In a paper published in the journal, PLoS ONE, scientists at Wageningen University in The Netherlands proposed that eating mealworms is a more sensible way of acquiring protein in the diet than eating chicken, pork or cattle. Per the article:

 

Compared to a kilogram of edible protein in meat from cows, chickens or pigs, production of the same amount of mealworm protein emits fewer greenhouse gases and requires much less land to grow. The findings support the argument that environmentally conscious eaters may do well to include beetle larvae in their diets. "This study demonstrates that mealworms should be considered a more sustainable source of edible protein," the team writes in a paper published yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE...Among the things that the worm-like larvae have going for them, they don't emit methane. Also, they are prolific. Depending on the species, females release up to 1,500 eggs over a lifetime. Larvae develop quickly and they convert their food into protein efficiently, at a similar rate to chicken but better than pigs and cattle.

 

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mealworms-beat-beef-as-sustainable-...

Tags: Food, Jubinsky, Mealworms, Protien

Views: 842

Replies to This Discussion

Obviously it depends on how much of the fish, poultry etc. you are eating.  Those calories will displace calories from plant food. 

From a health point of view, it doesn't matter if you eat small amounts of animal food or none at all.  (unless with allergies)

Arguably similarly true for the environmental aspects of animal food consumption.  In a food environment where animal food is pushed highly by advertising and people eat a lot of it, being 90% of the way to veganism is just about as good for the environment as 100%. 

I can see how people would go for 100%, it's a matter of principle.  If you want to convey an idea to others and yourself, being 100% vegan is clearer than 90%.  Yet in a quantitative way, that extra 10% makes little difference to the society one lives in.  I have some of the same feelings about animal pain as Pamela does.  But if I weren't allergic to fish I'd likely be taking fish oil - a very minor consumption of animal food. 

I chose the American Dietetic Assoc. to emphasize that this mainstream organization of dieticians states that vegetarian diets including vegan can be nutritionally adequate and actually have many health advantages.   It isn't a vegetarian advocacy organization.  Similar advice abounds from nutrition experts, telling us to eat more plants and less animal food. 

One reason my vegan diet is so surprisingly adequate in many micronutrients is that it's very lowfat.  Per calorie, the high-fat foods have less micronutrients.  That's one reason I can get away with a grain-free, legume-free, free of many plants I'm allergic to, vegan diet. 

Jack Norris also has a summary of the health markers Cholesterol & Blood Lipids,  Blood Pressure, Body Weight, Homocysteine in vegans.  

He has some other webpages summarizing research, the data on cancer rates for vegans isn't conclusive he says, but he lists a lot of studies. 

"The Vegetarian Myth" is inaccurate crap

The understood cause of fatness in the Westernized world is excess consumption of refined carbohydrates.

That isn't true.  There is a lot of research on the obesity problem, and no, it's not a single macronutrient.  Marion Nestle's foodpolitics.com site has a lot on obesity.  The explanations are many:  cheapness of high-sugar AND high-fat junk food; the prevalence of obesity is correlated with the number of fast-food (high-fat, large portion sizes) outlets in a neighborhood; lack of exercise since a lot of people live in suburbia which discourages walking or biking. 

Michael Pollen's article on obesity seems sensible to me:  agriculture in the U.S. makes too much food for us to eat.  Too many calories.  So the food industry has to sell those excess calories; they do this by making very palatable junk food.  Potato chips are an excellent starch staple, drowned in grease. 

You will not find an otherwise normal, healthy person who eats a clean (that is, no sugary refined carbs) omnivorous diet suffering from excessive weight-gain.

Of course you will!  Just the other day I came across a site apparently dedicated to making fun of low-carbers by posting pictures of fat ones, like Sally Fallon, nutritionist at a site that promotes animal food.  Kind of mean, but certainly a contradiction to your obviously false statement.  

Fatness is a matter of how many calories one eats.  It's easy to eat a lot of calories of high-fat food.  

Americans are pathetically overweight and sick with the "diseases of affluence" which derive from eating too mich meat and dairy. 

It isn't just the high-fat foods.  A lot of the obesity problem comes from junk food.

Which is greasy - grease is a cheap way to make food tasty - but it also includes sugary soda pop.  Also a cheap way to please people. 

Drinking soda pop has been linked to obesity in children in a number of studies.  Not so much with adults, I think, children have more of a sweet tooth.  Obese adults tend to prefer high-fat foods.

