Edible bugs confirmed to be a public health risk due to parasites.
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Bugs are inherently bad for a multitude of reasons. The reason beef and pork are popular historically are because they provide the 2 most essential nutrients for living, high density fat and natural protein. This is the same reason cow milk became a necessity adaptation in the human biome. Bugs are notorious for disease because they are too far removed from the human biome. Think of bug disease as lactose intolerance, it would take centuries for the human biome to adapt functioning, they want you on bugs for the same reason they want cattle on feeders. At the end of the day you are expendable to them, and as false capital decreases their need to control you increases.
There are better comparisons. Insects are close enough evolutionary to shellfish anyone with a shellfish allergy is likely to also be allergic to insects because of the conservation of the protein tropomyosin between the two groups.
Bugs being significantly different than Humans is somewhat of a good thing as far as disease is concerned. It means diseases which effect bugs simply haven't adapted at all to infect or harm humans.
It'd be like a cockroach catching the flu, it just does not happen.
However, there is the risk that a bug-based disease 'could' infect a human, and we'd have no adapted defenses against it.
Incredibly unlikely, but considering how many fucking bugs (((they))) want us to eat, the numbers add up I suppose?
There're still quite a few crossover pathogens actually.
Malaria and Lyme disease are two big examples.
Neither of those are obtainable from consumption of the disease, to my knowledge.
And as grotesque as the kikes are, they haven't suggested eating mosquitos and ticks.
I'm just saying insects being genealogically distant from humans obviously doesn't make it impossible for pathogens to have a foot in both pools. Not that eating them is going to cause malaria.
Basically they would have to farm bugs, every kid could farm their own ant food hill
This is nonsense.
There are dismembered chunks of bugs in every jar of peanut butter, in every loaf of bread. We are all eating bugs already, just unintentionally, because it's frankly close to impossible to keep them from getting into our food - they want to eat it just as much as we do.
This is nonsense, there is a massive difference between unintentionally eating occasional bugs and eating bugs as a main protein source.
The only difference I see is in the mass consumed. The effect of that is increased chance of infection, sure.
...But the chance of infection is already there, and across billions of people, It's already happening every single day.
Did you know that one drop of pure nicotine is deadly. People consume entire packs of cigarettes in a day, and don't die. It's almost like the volume matters.
No, this is a massive fallacy and frankly irrational thought. The difference in disease per capita per bug eating countries and non bug eating countries is insurmountable factually. China is the most prevalent case of this, most se Asia follows as well as Africa. Bugs carry more disease per population versus any other wild protein species period. They also have no nutrient density, when you look at what a bug is the protein is junk protein.
This is a good argument but this still falls under domesticated versus non domesticated. The more variables you can control in your protein and fat source the less likely disease will occur. Bugs even as a last resort don’t have the nutrients necessary to sustain humans. The reason milk became necessary was because of the whey and fat. Bugs provide neither.
The problems with the diseases in bugs is the volume of bugs needed to feed someone. A single cow can feed several people, but it takes a ton of bugs to feed one person. The number of bugs needed drastically increases the chances of one of those bugs having a disease that taints the entire thing.
This is another good point against it. It's the same when they talk about plant based fake meat. They'll talk up all about how it allegedly tastes the same, but I have yet to hear any of them claim it has the same nutritional value.
That's an extremely poor comparison.
1 cow if infected can and will have thousands if not millions of parasites/bacterium/viral loads because of the increased mass present. The size comparison actually works in favour of entomophagy because it can take weeks at most to raise a batch of grasshoppers from egg to full grown adult when compared to cattle that have much longer gestation periods and growth times to reach market value. That increase in time required to reach market value works against arguing diseases in small turnover projects because diseases "want" more time in order to infect more hosts.
How many will you need to raise to feed one person? How many bugs will be needed to feed many people? Then the most important question, how do you deal with the fact that bugs are a terrible source of nutrients?
That's one hell of an emotional response. You're also completely ignoring the fact that a single tainted bug can effectively poison what ever batch it's put into. A single diseased cow can also be easily identified, and then separated from the herd and put down.
When I drink a single glass of milk it tastes delicious and makes me feel considerably better. When I chug a gallon of milk I puke before I even come close to finishing, feel awful and will likely have a horrible shit soon enough. Almost like the mass consumed is a very fucking important variable.
This might be the most retarded take I've seen, well done.
Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Humans downregulate lactase production as we age and shouldn't be consuming milk at all past a certain point but both the cereal industry and beverage market still heavily rely on cattle milk production as various cultures are that entrenched in milk consumption. Lactose intolerance is not a binary condition where someone is or is not intolerant to the presence of lactose. Symptoms vary as much as the human population does where some who consume milk will only have mild nausea and maybe bloating after consumption while others will have full on IBS, bloody stool, and severe gut pains because adult humans are not meant to consume milk.
I know that, I am growing more lactose intolerant as I age and it is very frustrating. Because it does not change the fact that it is both delicious and, even if its purely in my head, makes my body feel better.
And the point was that mass consumed is a variable of considerable important. Even if someone is incredibly lactose intolerant a single glass vs a gallon will have wildly different results.
Mass consumed not making a difference...
You do realize that people take rat poison to control blood pressure, right? And squirt deadly nightshade into their eyes to do eye exams, right? Mass consumed makes a HUGE difference.
Give a dog a pound of milk chocolate and it'll be mildly sick. Give it a pound of baker's chocolate, which gram for gram contains a huge amount more cocoa, and it'll be a vet visit at minimum. Just cocoa, totally edible. But the mass consumed makes a huge difference.
Undercooked meat gives people parasites all the time. I'm not concerned about the safety of cooked bugs - that's what cooking is for.
