This whole insect flour debate is so braindead. We have billions of people to feed. Dried and shredded insects provide a great protein yield, can be produced incredibly efficient, and aren’t as destructive to the planet as lifestock. Many cultures have been consuming insects for ages.

There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food - other than an embarrassing, unreflective revulsion.

My culture doesn’t consume insects and we don’t intend to start.

Why don’t you intend to? Care to explain your rationale?

It's gross. That's it. Why should I, or anyone else, have to explain personal food choices to you? If finding insect-eating to be repulsive is embedded in a culture, who are you to question it or demand change/an explanation?

I didn't demand anything, but merely ask if you'd like to provide a little more detail. I see that you're not open for intellectual discussions that question your beliefs though, so I guess we can cut this thread here.

I don't understand this need to push eating insects onto people. The "intellectual" point of view makes it even funnier. Food is not just the sum of proteins and carbohydrates. It is wrong on so many levels to suggest that because insects are protein rich then they must be good. I was honestly shocked by Americans not being aware of the quality of their food - it's horrible. Even in Whole Foods, or more expensive supermarkets, most of the food products are just processed crap that comes in a box. Even the quality of vegetables and fruit is questionable, the bacon is by default sweetened with sugar. Every single European or far Easterner that comes to the US will gain 10kg without chaing their dietary habits. The reason is not too much food, or eating fast food, it is because the quality of food in the US is dreadful, all the way from the seed until the plate. So maybe you want to eat insects, but we do not, and there is an absolute consensus about that. Hopefully one day Americans will learn what food is really supposed to be like, and start fixing their country (and health).

Jokes a bit on you, though, for I'm no American, and I certainly value good cuisine. But reflexively excluding insects from your meal options just because they "look scary" is just... not that smart. I suppose you eat shrimps just as fine as anyone, don't you?

Of course it's smart. I reflexively exclude dog from my diet too. Dung beetles and crickets will be way down that list.

I never said that you were American, and I didn't say insects looked scary. Insisting on pushing insects for food, because of the fear that a regular western diet is not sustainable, or eco-friendly, is not smart, and is actually scary. My critique of Americanism does not only target America, but the global American culture, which is essentially California or Bay culture, which most of this bord adheres to. I am shocked by how many people on this website disregards the fact that a total and absolute majority of Italians (and all Europeans and many others) are against allowing insect for human consumption, and do not want moral lectures from people whose food is literally criminal, highly processed, completely unregulated and very unhealthy. Again, food is not just a sum of calories and proteins, there are no magic pills which regulate your total daily nutritional intake.

Do you eat meat? Not trying to say anything, but I don't think there is a difference between eating a cow and eating a grasshopper.

Now if you are 100% vegan, I can accept that

My rationale is my culture doesn't do it so I don't do it as it would be an inauthentic life for me and disrespectful to those who valiantly carried my culture to the point where I get to exist. I'm connected to my culture's history and traditions due to my respect for my ancestors. You may be a rootless wanderer from a broken culture that has been made subservient to other forces and I pity you for it if so, but please do not assume we all are or want to be.

but you do eat spaghetti allo scoglio, huh?

Ha, that's nothing. I've been to Italy and there are places where they eat snails, horses and sea urchins, things most Americans would be disgusted by.

Not to forget also that the island that invented delicious maggoty cheese aka "casu marzu" also belongs to Italy.

HAHA and I've been to countries where they eat the most disgusting and unnatural two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese and washed down with a sugar liquid of PH2 rotting teeth and guts! Oh my god it was aweful!!!

Then don't eat them.

But don't forbid other people (in Italy) to be able to eat them.

"I don't want to do X, so nobody should be allowed to do X". It drives me bonkers.

This isn't true.

There are valid health concerns of insect based "meat" and insect derived flour. Including: higher baseline contamination of harmful bacteria, high levels of arsenic, questionable nutritional value, digestive issues with the hardshells common to the types of insects used for these products.

What does that have to do with whether it should legally be called "Flour" or not? Nobody here is arguing that you should replace your preferred baking and thickening substance with it.

This is a nonsensical response. I never argued anything about legally calling anything flour or not.

OP said: > There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food

I'm refuting that statement.

There are safety concerns with insect based protein. There are aspects that could be considered "bad".

I'll assume you incorrectly replied to the wrong post because that makes more sense.

I think there is an argument to be made about validity in names. Calling something flour that is actually not at all flour, stretches the meaning of the word. I can no longer go to the grocery store and assume my flour contains grains.

I think things should be packaged properly and with proper descriptions. The same as I don't want to go to the store and buy Parmesan cheese only to find it's actually chemically altered tofu. That's not what I bought nor what I wanted.

If I wanted tofu cheese I would go buy tofu cheese.

We've become accustomed to accepting labels at face value, so I believe there is a requirement to continue that practice.

Flour comprised of mostly insects should say that, just like whole wheat flour is separated from pizza flour, as they contain different grain milling and grains.

But we should teach us that there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating insects, it's not gross. We just think it is because of cultural reasons. And those can be changed over time.

You're absolutely right -- the annoying thing about the "insect flour" debate is that nobody in their right minds suggested wheat in ordinary flour will be replaced or diluted with insects, because that would not even work for baking!

It was media outlets that spun the story this way - but in reality, insect flour is just another ingredient you can use for cooking, but not baking.

> Flour comprised of mostly insects should say that, just like whole wheat flour is separated from pizza flour, as they contain different grain milling and grains.

