Diversifying plants and animals consumed
Eating more of the plant and animal
Eating insects (entomophagy)
The broad changes to diversify what we eat are relatively well understood, though somewhat challenging to implement given the depth to which poor and narrow diets are embedded in our culture. In this section we outline the new directions and then under Efficiency, Substitution, Redesign provide more specific strategies for implementing them.
Diversifying plants and animals consumed (Halvorson)
The range of plants consumed has dramatically declined (Figure 1). There are an estimated 400,000 vascular plants on earth, half to three-quarters of which are potentially edible. Six thousand of those are known to be cultivated or have been cultivated historically, but only 200 are produced on a large scale. Nine species (sugar cane, maize, rice, wheat, potatoes, soybeans, oil-palm fruit, sugar beet and cassava) dominate crop production, representing 2/3’s of all food produced. This homogenization is linked to profitability for farmers, processors, distributors, and retailers. Hunters, gatherers, and some gardeners typically consume a wider range than those relying on grocery stores. Diversity requires greater management skill and generally reduced scale which flies in the face of dominant food system economics.
There are three broad dimensions to diversifying plants consumed:
- A wider range of species are cultivated and sold through market channels. While farmers markets and other types of food distribution schemes have long diversified offerings on a small scale, grocery stores have more recently started selling non-traditional plants, such as dandelion greens, more diverse salad mixes, and plants popular and more widely used in other cultures.
- A wider range of varieties within species are cultivated or foraged. Many varieties are edible greens, especially in the Amaranth family. Different coloured vegetables and grains are also appearing, many being heritage varieties.
- A wider range of wild plants are foraged (edible weeds). Many weeds are equally or more nutritious than many of our vegetables, and can be found in wide range of landscapes, including urban areas (cf. Stark et al., 2018). The challenge is what level of foraging is possible without ecological disruption, as weeds may serve important functions within the landscape.
Figure 1: The State of Vascular Plant Use - A Need to Diversify. Based on information from FAO, 2019.
Diversifying animals consumed
Diversifying animals consumed is more challenging. Hunting and gathering by an even larger percentage of the population would generally put more pressure on wild populations (see Goal 1 Self and Community provisioning). However, changing the mix of domesticated species to favour more small animals that are metabolically more efficient (see Goal 5 Reducing food waste) is worth pursuing. This shift needs to be combined with a sustainable diet. In other words, we must both diversify and reduce overall animal production and consumption.
We have in Canada considerable "lock-in" regarding both the supply of and demand for beef, pork, chicken and turkey. Production and consumption are low for sheep and goat meat, a wider range of fowl, equines (primarily for export), wild game such as deer and bison, and small animals such as rabbits. We also consume milk and dairy products from a very limited range of cattle breeds and small herds of goats and sheep. Orderly downsizing of chicken and dairy production is somewhat more feasible than beef and pork because of supply management (see Goal 2 Demand Supply Coordination).
Eating more of the plant and animal (adapted from Dirks, 2021)
In addition to narrowing the plants and animals, we've also been limiting the parts of plants and animals we consume in Canada, and this is contributing to food waste (see also Goal 5, Reducing food waste). This occurs all along the food supply chain, from the farm to processing, to food service and retail, to the home. Perhaps 2/3 of food waste is deemed potentially edible and some percentage of that is parts of plants we cut off unnecessarily (eg., stems, some tops, more of the inside than is actually inedible). Why it isn't eaten is cultural and economic. It is also linked to food skills and deskilling by the food industry. Many edible parts never get to the consumer, as they are removed during processing or trimmed in the field or at retail, in part for cosmetic reasons, in part to accommodate long-distance and long-duration supply lines in which leafy green parts of plants go bad quickly, in part to accommodate processing machinery.
In food service, some chefs design their menus and inventory control systems to use almost everything. But it means changing the menu regularly to reflect what's available and what can be made with leftover ingredients. It has skills and salary implications for restaurants, generally requiring more chef training and better equipment and space. Such restaurants are typically higher priced and celebratory, so the degree to which such establishments influence home cooking behaviour is an open question. Chefs with cooking shows can be social influencers, highlighting how to use parts of plants and animals to make interesting things.
