You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Foods
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Review
  • Open Access

17 April 2025

Edible Insects from the Perspective of Sustainability—A Review of the Hazards and Benefits

,
and
1
Division of Food Commodity Science, Faculty of Health Sciences with the Institute of Maritime and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland
2
Department of Quality Management, Faculty of Management and Quality Science, Gdynia Maritime University, 81-225 Gdynia, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Food Quality and Safety

Abstract

The increasing global population, projected to exceed 9.1 billion by 2050, presents a critical challenge for sustainable food production. Edible insects have emerged as a promising alternative protein source due to their high nutritional value, low environmental footprint, and efficient resource utilization. This review explores the opportunities and challenges of integrating edible insects into food systems. Benefits include their high protein content and quality, low greenhouse gas emissions, low-cost production, and ability to thrive on organic waste. Furthermore, edible insect cultivation requires significantly less land and water compared to traditional livestock. Edible insects are nutritionally rich, containing substantial amounts of essential amino acids, unsaturated fatty acids, and minerals. However, barriers to widespread adoption persist, such as cultural perceptions, regulatory hurdles, potential allergenicity, and biological and chemical contamination. Furthermore, standardizing rearing practices and ensuring food safety are critical for broader adoption. While edible insects represent a nutritious, low-cost food and feed, there are a lot of variables that have not been fully investigated. Only after further research, promising results, and solutions that are relatively easy to apply might edible insects be considered a sustainable food source. Considering the challenges that may arise by 2050, more intensive research is highly advised.

1. Introduction

According to a report by the FAO, it is anticipated that the human population will continue to grow steadily to over 9.1 billion by 2050 [1], although some sources predict that the population will reach almost 11 billion people [2]. This will pose a tremendous challenge for every aspect of human life. However, the critical issue will be the ability to feed the global population and provide sufficient amounts of drinking water [3,4]. Therefore, in recent years, increased attention has been given to production methods that align with sustainable development principles. To address the challenge of feeding the projected global population by 2050, various strategies have been explored, including the development of salt-tolerant cereals, improvements in fertilizing methods and nanofertilizers, and initiatives such as the creation of super-cereal, which focuses on blending cereals to obtain a more nutritious product [5,6].
The production of sufficient quantities of food with adequate nutritional value while maintaining safety standards throughout the products’ life cycles may prove to be exceptionally difficult. Severe hunger problems have been a worldwide challenge for centuries, especially in developing countries, which already constitute the majority of the human population. The discrepancy in population growth between developing and developed countries is expected to grow intensively [2,7]. Consequently, the hunger problem may increase, further intensifying the need for increased food production. It is crucial to remember that food production, along with other aspects of human living, cannot proceed at the expense of the environment. Therefore, human environmental impacts have been continuously studied for years. It is considered that livestock production is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions [8]. The need to feed and breed livestock might also be a major factor responsible for deforestation and the extremely high demand for water consumption [9]. Considering the above, the search for an alternative, sustainable food source is absolutely crucial to humankind. In order to reduce livestock production, an alternative source of high-quality protein is required. This is the reason for the increase in interest in edible insects [10].

3. Challenges of Popularizing Edible Insects

When considering the benefits of insect production and consumption, it is impossible to overlook the associated risks. Insect consumption encounters consumer reluctance, insufficient comprehensive research on microbiological safety and its impact on human health, and chemical safety during production and processing, as well as potential fraud throughout the supply chain. Information is also scarce with respect to certain environmental threats. In the context of the risks and challenges that may arise from the production and consumption of insects, several areas can be distinguished: awareness and cultural aspects, technical and technological aspects, and health safety for humans and animals, as well as environmental safety, which is primarily focused on the natural environment, and labeling, understood as ensuring the informational safety of the product.

3.1. Consumer-Based Challenges

Disgust and the perception of insects as pests are the most common reasons for rejecting them. Food neophobia plays a key role in shaping the acceptance of edible insects by Western societies [63]. Research indicates that neophobic attitudes are more frequently exhibited by individuals who prefer meat. However, if insects were served in a different form, such as flour added to baked goods, acceptance of such a product increased [64]. Additionally, there are strategies that try to mitigate disgust towards edible insects and neophobia, including tasting sessions or cooking shows, among others [65].

