Insect farming dispute: Alternative protein pathway or industrialized animal suffering?
06 May 2024 --- Insect protein is widely touted as a scalable solution for more sustainable food systems, but animal protection groups have questioned the true ecological impact and morality of this burgeoning industry. Food Ingredients First hears arguments for and against industrialized insect production from the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) and Eurogroup for Animals.
The debate centers around the fact that insect protein is currently mainly produced for animal feed, leading critics to suggest the sector is simply serving to reinforce conventional animal agriculture. However, industry advocates argue insect farming could be crucial to meeting the world’s growing demand for sustainable protein through animal feed and human nutrition products.
For Francis Maugère, political adviser at Eurogroup for Animals, insect protein cannot be viewed as a pathway to more sustainable food systems.
“Most investments are oriented in the feed sector, which is identified as the most promising branch of this industry, meaning we are not dealing with a sector that is solely aimed at replacing highly emissive and low-welfare meat with insects, but rather tied to conventional animal agriculture, with all its welfare and environmental consequences,” he says.
“A recent analysis of insect production chains in Europe found that only extremely efficient production systems could achieve environmental benefits in animal feed. Thus, we risk adding a new source of feed for similar or worse results.”
However, Christophe Derrien, IPIFF’s secretary general, disagrees. While accepting that the largest production volumes and investments are aimed at animal feed, he points to a “very dynamic” sector with a growing number of operators offering healthy food products to European consumers.
Derrien at IPIFF tells us why insect farming is a vital avenue for alternative protein production.
“I fail to understand the concerns relating to the sector gearing toward animal feed. Considering the world population is expected to top ten billion by 2057 and demand for animal byproducts is expected to double, insect farming constitutes a localized and sustainable solution, which could complement the growing demand for meat while generating nutritious products for fish, chicken or pigs in line with their natural diets,” he says.
“Insect farming can also play a pivotal role by making our food systems more circular through upcycling and producing powerful fertilizers derived from insect byproducts. These fertilizers are already extensively used for plant nutrition, especially in light of the fertilizer crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.”
Maugère responds: “I take note that Mr. Derrien actually agrees with our main point that insect products for human consumption are modest and focus on niche markets that do not directly replace unsustainable animal products. The biggest market is indeed animal feed — thus, insects are not the revolutionary food solution they are often promoted to be.”
“Further, by supporting conventional animal farming, this emerging sector does not deliver on the wide-scale food system transformation the EU desperately needs. This shift can only be achieved by moving away from factory farming — which evidence has repeatedly shown has a huge negative impact on animals, people and the planet — and toward plant-based diets.”
Appetite and affordability
According to IPIFF, the sector’s highest market share is represented by whole insects (approximately 25%), followed by bars, snacks, specialty food ingredients and pasta. However, the non-profit expects further food safety authorizations and rising consumer demand to spur new product development.
Maugère at Eurogroup for Animals tells us why insect farming is not the answer to more sustainable food systems.“Insect producers tapping into the food market usually generate higher value for products, especially sports nutrition, dietary foods or supplements. These outlets will continue to offer promising opportunities, although we must admit the supply quantities are currently quite modest,” says Derrien.
“The first novel authorization granted to insect food producers came through in 2021 and increased the availability of insect food products on the European market. When those first novel food authorizations become generic from 2026, the accessibility of these products will be further facilitated.”
Moreover, IPIFF’s latest consumer survey found that acceptance of edible insects across the EU has increased, stimulated by growing demand for nutrition, positive media coverage and the greater availability of insect-based products.
However, Maugère sees consumer reluctance as an issue that could hinder the uptake of insect protein in human diets and questions whether insects could ever be more appropriate for nutritional products than plant-based ingredients.
“Insects can be as water and land-efficient as possible — they won’t top wheat, peas and other plant-based ingredients. The sustainability benefits are minimal for any product not replacing meat or animal-based products,” he says.
“As for affordability, insect meal prices remain prohibitive for most farmers, even in the context of the war in Ukraine. Companies the EU has supported financially are moving away from Europe for cheaper labor and energy costs in the US and Southeast Asia, like Innovafeed turning to Illinois for its new facility. This trend would put the industry at odds with the EU’s food security goals.”
IPIFF expects the cost-effectiveness of insect-enriched animal feed to improve with further investments to meet growing demand.
“In the context of increased dependency on animal feed imports, the European aquaculture and livestock sectors are advocating for the scaling of domestic production of high protein feed materials. Considering the gigantic size of these sectors, they are not interested in the occasional supply of insect meal but the long term availability of high-quality ingredients at an affordable price. The sector’s capacity to respond to such needs heavily depends on large investments,” he says.
IPIFF has advocated for several legislative changes to help European insect producers compete globally and called for the EU policymakers to develop new regulatory standards for organic insect production.
IPIFF suggests insect nutrition products will proliferate, but Eurogroup for Animals says food applications remain niche.
Insect welfare concerns
Animal protection groups are also concerned that the capacity of insects to suffer has been disregarded in the pursuit of alternative protein sources, although the insect farming industry maintains that insects can be farmed ethically.
“The fact that insects are animals can be forgotten as they are often designated under the inappropriate term ‘alternative proteins.’ The reality of protein production with plants and animals is drastically different, and the latter induces concerns surrounding welfare. To replace one cow, you need thousands of insects, and this can be problematic if these animals are found to be sentient,” says Maugère.
“We must keep in mind that the history of our relations with non-human animals has continuously disregarded the capacity of different animals to suffer. Let us not forget that we once disregarded sentience in birds or fishes, only to find they also experience pain.”
“A recent review of the evidence for pain in insects consistently finds that certain insects are ‘very likely’ to feel pain. When some criteria for pain recognition are not met, it is not because of contrary evidence but for lack of data and research. With over five million species of insects, research is sparse.”
IPIFF accepts there are knowledge gaps concerning invertebrates’ capacity to experience pain and calls for more research funding to be available at the European level to address these questions. The organization says its members take animal welfare “very seriously” and work to ensure insects are farmed in environments replicating their natural habits.
At the same time, Derrien highlights that “suffering” is a markedly human concept and says it remains unclear that invertebrates suffer similarly to humans.
To what extent can insects suffer? IPIFF and Eurogroup for Animals agree more research is needed to answer this question.
“We need to differentiate between ‘suffering’ and the concept of nociception — a sensory nervous system responding to potentially harmful stimuli — which must itself be distinguished from the concept of pain. These are not interchangeable terms, but public information sometimes uses scientific research on nociception as a basis to make claims about ‘suffering,’” he says.
Maugère responds: “Beyond nociception, the strongest studies assess neurobiological and behavioral evidence consistent with the possibility of pain experience and find pain likely in most orders of insects. Recently, the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness stated that ‘empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates [...] and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects).’”
“We welcome IPIFF’s willingness to lead on insect welfare. Yet if it wants its husbandry practices to respect normal behavioral patterns, we must note that the genetic editing practices that are being developed, and that aim at producing wingless flies and disproportionately big larvae, are at odds with what we observe in natural settings.”
“If these standards aim to take insect welfare seriously, they should embrace the latest species-specific studies on the most farmed species (black soldier flies, yellow mealworms and crickets).”
“Finally, if the insect farming sector is truly committed to protecting insect welfare, then we also need to see commitments and action at the company level.”
By Joshua Poole