That many stores, especially the chains, no longer need or are able to find butchers (a major labour shortage profession, see Goal 8 Labour Force Development) can mean many parts of the animal never even get to the store. It is more difficult to find chicken hearts, beef tongue, kidneys, and other organ meats. Parts of the animal may no longer be eaten. The paradox is that wasting this food may actually be necessary because the dominant animal production models result in many animals under metabolic and environmental stress due to the feeding and housing regimes, and this shows up in diseased internal organs. Acute cases are caught during slaughter and the organ rejected for human consumption, but more subtle cases may not be recognized. For example, in beef cattle, the National Beef Quality Assurance Audit (2017) has found that liver problems are on the rise, resulting in livers being condemned or downgraded to pet food. This generates significant economic losses (price discounts associated with lost product for the human market), amounting to $61.2 million in 2016. Knowledge of the forces causing organ dysfunction is still emerging, but certainly the dominant production environments are contributing factors in many cases. In the cattle liver case, excess grain feeding, and the lack of sufficient roughage for which their stomachs are designed, contribute to rumen acidosis. This in turn cases liver abscesses and other health problems. It speaks again to the need for transition to sustainable production systems in which animals are raised in environments and on feed that is more in line with their innate behaviours (see Goal 5 Sustainable Food). While many independent and generally smaller firms have moved to use more of the plant and animal, the dominant system has been slower to adapt.
Eating insects/Entomophagy (Halvorson)
More than 2000 species of insects are known to be eaten globally, constituting a major source of nutrition for over 130 countries in the regular diets of an estimated 2 billion people (Ramos-Elorduy, 2009; FAO 2013). Entomophagy, or the consumption of insects, is commonly practised in most regions of the world, with the exception of Western cultures, who lag in use due to negative preconceptions and attitudes (Batat & Peter, 2020; FAO, 2013). Coleoptera (beetles) are the most commonly eaten order of insect, representing 31% of the insects consumed, followed by Lepidoptera (moth and butterfly caterpillars), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, and ants) and Orthoptera (grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets) (FAO, 2013). Most edible insects are gathered from the wild, but rearing or farming insects for animal feed and human consumption is becoming increasingly more common (FAO 2013). Insect farming is an opportunity to address issues like food security and environmental degradation because it is relatively low impact, requiring little land, water, and feed if based on waste produts to produce high amounts of protein in comparison to traditional livestock animals (FAO, 2013; Mosby et al., 2020). Insects are also healthy sources of- and high in- fat, vitamins, fibre, and minerals:
"Compared to traditional livestock production systems, insect farming uses 50–90% less land per kg of protein produced and 40–80% less feed per kg of edible weight; produces 1.2–2.7 kg less greenhouse gas emissions per kg of live weight gain; and uses 1,000 L less water per kg of live weight gain" – (Espitia Buitrago et al., 2021, pg. 2, citing the work of Payne et al., 2016).
Entomophagy represents as well as new socioeconomic opportunities to improve livelihoods (FAO, 2013). There has been success in domesticating insects previously, with the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) and the domestic silk moth (Bombyx mori) as the most prominent examples, on which massive industries rely.
