You Vill Eat Ze Bugs! (And nothing but the techno-system you supported will be to blame)
Article by qpooqpoo
Spend any time in the politically charged fringes of the internet in the last few years, and chances are you have heard of this phrase. It’s a funny caricature of Klaus Schwab, the former head of the World Economic Forum ("WEF"), an institution which has been promoting the benefits of integrating cultivated insects for mass consumption into the modern economy.[1] This initiative aligns with their focus on various economic and technological programs that supposedly promote "sustainability." Schwab and the WEF have become the boogeymen-of-the-day for conservatives and related anti-status quo currents of discontent.[2]
The mainstream media’s treatment of this meme is instructive in how the system attempts to deflect criticism of technological society as a whole; criticism which could potentially threaten its own security (the media by and large represent the propaganda arm of the system). NPR may not be seen as "mainstream" and one might object that they are far to the left of mainstream values. But it's a distinction without a difference: the general current of leftism today, aside from the most radical communist manifestations, is perfectly consistent with the values and priorities of big business, globalization, and technology. It should come as no surprise therefore that NPR effectively runs cover for the WEF.
In a piece titled "How a conspiracy theory about eating bugs made its way to international politics,"[3] NPR’s hosts play clips of conservative political pundit Michael Knowles stating, "The ruling class really, really wants us to eat bugs," followed by a soundbite montage of other right-wing media personalities. These clips illustrate the right’s reaction, which often blends parody, sarcasm, and hyperbole with serious criticism. However, despite the recent availability of actual products containing cricket protein,[4] NPR distracts its audience by framing the criticism as mere conspiracy, thus sidestepping a meaningful discussion on the topic. The term "conspiracy theory" has become, to use the left's own jargon of late, a "dog whistle" to their audience—a buzzword meant to poison the well and snap the audience into toeing the ideological line. But "conspiracy theory" isn't enough in this case. Why not also add a charge of "racism" to the mix? It's the tried-and-true buzzword for this purpose. And so, naturally, coverage of the political right's reaction to the WEF's love of grocery store cricket-burgers—whether in the form of lighthearted memes (humor is a powerful coping tool for genuine distress) or more serious arguments—must include a charge of racism.[5]
The system (represented by institutions like the WEF) promotes the integration of insect protein as a sustainable meat alternative, a radical departure from the norm that predictably holds the potential to create serious anxieties about the future of technological society and its implications for human life. The system's propaganda thereby ramps up its judo trick on the public mind: potential public backlash that could be directed at the technological system itself is instead redirected at the individuals who resist this development (in this case the political right). Seeing the media attack them reinforces the right's preconception that edible insects are indeed being rammed through by bad actors with the malicious intent of subjugating the masses. The right in turn attacks the left, and the whole issue gets sucked into that worthless black hole that is the left vs. right culture war. Meanwhile the more serious considerations surrounding what this implies about the broader trajectory of technological civilization are conveniently drowned out in all the ensuing noise.
The abundance of red meat in the modern Western diet is the product of specific material conditions. Consumption patterns of red meat in the West are intricately linked to technological and economic factors, and these patterns are likely to change as society evolves. The Industrial Revolution brought about profound changes in agriculture and food production: Mechanization, advances in transportation, and the development of refrigeration transformed the way food was produced, distributed, and consumed. These innovations made it possible to economically raise livestock on a massive scale and transport it over long distances, leading to an unprecedented availability of red meat in the diet. In the United States, for example, the expansion of the railroad network in the 19th century facilitated the transport of cattle from the Midwest to urban centers in the East. The development of refrigerated rail cars in the 1870s further enabled the widespread distribution of fresh meat. These technological advancements, combined with economic growth and rising incomes, made red meat a staple in the Western diet.
But could these same technological forces that led to widespread meat consumption be moving to favor alternatives? A review of the media reporting on this issue would suggest so: most of the stories highlight insects as a possible "sustainable" alternative. The reasoning is that our technological system now faces hard natural limits. Increasing efficiency to adapt to diminishing resources is necessary, but providing the global population with high living standards is increasingly impractical. Rising housing prices and shrinking living spaces reflect these constraints, necessitating a shift in social aspirations. The livestock industry faces significant challenges in a modern globalized technological context where 8 billion people are aspiring to reach the levels of meat consumption of the industrial middle class. The increasing strains on natural resources are obvious. As these resources become scarcer, it is only reasonable to extrapolate that the economic efficiency of large-scale meat production diminishes. Meanwhile, technological advancements in alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat substitutes and lab-grown meat, are creating other options. These technological innovations promise to reshape food production and consumption patterns by providing cost-effective alternatives to traditional meat.
