[omginternets]

Criticizing a peer-reviewed study is both healthy and welcome, but it really should be done with peer-reviewed studies of one's own. Respectfully, all I see here are extraordinary claims without any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.

[avivo]

Are we reading the same "critique"? I don't see much in the way of extraordinary claims. In fact, most of the claims come directly from the paper! None of that post was criticizing the paper -- it was primarily clarifying the one sided news coverage.

The study says that crickets are not that much more efficient converters of plants->protein. The "clarification" accepts and applies the information from the study. It then takes into account an understanding of current processes in chicken cultivation to argue that overall impact on the environment would still likely be substantially reduced, especially with better technology.