3.2. Non-Consumer-Based Challenges

3.2.1. Inedible Insect Parts

One of the factors limiting the consumption of insects is the presence of sharp spines on insect legs. Mlcek et al. report that as early as 1945, Bouvier observed in the Democratic Republic of Congo that consuming whole locusts and grasshoppers could lead to intestinal problems caused by the spines on the insects’ legs. Autopsies of monkeys that died during locust invasions also revealed that consuming locusts resulted in their death due to the same reason [66].
One of the reasons that may limit the consumption of insects is the presence of antinutritional compounds. Among these, chitin is the most often mentioned due to its potentially adverse effect on protein digestion [67] and is itself considered indigestible. Although, the latter finding might not be entirely true as there have been reports of human chitinases, such as chitotriosidase 1 (CHIT1) and acid mammalian chitinase (AMCase), along with several chitinase-like proteins (CLPs). However, their role has been mostly investigated in relation to their protective role against pathogens through chitin degradation. Mammalian chitinases are now gaining attention as the key players in innate immune responses against fungi, bacteria, and other pathogens [68]. Additionally, recently discovered chitinolytic enzymes produced by bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract suggest that chitin and chitosan may be digestible [38]. Research by Refael et al. (2022) suggests that insect-derived chitin could potentially be a new prebiotic, though further studies are needed to confirm this concept [69].
Chitin and chitosan possess significant potential, which can be utilized in food and nutrition, as well as in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and dietary supplement industries [70]. These compounds may have a wide range of biomedical applications, including wound healing, tissue engineering, drug delivery, and antimicrobial therapies. Their antimicrobial properties open up possibilities for innovative solutions in various medical interventions [71]. Chitosans have also been successfully implemented in food packaging for years (Tripathi chitosan films). Waste generated from the farming and processing of edible insects should be collected and considered as an alternative source of chitin/chitosan [72]. Properly prepared insects do not pose a threat to consumers.

3.2.2. Antinutrients and Allergenicity

Other antinutritional compounds present in insects include tannins, phytates, oxalates, and cyanogenic glycosides. These compounds disrupt mineral balance and chelate proteins, with oxalates additionally impairing kidney function [73,74]. A particular case of an antinutritional effect is the enzyme thiaminase, which is responsible for the seasonal ataxia observed after consuming the roasted larvae of Anaphe venata by the population of Nigeria [75].
Another concern raised by the scientific community is the allergenicity of insects. Certain types of proteins present in edible insects, including arginine kinase, are considered allergens [76]. Insects are closely related to crustaceans, which suggests that they might trigger food allergies [77]. Cases described in the literature do not confirm widespread allergic reactions among insect consumers. However, insects should be consumed cautiously, especially when being introduced into the diet for the first time. Further research is needed to assess the risks associated with food allergies to edible insects [78]. Furthermore, according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 of 20 December 2017, which establishes the Union’s list of novel foods under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and Council on novel foods, food products containing edible insects must include a statement indicating that this ingredient may cause allergic reactions in consumers with known allergies to crustaceans, mollusks, and related products, as well as to mites.
At this point, it is worth revisiting the previously discussed risk associated with insects, namely chitin. While chitin is not widely regarded as a potential allergen, it can cause sensitization through frequent exposure [79]. This risk could affect, for example, workers on insect farms. Such allergies have been reported previously by Schroeckenstein et al. (1990), who noted that beetles from the Tenebrionid family are potentially significant allergens for workers exposed to grains or grain products [80].

3.2.3. Biological Risks

Among biological risks, pathogenic microorganisms and parasites are highlighted. Pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia, Staphylococcus, and Bacillus can infect both humans and insects [76]. Edible insects serve as hosts for potentially dangerous bacterial species, including Campylobacter, Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Neisseria, Pseudomonas, and Clostridium. These insects can contribute to foodborne diseases. Having considered collecting insects from natural environments in developing countries, primarily in Africa and Asia, ensuring food safety will be particularly challenging [75,81].
Entomophagy can facilitate the transmission of parasites from insects to humans. Dicrocoelium dendriticum is a zoonotic parasite that can be easily transmitted to humans through the consumption of edible insects, such as ants. Parasites such as Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, and Toxoplasma spp. have been isolated from cockroaches [82]. For this reason, consuming raw insects is not recommended, and they should undergo appropriate processing. Common methods for preserving insects include reducing the water content (drying or freeze-drying), acidification, or thermal processing (boiling, blanching, or sterilization) [83].

