Edible Insect-Based Beverages: A Narrative Review of Functional, Technological, and Experimental Dimensions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript ‘Insect-Based Beverages: Technological, Sensory, and Cultural Perspectives’ submitted to Insects addresses an emerging and timely topic at the intersection of food science, entomology, and consumer behavior. The topic aligns well with the journal's scope on edible insects and their applications. The manuscript presents a novel conceptual framework distinguishing between functional and experiential pathways for insect-based beverage development, which represents a significant contribution to the field. However, several issues need to be revised before publication.

1. Since the title only mentions insects, there should be no further mention of arthropods such as Arachnida and Myriapoda in the text.
2. Taxonomic errors: 'Orden'should be 'Order'(English); 'Orthosterni' appears to be a misspelling of certain species (should be order Scorpiones, but listed under Arachnida/Scorpiones correctly).
3. This manuscript has strong potential and addresses a genuinely novel area within entomophagy research. The review heavily emphasizes Western commercial products (US, Canada, Australia, UK, Mexico) and Mexican traditional beverages. Other significant entomophagy traditions (Africa, Asia excluding Thailand, South America beyond Mexico) are underrepresented.
4. There are someinconsistent citation formats in Table 1.Some entries cite references (e.g., [27,28]), others list websites (e.g., 'thailandunique.com'), and some have no source ('Not specified').
5. While the manuscript excels at describing existing products and studies, it sometimes lacks critical depth. Improving some content would be better, for example, the sensory failures and consumer rejection cases, regulatory hurdles in key markets (EU Novel Food, FDA GRAS status), allergenicity concerns (chitin, cross-reactivity with crustaceans), sustainability claims that may be overstated.
6. The literature review lacks sufficient depth, and the proposed theoretical framework requires further refinement. The content of Table 1 should be expanded upon and appropriately categorized.
7. Some minor issues:

Line 90: 'formulation are critically assessed' → 'formulations are critically assessed'

Line 162: 'Sedory Contribution' → 'Sensory Contribution' (in Figure 1 caption)

Line 347: Incomplete sentence (as noted above)

Some awkward phrasing: 'experiential,storytelling-driven beverages' (line 92) could be 'experiential, storytelling-driven beverages'

 

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript ‘Insect-Based Beverages: Technological, Sensory, and Cultural Perspectives’ submitted to Insects addresses an emerging and timely topic at the intersection of food science, entomology, and consumer behavior. The topic aligns well with the journal's scope on edible insects and their applications. The manuscript presents a novel conceptual framework distinguishing between functional and experiential pathways for insect-based beverage development, which represents a significant contribution to the field. However, several issues need to be revised before publication.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing the relevance and novelty of the proposed conceptual framework. We appreciate the constructive feedback provided, which has helped us improve the clarity and analytical depth of the manuscript. All comments have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Detailed responses to each specific comment are provided below.

 

Comment 1: Since the title only mentions insects, there should be no further mention of arthropods such as Arachnida and Myriapoda in the text.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. While the primary focus of this review is on edible insects, a small number of examples involving other edible arthropods (e.g., Arachnida and Myriapoda) were included in Table 1 because they appear in beverage-related contexts, particularly in traditional or commercial products such as infused spirits. To avoid confusion, we have clarified this point in the manuscript and explicitly indicated that these examples are included for contextual completeness rather than as the central focus of the review. Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 9, lines 339-348.

 

Comment 2: Taxonomic errors: 'Orden'should be 'Order'(English); 'Orthosterni' appears to be a misspelling of certain species (should be order Scorpiones, but listed under Arachnida/Scorpiones correctly).

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out these taxonomic inconsistencies. The term “Orden” has been corrected to “Order” throughout Table 1 to ensure consistency with the English language used in the manuscript. In addition, the term “Orthosterni” has been removed, as the correct taxonomic classification corresponds to the order Scorpiones. The table has been revised accordingly to reflect the appropriate taxonomy. Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 8, line 334.

