www.nature.

com/npjscifood

REVIEW ARTICLE OPEN

An analysis of emerging food safety and fraud risks of novel

insect proteins within complex supply chains
A. Traynor1, D. Thorburn Burns1, D. Wu2, N. Karoonuthaisiri1,3,4, A. Petchkongkaew 4,5
and C. T. Elliott1,4,5 ✉

Food consumption play a crucial role in human life, yet conventional food production and consumption patterns can be
detrimental to the environment. Thus, research and development has been directed towards alternative proteins, with edible
insects being promising sources. Edible insects have been recognised for their sustainable benefits providing protein, with less
emission of greenhouse gas, land and water usage compared to sources, such as beef, chicken, and dairy products. Among the over
2000 known edible insect species, only four, namely yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), migratory locust/grasshopper (Locusta
migratoria), grain mould beetle, also known as lesser mealworm which is a larval form of Alphitobius diaperinus (from the family of
Tenebrionidae of darkling beetles) and house cricket (Acheta domesticus), are currently authorised in specific products through
specific producers in the EU. The expansion of such foods into Western diets face challenges such as consumer barriers, gaps in
microbiological and chemical safety hazard data during production and processing, and the potential for fraudulent supply chain
activity. The main aim of this study was to map the supply chain, through interviews with personnel along the supply chain,
coupled with searches for relevant publications and governmental documents. Thus, the main potential points of food safety and
1234567890():,;

fraud along the edible insect supply chain were identified. Feed substrate was identified as the main area of concern regarding
microbiological and chemical food safety and novel processing techniques were forecast to be of most concern for future
fraudulent activity. Despite the on-going authorisation of insect species in many countries there are substantial food safety and
authenticity information gaps in this industry that need to be addressed before edible insects can be viewed as a safe and
sustainable protein sources by Western consumers.
npj Science of Food (2024)8:7 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-023-00241-y

INTRODUCTION to exponentially increase over the next few years, as a sustainable

Is there need for another novel protein in our food and feed alternative to resource-intensive meat protein production4,5.
markets? Edible insects exhibit many sustainability and nutritional
Food production and consumption plays a vital role in human life; advantages compared to conventional animal protein sources6.
however, consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the Rumpold & Schülter7 defines insect proteins as, a ‘complete source
impacts of unsustainable production methods. Despite the of high-quality proteins’ in addition to a good source of fats, fibre,
challenge of feeding an estimated 10 billion people by 2050, vitamins and minerals such as iron and calcium. They can be
conventional livestock industries have been criticised for their consumed at different life stages such as eggs, larvae and adults,
resource-intensive production methods1. Today’s consumers have adding to their potential as a sustainable protein source8.
the power to reconfigure the global food system through their Moreover, vertical farming, whereby insects are reared in stacked
demands for safe, sustainable and authentic food choices. Driven cultivation layers, maximises production per square metre and
by consumer demands and market opportunities, research and reduces the demand for arable land. Some studies have reported
development have been conducted on alternatives to meat up to ten times greater yield vertically farmed as opposed to
protein products, with EY Food and Agriculture2 forecasting this traditional farming methods and less water usage9–11. Addition-
industry to replace 5–10% of the global meat market by 2030, ally, the ability of insects to utilise food waste streams and convert
from less than 1% in 2020. them into high quality protein reduces their ecological footprint
Owing to the nutritional and environmental advantages of by less water usage and emission of GHG’s12. At first glance, edible
entomophagy, research and opinions have pointed to edible insects seem to be a simple solution to the challenge of food
insects as the most promising alternative protein sources. insecurity within a rising population, however, many of these
Entomophagy, the consumption of insects, currently takes place sustainability claims are dependent on insect species, rearing
in over 120 countries world-wide, the majority in Asia and Africa3,4. conditions and processing.
However, recently, Western countries have developed interests in The environmental sustainability of large-scale insect farming to
edible insects as potential sustainable protein sources. In line with include rearing, harvesting and production is largely unknown,
consumer demand for sustainable and transparent products, the and therefore makes it difficult to compare to the future
mass rearing of edible insects for feed and food has been forecast sustainability of traditional livestock farming13. Despite increased

1
Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL Northern Ireland, UK. 2National Measurement Laboratory: Centre of
Excellence in Agriculture and Food Integrity, Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast, Northern
Ireland BT9 5DL, UK. 3National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, National Science and Technology Development Agency, 111 Thailand Science Park,
Phahonyothin Road, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. 4International Joint Research Centre on Food Security (IJC-FOODSEC), 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khong
Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand. 5School of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, 99 Mhu 18, Phahonyothin road,
Khong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand. ✉email: [email protected]

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University

 A. Traynor et al.
2
efforts, there is an imperative need for more investigation and looking at consumerism barriers towards edible insects in Western
research into this area, such as the feeding, housing, transporta- countries or the cultural importance of entomophagy in Eastern
tion and storage of specific insect species and their subsequent countries. In addition to online databases, a grey literature search
food/feed products. This research will prevent current environ- was conducted to identify relevant articles and documents from
mentally taxing food production methods being replaced with governmental agencies on the potential integration of edible
equally harmful insect production methods. Ultimately, insects are insects into Western European diets. The grey literature used in
not a panacea, but may be a step in the right direction towards this review was primarily sourced from European governmental
providing nutritional food for an exponentially increasing global agencies such as the EU Commission, and European Food Safety
population, whilst reducing the environmental footprint of Authority (EFSA). From these, additional authorities such as the
traditional agricultural systems. World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture
Research and commercial activities into insects as viable Organisation (FAO) were sourced to provide information regard-
sources of protein for feed and food products have accelerated ing the design of laws and regulations of the production, trade
over the past decade, in line with increased consumer demand for and consumption of edible insects on the EU market. Literature
environmentally friendly food. However, studies have reported which identified evidence for hazards associated with insects
challenges to the scaling up insect production systems, with many consumed as food was systematically assessed from late 2021 to
gaps in knowledge, all requiring careful analysis before the early 2023.
environmental benefits of edible insect products can be
quantified5. The sustained growth of the edible insect industry The systematic investigation of food fraud databases. Rapid Alert
faces many challenges, especially in Western countries from System for Food and Feed (RASFF), an online food safety system
consumer barriers, restrictive novel food legislation, concerns in and Tridge, the on-line food and agriculture database network for
emerging food allergy, the safety of insect processing techniques trading commodities were found through a Google search of ‘EU
and possible fraudulent supply chains14,15, all which need food fraud databases.’ They were used to identify food safety and
addressing before any significant shift towards entomophagy in authenticity issues of edible insect products using the key terms,
Western diets. ‘insect protein’ or ‘edible insect’. The notifications (RASFF, 23 and
The rearing of insects as novel safe and sustainable food Tridge, 2) were assessed based on their relevancy, and subse-
1234567890():,;

