>>16054749Because right now, virtually everyone finds eating ze bugs abhorrent. Actually, I guess I could see how. It kinda goes back to the toothpaste. If cricket-based foods were commercially produced, but not explicitly advertised as such, then people could get accustomed to these alternative foods more easily.
I was also going to talk about how I haven't seen or know of other examples besides lobster of public perception changing on food that much before so it'd be unprecedented, but that's not quite true. I thought lobster was an anomaly, but there's also hot dogs. It might be a little different, I don't know the path that lobster took but I imagine the way lobster went from reviled to accepted was a gradual process over generations. Hot dogs may be different because, instead of gradual adoption, it may have been faster by shrouding its true composition from the public. "Knowing how the sausage is made" is an adage still used to this day.
Though, again, I'm kinda retarded, lol. Hot dogs are variants of sausages, and sausages aren't contemporary food. They've been around for centuries, tracing back to Germanic origins, which is where they got their name "Frankfurters." But, maybe I'm not retarded, because although sausages have been around for centuries, it's possible that modern hot dogs may have been produced in a significantly different and more revolting way, and "knowing how the sausage is made" is referring specifically to its modern methods of production. Regardless, sausages are another decent example of a food with a checkered past, or at least a deliberately opaque side to them.
But I think there's a big difference with crickets: it would be a post-internet transition. Today, the global means of disseminating information, true or false, is inconceivable to what existed even 30 years ago. I think that concealing crickets in food is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, unless they took a brute-force approach of giving it secret name.
