Milking Roaches for All They’re Worth: An Unlikely Reminde

[Lady Vizsla]

by Sarah Eshleman

When you think of roaches, you probably imagine the flash of brown darting across the room; the crunch beneath your sneaker; the ominous, twitching antennae; that terrifying moment you learned they could fly.

In your nightmares, you probably picture the German or American cockroach, two species that most commonly infest homes. But to squash the roach stereotype, you should know that there are over 4,000 species of cockroaches around the world. Though this bit of info might not bring you peace of mind, it might help you to know that not all roaches are the same. The domino cockroach in India is black with white spots; the Cuban cockroach is grass green; the Mitchell’s diurnal cockroach in Australia has blue legs and yellow stripes; and a rare Ecuadorian cockroach, Luchihormetica luckae, glows in the dark. Roach sizes also vary; for instance, the rhinoceros cockroach is the heaviest, weighing up to 35g, and the Central American giant cockroach is the longest at over three inches in length with a five- to six-inch wingspan.







The world is veritably crawling with roaches (and now your skin is probably crawling too). When you crunch these numbers, you might be left to wonder if roaches are good for anything. Were they created as some kind of post-Fall, creepy-crawly judgment? Of course not! God created roaches on Day Six along with all other terrestrial creatures and man.1 And what’s more, in the beginning, God called them “very good” (Genesis 1:24–31).

Now roaches roam the domain of the dark and filthy (and occasionally your house). Initially, however, in the Garden of Eden, roaches probably did what they still do best—break down decayed plant and waste matter. Our resourceful Creator, who also made bees and butterflies to pollinate plants and ants to aerate the soil, made some insects, like roaches, to be the earth’s cleanup crew. The world would get overrun with muck pretty quickly if it weren’t for roaches and their impeccable decomposition skills. But roaches are good for more than eating dead and smelly stuff.

Scientists use roaches in laboratory testing, especially in areas such as social behavior and neurobiology. Roaches provide researchers inspiration for designing microrobotics2 and new prosthetic legs.3 Ironically, the roach has also been helping researchers discover new antibiotic treatments for super bugs such as MRSA and disease-causing strains of E. coli.4

Some Chinese researchers add powdered cockroaches in their pharmaceuticals and have used roach-based cream to help treat burn victims. As of 2013, pharmaceutical companies in China and South Korea were experimenting with using cockroaches as a vitamin supplement and as a treatment for baldness, AIDS, and cancer.5

Most recently, scientists found what might be yet another roachy resource. The Pacific beetle cockroach (Diploptera punctate), which lives in Hawaii, is the only roach known to give birth to live young (also known as being viviparous). While the baby roaches are in the brood sac (a sort of uterus for the roach), the mother roach releases a liquid substance to feed the babies, similar to the milk that mammal mothers produce for their young.

Though scientists have known about this liquid for some time, Barbara Stay, a zoologist at the University of Iowa, was the first to discover the curious properties of this “milk.”6 When the baby roaches consume the mother’s “milk,” the protein crystalizes in their midgut (an invertebrate’s equivalent to a vertebrate’s small intestines).

Further study by the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine in Bengaluru, India, revealed the unique genetic structure of the “milk” protein crystals. According to Sanchari Banerjee, an author of a paper on this study, said, "The crystals are like a complete food—they have proteins, fats and sugars. If you look into the protein sequences, they have all the essential amino acids."7

Another unique factor is the “milk’s” timed-release nutrients. As the baby roach digests the “milk,” the crystals release the proteins at a rate equal to the digestion.

It is this powerhouse of nutrition and timed-release capabilities that has scientists excited. With at least three times the nutrition and caloric content as buffalo milk (previously the milk having the highest caloric content) and four times the nutritional value of cow’s milk, imagine the potential for including roach “milk” in energy drinks and protein supplements! The high-nutritional value also interests scientists who are searching for ways to feed the world’s growing population. This substance might someday be a boon for undernourished people around the world. That is, if it’s safe for humans to consume. The verdict is still out on that.8

The idea of eating roach by-products is enough to make most people gag. But consider this: cultures around the world already eat cockroaches as delicacies, along with other insects for an everyday source of nutrition.9 Now, before you look at these people too bug-eyed, remember that God condoned crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers as clean to eat (Leviticus 11:22),10 and even John the Baptist ate locust in the wilderness with a side of honey (Matthew 3:4).11



It’s understandable that the idea creeps us out but keep in mind some other less-than-appetizing food options that we’ve grown fond of. When you drizzle honey on your toast, you are eating bee vomit. That cup of Jell-O jiggling in your lunchbox is made from animal bones, hooves, and connective tissue. Do you like cherry-flavored candy or bright red lipstick? Many red food and cosmetic products include an ingredient called carmine, a food colorant derived from a crushed African insect.12 So just because drinking roach “milk” sounds disgusting, doesn’t mean it’s the worst idea ever. It just means that we’re trying to milk roaches for all they’re worth.

