Eating bugs

[urbpan]

The first thing I ever wrote for The Urban Pantheist was an article about eating bugs. I researched the topic pretty thoroughly (and put the article out shortly before three different books on the subject came out--it would have been nice to have those resources), I even subscribed to the Food Insects newsletter, found out about a company that sells candy and snacks with insects in them (and arranged to have them carried in the store I worked in). For the next several years any time the subject came up in the media, one or more of my friends would direct my attention to it. After a follow-up article I promised not to write about it any more in the zine. I didn't promise not to blog about it though.

I bring it up because I just posted a comment in by_steph's journal on the subject, a comment that was long enough that it should be its own post. At issue is an article about the labelling of the ingredient "carmine" or "cochineal," a red dye derived from a Mexican scale insect (aphid relative) that lives on prickly pear.

Of course, first I have to complain that the insect is repeatedly referred to as a "beetle." Okay, no one knows what a scale insect is, so they have to use a word that the average WSJ reader will know. That doesn't excuse them from arbitrarily changing the phylogeny of the animal. The classification difference between beetles and scale insects is on the "order" level, the level where we are classified as primates and not rodents. A small point perhaps.

Second, at issue is food labeling: Should food manufacturers be allowed to list cochineal "artificial coloring," or do they need to be explicit about its insect origin? Shouldn't it be "natural coloring?" Anyway, the point is, should manufacturers be allowed to obfuscate the fact that they put insect-derived dye in yogurt and grapefruit juice?

The loudest voices in opposition are (of course) the vegetarians, the kosher folks, and the food allergy people. They all (rightly, I think) would like to know if a food ingredient is violating their ethics, their covenant with God, or is simply going to kill them. Of course, vegetarians could avoid buying food with "artificial flavoring," Kosher folks could avoid buying food that isn't labelled Kosher, and people with carmine allergies, well, I guess they could avoid eating processed food that is colored red.

I didn't really care too much about this article until I read the statement from the apologist for the food industry: "It's not part of the requirement for other animal-derived ingredients. Lard is 'lard.' It doesn't say 'pork' after it. 'Milk' doesn't say 'from cow.' 'Butter' doesn't say 'from cow.'"

What a disingenuous prick. He could have said, "this is an ingredient that has been used safely for decades. Sure, these days people don't like the idea of eating bugs, but hey, it's not gonna kill ya (unless you're allergic)--you eat lobster, right?" But no, he had go the smokescreen route. Dairy products aren't labelled "from cow" (although there's often a big picture of a cow on the package--I guess dairy producers aren't worried about the public perception of cow-derived ingredients) because people have been eating dairy products for 10,000 uninterrupted years. MODERN PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF EATING BUGS. They know this, but because they are greedy weasels, they don't address the real issue, they don't try to change public perception, they just whine "it will cost us money to change!" These are the same assholes (philosophically speaking) that opposed putting seatbelts in cars for more than 50 years because (they claimed) the cost of it would kill the car industry. Seems to be doing okay, though, doesn't it?

So anyway, the real issue is this: Should people be warned if foods contain an ingredient that isn't harmful, but if they knew about it would disgust them?

Comments

[lizblackdog.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. The food industry laws are there to stop things being harmful, not to cater to people's prejudices. If someone cares that much about avoiding non-obvious insect-based ingredients it's not that hard to look up "cochineal" in a dictionary. I wouldn't expect jello to have a big picture of boiled hooves on the pack either. There's a point at which people need to take personal responsibility for finding out what they're putting in their mouths.

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

Presumably artificial coloring can come from many things, not just cochineal. So I don't think his analogy holds up. If there were different types of lard, then they'd probably be more specific (i.e. lard, pork and beef, or something like that).

How many people who see "cochineal (for coloring)" are even going to realize it's made from bugs? So, while I think most people are silly for not wanting to eat something made from bugs, I think they have the right to know.

(Also, I have to point out that Ford & GM are both laying off 20-30,000 people. Not because of seatbelts or airbags, but still.)

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

Vaguely related BBC article about eating dogs in China.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

It seems dog-eating is on the wane, and lunatic dog-owning is on the rise. (I think pet owners are mentally ill, personally.) Another move toward emulating the west (like their move away from bicycles to cars)? Or is a more complex socio-economical thing: As the middle class in China grows, more people have spare time and money to keep pet dogs, which diminishes (through revulsion) the practice of eating dogs? It seems like a drifit toward monoculture, if anything. I appreciate that it will mean less dogs are treated harshly before becoming food, but I'm sure Chinese pigs and chickens are treated just as bad.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

(Also, I have to point out that Ford & GM are both laying off 20-30,000 people. Not because of seatbelts or airbags, but still.)

Right. Things aren't especially hunky-dory in the American (owned) auto industry, but being required to put seatbelts (and now airbags) into cars didn't destroy the industry. Everyone in America (for all intents and purposes) owns at least one car--fortunately they have seatbelts in them.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Should people be warned if foods contain an ingredient that isn't harmful, but if they knew about it would disgust them?

Um. No. People wouldn't be able to eat anything if they knew what it actually was. Rennet, anyone?

several random reactions

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Are modern Americans collectively like small children who think anything besides pasta or chicken mcnuggets is gross?

I think you're right. Rennet is but one disgusting stage in the thoroughly disgusting process of producing cheese. Probably if it hadn't been a food already for centuries, and was invented now, it would be totally unmarketable.

Of course, at my work, a big educational point is knowing where your food comes from. We find that people are incredibly ignorant, of even basic things--lamb chops come from baby sheep, vegetables are grown in soil (with compost!).

Modern people want their food to be sterile, for some reason.

