When Reporters Don't Do Their Research: Eating Bugs Edition

    I recently came across this March 31, 2023, piece from NPR entitled "How a conspiracy theory about eating bugs made its way to international politics," which aired on NPR's show, All Things Considered. The transcript begins with the host saying:

In the past month, elected officials in the Netherlands and Poland have accused their opponents of plotting to force people to eat insects. The idea is also bubbling up in far-right circles in the U.S. NPR's Huo Jingnan reports on how a meme from anonymous message boards is making a leap into real-world politics.

After listening to an audio clip, Huo comments:

That's conservative media personality Michael Knowles speaking last year. Using insects as a source of protein is only at the edges of the policy debate when it comes to cutting climate pollution from agriculture. Scientists focus mainly on reducing meat consumption and eating more plant-based food. Although the idea is marginal, various right-wing media outlets use insect eating as a punchline to mock the climate movement.

Because no serious person would push eating insects as a means to stop the alleged global warming? Right?

    Except that it is a serious proposal, even highlighted by the likes of the World Economic Forum: "5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change." Or this article from the BBC's Discover Wildlife magazine: "Why eating insects could help the fight against climate change and save the environment." The latter article notes that humans have historically eaten insects, then adds:

Fast forward to today and insects are slowly returning to the table in the West. By 2050, it’s predicted that there will be nine billion people on Earth. Put simply, our current methods of food production will not be able to cater for such a vast population in a sustainable way.

Given that the world's population is currently 8.2 billion and set to peak around 2050, I don't know why our current methods of food production will be insufficient and neither does the author of the article explain her assertion. But she does argue:

Insects offer a promising alternative to a low-ecological-footprint diet: they are genetically very distinct from humans, so viruses are unlikely to make the jump; they produce only small amounts of greenhouse gas, compared to livestock (to yield just 1kg of protein, a single cow produces 2,850g of greenhouse gas, while insects produce just 1g); they can be fed on organic waste, such as vegetable peelings; and they require only tiny quantities of water. We simply need to accept that eating them is okay.

She continues:

    Our current eating habits are suffocating the planet. Food production is responsible for almost 60 per cent of global biodiversity loss, and contributes to overfishing, climate change and water shortages. In the UK, we’re eating more than two-and-a-half times more meat than the global average, a habit that is to blame for much of the environmental impact of our food system.

    The way we produce and consume meat often requires huge amounts of land to grow animal feed, such as soy and maize. Indeed, growing livestock feed is the biggest driver of deforestation on the planet. Fifty per cent (51 million km2) of the Earth’s habitable land is currently given over to agriculture; of that, more than 70 per cent can be attributed to the meat and dairy industry. Meat production also guzzles oceans of water – to produce just 1kg of beef protein, you’ll need an eye-popping 22,000 litres of H2O. For the same amount of cricket-based protein, you’ll need just 1 litre.

 Ah, so the real problem is that populations in third world countries would rather eat meat than their traditional diets that incorporated insects. 

    But in seeming response to NPR calling it a fringe conspiracy theory that governments are going to force people to eat insects, the Discovery Wildlife author notes: "Joanna Trewern, WWF-UK’s sustainable diets and behaviour change specialist, is researching how food companies can help consumers to veer towards more sustainable diets." So, is it still a conspiracy theory when an NGO is pursuing a policy to steer consumers into eating more insects?  Or how about when, as the article also relates, "[i]n January 2021 the European Food Standards Agency approved the first insect (the yellow mealworm) for human consumption across Europe, which was followed by the lesser mealworm and a couple of others"? After all, we've seen many other "suggestions" turn into government mandates.