with you but I don't see it as a valid point as to why this may not be a good thing). Especially the part about the filtering...
You actually raise some valid points (other than 5 which I agree with you but I don't see it as a valid point as to why this may not be a good thing). Especially the part about the filtering organs. Ones I didn't even think about.
4 might actually be a good thing though. I love meat and I personally would hate to be out priced of it but in the end overall it's better for me and the environment to eat less. and It would be a good byproduct to get people to eat less meat. So while I'd hate it, I think overall 4 might actually be a beneficial effect even if I would hate it.
Yeah 5 was very much just a joke. I don't personally have a problem with insect protein - in fact I'm pretty sure I could cook with cricket flour and enjoy it - but I'm concerned about what it...
Yeah 5 was very much just a joke.
I don't personally have a problem with insect protein - in fact I'm pretty sure I could cook with cricket flour and enjoy it - but I'm concerned about what it would look like on the production side as well as the escalating language from eco-activists to change the behavior of others.
Lots of people here have defended bugs by saying "If you don't like it you don't have to eat it" but they're intentionally missing the major point from all these bug articles, which is to eagerly advocate for them as a beef replacement.
Hell, look in this thread. There is already some one calling it brain rot (but from the perception of a vegetarian rather than far right person). It's so against our culture (not just Italy, I...
Hell, look in this thread. There is already some one calling it brain rot (but from the perception of a vegetarian rather than far right person). It's so against our culture (not just Italy, I myself am speaking from a US viewpoint) that the idea just seems disgusting to a lot of people. I can't say I'm immune to it but my POV is more power to the people who can get themselves to stomach it, I cannot (though if you put it in pasta form or some sort of form where it does not look at all like the original insect I think I might be able to get over it to at least try it). But there are people who are comfortable even just looking down on people who eat bugs and it's not just the right sadly.
Wow thats so cool. It blows my mind how people are able to define themselves so rigidly by the customs and beliefs they grew up with and are unable or unwilling to budge on their definition of who...
Wow thats so cool. It blows my mind how people are able to define themselves so rigidly by the customs and beliefs they grew up with and are unable or unwilling to budge on their definition of who they think they should be seen as. All of the politicians in this article just embody the "i made this" meme in my mind.
The folks pushing these new foods and protein sources seem more italian to me than pasta sauce(and the haters). They're actively pushing food science and culture in a positive direction and shaping the future of food in a way that everyone can approach and understand, so ubiquitous is pasta in the west. This is what makes them a "food superpower".
I have 0 problem with eating bugs conceptually. But one problem I often don't see people mention is allergies. I have a deadly shellfish allergy. Something a lot of people don't know is that if...
I have 0 problem with eating bugs conceptually. But one problem I often don't see people mention is allergies.
I have a deadly shellfish allergy. Something a lot of people don't know is that if you're allergic to shellfish you are also very likely allergic to certain insects (crickets in particular which are the big source for bug meat). So the idea that cricket could make their way into all kinds of foods is concerning for me because there's a good chance I won't be able to eat them. If flours etc started making insects commonplace in food that would basically create a whole new gluten-free-esque category, except it'd be even more important because I don't know of anybody who could literally die from eating gluten once.
(I'd have to get an allergy test to find out if I'm actually allergic to them, it's not a 100% thing apparently but very likely).
I've got that experience myself. Shrimp make my mouth itch and my digestion revolt, and crickets do the same thing. I didn't expect it when I first tried crickets, but there was that telltale...
I've got that experience myself. Shrimp make my mouth itch and my digestion revolt, and crickets do the same thing. I didn't expect it when I first tried crickets, but there was that telltale itch, clear as day.
I wonder if Italians had similar discussions over the introduction of tomatoes? (Not that there was then such a country as Italy): "hmm, here's this new poisonous plant from the Americas, surely...
It blows my mind how people are able to define themselves so rigidly by the customs and beliefs they grew up with ...
The folks pushing these new foods and protein sources seem more italian to me than pasta sauce
I wonder if Italians had similar discussions over the introduction of tomatoes? (Not that there was then such a country as Italy):
"hmm, here's this new poisonous plant from the Americas, surely people should not eat that"
"oh, come on, let's make pasta sauce"
Why? They're a great healthy sustainable protein source and a new kind of food? Everyone should want to eat bugs because there's not a great argument against it. But we can recognize their are...
