> 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.