

Can the Dutch Get the World to Eat Bugs? - sasvari
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/09/bug-nuggets/8599/

======
stcredzero
It should be relatively easy to both engineer completely controlled "farms"
for growing insects and to selectively breed variants that are more suitable
for food. We should be able to produce a creature that would be a great deal
more palatable to the western palate as well as easier to process.

Have you ever seen a wild strawberry or a wild carrot? Many examples of the
former are little mean things whose entire surface is seed, and the latter can
have the consistency of wood. (Sometimes fully domesticated carrots can have
woody parts in the center.)

In general, the domesticated versions of plants are an order of magnitude
tastier than their wild ancestors, and a great deal of adaptation can be
managed with animals as well. Insects, with their small size and short
lifespans, should be even easier to domesticate, once we set our minds to it.

~~~
icegreentea
While true, it's not -too- necessary. There's a pretty good set of insects
that are already 'palpable to the western palate'. Grasshoppers/crickets when
stir fried pretty much tastes like crunchy chicken (at least that's my 5 year
old memory of it).

Also, it's pretty clear that the 'western palate' is super open to change from
social pressures. You guys seem to love raw fish now.

~~~
sliverstorm
sashimi does have the upside of still being fish, which westerners are used
to.

------
patio11
Pass the word: rich, cultured people eat lovely healthy organic _DUTCH_HERE_.
This script has gotten people to eat cooked snails, raw fish, and various
microbial infection byproducts before.

They're only "bugs" if you're incompetent at marketing.

~~~
phren0logy
Perhaps "land shrimp"? Seriously, I agree that putting the word "bugs" in the
name of the products does not bode well for attracting any but the adventurous
and novelty-seeking Americans/Europeans.

~~~
patio11
Even worse, they're describing it as chicken nugget replacements: i.e. for
those people who are too poor to buy McNuggets now you can get fat on
BugNuggets. I'd have difficulty coming up with a less appealing narrative for
food if I tried.

~~~
burgerbrain
What do _you_ suggest as affordable and practical sources of protein for poor
people?

~~~
patio11
Are we talking Africa poor or American poor? For Americans: beef, pork,
chicken, fish, or anythig else. At the top of the list of problems poor
Americans don't have: dang, poverty is greatly restricting my protein and
calorie intake.

For everybody else, seaweed, legumes, or whatever. You really don't need
Western levels of protein consumption, as evidenced by e.g. it being a
minuscule portion of the traditional diets of Non-Western nations without
peacetime food problems, like, say, Japan.

Plus after they're rich they can overconsume meat like we do. It practically
defines being a rich country when your local poor people eat meat regularly.

~~~
burgerbrain
I'm talking about Americans working 2 or 3 jobs who don't have the time, and
honestly don't have the money either (yes, such poverty _does_ exist in the
US, perhaps you are just lucky enough to have not encountered it...) needed to
cook meals with sufficient nutrient value for their (often quite large...)
family. The result of this is that malnutrition is a _very_ real problem among
children of poor families. The worst part about this is the problem is
infectious. Children that grow up without proper nutrition will be
intellectually and physically stunted, dramatically increasing the chances
that when they eventually have a family their children will end up the same
way.

Statements like _"local poor people eat meat regularly."_ are just flat out
ignorant. I've known families that _save up_ for bulk rice. _"Seaweed, legumes
or whatever"_ is so unrealistic it is absurd. People with time and money have
those luxuries.

~~~
patio11
_Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out
ignorant._

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-
ar...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-are-americas-
poor)

Search for "Food Consumption of Poor Children", read the following two
paragraphs. USDA data shows poor people eat a) more protein than non-poor
people (yes, really), b) more meat than average citizens of many rich nations
(like Japan or the UK), and c) _vastly_ more meat than average citizens of
Mexico/Brazil/etc.

~~~
burgerbrain
heritage.org? You have to be fucking kidding me. Do you even know who they
are?

~~~
patio11
They appear to be the group with USDA data to back up their claims regarding a
measurable fact of material reality. If you have better data, please, do
share.

------
lobo_tuerto
Well, Mexico is a place where you can find places to eat insects fairly
easily. Like "chapulines" (grasshopers)from Oaxaca. They are very crunchy and
tasty. ;)

The mexicas (from prehispanic era) used to have a variety of insects in their
menu.

Here you can find a table with a list of some of the species currently
included in people's diet: <http://entomologia.net/idolina.htm>

It's in Spanish, but they have the scientific order and family name.

------
jules
> Crickets, for example, convert feed to body mass about twice as efficiently
> as pigs and five times as efficiently as cattle.

