The point of the article seems to be that even in places where they are eaten, it’s not out of desperation:

Yet tanajuras are not famine food. When people faced shortages due to drought, they ate cactus pads, usually given to livestock, wild tubers or palm fruits rich in starch, or a variety of cassava that must be detoxified for hours. Ants, on the other hand, are a delicacy that appears only once a year, at the time of the “nuptial flight.”

Insects are, in fact, rarely regarded as famine food because they do not satisfy hunger in the same way as starchy foods. Nevertheless, they are a useful source of nutrients for populations suffering from vitamin or mineral deficiencies or consuming little animal protein.

However, people who have access to game or farmed meat also consume insects, in the Amazon, for example. People who eat insects choose them mainly for their taste, as noted by Bodenheimer. Palm weevils are appreciated throughout the tropical belt, in America, Africa or Asia. The same is true of grasshoppers and termites in various countries, Atta queen ants in Latin America and many other species.

Still other people, especially city dwellers, become new consumers, drawn to a new fashion trend or introduced to the practice by friends. And again, their motivation for eating insects is not necessity, but taste.

Because of a combination of factors, like how they aren’t a reliable source of calories, cultural connection to hunter gatherer practices and rural communities, infrequent and unpredictable supply, it makes the argument that insects are more of a delicacy than a means of survival.

Animals aren’t “things” - there’s probably less moral issues with farming insects than mammals.