A study published in the Nature journal Sustainable Agriculture found that Western consumers are unlikely to accept insects as food. The barriers are psychological, taste-, culture- and price-related in nature. So, do we have to assume that farmed insects will not replace traditionally farmed meat as a source of dietary protein?
Acceptance may be difficult
The article Beyond the Buzz: Insect-based Foods are Unlikely to Significantly Reduce Meat Consumption, was authored by an international team of academics. The study says that the successful acceptance of any new food product in Western diets depends on a number of factors. Crucial is the willingness of consumers to try a product. Plant-based meats score highest. The reported ‘willingness to try’ is as high as 91%. But farmed insects as food show the lowest acceptance of any alternative proteins; the ‘willingness to try’ scores in the 20% region. Feelings of disgust seem to be the main barrier to acceptance of farmed insects, as Beyond the Buzz notes.
Over the last two decades, awareness of the global food system’s environmental impact has increased dramatically. If current trends in farming continue, it is expected that meat consumption will be responsible for 37% of GHG emissions permissible under the 2oC target. Meat is an important food in Western diets; governments have tried to nudge people into eating insects, as an alternative to meat consumption. But in vain, so far.
Eating insects is not part of Western culture
Some cultures possess long traditions of eating insects. However, these are generally caught from the wild. The mass rearing of insects as food or feed is a new phenomenon sparked by a 2013 UN FAO report. Various factors have prevented farmed insects from making major inroads as human food even in cultures with traditions of entomophagy (for instance, they can be far more expensive than wild-caught insects, and the species that fare best under farming conditions, such as black soldier flies, are often not those people prefer to eat).
In western countries, companies seem to be unable to shift the strong ‘yuck’ factor. The Nature study found that the reasons include cultural and economic obstacles such as taste, texture, affordability, availability and convenience. Farmed insects may be more environmentally friendly than meat, but apparently this is not enough. The same holds for plant replacements. Few consumers have become vegans, even though plant proteins are environmentally friendlier than meat. Appearance, taste and price seem to be the most important factors for consumers who shift to meat substitutes regularly.
Environmental promise falls short
Beyond the Buzz also found that environmental promise falls short. Insects do not compare favourably to other food. They do not rank well for environmental impact, scalability, and welfare concerns. Moreover, insects as food often do not compete directly with meat. In fact, less than 1% of all insect industry funding is directed toward developing human food that could replace meat consumption; rather, towards snacks and pastas. Moreover, most insect products compete with plant-based foods rather than replacing meat. In competition with meat, insects as food score less favourably. Finally, insect-based products appear to be rather expensive, generally. They will achieve price parity later than plant-based meat.
The reluctance of Western consumers towards insects even remains high when these are processed into unrecognizable forms like powders; or are incorporated into familiar foods. Could insects as food then really reduce meat consumption?
Other markets
In view of these objections, insect farming companies have shifted focus to pet food or farmed animal feed. But even these uses appear to be inefficient; for they add an extra ‘link’ in the food chain. This has caused bankruptcy for industry leaders such as Ÿnsect and Aspire Food Group. Add to this that a recent life cycle assessment commissioned by the British government came to the conclusion that black soldier fly larvae, used as feed in the UK context, have a climate change impact 5.7 to 13.5 times worse than soy. It scored worst of all feeds considered on 13 of 16 environmental metrics.
But governments and food companies struggle to address the environmental footprint of global meat production. It accounts for approximately 14.5% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. But in sum, insects as food may never move beyond the so-called ‘yuck’ factor. It may be better to look for other alternatives to eating meat.
Interesting? Then also read:
Protix: insects for food and feed
Insect biorefinery: it exists, it works
Regulatory process of insecticides: let’s apply some logic and social science