Talk:Entomophagy in humans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Weird Bias[edit]

Is there any reason this article reads like it was written with a weird ideological bent? It's almost preachy, the way people who don't eat bugs are told we're using too many other sources of protein. Get outta here, weirdos! 2601:844:8180:8B0:FC73:572B:9D0C:6BC5 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Species eaten[edit]

I have eaten ants and found them sour but quite tasty. Nevertheless, do we have a source for this fact:

Accounts show that humans eat 1200+ species of insects.

I'm sure it's true but it's nice to have sources for things like that. Agentsoo 12:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citation of the late anthropologist Marvin Harris:

As an advocate of entomophagy, I'm wondering about the information attributed to Harris in this entry. If anyone could enlighten me as to where in Harris' work I could find his claim of this taboo, and its basis in cultures that rely on animals that [supposedly] require less work to 'husband,' I'd be most grateful. I believe that there is compelling research out there to support the claim that insects are the least labor-intensive source of food protein.

Marvin Harris lists a couple plausible-sounding book titles. Stan 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crustacea[edit]

Sorry I don't have time to work on this myself, but could those who have access to the books do a comparison between attitudes to eating insects and attitudes to eating crustacea? I've seen Batswana shudder with horror at the very idea of a prawn, tho being happy to munch on mopane worms (which at least are not all legs and eyes...). Apart from those from the Okavango, they're pretty freaked by fish generally, in my experience. So there's a very high level of cultural determination going on here. JackyR 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture needed[edit]

see: [1] I like Burke's Peerage 10:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have more insect food pictures which I took in Thailand. You can take them from Wikipedia commons or Wikipedia Japanese.--Takora D 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any?[edit]

I am interressed in entomophagy, i can eat any type of ant and insects?

Many insects are edible, but many others are poisonous. It's recommended that you consult a guide book of some sort. But yes, you can eat ants. (I ate some at a bug-cooking show. Sort of tangy-peppery.) You might want to bring this up at the reference deskbibliomaniac15 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo[edit]

I deleted "...with no rational or scientific basis" because it sounds like an underhanded indictment of Western culture. Would we say the same thing when mentioning a taboo in a non-Western culture? Generally not, I think, or, if we did, it would be seen as derogatory. And now, please excuse me while I gag after reading about Casu Marzu! 216.208.65.142 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the information, even if it can be taken as judgemental should be there. Maybe citing the original sentence would be a good compromise? Or better yet, explaining shortly why there is no rational or scientific reason. Something along the lines of "many species are fit for consumption and have a high nutritional value". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Taboo the right word? To me it suggests more a religious/cultural prohibition (e.g. eating most insects is taboo under Jewish kosher rules). In western culture it's more that we think it's gross. Socially unnacceptable perhaps? But it's not prohibited. 217.44.100.142 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am not too sure about the taboo against eating insects. I think it might have to do with the belief that the tiny size and exoskeleton of the insect would make it hard to remove the blood, fecies, and poison, if the insect has any. I'm not sure, though. Maybe someone could clarify. If the reasons I listed for the taboo against eating insects are valid, it would be nice to include them so this article isn't so passive-aggressively propaganda against taboos against eating insects.--RowdyShortPerson (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more western entomophagy habits[edit]

nobody mentioned escargot! i guess chocolate covered ants, also why is honey considered entomophagy? its an insect product, isn't that like calling someone who drinks milk a cow eater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.32.83 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escargot is not included because snails aren't insects (although many people have a similar taboo against eating them). As for honey, I agree it's a somewhat dubious case, but as insects are involved in its production I can see why it's included. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peptides from insect protein for human consumption[edit]

There is research conducted to make peptides from insect protein for use in "functional nourishment" (eg trough the use of bioreactors for cell multiplication). I guess this info shouldn't be added in this article, but might be added somewhere else on the wiki. Not sure however exaclty where. See This article for info and main project page at this site (see "functionele voeding pdf)

Add in appropriate article, Thanks, 81.246.167.100 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-insects[edit]

This article erroneously describes spiders, scorpions and tarantulas as insects. Does eating them still fall into the category of Entomophagy? Is so, then the section needs editing to point out they are not insects, if not they need deleting. I;m not sure which of these two ways to go. Fork me (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion necessary, though a small note might be appropriate. It might be more correct to describe the common definition of "entomophagy" as the consumption not just of insects, but of insect-like non-crustacean animals. To the layman, spiders and scorpions "are" insects, in the same sense that, as far as most cooks are concerned, mushrooms and tomatoes "are" vegetables, though neither is actually accurate. —Lowellian (reply) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vegetable is a culinary classification, not a botanical one, so that's actually perfectly fine. Why don't crustaceans count? -2606:A000:4321:7300:95D:9D9A:B1DB:E327 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because crustaceans are seafood. Arnoutf (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locusts[edit]

Locust are a type of grasshopper. It would be like saying birds and eagles. Fixed it accordingly. Homo Logica (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a "traditional culture?"[edit]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.210.123 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a politically correct name for a non-European culture.

