By Beatrix Huissoon
Abstract
As an increasing number of people particularly in Europe and North America shift away from traditional sources of protein, especially red meats, there is an ever-growing demand for alternative foods that meet the same nutritional requirements. Protein from insects provides significant nutritional and environmental benefits, however work needs to be done to improve public perception and ensure sufficient regulation in countries where the consumption of insects is not well established.
Science ⇒ Policy
- Traditional food sources such as meat and plant-based protein are unsustainable and unable to keep up with the increased demand for meat and meat alternatives due to the mass-consumption of meat in Europe and North America.
- Edible insects provide the same if not better nutritional benefits compared to more traditional protein sources and can be produced on a mass scale with minimal environmental impact.
- Changing the acceptability of the consumption of insect-based protein in western cultures will inevitably be a challenge, requiring the introduction of policies such as increased funding of research and outreach to encourage their take-up.
Key Words
Sustainability, Nutrition, Agriculture, Food Security
Introduction
Protein is needed to maintain and build muscle, as well as replace other proteins in the body that are essential to stay healthy. Whilst this has traditionally been obtained from meat, and more recently from plant-based proteins, rearing and growing these protein sources are unsustainable and potentially damaging to the environment. As such, alternatives must be considered. The following points outline the major issues associated with modern-day livestock and plant-based protein production.
Livestock farming is unsustainable and inefficient
There are a number of problems with the modern mass-consumption of meat.
- Modern agriculture uses up an unsustainable amount of resources, including 70% of all fresh water [1].
- Livestock, particularly cattle, contribute significantly to global warming and climate change by releasing greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide (CO₂), accounting for 18% of all CO₂ emissions [1].
- 70% of all agricultural land is dedicated to livestock, most of which is used to grow feed [1].
Plant-based protein can also be unsustainable
Protein-rich plants such as wheat have been grown and consumed for centuries and, other than their land, water and fertiliser use, are relatively sustainable. However, a significant majority of plant-based meat alternatives are made from soy [2], the cultivation of which has negative consequences for the environment. In South America, the demand for agricultural land driven by the increase in soybean farming has led to extensive deforestation, resulting in decreased biodiversity and accelerating climate change [3]. In addition, the mass-production of plants required to feed the demands of the population requires significant use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, both of which have negative consequences for the environment and human health. They can seep into waterways which can cause issues such as eutrophication and the death of animals in the ecosystem, as well as contaminating drinking water (60% of all herbicides are carcinogenic) [4]. They also damage the long-term health of the soil, decreasing its ability to maintain crops in the future [5]. In order to produce the amount of protein required in a sustainable fashion, alternative sources (or methods) must be found.
Insects are already an important source of protein in parts of the world
One potential alternative protein source that has begun to gain more recognition is edible insects. The idea of eating insects is not new, in fact in parts of central Africa, insects account for up to 50% of the population’s protein intake [1] and insects such as silk worms are commonly consumed in parts of south-east Asia [6]. Attitudes have already started to change in the west too, with three different types of edible insect (in dried or frozen forms) being approved as novel foods by the EFSA in 2021 : yellow mealworm, house cricket and migratory locust. [7][8][9].
Potential benefits of edible insects
Nutritional benefits
Insects are able to match, if not improve upon, the nutritional value of meat, and are far more favourable than plant-based proteins in terms of their improved digestibility and essential amino acid content. Proteins are made up of small building blocks called amino acids, of which there are 21 different types. Of these, 3 are considered essential amino acids as they cannot be made by the body so must be absorbed from food. Plant-based protein lacks some of these essential amino acids and are less digestible than meat protein [10]. By contrast, insects can contain up to 77% highly digestible protein content [10], compared to 50% in beef, with essential amino acid scores ranging from 46-96% (the recommended minimum score is 40%) [11]. Aside from their protein content, insects also contain high levels of other vital nutrients. Iron is essential for red blood cell health, and mopane caterpillars, native to southern Africa, contain 31-77mg iron per 100g, compared to 6mg per 100g in beef [10]. Some insects also contain high levels of polyunsaturated acids like omega-3, which are commonly only found in oily fish, as well as other vitamins and minerals like calcium, sodium, vitamin B12 and folic acid [10]. As such, insects are superior protein sources to many traditional and alternative foods consumed in Europe and North America today.