So, with about the same efficiency as chicken.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio>

------
cageface
Over here in Asia people have been eating all kinds of bugs for years. A bowl
of beetles with chili powder is a favorite bar snack in Thailand.

~~~
jamesbritt
Please tell me the beetles are already dead before being served.

~~~
cageface
Definitely. Generally fried and liberally seasoned. I haven't had the courage
to try one myself yet.

------
noelwelsh
Interesting. I wonder how bugs stack up for heme-iron and the other nutrients
(aside from protein) that one gets from red meat. It's diversity of nutrients,
and the body's efficiency at absorbing them, that for me make the strongest
case for an omnivorous diet. It's the environmental cost of raising animal
protein that for me is the strongest argument for vegetarianism.

~~~
stcredzero
Diversity is often overlooked when people think about diet. The longest lived
populations also tend to have preserved a tremendous amount of diversity in
their diet. Folks living in the hills of Sicily can sometimes incorporate
material from several dozen different kinds of plants in a single meal. In
contrast, it's not unusual for a North American to make a meal with corn,
peas, potatoes, and some form of meat. That's between one or two orders of
magnitude less diversity.

I've tried purposely maximizing dietary diversity, and it seems to make a
difference for me.

------
stuff4ben
Why is it I have no problems eating shrimp or lobster, but the thought of
insects disgusts me? Shrimp and lobster are crustaceans which are arthropods
just like insects.

~~~
seanalltogether
Because one provide a large continuous chunk of meat, and the other doesn't?
Also are insects gutted or do you end up eating their entire intestinal track?

~~~
raldi
Clams, oysters, and mussels aren't gutted.

~~~
pygy_
... and neither are crustaceans. They're mollusks, and they're delicious when
properly cooked (especially mussels, if you ever visit the north of France,
Belgium or the Netherlands, you'll miss something if you don't try them).

I find oysters disappointing though, especially for their high price. They're
just textureless, wet salty things.

French people also eat snails. With truckloads of garlic, to mask the dirt
taste, they're quite nice to eat too.

------
raldi
A piece of advice I learned in the publishing industry: When a headline ends
in a question mark, and the question can be answered either "yes" or "no",
it's never yes.

------
nkurz
It's interesting to note that this is not a new concept. I've long been
enamored of Vincent Holt's 1885 "Why Not Eat Insects". It the work of a very
earnest Victorian gentleman trying to figure out how best to deal with the
protein needs of "the poor", leading to the conclusion that the upper class
must lead the way by changing their attitude toward the consumption of
insects:

    
    
      It is hard, very hard, to overcome the feelings that have 
      been instilled into us from our youth upwards; but still I 
      foresee the day when the slug will be as popular in 
      England as its luscious namesake the Trepang, or sea-slug, 
      is in China, and a dish of grasshoppers fried in butter as 
      much relished by the English peasant as a similarly 
      treated dish of locusts is by an Arab or Hottentot. There 
      are many reasons why this is to be hoped for. Firstly, 
      philosophy bids us neglect no wholesome source of food. 
      Secondly, what a pleasant change from the labourer's 
      unvarying meal of bread, lard, and bacon, or bread and 
      lard without bacon, or bread without lard or bacon, would 
      be a good dish of fried cockchafers or grasshoppers. "How 
      the poor live!" Badly, I know; but they neglect wholesome 
      foods, from a foolish prejudice which it should be the 
      task of their betters, by their example, to overcome. 
    

Full text (with many recipes) online here:
<http://bugsandbeasts.com/whynoteatinsects/>

~~~
sliverstorm
The only argument that matters to me:

 _10 kilograms of feed will generate just 1kg of beef, 3kg of pork, and 5kg of
chicken. It generates 9kg of locusts._

And that is why we should be eating insects, end of story.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Note that it also yields 10 kg of feed, which sounds more appealing to me than
locusts. Unless these locust nuggets turn out to be the best tasting thing
ever, I think I'll have my feed with a side of chicken, and leave the locusts
to the more adventurous.

~~~
sliverstorm
Yes, but you do need some protein. Not to say you have to eat bugs to get it,
but it's a step up from beef or pork.

One other thought- you assume you can or would eat bug feed.

Locusts, for example, eat: leaves, flowers, bark, stems, fruit, and seeds.
While it is true humans can eat all of these things, it is typically only from
select plants. When was the last time you ate a rice plant, or bark that
wasn't Cinnamon?

------
terhechte
I'd try it right away. I dig the idea and I wouldn't mind at all moving away
from having to eat cattle.