Public acceptance of new food products and technologies is influenced largely by the perceived benefits, risks, and naturalness of the product in question (Siegrist, 2008). Evaluation is also based on emotions and sensory experiences, with childhood familiarity and accessibility as other possible drivers of overall acceptance (Lusk et al., 2014; Tuorila & Hartmann, 2019). The acceptance of insects and adoption of insect-based foods in Western societies like Canada requires addressing availability and accessibility, which helps consumers become aware of insect-based foods and their benefits through their inclusion in both independent stores and mainstream retailers, and food literacy, which empowers consumers to make their own informed choices on insect diets based on empirical, analytical, historical-hermeneutic, and critical-emancipatory knowledge (Batat & Peter, 2020). There is also a need to dispel the taboo of eating bugs and overcome cultural and social barriers built on the fear, risk, aversion, and disgust of insects. Consumer demand is associated with positive social perception (Yen, 2010). Research has found that the most tolerant groups to entomophagy who may be initially targeted to break down barriers include men, novelty-seekers, and those interested in reducing their meat consumption (Batat & Peter, 2020). Initiatives that promote insects as food may have success if they emphasize their practical value, nutritional benefits, and environmental sustainability (Sun-Waterhouse et al., 2016, Ruby et al., 2015). As a new technology, using insects to reduce food waste within a circular system was viewed as favorably as more traditional techniques like composting (Borrello et al., 2017). An important consideration for the use of insects in such a manner moving forward would be the identification and monitoring of each species’ potential to become invasive in the event of unintended release or outbreak. Some insect species for consumption and waste management practices may only be suitable in specific regions, while others may have more widespread application; van Raamsdonk et al. (2017) recommend the implementation of a working white and black list as the edible insect industry grows to prevent the further spread of invasive species .
Some studies have also found that consumers within Western societies are more open to eating insects if they have been incorporated as ingredients or processed within familiar forms, flavors, or foods like crackers or flour, but care must be taken balance appeal with nutritional value (Batat & Peter, 2020). Attitudes have also been improved by providing opportunities to try insect-based foods; in a study within Atlantic Canada, consumers were more likely to eat and recommend cricket protein powder after consuming and comparing it to the regular product (Barton et al., 2020). Globe Newswire reports the value of the global edible insect market will reach $4.63 billion by 2027, with the North American market the fastest-growing sector.
Doi, Gałęcki, and Mulia (2021) have argued that entomophagy is more relevant than ever in a post-COVID world. Many infectious diseases emerge from human-livestock interactions, but this risk is reduced with insects who “pose a low risk of transmitting zoonotic diseases” due to a strong species barrier (Doi, Gałęcki, & Mulia, 2021, pg. 850). Insect-specific viruses, bacteria, and fungi are not currently known to negatively affect humans, with insect parasites posing the greatest concern for potential disease transmission. There is also a possibility for allergenicity when consuming insects who can be both a source or vector of allergens, with those allergic to seafood a special concern. While not absolutely free from pathogen transfer, insect rearing can be a safer and profitable alternative to raising livestock species, especially if under similar legal and veterinary controls currently applied in conventional husbandry (Doi, Gałęcki, & Mulia, 2021).
Insects for Human Consumption
The need for government oversight in this emerging industry is necessitated by a growing interest in entomophagy in Canada, where almost half of consumers have tried insects and 47% would be willing to do so again (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2017). Edible insects do not currently have more regulations than any other food item exported, imported, or sold within Canada, and are controlled under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, meeting the same requirements as other foods sold online or in stores, although they are not mentioned explicitly in the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. As with other foods, a key preoccupation of the CFIA is chemical and biological hazards in insect foods. If there is an international history of safe consumption for the insect food (as there is with crickets), the insect food does not require an assessment, otherwise, it must be evaluated by Health Canada as a novel food (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2021). If a novel technique is used to change the insect, even one that is consider safe in whole form, the novel foods regulation is also applied. However, the novel food designation is itself problematic because of its use for genetically engineered food (see Goal 4, Genetic Engineering).
Globally, a barrier to uptake in both farming and consuming insects is a lack of government legislation and regulations setting clear criteria and standards for quality control (Kim et al., 2019; Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2017). This creates confusion for both producers and consumers, who are hesitant to take on the risk without well-defined guidance (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2017). There does not, for example, appear to be any specific guidance on rearing substrates for insects designated for the human market. There also has yet to be done “systematic work to guarantee safety and shelf-life” of such products (Kim et al., 2019, pg. 523).
