Will insects really be the food of the future?

Tom Bry-Chevalier , University of Lorraine When discussing the food of the future, one topic regularly pops up in the media: the consumption of insects. “Food of the Future: Insects on Our Plates? ” ; “What if insects were the food of the future?” ; “Why we’ll all be eating insects by 2050” —all headlines suggesting that “the future” goes hand in hand with “grasshoppers.” Outside the West, however, entomophagy (that is, the consumption of insects by humans) is by no means a futuristic concept: nearly 2 billion people regularly consume more than 2,000 different species of insects. But while we in the West are increasingly considering eating these creatures, it’s not so much out of a desire for new taste sensations as it is because of the environmental benefits we attribute to them. According to a 2013 FAO report —which has contributed to the recent buzz surrounding entomophagy—insects are extraordinarily efficient at converting food into body mass. Furthermore, they can feed on byproducts that are not utilized by our food systems, and raising them emits only small amounts of greenhouse gases. These are all enticing prospects for addressing the very real environmental problems caused by meat production . Yet, despite the media hype, scientific studies examining the environmental potential of insect consumption remain mixed in their conclusions. So it’s time to stir things up and see why, despite what we hear, insects may not be the food of the future.  

Replacing meat… or rather, feeding it!

Insects are often presented as a six-legged solution to replace meat. Yet that’s not the narrative the industry is weaving. For example, the French companies Ÿnsect and InnovaFeed (which raised $372 million and $165 million, respectively, in 2020—more than the entire sector raised in all previous years combined) are raising insects for… animal feed. And these two examples are not isolated cases. Insect farming therefore does not seem poised to replace intensive farming, but rather to provide it with the means to survive. Without even addressing the ethical and health issues associated with conventional meat production, it is important to emphasize that this approach potentially creates more problems than it solves. On the one hand, because the environmental impacts of meat are not limited to those of animal feed. On the other hand, because insect production is not necessarily more environmentally friendly than conventional animal feed. According to a 2020 life cycle assessment (i.e., an evaluation method that enables a multi-criteria, multi-stage environmental assessment of a system): “A comparison with conventional feed highlighted the environmental drawbacks of current insect-based feed production models (particularly when compared to plant-based feed).” The same conclusion was reached in this study on Hermetica illucens, the species used by the French company Innovafeed: “Produced on a pilot scale, the protein concentrate (insect meal), while competitive with products of animal origin (whey, egg protein, fish meal) and microalgae, has a greater environmental impact than plant-based concentrates.” Another study on mealworms—the focus of the company Ÿnsect—also finds that they have a greater environmental impact than soy or fish meal. In summary, while the use of insect meal may sometimes be more environmentally friendly than animal-based concentrates for feeding farm animals, it still cannot compete with plant-based concentrates. Furthermore, while proponents of insect-based feed tout the use of agricultural byproducts (wheat and corn gluten, brewer’s spent grain, beet pulp, etc.) to feed them, it turns out that in reality many companies prefer to use grains, which are more nutritious, safer, and sometimes even cheaper. That is to say, resources that could just as easily be consumed by livestock—or even by humans. Yet feeding insects with corn before giving them to chickens is inherently less efficient than simply feeding the corn to chickens or humans. The potential for insects to feed on agricultural byproducts is thus hampered by market forces and competition for the same resource. This is because agricultural byproducts, far from being waste, can be used in many ways, whether for animal feed or human consumption. Furthermore, even if food waste were used to feed farmed insects, the climate benefits would be highly uncertain. Finally, insects need to be raised in a warm environment. Otherwise, they may grow much more slowly or may not survive at all. However, heating millions of insects in a factory requires a great deal of energy. Since this energy is not necessarily carbon-free, it can have a decisive impact on the final product’s carbon footprint. In short, and although this is currently the path the industry is taking, the environmental potential of insects as a “miracle” ingredient for animal feed seems limited.  

Entomophagy: Far from a Miracle Solution

But what about entomophagy itself? After all, this is the very buzz surrounding the topic in the media, works of fiction, and even some school textbooks. At first glance, there seems to be cause for reassurance. Several studies agree that insects have a lower environmental impact than chicken, which itself has a lower environmental impact than other types of meat. A 2012 life-cycle assessment found that broiler chickens are associated with emissions that are 32% to 167% higher in CO₂ equivalents than mealworms, and that they require two to three times more land and 50% more water. The problem is that nearly all of these studies were conducted on small-scale farms (such as in Thailand or Korea), under optimal conditions that are impossible to replicate on a large scale in the West.

However, it can be very difficult to maintain these environmental benefits when scaling up to an industrial level—a step that is nevertheless necessary to reduce costs. Many questions remain, such as those regarding the feed used to raise large-scale insect farms and potential health risks. A study focusing on the European context concludes that insect farming does not necessarily result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than chicken farming.

An Alternative That Struggles Against Competition

While the results are respectable, we must not overlook one key detail: insects aren’t the only option that can replace meat. To assess a solution’s potential, we need to compare it to all other alternatives—not just the one that suits us best. Plant-based proteins, for example, are already widely available on the market. And from an environmental standpoint, there’s no contest: it’s better to eat lentils and soy than insects. For an alternative to have potential, it must also be popular with consumers. And on this point, it’s safe to say that insects aren’t a hit. For example, a recent study by the Food Standards Agency found that six out of ten respondents (60%) are willing to try plant-based proteins, compared to only one-quarter (26%) who are willing to try edible insects. Worse still, among those unwilling to try any of the proposed meat alternatives, 67% said that nothing could persuade them to try eating insects. In short, not only are insects not a better alternative than plant-based proteins from an environmental standpoint, but they’re also far less accepted by consumers. So, when it comes to the title of “food of the future,” it might be wise to leave our six-legged friends alone and instead look toward plant-based proteins—and why not mycoproteins or cultured meat? Tom Bry-Chevalier , Ph.D. candidate in environmental economics—Cultured meat and alternative proteins, University of Lorraine This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.