A food crisis could be looming on the horizon.
It is estimated that there will be 9 billion people on Earth by 2050, and our current methods
of food production may not be able to keep up with demand.
For instance, raising cattle requires a lot of food, land, and water but yields little
edible meat in return.
An Economist article states that “a cow takes 8 kg (17.6 lbs.) of feed to produce
1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of beef, but only 40% of the cow can be eaten.”
We have to be more efficient in the way we grow food and find alternatives to some of
the foods we currently eat in order to be able to feed more people.
We will examine some of these alternatives in this episode of The Infographics Show,
“What will we eat in the future?”
High on the list of foods experts predict we will be eating in the future are insects.
Humans eating insects is not a new concept.
There is even a fancy term for it: entomophagy.
It is estimated that insect consumption already occurs in 80% of the nations in the world.
For example, the mopane worm is a protein-packed food source for people living in southern
Africa.
The worms are usually collected in the wild and are traditionally sun dried or smoked,
and they are also canned and sold in local markets.
People in Peru commonly eat suri, which is palm weevil larvae.
They roast, fry, and barbecue the grubs, but one source notes that locals in jungle towns
“prefer to offer it to visitors not just raw but live and wriggling.”
Other popular edible insects include cicadas, ants, scorpions, and tarantulas.
One major advantage of using insects as a food source is its sustainability.
Due to their small size, a lot of insects can be raised in a small amount of space and
do not require as much food or water as some traditional farm animals.
For example, the Economist reports that “crickets require just 1.7 kg (3.8 lbs.)of food to produce
1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of meat, and 80% is considered edible.”
The food to edible meat ratio for mealworms is also better than that of cattle.
A Scientific American article states that mealworms “can convert about 2.2 kilograms
(4.9 lbs.) of food into a kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of total bug weight.”
To make 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of protein, they also require “just one tenth the amount of land
required to produce one kilogram of beef.”
In addition, insects are nutritious.
Three bugs in particular – crickets, grasshoppers, and mealworms – are gaining attention as
good sources of protein that rival animal protein.
In a 2013 report, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) lists
the average protein content of these three insects.
Crickets contain 8-25g (0.3 -0.9 oz.) of protein per 100g (3.5 oz.), while yellow mealworms
contain 14-25g (0.5 -0.9 oz.) of protein.
It is possible for crickets and mealworms to contain as much protein as raw beef, which
contains 19-26g (0.7-0.9 oz.) of protein per 100g (3.5 oz.).
Adult grasshoppers can contain even more protein than raw beef with 13-28g (0.5-1 oz.) of protein
per 100g (3.5 oz.).
They also contain slightly less protein than a similar amount of chicken breast, which
a Time article states is 31.02 g (1.1 oz.) of protein per 100g (3.5 oz.) of chicken.
However, there are also disadvantages to eating insects.
One of them is the cost.
While it should cost less to raise insects in theory because they require less resources,
this is not the case in reality.
For instance, a Forbes article explains that the high cost of cricket protein products
is due to the fact that the “industry of farming crickets is still in its infancy.”
And the products are indeed pricey.
One source states that the average retail price of pure cricket flour is about $40 per
pound (0.5 kg).
A BBC article outlines some of the potential safety problems of humans eating insects.
For instance, wild insects “may be covered in pesticides or other contaminants,” while
farm-raised ones could be feeding on food scraps that “may be contaminated with fungus.”
Another problem is that “insects also have their own pathogens: viruses, bacteria and
fungi that colonise their tiny bodies.”
The health risks posed by these microorganisms within insects need further study.
And then there is the “yuck factor.”
Insects are a hard sell in countries where people are not accustomed to eating insects
and were raised to see insects as pests instead of snacks.
Edible insect companies have tried to make insects more palatable to these people by
grinding up the insects into protein powder and protein bars so that they don’t have
to see the whole bugs staring back at them with dead eyes as they eat.
There has also been an attempt to rebrand insects with names such as mini-livestock
and land shrimp, but the effectiveness of this rebranding remains to be seen.
For some, a bug is still a bug no matter what you call it.
If insects don’t appeal to you, perhaps you might like the next food of the future
we will discuss, algae.
This diverse group of organisms are capable of photosynthesis but may not have stomata
and other tissue found in land plants.
They live in both freshwater and marine environments.
A few examples of algae include microalgae such as spirulina and seaweed.
Like insects, growing algae is sustainable.
A BBC article even states that “some in the sustainable food industry predict algae
farming could become the world's biggest cropping industry.”
A Netherlands based algal research facility called AlgaePARC states that microalgae “pose
no competition to agriculture since they don’t need fertile land and can be grown in places
like deserts.”
Seaweed grows in the ocean and other bodies of water, so it does not require land like
other conventional food sources do.
Algae are also nutritious.
A Live Science article reports that spirulina is well-known for its health benefits.
Spirulina “contains significant amounts of calcium, niacin, potassium, magnesium,
B vitamins and iron.”