products has shown to give both benefits and challenges. Some of quently included or excluded from this review as most of the
the limitations hindering the global reach of the edible insect’s results sourced food safety notices of insects being a contamina-
industry have been highlighted such as a lack of production tion in food, rather than identifying it as the food itself which is
legislation, and the challenge of the use of waste streams as feed not within the scope of this review.
substrates to reduce the ecological impact of production.
The online interviews with key stakeholders. A total of 18
The main aims of this review and how the analysis was individuals from food companies and entomophagy researchers
conducted were contacted, of these only four individuals from companies,
With a growing curiosity and demand among Western consumers, and one researcher replied. Of the four industry stakeholders, two
insect proteins remain at a high risk of food fraud and their were from European insect food-based companies, (one involved
vulnerability has not yet been reviewed. The main aim herein is to in the rearing and processing, and the other solely processing), the
map out the insect supply chain, based on current publications third was from a European insect feed company (involved in
and online interviews with key players within the edible insect processing only), and the last was an individual from a Northern
industry in the European Union. Due to a lack of evidence on Irish meat company with interest in expanding to the insect
fraudulent activity within the edible insect industries, this study proteins market. The academic individual is a Senior Lecturer at
has analysed all available literature, EU legislation on food fraud Queens University, Belfast with a research focus on alternative
and databases regarding edible insect proteins. This has identified feed sources for livestock, including insects, with a goal of
points of fraud vulnerability along the supply chain so that identifying technologies and nutritional practices to reduce the
potential mitigation measures could be suggested to combat environmental impact of conventional sources of protein.
potential frauds. The interviews were carried out in three steps. Firstly, the
Three approaches namely (1) a literature search, (2) a systematic content and main aims of this research were explained. Secondly,
investigation of food fraud databases and (3) online interviews the interviewees were asked to introduce themselves, their
with key stakeholders within the edible insect industry were companies and their roles within the insect industry. Lastly, the
conducted to map out the insect protein supply chain and to interviewees were asked to answer questions about their
identify points where safety hazards and fraud activities are most products, supply chains and potential areas of food safety and
likely to occur. fraudulent activities, the questions used are in Supplementary
Data Section. The information from interviewees and their
affiliated companies was confidential and not to be published.
The literature search. Online peer-reviewed literature databases, The information obtained was held in line with General Data
Web of Science Core Collection and SCOPUS, were searched for Protection Rights and used in mapping out the insect supply
relevant literature on the production of edible insects, including chain. The interviewee’s opinions about food safety and fraudu-
processing and the potential food safety risks. The databases were lent activities around insect proteins and products helped to
searched using terms specific for this review: in general, ‘edible locate the potential vulnerabilities along the insect protein
insect’ OR ‘entomophagy’, for food safety, ‘food safety’ OR supply chain.
‘microbiological contamination’ OR ‘chemical contamination’ OR
‘supply chain’ OR ‘processing’ and for food fraud, ‘food fraud’ OR
‘fraudulent activity’ OR ‘authenticity’. Due to the limited previous The approval and expansion of insect species onto the
research on the safety aspects of entomophagy, the search was European market
not narrowed by publication year, country, or other parameters. With growing interest towards edible insects in the EU, owing to
Selection was employed to identify articles relevant through their their potential environmental and food security benefits, EFSA16
title. After this test, the abstracts were screened, and for those published their first scientific risk assessment on food safety and
deemed suitable, the full papers were examined. Some papers allergenic concerns associated with the production and consump-
were excluded if they were beyond the scope of this review, tion of insect products intended for feed and food. According to

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University
 A. Traynor et al.
3
the EU’s regulation on Novel Foods (NF), which encompasses 2019, approximately 75% was in the form of powdered insect
edible insects (EU 2015/2283), food companies who wish to place ingredients21. Incorporating ground insects into familiar foods
NF’s on the EU market must submit a company-specific helps to break down negative consumer barriers of disgust and
application for authorisation. When accepted, this grants the aversion to entomophagy among European consumers. However,
company the sole right for marketing this product for 5 years, and this processing may expose EU insect products and snacks to
a safety assessment by EFSA is published within 9 months of fraudulent activity along the supply chain.
verified application16. It may be the case that multiple companies Before processing into a powdered protein, the fats and oils of
hold authorisation of the same insect species as a novel food edible insects can be extracted usually by method of mechanical
product, such as Tenebrio molitor, however, when applying for pressing or aqueous based oil extraction. More than 30% of the
authorisation it is likely that food companies will request data total weight of lesser mealworm is fat content23, and although
protection of their product and methods. The most recent EU species-dependent, these oils contain easily digestible fatty acids
regulations (2017/2469 and 2017/893) specify stringent require- and other essential nutrients, making it an excellent high energy
ments of insect protein production regarding substrate used when animal feed product24. However, whether fats and oils are
applying for the commercialisation of insect products onto the extracted prior to processing is dependent on the intentions of
market17. It could be argued that these restrictive parameters the final product, such as its desired nutritional profile, texture and
hinder the potentially exponential growth of the EU insect market, use within the food industry. Furthermore, the waste stream
however, these regulations are developed under the Precau- produced from insect production, consisting of moulting skin
tionary Principle to ensure food and feed safety of a largely under (exuviae) and insect faeces, is collectively known as insect frass25,
researched industry. has been reported to be a high-quality soil fertiliser due to its high
Among the over 2000 known edible insect species, only four, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus content (see Table 1)26–30.
namely yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), migratory locust/
grasshopper (Locusta migratoria), grain mould beetle, also known The edible insect supply chain
as lesser mealworm which is a larval form of Alphitobius diaperinus
The supply chain and trading channels of insects depend on their
(from the family of Tenebrionidae of darkling beetles) and house
geographic origin and country of intended consumption. In Asian
cricket (Acheta domesticus), are currently authorised in specific
countries, such as Thailand, the insect supply chain is generally
products through specific producers in the EU18. For example, SAS
short with a small-scale distribution as they are minimally
EAP Group, France submitted the request for dried Tenebrio
processed or packaged31. However, the edible insect supply chain
molitor larvae to be used as whole, dried insects in snacks and as a
in EU is more complex, given the need for processing into other
food ingredient19. In addition to this, Nutri’Earth and Ynsect in
food products due to lingering consumerism barriers32,33.
France and the Belgian Insect Industry Federation in Belgium
Pippinato34 reported 65% of EU insect company’s imported whole
submitted NF applications for Tenebrio molitor within their
insects from Asian countries to process and retail in the EU, while
products. Following a stringent scientific and risk assessment by
only 12 out of 59 EU insect companies produced their own raw
EFSA, these insects have been approved within these specific
materials.
products. Currently, eight novel food applications for insects are
The EU edible insect supply chain follows a traditional food
awaiting safety evaluations to include Alphitobius diaperinus by
commodity including the rearing, harvesting, and processing
Proti-Farm Holding NV in the Netherlands and Hermetia illucens by
(Fig. 1). This figure has been mapped out with aid from online
Enorm Biofactory in Denmark18,20. These applications and
interviews with key stakeholders along the insect supply chain
authorisations are significant milestones in the acceptance and
to include individuals from EU insect food and feed companies,
expansion of the edible insect industry in Europe, as consumerism
and an individual involved in academia focused on the viability
barriers intrinsic to this type of food product are challenged and
and sustainability of insects as a feed source. In addition to this,
broken down.
the remaining parts of the supply chain were mapped out
Due to the demand for sustainable, high protein foods over the
through analysis of scientific studies on the rearing and
past decade, market evaluations by the International Platform of
processing of insects, and EU governmental risk assessments
Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF)21 have forecast that 39 million EU
detailing food safety parameters during the production of edible
consumers will incorporate insects in their diet by 2030, an
insects (Table 235–44).
increase of over 400% from 9 million in 2019. However, this
Only adult insects have been mapped as one of the final
expansion poses challenges for EU regulatory food safety bodies
products, not their larval form, as the review analysis into
in the safety processing methods and the viability of utilising
processing and its subsequent effects on food safety have been
organic waste streams as insect feed. Continued research and risk
investigated on adult insects. In addition to this, organic waste has
assessment into entomophagy in Western countries will support
been included as a feed source for insects within Fig. 1 to
the approval of insect products in the EU and encourage our food
highlight the potential self-sustaining, environmental benefits of
supply to become more regenerative and circular to provide for an
edible insects through their circular economy. However, as an
exponentially increasing global population.
emerging industry with increasing demand for sustainable food
within Western countries, EU insect industry has to broaden their
Different forms of insects for consumption and their by- sourcing globally to non-EU insect producers. The supply chain
products for other applications map (Fig. 1) with substantial import and export avenues along the
The global edible insect market, as a niche but expanding industry insect supply chain in EU shows particular points of vulnerability in
among Western countries, is not only segmented by the safety and fraud within the supply chain.
geography of consumption, insect species, the forms in which From the insect supply chain (Fig. 1), feed substrates can be
they are consumed and the agricultural uses of the organic waste seen as sources of microbiological and chemical threats to the
they produce). Whole insects, whether fresh or processed supply chain, through harmful bacteria, heavy metals, viruses,
(roasting, frying, or boiling), are consumed mainly in Eastern mycotoxins and prions45. However, the environmental benefits of
countries such as Thailand and India, where entomophagy is part insects in feeds and foods are based on the nutritional flexibility
of their traditional cultures, whereas edible insects in Western and ability of insect species to utilise a range of food waste
countries are often fortified into familiar food products such as streams as feeds, converting them into high quality proteins35,46.
baked goods, pasta or snacks as ground or powdered forms7,22. Of This reduces the need for resources such as water and arable land
500 tonnes of insect-based foods produced by EU businesses in during food production, whilst also reducing the need for feed

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2024) 7
 A. Traynor et al.
4
Table 1. The common forms of insect’s products and their organic waste.

