Cultural and psychological barriers

Despite these benefits, edible insects and insect-based products have yet to gain widespread consumer acceptance in US and Canadian markets due to a combination of cultural, psychological and regulatory barriers. Insect-eating is not part of mainstream dietary patterns in the US and Canada, and the idea of eating insects conjures strong feelings of disgust (Martins and Pliner, Reference Martins and Pliner2006). In a survey of US consumers, the ‘disgust’ factor was cited as a reason for not consuming insect-based foods in more than half of the participants (Woolf et al., Reference Woolf, Zhu, Emory, Zhao and Liu2019). There are three motivations for food rejections linked to disgust: bad taste or odor, the anticipation of harm if ingested and ideational factors, or the knowledge of the origin or nature of the food (e.g. rejecting a mealworm simply because it is a mealworm) (Martins and Pliner, Reference Martins and Pliner2006). Ideational motivations for food rejections are fostered by culture and account for a substantial portion of rejections (Rozin and Fallon, Reference Rozin and Fallon1987). Negative sentiments toward foods that are deemed unfamiliar and inappropriate for consumption (Tan et al., Reference Tan, Fischer, van Trijp and Stieger2016) – e.g. revulsion toward entomophagy amongst ‘westerners’ (Deroy et al., Reference Deroy, Reade and Spence2015)—act as a strong barrier to consumer acceptance of insects as food (Boyd, Reference Boyd2017).

The notion that insects are pests, dirty, disgusting, unsafe, unhygienic disease-carriers, has deep psychological roots. The disgust reaction appears to be entirely acquired, arises between the ages two and five (Ruby et al., Reference Ruby, Rozin and Chan2015) and is often passed down through successive generations (La Barbera et al., Reference La Barbera, Verneau, Amato and Grunert2018). The common aversion to insects reflects core disgust, which promotes the avoidance of contamination and disease-carrying microbes (Wilkinson et al., Reference Wilkinson, Muhlhausler, Motley, Crump, Bray and Ankeny2018), and animal reminder disgust, which can be triggered by anything that reminds us of our own animal nature (e.g. legs and eyes in food we eat) (Lesnik, Reference Lesnik2018). Food neophobia (i.e. reluctance to eat new or novel foods or dislike for the flavor of unfamiliar foods) (Pelchat and Pliner, Reference Pelchat and Pliner1995) and disgust constitute significant psychological barriers (Orkusz et al., Reference Orkusz, Wolanska, Harasym, Piwowar and Kapelko2020) to market penetration of insect-based foods.

Studies have found that greater levels of food neophobia are associated with lower consumer acceptance of (Caparros Megido et al., Reference Caparros Megido, Gierts, Blecker, Brostaux, Haubruge, Alabi and Francis2016) and willingness to pay for new foods (Lombardi et al., Reference Lombardi, Vecchio, Borrello, Caracciolo and Cembalo2019). Increasing the frequency of exposure to and tasting of edible insects is critical to increasing acceptance of (Pliner and Salvy, Reference Pliner and Salvy2006) and willingness to cook and eat insects (Lensvelt and Steenbekkers, Reference Lensvelt and Steenbekkers2014). That said, price ranks second out of the top five determinants of food choice among US adults (i.e. taste, price, nutrition, convenience and weight control) (Glanz et al., Reference Glanz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg and Snyder1998). One study found that participants willing to purchase edible insect protein were only willing to pay an amount comparable to the price of conventional minced meat (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Vaskou and Kountouris2019). Given that insects are often priced higher than meat (Shelomi, Reference Shelomi2015), bringing the costs of edible insect protein down to a price point comparable to other conventional proteins may well be necessary for edible insect consumption to become more mainstream.