But what I didn't from the article get was, how is eating insects considered
in line with the vegatarian mindset? Insects are living things, too, no?

~~~
danieldk
Well, I guess it depends on what particular mindset. I do not eat meat,
because I think that most animals that are commonly eaten are sentient, and I
believe intentionally killing sentient animals is wrong.

The question of course is, what animals are sentient. I don't know. But I find
it plausible that, say worms, are not really sentient. And from that
perspective it's pretty ok to eat worms. Since I do not know where to draw the
line, I play safe and avoid meat, but others would choose differently.

Some of my friends are also vegetarians, not because they think killing
animals is wrong, but because they believe animal farming has a negative
impact on the environment. If insect farming does not have the same impact, it
could be a reason for them to consider eating insects.

~~~
randoom
I don't want to attack you or anything, just want to point out that no living
thing wants to die. There is evidence that even plants have some form of
sensation [1]

[1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?_r=2>

~~~
sliverstorm
Of course living things don't want to die. But if you decide that _all_ living
things including plants deserve to not be eaten or harvested, your menu
becomes incredibly short.

I mean, you are not left with _absolutely nothing_ to eat, but all you've got
that I can think of is dairy, fruit and nuts. You could technically eat
grains, but harvesting enough grain without killing the plant is difficult.

------
felxh
I'm curious to see how many people turn out to be allergic to insects. Again
drawing the analogy to shellfish which are among the most common food
allergens. This is not to say that eating insects is a bad idea in general,
though.

------
ck2
We already eat bugs.

You should see what's allowed to get into the ingredients by the FDA in food
processing plants.

~~~
onemoreact
That's probably because it's heathly. _People in rice-eating regions, for
example, typically ingest significant numbers of rice weevil (Sitophilus
oryzae) larvae, and this has been suggested as an important source of
vitamins.[37] ...

3.1.2 Wheat flour shall be free from abnormal flavours, odours, and living
insects. 3.1.3 Wheat flour shall be free from filth (impurities of animal
origin, including dead insects) in amounts which may represent a hazard to
human health.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's The Food Defect Action
Levels booklet.[39] Contamination on the average of 150 or more insect
fragments per 100 grams of wheat flour, or below poses no health hazard._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy>

~~~
btilly
It is not always healthy.

For instance it is suspected that the prevalence of peanut allergies is
connected to the fact that stored peanuts usually have cockroach infestations.
The FDA limit on acceptable levels are 30 insect parts per 100 grams. (See
[http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformat...](http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm)
for verification.)

------
Darmani
A few weeks ago, feeling adventurous, a few coworkers and I journeyed to
midtown New York to try the grasshopper tacos at a Mexican restaurant.

When mine arrived, I fearfully picked up a grasshopper and brought it to my
tongue...

...and had to restrain myself from gobbling the rest up by the fistful.

In less than a second, my opinion of grasshoppers had gone from "creepy" to
"tasty." I expect most others won't be much harder to convince.

------
Joakal
Lobster were once seen as cockroaches, now the rich want them. So, anything's
possible with enough marketing.

------
zavulon
Why did I click on this? I completely lost my appetite when reading this and
some of the comments.

------
adnam
Did the dutch get the world to eat Pannekoeke, Bitterballen, Haring or
Uitsmijtern? Sadly not.

------
ristretto
What happened to that project that would develop meat in vitro?

~~~
bromley
Here's a fairly recent article:
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inside-
the-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inside-the-meat-lab)

I'm a lot more enthused by the thought of petri-dish-grown steak than
mealworm.

------
xefer
No

------
davedx
Wageningen, that's down the road from where I live! I wonder if I could get a
free sample...

------
amalag
So disgusting. There are millions of vegeterian options available. But as
usual, get science involved and people make it more complicated.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm thinking vegetarian options are not necessarily more eco-friendly than
this solution, which is 10-100 times more efficient than pigs. Factory-grown
bugs take little room. The corn around here (I'm in Iowa) take up 96% of the
land surface of the state.

Organic vegetables take up - more ecosystem. More passes thru the field to
baby them, more loss to insects etc so less yield. And they are labor-
intensive so load them with the cost of raising the humans that tend them.
Humans are Really eco-unfriendly, especially when used as laborers.

~~~
cdcarter
How much of that corn grown is for human consumption, and how much becomes
cattle feed?

~~~
thegoatrope
I vaguely remember it being some huge number, like 80%-90%? The rest of it
goes to ethanol and high fructose corn syrup and other processing. I'm pretty
sure the amount of corn that is grown for humans to eat as corn directly is
(much?) less than 5%.

A quick Google search showed roughly similar stats.

~~~
nas
Ethanol is now using about 40% of the US corn crop.

