Here’s an informative TED Talk in which Marcel Dicke makes an appetizing case for adding insects to everyone’s diet.
Exploring the Results of Current Trends in Food Consumption and Possible Alternatives
By ssamoyl2
Here’s an informative TED Talk in which Marcel Dicke makes an appetizing case for adding insects to everyone’s diet.
By ssamoyl2
How feasible is it that we make consuming insects the norm?
We have already come to a conclusion that insects are more sustainable than eating meat such as beef, chicken, or pork. Insects take up less land than our current industrial animal agricultural system does. We need to sustain our increasing population and many arguments claim we will not be able to sustain our population with the way we currently produce food. Can insects be a solution to this problem?
Social stigma exists around insects in general, and in order for insects to become a common food source for animal protein, we need to decrease concerns over consuming edible insects. Stigmas surrounding insects include insects being harmful, dirty, and scary; however, this is not true for edible insects. Because many major edible insects (larvae, grasshoppers) eat wood or fresh plant leaves, they are more clean/hygienic than crabs or lobsters, which eat carrion.
Also, insects are not always eaten alive, or in the way they appear when they are alive; many insects consumed today are ground into flour. In the post on the site under “Meat Alternatives” titled, “Insects As an Alternative”, there are many ways insects can be consumed without the disgust factor of eating what looks like an insect. Insects can be used in granola bars or tortillas. Examples of the forms insects can take to be eaten are shown in the table below.
The chart above displays ways that insects are currently treated to be eaten as a source of protein. We are already on track to increase the amount of insects we consume in place of other ways we get animal protein today (beef, poultry, pork). I think that the way we market insects can have a strong impact on whether insects will be a large part of our diets in the future.
LINKS:
http://www.wachstumsforum.ch/agri/e/forest-insects-as-food-fao-i1380e00.pdf#page=74
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/insects-as-food-is-it-feasible-for-humans-to-replace-traditional-livestock-me
By ssamoyl2
One commonly referenced “alternative food” is insects– caterpillars, termites, crickets, you name it; someone, somewhere is eating it. But is there any merit or feasibility in bugs as a real meat alternative?
Well, it seems like it. Insects are very protein-rich, and contain more vitamins and minerals than your typical farm animal. Plus, the input-to-yield ratio is twelve times greater than that of cows. Insect meal can also be used as a replacement for feeding livestock, rather than soymeal or fishmeal, and would be cheaper. Insects can also be fed on human and animal waste, which we need a way to get rid of anyway.
Two fifths of the world already eat bugs for nourishment. Some species are treated as delicacies in these parts of the globe, like yellowjacket larvae, cicadas, and weaver ants. Caterpillars have been compared to lobsters in taste and texture. At least 1,900 species are known to be edible, and the list is still growing.
However, bugs aren’t perfect– it takes significantly more energy to produce insect-meal than soymeal or fishmeal, even though it costs less. Not all bugs are safe for consumption, either; bugs harvested in the wild may have been exposed to pesticides or contaminants. Even those raised industrially raise concerns; should we feed them on human and animals waste, the insects would be subjected to possible viruses and bacteria, not to mention heavy metals, that would make their way into our bodies. Plus, it is not yet known whether insect allergies are a concern, but the protein that makes many people allergic to shellfish is similarly found in insects.
Still, insects hold way too much promise to write them off. People of many cultures already find them delicious, and don’t view them with the same stigma that the West does. Many species are more nutritious than their traditional livestock counterparts; grasshoppers are actually more protein-rich than lean ground beef, and less fatty. Plus, industrially raising insects would use significantly less land, less water, and less resources overall than livestock. So are insects really the future of food? I’d wager they’re a part of it.
Content Sources
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141014-time-to-put-bugs-on-the-menu
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/eating-bugs-food_n_4726371.html
Photo Sources
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2014/02/Entomo-website-design-promotes-insects-as-food_dezeen_5.jpg
http://reveal2012.leeds.ac.uk/files/2012/06/Web-21.png
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/67/66/9f/67669f56bff28a08e17f66cc93ff74be.jpg
By ssamoyl2
Maybe we do not need an alternative to meat…maybe we need an alternative to the way meat consumers consume meat.
This discussion will review the debate between Simon Fairlie and James McWilliams on the question, “Can eating meat and dairy products be sustainable?” You can find the debate here.