Why? They're a great healthy sustainable protein source and a new kind of food? Everyone should want to eat bugs because there's not a great argument against it. But we can recognize their are cultural and emotional barriers that mean we might not be able to eat them.
Yep. I want to not be grossed out by bugs because of them being a better environmental source of food. hell, I want to not like meat. Unfortunately neither are true for me but I don't think it's a...
Yep. I want to not be grossed out by bugs because of them being a better environmental source of food. hell, I want to not like meat.
Unfortunately neither are true for me but I don't think it's a bad thing to try to get people to do.
Uhm... now i'm sad because i really wanted to try the cricket tagliatelle but they haven't written the restaurant name. Anyway, on a more serious note. I think the push back is because the way you...
Uhm... now i'm sad because i really wanted to try the cricket tagliatelle but they haven't written the restaurant name.
Anyway, on a more serious note. I think the push back is because the way you are supposed to cook and eat italian food is usually embedded in culture. You do this and not that, you eat this with that but not now... and so on.
Think about the pizza with pineapple slices on it. For some guys it's a crime against humanity.
But honestly if you like that, eat it. It won't really affect anyone and it doesn't diminish the pleasure of a "standard" pizza to the other.
And anyway.... in Italy there are some places where there is stuff with insects in it... like Casu Marzu from Sardinia. So it's not about the insects... it's about the rules people have in their mind.
It takes time i think. Maybe they should try to focus on products for more open minded people? I dunno... energy bars? Restaurants targeted to youngsters?
They should make it cool... and then culture will eventually shift.
I think one should keep an open mind about eating insects. I had a cricket meal burger at a hipster eco-gastro popup in the Netherlands, where there's a lot of eco-gastro experimentation. It...
I think one should keep an open mind about eating insects. I had a cricket meal burger at a hipster eco-gastro popup in the Netherlands, where there's a lot of eco-gastro experimentation. It was... okay. Savory, albeit a little on the dry side.
There's an insect culinary evangelist named Joseph Yoon, and he does this fantastic Epicurious video where he doesn't even touch on the environmental aspects but instead celebrates the flavors and textures of insects and explores how they can be prepared.
An interesting case study of the intersection of politics, food, and tradition. Do nascent cricket farms pose a threat to Italian culture? Some politicians are passionately saying it does. It...
An interesting case study of the intersection of politics, food, and tradition. Do nascent cricket farms pose a threat to Italian culture? Some politicians are passionately saying it does. It reminds me of the recent brouhaha when US Democrats were accused of wanting to ban hamburgers.
You could probably get me to eat something made from paste of insects. I'd have to get over knowing it's insects but I think I could do it. I'm still not sure I'm ready to eat an insect that looks...
You could probably get me to eat something made from paste of insects. I'd have to get over knowing it's insects but I think I could do it. I'm still not sure I'm ready to eat an insect that looks like one though honestly.
Meat consumption is unsustainable and is becoming expensive. When presented with this fact, some people would rather switch to eating ground-up locusts and roaches, instead of moving to the...
Meat consumption is unsustainable and is becoming expensive. When presented with this fact, some people would rather switch to eating ground-up locusts and roaches, instead of moving to the readily available plant-based protein.
I'm standing on the outside, looking in, and - from here - carnism seems like a truly extraordinary form of brain-rot.
I like how you use locusts and roaches when the article is about eating crickets (and nothing like a roach being posted). Also, eating insects is not brain rot. Plenty of other cultures already do...
I like how you use locusts and roaches when the article is about eating crickets (and nothing like a roach being posted).
Also, eating insects is not brain rot. Plenty of other cultures already do it. It's jsut seen as not normal/disgusting cause it's what we grew up with. I think it's disgusting but honestly tell me why it is brain rot to think of eating insects? And if people are willing to do it (which I'm not sure they are yet) and that still helps solve the environmental problem, why are you so quick to condemn them finding at least a better alternative then meat?