Insects in Livestock Feed
Insects as feed is governed under the Feeds Act and Feeds Regulations (1983). In 2019 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) consulted suppliers, manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, industry associations, government departments, international trading partners, and veterinarians on the proposed guidance document “Registration requirements for insect-derived livestock feed ingredients”. The document states that each source for insect-based feed must undergo an assessment to evaluate the product’s safety and its efficacy within the diet of the intended livestock. The assessment identifies the physical, chemical, and biological hazards the insect-derived feed could have, considering the safety of the insect itself, the manufacturing process (inclusive of how the insect is reared), and the final feed product produced for livestock. Insect-derived feeds must also meet the registration requirements of the Animal Feed Division which includes supplying general information and proper labelling for the product, as well as supporting documentation and research on the insect, production, product safety, efficacy, hazards associated with the product's use, and data on the stability and shelf-life of the insect-derived feed. Registration of the product can also be amended or renewed. Currently, black soldier fly products are authorized as chicken, duck, geese, salmonids, and tilapia feeds. Black soldier fly larvae, mealworms, and silkworm pupae are also allowed as pet food (Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2021).
Other applications
By-products of insect production include chitin, frass, and lipids, which have the potential to be repurposed for use in medical applications, crop, and biodiesel production respectively (Chavez, 2021).
Table 1. International Food and Feed Safety Laws and Regulation (based on the review done by Lahteenmaki-Uutela et al., 2021)
| Region | Relevant Legislation |
| Europe | Some insects are regulated as a novel food, and may only be marketed for consumption after authorization by the European Food and Safety Authority. Current insect food products undergoing safety assessments include the house cricket (Acheta domesticus), banded/tropical house cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus), lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus), black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), honey bee (Apis mellifera), migratory locust/ grasshopper (Locusta migratoria), and yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor). Insects must be reared on either substrates of vegetable origin or a few permitted materials of animal origin (fishmeal, non-ruminant hydrolyzed proteins), not manure, catering or other wastes.
The black soldier fly (H. illucens), common housefly (Musca domestica), yellow mealworm (T. molitor), lesser mealworm (A. diaperinus), house cricket (A. domesticus), banded cricket (G. sigillatus) and field cricket (Gryllus assimilis) can all be used as feed for aquaculture animals. Increasing insect consumption in Europe would require reducing the restrictions on the allowable substrates insects can feed on, while also permitting more livestock types to consume insects as feed. |
| USA | The US Food and Drug Administration considers insects food under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, requiring the food to be clean (no filth, pathogens, or toxins), and properly produced, packaged, stored, transported, and labelled. As food for humans, insect rearing must be conducted under good manufacturing practises; insects produced as animal feed cannot be consumed by humans. If an insect-derived food is used as a ingredient, it is considered as a food additive and requires authorization unless it falls under the Generally Recognized As Safe, GRAS, compliance or a Food Additive Petition, FAP is completed. In animal feed, only one insect species, the black soldier fly (H. illucens) has an established ingredients definition by the Association of American Feed Control Officials, which permits its used in aquaculture feed from salmonids. The larvae of black soldier flies can be reared on pre-consumer food waste and food manufacturing by-products. Although it varies on a state-by-state basis, some pet foods can also be insect-based. |
| Mexico | In Mexico, where insects have long been used as food and for medical purposes, the Organic Products Law has a regulation category for edible insects. All life stages of the maguey worm (Aegiale hesperiaris), the longhorn beetle larvae (Cerambicidae), and ant, or ‘escamole’ larvae, pupae, and eggs (Liometopum apiculatum & occidentale var. luctuosum) are included under this law, and are considered organic food if collected from areas of organic production/ecosystems with little to no human intervention, with the collector also responsible for demonstrating that removing the insects does not alter/damage the area. All other food safety is the responsibility of the Health Secretary (food processing) and the Agriculture, Cattle, Rural Development, Fishing and Feeding Secretary (primary food production) and regulated through the General Health Law, Federal Vegetal Health and Animal Law, and Products and Services Sanitary Control Regulations. These laws do not explicitly discuss edible insects. |