Re: several random reactions

[ankhanu.livejournal.com]

"Are modern Americans collectively like small children who think anything besides pasta or chicken mcnuggets is gross?"

Yes.
And if they thought about the McNuggets, they'd be on the list too.

Re: several random reactions

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

This just makes me want to eat cheese!!

People should know about expensive european beers where they never clean the kegs/tubs or whatever because the precious fauna would be killed and their beer would taste like crap. Yum, bacteria and yeasts and stuff!

[zipotle.livejournal.com]

I want people to be more aware of what they're eating, so yeah, I think it should say cochineal. Another friend of mine is vegetarian and I think she tries to avoid stuff she KNOWS is made with it.
Even if the rest of it is on them (to find out what cochineal is)-I think it should be on there. I hate trying to find out what "natural flavors" are when I'm trying to find catfood for my horrible horrible (and allergic) Catcat.

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Let it say 'cochineal' and then if it's important to them, people can figure it out, and if they prefer to remain ignorant, that's up to them.

I work with a relatively strict Muslim, and at lunch we often go to the grocery store next door. I'm learning a lot about how hard it must be to be a vegan as we look for products that clearly don't contain any pork.

[aemiis-zoo.livejournal.com]

I prefer to be blissfully ignorant about such things.

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

I actually posted in the Fark thread about this article, mostly to put on my entomologist's hat and explain what a scale insect is, and how it's different from a beetle. It was frustrating.

I feel like products containing cochineal or carmine should be labeled as containing cochineal or carmine, instead of being disguised as "artificial and/or natural colors". To me,that's just as clear as the myriad of complex chemical names on the back of any given convenience food. If you can't readily identify something, you have to look it up. This is particularly true if you're on some form of restricted dies (kosher, halal, phenylketoneuric, nut allergy). It is not the world's food producer's responsibility to cater to you. They'll only kiss up to you if you (as a consumer group) have enough economic clout to make it profitable.

As a consumer, you are responsible for what you eat. If you are on a restricted diet, it is /your/ responsibility to verify what's in your food before you eat it. (Assuming the ingredient list is as clear as it should be.)

It's not like you aren't getting a healthy dose of bug parts every day anyway...

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add that insects can be delicious. I like to eat bugs, if they are well prepared. Except for roaches. I refuse to eat Blaterria.

[by-steph.livejournal.com]

I stole it from Fark! I've been caught. :p

[momomom.livejournal.com]

E2 has an interesting history of the secretive history of cochineal. You probably already know this but I didn't. It apparently was thought to be a seed for a long time, at first accidently and then later maybe intentionally to keep the secret!

From:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=208497&lastnode_id=208497&op=logout
(there is more interesting stuff there)

"When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico in the 1500s, they were amazed by the brilliant red-dyed clothing worn the natives. Europe had red dyes - madder root, lichen, and the kermes insect - but nothing could compare with the brilliant scarlet of the Aztec cloth.

The secret was a tiny insect, the cochineal scale (Dactylopius coccus), that lived on the flattened stems (pads or cladodes) of certain prickly pear cactus (Nopalea cochenillifera and Opuntia). The Aztecs called the dye nocheztli, for they found it on the divine cactus, teo-nochtli.

The dye comes from the female cochineal scales, which are crushed to obtain the purplish pigment their bodies produce. This pigment, an astringent chemical called carminic acid, protects the insect from predation, and yields the brilliant and durable red dye carmine. Interestingly, while these females may live up to three years, the males of the species lack mouthparts and live only a week after hatching - their sole function is to reproduce.

At first the Spanish thought the dried, unprocessed insects were seeds, so they called them grana cochinilla. This accidental misnomer later served the Spanish well, helping them to maintain a monopoly on the dye for a time, which they guarded as a state secret. When explorers from other European nations came to the New World to learn the secret of the dye, they were looking for seeds (grana) instead of insects. The Spanish monopoly on cochineal production was not broken until 1777, when a French naturalist smuggled Mexican cactus pads with cochineal scales to Haiti. "

[momomom.livejournal.com]

From the Wallstreet Journal Article:

"A petition CSPI submitted to the FDA in 1998 and complaints from allergic consumers spurred the FDA's proposal today. The petition suggested that labels disclose carmine or cochineal content with the language, "Artificial color: carmine/cochineal extract (insect based)." The food industry objects, both to the word "insect" and the use of "artificial color" together with "carmine" and "cochineal.""

This language does seem overkill to me. It also seems inaccurate. It is NOT an artificial color, it is a natural color. I'm for requiring "carmine" or "cochineal" or "caminic acid" in the list of ingredients but not the insect based. People do need to take some personal responsibility for looking things up!

[gigglingwizard.livejournal.com]

MODERN PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF EATING BUGS.

We don't? :o(

Dang.

"Honey, we gotta get rid o' them caramel crickets! We ain't supposed to like 'em!"

[turil.livejournal.com]

"So anyway, the real issue is this: Should people be warned if foods contain an ingredient that isn't harmful, but if they knew about it would disgust them?"

Well, I'm going on the premise that the whole point of labeling food with it's ingredients is so that people can know what they are eating. Thus, it seems that the ingredients should be clear and not intentionally misleading. In the case of the little red scale insects, it would seem that either a species name, or the common animal name would be appropriate to use, while "artificial coloring" would seem completely misleading and innacurate.

In addition, I think it is only a matter of time before a critical mass of vegetarians and vegans is reached and society demands new labeling that makes it clear whether or not a product (food or otherwise) involved the use or death of individual animals. Though outright bans on such products might happen instead.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

They do manage to have vegetarian labeling (kind of like pareve labeling, but a V instead of a K) in the UK - doesn't seem that difficult!

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

It's not difficult, its political.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

How so? Veggies = hippies?