Form Description of insect product/waste Visual

Fresh whole Fresh whole insects are sold on the market with no processing.
insects These products are usually found at street food markets in
Eastern countries such as China and Thailand7.

26

Whole dried Whole dried insects are whole insects which have had their
insects moisture removed by drying. Drying may be simple air drying or
by means of heat27. These techniques are popular in countries
where entomophagy has been practiced for years such as Asian
countries. There is very little consumption of whole dried insects
in the EU at current, without further processing.

Ground dried Ground dried or powdered insects are obtained by drying

insects insects, usually through heat or freeze drying. For some species
such as locusts, the head and legs are removed. Next, the
remaining insect is ground into a fine powder7. This form is
gaining popularity in Western countries to fortify familiar foods
and to increase the protein content such as protein bars and
baked goods.

Insect oils/fats Insect oils are the fats which have been extracted from insects,
usually by means of fractionation, mechanical pressing or
aqueous based extraction methods. Currently, the main
application of insect oils is in the animal feed industry as a high
energy, high fatty acid additive, however, some studies have
shown potential applications as food ingredients or table oils28.

Insect oils: Beetle Larvae (LM),

Cockroach (CO) and Cricket (CR)29
Insect frass Insect frass is a by-product obtained from insect food and feed
production to include spent feedstock, faeces and exuviae25,30.
Therefore, insect frass contains chitin from the exoskeletons of
insects, which is broken down by microorganisms in the soil.
High in nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, insect frass can be
used to improve the quality and fertility of soils.

26

Pictures for whole dried insects and ground dried insects were captured by the author.

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University
 A. Traynor et al.
5

Fig. 1 The Edible Insect Supply Chain, representative of EU insects and products. This figure has been mapped out with aid from online
interviews with key stakeholders along the insect supply chain and analysis of scientific studies on the rearing and processing of insects, and
EU governmental risk assessments detailing food safety parameters during the production of edible insects.

from other livestock industries. According to UNEP47, almost 20% In the race to provide an increasing world population with safe
of global food available to consumers was wasted in 2019 and and alternative proteins, there has been much investigation into
some would argue that this could have been used as a feed the differing levels of bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other
substrate for insect protein production. However, there is much contaminants among edible insects through feed substrates.
concern for the safety of subsequent food and feed chains from Camenzuli53 conducted feeding trials spiked with different
waste streams as insect feed. Waste food may contain foodborne mycotoxins (Aflatoxin B1, deoxynivalenol (DON), ochratoxin A
pathogens and chemical hazards, harmful to human health36, and and zearalenone) at levels above those of the EU’s maximum
therefore, under EU food and feed laws (Regulation 1069/2009), limits and reported no harmful accumulation in the larvae of
the use of waste stream feeds for edible insect production is black soldier fly or lesser mealworm. Van der Fels-Klerx54
prohibited21. investigated the viability of Tenebrio molitor (yellow mealworm)
EU legislation does not provide ‘insect-specific’ guidance on and Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly, BSF) larvae as a safe food
microbiological or chemical limits in substrates, but these must source by assessing bioaccumulation of cadmium, lead, and
meet the same regulatory and contamination guidelines as animal arsenic in spiked feeding trials whereby insect feed substrate was
feed, according to Directive 2002/32/EC48. Therefore, the safety of spiked at 0.5, 1, and 2 times those of EU maximum allowable
subsequent insect feed and food chains is largely dependent on limits (ML). The lead and arsenic concentrations in BSF residual
material were higher than in the BSF larvae, conveying that these
the rearing conditions and feed substrate of insects. Data from
species were efficient in excreting these two elements. However,
IPIFF21 has revealed that only 28% of EU insect feed and food
in the mealworm, arsenic concentrations were lower in residual
companies are involved in the rearing, right through to processing
material than the larvae, whereas lead concentrations in the
the final product, leaving most companies to source whole dried mealworm residual matter were up to 60 times found in the
insects to further process into products fit for EU consumers. mealworms. Dallinger55 studied the ability of insects to inactivate
Consequently, the regulation and monitoring of feed safety toxic metals through intracellular compartmentalisation by
parameters during the rearing of insects intended for the EU method of vesicle sequestration of toxic substances into their
feed and food markets is paramount to ensure the safety of these exoskeleton, and it could be suggested that higher lead
supply chains and will prevent any hazardous materials impacting concentrations in the BSF larval exuviate than in larvae or feed
negatively upon human and animal health. is due to sequestration into the insects’ exoskeleton. Other
Numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the research has been conducted in this area, Lindqvist56 and
viability of food waste streams as feeds across a range of insect Pederson57 have concluded that BSF larvae have a significantly
species. A plethora of waste streams has been explored, including higher number of Ca2+ channels compared to other insect
spent grains, beer yeast, potato peelings, waste plant tissues and species, and from this they have theorised these channels to
grocery store food waste after aerobic enzymatic digestion49–51. facilitate removal of toxic substances. When a high heavy metal
Some of these sources require additional processing to ensure concentration is detected, these channels actively pump heavy
their microbiological safety before being used as insect feeds, but metals across the cell membranes, and into vesicles which
few economic evaluations exist on this aspect35,52. inactivate and store the toxic substances within the insect

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2024) 7
 A. Traynor et al.
6
Table 2. Review table to summarise the literature used to map the EU edible insect supply chain.

Author, year Insect Species Step in supply chain Study description and process

IPIFF21 Applicable to all insect species Feed substrate Assessment of EU legislation on edible insects as ‘farmed
animals’ and the prohibition of organic food waste streams as
insect feed substrate
Fowles & Nansen35 Black soldier fly, housefly, yellow Feed substrate Exploration of suitable food-waste-to-insect species pairings
mealworm, Cambodian field crickets to increase the capacity, efficiency and safety of using food
waste as feed substrate
Ojha et al.36 Applicable to all insect species Feed substrate (circular Assessment of the current status of insect processing and
economy of insects) their potential contribution to a circular economy through
food waste valorisation
Wynants et al.37 Mealworm larvae Starvation Mealworm larvae were starved 24 and 48 h before harvest.
Starvation did not reduce microbial numbers when
compared to control group
Inacio, et al.38 House cricket Starvation 24 and 48 h starvation before harvest increased the Total
Aerobic Count (TAC) and decreased fat content of insects
EFSA22 Applicable to all insect species Feed substrate, harvest Scientific risk profile to assess the potential biological,
and processing chemical and allergenic hazards associated with edible
insects in feed and food. Through this, the entire supply chain
was taken into account
Caparros Medigo Fresh mealworms, house crickets, Processing (blanching, Processed samples had a lower TAC than untreated insect
et al.39 smoked termites and caterpillars freeze-drying and products, portraying that processing improved the food
sterilisation) safety of edible insects, however, the efficacy of processing
treatments was often species dependent.
Klunder et al.40 Mealworm larvae and house cricket Processing and storage Assessment of the microbial load of fresh, processed and
stored mealworm larvae and house cricket. A short heating
step was effective in eliminating Entereobacteriaceae, but
some spore-forming bacteria remained. Drying and acidifying
methods were promising, but on a species-to-species basis.
Melgar-Lalanne et Applicable to all insect species Traditional and novel Highlights the range of different processing techniques of
al.41 processing techniques edible insects, both conventional and novel, but also the lack
of research into the efficiency of these specific to insect
species.
Amarender et al.42 Crickets Protein and lipid A combination of lipid extraction using ethanol and protein
extraction extraction by method of using sodium hydroxide or ascorbic
acid to maximise the efficiency of protein extraction.
Luo et al.43 Cicada slough, silkworm chrysalis, Chitin extraction A comparison of the physiochemical and morphological
yellow mealworm, grasshopper and characteristics of the chitin exoskeleton of insects through
shrimp shells alcohol based extraction methods
Soon et al.44 Superworm (Zophobas morio) Chitin extraction Deproteinisation of protein content in chitin of superworms
through method of sodium hydroxide extraction
Tzompa-Sosa et Yellow mealworm, lesser mealworm, Lipid extraction Comparison of aqueous-based lipid extraction methods and
al.28 house cricket and the Dubia organic solvent-based extraction methods, and the effect this
cockroach had on fatty acid composition per insect species.