FOR THE MOTION that meat and dairy products can be sustainable:
Simon Fairlie is a founding editor of The Land magazine and author of Meat: A Benign Extravagance (Permanent Publications and Chelsea Green 2010). He keeps dairy cows and pigs at a community in Dorset, England.
AGAINST THE MOTION that meat and dairy products can be sustainable:
James McWilliams is the author of several books about food and agriculture, including Just Food and The Modern Savage. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Harper’s, The New Yorker online, and The Paris Review. He writes ‘The Things We Eat’ column for Pacific Standard and teaches history at Texas State University.
The basis of Simon’s argument lies heavily on the fact that a lot of the meat we consume is what he calls ‘default meat’. Eating too much meat is, of course, unsustainable, but close to half of meat produced is this ‘default meat’. Default meat is a “by-product of agricultural systems designed to produce grains and other vegetable staples.” This meat includes livestock fed on crop residues and food waste, foraging land unsuitable for cultivation, etc. Simon proposes that for meat consumption to be sustainable we should consume only default meat.
James counters Simon’s argument by stating that although Simon is able to feed 25 people in his community with default meat, we cannot scale this to feed the billions of people living in the world today. James states, “Sustainably meeting that challenge… will require ending all forms of animal domestication to clear space and recover the resources to sustain edible plants.” Grass-fed cattle emit more greenhouse gases than industrially fed cattle. “It makes more sense to replace livestock with a carefully managed agricultural model that produces plants for people to eat.”
At the end of the debate, James makes a very intriguing concluding point: in the world that currently exists, both Simon and James agree that “animals should only be consumed on the margins,” meaning that neither of them agree with industrial animal agriculture and possibly even pasture based animal agriculture. They both conclude that there definitely needs to be a change in the way we are currently producing and consuming meat.
By ssamoyl2
Feasibility of food alternatives, or changing the way people eat food in general, can differ based on a lot of different factors. Location is one factor that affects the feasibility of certain diets in the world. This post will examine a study conducted by Emma Lea and Anthony Worsley examining the perceived benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet of six hundred and one South Australian residents. You can find the research paper here.
The study was conducted by picking one thousand randomly selected people of the South Australian population from the telephone directory. A questionnaire, as well as information about the study, was mailed in a reply-paid envelope to residents in 1999. The were six hundred and one respondents to the questionnaire from which the study is based. 1.5% of the sample identified as vegetarian and 7.2% of the sample identified as semi-vegetarian. Close to 40% of the sample expressed interest in vegetarianism. 65.2% of the sample had moderate meat consumption. The main barrier to adopting a vegetarian diet for many respondents was they enjoyed eating meat. Second, there was a perceived need for more information about vegetarians diets. Both men and women perceived changing eating habits and routines as a perceived barrier of vegetarianism. Many older men in the sample agreed that humans are ‘meant’ to eat meat. Most respondents agreed that a benefit of a vegetarian diet is increased health benefits from fruit and vegetable consumption as well as lower fat intake. Health benefits, including weight control and disease prevention, were paramount.
The comments that 30% or more respondents agreed with include:
-“I like eating meat”
-“I do not want to change my eating habit or routine”
-“I think humans are meant to eat meat”
-“My family eats meat”
-“I need more information about vegetarian diet”
-“There is too limited a choice when I eat out”
-“My friends eat meat”
-“My family/spouse/partner won’t eat vegetarian food”
Overall, respondents are interested in a vegetarian diet, but also really like meat. Thus, the study concludes that, from results of the study, there would be more interest in plant based diets with some consumption of meat than no-meat diets. Also, after watching Ted Talks such as Why I’m a Weekday Vegetarian and What’s Wrong with what We Eat, both speakers eat meat, yet comment of how big of a detriment our current meat industry is. One of the speakers admits that he probably never will completely exclude meat from his diet. What’s the takeaway from this? How feasible is a vegetarian diet, really? Based on the research conducted in this post, the future of food, with regards to bettering our environment, will probably consist of eating plant-based diets with some meat consumption (in developed countries). With the knowledge of the health benefits of eating less/no meat and interest in vegetarianism, respondents to the survey have helped shaped our idea of how feasible meat alternative diets are: it is feasible to lessen meat consumption. I think that the extent to which the decrease in meat consumption is implemented relies heavily on how meat will be marketed in the future. A study done in North Carolina concluded that in order to increase the number or vegetarian diets, policymakers should support programs should work on decreasing the cost and increase the supply of good-quality fruits and vegetables in the market in low-income communities.