I would like to gently critique the method in which you have commented here. I'm guessing from the fact that you used the term "carnism" that you are a vegetarian / vegan and so likely want people...
I would like to gently critique the method in which you have commented here. I'm guessing from the fact that you used the term "carnism" that you are a vegetarian / vegan and so likely want people to reduce their meat intake. I think that it's important to try to get people to reduce the amount of meat that they eat. I'll reveal some bias and say I am not a vegetarian, but I still want people, generally, to reduce the amount of meat that they eat, though I don't advocate for "zero". I tried to share a bit about my thought process and bias so you would know that I have at least some goals that likely overlap with yours, and that I respect people who are vegetarians / vegans. So I am assuming a common goal of "would like to reduce the amount of meat that is being eaten".
I want to talk about this phrase: "carnism seems like a truly extraordinary form of brain-rot." In general, it is a bad idea to make a statement that involves the cognitive ability of the people on the other end of an opinion. Saying that having a specific opinion would require a rotten brain is probably hyperbole - I doubt that you mean that carnism is actually caused by rotten brains - but it is hyperbole that is going to set people against what you are saying. It's not going to influence anyone to consume less meat, and it's just going to make people who do eat meat mad, and want to tell you why it's okay and natural to eat meat.
With regards to the crickets themselves, I think that plant protein is readily available, but so is bug protein. I do not think that anyone who is thinking about eating crickets is doing so because we have a need for meals to require the death of an animal. I'm not saying that there aren't people who want to know that an animal died for their meal - those people exist - but those aren't the demographic of people who are using cricket flour.
The politicizing of insects as a protein source is the weirdest thing to me. There are a lot of far right conspiracies that the demon left wants to force your children to eat bugs, presumably to weaken and or brainwash them. Just like vaccines and high school level education, just because it's becoming more available, it's apparently a threat to their way of life and must be fought.
I get people who don't want to try crickets because it isn't for them, but to fight the very idea that nobody else can it reeks of another conspiratorial non-issue. Nobody is forcing you to try new foods.
Crazy lizard-people conspiracies aside, there are several reasons to resist this kind of initiative:
It's a highly processed protein source that's going to be fed the lowest quality feed stock. If a cow is sick or malnourished, you can tell by the quality of the meat. Crickets will be fed garbage and reduced to powder, hiding any evidence of nasty factory farm conditions.
We don't eat the cow's filtering system (liver, kidneys, thyroid, lymph nodes) which is where most toxic material will be. Crickets have a poorer filtering system in general, and their bodies will be processed whole which means all of it will go straight into the final product.
The people pushing bugs are framing it as a moral issue. "This new protein source might just save the planet! Don't you care about the environment?" is a common one. There are many other policies that would make a more significant impact on the environment than bug farming, so this stinks of manipulation.
Another fear is that this will become an additive similar to soy protein, used as a cheap filler to reduce the cost of meat. Taco Bell already uses something like 45% filler in their ground beef, and Subway was criticized when testing found zero tuna DNA in their tuna. If insect protein becomes ubiquitous, the desire for uncontaminated meat will drive its price up and become unavailable for most consumers.
Bugs are gross.
This is what regulatory bodies like the FDA are for. To determine the safety of new foodstuffs before they come to market.
Cows and crickets are not remotely the same animals. You know what other animals we regularly eat the full filtering system of? Shrimp. And they are biologically much closer to crickets than cows.
Replacing beef with crickets actually would have a huge impact on any one person's carbon footprint. Beef is one of the most environmentally unfriendly foods in the world. Though I agree it would likely never become popular with enough people to make a meaningful dent, that isn't a reason to ban or even discourage people from eating crickets. I certainly won't be replacing my hamburgers and steaks with crickets any time soon.
The "36% beef" in Taco Bell meat is an urban legend. It's 88% beef, 3-5% water, 3-5% spices, and 3-5% oats and stabilizers. The Subway tuna DNA claim is also questionable. The testing methodology has been called into question, and tests conducted by other labs were able to determine that Subway's tuna is made from skipjack and yellowfin. While the book on this isn't closed yet, it's telling that the plaintiffs suing Subway over this have shifted their claims away from the meat content and towards Subway's sustainability claims.