3.2.4. Chemical Risks

Chemical contamination in insects includes pesticides, heavy metals, and mycotoxins. Pesticide residues pose a particular risk for insects collected from the wild. Collectors often lack awareness or disregard whether the agricultural fields where insects are found have been treated with pesticides. The literature provides limited data on pesticide residues in insects, primarily concerning Asian countries [84]. The Codex Alimentarius recommends that the concentrations of chlorpyrifos and piperonyl butoxide in insect feed, such as alfalfa and field peas, be lower than the permissible levels for livestock feed, specifically 5000 μg/kg and 2000 μg/kg, respectively [85].
Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic accumulate in insects, with the extent of accumulation depending on the specific metal, insect species, and growth stage [86]. The EFSA reports that heavy metals such as cadmium and arsenic can accumulate in edible insects when they are fed contaminated feed or inhabit polluted substrates [85]. However, research by Poma et al. (2017) conducted in Belgium found that insects and products derived from them contained fewer metal contaminants than other commonly consumed animal products. This is particularly true for farmed insects, as insect farms allow for proper monitoring and control [87].
Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by various phytopathogenic molds, including species of Fusarium, Aspergillus, and Penicillium. They are significant food contaminants with acute and chronic adverse effects on human health. Mycotoxins may originate from contaminated feed or substrates used for rearing edible insects [82,88].
The EFSA (2015) highlights that other chemical substances may be used during insect farming, such as biocides for cleaning facilities and equipment or veterinary drugs for treating certain diseases [85]. Moreover, some insect species naturally produce toxins (venoms). Furthermore, EU regulations state that a minimum 24 h fasting period is required to allow the larvae and adult forms to discard their bowel content before killing and processing the insects [89]. We do not know the hazards if the 24 h fasting period is not applied.

3.2.5. Functional Properties of Edible Insect Proteins

Edible insect proteins are deemed to be an animal protein alternative. To properly evaluate its potential to be utilized as such, their functional properties have to be thoroughly investigated. There are several factors that should be taken into consideration: solubility, foaming, and emulsification.
High solubility can be an indicator that the protein is highly digestible, which makes it a desirable trait for protein application [90]. Studies report that some edible insects have the lowest solubility at pH 4–5 and the highest at 10–11 for protein preparations obtained via combined alkaline extraction and isoelectric precipitation [36,91,92]. However, the solubility differs depending on the processing method. The use of a fluidized bed, microwave, and rack oven for drying yellow mealworms reduced protein solubility to just 12.65–19.25%, in contrast to freeze-dried (40.65%), vacuum-dried (49.70%), and fresh (53.24%) mealworms [93,94].
Yi et al. investigated the foaming and gelling properties of proteins extracted from five insect species: Tenebrio molitor, Zophobas morio, Alphitobius diaperinus, Acheta domesticus, and Blaptica dubia. Their performance was compared to that of chicken egg white albumin. At pH levels of 3, 5, 7, and 10, the insect proteins exhibited significantly poorer results than albumin. Moreover, when foams were produced, they were found to be unstable [95].
Edible insect proteins exhibit significant gelling properties, which are valuable for food applications such as jellies, desserts, yogurts, and meat products. The ability of these proteins to form gel structures depends on factors such as pH, temperature, protein concentration, and the presence of salts [9]. Research has shown that proteins extracted from various insect species, such as Tenebrio molitor and Acheta domesticus, gel within a pH range of 7–10 at high protein concentrations (approximately 30% w/v). The gelation temperature for Tenebrio molitor proteins was found to be around 61.7 °C, while for Acheta domesticus, it was approximately 56.2 °C [9,95].
External factors, including the addition of salt (e.g., NaCl), pH alterations, and controlled thermal treatments, significantly influence the gelation process. Higher protein concentrations and specific thermal conditions promote the transition from sol to gel, resulting in the formation of a three-dimensional network. These properties are also influenced by the protein profile, which varies depending on the life stage of the insects. Proteins extracted from adult insects generally exhibit stronger gel-forming abilities compared to those from larvae. Such differences are attributed to the intrinsic structural characteristics of the proteins that determine their functionality [9,96].
These findings highlight the potential of insect proteins as gelling agents, offering a sustainable and functional alternative to conventional ingredients in food formulations.

3.2.6. Insect Populations Worldwide

In the research on the impact of insects on the environment and the influence of the environment on insects, two main directions can be observed. The first focuses on the declining number of insects worldwide, while the second highlights the risks associated with industrial insect farming, including the potential release of insects into the environment due to various factors. Van Huis and Oonincx (2017) emphasize the threats to aquatic insect populations caused by water pollution, the disappearance of caterpillar species in Africa due to excessive deforestation, which destroys their habitats, and the decline of edible insect species regarded as pests and eradicated in agroecosystems [18].

