Conspiracy theorists are trying to influence European election campaigns with disinformation and lies. Much of the fabrication comes from Moscow, but plenty is homegrown.
If media campaigns in more than a dozen European countries were to be believed, the European Union (EU) intends to force citizens to eat insects instead of meat.
The claim has touched nerves, especially in Italy, where variations of it have been revived and splashed across billboards during European elections to pit Brussels against mama’s special sauce.
But consumers of this claim are being fed pure nonsense, an example of countless fabrications launched or adopted by candidates seeking political gain at the cost of the truth.
The fake insect-food narrative, which first surfaced last year in a number of EU countries, has proven so popular with malign actors both within and outside the bloc that they’ve brought it back for the European election cycle to try to discredit pro-EU candidates.
…
But no one should be surprised that malignant actors want to impact Europe’s election cycle, with 720 seats up for grabs for the next five-year term in the European Parliament and many national elections taking place simultaneously as part of a record year for elections worldwide.
The EDMO reports a record-high amount of disinformation ahead of the vote about universally controversial issues like migration, agricultural policy and climate change, including even the resurrection of fake stories from years past, such as COVID-19 conspiracies.
Yes, I read it. Plants are still the superior option. I was being generous for your middle ground position.
If you knew anything about animal farming, you’d know that “garbage” can mean a lot of things. This hope of waste feeding gets trickier with invertebrates who don’t regulate their own body temperature. I’m saying that you’re being excessively optimistic about it.
You were being “generous” by contradicting your own point.
That’s also known as being wrong.
I expect you to understand that some topics are more ambiguous, which means that there are more contradictory bits of information which are tied to different setups in context.
As the practice of raising these invertebrate animals is not happening at a large scale, the data for it is also weak and based on immature research. The ambiguity with decline over time, if there’s more research into this and it actually happens at a large scale.
In terms of food traditions, eating land insects is usually a luxury, which reflects the scarcity: https://www.finedininglovers.com/article/insect-delicacies-around-world The simple notion that “insect protein is cheap” is misleading.
I expect you to understand that you contradicted your own point with your own link that you clearly didn’t read.
And now you are linking to some food blog about what insects people eat rather than anything scientific as if it means something.
🙄
I love how you think that I didn’t read it. As if you can imagine what’s in my head. Very disappointing for a so called skeptic.
If you didn’t read it, it’s weird that you thought it supported your point when it actually did the exact opposite.
So you were purposefully undermining yourself?