Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow • Hacker News Board

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#101

Post by gumby » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 1:58 PM UTC

That article was fascinating but ignored the branding factor. I realize that was intentional, but it is an important factor. What's considered food is basically a cultural/fashion issue, and can be explicitly changed by marketing (e.g. rapeseed can sound horrible in the US but was made acceptable by rebranding it "Canola", and likewise the Chinese gooseberry was much more successful as the Kiwi Fruit).

This is different from passive shifts of food from scorned to fashion, such as lobster or oysters, or how açai briefly swept the Whole Foods set -- that's more of a Veblen issue. Once the technical issues are worked out, someone's going to make a killing (literally I suppose) by rebranding ground up mice and crickets as "Natural Field Protein"

BTW I enjoyed this quote: > "Journalists always ask me what do you say to people that can't get over the psychological hurdle of eating insects?", said Crowley. "I say, 'nothing' - we're not targeting these people. We're targeting people that are receptive to our message, that will be our early adopters."

Good for him!

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#102

Post by seszett » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 2:34 PM UTC

mattchew wrote: post #68

robhack wrote: post #60

Am I the only one bothered by the sheer amount of killing this means? You might have to feed poultry 2lb to get 1lb of food, but you kill only one living creature. With insects, how many living creatures are you going to kill to get 1lb ? (even though that would only require 1lb of feeding). Yes I know, they are not conscious at the same level, and are killed in a way so that they don't suffer, but still.

I'm sure you're not the only one, but you're pretty unusual. Eating meat doesn't bother me, but if I imagine myself attaching more moral value to nonhumans, I would rate insects a lot lower than chickens a lot lower than pigs, and switching to insects being a net gain morally. Does it bother you to eat plants? Things made with yeast? Do other activities that kill lots of insects bother you? Not trying to needle you a…

I have had the same reaction as him.

I know insects and plants are not "at the same level" as mammals or birds, but I always have the thought that squashing insects or eating plants is still killing living beings and I can't help being bothered by it. Yes, I also do have a thought for the yeast I'm using when baking bread, waking it up from stasis just for baking it in the oven soon after... but unicellular beings seem much less important as they're mostly clones, they don't have the same individuality.

I grow plants as a hobby, and having a few small trees that have grown from seeds, in pots where they entirely depend on me for their life, makes me really see them as individuals - especially since the genetic variation that comes with growing seeds also means they have observably different behaviours.

On the other hand... I do eat some meat, and for some reason I don't have a single thought for the pigs that have to get killed to make the dry sausages or cured ham I eat. I guess that is because I am just so used to eating these, and they are less recognizable as animal parts than, say, chicken wings.

In the end, you just can't live healthily by only eating things that don't harm any living being, so I just live with it, knowing that I have to kill things to eat.

About the India thing, I have thought like this for a very long time, I remember in kindergarten trying to stop other kids from stomping on ants, and (a bit later of course) my parents being amused when I talked about plant being like ununderstandable aliens. So I don't think this has much to do with trends, it's just a thinking you can come up with on your own.

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#103

Post by Lethe101 » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

convivialdingo wrote: post #62

Lethe101 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to correct you, but this isn't correct (your 'downvoted' status might reflect this). Canine / felines are carnivores (omnivores these days, but you get the gist) and their muscle structure / diets cause them to taste 'off' and be tough fleshwise. Not to mention that they're worth more as biological weapons / companions. There are also more scientific reasons, for example: There was a quick deterioration in the…

Lewis and Clark ate plenty of dog, though I doubt they ate Huskies. I imagine they ate dog meat because it was generally available and more sanitary. http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1806-05-0...

They ate dog because the tribes they were visiting had little else: when in areas with other game, they preferred that.

Clark never ate dog, couldn't bring himself to break the cultural taboo.

In the dry areas of what is now eastern Washington, in fact, where there was little if any game and the only other choice was dried salmon, usually impregnated with sand, the men came to prefer dog.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1204_031204_...

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#104

Post by cgh » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 3:00 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #98

cgh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about cricket flour, not eating whole crickets. Cricket flour products are already on sale in hundreds of stores. The key is to mass produce the flour as right now it's quite expensive. That's what's specifically addressed in the article, not the issue of convincing people to eat it in the first place.