It is also a source of “essential amino acids.”
According to the National Ocean Service, seaweed “is chock-full of vitamins, minerals, and
fiber,” and many “contain anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial agents.”
Some seaweed also “possess powerful cancer-fighting agents.”
Algae have drawbacks that are similar to those of insects.
Algae products are also expensive.
An online retailer sells a 1.1 lb. (500g) bag of 100% Non-GMO spirulina powder for $19.95,
while another one sells a 1 lb. (0.5 kg) jar of raw living spirulina for $70.00.
A third retailer sells a 1-pound bag (0.5 kg) of kelp for $27.85.
Contamination is also a safety issue for algae.
A wellness blog cites the results of a study of spirulina, AFA, and chlorella samples from
around the world.
It “’found that the majority of them were contaminated with different types of metals
such as arsenic, aluminum, mercury, or lead.’”
Other types of contamination were found in fillers combined with algae such as soy protein
isolate.
One source notes that seaweed can also be “contaminated by heavy metals such as lead
and mercury lurking in the environment where they are grown.”
In addition, some types of seaweed absorb more toxins than others.
Like insects, algae suffer from an image problem.
Raw spirulina looks slimy, and it tastes as bad as it looks.
One wellness website states that “it does taste like pond scum,” while a spirulina
blog describes spirulina from the sea as “usually gross” and “smells fishy.”
According to a BBC article, seaweed is not eaten very much by people living in Western
countries.
The article speculates that this is because they “don’t like the idea of eating something
washed up and smelling on the seashore.”
If you still want animal protein, there is a sustainable way to get it – growing it
in a laboratory.
Our third food of the future, meat grown in a lab, goes by several names – in vitro
meat, cultured meat, and clean meat.
A Vox article describes the production process.
Stem cells and other cells are taken from an animal and placed in a growth medium described
as “’a soup of nutrients that mimics what happens in the animal’s body.’”
The cells are allowed to multiply on what is called a “scaffolding” that may or
may not end up in the end product.
Currently, a company called Mosa Meats is able to make a hamburger patty in about nine
weeks according to CNN.
While the most well-known clean meat is hamburger, it is possible to grow meat from chicken,
fish, and other animals as well.
Clean meat offers some advantages over conventional meat.
A Scientific American article points out that it “could eliminate much of the cruel, unethical
treatment of animals that are raised for food.”
If clean meat is successful, the days of raising cattle and other animals for meat in factory
farms and having to slaughter them could come to an end.
Growing meat in a lab would also be better for the environment.
A University of Oxford study found that clean meat production could “result in 78% to
96% lower greenhouse gas emissions, use 7% to 45% less energy, 99% less land, and 82%
to 96% less water than traditional methods.”
However, clean meat also has some drawbacks.
It is the most expensive of the three foods of the future we have discussed.
In 2017, a company called Memphis Meats created chicken tenders from “self-reproducing cells”
at a cost of $9,000 for every pound of chicken, which is “more than $1,100 for a single
two-ounce chicken tender” according to one article.
Vox reports that this same company provided a public production cost estimate of $2,400
per pound last year.
Dr. Mark Post, CEO of Mosa Meats and “one of the earliest creators of clean meat,”
has the goal of offering clean meat hamburgers to the public for “’maybe $11 a burger.’”
This is nearly three times the amount you would pay for a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder
with Cheese, which currently costs $3.79 in the United States according to fastfoodmenuprices.com.
Some people are also concerned about the safety of clean meat.
It is supposed to be the same as conventional meat, but is it?
Does it matter if there are some differences?
Clean meat is a new technology, so the long-term effects of eating it are unknown.
While the clean meat production process eliminates some of the food-borne pathogens and diseases
that are commonly found in live food animals, one source notes that “production mistakes
may happen.”
If you are looking to government agencies to determine the safety of clean meat, you
might be in for a long wait.
According to a Business Insider article, the two federal agencies in charge of regulating
meat production in the US, the USDA and FDA, are having trouble figuring out which one
of them should oversee the clean meat industry.
This “federal turf war” might cause clean meat startups to avoid safety regulation in
the US altogether and sell their products overseas instead.
Like insects and algae, clean meat has a long way to go before it is widely accepted by
consumers.
According to a science organization called AOCS, “clean meat may be considered by some
to be ‘unnatural’ or a ‘Frankenfood.’”
In a 2012 survey conducted in Europe, many people had unfavorable views of clean meat,
and some responded with “visceral” reactions that included “disgust and fear.”
However, a more recent “2016 survey of 673 US consumers revealed that about 65% of respondents
would be definitely or probably willing to try clean meat.”
Whether the results of this small survey accurately reflect the attitude of the rest of the people
in the US remains to be seen.
Would you eat insects, algae, and/or clean meat?
Do you think they will help provide enough food to feed everyone in the future?
Let us know in the comments!
Also, be sure to check out our other video called Most Disgusting Food Around The World!
Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe.
See you next time!