Environmental benefits
In addition to their nutritional benefits, farming insects is much less damaging to the environment than current protein sources. They have a much lower demand for resources, needing 50-90% less land per kg of protein than traditional livestock [12], and only 4% of the water requirement [11]. They can also be fed on fruit and vegetable waste, which further increases their sustainability and cost-effectiveness. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with insect farming are also much lower than traditional livestock, with crickets creating just 0.6% and 2.6% of cattle methane and CO₂ emissions per kg of meat respectively [11]. Finally, insects can be used as highly nutritious feed for animals such as pigs, poultry and fish [1] An increase in insect farming will enable farmers to move away from their reliance on less environmentally-friendly feeds like soy. These environmental benefits, combined with their nutritional value, make insects an exciting prospect as a future protein source.
Economic benefits
The diverse range of uses of farmed insects discussed above provides some stability and economic benefits for companies choosing to farm them. Before approvals for human consumption are made and the demand for insect-based protein increases, farmed insects can still be sold as sustainable alternatives for animal feed and fertiliser, as demonstrated by the recently established biotechnology company Better Origin [13]. They farm insects using food waste and produce a variety of products, including feed for fish, poultry and pets. The ability to use food waste as feed for insects generates value in what would otherwise be waste for farmers and other food producers, increasing their profits. This cheaper feed will then lead to lower production costs for insects, making them a cheaper source of protein for the consumer. This company demonstrates that there is economic benefit to the farming of insects in a sustainable way, even before their consumption by humans becomes more normalised. Given the additional uses of farmed insects, the boosts in the insect industry are likely to be able to more than make up for any potential losses in the meat and plant protein sectors that result from an increase in the consumption of insects as a source of protein. Farming insects using sustainable methods such as using food waste as feed therefore has the potential to positively impact consumers, farmers and the national economy as a whole.
Challenges associated with edible insects
Whilst edible insects have some very positive features making them ideal sources of protein, there are some challenges that need to be addressed before they can successfully enter the mainstream food market in Europe and North America. The first concern is that of safety. The UK Food Safety Authority (FSA) has already conducted a review into the potential safety issues associated with the consumption of insects, and highlighted a number of areas of concern[14].
Food allergy
One concern is that of allergic reactions. Insects are related to other animals like shellfish and dust mite, which are common causes of allergic reactions. It has been found that people with these existing allergies may also react to insects [6] and should therefore be sufficiently warned of the presence of insects in food with appropriate labelling. In 2024, it was estimated that only 0.53% of the UK population has an allergy to crustaceans [15], so it is unlikely for such cross-reactivity to prevent a significant proportion of the population from moving towards eating more insects.
Infection risk
Another common concern is insects’ ability to carry diseases acquired from contact with livestock, for example salmonella and campylobacter, which are causes of food poisoning. Whilst it has been found that insects can spread such diseases, those intended for human consumption are reared in sterile environments, with limited access to sources of infection. Even if bacteria do access the insects, a study has shown that they don’t remain infected for very long, with campylobacter only able to survive for a maximum of 72 hours in darkling beetles [6]. Processing of insects to produce food is also likely to remove any infectious material that may be present. Very limited research has been conducted on this topic, so direct comparisons between the risk of insects versus traditional livestock are not yet possible, however the results so far suggest that the risk of known pathogens is minimal. In addition, it is important to remember that the risk associated with commonly consumed meats is not negligible, with 1.47% of breeding chicken flocks in the UK testing positive for salmonella in 2022 [16]. As such, by using the food hygiene and infection control measures we already have in place for traditional livestock, the risks associated with insects carrying diseases have the potential to be very small, as long as sufficient research is done which will then inform policies.
