No, it's just a solution - that nobody asked for - looking for a problem.
It's also the food industry looking for a new profitable market, and PRing the crap out of it, with BS articles - the same appearing all the time, for 3+ decades, until they finally get it to stick...
We already have an economically efficient food source. It's called plants. And if we stopped wasting 25kg of edible produce (like soy) to make 1kg of beef, and cared more about effective distribution and solving logistic problems than pleasing the stock market, we could easily feed the the worlds population without dooming our planet.
Insects are a viable addition, as they are capable of converting otherwise inedible plant material into material fit for human consumption. But they are not required.
So, I have a question, I don't know if you can answer it, but in conversations like this one people always bring up beef. My question is: why? Most of the meat production globally is pork and chicken. In 2018, beef production was about 20% of all meat production while pork and chicken combined was about 70%:
Btw, note that I don't agree (or disagree) with the article about insects being any kind of solution to anything so my question has nothing to do with the article.
To make a stronger argument. Beef production is by far the most inefficient method of converting resources (feed, water, land, energy) into meat, so its the one commonly used when argueing about resource requirements. One could say it's a rethorical tactic.
Taking water as an example, the required amounts (litres) for 1kg of meat are: (beef:~15500, mutton:~10500, pork:~6000, chicken:~4300)
However, the arguments would still work if we took chicken as the measurement...1kg of insect protein requires 5l of water, 3 orders of magnitude less than the most efficent classic meat production
Insects are not a solution despite already being used today. Strawberry flavored ice-cream anyone? Yeah that's beetles. And some peptides from insects are used in modern medicine. But willingly switch from energy dense meats to insects? Not until there are no other options and even then the insect option will be short lived when we that far into trouble.
Insects may be in a distant dystopian future where governments/people paralyze themselves into inaction and don't act to improve water storage and delivery. Even then it would be a short term solution because when the water is gone, the people are gone shortly thereafter. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Even if one believes insects would save the environment there would have to be peer reviewed studies done to show the environmental differences when we are talking about the scale of insect farms required to feed a nation or world. A few insect farms are not going to have the same impact as replacing all meat farms with the size and quantity of insect farms to meet the caloric and amino-acid replacement requirements. That is something else that would need many studies of course. Vitamin, mineral, collagen and other proteins, specific EAA/BCAA amino-acid profiles, and quantity of insects required to meet those replacement needs. Not all proteins are equal in protein and fat content. Fat is required to release bile from the gallbladder. This means finding the right balance of insects to get enough fat for bile release to break down proteins. Fat is highly variable in different species of insects. Insects would be introducing new bacterium into the human gut biome. Scientists are barely beginning to understand the gut-brain axis what what bacterium have what downstream effects. Some cultures already consume supplemental insects but their gut biome have evolved over a long period to handle this. There would also need to be studies on the impact to the endocrine and immune systems. Some people may have allergic and auto-immune reactions to specific bugs. There may be changes to hormone levels, positive or negative. Will the food packaging list the specific insects and quantity of each insect? From the hygienic point of view it should be pointed out that some insects may produce or contain toxic bioactive compounds. Each insect would need a toxicity profile and/or those toxins would need to be isolated and removed from the final product.
Then there is the risk of cross contamination of insect farms and vegetable crop farms. Putting certain insects near crops in large amounts are a high risk to those farm owners. There would need to be regulations to prevent insect swarms escaping and destroying crops in their migratory path. Insects must not be introduced into a state that primarily contains farms with the foods those insects would consume.
The science is pretty much clear on the topic; Insects beat "classic" meat production methods in every efficiency metric.
1kg of insect protein requires: 1.7kg of feed and 5l of water
1kg of beef protein requires: 20-25kg of feed and 15500l of water
Most of the food used as animal feed has to be grown on arable land. A lot of it (soy, corn, ...) is actually edible for humans. Insects on the other hand, can consume what essentially amounts to waste-products such as spent grain from breweries.
> Not all proteins are equal in protein and fat content. Fat is required to release bile from the gallbladder.
Insects protein consists of the same 20 proteinogenic amino-acids as those of other animals. And there are more than enough sources of fat available, even if one completely abandons meat.
> Putting certain insects near crops in large amounts are a high risk to those farm owners.
The insects used in meat production are not crop-pests. And I would be alot more worried about naturally ocurring pests, which benefit from the huge mono-cultured plants we use to produce animal feed.
