The recent article from The Guardian, “The rise of ‘ento-veganism’: how eating crickets could help save the world,” highlights an intriguing yet contentious topic: The potential of crickets as a sustainable food source.
While the notion of ento-veganism—incorporating insects into a vegan diet—sounds innovative, it raises important questions about necessity and ethics for those committed to vegan principles.
The Guardian article champions crickets for their high protein content and sustainability, arguing that they could revolutionize global food production. “Crickets need only to consume about 1.7kg of feed to produce 1kg of food,” the article notes, presenting a stark contrast to traditional livestock’s feed requirements. This efficiency is indeed impressive.
However, the argument for ento-veganism assumes that incorporating insects into our diet is essential for achieving sustainability, an assumption worth scrutinizing.
Firstly, the core of veganism is ethical, centered around the avoidance of animal exploitation. Crickets, despite their small size, are still animals. The process of farming and slaughtering them—regardless of its scale or efficiency—remains inconsistent with vegan ethics.
The Guardian article touches on this: “Insects may be a sustainable source of protein, but they are still technically meat.” This statement underscores the ethical dilemma that many vegans face. The essence of veganism is to abstain from animal products, not merely to find less harmful alternatives.
Moreover, the sustainability argument presented is not as clear-cut as it seems.
While insect farming has a lower feed conversion ratio compared to traditional livestock, it does not necessarily solve the broader environmental issues associated with animal agriculture.
The carbon footprint of transporting crickets and the energy required to farm them still contribute to environmental impact. As the article reveals, crickets are often shipped from places like Lithuania or Vietnam, adding to their carbon footprint.
Beans, on the other hand, offer a compelling argument for maintaining a plant-based diet. Beans are native to the Americas and North-Dakota is the top producer of beans in the USA.
Beans, lentils, and other legumes are not only rich in protein but also have a minimal environmental footprint. They contribute to soil health through nitrogen fixation, have lower water and land requirements compared to animal farming, and do not involve animal exploitation. As such, they align with both the ethical and environmental goals of veganism.
In conclusion, while the concept of ento-veganism presents an innovative perspective, it may not be necessary or consistent with vegan principles.
The benefits of a plant-based diet, including beans and other legumes, remain robust and aligned with the ethical and environmental goals of veganism. Instead of shifting focus to insect-based alternatives, continuing to promote and develop plant-based proteins could be a more effective and ethical path forward.