We are told that insect farming requires significantly fewer resources compared to traditional livestock, such as land, water, and feed, for the same amount of consumable protein by weight. Statements are made that insects are far more efficient at converting feed into protein.[6] Furthermore, they have much faster reproductive rates and lifecycles, particularly so in optimal industrial conditions, contributing to their reported efficiency and lower costs per outputs.[7] Insect farming is also reported to utilizes significantly less land than cattle for the equivalent mass of protein produced,[8] potentially freeing up more land for the system to utilize in other economic exploitations such as in housing, factories, and power stations.
At least, this is the simplified narrative being touted. Unfortunately for its promotors, like solar or wind energy, large-scale insect production to replace traditional protein foods does not appear practical upon closer scrutiny. A review of several studies show that when considered within the broader context of the global economy and ecosystem and all their associated hidden costs, insect farming is currently impractical.[9]
Contrary to what the media may have led the public to believe, integrating insects into the modern food system--beyond an insignificant niche purchased purely for its novelty value or to placate the neuroses of a handful of oversocialized "sustainability" obsessives--as a supplement to, or replacement of, traditional livestock at scale just isn't economically feasible or practical. While they may have uses as a large-scale feed for livestock in recycling preexisting food waste, their use for humans just doesn't work...currently. The key to remember here is that their economic impracticality is primarily a technical problem--a problem which is subject to change should the right technical innovations appear. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that novel innovations in chemistry, genetics and biotechnology may greatly uprate the efficiency of insects in converting feed and water inputs into protein. The yields from available inputs of traditional crops like corn and wheat have already seen dramatic responses to these improved techniques, and the relatively simple constitution of insects as opposed to livestock may make them far more amenable to these techniques. Perhaps, for example, new techniques of sterilizing these insects are developed that virtually eliminate the risk of human pathogenesis and allow them to be mobilized on the vast quantity of food waste. Or perhaps the insects aren't needed altogether, and some biotechnological innovations allow for protein synthesis via automated chemical systems of vastly greater efficiencies than the insects could ever themselves--in the same way rubbers and plastics are synthesized from fossil fuels today. Although a radical disruption in the world's sources of animal protein is currently unfeasible now, it does not mean it will remain infeasible in the future.
Beyond any proactive policymaking, the invisible hand of the free market may well naturally select for insect protein as a viable commodity. In simple terms, evolving technological factors could one day make insect-protein alternatives to red meat cheaper for the consumer. And if it is a choice between going without protein altogether because the beef is too expensive, or eating insect-derived substitutes, most people will probably choose the insect-derived substitutes. The industrial system has plenty of time and resources to reconcile the public psychologically, via education and propaganda, to the new market normality.
This possibly explains why the insect-eating meme has gained as much traction as it has. The industrial system has zeroed in on traditional livestock farming as an area of inefficiency to be subject to radical disruption. A slew of articles and studies examining the economic viability of insect consumption may simply be a precursor to adjusting traditional attitudes to be less squeamish, more tolerant of otherwise uncomfortably radical shifts in food consumption necessitated by technologically determined trajectories of maximizing systemic efficiency. The industrial system is already promoting a new morality suited to these new conditions—one of "sustainability" and "ethical" consumption. The new morality frames reduced consumption as a virtue rather than a sacrifice, encouraging the acceptance of new lifestyles like living in "pods"(micro-homes), eating alternative proteins, being "zero waste," "low consumption," and "anti-car," etc., etc. For example, a slew of articles is pumped out scolding everyone about the environmental impacts of travel vacation,[10] and surveys begin to show that concerns over the environment are factoring into choices to travel less frequently and less far.[11] Although market forces will ultimately compel conformity, as people choose affordable alternatives out of necessity, the moralistic "sustainable" branding stands to palliate the public and reduce their resentment of the new economic reality (and thus their potentially disruptive rebellious impulses). Conservatives may resist, but economic pressures will drive adaptation. As one astute writer put it, "[i]f you see supermarkets filling their shelves with an ever-wider range of meatless meat products, it’s not because someone at [the WEF] told them to."[12]
Whether or not the industrial system ultimately integrates insect-protein in the modern food supply at scale therefore depends not on human will, but on purely technical factors: whether the technological system ultimately benefits in efficiency and can adjust the population accordingly (itself a purely technical problem). The right can rail all it wants against the idea of eating a large portion of their protein in the form of insects, but all their huffing and puffing will be just as futile as their railing against the loss of religious conviction or the loss of local autonomy—technological progress itself necessarily entailed the erosion of these and many other traditional values. And once the new norm of insect chomping suburbanites is established and the battle has been lost, the conservatives will accept it as an unfortunate but inevitable fact of life—and move on to the next disturbing technological development which they will lose to again, and on and on. All the while the political left—which has abandoned all commitments to individual freedom and have fully internalized the basic values of the technological system—will delight in seeing the right so disturbed by these technological developments, and never waste an opportunity to attack and divert into side-show bickering the various ways in which the right manifests its anxieties.