This seems like a fictional problem. Who is trying to pass off insect "flour" as wheat flour? What possible motivation would a company have for doing so? Cricket "flour" costs like 10x as much as wheat flour

> an embarrassing, unreflective revulsion.

You say that like those aren't the most important factors to consider in light of Italy's obvious economic and cultural interest in preserving the reputation of their culinary industry and heritage.

> We have billions of people to feed.

I was not aware that you have billions of people to feed.

Try to assume a responsible perspective for once, and not limit your thinking horizon to yourself. It works wonders.

If you do not want to be part of the greater community of the whole of earth, you are welcome to leave. I hear there is a guy trying to live on Mars instead.

You are delusionally ignoring that the issue is with calling blended animal protein a flour.

While you are conveniently ignoring that lots of things are called flour that aren't necessarily wheat flour, but nobody bats an eye.

For that matter, nobody ever suggested replacing wheat flour with insect flour because it has none of the properties required for baking stuff, but rationality was never really relevant on that topic...

What are you actually supposed to use insect flour for anyway? What's the point?

Have a look at the following page (which is in German, but translate should help). It gives some inspiration on using insects for great food!

Could you explain your reasoning? The unnatural food product stickers sounds like a health warning but for what?

I already buy stuff like oat milk and it never bothered me that it's not actually milk. Same with plant based butters etc

Well, it’s unnatural to begin with. Other good movements like “organic” worked hard for that label and the producers of those products work hard.

I don’t believe oat milk should be allowed to use the word “milk” and if it wants to then should be prefaced with words describing it as “imitation milk” or similar.

> unnatural

You keep using that word, but you haven't explained what makes it unnatural. There are people who eat insects right now, and I'm willing to bet people have been eating insects as long as there have been people. It seems more "natural" to me than drinking another aninals lactations. I don't want to eat insects, but you've offered no explanation why it is insufficient to list the ingredients (which is already required, making it different from your "organic" example).

Also, "milk" has referred to any thick, white substance for centuries now. Consider "milk of magnesia". It's the cow dairy industry that is trying to appropriate the word.

I’m referring to lab grown meat as unnatural. Insects are just plain gross to me. Although they are natural. But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not.

> But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not.

the definition of flour is "ground substances," see also bone flour, fossilized flour, stone flour...

You know very well that the purpose of calling it "insect flour" is to mislead and to normalize it.

Nobody cares about "stone flour" etc because it not sold as flour on a shelf next to real flour. It's not intended to mislead.

> You know very well

please don't assume that all languages have the same sneaky sub-meanings, or, if we speak the same language[1], don't assume that everyone is as ignorant or stupid as you are

[1] https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/farina/

There is absolutely nothing misleading about the phrase "insect flour". And people are allowed to try to normalize things. See "part of a balanced breakfast" from cereal commercials.

How is “insect flour” misleading? The word “insect” is right there in the name! And who cares if it’s normalized or not? If it’s useful and makes healthy, delicious food, I don’t care what it’s made out of.

Like… you do realize the parts of animals we eat are pretty gross right? The things that go into sausages and such? Bone marrow is a delicacy for gods sake!

There’s foods that I think are gross and won’t eat… calimari for instance… but they usually come down to sensory things like taste, texture or smell. The ingredients don’t usually come into play.

> It's the cow dairy industry that is trying to appropriate the word.

The word milk can be traced back thousands of years to the indo-european form h₂melǵ- which means... milk. Your attempt to re-frame this is ridiculous.

> Also, "milk" has referred to any thick, white substance for centuries now. Consider "milk of magnesia".

These are called metaphors. They do not attempt to mislead and confuse people.

The whole point of calling almond juice "milk" is to confuse people.

> The word milk can be traced back thousands of years to the indo-european...

Well, if you develop time travel, then this information will come in handy. That has no bearing on how the word is used now or has been used for 100s of years.

> They do not attempt to mislead and confuse people.

I'm not sure how you can accuse "Oatly" or "Almond Breeze" of trying to mislead. The biggest word on their packaging is the main ingredient. Most non-dairy milks have a picture of the main ingredient on it. If people are confused by that, then they'll just as easily confuse orange juice for milk.

> The whole point of calling almond juice "milk"...

Is because it is a milk, and people can use it like any other milk.

What would be the danger exactly if people confuse oat milk with cow milk?

But what's so inherently dangerous about it being "unnatural" that it should require a similar level of mandated warnings on the packaging as cigarettes?

Do you think unnatural medicines produced in a lab should carry a similar warning compared to their natural remedy counterparts?

I agree. Cigarettes have too many “warnings”

The "organic" label is often meaningless, and a marketing gimic, and organic food producers are worse for the environment, and there are no health benefits to most organic food.

I'm not a fan of nut milk being called milk, because I enjoy meaningful categories and strict categorization, but nut milk has been called nut milk for literal centuries.

Parent comment didn’t say anything about health. If I didn’t want Home Depot to label a window a door, does that seem like I’m making a health statement? Why do you think you are projecting a health issue onto insect “flour”?

Define 'natural product'. I bet there are thousands of items on shelves now that aren't 'natural' but still escape this scrutiny, just due to having been around a while and flying under the radar.

Yes it's creazy. The only valid definition that comes to my mind of 'natural product' is "Existent before 1973".

Velveeta predates 1973

And there's nothing "natural" about it :)

As another Italiano I can totally confirm this.You can find here the most disparate and crazy proposals that are just clickbait nor will never be approved.

Why should one make such a law?

>“unnatural food product”

How is insect flour any more or less natural than processed and bleached wheat flour? I legitimately do not understand, other than the long tail of cultural norms. It's not any less natural.