Accumulation of environmental toxins
Finally, insects have the potential to take up harmful chemicals such as heavy metals from their food [6]. The assessment by the FSA concluded that their exposure to such chemicals is very low, and monitoring their feed would ensure that no harmful substances were passed on.
Cultural perception of edible insects
One of the most significant obstacles for the introduction of insects as food is the negative perception held by the public. In a study in Germany [17] it was found that only 15.9% of 516 participants would be willing to consume insects. Making small changes like turning insects into a powder which is then added to foods like burgers increased the uptake to 41.9%. In order to improve insect-based foods’ acceptability to the public, investment needs to be made in outreach and education, which have been shown to be effective. This could be achieved by increased advertising and coverage in the media, but is overall reliant on a sufficient base of well-funded research so that the public can be reassured of insects’ safety and that their benefits can be emphasised. A study in Belgium [18] showed that after trying burgers containing insects, the perception of insect consumption improved in 84% of the participants, with 79% being willing to try them again in the future. This shows that it is possible to encourage a large proportion of the population to consume insects, but making them accessible population-wide in Europe or North America will pose a significant challenge, and is something that requires major investment.
The Netherlands: a Case Study
The challenges mentioned above, and some potential solutions to them, can be exemplified by the case study of the attempts to introduce insects for human consumption to the mass-market in the Netherlands. In 2009, the Dutch government laid out plans to improve the country’s sustainable food production [19]. By late 2014, insect-based food items such as burgers under the brand “Insecta”
began to make their way into stores owned by the supermarket brand Jumbo, being rolled out nationwide during 2015. Products were sold, however by 2016 they had been withdrawn from all stores [20]. There are a number of takeaways to be made from this relatively unsuccessful foray into bringing insect-based food to the mass market in Europe. Firstly, the regulatory picture was very unclear, with no EU laws specifically addressing insects as forms of food. In 2014 a “tolerance” to the production of ten species of insects for human consumption was introduced in Belgium, which heavily relied on research conducted by a group of scientists in Wageningen University. This group had been given €1 million in funding from the Dutch government as part of their mission to improve food sustainability [20]. This shows how crucial properly funded research is to creating well-informed policy and enabling the safe introduction of insects as food. The second main lesson to be learned from this is the pattern of sales and what lead to their decrease after just a year. It was found that the majority of people purchased Insecta products because of the novelty factor and wanting to try something new. This is good as it shows that people are willing to buy these new products. However, very few of them purchased products multiple times, perhaps because the products themselves weren’t any better than other meat replacements available, and were slightly more expensive. Whilst it cannot be expected that a brand new, risky product would immediately become available in a wide range of shops, the fact it was only sold in a single supermarket that accounted for only 17.4% of supermarkets in the country likely played a role in Insecta’s lack of success [20]. This highlights that fact that more work needs to be done to increase public awareness of insect-based foods in other countries in Europe and North America for such products to become successful, but also that bringing insect-based protein to the market in such countries is possible and could be successful if lessons are learned by both government and industrial stakeholders.\
Summary
Edible insects are both more nutritious and potentially more sustainable to mass-produce than traditional sources of protein such as red meat and plant-based alternatives. As with all new foods, there are challenges to be overcome, especially in increasing uptake by the public and ensuring any associated policy is as enabling as it is protective, as demonstrated in The Netherlands. They are a food source that warrant increased attention and funding, as they provide an environmentally-friendly way to produce large quantities of versatile, nutritious protein for human consumption as well as animals.
References
[1] Dobermann D, Swift JA, Field LM. Opportunities and hurdles of edible insects for food and feed. Nutrition Bulletin. 2017;42(4):293–308.
[2] Ahmad M, Qureshi S, Akbar MH, Siddiqui SA, Gani A, Mushtaq M, et al. Plant-based meat alternatives: Compositional analysis, current development and challenges. Applied Food Research. 2022 Dec 1;2(2):100154.