I refuse to eat them on a purely emotional level.
I would rather kill and eat the person who tries to make me eat bugs.
No, don't eat the person. Human meat can carry all sorts of wacky issues, like sudden vomiting if you leave enough blood in the meat, and prion disorders if you consume nerve tissue.
Feed them to your pigs, then eat the pigs.
Or, even better, use the blood and bone meal as fertilizer.
Don't eat apex organisms in general.
Those food charts which have a large predator at the top? That's also the direction toxins, parasites, and other contaminants flow, resulting in things like DDT affecting egg development in birds. This is why hunters who shoot then consume bear meat can contract Trichinella which is commonly found in uncooked pork but because wild boar will be consumed by bears [which then aren't consumed by anything else because apex predator] those parasites accumulate and "spoil" the meat for anything that then, somehow, comes along and consumes the apex.
Similarly many large apex sharks like the Great White tastes absolutely horrible for reasons of anatomy. They have no swim bladder so need to do other things to prevent them from sinking. Sharks use Tri-Methyl-Amine-Oxide [TMAO] and urea to provide buoyancy and the urea especially makes shark meat taste foul. This is possibly one of the reasons Nordic countries pickle shark meat for so long as it's just not palatable when raw or even quickly cooked.
Humans greatly disturb this cycle of apex accumulation though as we developed tools like weapons to bypass a lot of features in the wild so apex predators are something we as a species can still kill then consume.
Many parasites in these cycles also affect host behaviour or appearance to the point it increases likelihood of consequential death by another host.
Polymorphus minutus affects both the behaviour and appearance of freshwater shrimp, Gammarus pulex, so that predatory fish and birds have an easier time catching the shrimp. The behavioural changes are increase time spent near the water surface and the appearance changes to include extremely conspicuous orange dots which is the parasite aggregating to form visible signs for predators to find.
Somewhat of a meme example by Hypnotoad is a real thing. It's just the result of parasitic worms blinding toads by occupying the inside of the eye. There are snails/slugs which have similar parasites in their eyestalks. If prey can't see a predator coming that's an easy meal for the predator.
The Lancet fluke, Dicrocoelium dendriticum, infects ants, cows, and snails. Cows shit out eggs, snails consume the shit and eggs then partition the parasites in cysts which are passed out in their mucus, ants consume the mucus for moisture and pick up the cysts which emerge in the ants, mind control them to climb grass blades at night [because day time would desiccate and kill both the ant and parasite], and cows then eat the grass and infected ant. Cows are the definitive host which is the one the parasite reproduces in because a) large, warm blooded mammal = free heat source + lots of space, b) increase dispersal area [although birds are even better since those can fly], and c) very resilient host compared to other options to less likely to die and take the parasites with it. All throughout that cycle the parasite involved doesn't "want" the cow to die as it's that important to its own reproduction and even when you have thousands of parasites in a cow like this they aren't going to do enough damage to it for it to matter. Unlike with the ants.
fuck the climate, i'm not eating a bug.
Almost like our retarded ancestors weren't actually that retarded and learned from the guy who was eating the bugs to not do that for plenty reasons. Same reason why pork was so verboten in some religions, not because God just had a hateboner but for a reason involving people who did so dying a lot.
And most importantly, the places that historically and still do eat the bugs are the dingiest and grossest of places to this day. Where the immune systems are on overdrive just to survive to adulthood and could probably eat wood to survive.
I don't even get it, they want to reduce the lives they kill by eating bugs, yet to make a patty you need oodles upon oodles of bugs whereas one cow can be made into multiple burgers. They will argue bugs do not feel but I do have more of a moral issue with that. What? Because they don't look cute does not mean their lives are not important?
I know this might sound weird overall, I just find it as weird that the compassionate lefty type is OK with bug massacre but not with the slaughter of a cow.
Its never about compassion, its about how cute it is. Bugs are gross, so therefore their mass destruction doesn't even register as a problem.
It doesn't take anywhere near the same amount of resources to produce enough protein from grasshoppers as it does from a cow. The feed-protein yield is far more efficient for one thing [1:10 in cattle vs 9:10 in grasshoppers] and the resources you can use as feed are also far less restrictive. There are companies which hire out goats for example to clear patches of vegetation because the goats can and will be able to eat and digest certain vegetation that other animals cannot. The same holds true for a lot of insects hence why things like locust swarms are so effective at strip mining plants. You can feed grasshoppers cactus plants if you want, you can't do that with cows.
I'm more talking about the amount of life you kill, not the amount of resources you need, read my whole post.
Didn't need factory farms when global population was a shit-ton lower.
To hell with Asia and Africa not adopting Western birth control, and to hell with the economists for allowing them to do it, with their "yer racist for not wanting nigger starve-babies flooding Europe and NA" bullshit. No, we just don't want the world becoming a fucking hellscape for humans or other animals, you human-worshipping dicktards who care more about quantity than quality. Drown in the goddamn tards you're breeding.
If we're lucky, they're just planning to shoot a couple billion bastards into space to die. But we're not that lucky, they just want the only animal on Earth to be the human one.
Bug-eating was ANOTHER one of the things we were warned would happen if the population got to 8 billlion or higher, but again, it was pooh-poohed as dumb sci-fi back when the population was, like, 3 or 4 billion.
Wow that’s a revelation shocking to no one
There’s that word again. If only there was a time-tested, over-the-counter drug that was effective in killing them.
eat the bugs in a pod for tee
steak on a yatch for mee
I have been against eating insects since my first year of high school, when we collected a shit-ton of grasshoppers and counted the numbers of worm/parasites infecting them.