I don't know why NZ and Australia are included as insect-eating places in the lead. The Aboriginals have insects as part of their every-day diet, but the vast majority of New Zealanders and Australians (i.e. descendants of British colonists) don't. --5.64.142.15 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups?[edit]

Isn't it rather limiting and artificial to refer to the "total number of ethnic groups recorded to practice entomophagy is around 3,000"? That reference can also be seen as racist. Wouldn't it be safer and more accurate to say that entomophagy is practiced throughout the world, but more commonly in Asia, and by some 25% [?] of the world's population.119.224.100.246 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Entomophagy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Entomophagy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Entomophagy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Entomophagy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entomophagy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entomophagy and insects as food / edible insects are different aspects of one topic, they should not be described in one article with the other lemmas redirecting[edit]

  • Entomophagy describes the process of eating insects by humans (and animals), this is connected to certain cultural aspects, such as a certain country-specific cuisine, acceptance, taboo etc.
  • Edible insects in difference to that are certain insect species that can be used for human consumption, or processed into insect-based food products (insect burgers, insect bread, insect pasta). Example: A mealworm is an edible insect, a house cricket is an edible insect. The are food such as soy, minced meat, etc., have certain nutritional profiles, ways of production, legal framework (e.g.: cricket, mealworm and locust are authorized as food in Switzerland).

The first is culture-related article, the second is an article based on food production and food law.

To develop the whole topic under an article focused on the culture and process of eating insects is just misleading. We need a second article Insects as food / Edible insects, just describing the food aspects (nutritional profile, farming/production, authorization). I started an article like that here: [2], but User:TheLongTone just reverted it, without any discussion.

We already have a comparable differentiation at Wikicommons:

What do you think?

--AlienFood (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Insects as food article is plainly covering the same territory as Entomophagy, only less well. The redirect title Edible insects could conceivably become a significantly different article, in the manner that Medicinal plants covers the materials while Herbalism covers the uses. If you feel like developing an Edible insects article, that would be absolutely fine: it would be a piece of work, as there are many hundreds of species to cover, eaten by peoples with hundreds of different cultures. I see no justification for keeping a WP:FORK of Edible insects alongside Entomophagy, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand, and agree with you that "edible insects" might be the right lemma to develop that article further - what I would like to do. I am very open to put that work into the article. What would be the best way to proceed then? --AlienFood (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You research suitable sources from around the world on which insects are eaten by which peoples, draft an article cited to those sources, illustrate it, write a summary for its lead section, and put it into 'Edible insects'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to meat advantages/disadvantages[edit]

The article is missing comparisons to other types of protein sources, but I'm not sure how to get it into what section. See "See also" section for links. Help? Oathed (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article goes off the rails and on a weird tangent about Angelina Jolie[edit]

there have been certain notable individual exceptions, for example the celebrity Angelina Jolie has been widely pictured cooking and eating arthropod "bugs" including a spider and a scorpion, but there is little sign that this is anything other than a case of a single celebrity trying to experience a wider global perspective, nor that Jolie herself eats insects as a primary part of her diet, as opposed to experimentally or for the publicity value inherent in such an activity.[53]

Seriously? What's the point of talking in great detail about Angelina Jolie specifically as opposed to, say, "Westerners" being able to try insects at exotic street food fairs and things of that nature? The idea is the same, namely that people in the West do occasionally eat insects as part of a dare or a novelty, but it's not an everyday activity. Making this about Angelina Jolie just seems odd. --92.209.40.160 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a BBC News story that jazzed up a "should we eat bugs?" story by putting Jolie in the foreground of it, because she'd eaten some while promoting a film that week. Definitely odd to use that same emphasis here at Wikipedia. I've taken it out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Large part on entomophagy in humans as own article[edit]

The article has its main weight on entomophagy in humans (anthropo-entomophagy), where its partly loosing itself in discussing advantages and disadvantages of insect farming and consumption in essay-style paragraphs. I vote for transferring that part into an own article entomophagy in humans or anthropo-entomophagy and to rework it completely. --AlienFood (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. --AlienFood (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Entomophagy_in_humans&oldid=1207120955"