exoskeleton. The heavy metals no longer threaten the insect’s have much lower ecological and carbon footprints than
health, and this would therefore explain the accumulation of conventional sources of protein such as beef and poultry, with
cadmium in the exuviate of these species. However, this area of the majority of energy usage in insect production used for the
investigation is under researched and requires further investiga- maintenance of climate-controlled conditions for the poiki-
tion from the scientific community. Consequently, it can be lothermic species60–62.
concluded that individual element uptake and bioaccumulation Baiano63 has predicted the EU and North American edible insect
of harmful compounds in insects varies from species to species, market to grow by up to 43% by 2024. Therefore, for insects to be
including their ability to excrete heavy metals through faecal considered a safe and viable protein source, it is crucial that EU ML
matter or inactivation through vesicle sequestration, calling for of microbiological and chemical contaminants (Reg 2017/2470)16
further research and revision into the EU’s ML for toxic
are continually assessed on a species-to-species basis as insect
substances in insects.
products continued to be approved onto the EU market. The
The additional processing and transport of insect products
intended for consumption in Western countries add to the insect industry boasts their potential sustainability advantages
carbon footprint of production58. These additional processing over conventional sources of protein production; however, this is
and transport are energy intensive, as modelled by the life cycle dependent on further investigation into the safe utilisation of
assessment of black soldier flies by59. The question to be asked waste streams as feeds. Consequentially, the long-term sustain-
is how much more sustainable, if at all, is edible insect able insect production in Western countries lies with specific
production when compared to other conventional sources of legislation to guide the use of safe, economic, and high-quality
protein? Despite this, many studies have shown edible insects to waste streams as insect feed substrates.

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University
 A. Traynor et al.
7
The microbiological, chemical and allergenic threat of edible in Gryllus bimaculatus together with cross-reactivity to Macro-
insects towards human health, and potential mitigation brachium spp78.
measures to improve food safety Scientific studies investigating the risk from allergens and their
An extensive risk assessment by EFSA in 2018 among other detection have concluded that the potency of allergens found in
scientific studies has identified high bacterial numbers within differing insect proteins respond under different processing
edible insect production and alarming food safety concerns63. techniques7,27,79,80. Pali-Schöll81 determined that when exposed to
Some of the studies identifying the microbiological threats found severe heat treatments or enzymatic hydrolysis, the immunoreac-
in edible insects include Salmonella spp. and Enterobacteriaceae in tivity of migratory locust was eliminated, whereas studies by De
black soldier fly64; Bacillus cereus in black soldier fly65 and yeasts Marchi27 and Leni75 highlighted the inefficiencies of such treatments
and moulds in house cricket66 to name a few. on the immunoreactivity of insect proteins found in house crickets
Klunder40 reported findings of Enterobacteriaceae, Lactic Acid and black soldier fly. In addition to this, it is important to consider
Bacteria and Bacterial endospores present in a study investigating the impact of the food matrix on the allergenic potency of insect
the microbiological content of whole edible insects as fresh, proteins, as due to consumerism barriers posed by Western
processed and stored. He reported increased bacteria present in consumers, insect proteins are often added to familiar food products
edible insects, after implementing a ‘crushing’ step before such as pasta or bread to enrich their nutrient qualities82. Other
processing and consumption. The Total Viable Count (TVC) in evidence found from dogs has revealed that insect protein may also
lesser mealworm increased from 1.7 cfu/g in whole larvae to 2.5 pose allergy risks in animals as feed83. However, more studies and a
cfu/g in crushed larvae, even after 10 min of boiling. Similarly, larger evidence base are needed to enhance our current knowledge
whole roasted lesser mealworm had 2.2cfu/g of Enterobacter- about food allergy risks that will be introduced by insects.
iaceae, and this increased to 2.6 cfu/g for larvae that has been From these studies, it is apparent that further research into the
crushed, even after 10 min of roasting. Klunder40 hypothesised allergenicity of specific insect proteins is required to determine the
that this was likely the result of the release of bacteria-containing route of sensitisation, and the minor and major allergens associated
waste from the insects. This has been the only scientific study in with each of the four insect species approved as a novel food by
literature which carries out a ‘crushing’ step, and consequentially, the EU. As more insect-based foods trickle into the EU food market,
the microbiological threat to subsequent food chains has it is imperative that the effect of processing on the safety of insect-
increased. However, some producers have recognised this and based foods needs further investigation to provide a representative
implemented a 24–48 h ‘fasting’ or ‘starvation’ step before harvest risk profile of the consumption of insect proteins on human health,
as a prerequisite for safety in subsequent feed and food chains. to include microbiological, chemical, and allergenic hazards.
The purpose of this is to eliminate any potential microbiological
and chemical hazards consumed by insects in their feed and The effect of different processing methods on differing insect
passed onto human food chains67. However, most studies have species regarding the food safety of the final product
highlighted the inefficiencies of this pre-harvest safety method. The processing of insects has also been identified as a vulnerability
For instance, Wynants37 reported that a 48-h starvation period did within the edible insect supply chain (Fig. 1). Unlike in Eastern
not lower the gut microbiota in edible insects. Similarly, Inacio38 countries where insects are often minimally processed to improve
reported an increase in the total aerobic count (TAC) from 7.3 log their sensory qualities and shelf life41. In Western countries, insects
cfu/g in the control group to 7.8 log cfu/g and 8.2 log cfu/g for the undergo more intensive processing through methods such as dry
24- and 48-h starvation groups, respectively. Furthermore, Inacio38 fractionation and enzymatic degradation into proteins, fats and
reported starvation decreased the fat content in insects, with chitin for various applications in the feed and food industries41. The
potential profit losses for producers and nutritional benefits for extensive processing is required to ‘mask’ insects within familiar food
consumers. Thus, these studies indicate that starvation is an products due to Western consumers’ view of insects as pests and
ineffective means to reduce microbial loads in edible insects. disease vectors, rather than as sustainable and nutritious protein
Moreover, controversy has arisen on the ethics of this practise, as sources. These processing steps improve their food safety as heat
insects are classed as ‘farmed animals’ under EU legislation16. treatment or drying methods reduce total counts of microbes40,84.
However, due to associations as pests and diseases, most Western However, it is important to consider the microbial content of insects
consumers do not view insects as animals, and in the interests of before harvest as Vandeweyer66 reported stable water activity (aw)
safety, do not see moral implications of this practise. (0.35 ± 0.04 and 0.98 ± 0.01) during the storage of oven-dried crickets
In addition to the potential microbiological and chemical and frozen crickets, respectively. However, smoked crickets displayed
threats of edible insects, it has been discovered that a a marginal increase in aw, showing the importance of appropriate
subpopulation of allergic individuals are more susceptible to risk processing and preservation of products, prior to use. Furthermore,
of edible insects due to allergenicity concerns sources45,68. In a Vandeweyer85 confirmed that microbial load of edible insects
recent FAO review69,70 growing trends in food allergy driven by remained stable for up to 6 months in differing processed products,
alternative proteins, including insects, have been reported. presenting insect products as a safe, sustainable source of protein for
Although very few direct reports of clinical incidents or research health and environment-conscious consumers. Despite these studies,
on how insect proteins may have led to anaphylaxis can be found gaps remain about the safety of processing techniques and the
currently, the similarity of tropomyosin epitopes (as one of the microbiological content of finished insect products, and therefore
most commonly known allergens found in seafood) among the need for further extensive research is evident.
Arthropods may help foster an understanding of the allergenic Moreover, according to the IPIFF21, 36% of insect-based food
mechanisms. Therefore, humans which are allergic to shellfish/ companies in the EU are involved in the final processing of the
crustaceans and dust mites are likely to experience sensitisation insects for food, with less than a third involved in all stages of
and subsequent allergic reactions if insect proteins are consumed, production, from rearing to the final product. Thus, most of the
and this is attributable to cross-reactivities among the protein insects in EU insect snacks are imported, in agreement with
structures71. IgE-mediated cross-reactivities with shrimp have findings of Pippinato34. However, this processing, to meet Western
been reported for crickets (Acheta domesticus)27 and orthopteran consumer demands, coupled with import avenues of whole
(Gryllus bimaculatus)72. Meanwhile, insect proteins have displayed insects to be processed and sold in the EU, lengthens the supply
a diverse range of TM-associated IgE reactivity73,74 which were chain, exposing it to a greater risk of safety and fraud concerns.
linked to its amino acid sequence75 and structure76. Identification Thus far, the risks of food fraud within these alternative protein
of novel allergens in edible insect have also been reported77 and products have not been systematically studied.

