Eating bugs is already a common practice in over 13 countries. Photo: Vilhelm Sjostrom (flickr)

Scientists are jumping on an underutilized protein source that is abundant and environmentally friendly.

Sounds great — until you realize that what the scientists from National Autonomous University of Mexico are suggesting is dining on insects.

Entomophagy, or eating bugs, is already a common practice in over 13 countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia, according to this week's Economist.

And what better then bugs? Gram for gram, bugs provide more nutrients than beef or fish.

And while the Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations considers livestock “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global,” bug farming is a low-impact process.

Khon Kaen University in Thailand has already developed an inexpensive cricket-rearing technique and taught it to 4,500 families. On just a 100 square feet of land, a family can raise enough crickets to make a tidy profit. Or they can even be “grown” inside homes. Because bugs are a crop that doesn’t require much food or water, grows and reproduces quickly, the yield can be incredible.

The Mexican university researchers themselves cite numerous reasons for insect eating: the 75 percent rise in some food prices, the additional 100 million people pushed into poverty, and global warming as reasons to shift to these more sustainable sources of protein.

Of course, there are perils to introducing new species of insects to areas. And there are those who just plain won’t eat bugs.

A more palatable option suggested by the Economist might be to replace supplements in processed food or animal feed with insect-derived protein, which would still help make carnivorous habits a little more sustainable.

The Economist has a correspondent traveling in rural Thailand to view the impacts of globalization there. Recently visiting a rural market to see whether the traders are feeling the pinch from the opening of a Tesco a few miles away, the correspondent reports:

Are these local traders feeling the heat from the giant superstore down the road? Not really, say the handful that we talk to: Tesco’s opening doesn’t seem to have had much effect on the market’s trade at all. As the retailer itself points out, even the supposedly threatened “mom and pop” stores are often benefiting from Tesco’s spread, because they can buy their supplies from the nearest superstore and sell it on at a small mark-up, rather than having to rely on inefficient and expensive wholesalers, as before. It is probably much the same as we found with the fishermen on the Mun river: those who are suffering make a big noise about it while those who are unaffected or actually benefiting from the change remain quiet.

What happens when you sit down with 4 mid-career Harvard business grads (who just so happen to be from Argentina, China, Tanzania and Thailand) and two Harvard economists (one ‘pro-trade’ and the other ‘ambivalent’) and ask if their fellow citizens are for or against globalization? From the NewsHour:

NewsHour's Paul Solman: So first question: How would their fellow citizens vote if asked to give globalization a simple thumbs-up, thumbs-down?

Thailand Parliament Member Kriengsak Chareonwongsak : Fifteen percent on the pro, maybe 5 percent on the against, and the rest is a silent majority.

Paul Solman: Argentina?

World Bank Former Communications Officer Yanina Budkin: Sixty-five percent no, 35 percent yes.

Paul Solman: Tanzania?

Former Prime Minister of Tanzania Frederick Sumanye: Eighty-five percent no, 15 percent yes.

Paul Solman: China?

People's Bank of China Mingyou Bao: The majority of the Chinese people will say yes to this question. Globalization is a win-win for China and the rest of the world.

Paul Solman: For the last word, we turned to the professors. At the end of the day, what did free-trader Robert Lawrence hear? A common theme.

Harvard's Robert Lawrence: It was the need to somehow manage the process in some way. Nobody believes that it should just be unleashed and left without a very strong role for government in some way.

Paul Solman: What did the more skeptical Danny Roderick hear?

Harvard's Danny Roderick: Markets will not work on their own. You need all the institutions that regulate markets, that stabilize markets, that compensate to losers and provide the safety nets, without which markets can neither be legitimate or, for that matter, efficient, if you don't have the appropriate regulatory frameworks.

Paul Solman: You're from Turkey. What would the vote be in Turkey, pro-, anti-globalization?

Danny Roderick: Globalization's a dirty word, without any doubt, so I think we would get 60 percent of the people say that it's a bad thing.

Paul Solman: And you're from South Africa originally.

Robert Lawrence: And I think probably 70 percent against.

Paul Solman: And what do you think in America, if you just asked that question?

Danny Roderick: We know the answer. We take those polls all the time, and it's, again, between 55 percent and 60 percent.

Paul Solman: Against?

Danny Roderick: Against.

Paul Solman: Against globalization, the dirty word on so many people's tongues these days.

Watch the NewsHour's video of the discussion.