but one project through the global health institute demonstrates that insects can be so much more — like a sustainable protein alternative. entomophagy, the scientific term for eating insects, is becoming a growing trend — one inciting significant research at uw.

postdoctoral environmental health scientist valerie stull directs the mission to improve global health through insects, an initiative that examines the myriad of implications that might come with eating and farming insects — either for human or livestock consumption.

stull said mighti uses an interdisciplinary lens to analyze the social, environmental and public health-related effects these practices could have.

“we are assessing the impacts of insect farming on people’s livelihoods, health and agroecosystems,” stull said.

stull’s research happens both here and abroad — stull said her team works with communities where entomophagy is already commonplace to study its impacts on public health and environment. they try to determine if these communities that eat insects may also be interested in farming them, and what effects that could have. the locations of these communities range from zambia, south africa, uganda and guatemala.

but why eat insects? to americans who have never heard of entomophagy, the practice could seem unappealing. stull, however, disagrees.

“edible insects are fascinating because while humans have consumed insects throughout history, and about two billion people around the globe regularly consume them now, research on the subject is relatively new,” stull said. “they are under-explored and underutilized on a global scale.”

director of the global health institute jonathan patz works through the institute to support stull’s project, along with uw entomology and the nelson institute for environmental sciences.

patz described some of the environmental benefits entomophagy could have on communities. because insects are rich in high-quality protein and demand only modest resources like food, water, land and energy to rear, they may prove a sustainable alternative to other meat industries.

patz, however, described certain challenges to implementing insect consumption in areas where entomophagy isn’t a cultural commonplace.

“the biggest hurdles that still remain are cultural norms in places unaccustomed to eating insects — like in the u.s.,” patz said. “more research is still needed in address food safety issues, and our feeding studies are aimed to provide an answer in this area.”

stull also cited cultural barriers as potential hindrances to spreading entomophagy.

stull described overcoming these as a process toward cultural competency and communication — one that while difficult, also proves rewarding. it’s important to modify the narrative that insects are not food and share knowledge with groups both locally and globally, she said.

moving forward, stull plans to continue coordinating the logistics of efficient insect farming. one of her goals is to potentially rear insects to feed livestock in wisconsin.

her team is currently researching the “bioavailability of micronutrients found in insects” — essentially the potential nutritional value of insects — in hopes of moving this and other endeavors forwards.

“we plan to continue to investigate the social, environmental and health implications of insect agriculture broadly,” stull said.

patz said mighti aims to have an effect on lower-income countries first to more efficiently enhance nutrition, and stull outlined some of their goals in these countries and regions. stull said mighti hopes to provide user-friendly insect farming kits and training materials to farmers to test the impacts insect farming could have on health and nutrition at the household scale.

stull’s team published several studies on the holistic effects of entomophagy in communities. one study focused on the effect of cooperation between industry, government and academia can have when attempting to implement edible insects. another focused specifically on a case study in zambia, and the most recent study took a microscopic approach by examining the effects of cricket consumption on the human gut.

“i hope my research will have a global impact,” stull said. “simply changing the narrative about insects as food is an important piece of the puzzle.”
 

when you sign up for a liberal arts education, they tell you you’ll begin to draw connections between disciplines, but they don’t warn you that these connections may change your diet, your life, and, dare i say, the world.

somewhere between freshman year burger dates with the boys and senior year salad dates with the gals, i stopped eating meat altogether. my interdisciplinary course load empowered me to challenge the statement, “i could never be vegetarian.” critical thinking changed my diet, and it could change yours, too. soon enough, going vegetarian might seem even more appealing than the alternative.

looking back at the statement, “i could never be vegetarian,” there is a large assumption being made, one i used to take for granted. in my buddhist philosophy course, i learned about the concept of anātman, or non-self. growing up, parents, teachers, and coaches encouraged me to find my true self. their advice perpetuated the idea that each of us indeed has some intrinsic and unchanging part of our identity. many buddhists, in contrast, see the word “i” as only a convenient designator. clinging too much to the conventional concept of self distorts the ultimate reality that each of us is a constantly changing collection of interdependent processes.

i found it liberating to recognize i was not attached to one identity. i didn’t have to commit to being vegetarian indefinitely in order to give it a try.

as it turns out, shifting my mindset from “meat eater” to “aspiring vegetarian” altered my behavior. before filling my plate, i hesitated, remembered my agency, and intentionally avoided meat.

back in the classroom, behavioral economics explained my transformation. our world is outrageously complex. to cope, our brains rely on shortcuts. dan ariely, an expert behavioral economist, observed significant disparities in countries’ levels of organ donation. upon investigation, individual preference or cultural norms did not explain the phenomenon, but opt-in or opt-out organ donation policies at the dmv did. defaults determined decisions.