 

Comment 3: This manuscript has strong potential and addresses a genuinely novel area within entomophagy research. The review heavily emphasizes Western commercial products (US, Canada, Australia, UK, Mexico) and Mexican traditional beverages. Other significant entomophagy traditions (Africa, Asia excluding Thailand, South America beyond Mexico) are underrepresented.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that entomophagy traditions are geographically widespread and extend well beyond the regions most prominently represented in the manuscript. However, additional literature searches conducted during the revision confirmed that documented examples of insect-based beverages in the scientific and commercial literature remain relatively limited and geographically uneven. In many cultures with long-standing entomophagy traditions, insects are primarily consumed in solid foods rather than incorporated into beverages. To clarify this point and acknowledge the resulting imbalance in the literature, we have added a paragraph in the manuscript highlighting this limitation and identifying it as a knowledge gap for future research (Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 21, lines 862–874).

 

Comment 4: There are someinconsistent citation formats in Table 1.Some entries cite references (e.g., [27,28]), others list websites (e.g., 'thailandunique.com'), and some have no source ('Not specified').

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We agree that the original version of Table 1 displayed inconsistent citation formats. This occurred because the table compiles information from different types of sources, including both peer-reviewed literature and commercial product descriptions available on company websites. In the revised manuscript, the column heading has been changed to “Sources” rather than “References” in order to more accurately reflect the nature of the information provided.

Table 1 intentionally brings together different types of evidence to illustrate the current landscape of insect-based beverages, which includes both experimentally studied formulations and emerging commercial or traditional products. When peer-reviewed studies are available, the corresponding references are cited using the standard citation format (e.g., [27,28]). In other cases, where beverages are documented primarily through commercial sources, the relevant websites are listed as sources.

The term “Not specified” indicates that the commercial source does not explicitly describe the functional or sensory contribution of the insect or arthropod ingredient to the beverage. In such cases, no additional claims were added by the authors in order to avoid unsupported interpretation. The table has been revised to clarify these distinctions and improve transparency regarding the types of sources used (Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, p. 8, line 334).

 

Comment 5: While the manuscript excels at describing existing products and studies, it sometimes lacks critical depth. Improving some content would be better, for example, the sensory failures and consumer rejection cases, regulatory hurdles in key markets (EU Novel Food, FDA GRAS status), allergenicity concerns (chitin, cross-reactivity with crustaceans), sustainability claims that may be overstated.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that strengthening the critical perspective of the review improves its analytical depth. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion in several sections to address additional limitations and challenges associated with insect-based beverages. Specifically, we have incorporated discussion on:

• sensory limitations and potential consumer rejection in beverage formulations (Section 6. Consumer Perception and Acceptance, pp. 20, line 819-828),
• regulatory barriers in key markets, including the EU Novel Food framework and U.S. regulatory considerations (Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 22, line 909-916, 921-925),
• potential allergenicity and cross-reactivity with crustacean allergens (Section 3. Nutritional and Biofunctional Potential, pp. 5, line 216-218; Section 4 Techno-functional Challenges of insect-derived ingredients in Liquid Systems, pp. 6-7, lines 270-280; Section 7, Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 22, lines 896-906, 909-916), and
• the need for caution when interpreting sustainability claims, which may depend on production systems and processing conditions (Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions).

These additions provide a more balanced and critical assessment of the current state of the field. Relevant sections of the manuscript have been revised accordingly.

 

Comment 6: The literature review lacks sufficient depth, and the proposed theoretical framework requires further refinement. The content of Table 1 should be expanded upon and appropriately categorized.