If you’re still reading this article, I have good news to reward your stoutheartedness (and stoutstomachedness): you don’t have to worry about scientists setting up tiny milking stations in miniature barns and selling roach milk by the thimbleful. The real news about roach milk is that, with the genetic structure figured out, researchers might be able to reproduce roach “milk” in a lab, possibly through bioengineered yeast, a method already implemented in the food industry.

But wait—there’s more! As often happens in science, one discovery leads to another. Scientists are intrigued with this genetic sequence not only because of the possibility of creating a new super food, but also because of how the milk crystal’s unique protein structure and release capabilities could contribute to improving pharmaceuticals.13

Though they probably don’t realize it, these scientists are fulfilling God’s command by researching roach milk. Genesis 1:28 tells us that when God created the world He gave man dominion over the earth. Since that time, man has been discovering everything he can about our planet. Of course this command was complicated when Adam disobeyed God, bringing the Curse on the earth (Genesis 3). But even post-Fall, God gave man the ingenuity necessary to find plentiful resources, and He offers wisdom through a relationship with Him (Proverbs 9:10).

In learning more about God’s creation, we come to know Him better. God’s creativity is as infinite as He is, and discoveries like the protein sequence in roach milk point back to our amazing Creator. Isn’t it exciting to know that God has created innumerable resources for us—even some that we haven’t figured out yet?

Even if scientists never find a way to mass-produce the properties of roach milk for human consumption or incorporate its unique qualities in pharmaceuticals, we’ve uncovered one more awesome way that the Creator designed a creature to care for its young. It should remind us to praise Him for how much He cares for us.

O Lord, You preserve man and beast.

How precious is Your lovingkindness. (Psalms 36:6–7)  

[cristobela]

They make it sound like cockroach milk is an acceptable option however. And that is not being true to God's Commands. Just like camels are unclean to eat (and by extension their milk), so are roaches—much less eating any part of their body and what they produce in their body. Locusts and grasshoppers (and their kind) are clean, not roaches.

• Leviticus 11:21-23 (NIV)
  
  21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

note: four legs for walking, two for hopping, makes the insect kind acceptable to eat.

Another example, cows and goats are considered food for mankind, so you could drink their milk. But pigs and roaches are not to be eaten (nor their milk). Same reason we don't eat cats nor dogs—nor their milk.

• Leviticus 11:7-8 (NIV)
  
  7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
  
  
• Leviticus 11:27 (NIV)
  
  27 Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening
  
  
• Leviticus 11:47 (NIV)
  
  47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’"

AiG has been profaning YHWH's holiness in more ways than one, though acknowledging YHWH's Commands is a step in the right direction.

• Ezekiel 22:26 (NIV)
  
  26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

edit: granted, it's mainly due to man-made doctrine replacing what the Bible—including the New Testament—says in its entirety, as exposed here in this topic [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored].  

[cristobela]

edited to clarify diction

In light of what I said earlier, about things produced inside an unclean animal's body being unclean, a note about honey:

Some honey is toxic: [Toxic Honey]

Quote:
Some substances which are toxic to humans have no effect on bees. If bees obtain their nectar from certain flowers, the resulting honey can be psychoactive, or even toxic to humans, but innocuous to bees and their larvae.[33][34] Poisoning from this honey is called mad honey disease. Even when honey is not produced from the nectar of toxic plants, it can still ferment to produce ethanol. Animals, such as birds, that have consumed honey fermented in the sun can be found incapable of flight or other normal movement.[35] Sometimes honey is fermented intentionally to produce mead, an alcoholic beverage made of honey, water, and yeast. The word for "drunk" in classical Greek is even translated as "honey-intoxicated"[36] and indeed the shared Indo-European antiquity of such a conception is enshrined in the names of at least two (euhemerised) goddesses of personified intoxication : the Irish Medb (see also Maeve (Irish name) ) and the Indian Madhavi of the Mahabharata (- see page Yayati), cognate with the English word mead and the Russian word for bear медведь ( - medved - literally 'honey-eater').[37]

Morphine-containing honey has been reported in areas where opium poppy cultivation is widespread.[38]

Accidental intoxication of humans by mad honey has been well documented by several Classical authors, notably Xenophon, while the deliberate use of such honey as a medicine and intoxicant (even hallucinogen) is still practiced by the Gurung tribe of Nepal, who have a long tradition of hazardous cliff-climbing to wrest the precious commodity from the nests of Apis dorsata laboriosa, the giant Himalayan honeybee. The honey thus collected by the Gurung owes its inebriating properties to the nectar which the giant bees gather from a deep red-flowered species of Rhododendron, which, in turn, owes its toxicity to the compound grayanotoxin, widespread in the plant family Ericaceae, to which the genus Rhododendron belongs.[39]

Some assume honey must be acceptable because of the references to a "land flowing with milk and honey", however that may not necessarily be referring to the honey produced by bees (for example, this article from 1893 which refers to flower nectar, while it is still in the flower, as "honey" itself): [Popular Science Monthly/Volume 43/August 1893/Honey and Honey Plants].