Addendum
Insect Farming: A Deeper Dive
When fed grain-based diets, studies have shown that populations of crickets show virtually zero improvement in protein conversion efficiency as compared to poultry.[13] Similarly, for mealworms the "feed conversion ratio" or how much edible protein was generated per unit of food required to feed the animal has been found to be nearly identical to chickens.[14] It gets worse when you consider just how efficient ruminants (like cows) are in converting cellulose and other non-edible plant products into usable protein, something that sets them apart from "monogastric" species like chickens (or insects). When you factor in that up to 86% of the feed intake for beef livestock globally is from sources that are not edible to humans (such as hey, stems and stocks, and other refuse) it turns out that some reports indicate that cows are 10% more than efficient than chickens and insects on a per kilogram of edible protein basis from a human-edible feed input standpoint.[15] And it doesn't look like insects fare much better than chickens in terms of water consumption and impact. The vast majority of water used per unit of animal protein is for the agriculture to support its feed. And insects don't appear to provide statistically significant--or at least unambiguous--benefits in water impact. One study for example showed that mealworms use 4,341 cubic meters of water per metric ton of the insect raised, while for broiler chickens this figure was less, at 4,325 cubic meters per ton.[16] But it should be noted this study found a lower water footprint on a per-unit of usable protein for mealworms as compared to chickens (23 vs. 34). Though this figure can be open to dispute, considering the authors discount a large portion of the chicken's body, which still has several industrial uses from pet food to animal feed, to eggs and other byproducts if not the soil fertilizing effects of composted chicken remains themselves. So, the exact benefits of insects from a water impact perspective still seem far from certain. Furthermore, the study considers the whole mass of the insect as usable protein, even though portions of the insects themselves, as with all animals, do not contain edible protein. Given the lack of cut and dry evidence showing clear economic or sustainability benefits of farming insects at industrial scale for global consumption, and the enormous costs to transition the entire global infrastructure already set up to maintain beef and poultry farming, it doesn't look like such a transition has any serious economic incentives.
But what if we had these insects eat food waste? It's estimated that up to one third of all food production globally ends up as waste.[17] Perhaps intelligent application of industrial-scale insect farming can up-cycle these nutrients, which would otherwise decompose into landfills, in to edible protein. Setting aside the enormous logistical and infrastructure challenges in efficiently allocating this waste for controlled insect consumption, it's clear that using these insects for direct human consumption is a non-starter, considering the dangers of pathogen transmission to humans. Alarmingly, even in conditions where insects are currently being raised for human consumption, one study shows an abundance of human-transmissible pathogens present in the insects themselves. Parasites were detected in more than 80% of all examined insect farms, and in 31 percent of these cases the parasites were identified as "potentially pathogenic" for humans.[18] This is because unlike with traditional farm animals where long-standing systems are in place to separate their meat from their internal organs and skin, humans eat the entire insect, making the transmission of parasitic diseases and other pathogens far more likely.
We are not in a position to give all the studies on this topic a full analysis, and we have left out some other considerations we still consider important (E.g., the loss of natural fertilizer that a replacement of cows with farmed insects would entail and the resulting increase in artificial fertilizers worldwide and their implications). However, we hope the foregoing should suffice to show that, at the very least, the idea that insects can be industrially integrated as a more economical and efficient alternative to traditional livestock is heavily contested.