Have any studies been done to determine if insects would add new allergens or toxins that humans are not ready to metabolize? There are existing groups that eat insects but I think they would have to be excluded from the studies as their gut biome will have adapted over a longer period of time. Have there been a large group of volunteers to live off insects? Maybe a college town? What I am most curious about is what if any labeling will have to occur on packages to detail what specific insects were being utilized. Fat content does vary from 5% to 45% on different species of insects so I think that does actually matter. And different insects have different toxins just like plants so there will be people allergic to a more or less degree to specific insects.
>here are existing groups that eat insects but I think they would have to be excluded from the studies as their gut biome will have adapted over a longer period of time.
The "gut biome" is not a genetically fixed factor. It is a collection of acquired microorganisms and changes as we change what we eat, how much, how physically active we are, what substances the organism comes in contact with. etc.
And yes, there is scientific literature on the subject, lots of it:
> Fat content does vary from 5% to 45% on different species of insects so I think that does actually matter
Fat content also varies wildly in classical meat, and in plants, so what about it? Just as with all other food sources, someone living on an insect-based diet must take care to balance required nutritients.
The "gut biome" is not a genetically fixed factor.
I would never dispute that. There are known derivatives and byproducts created by the most common gut bacteria when consuming different toxins and proteins. This is where most peoples allergens originate from today. Different meats and vegetables have different affects on different people and that is why I believe this should be tested on a large sample of people. I bet you could get a college town to try it out. This would also be a good way to see if anyone is going to buy this stuff.
Fat content also varies wildly in classical meat, and in plants, so what about it?
And it is clearly labeled based on the specific product. So in this case are we going to have a package of crickets clearly labeled as such and you know what you are getting, or will people be buying various insects with unknown quantities of protein, fat, vitamins, etc? The packaging for meats and vegetables is clearly labeled for people to know what they are getting. Some people can't eat beef. Packages that have beef are clearly labeled as such allowing the buyer to avoid it. That is all I am asking and I don't believe that is unreasonable. My concern is that a company will just add insects as x percentage of various insects. Some people can't eat certain amounts of fat and protein unless they take bile salts and digestive enzymes to match the quantity so these people will need to know what they are getting, as they do today with meats and veggies in the grocery store. Future business owners in this market will certainly care if they operate on a margin as many agricultural business do.
All these discussions try to solve feeding more humans, which is a secondary issue and the consequence of the primary issue: more humans resulting in an unsustainable number of humans on the planet.
12 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 36.6 ms ] threadIt's also the food industry looking for a new profitable market, and PRing the crap out of it, with BS articles - the same appearing all the time, for 3+ decades, until they finally get it to stick...
We already have an economically efficient food source. It's called plants. And if we stopped wasting 25kg of edible produce (like soy) to make 1kg of beef, and cared more about effective distribution and solving logistic problems than pleasing the stock market, we could easily feed the the worlds population without dooming our planet.
Insects are a viable addition, as they are capable of converting otherwise inedible plant material into material fit for human consumption. But they are not required.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-production-b...
Most of the meat people eat (not just production) is also pork and chicken again with about 20% beef and 70% pork and chicken:
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#what-types-of-mea...
So why the focus on beef? Can you explain?
Btw, note that I don't agree (or disagree) with the article about insects being any kind of solution to anything so my question has nothing to do with the article.
To make a stronger argument. Beef production is by far the most inefficient method of converting resources (feed, water, land, energy) into meat, so its the one commonly used when argueing about resource requirements. One could say it's a rethorical tactic.