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2024) 7
 A. Traynor et al.
8
The fraudulent concerns in insect proteins economic gain using food’87,88 and this can take form in many
Food fraud is a global issue of mounting significance, with the ways such as the deliberate adulteration of foods through
potential to cause harm to human and animal health86. Although addition, dilution, replacement or falsifying ‘country of origin’ or
the globalisation of our food chains brings many benefits to food production systems. As the complexity of food supply chains
choices and supplies, it can expose global food supply chains to grow, the transparency and control of the supply chain weakens.
fraudulent dealings. Similar to all food and commodities, the The mapping of the insect supply chain in this study illustrates the
motives of committing insect protein fraud are economically complexity that exists.
driven, with low chances of being detected at the present time.
Although there is no globally agreed definition of food fraud as
yet, it can be characterised by the ‘illegal intentional deception for Sparseness of research into edible insect fraud
As a novel and largely under-researched food product, risk
Types of non-compliances no fied to EFSA for assessment into the vulnerability of insect products to adulteration
food and feed fraud in 2020 is almost non-existent. When “‘insects’ AND ‘fraud’” were searched
on Web of Science and SCOPUS, a total of 17 articles were
found89,90. Of these, only two articles investigated the potential of
Mislabelling
fraud within insect products in relation to feed, while others
4%
13% primarily explore insects as being an undeclared and unauthorised
Documents pests present in foods, rather than as a type of food product. No
37% published study was found which investigated the potential fraud in
Addi on/
edible insect food supply chains. This is the first study, to the
21% author’s knowledge, to begin to address this topic. Insect-specific
Dilu on/Subs tu on
food authenticity regulations and standards are non-existent, which
Unapproved treatment greatly hampers combatting illegal activities along supply chains91.
and/or process Among various types of fraudulent non-compliances reported
25%
IPR infringement to EFSA in 2020 relating to food or feed, mislabelling and
documents represent almost two thirds of fraudulent activity
Fig. 2 The relative proportion of the types of non-compliance reported (Fig. 2). Furthermore, Table 3 describes the different
fraudulent activity within food and feed products notified to EFSA
in 2020.
possible types of fraudulent activity in the food insect industry.

Table 3. The different categories of fraud as notified to EFSA with the potential application of each type of fraud in the edible insect industry.

Food/feed fraud: Description of Fraudulent activity Potential application to the edible insect industry

Mislabelling/ Fraudulently placing false or misleading claims or False mislabelling of country of origin, production methods
Documents information on product packaging, often to appear as a or nutritional information such as protein or fats content,
premium product and thereby increase profit margins. etc. to deceive customers into thinking this is a premium
Mislabelling fraud may encompass false nutritional, product, thereby increasing the products price and profit
geographical, expiration date or quality claims. margins
Documents The process of tampering, adapting or imitating documents Documents relating to insect species, production methods,
relating to the identification, origin or production of food or feed substrate could be tampered with.
products such as animal passports and identification.
Addition The process of intentionally adding undeclared substances Undeclared substances which boost nitrogen content such
or elements into food/feed products which have not been as melamine could be added to insect products. The illegal
approved and are not declared on packaging. The addition of melamine or other nitrogenous compounds
substances added are often of an inferior quality for the would artificially inflate the apparent insect protein content
purpose of ‘bulking’ the product for financial gain. upon analysis. A major food safety risk would result.
Dilution/ Substitution The process of intentionally diluting or substituting a Insect protein powders could be substituted with lower
product of high value within a food product with another quality substances such as sawdust to increase profit
nutrient, ingredient or food, often of a lower value for margins. Other forms of lower cost protein (soya for
financial gain. Dilution often refers to liquids, whereas example) could be used as adulterants and thus trigger food
substitution refers to food products. allergy issues.
Unapproved treatment The process of intentionally carrying out unapproved The use of illegal or undeclared chemicals during insect
or process treatments during food production, and this can refer to the production such as pesticides or veterinary medicines which
use of pesticides, chemicals, veterinary medicines and have not been declared on the packaging.
growth promoters during production, or the incorrect
handling, packaging, transport and storage or products.
Concealment Fraudulently hiding the quality of ingredients or products Deceiving consumer through incorrect and non-transparent
such as contaminated, putrid meat and fish products treated quality of the product and nutritional information such as
with unauthorised food improvement agents or additives. the protein, fats, vitamin or mineral content.
IPR infringement Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringement refers to the As an emerging industry in Western countries, with few
fraudulent replication of any aspect of genuine packaging companies in the supply chain, it could be the case that
such as copying the brand name, logo, packaging or unauthorised products are fraudulently labelled with
processing method for economic gain. reputable supplier’s names and logos i.e., counterfeiting of
bona fide products