Ok, neural implants it is then! So if I understand you correctly, killing animals for consumption does not violate the social contract ....

No.  Without the necessary communication, there is no social contract.  You can't violate a social contract that doesn't exist.

We have no evidence that any animal, with perhaps possibly the exception of cetaceans, has the ability to acknowledge the social contract. Seems reasonable enough. Hopefully advances in neuroscience will allow us to better understand animal consciousness.

Yup, it would be cool to have real communication with another sentient species.  It'll probably take until we have neural inputs for our own species, and then we'll be able to adapt them to others and figure out  which species are on par with us, or at least close enough to count.

I don't need a "social contract".  I have common sense, empathy and logic on my side.  Since I have no need to harm other animals to be healthy...it is morally reprehensible to do so.

I have common sense, empathy and logic on my side.

 

Empathy for ants.  Right.

Logic is demonstrated, not proclaimed, by the way ... and I won't even get into common sense.

And why not empathy for ants??  If I don't have to kill them....why the hell would I???  They are minding their own business and living their little ant lives.  I don't know if those tiny brains can process suffering or not...so I, again, err on the side of caution and try not to kill them.  If an animal, human included, tries to hurt or kill me...don't worry...I'll kill them.  But I see no reason for unnecessary violence.  And THAT is what passes for "radical" in our culture??? Wow!!

You can project personality onto them and feel empathy for them if you want, but that's not a rational position.  I think it's a waste of my time to continue arguing with you on the subject.  You're not starting from good premises.

There isn't really any question that we are not the only sentient beings on the planet.

There are most likely a few species, yes.  But you're jumping from there to "All animals deserve the same rights as humans."  That's a completely unjustified leap.

There is no reason to think that other mammals don't think/feel pretty much the same way we do.

There's also no reason to think that a given animal thinks and feels the same way we do, until it's demonstrated.

Religious people don't accept that we are animals.  They put humans on some pedastal...as an angel-being seperate from the other animals.  We shouldn't make the same mistake.  We're just brainy apes.

I've already said several times that I'm sure there are animals that are close to us in mental capacity.  The problem with this argument is that you also can't separate us from the plants of this planet, evolutionarily speaking.  At least, if you're going to, you're deciding that that branching of the evolutionary tree is where we're going to draw the line.

I draw the line differently.  I don't eat mammals.  Admittedly, a good part of that is the fact that mammals seem to have less healthy fat storage, in terms of consumption by other animals.  Fish oils are far healthier.

Morally speaking, cows are fucking stupid.  They'll walk through electrified fences, because they're not bright enough to figure out why they're experiencing pain.  They're so far off from humans that I don't have a problem using them for food.  I just don't do so, myself.


Well you damned well better be putting that implant in your OWN brain!!  I don't think kidnapping and experimenting on them is a good way to start a discussion!

Once they're demonstrated to be safe (partially through animal testing), sure.  I can think of lots of good uses for neural implants.

So, you'd refuse to allow a few forced implants on a few members of another species, if it means liberation and the signing of a social contract with that species?  I consider the inability to allow for the violation of the rights (which don't exist, until we can communicate with them and establish those rights) of a few individuals, for the greater good of the species as a whole, to be an immoral position.

You're approaching the PETA level of crazy with the statements you're making here, by the way.

Birds are intelligent.  They feel pain.  They have as much right to their lives as we do.  Fish may not be every intelligent, but they still feel pain.

No, birds don't have as much right to their lives as we do, until they demonstrate in some way that they would like to have those rights.

Some plants have electro-chemical signals that communicate damage to the plant, throughout the organism.  Are they experiencing pain?  I don't know, and I don't know that fish are experiencing pain, either.

But the social perception will change and it will be seen as a bad thing.  No, the entire populations doesn't have to go vegan.  But most of our food will have to comefrom plant sources.  We can't support the world human population on meat and dairy without destroying the ecosystem.

The environmental argument is far better, yes.  That only gets as far as a reduction in meat consumption, though.  And you're still making completely unjustified statements about your perception of the future.

Wild speculation about future social perspectives is not a valid argument for the holding of those social perspectives.  Hell ... true, prophetic knowledge of what future social perspectives will be (if that was possible) would not be a valid argument for those social perspectives.

