Insect Farming: Why the "Future of Nutrition" Keeps us Waiting

The prospect of consuming insects triggers visceral reactions across Western societies, yet paradoxically, these same creatures have been crowned as sustainable saviors of our food system. This narrative, especially embedded since theFAO's influential 2013 report, promises environmental and food security benefits that seem almost too good to be true.

Perhaps because they are.

A decade and hundreds of millions of dollars later, the insect farming industry faces an uncomfortable reckoning: the chasm between theoretical promise and commercial reality has proven far wider than anyone anticipated.

Part I: The Reality of Insects as Human Food

Environmental Impact: A Mixed Picture

The environmental case for insect farming isn't as clear-cut as headlines suggest. While studies generally show insect production causes less environmental damage than meat production, the story becomes complicated when you look closer.

Yes, insect farming produces fewer greenhouse gases than beef, 5-11 kg CO2e per kilogram versus beef's 35 kg. But compare insects to chicken, the world's most consumed meat, and the advantage evaporates. Recent studies show insect farming can match or even exceed chicken's emissions, especially in temperate climates where facilities require year-round heating.

Land use does favor insects, requiring just 0.16 to 8.0 m² per kilogram compared to beef (23.1 m²/kg), pork (6.28 m²/kg), or poultry (4.64 m²/kg). But water consumption tells a different story. Contemporary assessments find insect farming requires 0.4-0.8 m³ of water per kilogram, more than beef (0.25 m³), pork (0.05 m³), or poultry (0.067 m³).

However, the real question isn't whether insects beat meat on environmental metrics. It's whether we're making the right comparison at all.

Where Insects Actually End Up

Despite commanding media attention, insects for human consumption represent a surprisingly marginal business. Only 5% of insect farming investment targets human food markets. Industry analysts at Rabobank describe the market share as "negligible," with "limited opportunities for the foreseeable future."

Meanwhile, the products that do exist tell a revealing story.Analysis of European markets shows that 90% of insect-based foods aren't meat alternatives at all. Instead, consumers encounter cricket flour in pasta, mealworm protein bars, and whole roasted insects as novelty snacks. Only 8% of products attempt to replicate meat's culinary role.

This matters because these products don't compete with beef or pork; they compete with conventional pasta, energy bars, and chips – foods with dramatically lower environmental footprints. When insects are incorporated into or replacing plant-based products, they typically increase rather than decrease environmental impact. A systematic review found that insect-based products consistently underperform plant-based alternatives across multiple environmental metrics.

The Consumer Acceptance Problem

Research on consumer behavior reveals another challenge. Surveys suggest moderate willingness to try insect products, and strong disgust. When presented with real price points, consumers demand significant discounts for insect products compared to conventional alternatives, the opposite of what economic viability requires.

Young consumers, supposedly the most receptive demographic, show highest acceptance for energy bars and baked goods, precisely the products where insects add least value and most directly compete with plant ingredients. The "gateway product" hypothesis, suggesting familiar formats will lead to broader acceptance, lacks empirical support.

Largely due to this lack of interest from human consumers, the industry has decided to focus on other markets. Notably the animal feed market, whether for pets or livestock.

Part II: The Animal Feed Proposition

The Circular Economy That Isn't

The insect farming industry is built on the idea of the “circular economy”. The narrative was compelling: insects convert waste into high-quality protein for livestock and aquaculture while producing fertilizer as a byproduct.

Reality proves starkly different. When researchers surveyed major producers including InnovaFeed, Ÿnsect, and Protix, they found these companies primarily use wheat bran, corn products, and brewery grains, agricultural co-products already valued as animal feed. The promised waste transformation simply isn't happening at scale.

Why this disconnect? The challenges prove more intractable than anticipated for many reasons, among which:

Regulatory walls: EU and US regulations prohibit using mixed food waste containing animal products for feed production, eliminating 70% of theoretical waste streams. These rules, implemented after BSE outbreaks, won't change easily.

Biological limits: Insects fed actual waste need more time to grow and suffer from higher mortality. Black soldier fly larvae on manure can show mortality rates exceeding 50%. Yellow mealworms require four times longer to develop on food waste versus grain-based diets. Crickets often simply die. Contrary to popular belief, it is not possible to feed insects just anything and expect them to grow quickly and healthily.

Economic competition: Existing industries already claim available waste streams. Anaerobic digestion, composting, and direct livestock feeding compete for the same materials.

