I don't know where you live, but here in France all the conspiracy theory folks have got the idea into their heads that they are already sneaking insects into our food. It is all part of the larger conspiracy theory that the government and the elite are going to impose a meat allowance, which will make the lower classes weaker and more prone to disease and blah blah blah. I don't know any more

my MIL is in deep though, she is a bit of an ultra-conservative type who thinks vaccines make you magnetic.

Moving on...

There is one minor issue, and that is that some people who are allergic to shellfish can have allergies to some insects.

The famous Mediterranean diet did not include the ridiculous amount of meat and animal products that are so common today.

It's simply disgusting, it's not political, it's gag inducing.

Would you eat cat, dog, or horse meat?

You know, I eat most of these things but I wouldn't say that everyone should eat it. At least try it once to make their opinion on it.

Lots of people don't like the consistency and legs but when ground nobody recognise it.

Brains, eyes, testicles, and intestines are delicious. Head to the Southern US and get you a good plate of chitterlings.

I think that's a bad faith interpretation to imply that one eats animals exclusively because it being 'animals' is the point. Most people don't think about it, their priority is making their daily life as simple as possible. They just eat whatever tastes good and is easy to get. And the people pushing for eating insects are thinking about it; they just have different priorities; they're trying to make environmentally-sustainable food easier to get.

Insects are still a far better choice for protein. They don't take remotely the amount of land or water that soy crops do, and they can be grown in areas of the world that don't have as much freshwater. They can be fed off scraps and organic material that are waste to us. They also have a high return yield; they're not being lost to droughts/weather/pests at the rate crops (especially organic) are. I'd posit that an insect-inclusive diet is probably more environmentally-friendly than the modern vegan diet is.

Humans are evolved omnivores. It's both possible and noble to have an organic and herbivorous diet that meets your basic needs, but it's difficult, often inaccessible, expensive; and it takes up huge amounts of land to grow the kind of crops needed (especially if much of them are lost to pests). Soy demands a lot of water, and avocados have been priced out of reach of the impoverished Central Americans they used to cheaply feed. Whether plant or animal, we are only alive by consuming life. There is no diet without some harm to somebody somewhere. Most vegan diets are too expensive (or unavailable), and are part of the deforestation for soy plantations overseas.

Ultimately now that principles have become a part of how we consume (and not just necessity, availability, effort etc), any philosophy requires compromise. If one's primary concern is freshwater, the carbon cycle, deforestation for cropland, nutrition density, local food-chain, animal suffrage, animal consent, organic, local-grown, seasonal, etc... It's not possible to follow them all, and it's not reasonable to expect everybody choose a single specific one.

I have a preference towards attainable and environmentally-sustainable eating, which means that eating crickets (and mushrooms, yum) is less harmful ecologically than eating soy (deforestation, water), and far less harmful than cattle (magnitudes worse than any other livestock). I also avoid palm oil products (deforestation). I don't disagree with any vegetarians or vegans who chose other principles; it's excellent that humans are becoming increasingly mindful of what we choose to eat. We just have different priorities.

Crickets are more sustainable than plants as a source of protein.