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University
 A. Traynor et al.
9
The Melamine Scandal as a possible model for fraud in the recognise this opportunity to exploit this novel industry and profit
edible insect industry through fraud. However, with continued approvals of insect
As a largely under examined sector, there are a wealth of species onto the EU market, coupled with an increased consumer
opportunities and vulnerabilities within the edible insect industry demand, the upscaling of production and trade in the EU is
for fraudsters to exploit as indicated in Table 3. For years, it has expected to bring costs down. In addition to this, the stringent
been known that the increasing demand for protein-containing application process, including detailed supplier regulations and
foods has placed them at increased risks of adulteration92. For processing parameters involved with authorising edible insect
example, in the 2008 Melamine Scandal in China, where dairy products onto the EU food market may act as protection against
products and infant formula were adulterated to boost their food fraud. Only company-specific applications which have been
nitrogen content, giving the illusion of higher protein content and approved by the EU Commission as a novel food product can be
thus higher value87,93. This nitrogen rich compound could not be legally sold on the EU market thereby acting as a deterrent for
distinguished from genuine milk proteins using the industry exploitation by food fraudsters.
standard Kjeldahl94 and Dumas methods of analysis. Their protein The approval of edible insect species onto the EU market as
content was artificially inflated for financial gain and was sold into novel foods, coupled with an increased consumer demand for
the market without any thought or understanding for the sustainable protein sources will allow these foods to move from
potential food safety crisis that would ensue95. Melamine, used niche to mainstream markets. Outdated attitudes regarding
in the production of industrial glues and plastics, was and is not insects as pest species are changing as younger, health-
approved for use in foods and feeds due to its toxicity96. Its conscious generations have become increasingly accepting and
addition to milk, infant formula and other milk derived products in inquisitive about edible insects due to their nutritional and
China resulted in six infant deaths and over 300,000 illnesses87. sustainability benefits. However, many gaps remain in the
The present authors have concerns that one of the most serious production and safety of these novel foods, such as a lack of
insect-specific legislation in regard to maximum contamination
forms of fraud that may be perpetrated in the insect protein
limits of microbiological and noxious chemicals in products. This
industry could be modelled on the Melamine Scandal.
lack of safety assessment hinders the market expansion of edible
For approval of a novel food in the EU market, the product or
insect containing foods. This first mapping of the edible insect
ingredient must undergo risk and food safety assessments for the
supply chain in this review will, in the view of the authors, be
protection of public health by EFSA. This also includes an
instrumental in identifying points of vulnerability in terms of food
investigation of the products nutritional value, and this data
safety along the supply chain to ensure consumer protection.
analysis of these methods has highlighted potential over-
Food fraud is a constant threat in all regions of the world,
estimation of the protein content in edible insects. Through the
particularly to new supply chains such as edible insects. The
Kjeldahl method of protein content measurement with a nitrogen
aversion of edible insects from Western consumers may expose
to protein conversion factor of 6.2594, the EFSA’s risk assessment these novel foods products to food fraud as insects are often
for the market approval of house cricket and yellow mealworm ground into a fine powder and incorporated into other more
reported an ‘overestimated protein content’22. It was concluded familiar foods. This makes these novel products more appealing to
that the inaccuracy of protein content was due to the detection of consume within the EU market, but consequently, an easy target
non-protein nitrogen from the exoskeleton of insects22. However, for food adulteration for financial gain. Therefore, it is challenging
this is of concern for the transparency and authenticity of edible to identify and quantify the fraud risks within the sector. This
insect products. This ‘loop-hole’ in analytical method as a result of study has used information gained from interviews with key
the body composition of ground insects by the Kjeldahl approach stakeholders along the insect supply chains, what is available in
presents an opportunity of fraud with these products. the literature and the Melamine Scandal as a model to identify
Similar to the outworking’s of the Melamine Scandal, it is likely potential supply chain frauds.
that fraudsters will exploit this similar vulnerability for financial Equally, as an increasing number of insect novel products enter
gain. Many would argue that the Melamine Scandal was due to our supply chains and supermarkets, consumers may not be aware
the uncontrolled expansion of the dairy industry in China, through of the potential dangers associated with the consumption of
demands of an exponentially increasing population. This could be edible insects. Therefore, as the popularity of insects in the
used as a prediction model for potential of fraudulent activity Western diet continues to climb, it is imperative that we protect
within the recent growth of insect-based industries, which has the insect industry from harmful and reputation-damaging fraud,
been forecast that 390 million EU consumers will eat insects in whilst protecting consumers of the potential food safety and
2030, a four-fold increase from the 2019 figure22. This raises the allergenic risks associated with insects. Similar to all food products,
question as to whether the edible insect supply chain is robust it could be argued that in one case, edible insects may be the
enough to sustain the increased production of safe and authentic target of fraudulent activities, whereas in other situations, insects
products in line with the increased demand. A thorough under- are the means of harm to humans and animals. Therefore, the
standing of the Melamine Scandal as a predictor model might insect supply chain mapped out within this review will help key
allow mitigation strategies for fraud with edible insects to be stakeholders to identify and establish precautionary measures
developed. This calls for the urgent implementation of regulatory towards areas of vulnerability of this novel industry towards fraud.
testing and guidance for food businesses regarding novel protein For example, protein analysis techniques used on insect powders
foods for the prevention of fraud and retention of consumer trust. and products should not use the Kjeldahl method of analysis to
Most food fraud frauds are motivated by financial gain, and this avoid the over-estimation of protein content and prevent an
will not be an exception in the edible insect industry. On average, opportunity of exploitation of these products to arise for
cricket protein powder costs £48.75/kg (Eat Grub; Gymsect; fraudsters to avail of at the expense of consumer health. Similarly,
Bugvita; Cricket Hop Co.), which is more expensive when compared the EU’s stringent guidelines and regulations of legally authorising
to other protein sources, such as vegan blends (£29.99/kg), soy an insect product onto the market will protect the industry and
protein isolate (£22.99/kg), pea isolate (£17.99/kg) and impact consumers alike and allow edible insects to have a positive impact
whey (£37.99/kg) from MyProtein97. Consequently, the higher within our supply chains, on human health and the sustainability
prices of insect proteins compared to other protein sources is of food production methods for an increasing global population.
another factor which places them at greater risk of fraud. With a To conclude, insects have come a long way from being seen as
premium price among protein products coupled with an increas- purely pests, to food in niche markets and to industrial production
ing consumer demand in Western countries, fraudsters may for the European consumer market and beyond. However, much