Nobody's making you eat them. I think artichokes are gross, but I'm not having my politicians make a stink about the fact that farms still grow them.
I think there was a lawsuit at one point, but a quick google indicates that, at least ten years ago, it was 88% beef, not 55%.
Yeah they had an $0.88 crunch wrap supreme deal for a bit at the Taco Bell near me in order to flip the PR positively
I would argue that the slippery slope here is already well proven. Let's use a different example: plastic bags at the grocery store.
"Hey isn't it neat we have these reusable bags"
"You should use reusable bags for the environment, it's better"
"If you don't use green bags you're a bad person"
"Plastic bags now come with a $1 eco tax"
"Plastic bags are no longer available"
The people making environment-based arguments have a very clear intention of changing everyone's behavior, and if it can't be done through encouragement then it will eventually be done through taxation or other more forceful means.
This happens with all kinds of moral positions: cigarettes and liquor both get heavy "sin tax" applied to their price, because someone in government decided it should be discouraged. You can still smoke your cigarettes, nobody is taking them away from you. They just cost 2x more. Wait, 3x more.
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, and plastic bags have nothing to do with sustainable agriculture.
You're just grasping at reasons to ban a food you don't want to eat. You have absolutely no evidence that allowing cricket flour on the market will lead to the end of cattle farming.
Editing your posts makes it very hard to actually address what you're saying.
I'm not "grasping at reasons" here, I gave several at the very beginning related to feed stock material and the transfer of chemicals into the final product. The only thing you've offered to deal with these issues is faith that the FDA will do their job properly - which I've also gone through proving they do the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep people happy.
If you want to eat bugs go ahead, but I absolutely agree with the Italian government here that it needs to be clearly marked in every material where it's present.
Every single one of your complaints is easily addressed by food safety and labeling regulations.
You're worried that crickets will be used as filler in something? Well good news, that has to be declared on the packaging, so you don't have to buy it.
That isn't what the Italian government is doing. They aren't passing labeling laws, they want to ban the use of cricket flour entirely in the production of pizza and pasta, just like they are trying to outright ban lab grown meat.
The fair comprimise here is labeling laws, and that is what we already have in most countries. People have a right to know what is in their food. People also have aright to eat what they want. We should only be banning foodstuffs when they present a clear public health risk, not just because some people find them unpalatable.
And you haven't really proven anything about the FDA. The fact that people like to buy organic food does not really speak to the FDA's ability to regulate food safety. It speaks to a combination of people valuing other aspects (such as food quality or sustainability), susceptibility to marketing, or even belief in outright misinformation about the safety of non-organic foods. There is a reason organic food labeling is regulated by the USDA and not the FDA.
Sounds like we both agree that labeling laws would satisfy most issues.
I still maintain that your faith in the FDA and other food regulators is extremely optimistic, but that's not really central to the point.
No, slippery slope arguments CAN be a fallacy.
There are actual slippery slopes.
It really gets to me when people think yelling "FALLACY" is some kind of argument.
It's true, slipperly slopes can happen, but when someone says "allowing cricket flour to be sold as food is a slippery slope to banning cattle farming", without a single iota of evidence to back it up, we can pretty readily dismiss it as nonsense. When you present an argument predicated entirely on a slippery slope fallacy, you fail to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. That is why they can be so easily dismissed.
(This comment is noise / off-topic) I'm just really curious about what you said re. shrimp! Is it common for people to also eat the parts inside the head (where most of the organs are), rather than just the meat in the tail?
I personally really enjoy eating shrimp so I also wonder why crickets aren't as delicious considering the biological similarities between insects and crustaceans.
Have you had crickets yet? I've found them delicious.
I've tried crickets, ants, and mealworms, didn't like any of them unfortunately :<
It might be because the crickets were ground up including the shell? I don't enjoy eating crustaceans with shells even when they're prepared in a way that makes the shells edible, I only like eating the meat part. I suppose insects are commonly eaten with shells because they're small so it's impractical to try to extract only the meat part?