what does this conclusion mean for you? it means if you believe you can never be vegetarian, you probably will not be because your brain has dismissed the possibility. however, if you sincerely consider the viability of all options afforded to you, your diet just might change.

admittedly, most of microeconomics went over my head, but marginal decision making was fascinating. in order for a choice to make economic sense, the marginal benefit must equal (or exceed) the marginal cost. out of curiosity, i began to wonder if i operated this rationally?

at first, i thought the marginal cost of eating a burger was its price as listed, but my introduction to sustainability course revealed the detrimental impacts the meat industry has on the rainforest, water supply, and human health, not to mention animal welfare. aha! a negative externality, or a cost to the economy that is not accounted for in any market.

i used to find it really easy to enjoy a juicy burger. now, the marginal benefit just did not seem worth the marginal cost of dismissing my liberal arts education.

the innovation offered here is not concrete, but it is powerful. if you have ever found yourself desperate to combat climate change in some small way every day, like i was, here is an answer.

you’re invited to make a difference for yourself and for our planet – just try it. for as long as the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost, you’re vegetarian, starting now.

_________

references

alexander, p., brown, c., arneth, a., dias, c., finnigan, j., moran, d., & rounsevell, m. d. a. (2017). could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? global food security, 15, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001

meat-ing demand: is in vitro meat a pragmatic, problematic, or paradoxical …: @ esf libraries. (n.d.). retrieved february 7, 2019, from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=054d4f6b-31a3-431a-9f25-244bf6e498f2%40sdc-v-sessmgr05

penn, j. (2018). “cultured meat”: lab-grown beef and regulating the future meat market. ucla journal of environmental law & policy, (1), 104.

it’s no secret meat isn’t the most eco-friendly food to pile on your plate. globally, the meat industry emits an estimated 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is considered a leading contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. additionally, animal agriculture accounts for more land use than any other food source, and ushers overuse of hormones, and antibiotics, which leach into our water and food systems.

and although many of us are already aware of the unsustainability of meat, humans still have quite the appetite for meat, which has climbed in recent years, and is projected to peak in 2018.

…which governments have subsidized

the global explosion of enthusiastic meat consumption has to do with a variety of factors, including increases in disposable income, and the heavy subsidization of the industry in many parts of the world, including the united states.

and while it’s often easy to point at meat as a source of environmental and health issues, it is worth noting that meat can be a valuable source of energy, protein, amino acids, and essential micronutrients, including iron and b12, all of which are important in preventing many global malnutrition-related conditions, including protein-energy deficits and anemia.

still, it’s hard to justify pouring billions into a food source that is contributing so greatly to climate change when there are an estimated 815 million hungry people on earth.

we can’t address global food insecurity without creating a more sustainable food system. and one of the biggest areas of opportunity for improvement lies in our ability to cut down on meat production.

how we shift our funding towards a sustainable, food secure future:

many high and low-tech alternatives exist as promising solutions, but many remain underappreciated or underfunded. by redirecting global animal agriculture subsidies, there is great opportunity for impact.

which next begs the question, where do these funds go? we can begin to subsidize more eco-friendly alternatives, but considering the global diversity in palates, cultures, landscapes, and infrastructures, we need more than a one-size-fits all approach.

it’s overly optimistic to expect steak-lovers to willingly swap beans for beef, and plain unrealistic to suggest high-tech meat startups are the solution in countries that lack the proper infrastructure.

so, here are 5 animal agriculture-free, protein alternatives to shift our animal agriculture funding into:

1. subsidize research and production of meat made from plants:

meat, technically speaking, is a composition of water, proteins, amino acids, minerals, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and small amounts of carbohydrates. all of these building blocks can be found or fostered in plants.

several protein-alternative startups are building brands on this principle. by piecing together building blocks of meat from plant-foods, and processing them together with new technology, they are able to create meat alternatives that smell, taste, feel, and cook just like meat.

by offering “meat made from plants” to appease the carnivore palate, companies like beyond meat and impossible foods are a wiser way to channel animal subsidy dollars, and offer an appealing, yet sustainable meat choice for meat-lovers in many parts of the world. subsidizing such technologies (as leonardo dicaprio already has) could ensure products continue to improve and decrease in price, giving meat-lovers a meat with lesser harm to the environment.

2. subsidize research and production of lab-grown meat

for those looking for another alternative that comes from animals rather than plants, several start up companies are working to bring lab-grown meat to market. companies like mosa meat and just foods, are pioneering lab-grown meat.

mosa meat products, for example, are made from small samples of muscle stem cells taken from real animals. known as “myosatellite” cells, these cells serve the specific function of creating new muscle tissue upon injury. cells are next placed in a medium of nutrients and growth factors, cultivating their growth. strands of cells are then layered together to create real meat – the only difference being that theirs is grown outside – rather than inside – the animal.

rather than devote land, water, and feed grains to grow and butcher livestock, lab-grown meat requires far fewer resources, and emits far fewer greenhouse gases.  

by shifting government funds from land and feed-requiring meats to lab-grown meat, die-hard carnivores can rest assured their steaks aren’t soon to be replaced with tofu. subsidizing these technologies can ensure their affordability and continual improvement.