Response 6: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the analytical depth of the literature review and further clarify the conceptual framework proposed in the study. Specifically, additional explanatory text has been incorporated to better articulate the rationale and analytical value of the two-pathway framework (functional vs. experiential beverages). Rather than modifying the structure of Table 1, we have expanded the discussion in the manuscript to more clearly interpret the examples presented in the table within the conceptual framework proposed in this review. Specifically, additional text and a figure (Figure 3) have been incorporated to explain how the documented beverage applications align with the two analytical pathways identified in the manuscript (functional beverages vs. experiential and storytelling-driven beverages). This addition clarifies the categorization of the examples while preserving the descriptive structure of the table. Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 7-9, line 312-348; Subsection 5.6. Critical synthesis of the current sate, pp. 18-19, lines 746-762, 767,768.

 

Comment 7: Some minor issues:

Line 90: 'formulation are critically assessed' → 'formulations are critically assessed'

Line 162: 'Sedory Contribution' → 'Sensory Contribution' (in Figure 1 caption)

Line 347: Incomplete sentence (as noted above)

Some awkward phrasing: 'experiential,storytelling-driven beverages' (line 92) could be 'experiential, storytelling-driven beverages'

Response 7: Thank you for noting these minor issues. They have all been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Manuscript Title:

Edible Insect-Based Beverages: A Narrative Review of Functional, Technological, and Experimental Dimensions

Authors:

Oscar Abel Sánchez-Velázquez, Alan Javier Hernández-Álvarez and Luis Mojica

Dear authors,

Overall, this is a good and interesting manuscript that addresses a timely topic in a non-conventional and engaging way. The review offers a broad and useful perspective by linking beverage technology and product development aspects with consumer and cultural dimensions, and the proposed pathway framing provides a clear structure for the narrative.  

Nevertheless, there are several points that require improvement in order to strengthen the manuscript and increase its scientific rigor, therefore my detailed comments are provided below.

Comment 1: lines 34–37 – Since this is a narrative review (“Rather than adopting a systematic approach…”), please add minimal methodological transparency (databases, keywords, time window, inclusion or exclusion logic), otherwise the selection may appear arbitrary.

Comment 2: lines 24–27 (Simple Summary) – The statement “can only move beyond niche markets if…” is too absolute, please rephrase or support with stronger evidence.

Comment 3: lines 276–277 (Table 1 title) – The table is labelled as insects but explicitly includes “other arthropods, please harmonize terminology (insects vs arthropods) or split the table.

Comment 4: lines 276-277 (Table 1) – Several entries are centipedes/spiders/scorpions, and the references are commercial websites (e.g., thailandunique.com; shopping sites). Please move these “market examples” to Supplementary Material and keep the main table grounded at peer review manner.

Comment 5: lines 519–529 – The paragraph relies on alcohol shopping websites and repeats unverified health-benefit claims (even if you later negate them). Please remove or rewrite more strictly, focusing on scientifically verifiable aspects (sensory, volatiles or processing).

Comment 6: lines 241–244 – “Reducing allergenic potential” is mentioned, but allergenicity is not actually treated as a section or topic itself.  Please expand main allergen risks or perhaps cross-reactivity (e.g., crustaceans), how processing changes allergenicity, and implications for labelling or consumer safety, think that this topic is really important and deserves to be in every paper that is related to usage of insects in any kind of food or beverages.

Comment 7: lines 570–575 – “Allergen management” is listed among challenges but not explained. Please specify what is meant (risk assessment, labelling, thresholds, cross contamination, consumer guidance) and cite relevant sources.

Comment 8: lines 772–773 – Section numbering is incorrect (“3. Challenges and Future Directions” appears after later sections). Please renumber headings consistently.

Comment 9: lines 796–801 – EU regulatory “maximum inclusion levels” for specific insects or beverage categories are stated, please verify against the exact EFSA opinions or Implementing Regulations and avoid oversimplification.

Comment 10: lines 651–653 – The “cockroach milk” part uses “next superfood” style framing, please ensure neutral scientific tone and clarify relevance to beverage formulation vs sensational wording.

Author Response

Comment:  Overall, this is a good and interesting manuscript that addresses a timely topic in a non-conventional and engaging way. The review offers a broad and useful perspective by linking beverage technology and product development aspects with consumer and cultural dimensions, and the proposed pathway framing provides a clear structure for the narrative.  

