European Union types in Brussels believe that insects could be a vital source of nutrition that will not only solve food shortages but also help save the environment, so they have launched a €3 million ($3.99 million) project to promote the eating of insects.

Proponents of entomophagy - insect eating - argue that bugs are a low-cholesterol, low-fat, protein-rich food source. According to one study, small grasshoppers offer 20 per cent protein and just 6 per cent fat, to lean ground beef's 24 per cent protein and 18 per cent fat.

Crickets are also said to be high in calcium, termites rich in iron, and a helping of giant silkworm moth larvae apparently provides all the daily copper and riboflavin requirements.

The European Commission is offering the money to the research institute with the best proposal for investigating ''insects as novel sources of proteins''. It wants research into quality and safety, including potential allergic reactions and the sort of proteins consumed.

Professor Marcel Dicke, leading a team at Wageningen University, in the Netherlands, which is applying for the research grant, said: ''By 2020, you will be buying insects in supermarkets. We will be amazed that in 2011 people didn't think it was going to happen.

He said bugs were biologically similar to shellfish and that flying insects should be regarded as ''shrimps of the sky.''

Todd Dalton, of Edible, which supplies insects for human consumption to Selfridges and Fortnum & Mason, said: ''The EU is wasting taxpayers' money. People aren't suddenly going to start eating insects because the EU is spending money researching. It would be great if they did, but our eating habits won't change until our stigma about consuming insects is removed.''

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a list of Food Action Defect Levels in the Code of Federal Regulations "to establish maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard."

A local news station in Michigan got hold of this list and started asking people on the street how they felt about the number of bug parts allowed in their coffee and the amount of rodent "excreta" tolerated in their chocolate.

My local news station in Wichita, Kansas, broadcast their story Tuesday while I shook my head and chuckled. There were a lot of interesting faces as people looked from their cup to the list and back again.

In the end, I got the impression that the public is okay with a few bug parts (and laugh about getting the extra protein), but won't stand for the poop.

We here at barfblog.com continually advocate keeping as much poop out of food as possible, and proudly wear our t-shirts that declare, "don't eat poop" with a message about handwashing on the back.

But I'm not crazy. I realize, like the FDA (not the USDA, as asserted in the story, which primarily regulates only meat and poultry products), that it's virtually impossible to keep the entire (non-meat and -poultry) food supply 100% poop-free. Therefore, I'm glad there are regulations in place to reduce the microbial risks associated with that poop. (The poop that got into the peanuts at the Peanut Corp. of America plant violated those regs.)

I'm just saying... some poop happens. Risks that cannot be eliminated can, and should, be controlled. Responsible, informed producers and consumers do this every day with tools like the FDA Defect Action Level Handbook and tip-sensitive digital meat thermometers.

Do your part: wash your hands and stick it in.