I understand that Cricket Powder contains protein and other nutrients. But is it more efficient than just using plants as a source of those things? Surely the choice is not steak vs crickets but crickets vs soya?

Plant protein is subpar because of its amino acid profiles. I'm not being anti-vegetarian here, it's the basic truth and it's why strength athletes etc. don't count plants as significant sources of protein.

Basically, bugs are better, comparable to any other animal source.

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#105

Post by Nursie » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 3:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Nursie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who is an entomologist, a doctor of entomology no less. He doesn't eat lobster, or any other type of mollusc, on the basis that they filter-feed and will quite happily chow down on faeces, just like any other insect. Mind you he finds the texture of boiled eggs repulsive too, so it might just be him.

> lobster, or any other type of mollusc Lobsters aren't molluscs, they're crustaceans. Not even the same phylum.

I didn't say I was a doctor of entomology :)

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#106

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #3

tomjen3 wrote: post #2

Unlikely. They are icky, unappealing and do not have the "man" quality one gets from real meat. Food is mostly about taste and convenience today, because we have access to enough of it - insects doesn't really give you either. In short it is highly unlikely that I will wake up tomorrow and eat insects, nor that the majority in the developed world will. And yes shrimp may technically be insects. Technically correct do…

Lobster is a bug; it used to be 'ick' and now its 'yum'. The ick factor is cultural. No reason the OP can't be right - if bugs are tasty, and some people start eating them, and then more people, they could easily become a regular thing.

One problem is that, in a world seing the vanishing of bees and other invertebrates by pesticides, insects are just not so reliable as source of safe food now.

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#107

Post by DanBC » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #106

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobster is a bug; it used to be 'ick' and now its 'yum'. The ick factor is cultural. No reason the OP can't be right - if bugs are tasty, and some people start eating them, and then more people, they could easily become a regular thing.

One problem is that, in a world seing the vanishing of bees and other invertebrates by pesticides, insects are just not so reliable as source of safe food now.

You don't eat wild insects because they could be carrying disease.

You eat farmed insects which are clean and you can be sure they're free of pesticides or other agrichemicals.

Farming insects uses less land and water than farming meat and is less problematic regarding cruelty.

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#108

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #107

pvaldes wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is that, in a world seing the vanishing of bees and other invertebrates by pesticides, insects are just not so reliable as source of safe food now.

You don't eat wild insects because they could be carrying disease. You eat farmed insects which are clean and you can be sure they're free of pesticides or other agrichemicals. Farming insects uses less land and water than farming meat and is less problematic regarding cruelty.

"cruelty" is a false problem, a species of new religion that can accept as perfectly good move to set free a mink from other continent that you know will kill thousands of native birds later. Just a modern fairy tale, that did never prove to solve absolutely nothing. Is just manipulation.

If there is a market for bugs something will end selling ilegally wild bugs (cheaper, better profit margins). This is what history tells us again and again.

I really hope that we as species can be more smarter in the future about this. Famines are not caused by people not eating bugs, are caused by people creating wars by design, etc...

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#109

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 11:24 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #43

vamur wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobsters, shrimps or mussles are actually delicious, and are thus expensive. Insects or dog/cat meat on the other aren't, as otherwise they would have been adopted into worldwide diet long time ago. So today they still remain a cheap source of food in some third world countries.

Oyster are expensive because rarity. They used to be food for poor people. http://www.missfoodwise.com/2013/03/beef-stout-and-oyster-pi...

Expensive because they are classified as "luxury". More than 91.000 Kg of oysters produced each year in Europe exclusively for human food.

Re: Edible insects are a novelty today, but they'll be mainstream tomorrow

#110

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 11:28 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #15

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobster is a bug; it used to be 'ick' and now its 'yum'. The ick factor is cultural. No reason the OP can't be right - if bugs are tasty, and some people start eating them, and then more people, they could easily become a regular thing.

Lobster is 100% bug to me - huge yuck.

You should seriously consider to task it if not done yet, is simply delicious if properly prepared. Just keep trying, is just a cultural wall. You'll thank me in the future.