I got curious and looked up insect flavor and found this page with a long list of insects and descriptions of how they taste! If I try eating insects again I would prefer a herbivore, with no shell or very soft shell, and that doesn't have to be powdered or deep fried. Based on the list, sago worms might be the best candidate for me :)
Well, at the very least you've tried each of those and have an informed opinion!
Depends. I've seen it done - but it's fairly uncommon.
There's very little water around my area so I can't speak from much experience, just the touristy stuff I've seen/eaten when I go to the ocean.
It's actually fairly common here in the Philippines, but I thought it was uncommon elsewhere as a lot of foreigners who come here express surprise that shrimp heads don't just get discarded. (Though I prefer just the tail meat, myself.) I don't know why I feel like crustaceans are "cleaner" than insects just because they're in the ocean :))
I call bull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo
Meat is one of the things that made us humans we are today.
There is also ample evidence that farming meat, particularly larger livestock like cattle is a far more energy intensive process than growing foodplants. And while you may disagree with me, I believe the FAO is a more reputable organization than a random YouTube channel with videos about Jordan Peterson and "low testosterone".
But I'm not advocating for the end of beef production. I think we will have a lot more success adopting more sustainable farming practices, de-carbonizing energy production, and altering the diets of our livestock. My argument is that nobody has provided a good reason for why the government should outright ban people from eating crickets. Even if beef was magically less energy intensive than growing corn, it wouldn't change this simple fact.
For your first point, is this not exactly the kind of thing the FDA is for? Additionally, it infers that the quality of the feed actually makes a difference in the quality of the cricket. For safety and nutrition purposes, again this is exactly what the FDA is for. Beyond basics, would you or I even be able to tell between a the cricket equivalent of "factory farm" and "grass fed free range"?
We talk about these differences when discussing the quality of beef because our cultures have spent millennia cultivating and exploring the nuance of what makes a good steak. We have no similar body of cultural knowledge for cricket flour. We might be starting to create one, but it's small.
Your second point is interesting and I hadn't thought about before. If as you say their filtering is worse, does that mean more stuff ends up in their body, or it gets excreted, or both? Either way, this seems like an issue that could be mitigated by regulating what can be used as feed stock in the first place.
If you trust the FDA is doing its job, yes. But what kind of conditions are being reported right now in factory farms? Pretty terrible ones. Since people don't have the same empathy for bugs that they do for cows, these cricket farms would be even more disgusting.
And yes, there would be no difference in taste between the different kinds of cricket - especially since the first few commercials offerings have been powders like cricket flour - but would there be a difference in heavy metals? Prions? Parasites?
Insects in general can't regulate the ingress of molecules into their body as well as mammals. Their exoskeleton has holes they breathe through, which is the point of entry for all kinds of things. Most insecticides are just regular toxins that have been attached to a large molecule so mammals can easily block it out.
My larger point, though, is that the implementation of this will be truly disgusting once it reaches large scale. Bulldozers pushing rotting food scraps and garbage into a "bug pit" and sucking up everything that crawls out, then mash them into a paste and add maple sausage flavoring! Yum.
In fact I do, the FDA generally has a very good track record for these kinds of things. The introduction of the FDA has been an enormous win for food safety not just in the US, but around the world where many countries defer to the FDA's guidelines.
When is the last time you pulled something off the shelf at a grocery store and wondered if it would kill you?
That's a rather extreme example - of course there's nothing lethal being sold on grocery shelves, and that certainly wasn't my argument!
The explosion of organic, hormone-free, pesticide-free, and other specialty food labels in recent years tells us that consumers believe there are negative compounds making their way to us through our food.
As someone who's worked on and around the industrial side of foods production, I can tell you that the safety screenings we do is pretty minimal. 1oz grab samples don't always represent the entire truckload of corn, and these samples are often taken by the same operators who have a vested interest in keeping the process moving. See a clump of wet or rotten corn? Just don't sample from that side, come on man my engine's running let's get this done.
It does tell us what consumers believe, but it doesn't tell us much about the actual safety of what's coming from their grocery stores. A lot of idiots are also skeptical of vaccines, that doesn't make them enlightened or smarter than the CDC, it just means they are susceptible to misinformation or good marketing.