However, I am aware that honey processed by bees has traditionally been accepted by some Jews as food because they consider the bee as a mere carrier and transporter of the nectar, not that the nectar was produced by the bee's body itself (other Jews say honey is outright not acceptable because it came from an unclean animal [considering the bee is an unclean insect]—and it turns out that they do release an ezyme to turn what we call nectar today into what we recognize as honey in modern times). Whichever the case, however, it's not something I've eaten for a long time (for other reasons). The thought actually crossed my mind the other day, but I didn't think to investigate further until today.  

[Lady Vizsla]

OtakuKat

THANK YOU! For years I have always felt bad for roaches due to their bad rep. But at the same time, I honestly did not know why they were made or help us/the earth/etc.

Even though I still find them gross, (I have a serious roach phobia), I've noticed a lot of 'icky' creatures have a really important environmental role.  

[crystalpraise]

No I will never accept the possibility that God created roaches!!! crying  

[cristobela]

edited to add a source to "fragrance" and clarify diction

wahmbulance Further note on three things mentioned in this article:
  (1) on pharmaceuticals,
  (2) on the "insect" lipstick, and
  (3) on Jell-O:

I didn't think to address this yesterday. But the Holy Spirit is showing me otherwise (considering what happened immediately after I logged off yesterday [i.e. my mother came home with a bag of cosmetic products—shampoos, conditioners, body lotions, shower gels—that my aunt didn't have room to pack and take with her [since she's moving]; so, my mother asked me to check the ingredients of these products to see if they were safe to use—and thus, what I was reminded of): that of what God created, and that He specifically made for mankind to use (thus consecrated for our use), is not equivalent to the synthetic a.k.a. counterfeit “solutions” created by the pharmaceutical industry or food industry (which promises to heal/strengthen/benefit you in some way) or the cosmetic industry (which offers to satiate some carnal lust—lust of the eyes, sense of smell, sense of touch, etc—at no harm to you). They're not the same: what God created for our use vs. what they have created for our use.

And to demonstrate this using practical examples:

The pharmaceutical way to “heal”—if we can call it that—is to merely “deal with”/manage your symptoms, not cure the problem, all the while busting another organ in the process (causing more problems). For instance, as opposed to a natural, harmless remedy—that God has already created for man—to treat headaches and circulatory problems (e.g. cayenne pepper [1], [2]], which has even more benefits than the one you're looking for), they've created a synthetic counterfeit—that is, aspirin—to deal with headaches and heart problems. But, lo and behold, the American Heart Journal back in 2004 discovered that aspirin actually induces more cardiovascular problems and even worsens them in people who already have them [source]; plus, other journals and sources of pharmacology lists many other unintended & negative side effects [source].

Note the difference: out of what God created and allowed mankind to use, it actually cures something, plus has way more benefits than the single one benefit you were after VS. what man creates in its place: the counterfeit, the synthetic solution, may or may not cure something, plus has a whole list of unwanted, harmful effects on top of that (that you were also not looking for). What God creates for man to consume serves multiple good purposes and advantages—no negatives; but what man creates may (or may not) have one advantage, but on top that, creates a whole world of lingering, deadly consequences. Not surprisingly, “pharmakeia” is spoken against in the Bible.

• Revelation 9:20-21 (WEB)
  
  20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, didn’t repent of the works of their hands, that they wouldn’t worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk. 21 They didn’t repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries,[a] nor of their sexual immorality, nor of their thefts.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Revelation 9:21 The word for “sorceries” (pharmakeia) also implies the use of potions, poisons, and drugs

Everything that is topically applied to the skin or ingested into the body will affect your bodily organs—and the systems that they are a part of—in some way; hence the Commands against certain behaviors, practices, and things to ingest (so if that lipstick is made out of unclean insects, don't use it if you trust what YHWH says about them [verified by the function that animal has on earth]; but also, check what the synthetic chemical—that we now have to deal with on top of that—does as well [personally, I would strive to avoid synthetic chemicals period, knowing that only what God created for us to use is good; whereas, man's “cistern”—as opposed to God's “springs of water”—solution is not really a satisfying solution at all i.e. Jeremiah 2:13]).