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing the interdisciplinary perspective and conceptual framework proposed in this review. We appreciate the encouraging feedback and are grateful for the constructive comments that follow, which have helped us further improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. Detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 

Comment 1: Nevertheless, there are several points that require improvement in order to strengthen the manuscript and increase its scientific rigor, therefore my detailed comments are provided below.

lines 34–37 – Since this is a narrative review (“Rather than adopting a systematic approach…”), please add minimal methodological transparency (databases, keywords, time window, inclusion or exclusion logic), otherwise the selection may appear arbitrary.

Response 1:

Thank you for this suggestion. To improve methodological transparency while maintaining the narrative nature of the review, we have expanded the corresponding sentence in the manuscript to briefly specify the main databases consulted (Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), the general keywords used in the searches, and the overall logic guiding the selection of relevant literature and examples. This clarification provides greater transparency regarding the literature identification process while preserving the narrative structure of the review. Section 1. Introduction, pp. 3, lines 104-111.

 

Comment 2: lines 24–27 (Simple Summary) – The statement “can only move beyond niche markets if…” is too absolute, please rephrase or support with stronger evidence.

Response 2: Thank you for this observation. We agree that the original wording was overly absolute. The sentence in the Simple Summary has been revised to adopt a more balanced formulation by replacing “can only” with wording that reflects a more cautious interpretation of future market development. Section Simple Summary, pp. 1, lines 24-26.

 

Comment 3: lines 276–277 (Table 1 title) – The table is labelled as insects but explicitly includes “other arthropods, please harmonize terminology (insects vs arthropods) or split the table.

Response 3: Table 1 has been modified to separate insects from other arthropods. Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 8, line 334.

 

Comment 4: lines 276-277 (Table 1) – Several entries are centipedes/spiders/scorpions, and the references are commercial websites (e.g., thailandunique.com; shopping sites). Please move these “market examples” to Supplementary Material and keep the main table grounded at peer review manner.

Response 4: Thank you for this observation. We agree that Table 1 includes examples derived from different types of sources. However, because the objective of this review is to integrate scientific literature with traditional practices and emerging commercial applications of insect-based beverages, we considered that including representative market examples provides useful context for understanding how these products are currently positioned in real-world settings.

To improve clarity and avoid confusion with academic citations, the column previously labeled “References” has been revised to “Sources”, reflecting that the information may originate from peer-reviewed literature or from documented commercial sources. In addition, the table has been reorganized to clearly distinguish insects from other arthropods, ensuring greater taxonomic clarity while preserving the illustrative value of these examples. We believe that these revisions address the reviewer’s concern while maintaining the informative scope of the table. Section 5 State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 8, line 334.

 

Comment 5: lines 519–529 – The paragraph relies on alcohol shopping websites and repeats unverified health-benefit claims (even if you later negate them). Please remove or rewrite more strictly, focusing on scientifically verifiable aspects (sensory, volatiles or processing).

Response 5: Thank you for this observation. We agree that commercial websites are not equivalent to peer-reviewed scientific sources and that unverified health claims should not be presented as evidence. In the revised manuscript, the paragraph has been shortened and reframed to reduce the emphasis on website-based descriptions and remove the detailed discussion of unsupported health claims. The section now focuses primarily on scientifically verifiable aspects, including the sensory contribution of insect ingredients, their role in processing or formulation, and their symbolic or experiential function in certain alcoholic beverages.

In addition, the revised text gives greater emphasis to information supported by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, particularly in the context of experiential and storytelling-driven beverages, some relevant information about product presentation and cultural framing is currently documented mainly on producer or commercial websites. While these sources are not subject to the same scientific scrutiny, they are briefly referenced to illustrate how such beverages are positioned and communicated in the marketplace, while clearly distinguishing them from evidence-based information. The manuscript has been revised accordingly (Section 5. State of the Art of Insect-Based Beverages, pp. 13-16).

