The whole eating insects idea is motivated by carbon emissions and similar concerns: insect meal is around 60-70% protein (beans are around 30%, maybe bean meal is more but I have never seen it anywhere), and its cost in terms of emissions and land use is much smaller than either meat or plants (especially stuff like soy). Nobody is arguing that it should replace beans. Rather, it could help diminish meat consumption.
According to this study a mealworm farm uses more energy per kg of protein produced compared to chicken, but much less energy than any other meat. However, mealworm farms rank lowest in CO₂-equivalent emissions per kg of protein and lowest in land use compared to all meat products, including chicken.
Apparently soy beans produce 6.82 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein isolate (which is 90% protein, therefore 7,5 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein), while mealworm farms produce 14 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein (and around 30 kg for chicken, the next best option). Worse, but less than double.
As for land use, the first study calculates that to produce 1kg of protein from mealworms it is necessary to use 18 square meters of land per year (including the land to grow food for the worms) while according to this other study vegetable proteins need up to 25 square meters of land per year for each kg of protein.
I admit it’s not as big a difference in land use as I thought (it’s different studies, they might have slightly different metrics) , but I think there are other factors that make it a much more complicated issue: mass use of fertilizers, monocultures, deforestation, soil impoverishment… An advantage of mealworms might be that you can give them a variety of foods that are easier on the soil (the first study mentioned carrots, grains and other stuff) in order for them to produce protein, while protein-heavy plants require rich soil and tend to drain it fast.
one minor nit to pick re: land use - not all land is created equal. you might be able to raise mealworms in places you can’t raise chickens, which would alleviate food deserts and reduce the cost of getting enough protein to market in many places.
The mix of possible food sources is something I hadn’t considered. I can definitely see that insects could be useful for using up food scraps.
Land use is a complicated one. 18 instead of 25 m² is definitely something, but it pales in comparison to how much more land is used by cattle, pigs or chicken. And it’s not like soybeans (or any other legumes) are intrinsically a destructive crop.
I agree, I honestly expected a much starker difference in land use. I also agree that soy beans can be grown responsibly, except of course it’s often not the case. The fact that both soybeans and insects are being grown largely as a source of protein for cattle brings us once again back to the main issue: cows!
true but I think the-powers-that-be are trying to promote crickets as mainstream human food because crickets are less expensive and more effortlessly bio-available than beans are.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m totally on team “Crickets-Yuck!”
what do you mean by “the-powers-that-be”? That sound like there would be a global conspiracy to push for insect based food in the west. It is mearely an adaptation of what is perfectly normal in other cultures and definetely more sustainable and healthier, than beef or pork.
An agreement or arrangement between multiple parties to do something harmful, immoral or subversive; an instance of collusion.
(law) An agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future.
loosely) A secret agreement to do something.
speaking of some mysterious power in the background is indicating a collusion, some sort of secret agreements and always with the goal to harm people.
By your logic every successful new technology was a global conspiracy. Agriculture? Conspiracy! Permanent houses instead of living on trees and in caves? Conspiracy! Water and Sanitation infrastrucutre? Conspiracy!
It is just normal evolution that successful technologies establish and it is normal in a market environment that different actors see a potentially successful new technology and try to get in the market for it.
we’re not letting the word “conspiracy” trick us into thinking it’s not real, we’re just not letting you get away with using the word “conspiracy” to insinuate that this is some plot to trick us into unwillingly eating cricket when it’s just another product for sale that everyone is free to either buy or not buy as they choose.
When googling unfortunately most sites are SEO food blogs, that don’t refer to it properly. That beans cause gas is generalyl known though and for some people thatcan compound with other digestive problems.
It’s also known that after a while people adapt. The intestinal microbiome grows more methane-metabolising bacteria, thus decreasing the severity of any gaseous issue.
But it’s true that some digestive deseases may limit people’s ability to consume large amounts of legume.
I know of no flour replacements that have literally zero carbs. Even whey protein which is a fitness supplement has more carbs. I’m sure the keto community would be super into this.
Eating insects is not weird in many cultures, and a product existing does not mean you have to eat it. Plenty of people hate tomatoes, should that be banned too? Don’t like it? Don’t eat it. You can be happy for the people that do want this.
Guess what else is nutritious and high in protein, but not creepy? Beans.
I’d rather just eat more beans than crickets.