Taking water as an example, the required amounts (litres) for 1kg of meat are: (beef:~15500, mutton:~10500, pork:~6000, chicken:~4300)
However, the arguments would still work if we took chicken as the measurement...1kg of insect protein requires 5l of water, 3 orders of magnitude less than the most efficent classic meat production
Insects may be in a distant dystopian future where governments/people paralyze themselves into inaction and don't act to improve water storage and delivery. Even then it would be a short term solution because when the water is gone, the people are gone shortly thereafter. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Even if one believes insects would save the environment there would have to be peer reviewed studies done to show the environmental differences when we are talking about the scale of insect farms required to feed a nation or world. A few insect farms are not going to have the same impact as replacing all meat farms with the size and quantity of insect farms to meet the caloric and amino-acid replacement requirements. That is something else that would need many studies of course. Vitamin, mineral, collagen and other proteins, specific EAA/BCAA amino-acid profiles, and quantity of insects required to meet those replacement needs. Not all proteins are equal in protein and fat content. Fat is required to release bile from the gallbladder. This means finding the right balance of insects to get enough fat for bile release to break down proteins. Fat is highly variable in different species of insects. Insects would be introducing new bacterium into the human gut biome. Scientists are barely beginning to understand the gut-brain axis what what bacterium have what downstream effects. Some cultures already consume supplemental insects but their gut biome have evolved over a long period to handle this. There would also need to be studies on the impact to the endocrine and immune systems. Some people may have allergic and auto-immune reactions to specific bugs. There may be changes to hormone levels, positive or negative. Will the food packaging list the specific insects and quantity of each insect? From the hygienic point of view it should be pointed out that some insects may produce or contain toxic bioactive compounds. Each insect would need a toxicity profile and/or those toxins would need to be isolated and removed from the final product.
Then there is the risk of cross contamination of insect farms and vegetable crop farms. Putting certain insects near crops in large amounts are a high risk to those farm owners. There would need to be regulations to prevent insect swarms escaping and destroying crops in their migratory path. Insects must not be introduced into a state that primarily contains farms with the foods those insects would consume.
There are.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8
The science is pretty much clear on the topic; Insects beat "classic" meat production methods in every efficiency metric.
1kg of insect protein requires: 1.7kg of feed and 5l of water
1kg of beef protein requires: 20-25kg of feed and 15500l of water
Most of the food used as animal feed has to be grown on arable land. A lot of it (soy, corn, ...) is actually edible for humans. Insects on the other hand, can consume what essentially amounts to waste-products such as spent grain from breweries.
> Not all proteins are equal in protein and fat content. Fat is required to release bile from the gallbladder.
Insects protein consists of the same 20 proteinogenic amino-acids as those of other animals. And there are more than enough sources of fat available, even if one completely abandons meat.
> Putting certain insects near crops in large amounts are a high risk to those farm owners.
The insects used in meat production are not crop-pests. And I would be alot more worried about naturally ocurring pests, which benefit from the huge mono-cultured plants we use to produce animal feed.
Have any studies been done to determine if insects would add new allergens or toxins that humans are not ready to metabolize? There are existing groups that eat insects but I think they would have to be excluded from the studies as their gut biome will have adapted over a longer period of time. Have there been a large group of volunteers to live off insects? Maybe a college town? What I am most curious about is what if any labeling will have to occur on packages to detail what specific insects were being utilized. Fat content does vary from 5% to 45% on different species of insects so I think that does actually matter. And different insects have different toxins just like plants so there will be people allergic to a more or less degree to specific insects.
The "gut biome" is not a genetically fixed factor. It is a collection of acquired microorganisms and changes as we change what we eat, how much, how physically active we are, what substances the organism comes in contact with. etc.
And yes, there is scientific literature on the subject, lots of it:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=insects+human+...
> Fat content does vary from 5% to 45% on different species of insects so I think that does actually matter
Fat content also varies wildly in classical meat, and in plants, so what about it? Just as with all other food sources, someone living on an insect-based diet must take care to balance required nutritients.
I would never dispute that. There are known derivatives and byproducts created by the most common gut bacteria when consuming different toxins and proteins. This is where most peoples allergens originate from today. Different meats and vegetables have different affects on different people and that is why I believe this should be tested on a large sample of people. I bet you could get a college town to try it out. This would also be a good way to see if anyone is going to buy this stuff.
Fat content also varies wildly in classical meat, and in plants, so what about it?
And it is clearly labeled based on the specific product. So in this case are we going to have a package of crickets clearly labeled as such and you know what you are getting, or will people be buying various insects with unknown quantities of protein, fat, vitamins, etc? The packaging for meats and vegetables is clearly labeled for people to know what they are getting. Some people can't eat beef. Packages that have beef are clearly labeled as such allowing the buyer to avoid it. That is all I am asking and I don't believe that is unreasonable. My concern is that a company will just add insects as x percentage of various insects. Some people can't eat certain amounts of fat and protein unless they take bile salts and digestive enzymes to match the quantity so these people will need to know what they are getting, as they do today with meats and veggies in the grocery store. Future business owners in this market will certainly care if they operate on a margin as many agricultural business do.