 

Comment 6: lines 241–244 – “Reducing allergenic potential” is mentioned, but allergenicity is not actually treated as a section or topic itself.  Please expand main allergen risks or perhaps cross-reactivity (e.g., crustaceans), how processing changes allergenicity, and implications for labelling or consumer safety, think that this topic is really important and deserves to be in every paper that is related to usage of insects in any kind of food or beverages.

Response 6: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that allergenicity is a key consideration in the development of insect-based foods and beverages. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion in Section 3 to include a paragraph addressing the main allergen risks associated with insect proteins, including potential cross-reactivity with crustacean and mite allergens, the possible effects of processing on allergenic proteins, and the implications for labeling and consumer safety. This addition provides a more balanced overview of the challenges associated with incorporating insect-derived ingredients into beverage systems. Section 3. Nutritional and Biofunctional Potential of Edible Insects in Beverages Matrices, pp. 5, lines 216-218.

 

Comment 7: lines 570–575 – “Allergen management” is listed among challenges but not explained. Please specify what is meant (risk assessment, labelling, thresholds, cross contamination, consumer guidance) and cite relevant sources.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out the need for further clarification. In the revised manuscript, the section on challenges has been expanded and clarified to better explain what is meant by “allergen management” in the context of insect-based beverages. The revised text now discusses key aspects, including potential cross-reactivity with crustacean and mite allergens, the importance of risk assessment and transparent allergen labeling, the need to address cross-contamination during processing, and the role of consumer guidance and precautionary labeling in ensuring product safety. The text also briefly acknowledges the relevance of allergen thresholds as an emerging regulatory and research consideration in this field. Relevant references have been included to support this discussion (Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 22, lines 896–906).

 

Comment 8: lines 772–773 – Section numbering is incorrect (“3. Challenges and Future Directions” appears after later sections). Please renumber headings consistently.

Response 8: Thank you for noting this editorial error. The section numbering has been corrected throughout the revised manuscript to ensure that all headings and subheadings are presented consistently. Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 21, line 861.

 

Comment 9: lines 796–801 – EU regulatory “maximum inclusion levels” for specific insects or beverage categories are stated, please verify against the exact EFSA opinions or Implementing Regulations and avoid oversimplification.

Response 9: Thank you for this important observation. The paragraph discussing EU regulatory limits has been revised to clarify that the authorization of insect-derived ingredients under the EU Novel Food framework is species- and product-specific and is defined through individual Implementing Regulations. The revised text avoids presenting these limits as universal thresholds and instead emphasizes that permitted uses and inclusion levels depend on the specific authorization conditions for each insect species and processing form. Section 7. Challenges and Future Directions, pp. 22, lines 909-916, 921-925.

 

Comment 10: lines 651–653 – The “cockroach milk” part uses “next superfood” style framing, please ensure neutral scientific tone and clarify relevance to beverage formulation vs sensational wording.

Response 10: Thank you for this observation. We agree that the original wording could be interpreted as overly promotional. The paragraph has been substantially revised to remove the “next superfood” framing and adopt a more neutral scientific tone. In the revised text, the discussion now focuses on the biochemical characteristics of the secretion produced by Diploptera punctata, while clarifying that its potential application in food or beverage systems remains largely theoretical and faces significant technical challenges. Promotional language regarding potential health or environmental benefits has also been removed to maintain a more descriptive and scientifically grounded discussion (Section 5.5. Insect-based milk analogues, pp. 17, lines 706–723).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the authors' revisions, there's only a minor issue. Since it is not a key point, the non insect species should not be included in Table 1 but can be adjusted to be described in the main text.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the authors' revisions, there's only a minor issue. Since it is not a key point, the non insect species should not be included in Table 1 but can be adjusted to be described in the main text.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The section on non-insect arthropods has been removed from Table 1, as well as the text that referred to their inclusion in this. However, these are still included in the text, separate from the discussion of insects.