Insect-derived proteins: “no, thanks”

Insect-derived proteins, obtained from farmed insects that are dried and milled into powder: according to experts, they can easily replace current protein sources, which are notoriously insufficient to feed the world’s future population and far from eco-sustainable.

Countless studies confirm that foods made with “insect flour”, weight for weight, are more nutritious and healthier than the usual animal protein sources—meat, eggs, and dairy. Even environmentally, entomoproteins should be preferred, since farming insects approved for human consumption would have a minimal environmental footprint, especially compared with cattle farming.

All this, however, has not been enough to convince the public—especially in the West—whose enthusiasm at the thought of eating dried crickets has so far been rather muted. Rationality and personal taste do not always go hand in hand; and taste—like the heart—doesn’t take orders.

Resistance as old as time

Hesitation—or outright resistance—to accept certain foods is as old as the world.

It is often said that Rome achieved its first territorial expansion more with spelt than with iron, underscoring spelt’s importance in the diet of legionaries and ordinary people alike. Yet as soon as that expansion—chiefly the conquest of Egypt, the Empire’s future “granary”—made large quantities of common wheat available, wheat quickly became the almost exclusive carbohydrate source throughout the Empire; and it still is, at least in Europe.

Spelt is still grown, but its use is largely confined to regional cuisine and—let’s be frank—few miss it in their everyday diet. Despite excellent nutritional and health properties, the flavor is what it is: not unpleasant per se, but rather strong, somewhat “woody”, often compared to hazelnut; interesting in certain traditional recipes, but not very aligned with contemporary preferences.

Barley also figured in a legionary’s monthly ration—so “appreciated” that it was part of disciplinary sanctions: soldiers under punishment had to make their bread with barley instead of wheat until the penalty ended.

It matters little that barley, like spelt, has excellent nutritional properties: 70% of global production is still used as animal feed; the remaining 30% goes to beer and whisk(e)y… and the occasional coffee substitute at the bar.

The disgust factor (ECO 2024)

Similarly, insect-derived proteins offer undeniable technical advantages (nutritional value, healthfulness, environmental impact), but that is not enough to overcome the main obstacle to mass adoption: disgust.

It is not just food neophobia—general fear or distrust of new foods—but something more visceral, not fully rationalizable, as highlighted at the 31st European Congress on Obesity (ECO 2024), held in Venice from 12 to 15 May 2024.

On that occasion, researchers from Edge Hill University (UK) presented a study of 603 adults, according to which disgust remains the main reason for refusing to eat insects, with peaks varying by demographic profile. ¹

Only 13% of respondents would accept eating insects, while the clear majority expect them to taste unattractive, associated with excessive salty, bitter, and umami notes.

Interestingly, “disgust as such” is stronger toward insect powders than whole insects, whereas food-related disgust levels are reversed: the minority who are willing would actually prefer foods where insects are used as an ingredient—in “flour” form—so they are no longer recognizable.

Who to persuade? More questions than answers

The statistical correlation between age and willingness to eat insects is controversial compared to prior literature: in this study, young people are the staunchest opponents, whereas earlier research suggested aversion increases with age.

This inconclusiveness complicates the identification of a target customer: whom should promotion address? Which channels should be used? Without solid demographic evidence, answering is difficult.

It is not our role to tell marketing departments how to persuade Mario Rossi—or John Doe, in this case—to replace beef muscle with dried crickets, nor is it certain this is possible, for the same reasons spelt and barley—so good and healthy—have never staged the grand comeback they logically “should” have if consumer choices were always fully rational.

Food is not just nourishment: it is nature and culture, history and traditions, including family ones. Migration patterns show that even after many generations and successful integration, the last ties to fade—if they ever do—are precisely culinary ones.

Family traditions and gradual introduction

Italian-American families generally speak only English, but at home they often still cook as “nonna” did—herself born and raised in the States but taught by a “nonna” born in Abruzzo or Campania, Veneto or Liguria at the end of the 19th century… It is hard to convince people to abandon flavors and colors that connect them to memories and customs otherwise condemned to the oblivion of time and distance.

Undoubtedly, introducing insect-derived ingredients will require time and a winding path, starting with modest substitutions of secondary ingredients in recipes dominated by familiar, accepted raw materials.

Only later can we think of offering the public foods with a high content of insect proteins—always avoiding “profaning” traditional dishes—and, for example, targeting sports and weight-management markets, as well as special foods for those with allergies and intolerances.

Less meat, more options: insects included

We need gradualism but also respect for factors beyond the purely technical-nutritional sphere: pushing past those limits invites ideological extremism which—see militant veganism—hardly predisposes the public to evaluate new proposals.

That said, reducing or at least curbing per-capita meat consumption is a priority—for humanity and the environment. Meat-related sectors—from farming to distribution—drive massive greenhouse gas emissions and (over)use of water resources and, to use a buzzword, are extremely energy-intensive.

In this sense, entomoproteins cannot be ignored as an option to replace part of our dietary protein quota, alongside options now culturally accepted such as the renewed focus on legumes and oilseeds—not as “second-class” proteins imposed by poverty, but as a healthy, winning choice. Institutions must therefore enable accurate, honest information on insect proteins, in synergy with science and industry.

Reference

——

¹ H. Zaleskiewicz, E. Kulis, M. Siwa, Z. Szczuka, A. Banik, F. Grossi, P. Chrysochou, B.T. Nystrand, T. Perrea, A. Samoggia, A. Xhelili, A. Krystallis, A. Luszczynska. “Geographical context of European consumers’ choices of alternative protein food: a systematic review.” Food Quality and Preference, 117 (2024), 105174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105174