Note: This article was revised on January 27, 2025 to reflect studies the author previously overlooked.
___________
NOTES:
[1] See, e.g., (1) "Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems" at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/; (2) "5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change" at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/; (3) "Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon" at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects soon/#:~:text=Per%20kilo%20of%20live%20weight,fewer%20resources%20than%20traditional%20livestock.
[2] Not exclusively a right-leaning concern, this meme also appeals to components of the left that view the WEF as a capitalist bastion of a corrupt and morally bankrupt corporate elite.
[3] https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167550482/how-a-conspiracy-theory-about-eating-bugs-made-its-way-to-international-politics
[4] E.g.: (1) https://exoprotein.com/collections/all-products/products/high-protein-bar-variety-box; (2) https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Startups/Kyoto-startup-is-eager-for-you-to-try-its-umami-rich-cricket-burger; (3) https://circleharvest.com.au/products/cricket-protein-burger-mix, and so on...
[5] From a separate NPR piece, "This right wing conspiracy theory about eating bugs is about as racist as you think," March 6, 2024, available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1197955874/code-switch-bug-eating-03-06-2024
[6] Li Mengjiao, et. al., "Edible Insects: A New Sustainable Nutritional Resource Worth Promoting," Foods, November 9, 2023, p. 1. The authors state that insects are "12-25 times more efficient than livestock in converting low-protein feed into protein." Similar papers make similarly bold statements, but as we'll see, these claims are highly misleading when the efficiency of insect protein is viewed in its full social and industrial context. Also, this most certainly only applies to a cattle comparison, or a comparison to poultry and beef in aggregate, which again is highly misleading when we consider, for example, the close efficiency of poultry to insects.
[7] Ibid., p. 2.
[8] In an interview with the economist, CEO of one Aspire Food Group explains that in one 12-acre parcel a few thousand kilograms of meat can be produced per year, whereas on the same 12-acre parcel, 12 million kilograms of insect protein can be produced. Efforts are already underway to scale the technology and a factory producing insects is being built by Aspire in Canada as of this writing. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8-uCob-_XE
[9] See our Addendum at the bottom of this page for a more detailed look.
[10] E.g., Timperley, Jocelyn, "Should we give up flying for the sake of the environment?" BBC News, Feb. 18, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-how-to-cut-your-carbon-emissions-when-flying, and Newman, Andy, "If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?" The New York Times, June 3, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html
[11] E.g., Mercury Insurance, "Sustainable Travel: Americans Are Willing to Sacrifice Comfort and Money for the Planet This Year," June 27, 2024, https://www.mercuryinsurance.com/resources/travel/sustainable-travel-forecast-survey.html#:~:text=28.7%25%20of%20respondents%20have%20opted,home%20to%20reduce%20travel%20emisisons.
[12] Franklin, Peter, "Why we'll end up eating bugs," UnHerd, January 20, 2022.
[13] "When fed grain-based diets at a scale of economic relevance, populations of crickets in this study showed little improvement in PCE compared to broiler chickens fed similar diets." Lundy, Mark E. and Michael P. Parrella, "Crickets Are Not a Free Lunch: Protein Capture from Scalable Organic Side-Streams via High-Density Populations of Acheta domesticus," PLOS One, April 15, 2015.
[14] "The feed conversion ratio (FCR) for concentrates (kg/kg of fresh weight) for the mealworms in this study (2.2) was similar to values reported for chicken (2.3)..." Oonincx, Dennis G. A. B. and Imke J. M. de Boer, "Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment", PLOS One, December 19, 2012.
[15] "1kg of meat requires 2.8kg of human-edible feed fro ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics," Mottet et al., "Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate," Global Food Security, September, 2017, pp. 1-8.
[16] Miglietta et al., "Mealworms for Food: A Water Footprint Perspective," Water, Vol. 7, November, 2015, Table 5.
[17] “[R]oughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year.” Gustavsson et al., "Global Food Losses and Food Waste," UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 2011.
[18] Gałęcki, Remigiusz and Rajmund Sokół, "A parasitological evaluation of edible insects and their role in the transmission of parasitic diseases to humans and animals," PLOS One, July 8, 2019.
Copyright © 2024 by Wilderness Front LLC. All Rights Reserved.