Jiminy Cricket! The EU’s bizarre new research projects

carolina bracken, 9 September 2011

This week the EU has launched two new and rather unusual research projects; projects which, despite the EU’s seemingly good intentions behind their creation, are likely to be met by a storm of controversy. Whilst both projects are geared towards improving wellbeing – one aimed at animals and one targeting humans – the trivial focus of the research spending, especially in such times of austerity, seems utter folly.

The cheaper of the two projects pledges £1.8 million to bolster research efforts into homeopathy and phytotherapy for farm animals. The programme has been justified on grounds of developing an alternative to antibiotics, amid some concern that animals are growing increasingly resistant to this more traditional medicine.

The alternative therapies use diluted herbs and minerals to encourage resistance to disease. But despite some famous fans, they are widely rubbished by scientists and vets. Just last year, Deputy Chair of the BMA’s junior doctors’ committee, Dr Tom Dolphin, decried homeopathy as “witchcraft”.  And, while the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons lists 34 practitioners offering homeopathic medicines for livestock in the UK, the British Veterinary Association argues that the remedies have “no proven efficacy”.

Whilst the BVA has, unsurprisingly, welcomed the additional funding for veterinary research, it remains unwaveringly cynical: “Millions of Euros have already been spent on trying to prove the scientific efficacy of homeopathic medicines. To date we have not seen any data to prove they can be effective in the treatment of bacterial infections.”

The second new research project has a £2.65 million budget, and is likely to be, quite literally, more unpalatable. Keen to discover a solution to global food shortages and help protect the environment, the European Commission is offering the funding for research investigating “insects as novel sources of proteins”.

Proponents of entomophagy – the technical name for this unusual practice – have calculated that small grasshoppers contain just 6% fat, whilst offering 20% protein. This compares to 18% fat and 24% protein contained in lean, ground beef.

Marcel Dicke, Professor of Entomology and head of Wageningen University’s research team applying for the grant, is an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative, commenting that “[w]e have already seen the introduction of eggplants, sushi, things people never ate here”. “By 2020…”, he said, “[w]e will be amazed that in 2011 people didn’t think it was going to happen”.

Nonetheless, Professor Dicke admits that selling bugs as food may initially suffer PR problems, suggesting that they are ground up to resemble more traditional foods such as sauces and burgers, and that flying insects be sold as “shrimps of the sky”.

Yet even those who stand to gain financially from the EU’s efforts are sceptical as to their merit. Todd Dalton, founder of edible.com – the company which supplies Selfridges and Fortnum & Mason with insects for human consumption – has criticised the EU for “wasting taxpayers’ money”, stating: “People aren’t suddenly going to start eating insects because the EU is spending money researching.”

And, Senior Entomologist at the Natural History Museum, Stuart Hine, has warned: “Insects are fantastic, but they aren’t the ultimate solution if the world desperately needs food. We would turn to something more efficient – like huge vats of nematode worms.”

It will be some time before either project reports its findings, and until then the debate regarding their efficacy is certain to continue with vigour. However, at a time of difficult bailouts and sweeping austerity packages across the EU, discussion as to the value of the projects themselves is likely to endure for much longer. As Richard Ashworth MEP has said: “When governments everywhere are taking severe austerity measures just to balance the books, to waste millions on highly questionable new-age remedies…is sheer madness.”