Quality control: Feed manufacturers require consistent nutritional profiles. This proves impossible with variable waste streams, especially since the nutritional composition of insects depends on what they consume.

The Environmental Reality of Insect Feed

A comprehensive 2024 life cycle assessment commissioned by the UK's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) reveals the sobering environmental reality of insect protein production for feed. The study compared black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) meal against traditional soybean and fish meal across 16 environmental indicators.

Climate impact findings prove particularly striking: BSFL meal generates between 12.9 to 30.2 kg of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram of protein, depending on the feed substrate used. This represents 5.7 to 13.5 times the climate impact of soybean meal (2.23 kg CO₂eq/kg protein), or 1.6 to 3.8 times the impact of fish meal (7.98 kg CO₂eq/kg protein).

The variation depends critically on what the insects eat. Larvae fed food waste performed best at 12.9 kg CO₂eq, while those raised on traditional wheat-based feed reached 30.2 kg CO₂eq. While the industry promotes insects as a solution for waste valorization, the study found that insects fed on genuine waste streams (chicken manure) showed poor conversion rates, requiring more larvae and generating more frass (i.e. insect excrement) waste that needs treatment. This additional processing further increases environmental impacts. Note that even under "best-case" scenarios with 100% renewable energy and optimized drying technologies, insect meal only marginally outperforms traditional feeds, and only if produced under ideal conditions rarely achievable at commercial scale.

Pet Food: an Already Optimized Niche Market

With livestock feed proving uneconomical, the industry increasingly targets pet food, nowcommanding 50% of insect production. This market tolerates higher prices for conscious pet owners or niches such as hypoallergenic ingredients. Yet here again, sustainability claims crumble under scrutiny.

Pet food conventionally uses meat co-products e.g. organs, bones, and trimmings, with minimal economic value. When environmental impacts are allocated by economic value, these co-products carry a tiny fraction of meat production's footprint. Insect meal, requiring dedicated production, generates 2-10 times higher emissions than conventional pet food ingredients. While pet food appears to be a promising market for achieving economic success, its social and environmental impact thus remains questionable.

Part III: Economic Reality Check

The Persistent Price Problem

Current insect meal costs $3,500-6,000 per metric ton, versus $1,400-1,800 for fishmeal and $500 for soybean meal. This isn't a temporary premium for novel products; it reflects fundamental production challenges.

The most comprehensive economic model to date calculated production costs at €5,116 per ton for defatted larvae meal. Breaking down costs reveals structural challenges:

• Labor: 20-40% (automation remains limited due to biological variability)
• Energy: 15-30% (heating in temperate climates is unavoidable)
• Substrate: 25-45% (even "waste" requires collection, treatment, and quality control)
• Infrastructure: 10-20% (specialized facilities with 5-10 year lifespans, not the 30 years often assumed)

These aren't inefficiencies that scale will eliminate. They're inherent to raising tropical species in temperate climates while meeting food safety standards.

Conclusion

In one of our recent peer-reviewed analyses of the insect farming literature, we identified three systematic biases that perpetuate overoptimistic assessments:

Bug #1: Overreliance on outdated studies. The field's most-cited environmental assessment, Oonincx and de Boer (2012), examined small-scale production using fresh carrots as feed. This study, referenced over 800 times, bears no resemblance to commercial reality yet continues to underpin environmental claims.

Bug #2: Unrealistic waste assumptions. Models routinely assume 50-100% waste utilization despite current industry practice showing near-zero waste use. This assumption can swing environmental assessments from negative to positive.

Bug #3: Theoretical cost projections. Economic models employ parameters like 30-year equipment lifespans (reality: 5-10 years), underestimate energy prices by 50%, and assume bioconversion rates 2-3 times higher than achieved commercially.

The insect farming narrative exemplifies how compelling stories can override empirical evidence. We imagined insects replacing steaks, but the industry mainly targets pet food. We assumed waste transformation, but producers use agricultural products. We projected competitive prices, but costs remain multiples above alternatives.

This disconnection between narrative and reality has consequences. Resources directed toward insect farming could support proven interventions: reducing food waste at source, improving plant-based protein production, or enhancing conventional feed sustainability.

This doesn't mean insects have no role in future food systems. Specific applications (e.g. bioconversion in tropical regions, specialty ingredients, cultural markets) may prove viable. But these niche contributions differ vastly from the groundbreaking transformation promised in the West. The future of food will undoubtedly bring innovations. The insect revolution, however, will have to wait.