This one honestly irritates me the most. People don't want to replace meat with the many plants that contain protein, why on earth would they replace it with bugs? You know, the things we almost universally consider to be pests and are also a common phobia and generally a source of disgust. Most Americans eat far more protein than their bodies need; protein deficiency is incredibly rare.
I feel like the goalposts in this thread are being radically moved from where they are set in the article. The issue at hand is the Italian government wanting to ban cricket flour altogether, rather than letting people make their own decisions about where they get their protein.
Eh, how often do we get to discuss bug protein?
I don't think constraining discussion to exactly what the article is about is entirely helpful.
I never meant my comment as a means of supporting the banning of selling bugs as food, rather as a general response to the specific idea I quoted.
You actually raise some valid points (other than 5 which I agree with you but I don't see it as a valid point as to why this may not be a good thing). Especially the part about the filtering organs. Ones I didn't even think about.
4 might actually be a good thing though. I love meat and I personally would hate to be out priced of it but in the end overall it's better for me and the environment to eat less. and It would be a good byproduct to get people to eat less meat. So while I'd hate it, I think overall 4 might actually be a beneficial effect even if I would hate it.
Yeah 5 was very much just a joke.
I don't personally have a problem with insect protein - in fact I'm pretty sure I could cook with cricket flour and enjoy it - but I'm concerned about what it would look like on the production side as well as the escalating language from eco-activists to change the behavior of others.
Lots of people here have defended bugs by saying "If you don't like it you don't have to eat it" but they're intentionally missing the major point from all these bug articles, which is to eagerly advocate for them as a beef replacement.
Hell, look in this thread. There is already some one calling it brain rot (but from the perception of a vegetarian rather than far right person). It's so against our culture (not just Italy, I myself am speaking from a US viewpoint) that the idea just seems disgusting to a lot of people. I can't say I'm immune to it but my POV is more power to the people who can get themselves to stomach it, I cannot (though if you put it in pasta form or some sort of form where it does not look at all like the original insect I think I might be able to get over it to at least try it). But there are people who are comfortable even just looking down on people who eat bugs and it's not just the right sadly.
Wow thats so cool. It blows my mind how people are able to define themselves so rigidly by the customs and beliefs they grew up with and are unable or unwilling to budge on their definition of who they think they should be seen as. All of the politicians in this article just embody the "i made this" meme in my mind.
The folks pushing these new foods and protein sources seem more italian to me than pasta sauce(and the haters). They're actively pushing food science and culture in a positive direction and shaping the future of food in a way that everyone can approach and understand, so ubiquitous is pasta in the west. This is what makes them a "food superpower".
I have 0 problem with eating bugs conceptually. But one problem I often don't see people mention is allergies.
I have a deadly shellfish allergy. Something a lot of people don't know is that if you're allergic to shellfish you are also very likely allergic to certain insects (crickets in particular which are the big source for bug meat). So the idea that cricket could make their way into all kinds of foods is concerning for me because there's a good chance I won't be able to eat them. If flours etc started making insects commonplace in food that would basically create a whole new gluten-free-esque category, except it'd be even more important because I don't know of anybody who could literally die from eating gluten once.
(I'd have to get an allergy test to find out if I'm actually allergic to them, it's not a 100% thing apparently but very likely).
I've got that experience myself. Shrimp make my mouth itch and my digestion revolt, and crickets do the same thing. I didn't expect it when I first tried crickets, but there was that telltale itch, clear as day.
I wonder if Italians had similar discussions over the introduction of tomatoes? (Not that there was then such a country as Italy):
"hmm, here's this new poisonous plant from the Americas, surely people should not eat that"
"oh, come on, let's make pasta sauce"
I don’t want to eat bugs and I kinda hate that now even a statement like that is being politicized.
Nothing is political about that statement. What is political is telling other people that they cant.
Why? They're a great healthy sustainable protein source and a new kind of food? Everyone should want to eat bugs because there's not a great argument against it. But we can recognize their are cultural and emotional barriers that mean we might not be able to eat them.
Yep. I want to not be grossed out by bugs because of them being a better environmental source of food. hell, I want to not like meat.