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2024) 7
 A. Traynor et al.
10
research and assessment are still required to fully understand the 24. Hexafly. Hexaoil 1 litre (2019). Available from: https://hexafly.site.xyz/shop/
future safety and fraud risks of insect-based foods. Without this product/hexaoil.
information consumers will be at risk and the burgeoning market 25. Houben, D., Daoulas, G. & Faucon, M. P. Potential use of mealworm frass as a
may suffer from a serious loss in confidence if a safety and/or fertilizer: Impact on crop growth and soil properties. Sci. Rep. 10, 4659 (2020).
26. Green Thumb. Organics Matter Insect Frass 1L (2020). Available from: https://
fraud major scandal occurs.
gthydro.co.za/products/1165-organics-matter-insect-frass-1l.html Accessed on
25th February 2022.
27. De Marchi, L. et al. Allergenicity assessment of the edible cricket Acheta
DATA AVAILABILITY domesticus in terms of thermal and gastrointestinal processing and IgE cross-
We declare that data sharing does not apply to our manuscript. This is a review article reactivity with shrimp. Food Chem. 359, 129878 (2021).
with no data analysed during the study. 28. Tzompa Sosa, D. A., Yi, L., Valenberg, H. J. F., van Boekel, M. A. J. S. & Lakemond, C.
M. M. Insect lipid profile: aqueous versus organic solvent-based extraction
Received: 20 May 2023; Accepted: 29 November 2023; methods. Food Res. Int. 62, 1087–1094 (2014).
29. Harrison-Dunn, A. Insect oils: Bugs just aren’t about protein. Food Navigator
(2015). Available from: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/08/19/
Insect-oil-Bugs-aren-t-just-about-protein Accessed on 24th February 2022.
30. Barragán-Fonseca, K. Y. et al. Insect frass and exuviae to promote plant growth
and health. Trends Plant Sci. 27, 646–654 (2022).
REFERENCES 31. Naseem, R., Majeed, W. & Rana, W. Entomophagy: an innovative nutritional and
1. Jantzen, Da Silva, L. Edible insects: An alternative of nutritional, functional and economic navigational tool in race of food security. Int J. Trop. Insect Sci. 41,
bioactive compounds. Food Chem. 311, 126022–126033 (2020). 2211–2221 (2021).
2. EY Food and Agriculture. Protein reimagined: challenges and opportunities in the 32. Hanboonsong, Y. & Durst, P. Guidance on sustainable cricket farming—A prac-
alternative meat industry (2021). Available from: https://www.ey.com/en_us/ tical manual. FAO. 84 https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2446en.
food-system-reimagined/protein-reimagined-challenges-and-opportunities-in- 33. Hartmann, C., & Bearth, A. Bugs on the menu: drivers and barriers of consumer
the-alternative-meat-industry. acceptance of insects as food. Edible Insects Food Sect. Springer, Cham 13
3. Jongema, Y. World List of Edible Insects. Wageningen Laboratory of Entomology (2019).
(2012). Available from: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/7/4/1/ca8baa25- 34. Pippinato, L., Gasco, L., di Vita, G. & Mancuso, T. Current scenario in the European
b035–4bd2–9fdc-a7df1405519aWORLD%20LIST%20EDIBLE%20INSECTS% edible-insect industry: a preliminary study. J. Insects Food Feed 6, 371–381 (2020).
202015.pdf. 35. Fowles, T. M. & Nansen, C. Insect-based bioconversion: value from food waste.
4. Kim, T.-K., Yong, H. I., Kim, Y.-B., Kim, H.-W. & Choi, Y.-S. Edible insects as protein Food Waste Manag. 13, 321–346 (2020).
source: a review of public perception processing technology and research trends. 36. Ojha, S., Bußler, S. & Schlüter, O. K. Food waste valorisation and circular economy
Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 39, 521–540 (2019). concepts in insect production and processing. Waste Manag. 118, 600–609
5. Miglietta, P., De Leo, F., Ruberti, M. & Massari, S. Mealworms for food: a water (2020).
footprint perspective. Water 7, 6190–6203 (2015). 37. Wynants, S. et al. Effect of post-harvest starvation and rinsing on the microbial
6. Tan, H. et al. Insects as food: exploring cultural exposure and individual experi- numbers and the bacterial community composition of mealworm larvae
ence as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 42, 78–89 (2015). (Tenebrio molitor). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 47, 8–15 (2017).
7. Rumpold and Schlüuter. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible 38. Inácio, I., Jansson, M., Vaga, S. & Fraqueza, M. J. Impact of starvation on fat
insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 57, 802–823 (2013). content and microbial load in edible crickets (Acheta domesticus). J. Insects Food
8. de Castro, R., Ohara, A., Santos Aguilar, J. & Domingues, M. Nutritional, functional Feed 7, 1143–1147 (2021).
and biological properties of insect proteins: processes for obtaining, consump- 39. Caparros Megido, R. et al. Microbiological load of edible insects found in Belgium.
tion and future challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 76, 82–89 (2018). Insects Food Sci. Technol. Int. 13, 12 (2017).
9. Asseng, S., Guarin-Mahadev Raman, J. R. & Gauthier, P. Wheat yield potential in 40. Klunder, H. C., Wolkers-Rooijackers, J., Korpela, J. M. & Nout, M. J. Microbiological
controlled-environment vertical farms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. (PNAS) 32, aspects of processing and storage of edible insects. Food Control 26, 628–631
19131–19135 (2020). (2012).
10. Yesil, V. & Tatar, O. An innovative approach to produce Forage crops: barley 41. Melgar-Lalanne, A., Hernández-Álvarez, J. & Salinas-Castr, A. Edible insects pro-
fodder In vertical farming system. A-Agron. 63, 723–728 (2020). cessing: traditional and innovative technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.
11. Al-Chalabi, M. Vertical farming: skyscraper sustainability? Sustain. Cities Soc. 18, 18, 1166–1191 (2019).
74–77 (2015). 42. Amarender, M., Vadivelu R., Bhargava K., Dossey A. T. & Gamagedara S. Lipid and
12. Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenelon, M. & Tiwari, B. Future protein protein extraction from edible insects – Crickets (Gryllidae). LWT; 125 (2020).
supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. 43. Luo, Q. et al. Comparison of the physicochemical, rheological, and morpho-
Foods 6, 53–74 (2017). logic properties of chitosan from four insects. Carbohydr. Polym. 209, 266–275
13. Lange, K. & Nakamura, Y. Potential contribution of edible insects to sustainable (2019).
consumption and production. Front. Sustain. 4, 1–5 (2023). 44. Soon, C. Y., Tee, C. H., Tan, A. T., Rosnita, A. & Khalina, K. Extraction and physi-
14. De Marchi, L., Wangorsch, A. & Zoccatelli, G. Allergens from edible insects: cross cochemical characterization of chitin and chitosan from Zophobas morio larvae
reactivity and effects of processing. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 21, 35 (2021). in varying sodium hydroxide concentration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 108, 135–142
15. Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat (2017).
substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer. 39, 147–155 (2015). 45. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens), et al.
16. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Risk profile related to production and Scientific opinion on the safety of dried yellowmealworm (Tenebrio molitorlarva)
consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA J. 13, 4257 (2015).. as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA J. 19 https://doi.org/
17. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Marimuthu, S. B. & Meijer, N. Regulations on insects as 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6343, 6343, 29. (2021b).
food and feed: a global comparison. J. Insects Food Feed. 7, 849–856 (2021). 46. Dicke, M. Insects as feed and the sustainable development goals. J. Insects Food
18. European Commission. ‘Approval of third fourth insect as Novel Food’ (2023). Feed 4, 147–156 (2018).
Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/novel-food/authorisations/ 47. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Food Waste Index Report 2021.
approval-insect-novel-food_en. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/35280. 1–97 (2021).
19. Mancini, S., Sogari, G. Espinosa Diaz, S., Menozzi, D., Paci, G. & Moruzzo, R. 48. European Commission, 2010. ‘Animal Feed’. Food safety. Available from https://
Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Foods 11, 455 (2022). ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-feed_en Accessed on 14th March 2022.
20. Enke, K. Novel foods: insects – food of the future? (2023). Available from: https:// 49. Žáková, M. Hermetia illucens application in management of selected types of
www.eurofins.de/food-analysis/food-news/food-testing-news/novel-food_insects- organic waste. Proc. 2nd Electron. Int. Interdiscip. Conf. 12, 2–6 (2013).
as-food-of-the-future/. 50. Lundy, M. E. & Parrella, M. P. Crickets are not a free lunch: protein capture from
21. International Platform for Insects Food and Feed (IPIFF). Edible insects on the scalable organic side-streams via high-density populations of Acheta domesticus.
European market. (2020) Available from: https://ipiff.org. PLoS One 10 (2015).
22. EFSA Scientific Committee. Scientific opinion on a risk profile related to pro- 51. Broekman, H. et al. Effect of thermal processing on mealworm allergenicity. Mol.
duction and consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA J. 13, 60 (2015). Nutr. Food Res. 59, 1855–1864 (2015).
23. Kim, D. & Oh, I. The characteristic of insect oil for a potential component of 52. Berggren, Å., Jansson, A. & Low, M. Approaching ecological sustainability in the
oleogel and its application as a solid fat replacer in cookies. Gels 8, 355 (2012). emerging insects-as-food industry. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 132–138 (2016).