[3] Boerema A, Peeters A, Swolfs S, Vandevenne F, Jacobs S, Staes J, et al. Soybean Trade: Balancing Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of an Intercontinental Market. PLoS One. 2016 May 31;11(5):e0155222.
[4] Baweja P, Kumar S, Kumar G. Fertilizers and Pesticides: Their Impact on Soil Health and Environment. In: Giri B, Varma A, editors. Soil Health [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 [cited 2024 Sep 29]. p. 265–85. (Soil Biology; vol. 59). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-44364-1_15.
[5] Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, et al. Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits. Science. 1995 Feb 24;267(5201):1117–23.
[6] Belluco S, Losasso C, Maggioletti M, Alonzi CC, Paoletti MG, Ricci A. Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2013;12(3):296–313.
[7] EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Turck D, Castenmiller J, De Henauw S, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Kearney J, et al. Safety of dried yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal. 2021;19(1):e06343.
[8] EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Turck D, Bohn T, Castenmiller J, De Henauw S, Hirsch-Ernst KI, et al. Safety of frozen and dried formulations from whole house crickets (Acheta domesticus) as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal. 2021;19(8):e06779.
[9] EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Turck D, Castenmiller J, De Henauw S, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Kearney J, et al. Safety of frozen and dried formulations from migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal. 2021;19(7):e06667.
[10] Tuhumury HCD. Edible insects: Alternative protein for sustainable food and nutritional security. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021 Oct;883(1):012029.
[11] Nowakowski AC, Miller AC, Miller ME, Xiao H, Wu X. Potential health benefits of edible insects. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2022;62(13):3499–508.
[12] Espitia Buitrago PA, Hernández LM, Burkart S, Palmer N, Cardoso Arango JA. Forage-Fed Insects as Food and Feed Source: Opportunities and Constraints of Edible Insects in the Tropics. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems [Internet]. 2021 Nov 11 [cited 2024 Sep 29];5. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.724628/full.
[13] Better Origin – Fixing the broken food chain [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 29]. Available from: https://betterorigin.co.uk/.
[14] Rapid risk assessment: what is the risk to consumers from consumption of the seven edible insects’ products currently available in the UK market? | Food Standards Agency [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/novel-and-non-traditional-foods-additives-and-processes/rapid-risk-assessment-what-is-the-risk-to-consumers-from-consumption-of-the-seven-edible-insects-products-currently-available-in.
[15] University Of Manchester. Patterns and Prevalence of Adult Food Allergy [Internet]. Food Standards Agency; 2024 May [cited 2024 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/food-hypersensitivity/patterns-and-prevalence-of-adult-food-allergy.
[16] GOV.UK [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 29]. Salmonella in animals and feed in Great Britain. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salmonella-in-animals-and-feed-in-great-britain.
[17] Lammers P, Ullmann LM, Fiebelkorn F. Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust? Food Quality and Preference. 2019 Oct 1;77:78–88.
[18] Caparros Megido R, Gierts C, Blecker C, Brostaux Y, Haubruge É, Alabi T, et al. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference. 2016 Sep 1;52:237–43.
[19] Nota Duurzaam voedsel Naar een duurzame consumptie en productie van ons voedsel [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail.
[20] House J. Insects as food in the Netherlands: Production networks and the geographies of edibility. Geoforum. 2018 Aug 1;94:82–93.
About the Author
Beatrix Huissoon
Beatrix is a PhD student working in the Department of Chemistry and UK Dementia Research Institute, Cambridge. Her research involves using novel microscopy methods to detect and study protein aggregates in models of Alzheimer’s Disease with the hope of understanding the mechanisms of the disease in more detail. She also completed her undergraduate and masters degrees in Natural Sciences at Peterhouse, Cambridge.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9341-7013
Corresponding address:beh37@cam.ac.uk
Confilct of interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.