In a report by the body that oversees food safety in Europe, it is stated that "growing insects on large-scale farms does not pose a biological or chemical risk more than raising sheep and cattle" and therefore can be a nutritional solution that requires less energy to produce
The human population is growing and growing which causes a number of troubling problems. One of the problems is - how to feed so many mouths without causing environmental damage.
In other words, how to avoid environmental stress and damage to water that is currently caused by raising farm animals and fish. It is possible that one solution would be beyond eating insects. There are populations in the world where eating insects is widespread and accepted, not so among the western world, the people of the "developed" countries will have to be convinced and educated to switch from raising food for food to raising insects for food.
In the report of the body that oversees food safety in Europe http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4257
It was said that "growing insects on large-scale farms does not pose a biological or chemical risk any more than raising sheep and goats."
From the report in which the possibility of raising insects as food for people or farm animals was examined, it turns out that "the microbiological, chemical and environmental dangers in raising insects are similar (and less) to those in raising other farm animals."
However, after the above statement appears a warning that the cultivation of insects on an "industrial" scale has not been tested and therefore there is a lack of data - on the cultivation and eating of insects in the world. The lack is also in information about the risks when insects are a food source. That is why there is a need for studies that will examine all the effects of "farms for breeding insects",
One of the questions is, is it possible to grow insects in quantities that would be significant to the point of affecting the food supply?
Insects are a staple food in countries in Africa, Asia and South America, where about two billion people see insects as acceptable food. More than 2000 edible insect species have been identified. http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Chair-groups/Plant-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Entomology/Edible-insects/Worldwide-species-list.htm
While insect farming in "developed" countries is considered rare, in "developing" countries it is an industry that grows and develops. In Thailand alone, about 20,000 cricket breeders are registered. Raising crickets requires a lower investment than that required for raising farm animals, which makes it available and its impact on the environment is minimal.
The European Union's report shows that while the risk of growing insects is low, in most of the rich western countries there is no willingness and consent to accept insects as food (don't the world's rich see the similarity between shrimp and locusts?). On the other hand, in countries where it is customary to eat insects, there is the opportunity to increase production and thus cause an increase in consumption. In a survey conducted in Laos (Cambodia) it became clear that "people are ready to incorporate more insects into the menu, a readiness that will result in the expansion and growth of the "insect farms".
I will add that even without the research it is clear that in poor countries the custom of eating insects is more common and therefore it is clear that the inhabitants of these countries will not need to be persuaded to eat. The poorer the residents, the more any food will be welcomed, since the food supply problem is much more acute in poor areas, the "food education" problem is marginal.
And on a personal note: I have tasted quite a few "spawns" and in most cases their taste was similar to the taste of shrimps/crabs, that is to say definitely tasty and nutritious. Two main questions are asked: one - is it possible to grow insects in quantities that would justify the investment and be a reliable and sustainable source of food, that is, there would be no damage to the natural environment, the second question is what will the fanatics of vegetarianism and veganism of all kinds say (and do)?
And after all that, I still claim that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
8 תגובות
Assaf, you have a mistake in the text, Laos and Cambodia are two neighboring countries, I think you got confused with Myanmar, which used to be called Burma
Locust in its forms is allowed to be eaten according to the Torah, probably because when a swarm of locusts arrives, within a day or two there is nothing else to eat from the plant.
I will add that:
Enthusiasm for its forms stems from its brightness,
Like for example the claim about the areas that are destroyed by raising farm animals
The claimants should understand that:
If raising farm animals requires huge areas
After all, a few dunams are needed to grow vermin,
But this is the account of pelicans and ignorant people
Ignore him…
I don't understand how anyone can see this disgusting bowl of cockroaches and even think of putting that thing in their mouth… I feel sick just looking at the picture.
As far as I can identify in the picture, it is the grasshopper that has a kosher tradition on it.
Up to the last three paragraphs, I brought the translation / interpretation of the study of the European body,
Then I also added the paragraph:
"The second question is what will the fanatics of vegetarianism and veganism of all kinds say (and do)?"
Then, as I imagined, a response arrives:
A rant full of slogans and lacking support (except for "I've been vegan for 3 years")...
And on this it is said that: "The righteous soul knows..."
This article shows ignorance and ignores the obvious solution, it's simply amazing how much the human race can be captive to the theories it created and which are disconnected from reality and science, the very fact that such an article is published on a respected website like the science is simply shameful. The simple and obvious solution is to switch to a vegan diet. Any combination of grain with legumes creates complete protein and there are many types of plants that contain complete protein. I have been vegan for 3 years and during this time I lost weight to a normal BMI for the first time in my life. I have prevented horrific abuse of animals of all kinds (including bees that rob them of their antiseptic honey and expose them to bacteria and viruses) and my blood tests reflect excellent health even compared to my peers and far above average, I no longer remember what it's like to be sick, you can find reinforcement for my claims in the FDA publications in which he announced that he would not be able to rely on scientific research to support the consumption of meat by humans because all recent research proves that meat is harmful to human health and causes a host of diseases, the FDA's solution to this issue and it is written there in black and white, is to ignore the scientific research On the subject and they justify it by saying that "it is unlikely that people will stop consuming meat", it is really nice of them to decide for us what to eat or not to eat and hide the truth from us. I have prevented the ecological destruction of the earth that animal agriculture is the number 1 cause of its destruction, and this is manifested in the destruction of areas, the emission of greenhouse gases more than any other man-made factor and the pollution of the environment with the products of this industry, we choose to consume the best of our natural resources on the growth of 60 A billion animals (yes, that's the number friends and it grows year by year) every year(!) to feed a population of 7 billion people instead of investing the same plants and natural resources that are used to feed this huge amount of animals directly in humans and allow prosperity and well-being for all of humanity , can anyone find ecological logic in raising almost 10 times as many animals as humans to feed those humans? probably not.
And after all this I argue that it is time that instead of hiding behind the mountains of ignorance in the human population, it is time for neutral scientific studies to be disseminated in the media directly and not through organizations controlled by the industry.
It seems to me that it is important to consider how many kg of protein should be given to insects in order to create a kg of protein of an insect. This means that if insects grow on plant material that does not contain much protein available for human consumption, there is a "protein advantage" here. But if you have to invest more than a kilogram of protein to grow a kilogram of insect protein, then the vegetarians turned out to be ecologically right.
To the best of my memory, the animal that has the smallest protein loss is the pig, which needs 9 kg of protein to produce 1 kg of pork protein. So for mammals, the vegetarians are largely correct in terms of the ecology of meat consumption. I wonder what the ratio is in different insects - it seems to me that there are insects with a protein advantage. I remember growing silkworms on mulberry tree leaves that had almost no nutritional value to humans.