SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the chocolate-covered-grasshoppers dept.
A Los Angeles Times article reports on aspects of the current state of insects as food in the US. Apparently the trend is increasing. The article focuses on a company that supplies mealworms and superworms.
Mealworms and superworms are rich in protein, amino acids and vitamins and minerals like potassium and iron. Plus, they have less fat and cholesterol than beef.
These and other insects are also considered an environmentally friendly source of protein because they can be raised on a fraction of the land and water required for traditional livestock, like cattle.
In case you are wondering:
Their flavor, when toasted, is often described as being nutty and crispy, akin to roasted pecans or fried pork rinds.
Mealworms and superworms are "two of the roughly 1,900 insect species that are good for people to eat, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization." Already about 2 billion people have insects as a staple in their diets (personal observation: a true "paleo-diet" would require them).
What are the environmental benefits?
Compared with cattle, cultivated insects emit far fewer greenhouse gases, require less water, can be grown in a smaller space, can eat foods like vegetable scraps that would otherwise be considered waste, and can grow more protein from less feed, according to the report. For instance, growing mealworms for food requires about one-tenth as much space as raising an equivalent amount of beef protein, the report says.
The benefits may not be as clear when compared with chicken:
A study published in 2015 in the scientific journal PLOS One found that crickets raised on poultry feed required nearly as much food as conventionally raised chickens per unit of protein produced. If crickets aren't able to convert feed into protein more efficiently than chickens, they really aren't that much more sustainable, the researchers concluded.
For those interested, you may want to read the report produced by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:20AM
Since the worms aren't any more efficient at turning chicken feed into protein than the chickens are, you can feed the chicken feed to the chicken, and I'll eat the chicken. At least that way, I know where the entrails went.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:37AM
It's not only that. Worms or whatever other insect or bug you grind up might have all the nutrients and be generally good for you. There are other factors when it comes to food besides that. If what is good for you was all that mattered we would eat good things all the time ready. There is taste, there is texture, there is background - most people in the west will probably for quite some time feel a bit of revulsion at the thought of eating bugs and that just ain't going to go away with some glossy adverts or celeb endorsement. I think they refer to it as the yuck-factor. There is also feelings and culture of eating that just won't change so easily. I just don't see myself sitting at the dinner table with family and friends yet and all have our worm-steak. It's a long way from becoming common and they, the once that want to peddle bugs as food or food-substitute, are probably going to be in for a massive uphill struggle. I don't see western eating patterns changing to a bug based diet anytime soon no matter how healthy it might be. Also considering that whole chickens are extremely cheap as it is these bugs or worms would have to be incredibly cheap, they would have to practically give it away, for me to even contemplate eating that and I'm still not certain people would want to change to a worm based diet on price alone.
You have things like Quorn, a meat substitute made from fungus, that is supposed to taste and have the texture of meat. It's more expensive then meat, a lot more expensive. I tried it. It was ok. Cooked right I couldn't really taste the difference between that and say ground beef for making some pasta sauce. That doesn't mean I want to eat it or that it will replace real meat. The price was and is to high for me to even contemplate a switch. Also I'm somewhat unsure about possible health rewards / risks with it. That has been around for quite a few years now and it hasn't really gone mainstream. If you can't even peddle fungus protein as a meat replacements, and people are usually okay with mushrooms and fungus, I don't really put much hope in worms or bugs ending up on every plate anytime soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:57AM
When I was kid, I was super picky about my food. I was so picky that even my hamburgers had to be prepared just so.
But now, not so much. I would totally eat this stuff. It doesn't even have to pretend to be food I'm already familiar with. I've eaten so much food from around the world that I no longer have those expectations. I don't think I've even eaten a regular steak in over 10 years. Just make it savory with strong, rich flavors and I'm happy.
Is it too much to hope for the rest of the country to stop being so picky? Probably.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:23AM
A lot of those things are still delicacies in other countries. What is and isn't edible is partially a matter of toxicity and nutrition, but a lot of it comes down to socialization. It's common in the US to refuse to eat snails, even though we'll eat things that are essentially snails as long as they live in the sea. A scallop, for example, is a mollusk just like a snail is. But, we're raised to consider one delicious and the other disgusting.
I've personally eaten a number of different types of insects and most of them are delicious when prepared properly.
(Score: 1) by dvader on Sunday September 06 2015, @08:52AM
Speaking of expensive foods, a high cost means one or more people along the production line has spent a lot of effort making it. Effort that could have been used for something else, like curing cancer or making even more food. Unless there are other cost-less benefits like less environmental pollution (which often doesn't cost anything), expensive products should be questioned.
(Yes, a high price is often just markup from your grocer but then someone else should be selling it for much less. I have never seen cheap quorn.)
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:33AM
I gotta agree with you - the entrails are the only real "yuck" factor I have. If they could gut insects before I eat them, I'd have no problem - like removing the "vein" from shrimp.
(Score: 5, Funny) by mhajicek on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:39AM
"Chicken good." - Leeloo Dallas Multipass.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:02AM
If you read the summary a little more carefully, you'll realise it it said crickets were no more efficient than turning chicken feed into protein than chickens. Nothing about how efficiently worms turn their food into protein.
Other points to note, this is only one study, and we don't know how good the methodology was for this study (it could be flawed), or if the researchers performing it had any biases. Also even if the results are correct, maybe chicken feed isn't the best food for crickets, it may be worth looking at other feed for them, or maybe crickets just aren't a very good choice of insects to choose if we are looking to reduce the environmental impact of our food.