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University
 A. Traynor et al.
11
53. Camenzuli, L. et al. Tolerance and excretion of the mycotoxins aflatoxin B1, 79. Garnio., C., Zagon, J. & Braeuning, A. Trends in food and feed-allergenicity risk
zearalenone, deoxynivalenol, and ochratoxin A by alphitobius diaperinus and assessment and analytical detection. EFSA J. 17 (2019)
hermetia illucens from contaminated substrates. Toxins 10, 91 (2018). 80. Lamberti, C. et al. Thermal processing of insect allergens and IgE cross-
54. van der Fels-Klerx, H. J., Camenzuli, L., van der Lee, M. K. & Oonincx, D. G. A. B. recognition in Italian patients allergic to shrimp, house dust mite and mealworm.
Uptake of Cadmium, Lead and Arsenic by Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens Food Res. Int. 148 (2021)
from Contaminated Substrates’ PLoS One 11 (2016). 81. Pali-Schöll, I. et al. Edible insects: cross-recognition of IgE from crustacean- and
55. Dallinger, R. Strategies of metal detoxification in terrestrial invertebrates. Eco- house dust mite allergic patients, and reduction of allergenicity by food pro-
toxicology of Metals in Invertebrates. 248–258 (1993) cessing. World Allergy Organ J. 12, 100006 (2019).
56. Lindqvist, L. & Block, M. Excretion of cadmium during moulting and metamor- 82. Azzollini, D., Derossi, A., Fogliano, V., Lakemond, C. M. & Severini, C. Effects of
phosisin Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C formulation and process conditions on microstructure, texture and digestibility of
Pharmacol. Toxicol. Endocrinol. 111, 325–328 (1995). extruded insect-enriched snacks. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 45, 344–353
57. Pedersen, S. A., Kristiansen, E., Andersen, R. A. & Zachariassen, K. E. Cadmium is (2018).
deposited in the gut content of larvae of the beetle Tenebrio molitor and 83. Bajuk, B. et al. Insect protein-based diet as potential risk of allergy in dogs.
involves a Cd-binding protein of the low cysteine type. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Animals (Basel) 29, 11 (2021).
Toxicol. Pharmacol. 148, 217–222 (2008). 84. Grabowski, N. T. & Klein, G. Microbiology of cooked and dried edible Medi-
58. Oonincx D. G. A. & de Boer, I. J. M. Environmental impact of the production of terranean field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) and superworms (Zophobas atratus)
mealworms as a protein source for humans – a life cycle assessment. PLoS One 7 submitted to four different heating treatments. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 23, 17–23
(2012). (2017).
59. Salomone, R. G. et al. Environmental impact of food waste bioconversion by 85. Vandeweyer, D. et al. Microbial dynamics during industrial rearing, processing,
insects: application of life cycle assessment to process using Hermetia illucens. J. and storage of the tropical house cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus) for human con-
Clean. Prod. 140, 890–905 (2017). sumption. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e00255–18 (2018).
60. Oonincx, D. G. A. B., Van Broekhoven, S., Van Huis, A. & Van Loon, J. J. A. Feed 86. Spink, J. & Moyer, D. C. Defining the public health threat of food fraud. J. Food Sci.
conversion, survival and development, and composition of four insect species on 76, 157–162 (2011).
diets composed of food by-products. PLoS One 10 (2015) 87. Sharma, K. & Paradakar, M. The melamine adulteration scandal. Food Secur. 2,
61. Smetana, S. E. & Schmitt, A. Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass 97–107 (2010).
for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Resour. 88. European Commission. ‘Food fraud categories’ (2020). Available from: Food fraud
Conserv. Recycl. 144, 285–296 (2019). categories – draft proposal - European Commission https://ec.europa.eu › food ›
62. Thévenot, A. et al. Mealworm meal for animal feed: environmental assessment system › files › food.
and sensitivity analysis to guide future prospects. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 1260–1267 89. Web of Science, 2023. Available from: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/
(2018). woscc/summary/45c50fee-48a5-403f-a07e-bf3a9c344d93-2d493e78/relevance/1
63. Baiano, A. Edible insects: an overview on nutritional characteristics, safety, Accessed on 26th February 2022.
farming, production, technologies, regulatory framework, and socio-economic 90. SCOPUS. (2023). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?sort=plf-
and ethical implications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 100, 35–50 (2020). f&src=s&st1=%27insects%27+AND+%27fraud%27&sid=caffeda2464c0070c23
64. Marín, C., et al. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on natural contaminating dc6ff53ee82a7&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=36&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28%27insects%27+AND+
microorganisms and inoculated Salmonella in Hermetia illucens larvae. Berl. %27fraud%27%29&origin=searchbasic&editSaveSearch=&yearFrom=Before
Münch. Tierärztliche Wochenschrift. 131, 257–263. (2019). +1960&yearTo=Present.
65. Fasolato, L. et al. Edible processed insects from e-commerce: food safety with a 91. Spink, J. et al. International survey of food fraud and related terminology: pre-
focus on the Bacillus cereus group. Food Microbiol. 76, 296–303 (2018). liminary results and discussion. J. Food Sci. 84, 10 (2017).
66. Vandeweyer, D., Crauwels, S., Lievens, B. & Van Campenhout, L. Microbial counts 92. Moore, J. C., Spink, J. & Lipp, M. Development and application of a database of
of mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor) and crickets (Acheta domesticus and food ingredient fraud and economically motivated adulteration from 1980 to
Gryllodes sigillatus) from different rearing companies and different production 2010. J. Food Sci. 77, 118–126 (2012).
batches. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 242, 13–18 (2017). 93. Changbai, X. Melamine in milk products in China: examining the factors that led
67. ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and to deliberate use of the contaminant. Food Policy 35, 463–470 (2011).
Safety). Opinion on the use of insects as food and feed and the review of scientific 94. Burns, T. & Kjeldahl, D. “The man, the method and the Carlsberg laboratory. Anal.
knowledge on the health risks related to the consumption of insects. (2015) Proc. 21, 210–214 (1984).
Available online: https://www.anses.fr/en/documents/BIORISK2014sa0153EN.pdf. 95. Shao, Y., Chen, G., Li, R. & Liu, F. Government regulation and consumer evaluation
68. FAO. Looking at edible insects from a food safety perspective. Challenges and after dairy products scandal in China. Acta Aliment. 49, 1 (2020).
opportunities for the sector. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4094en (2021). 96. Yuejiao, W. & Daicheng, L. Review of melamine scandal: still a long way ahead.
69. Kopko, C. et al. Are alternative proteins increasing food allergies? Trends, drivers Toxicol. Indust. Health 28, 579–582 (2011).
and future perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 129, 126–133 (2022). 97. MyProtein (2022) Available from: https://www.myprotein.com/?affil=mpppc
70. Hadi, J. & Brightwell, G. Safety of alternative proteins: technological, environ- _campaign=71700000091211909&adtype=&product_id=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMItIu-
mental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein mycfr9gIVz-vtCh0w9ABeEAAYASAAEgJMLvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.
and single-cell protein. Foods. 10 (2021).
71. EFSA. Edible insects: the science of novel food evaluations. (2021). Available from:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/edible-insects-science-novel-food- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
evaluations. This study was financially supported by Bualuang Chair Professor Fund (contract
72. Kamemura, N. et al. Cross-allergenicity of crustacean and the edible insect number TUBC 08/2022) and Thailand Science Research and Innovation Fundamental
Gryllus bimaculatus in patients with shrimp allergy. Mol. Immunol. 106, 127–134 Fund fiscal year 2023 (Project no. 4182267). This research has received funding
(2019). support from the NSRF via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources &
73. Palmer, L. K. et al. Shellfish tropomyosin IgE cross-reactivity differs among edible Institutional Development, Research and Innovation (PMU-B: B16F640114), and
insect species. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 64 (2020). Thailand Science Research and Innovation Fundamental Fund (Project no. 180226).
74. Francis, F. et al. Limited cross reactivity among arginine kinase allergens from
mealworm and cricket edible insects. Food Chem. 15, 714–718 (2019).
75. Leni, G. et al. Shotgun proteomics, in-silico evaluation and immunoblotting
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
assays for allergenicity assessment of lesser mealworm, black soldier fly and their
protein hydrolysates. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10 (2020). All authors contributed to the study conception and design. A.T. wrote the first draft
76. Barre, A. et al. Proteomic- and bioinformatic-based identification of specific of the manuscript. C.T.E., D.T.B., N.K., D.W., and A.P. critically reviewed the article. All
allergens from edible insects: probes for future detection as food ingredients. authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and
Foods 10, 2 (2021). approved the final manuscript.
77. de Gier, S. & Verhoeckx, K. Insect (food) allergy and allergens. Mol. Immunol. 100,
82–106 (2018).
78. Srinroch, C., Srisomsap, C., Chokchaichamnankit, D., Punyarit, P. & Phiriyangkul, COMPETING INTERESTS
P. Identification of novel allergen in edible insect, Gryllus bimaculatus and its The authors declare no competing Financial Interests. Author C.T.E. is Editor-in-Chief
cross-reactivity with Macrobrachium spp. allergens. Food Chem. 184, 160–166 of npj Science of Food. C.T.E. was not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions
(2015). related to, this manuscript.

Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2024) 7
 A. Traynor et al.
12
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-023-00241-y. adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C. T. Elliott. Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/ indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
reprints article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
in published maps and institutional affiliations. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

npj Science of Food (2024) 7 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University