Scaling up production could enable edible insect companies to benefit from economies of scale and bring down price points. The Food and Agriculture Organization cites the absence of clear national and international legislation and legal frameworks guiding the use of insects as food as a major factor hindering the development of the edible insect sector at industrial scale (Van Huis et al., Reference Van Huis, Itterbeeck, Klunder, Mertens, Halloran, Muir and Vantomme2013). Although developing insect-based ingredients used by well-established, large consumer packaged goods (CPG) food companies in a range of general consumer foods would enhance the accessibility of edible insects, large CPG companies may refrain from producing or selling insect-based products for human consumption in the absence of regulatory certainty.

Regulatory barriers

Cultural aversions to edible insect consumption manifest themselves in regulations concerning edible insects. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not accord insects or insect-based ingredients Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status because US food regulations do not regulate insects as food. Insects, whole or in fragments, are referenced as a form of ‘filth’ in FDA regulations (21 CFR 110.110) governing the maximum permitted levels of defects in foods for human use (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018) (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., Reference Lahteenmaki-Uutela, Henault-Ethier, Marimuthu, Talibov, Allen, Nemane, Vandenberg and Jozefiak2018). The Codex Alimentarius, a collection of international standards for food safety, similarly refers to insects as ‘impurities’ (Baiano, Reference Baiano2020). Having regulations focus more on insects as food may help foster cultural acceptance of insect protein as food (van Huis, Reference Van Huis2020). After Canada determined in 2017 that crickets (Gryllodes sigillatus) were not a novel food (Health Canada, 2012), Loblaw's, Canada's largest grocery chain, started selling cricket powder under its private label (Charlebois, Reference Charlebois2018).

If insects were to be regulated as food additives in the US, FDA approval would be required for the use of an insect, insect part, or insect derivative as a food additive. However, manufacturers can self-certify GRAS substances (i.e. determine that a substance is GRAS for its intended use) without FDA approval (Boyd, Reference Boyd2017), and edible insect producers often self-certify their insect ingredients as GRAS as a workaround for FDA approvals (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., Reference Lahteenmaki-Uutela, Henault-Ethier, Marimuthu, Talibov, Allen, Nemane, Vandenberg and Jozefiak2018). However, large CPGs are hesitant to purchase or utilize edible insect ingredients or products without FDA GRAS certification on a large scale. As such, regulatory certainty over the status of edible insects could help spur the development of the edible insect sector in the US by boosting industry confidence in making larger-scale investments.

The European Union (EU) has similarly grappled with regulatory uncertainty concerning the edible insect sector. Insects were not considered a food source within the EU when the European Novel Food Regulation (ENFR) was established in 1997 (EC 258/97) (Marberg et al., Reference Marberg, van Kranenburg and Korzilius2017). There was legal uncertainty over whether insects fell within the scope of the ENFR, as the text specified ‘foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from plants and food ingredients isolated from animals’ (European Parliament; Council of the European Union, 1997).

This legislative ambiguity gave rise to varying interpretations among member states regarding the commercialization of edible insects. Each member state's interpretation of the ENFR largely determined the developmental trajectories for the edible insect industry in that country. Member states such as Finland adopted a strict interpretation of EC 258/97 and forbade the sale of edible insects for human consumption (Arppe et al., Reference Arppe, Niva and Jallinoja2020). Others adopted a more permissive approach, deeming whole insects exempt from the ENFR on the basis that the ENFR applied only to food ingredients ‘isolated from animals’ (Belluco et al., Reference Belluco, Halloran and Ricci2017). For instance, EU member states such as Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark decided unilaterally that whole insects do not fall under the EU's definition of novel food and established national rules regulating the edible insect industry (e.g. authorized species, safety and labeling) (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., Reference Lahteenmaki-Uutela, Henault-Ethier, Marimuthu, Talibov, Allen, Nemane, Vandenberg and Jozefiak2018). Such regulatory decisions have facilitated the growth of the edible insect industry in these countries.