3. subsidize edible insect agriculture

insects hold great promise as a sustainable source of animal protein. requiring far less land, water, and producing far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than most mammalian protein sources, insects are a highly nutritious food source that is often overlooked. while edible insect nutrient profiles vary by species, many are micronutrient rich in vitamins and minerals including zinc, calcium, and iron, which are often lacking from diets of malnourished people.

some are even energy dense, which could combat protein and energy deficiencies. additionally, insects have low technological and monetary start-up costs, and are a viable option in developing countries where resources are limited. insects are a wise and low-cost subsidy option which could address hunger far and wide.

4. subsidize algae production

algae is another fast-growing, high quality, and underappreciated source of protein. importantly, algae is one of the few plant-based sources of b12, which is essential for proper neurological function and prevention of anemia. furthermore, there are a lot of algae strains around the world, and cultivating algae does not require arable land, and can be done in many water environments including marshes, swamps, hot springs, and even under ice, and can also be grown in a lab, offering a promising, scalable option in many parts of the world.

5. subsidize organic – or any – produce alternatives

fruits, vegetables, and legumes (besides soy) are drastically under-supported by government entities compared to staple grains and animal feed. although developed nations often tout fruits and vegetables as essential to a healthful diet, many channel far more funding into meat, animal, and grains like corn and wheat.

by subsidizing fruits and vegetables, people will be better-able to afford these nutrient-dense food choices, and have a better chance at avoiding micronutrient deficiencies. and although not a large source of protein per se, most plant-foods have at least some traces of protein, all of which add up and can contribute to protein and energy intake.

how to move forward:

there are many more sustainable ways to direct worldwide subsidies currently supporting animal agriculture. to solve global hunger, we need a global, cooperative approach to create sustainable food choices with minimal environmental impacts. if developed and developing countries refocus their protein investments, this vision is possible.

and while politically-willed hypotheticals sometimes seem like far-off solutions, there are still things we as citizens can do to nurture these changes. from selecting to spending our dollars on sustainable protein alternatives, educating ourselves and others on the reality of our global food system, and showing up with our political voice in support of institutional change, together we can empower a more food secure future.

cliff’s notes:

sound familiar? welcome to america, where the average citizen consumes a staggering 217.5 pounds of meat each year, a figure that far exceeds the global average of 41.3 pounds per capita. meat is part of our culture; many of us grew up with meat at the center of our dinner plates, under the impression that it was good for us. yet, in recent years, mounting evidence has suggested high levels of meat consumption may not be the healthiest option for our bodies and our planet. so why are we still married to meat, despite the warning signs?

nutrition scientists have been investigating meat for years. in 2015 the international agency for research on cancer (iarc) classified processed meat as a carcinogen, and red meat as a probable carcinogen. the who and american cancer society next urged the public to limit meat consumption. diets rich in animal protein are also linked to increased cardiovascular risks and all-cause mortality, while those high in plant-protein show protective effects.

from a sustainability standpoint, livestock has a higher water and carbon footprint than any other food, emitting significant amounts of methane and other greenhouse gases from their farts and burps. researchers estimate that it takes about 100 times the amount of water to produce animal protein compared to vegetable protein. this all goes without mentioning, of course, the animal welfare concerns many have surrounding commercially raised meat.

with climate change an urgent threat, and historically high rates of chronic, preventable disease, we must put down our forks and assess if we are engaging in best-practice dietary-initiatives for our bodies, the planet, and humanity at large.

seeing as the food system contributes roughly a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the u.s. are diet-related, there’s a real opportunity to better our health and protect the planet.

yet we often eschew this opportunity, allowing convenience and fleeting preference to trump ethical considerations surrounding the food choices we make. we blissfully fail to acknowledge the impacts of meat, drowning out uncomfortable thoughts with the sizzling sound of bacon frying on the stove. the time is now, however, to push for decreased consumption of meat.

a colossal task, meat reduction strategies historically have have been met with deep resistance. when a school in texas attempted to implement a meatless monday policy, offering just one meatless meal per week, backlash erupted, and the measure was seen as overly coercive. and when reduced meat consumption was proposed for the 2015 dietary guidelines, heavy meat-industry lobbying ensured the suggestion did not make the cut.