3.2.7. Ethical Aspects of Rearing and Consuming Edible Insects

The ethical discourse surrounding edible insect farming centers on animal welfare, sentience, and precautionary principles. While insects are increasingly considered a sustainable protein source, their inclusion in animal welfare legislation remains inconsistent and often insufficient. Scientific evidence suggests insects possess nociceptive capacities and may exhibit pain-like responses, though sentience remains unconfirmed [97]. However, due to epistemological limits in assessing consciousness, it might be crucial for precautionary ethical treatment. This includes minimizing harm during rearing and using humane slaughter methods (e.g., freezing over boiling).
Sentience, particularly the capacity to experience aversive states, should be viewed as a threshold for moral consideration. Though insect neuroanatomy differs from vertebrates, emerging research indicates possible analogs to pain processing systems. Ethically, if insect sentience is probable, their welfare merits protection, especially given the high numbers used in mass farming [97].
Pragmatically, farming insects may reduce overall animal suffering compared to conventional livestock. Nonetheless, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding species-specific welfare needs. Establishing ethical rearing practices and regulatory frameworks is essential before scaling insect farming systems.

4. Discussion

Popularizing edible insects is proposed as one of the solutions for feeding a growing human population. Having estimated the global population in 2050, the crucial production of sufficient quantities of food of adequate quality will become extremely challenging. It will be even more demanding in developing countries, as their population growth will be the most dynamic.
In the context of risks associated with insect farming and its impact on the environment, the challenge lies in the fact that conventional food production systems are governed by established legal regulations, whereas knowledge and regulations applicable to commercial insect farming remain fragmented [98]. Consequently, numerous challenges must be addressed during the development of the edible insect market. These challenges pertain to policy formulation, legislative solutions, and production and control standardization, as well as the potential certification of mass-produced edible insects. Welfare standards for each species of farmed insect are essential. Additionally, logistical operations cannot be effectively executed without the implementation of appropriate regulations and procedures. At present, edible insects fall outside the scope of veterinary regulations that ensure the safety of animal production within the European Union [98].
Another issue requiring research is the concern over the potential adulteration of products containing insects, whether whole, ground, or in the form of isolated proteins. Food fraud is a global problem of increasing significance that can harm both human and animal health. The globalization of food supply chains offers many benefits in terms of food variety and availability but can also increase the risk of fraud. The lack of regulations and standards regarding the authenticity of insects and insect-derived products will hinder efforts to combat illegal activities within supply chains [99].
The benefits of utilizing insects as food and feed are undeniable (Table 3), although there are numerous challenges. Additionally, the continuous decline in insect populations receives limited attention across various domains, from scientific research to policymaking and conservation efforts. Scientists have urgently called for prioritizing insect conservation. It also highlights that global treaties on pollinator care and the restoration of pollination ecosystems are urgently needed [100].

