Netizens criticize Calvin Cheng’s controversial ‘wealthy eat meat, masses dine on insects’ remark
Netizens criticized Calvin Cheng for sarcastically suggesting that during a food crisis, the wealthy would eat meat while others would be left with insects. They questioned if he had tried insects himself and criticized his remarks as perpetuating a class divide, implying the wealthy could afford meat while commoners should settle for insects.
SINGAPORE: Netizens were taken aback by Calvin Cheng, a Singaporean businessman and former Nominated Member of Parliament, for his recent controversial and sarcastic remarks on the Singapore Food Agency’s (SFA) approval of 16 species of insects for consumption in Singapore.
The approved species include crickets, grasshoppers, locusts, mealworms, and silkworms.
In his comment, Mr Cheng suggested that during a food crisis, the wealthy would still have access to meat, while the masses and heartlanders would be left with mealworms at kopitiams and hawker centres, facetiously labelling it as “good news!”
His suggestion that insects could serve as a nutritional source for ordinary Singaporeans, while meat might become scarce during a crisis, was swiftly criticized by netizens.
They questioned whether Mr Cheng had ever tried insects himself and pointed out a perceived sense of entitlement in his statement, which implied a class divide by suggesting that commoners should eat insects while the wealthy enjoy meat.
SFA approves 16 insect species for food
On 8 July, SFA released a statement outlining the new regulatory framework for the import of insects and insect products for both human consumption and as animal feed.
SFA emphasized its commitment to food safety in Singapore, developing specific guidelines due to the emerging insect industry and the novelty of insects as food.
“With immediate effect, SFA will allow the import of insects and insect products belonging to species that have been assessed to be of low regulatory concern. These insects and insect products can be used for human consumption or as animal feed for food producing animals, ” SFA said.
SFA stated that importers or insect farmers must comply with guidelines, verifying insects are farmed in regulated establishments with food safety controls, not harvested from the wild.
Insects not among SFA’s approved 16 species must undergo evaluation to confirm their safety for consumption.
Companies selling pre-packed food containing insects must label their products accordingly, enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
Insect products will undergo rigorous food safety testing; those failing to meet SFA standards will not be permitted for sale.
Commenting on the latest SFA announcement, Mr. Cheng emphasized the critical need for food self-sufficiency in Singapore, particularly highlighted during crisis.
He pointed out that Singapore faced food shortages during the pandemic when Malaysia halted poultry exports and Thailand ceased rice exports.
Mr Cheng acknowledged that while vertical farming could potentially achieve vegetable self-sufficiency in Singapore, the challenge lies in rearing animals for meat due to limited land availability.
He proposed that insects, rich in protein and easily farmable in Singapore, could serve as an alternative protein source during food crises.
“During a food crisis , the wealthy would still eat meat. But the masses and heartlanders will be able dine on meal worms at kopitiams and hawkers centres. ”
“This is good news !” He wrote.
In response, some netizens questioned whether Mr Cheng’s remark was meant sarcastically.
Criticism also surfaced, suggesting that Mr Cheng implied a class divide by suggesting that only the wealthy would continue consuming meat during a food crisis, thereby perpetuating an economic disparity where affluent individuals can afford traditional protein sources while others are relegated to insect-based diets.
A comment questioned whether Mr Cheng was insinuating that those in high positions are disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary Singaporeans.
This comment implied that such individuals may not fully comprehend or empathize with the challenges encountered by the general population.
Discussions revolved around the cultural and psychological barriers to accepting insects as a food source.
Some highlighted that while insects might be nutritious, overcoming societal aversion to them would pose a significant challenge.
One netizen expressed concerns about the safety of consuming insects.
In response, Mr Cheng advised that insects are healthier than animals and suggested that the public would soon be compelled to adopt insects as a food source.
While netizens acknowledged that insect consumption is common in some countries and that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) uses insects such as cockroaches, they also suggested exploring alternative protein sources that do not carry the same perceived risks, such as plant-based proteins or lab-grown meat.
Perception of insects as exotic and niche among consumers
A comment made a valid point that insects might be considered exotic and appealing mainly to adventurous eaters.
The netizen believed that the majority of consumers would not willingly spend money on insect-based food.
He suggested using Singapore’s offshore islands to grow crops and rear animals, and mentioned that vertical farming could also be beneficial.
In response, Mr Cheng noted the limitation of space and quipped, “Only insects for the masses.”
No comments:
Post a Comment