Though psychological and cultural aversion to edible insects as well as regulatory uncertainty over the status of edible insects was common to both EU and the US, a significant reason for the edible insect sector being more developed in the EU than the US today is government support for the sector. The Netherlands is a good example of explicit government support (Arppe et al., Reference Arppe, Niva and Jallinoja2020). Besides providing financial support (e.g. research grants), the Dutch government created public-private platforms that bring together businesses, policymakers and researchers to enable the Netherlands to become an insect innovation hub (Marberg et al., Reference Marberg, van Kranenburg and Korzilius2017). Even when EU regulations severely restricted the commercial production and processing of edible insects, the Dutch government actively supported research on issues ranging from legislation for governing insect farms, marketing through retail outlets (Halloran et al., Reference Halloran, Vantomme, Hanboonsong and Ekesi2015), as well as health and safety standards of edible insect products (Marberg et al., Reference Marberg, van Kranenburg and Korzilius2017).

Even though Finland's lively startup scene and favorable media coverage helped its edible insect sector flourish in spite of government regulations, this ‘insect boom’ faded after a few years, as Finnish consumers' willingness to try edible insects did not translate into the adoption of edible insects into their habitual diet (Arppe et al., Reference Arppe, Niva and Jallinoja2020). Finland's experience corroborates research findings that factors determining repeat consumption of a product have more in common with more prosaic factors (e.g. price, taste and availability), rather than more noble motivations for initial consumption (e.g. environmental or ethical) (House, Reference House2016). If so, then a conducive regulatory framework that enables producers to scale up production with more certainty and encourages large CPGs to manufacture insect-based products could help bring down prices and enhance availability of edible insects.

To date, the EU has made greater strides than the US in decreasing regulatory uncertainty and developing a regulatory framework conducive to EU-wide market access for edible insect products. Unlike its Novel Food Regulation predecessor (EC 258/97), the ‘new’ novel foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (in force since January 2018) explicitly applies to whole insects and their parts (International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed, 2019). The Court of Justice of the European Union's October 2020 ruling that ‘whole insects’ as food are not under the scope of the old Novel Food Regulation (EC 258/97) put an end to the uncertainty that EU insect producers who commercialized products before January 2018 had been operating amidst. They can now continue selling their products until food authorizations for their insect species enter into force (Southey, Reference Southey2020). In May 2021, the EU authorized its first insect (dried yellow mealworm) as a novel food under EU 2015/2283, paving the way for other insects to be authorized as novel foods (European Commision, 2021).

Role of industry trade associations

Industry trade associations, producers' organizations and other interest groups have further facilitated the growth of the edible insect industry in certain EU Member States. For example, professional organizations such as VENIK, a Dutch association of insect breeders, secure government grants to conduct academic research into edible insects. Producers' organizations and other interest groups have also been working together with the Dutch government to mitigate legislative barriers (Belluco et al., Reference Belluco, Halloran and Ricci2017).

Industry organizations in the EU such as the International Platform for Insects as Food and Feed also lobby EU authorities on behalf of insect producers (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., Reference Lahteenmaki-Uutela, Henault-Ethier, Marimuthu, Talibov, Allen, Nemane, Vandenberg and Jozefiak2018). They aid industry development by providing guidance for insect producers to comply with regulatory guidelines, for instance. In contrast, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture is incorporated as an educational non-profit rather than a trade association, as it currently prioritizes educational outreach over lobbying efforts (Einstein-Curtis, Reference Einstein-Curtis2018).

The way forward

Edible insect regulations in the EU are arguably developing faster than in the US, given a more developed edible insect industry and push by industry associations for more regulatory certainty. These developments serve as a relevant precedent and may pave the way for the development of the edible insect industry in the US. That said, numerous challenges to the commercialization of edible insects mean that a multi-disciplinary approach is needed to explore new pathways to increase consumer acceptance and willingness-to-pay (e.g. research on potential health benefits), sustainably reduce production costs and create a facilitative regulatory environment for edible insects in North America.