5. Conclusions

The main advantages of insect farming include lower land and water requirements, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, high feed conversion efficiency (i.e., weight gain relative to feed intake), and the ability to transform low-value organic by-products into high-quality food or feed.
There are numerous items of research and reports referring to the many benefits of utilizing edible insects as a sustainable food source. Rearing edible insects is much more efficient than livestock production, especially when considering greenhouse gas emissions, feed conversion ratios, areas needed for production, and the generally low cost of production. Additionally, edible insects might be considered a method of converting organic waste into high-quality proteins.
Current EU regulations permit only four species of insects to be used as food. Additionally, there are only certain forms and stages of development that are allowed to be utilized. It highlights how problematic and time-consuming adaptation can be. Despite the slow pace of adoption, neophobia and general disgust towards insects are still relevant and will probably remain relevant for years to come. There is also one additional condition that is opposed to sustainable development. Should humanity decide to farm only a few species on a mass scale, it will most definitely stand against biodiversity.
Having considered the aforementioned arguments, it would be highly advisable to revisit the global stance on edible insects as a sustainable food source. There are still too many variables that have not been fully investigated. While edible insects are definitely nutritious and relatively easy to produce, each species and stage of development might be significantly different. Therefore, it is essential to conduct further research on edible insects to collect the required data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.K. and M.Ś.; formal analysis, F.K.; investigation, F.K. and M.Ś.; resources, F.K., M.Ś., and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.K. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.; visualization, F.K. and M.Ś.; supervision, F.K. and M.S.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Greedy or Needy? Land Use and Climate Impacts of Food in 2050 under Different Livestock Futures. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Falkenmark, M.; Rockström, J.; Karlberg, L. Present and Future Water Requirements for Feeding Humanity. Food Sec. 2009, 1, 59201369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fróna, D.; Szenderák, J.; Harangi-Rákos, M. The Challenge of Feeding the World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Melino, V.; Tester, M. Salt-Tolerant Crops: Time to Deliver. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2023, 74, 671–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Subhashani, V.A.K.S. Use of Nanotechnology in Fertilizers. J. Res. Technol. Eng. 2021, 2, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ruiz, J.R.; García, R.G.; Rilo, J.C.N.; Joven, V.S.; Estrada, M.D.; Gómez, A.M. Estudio Epidemiológico y Clínico Del Melanoma Maligno Cutáneo En El Área Sanitaria de León. Med. Clínica 1991, 97, 693–696. [Google Scholar]
  8. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  9. Queiroz, L.S.; Nogueira Silva, N.F.; Jessen, F.; Mohammadifar, M.A.; Stephani, R.; Fernandes De Carvalho, A.; Perrone, Í.T.; Casanova, F. Edible Insect as an Alternative Protein Source: A Review on the Chemistry and Functionalities of Proteins under Different Processing Methods. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sharma, B.; Yadav, D.K.; Malakar, S.; Singh, S.; Sharma, M.; Suri, S.; Sridhar, K. Insect Proteins –Production Technologies, Bio-Functional, and Food Applications: A Perspective. Food Biosci. 2024, 61, 104560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scaffardi, L.; Formici, G. (Eds.) Novel Foods and Edible Insects in the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Analysis; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 978-3-031-13493-7. [Google Scholar]
  12. Raak, N.; Symmank, C.; Zahn, S.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Rohm, H. Processing- and Product-Related Causes for Food Waste and Implications for the Food Supply Chain. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A Meta-Analysis of Projected Global Food Demand and Population at Risk of Hunger for the Period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kouřimská, L.; Adámková, A. Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Edible Insects. NFS J. 2016, 4, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kolobe, S.D.; Manyelo, T.G.; Sebola, N.A.; Malematja, E.; Monnye, M. Prospects of Rearing Selected Southern African Swarming Insects for Animal Feed: A Review on Insect Farming and the Economic Value of Edible Insects. Agric. Food Secur. 2024, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Veldkamp, T.; Bosch, G. Insects: A Protein-Rich Feed Ingredient in Pig and Poultry Diets. Anim. Front. 2015, 5, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Mollenhorst, H.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; Bikker, P.; Meerburg, B.G.; De Boer, I.J.M. From Environmental Nuisance to Environmental Opportunity: Housefly Larvae Convert Waste to Livestock Feed. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Huis, A.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B. The Environmental Sustainability of Insects as Food and Feed. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 2017, 37, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gere, A. Insect Based Foods a Nutritional Point of View. Nutr. Food Sci. Int. J. 2017, 4, 555638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raheem, D.; Carrascosa, C.; Oluwole, O.B.; Nieuwland, M.; Saraiva, A.; Millán, R.; Raposo, A. Traditional Consumption of and Rearing Edible Insects in Africa, Asia and Europe. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 2169–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Li, M.; Mao, C.; Li, X.