The whole eating insects idea is motivated by carbon emissions and similar concerns: insect meal is around 60-70% protein (beans are around 30%, maybe bean meal is more but I have never seen it anywhere), and its cost in terms of emissions and land use is much smaller than either meat or plants (especially stuff like soy). Nobody is arguing that it should replace beans. Rather, it could help diminish meat consumption.
Is that true? Do you have some links for that?
According to this study a mealworm farm uses more energy per kg of protein produced compared to chicken, but much less energy than any other meat. However, mealworm farms rank lowest in CO₂-equivalent emissions per kg of protein and lowest in land use compared to all meat products, including chicken.
Apparently soy beans produce 6.82 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein isolate (which is 90% protein, therefore 7,5 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein), while mealworm farms produce 14 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kg of protein (and around 30 kg for chicken, the next best option). Worse, but less than double.
As for land use, the first study calculates that to produce 1kg of protein from mealworms it is necessary to use 18 square meters of land per year (including the land to grow food for the worms) while according to this other study vegetable proteins need up to 25 square meters of land per year for each kg of protein.
I admit it’s not as big a difference in land use as I thought (it’s different studies, they might have slightly different metrics) , but I think there are other factors that make it a much more complicated issue: mass use of fertilizers, monocultures, deforestation, soil impoverishment… An advantage of mealworms might be that you can give them a variety of foods that are easier on the soil (the first study mentioned carrots, grains and other stuff) in order for them to produce protein, while protein-heavy plants require rich soil and tend to drain it fast.
one minor nit to pick re: land use - not all land is created equal. you might be able to raise mealworms in places you can’t raise chickens, which would alleviate food deserts and reduce the cost of getting enough protein to market in many places.
Thanks!
The mix of possible food sources is something I hadn’t considered. I can definitely see that insects could be useful for using up food scraps.
Land use is a complicated one. 18 instead of 25 m² is definitely something, but it pales in comparison to how much more land is used by cattle, pigs or chicken. And it’s not like soybeans (or any other legumes) are intrinsically a destructive crop.
I agree, I honestly expected a much starker difference in land use. I also agree that soy beans can be grown responsibly, except of course it’s often not the case. The fact that both soybeans and insects are being grown largely as a source of protein for cattle brings us once again back to the main issue: cows!
true but I think the-powers-that-be are trying to promote crickets as mainstream human food because crickets are less expensive and more effortlessly bio-available than beans are.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m totally on team “Crickets-Yuck!”
what do you mean by “the-powers-that-be”? That sound like there would be a global conspiracy to push for insect based food in the west. It is mearely an adaptation of what is perfectly normal in other cultures and definetely more sustainable and healthier, than beef or pork.
Is this cricket thing only happening at one grocery store? Or at only one restaurant?
No, it’s happening all over the world. Therefore it’s a global conspiracy.
Don’t let the word “conspiracy” make you think it’s not a real phenomenon.
Conspiracy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy
speaking of some mysterious power in the background is indicating a collusion, some sort of secret agreements and always with the goal to harm people.
By your logic every successful new technology was a global conspiracy. Agriculture? Conspiracy! Permanent houses instead of living on trees and in caves? Conspiracy! Water and Sanitation infrastrucutre? Conspiracy!
It is just normal evolution that successful technologies establish and it is normal in a market environment that different actors see a potentially successful new technology and try to get in the market for it.
we’re not letting the word “conspiracy” trick us into thinking it’s not real, we’re just not letting you get away with using the word “conspiracy” to insinuate that this is some plot to trick us into unwillingly eating cricket when it’s just another product for sale that everyone is free to either buy or not buy as they choose.
Many people cannot digest beans and other legumes properly.
Is that so? Can you link some source for this claim?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096399691400698X
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368013/
When googling unfortunately most sites are SEO food blogs, that don’t refer to it properly. That beans cause gas is generalyl known though and for some people thatcan compound with other digestive problems.
It’s also known that after a while people adapt. The intestinal microbiome grows more methane-metabolising bacteria, thus decreasing the severity of any gaseous issue.
But it’s true that some digestive deseases may limit people’s ability to consume large amounts of legume.
I know of no flour replacements that have literally zero carbs. Even whey protein which is a fitness supplement has more carbs. I’m sure the keto community would be super into this.
Eating insects is not weird in many cultures, and a product existing does not mean you have to eat it. Plenty of people hate tomatoes, should that be banned too? Don’t like it? Don’t eat it. You can be happy for the people that do want this.
then walk past the crickets to the beans at the grocery store, and let those of us who are willing to try new things try them.