• Jeremiah 2:13 (NIV)
  
  13 “My people have committed two sins:
  They have forsaken me,
      the spring of living water,
  and have dug their own cisterns,
          broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

Incompetent, counterfeit solution. Aspirins have been around for a little over a century. And only in recent years, have the effects become apparent. Just like Adam and Eve didn't die right away. It took a few generations. Then the full consequences were witnessed. “You will not surely die; so eat it, it'll make you wise, it'll taste good, it'll serve some benefit; ergo, it's good for you and good for food/to eat—no consequences, you can rely on your own discernment and experiments, even if it contradicts God's Commands [and even though God already provided a better, safer alternative]; do things your own way, mankind, don't obey your Creator's Instructions; you have absolutely no indication right now that this is harmful at all, but that it is equally good, so proceed—even though it violates a Command—proceed”.

That is unwise.

Same with the cosmetic industry.

Among the ingredients I found, the bottles contained:

• Methylparabens: linked with breast cancer, known to cause skin and eye damage, endocrine disruption, and reproductive toxicity [source A] [source B]
  
  
• Propylene Glycol: known as a skin irritant; expected to be toxic or harmful to organ systems; [source]
  
  
• “Fragrance”: I put in quotes because it can refer to a lot of things, which are undisclosed, as [this website] explains:
  
  
  Quote:
  [...] can be one or more of 200 chemicals. Companies don't have to disclose the actual components of each fragrance, under the guise that their fragrances are trade secrets. Fragrance has been known to cause many side effects, including headaches and allergic reactions. Why put an unknown synthetic chemical on your skin when you don’t have to? The Environmental Working Group has an extensive database of cosmetic chemicals and their corresponding danger rankings. "Fragrance" recieves [sic] one of the highest rankings possible in their score system. [...]
  
  
  The EWG database entry it is referring to: [link].
  
  I can attest to those headaches and allergic reactions (my throat closed up, I found it hard to breathe) and ever since then, I've been very sensitive to any perfume or spray (even hair sprays and febreeze—not that either of those products are innocent, once you check their ingredients list, but I can't tolerate their use around me as much as I use to anymore); I've lost all trust in synthetic chemicals. If you want perfumes, then get some frankincense and myrrh (or some other nice smelling essential oil that won't kill you); if you want to deodorize, then use baking soda. Simple, natural, God-sourced, not man coming up with synthetic alternatives to natural substances because they will harm you (immediately or in the long run).
  
  
• Formaldehyde: a well-established and known carcinogen [causer of cancer] [source]. If you clicked the link, then you can see it actually has a higher ranking than “fragrance” in the EWG database. Also, from the CDC [source B]

People bathe in this every day, slather it on their skin to smell nice, or achieve a certain style with their hair. They're causing themselves irritation; damage to their eyes, skin, nose, endocrine and reproductive systems; even causing themselves cancer and eventually death. We need to go back to basics: out of what God created that He allowed mankind to use, use that—not the counterfeits / synthetics. They're creating a whole host of problems.

Along the same vein: Jell-O has gelatin made from pigs [source]. The same can be said for the gelatin in marshmallows [source]. People eat it because it thrills their sense of taste and sight. But the fact that people derive some perceived pleasure or perceived benefit from it, and commonly eat it, doesn't make it a good thing to eat or a good example to use in support of anything. Was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil “good to eat” because it looked good to eat? Because it looked tasty, and probably was tasty? And could make one wise? And the majority of humans did it (Adam and Eve were the majority at the time)? No. God said it wasn't good. His Word is the criteria. The world partakes of some harmful things (misuses creation all the time); that's why God gave us Commands so that we don't fall victim to their practices.

I don't eat junk foods (but there is a hint in the phrase “junk foods” already to dissuade you from that—an oxymoron in and of itself, because if it's junk [garbage/waste] then it's not food/meant to be eaten). However, just further pointing out why we shouldn't eat like the world, but eat instead what God consecrated/set-apart for us to eat (not the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not pigs, not roaches, not blood—all of which He created, but not for us to eat—just what He created for mankind to consume [and by extension, apply to their skin] or use as a medicine—only if it fits His criteria / adheres to His Instructions).

We should not use poisons as medicines.

We should not use unclean animals (insect or otherwise) in cosmetic products, medicine, or “food” (the skin will absorb it, and organs will use it—ergo, we're failing to escape the harm YHWH Commanded against for our own good, if we proceed to do so anyway).

We should not take our cues from the world, what they commonly do or think—nor our own reasoning—but take our cues from God's Commands. If the science contradicts a Command, then the science is error, and will lead to no good.