Unfortunately neither are true for me but I don't think it's a bad thing to try to get people to do.
Uhm... now i'm sad because i really wanted to try the cricket tagliatelle but they haven't written the restaurant name.
Anyway, on a more serious note. I think the push back is because the way you are supposed to cook and eat italian food is usually embedded in culture. You do this and not that, you eat this with that but not now... and so on.
Think about the pizza with pineapple slices on it. For some guys it's a crime against humanity.
But honestly if you like that, eat it. It won't really affect anyone and it doesn't diminish the pleasure of a "standard" pizza to the other.
And anyway.... in Italy there are some places where there is stuff with insects in it... like Casu Marzu from Sardinia. So it's not about the insects... it's about the rules people have in their mind.
It takes time i think. Maybe they should try to focus on products for more open minded people? I dunno... energy bars? Restaurants targeted to youngsters?
They should make it cool... and then culture will eventually shift.
I think one should keep an open mind about eating insects. I had a cricket meal burger at a hipster eco-gastro popup in the Netherlands, where there's a lot of eco-gastro experimentation. It was... okay. Savory, albeit a little on the dry side.
There's an insect culinary evangelist named Joseph Yoon, and he does this fantastic Epicurious video where he doesn't even touch on the environmental aspects but instead celebrates the flavors and textures of insects and explores how they can be prepared.
Video link here
An interesting case study of the intersection of politics, food, and tradition. Do nascent cricket farms pose a threat to Italian culture? Some politicians are passionately saying it does. It reminds me of the recent brouhaha when US Democrats were accused of wanting to ban hamburgers.
You could probably get me to eat something made from paste of insects. I'd have to get over knowing it's insects but I think I could do it. I'm still not sure I'm ready to eat an insect that looks like one though honestly.
Meat consumption is unsustainable and is becoming expensive. When presented with this fact, some people would rather switch to eating ground-up locusts and roaches, instead of moving to the readily available plant-based protein.
I'm standing on the outside, looking in, and - from here - carnism seems like a truly extraordinary form of brain-rot.
Edit:grammar
I like how you use locusts and roaches when the article is about eating crickets (and nothing like a roach being posted).
Also, eating insects is not brain rot. Plenty of other cultures already do it. It's jsut seen as not normal/disgusting cause it's what we grew up with. I think it's disgusting but honestly tell me why it is brain rot to think of eating insects? And if people are willing to do it (which I'm not sure they are yet) and that still helps solve the environmental problem, why are you so quick to condemn them finding at least a better alternative then meat?
I would like to gently critique the method in which you have commented here. I'm guessing from the fact that you used the term "carnism" that you are a vegetarian / vegan and so likely want people to reduce their meat intake. I think that it's important to try to get people to reduce the amount of meat that they eat. I'll reveal some bias and say I am not a vegetarian, but I still want people, generally, to reduce the amount of meat that they eat, though I don't advocate for "zero". I tried to share a bit about my thought process and bias so you would know that I have at least some goals that likely overlap with yours, and that I respect people who are vegetarians / vegans. So I am assuming a common goal of "would like to reduce the amount of meat that is being eaten".
I want to talk about this phrase: "carnism seems like a truly extraordinary form of brain-rot." In general, it is a bad idea to make a statement that involves the cognitive ability of the people on the other end of an opinion. Saying that having a specific opinion would require a rotten brain is probably hyperbole - I doubt that you mean that carnism is actually caused by rotten brains - but it is hyperbole that is going to set people against what you are saying. It's not going to influence anyone to consume less meat, and it's just going to make people who do eat meat mad, and want to tell you why it's okay and natural to eat meat.
With regards to the crickets themselves, I think that plant protein is readily available, but so is bug protein. I do not think that anyone who is thinking about eating crickets is doing so because we have a need for meals to require the death of an animal. I'm not saying that there aren't people who want to know that an animal died for their meal - those people exist - but those aren't the demographic of people who are using cricket flour.
Boy, this article is so not what I was imagining it was about when I clicked on the link!
Great, now I actually want to read the article
Maybe not - I was imagining it was about some kind of pest control issue in Italian restaurants...