what opposers who denounce such initiatives as overly paternalistic fail to realize, however, is that their taste for a meat-heavy diet is a result of a preference that has been architected for them. the government uses tax dollars to feed our meaty appetites, spending billions on agricultural subsidies, a bulk of which support commercially raised meat, often incentivized by “big meat’s” hefty political contributions to persuade lawmakers.

and the meat industry’s power extends beyond its pocketbooks. marketing campaigns have established cultural norms that contribute to our meat-heavy mindset, telling us our bodies need “high quality” animal protein or we will become malnourished or anemic, and that eating only plants is unsatisfying and emasculating, all contributing to resistance to shift away from animal protein. after all, believing these notions is far easier than changing something so personal and emotionally charged as our diets.

but if we continue to consume meat at the present rate, we set ourselves on a trajectory for resource depletion, irreversible damage to the planet, and a multitude of preventable health risks. moreover, we jeopardize the right for future generations to food access and a healthful planet.

with momentum growing in the plant-based food movement, there has never been a better time to nudge for reduced meat consumption. incentivization of meatless monday practices, continued advocacy for reductionist messaging in dietary guidelines, and education about meat’s impacts, may prove monumental.

even if national policy is presently out of reach, we can begin by adjusting our own diets and work on changing the social norms around meat. and we don’t have to push the world into veganism overnight to make a difference. by eating a little less, applauding when meat-free options are offered out of the home, and celebrating plant-based meals, we can decrease meat demand and foster a cultural shift where plants become preferential. doing so can shrink our ecological footprint, improve our health, and ensure sustainable food choices for future generations. if there is a true desire to make a positive impact for health of humanity or the planet, it’s time to put the money where our mouths are, and back off the beef.

sometimes, i’m alone – in rhythm with only my breath and my thoughts. other times, i’m with a friend, sharing stories and jokes as our strides fall in step with one another. in either case, this time is sacred.

i’m a runner, and for me, there’s nothing better than a crisp morning, when the air is fresh, the sun is peaking over the horizon, and my legs are light.

but this isn’t always the case.

some days, when the smog is thick and my phone buzzes with an air quality warning, i know running outdoors won’t only be unpleasant; it would be unsafe. when this happens, i worry for the possibility of a day that we reach the point of no return- a day pollution holds us hostage not once or twice a summer, but every day of the year.

that doesn’t have to be the case.

most of us would love to cut our carbon footprint in half – i know i would – but it just isn’t convenient. we want to drive in cars, fly in planes, and eat exotic fruits that only grow on the other side of the world. i’m lucky enough to live in a city with great public transportation and a wealth of eco-friendly ride-sharing options. but many americans don’t have these choices.

census data shows that, in all but 7 states, three-quarters of americans drive to work alone. well, i don’t know anyone who loves their commute, but commuting is a necessary evil. we could demand an increase in public transportation options, but that takes a lot of time, money, and – wait for it – government intervention.

so, if we can’t take millions of cars off the road, what can we do right now, on an individual level, to keep our air clean, and reduce our carbon footprint?

well, everybody eats.

we eat to celebrate. we eat to nurture. we eat to survive.

we also eat selectively – it seems like everyone has a dietary restriction these days. planning a dinner party with my friends is a unique challenge, and more often than not it results in a sort of potluck of new dietary options. i’ve tried a friend’s gluten-free chickpea blondies. they’ve tried my tofu arrabiata sauce. most of these dietary choices were made for personal, health-related reasons, but what i’ve learned recently is that the food we eat doesn’t just impact us; it impacts the planet. big time.

just this summer, a group of researchers in the uk published a study that compared the carbon footprints associated with different diets: meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. turns out, eliminating meat from your diet can reduce your carbon emissions by half. a vegan diet was associated with the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions – 99 percent to 102 percent less than meat-eaters – but even switching from meat and poultry to fish can slash your dietary emissions by 50 percent.

before learning about this study, i never thought about how my diet – i’m a pescatarian; i eat a predominantly plant-based diet with the occasional seafood meal – impacted anyone but myself (and my dates when they suggested going out for barbecue or a steak dinner – awkward). i always figured that what i put into my body was a personal decision, but it turns out that it is quite the public concern.

the good news is, it’s getting easier to find healthy and delicious meatless options. whole foods, as well as schools across the nation, participate in meatless monday. once-hated vegetables, such as brussel sprouts, are making a comeback at dinner tables and on trendy restaurant menus; celebrity chef josé andrés is even opening a veggie-centric fast casual joint in washington, d.c. next year. on the internet, countless blogs and message boards create an online community and endless ideas for meatless fare.

every night, after washing my face and penning a quick journal entry, i climb in bed. i lay there for a moment, reflecting on the day, and, most likely, already thinking about my next meatless meal. and as i close my eyes, i hope for a crisp morning with fresh air, the sun peaking over the horizon, a lightness in my legs. as i drift into a slumber, i get excited for the next day’s run.