I never said any such fucking thing.  Don't put words in my mouth. You can't defend meat eating from a moral standpoint, or from a health or environmental standpoint.  Veganism is a superior way of life on all counts.  THAT was my argument.  Sily me, thinking rational people would look at all the evidence and make decisions based on rational thought.

To quote you directly, "'Tasty' is not a defense."  That's exactly what you said.

Part of rational thought is recognizing where the burden of proof lies.  Restricting a behavior is only justified when you've demonstrated that there's a reason to do so.

Like I said, many times before, I don't accept your moral argument, at least not without a whole lot of modification, which would allow for the eating of most animals.

From a health perspective, pretty much all health studies I've ever seen which demonstrate negative effect involve red meat.  Many studies demonstrate a benefit to eating fish.

The environmental argument justifies a reduction in our meat consumption, yes.  You can't get to pure veganism from there.

Really??  What would that be?  The planet is overcrowded and many children are orphaned and unwanted.  Why not eat them?

There would be a whole cascade of negative social effects from allowing cannibalism.

All you have argued is that humans are irrational and they won't give up their cheeseburgers!

No, my point there was that you're unwilling to deal with half-measures, which society will accept, instead insisting on absolute stances, which won't be accepted.  If you want to actually accomplish something, that's irrational.

    You're approaching the PETA level of crazy with the statements you're making here, by the way.

I've made a clear, logical argument.  If that sounds "crazy" to you, perhaps the problem is yours...not mine.

No, my point there was that you're unwilling to deal with half-measures, which society will accept, instead insisting on absolute stances, which won't be accepted.  If you want to actually accomplish something, that's irrational.

I'm arguing a point.  As I said...I expected supposedly rational people to look at the subject rationally....silly me.  But atheists are no more rational than any of the other bi-pedal apes on the planet after all...are they? 

Some plants have electro-chemical signals that communicate damage to the plant, throughout the organism.  Are they experiencing pain?

Plants have no central nervous system or brains to process the sensation of pain.  Fish do.  I'd err on the side of caution with that one.

From a health perspective, pretty much all health studies I've ever seen which demonstrate negative effect involve red meat.  Many studies demonstrate a benefit to eating fish.

The benefits of eating fish come from the fatty acids in fish.  These fatty acids can be gotten from eating algae....which is where the fish got it from.  I take an algae based Omega 3 supplement.  We can "cut out the middle man" and just consume the algae. 

Part of rational thought is recognizing where the burden of proof lies.  Restricting a behavior is only justified when you've demonstrated that there's a reason to do so.

I have more than proven my point.  Furhtermore your continued use of logical fallacies tells me I have more than won the debate.  I have not once mentioned restricting anyone's behavior...YOU however have mentioned it more than once.  "Strawman" anyone??  I am making a reasonable argument about a better way of life and backing it up with evidence.  The people arguing agaisnt me are making emotional pleas.  All the science and logic are on my side.  I expected rational atheists to consider the argument and see the logic of it.  Perhaps not run out and go vegan...but at least to read up on the subject and consider the benefits.  Silly me...I forgot I was dealing with humans.  Fine to reject god.....but reject food culture??  Blasphemy!!!!

Really??  What would that be?  The planet is overcrowded and many children are orphaned and unwanted.  Why not eat them?

There would be a whole cascade of negative social effects from allowing cannibalism.

There are a whole cascade of negative social, medical and environmental effetcs from the consumption of meat and dairy....but you seem to think that is OK.  Bring on the roasted babies!!  McToddler Riblets!!

Like I said, many times before, I don't accept your moral argument, at least not without a whole lot of modification, which would allow for the eating of most animals.

Well then, I find your postion to be immoral and kind of pathetic.  You have not looked at the data, you have not thought about the implications for our species or the environment, and you don't have any empathy for your fellow animals. 

The environmental argument justifies a reduction in our meat consumption, yes.  You can't get to pure veganism from there.

There is no logical reason to continue behavior that produces negative effects.  That is how you get to veganism.   Not sure what "pure veganism" is.  It isn't a flexible term. 

Re: Veganism. What of people who live in very poor regions of the world, people who cannot afford the supplements, e.g. B-12 and DHA from algae etc? And what of African tribes that depend on hunting for their very survival? Not all humans live in first-world, fully developed economies with access to all the nutritional supplements and the variety and amount of vegetable mass needed to sustain a vegan lifestyle.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service