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, W.; Li, M.; Liu, H.; Fang, Y.; Liu, S.; Yang, G.; et al. Edible Insects: A New Sustainable Nutritional Resource Worth Promoting. Foods 2023, 12, 4073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Guiné, R.P.F.; Correia, P.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C.A. The Role of Edible Insects to Mitigate Challenges for Sustainability. Open Agric. 2021, 6, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Orsi, L.; Voege, L.L.; Stranieri, S. Eating Edible Insects as Sustainable Food? Exploring the Determinants of Consumer Acceptance in Germany. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Herrero, M.; Wirsenius, S.; Henderson, B.; Rigolot, C.; Thornton, P.; Havlík, P.; De Boer, I.; Gerber, P.J. Livestock and the Environment: What Have We Learned in the Past Decade? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2015, 40, 177–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roos, N.; van Huis, A. Consuming Insects: Are There Health Benefits? J. Insects Food Feed 2017, 3, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; De Boer, I.J.M. Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans—A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miglietta, P.; De Leo, F.; Ruberti, M.; Massari, S. Mealworms for Food: A Water Footprint Perspective. Water 2015, 7, 6190–6203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ubesie, A.C.; Ibeziako, N.S.; Ndiokwelu, C.I.; Uzoka, C.M.; Nwafor, C.A. Under-Five Protein Energy Malnutrition Admitted at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu: A 10 Year Retrospective Review. Nutr. J. 2012, 11, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Franco, V.; Hotta, J.; Jorge, S.; dos Santos, J. Plasma Fatty Acids in Children with Grade III Protein-Energy Malnutrition in Its Different Clinical Forms: Marasmus, Marasmic Kwashiorkor, and Kwashiorkor. J. Trop. Pediatr. 1999, 45, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Awobusuyi, T.D.; Siwela, M.; Pillay, K. Sorghum–Insect Composites for Healthier Cookies: Nutritional, Functional, and Technological Evaluation. Foods 2020, 9, 1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Perez-Santaescolastica, C.; De Pril, I.; Van De Voorde, I.; Fraeye, I. Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profiles of Seven Edible Insects: Focus on Lipid Class Composition and Protein Conversion Factors. Foods 2023, 12, 4090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Volden, J. ‘A Wing in the Throat’: Negotiating Edibility in Everyday Insect Consumption. Geoforum 2024, 157, 104132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Prado, J.P.D.S.; Cavalheiro, J.M.O.; Silva, J.A.D.; Cavalheiro, T.B.; Silva, F.V.G.D. Amino Acid Profile and Percent Composition of Meals and Feeds Used in Shrimp Farming. Gaia Sci. 2016, 10, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jin, H.; Yang, X.; Zhao, H.; Song, X.; Tsvetkov, Y.D.; Wu, Y.; Gao, Q.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, J. Genetic Analysis of Protein Content and Oil Content in Soybean by Genome-Wide Association Study. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1182771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kim, T.-K.; Yong, H.I.; Jung, S.; Sung, J.-M.; Jang, H.W.; Choi, Y.-S. Physicochemical and Textural Properties of Emulsions Prepared from the Larvae of the Edible Insects Tenebrio Molitor, Allomyrina dichotoma, and Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2021, 63, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zielińska, E.; Karaś, M.; Baraniak, B. Comparison of Functional Properties of Edible Insects and Protein Preparations Thereof. LWT 2018, 91, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Osimani, A.; Garofalo, C.; Milanović, V.; Taccari, M.; Cardinali, F.; Aquilanti, L.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; Raffaelli, N.; Ruschioni, S.; et al. Insight into the Proximate Composition and Microbial Diversity of Edible Insects Marketed in the European Union. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2017, 243, 1157–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dobermann, D.; Swift, J.A.; Field, L.M. Opportunities and Hurdles of Edible Insects for Food and Feed. Nutr. Bull. 2017, 42, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional Composition and Safety Aspects of Edible Insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 802–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tzompa-Sosa, D.A.; Yi, L.; Van Valenberg, H.J.F.; Van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Lakemond, C.M.M. Insect Lipid Profile: Aqueous versus Organic Solvent-Based Extraction Methods. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Khoushab, F.; Yamabhai, M. Chitin Research Revisited. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 1988–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bosch, G.; Zhang, S.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; Hendriks, W.H. Protein Quality of Insects as Potential Ingredients for Dog and Cat Foods. J. Nutr. Sci. 2014, 3, e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ojha, S.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.; Grune, T.; Schlüter, O.K. Bioavailability of Nutrients from Edible Insects. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 41, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lu, M.-X.; Zhu, C.-X.; Smetana, S.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, H.-B.; Zhang, F.; Du, Y.-Z. Minerals in Edible Insects: Review of Content and Potential for Sustainable Sourcing. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2023, 13, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mlček, J.; Adámek, M.; Adámková, A.; Borkovcová, M.; Bednářová, M.; Skácel, J. Detection of Selected Heavy Metals and Micronutrients in Edible Insect and Their Dependency on the Feed Using XRF Spectrometry. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2017, 11, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Christensen, D.L.; Orech, F.O.; Mungai, M.N.; Larsen, T.; Friis, H.; Aagaard-Hansen, J. Entomophagy among the Luo of Kenya: A Potential Mineral Source? Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2006, 57, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ray, M.; Gangopadhyay, D. Effect of Maturation Stage and Sex on Proximate, Fatty Acid and Mineral Composition of Eri Silkworm (Samia ricini) from India. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 100, 103898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elemo, B.O.; Elemo, G.N.; Makinde, M.; Erukainure, O.L. Chemical Evaluation of African Palm Weevil, Rhychophorus phoenicis, Larvae as a Food Source. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Van Der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Camenzuli, L.; Van Der Lee, M.K.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B. Uptake of Cadmium, Lead and Arsenic by Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens from Contaminated Substrates. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Truzzi, C.; Illuminati, S.; Girolametti, F.; Antonucci, M.; Scarponi, G.; Ruschioni, S.; Riolo, P.; Annibaldi, A. Influence of Feeding Substrates on the Presence of Toxic Metals (Cd, Pb, Ni, As, Hg) in Larvae of Tenebrio Molitor: Risk Assessment for Human Consumption. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kosečková, P.; Zvěřina, O.; Pěchová, M.; Krulíková, M.; Duborská, E.; Borkovcová, M. Mineral Profile of Cricket Powders, Some Edible Insect Species and Their Implication for Gastronomy. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 107, 104340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; Dierenfeld, E.S. An Investigation into the Chemical Composition of Alternative Invertebrate Prey. Zoo Biol. 2012, 31, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tong, L.; Yu, X.; Liu, H. Insect Food for Astronauts: Gas Exchange in Silkworms Fed on Mulberry and Lettuce and the Nutritional Value of These Insects for Human Consumption during Deep Space Flights. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2011, 101, 613–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Huis, A. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; FAO Forestry Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107595-1. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim, T.-K.; Yong, H.I.; Kim, Y.-B.; Kim, H.-W.; Choi, Y.-S. Edible Insects as a Protein Source: A Review of Public Perception, Processing Technology, and Research Trends. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2019, 39, 521–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Weesepoel, Y.; Silletti, E.; Alewijn, M.; Bernreuther, A. Importance of Harmonised Sample Preparation for Moisture and Protein Content Determinations in Official Food Control Laboratories: A Poultry Meat Case Study. Food Chem. 2019, 301, 125291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Li, C. The Role of Beef in Human Nutrition and Health. In Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science; Dikeman, M.E., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 329–338. ISBN 978-1-78676-060-9. [Google Scholar]
  58. Smil, V. Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and Consequences. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2002, 28, 599–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Calvo Buendia, E.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Zhai, P.; Slade, R.; Connors, S.; van Diemen, R. (Eds.) Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  60. Vicente, F.; Pereira, P.C. Pork Meat Composition and Health: A Review of the Evidence. Foods 2024, 13, 1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Specht, K.; Zoll, F.; Schümann, H.; Bela, J.; Kachel, J.; Robischon, M. How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study on the Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abdullahi, N.; Igwe, E.C.; Dandago, M.A.; Yunusa, A.K. Consumption of edible insects: Challenges and the prospects. Food ScienTech Journal. 2021, 3, 10468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Caparros Megido, R.; Gierts, C.; Blecker, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Haubruge, É.; Alabi, T.; Francis, F. Consumer Acceptance of Insect-Based Alternative Meat Products in Western Countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sogari, G.; Riccioli, F.; Moruzzo, R.; Menozzi, D.; Tzompa Sosa, D.A.; Li, J.; Liu, A.; Mancini, S. Engaging in Entomophagy: The Role of Food Neophobia and Disgust between Insect and Non-Insect Eaters. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 104, 104764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mlcek, J.; Rop, O.; Borkovcova, M.; Bednarova, M. A Comprehensive Look at the Possibilities of Edible Insects as Food in Europe—A Review. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2014, 64, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Belluco, S.; Losasso, C.; Maggioletti, M.; Alonzi, C.C.; Paoletti, M.G.; Ricci, A. Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 296–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kumar, A.; Zhang, K.Y.J. Human Chitinases: Structure, Function, and Inhibitor Discovery. In Targeting Chitin-Containing Organisms; Yang, Q., Fukamizo, T., Eds.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2019; Volume 1142, pp. 221–251. ISBN 9789811373176. [Google Scholar]
  69. Refael, G.; Riess, H.T.; Levi, C.S.; Magzal, F.; Tamir, S.; Koren, O.; Lesmes, U. Responses of the Human Gut Microbiota to Physiologically Digested Insect Powders or Isolated Chitin Thereof. Future Foods 2022, 6, 100197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morin-Crini, N.; Lichtfouse, E.; Torri, G.; Crini, G. Applications of Chitosan in Food, Pharmaceuticals, Medicine, Cosmetics, Agriculture, Textiles, Pulp and Paper, Biotechnology, and Environmental Chemistry. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1667–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mei, Z.; Kuzhir, P.; Godeau, G. Update on Chitin and Chitosan from Insects: Sources, Production, Characterization, and Biomedical Applications. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jantzen Da Silva Lucas, A.; Quadro Oreste, E.; Leão Gouveia Costa, H.; Martín López, H.; Dias Medeiros Saad, C.; Prentice, C. Extraction, Physicochemical Characterization, and Morphological Properties of Chitin and Chitosan from Cuticles of Edible Insects. Food Chem. 2021, 343, 128550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gachihi, A.; Tanga, C.; Nyambaka, H.; Kimiywe, J. Effect of Processing Methods on Nutrient and Anti-Nutrient Composition of Grasshopper and Termites. CyTA-J. Food 2023, 21, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sánchez-Estrada, M.D.L.L.; Aguirre-Becerra, H.; Feregrino-Pérez, A.A. Bioactive Compounds and Biological Activity in Edible Insects: A Review. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Imathiu, S. Benefits and Food Safety Concerns Associated with Consumption of Edible Insects. NFS J. 2020, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Murefu, T.R.; Macheka, L.; Musundire, R.; Manditsera, F.A. Safety of Wild Harvested and Reared Edible Insects: A Review. Food Control 2019, 101, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Francis, F.; Doyen, V.; Debaugnies, F.; Mazzucchelli, G.; Caparros, R.; Alabi, T.; Blecker, C.; Haubruge, E.; Corazza, F. Limited Cross Reactivity among Arginine Kinase Allergens from Mealworm and Cricket Edible Insects. Food Chem. 2019, 276, 714–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yashung, P.; Narah, J.; Megu, K.; Chakravorty, J. Benefits and Risks of Consuming Edible Insects. DNGCRJ 2020, 5, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Burton, O.T.; Zaccone, P. The Potential Role of Chitin in Allergic Reactions. Trends Immunol. 2007, 28, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Schroeckenstein, D.; Meierdavis, S.; Bush, R. Occupational Sensitivity to Tenebrio molitor linnaeus (Yellow Mealworm). J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 1990, 86, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mézes, M. Food Safety Aspect of Insects: A Review. Acta Aliment. 2018, 47, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Conway, A.; Jaiswal, S.; Jaiswal, A.K. The Potential of Edible Insects as a Safe, Palatable, and Sustainable Food Source in the European Union. Foods 2024, 13, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Acosta-Estrada, B.A.; Reyes, A.; Rosell, C.M.; Rodrigo, D.; Ibarra-Herrera, C.C. Benefits and Challenges in the Incorporation of Insects in Food Products. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 687712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Charlton, A.J.; Dickinson, M.; Wakefield, M.E.; Fitches, E.; Kenis, M.; Han, R.; Zhu, F.; Kone, N.; Grant, M.; Devic, E.; et al. Exploring the Chemical Safety of Fly Larvae as a Source of Protein for Animal Feed. J. Insects Food Feed 2015, 1, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Committee, E.S. Risk Profile Related to Production and Consumption of Insects as Food and Feed. EFSA J. 2015, 13, 4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Camenzuli, L.; Belluco, S.; Meijer, N.; Ricci, A. Food Safety Issues Related to Uses of Insects for Feeds and Foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 1172–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Poma, G.; Cuykx, M.; Amato, E.; Calaprice, C.; Focant, J.F.; Covaci, A. Evaluation of Hazardous Chemicals in Edible Insects and Insect-Based Food Intended for Human Consumption. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 100, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Lange, K.W.; Nakamura, Y. Edible Insects as Future Food: Chances and Challenges. J. Future Foods 2021, 1, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 of 20 December 2017 establishing the Union list of novel foods in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods. Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, 351, 72–201.
  90. Mishyna, M.; Keppler, J.K.; Chen, J. Techno-Functional Properties of Edible Insect Proteins and Effects of Processing. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 56, 101508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, H.-W.; Setyabrata, D.; Lee, Y.; Jones, O.G.; Kim, Y.H.B. Effect of House Cricket (Acheta domesticus) Flour Addition on Physicochemical and Textural Properties of Meat Emulsion Under Various Formulations. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2787–2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bußler, S.; Rumpold, B.A.; Jander, E.; Rawel, H.M.; Schlüter, O.K. Recovery and Techno-Functionality of Flours and Proteins from Two Edible Insect Species: Meal Worm (Tenebrio molitor) and Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Stone, A.K.; Tanaka, T.; Nickerson, M.T. Protein Quality and Physicochemical Properties of Commercial Cricket and Mealworm Powders. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 3355–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kröncke, N.; Böschen, V.; Woyzichovski, J.; Demtröder, S.; Benning, R. Comparison of Suitable Drying Processes for Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 50, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yi, L.; Lakemond, C.M.M.; Sagis, L.M.C.; Eisner-Schadler, V.; Van Huis, A.; Van Boekel, M.A.J.S. Extraction and Characterisation of Protein Fractions from Five Insect Species. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 3341–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wu, H.; Morbidelli, M. A Model Relating Structure of Colloidal Gels to Their Elastic Properties. Langmuir 2001, 17, 1030–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pali-Schöll, I.; Binder, R.; Moens, Y.; Polesny, F.; Monsó, S. Edible Insects—Defining Knowledge Gaps in Biological and Ethical Considerations of Entomophagy. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 2760–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Żuk-Gołaszewska, K.; Gałęcki, R.; Obremski, K.; Smetana, S.; Figiel, S.; Gołaszewski, J. Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An Overview. Insects 2022, 13, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Traynor, A.; Burns, D.T.; Wu, D.; Karoonuthaisiri, N.; Petchkongkaew, A.; Elliott, C.T. An Analysis of Emerging Food Safety and Fraud Risks of Novel Insect Proteins within Complex Supply Chains. NPJ Sci. Food 2024, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Van Der Sluijs, J.P. Insect Decline, an Emerging Global Environmental Risk. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 46, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.