| Australia and New Zealand | Witchetty grubs (Endoxyla leucomochia), Bogong moths (Agrotis infusa), termites (Isoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), honeypot ants (Camponotus & Melophorus), and stingless bees (Meliponini) are common components of Indigenous Australian diets. While there are no specific laws or legislation on edible insects in either Australia or New Zealand, they can be regulated as a novel food, if considered non-traditional. The safety of novel foods must be established, which requires a risk-based assessment. Along with the insects included in traditional Indigenous diets, three other species are already considered non-novel: super mealworms (Zophobas morio), house crickets (A. domesticus), and mealworm beetles (T. molitor). The Insect Protein Association of Australia has confidential guidelines available only to its members concerning best practises in insect farming. Insects may be used in animal feed for aquaculture, and in some states as poultry feed, but cannot be raw. Meat, manure, and catering waste are not eligible substrates to rear insects for animal feed on. |
| Thailand | As the largest producer of crickets for consumption in the world, Thailand has standards that dictate the feed, water, animal health, and environmental requirements for cricket farming, as well as the necessary components and record-keeping required. These can be found in the Good Agricultural Practises for Cricket Farm, Thai Agricultural Standard 8202-2017. Some general inclusions within this standard are ensuring the crickets reared are safe for consumption, raised on quality feed and uncontaminated water, with clean and hygienic equipment, using any chemicals in a way that complies with the standard. These regulations came about to increase cricket food exports, particularly to the European market. |
Insect Feeding Substrate
As a newly emerging livestock species, insects must be subject to feed regulations much like their traditional counterparts. Unlike their traditional counterparts, insects can consume a diversity of unconventional feeds, converting substrates of low quality and nutrition into high quality insect biomass (Chavez, 2021; Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021). Feed conversion efficiency in a given edible insect species is varied, dependant on the composition of their diet, with some species on average able to convert their food more efficiently than others (Oonincx et al., 2015). Argentinean cockroaches and black soldier flies, species most commonly used in animal feed, have higher feed conversion efficiencies than yellow mealworms or house crickets, species more suitable for human consumption (Oonincx et al., 2015). The composition of insect feeding substrates also affects development time, with high protein, high fat diets supporting the quickest growth and highest survival rates for Argentinean cockroaches, black soldier flies, house crickets, and yellow mealworms (Oonincx et al., 2015). Oonincx et al. (2015) found that on the appropriate diet, insects can use protein more efficiently than conventional livestock. Studies done on black soldier fly larvae (the unofficial model species for edible insects) found that insects raised on substrates with a high carbohydrate content (70 - 90%) themselves had a balanced nutrient profile of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins (ratio 33:33:34). Waste high in fibre content (38 - 55%) like wine or beer by-products was found to be efficiently bio-converted by the insects at no detriment to their growth or development, with the energy in the substrate increased by a factor of two to four times within the black soldier fly larvae. With all substrates, insects are able to increase the energy available compared to the rearing material (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021).
Nine types of substrates that insects can and have been reared on were identified in the Pinotti and Ottoboni (2021) review, who summarized their potential and limitations as insect feed . As insects provide a potential avenue to upcycle and reduce waste, especially from food systems, these rearing substrates should be prioritized in insect farms over other feeds that can be consumed by humans and livestock (van Raamsdonk et al, 2017; Table 2). This action helps to circularize the food economy; agri-food leftovers and bio-waste that would otherwise be unused and discarded gain a new life as feed for edible insects, who consume and transform the material into their own biomass, which typically weighs less, is higher in energy, and has a more balanced nutritional profile than the original substrate (Rumpold & Langen, 2020). Some considerations for appropriate feeding substrate include availability and applicability within farming system, cost, legislative framework, potential hazards, ease of harvesting, biomass yield and efficiency, the insect’s nutrient profile, and their development/ harvesting time (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021). Select nutrients within insects can also be manipulated based on the choice of feed substrate, allowing farmers the ability to rear insects to a desired nutritional outcome (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021). Care and consideration must be taken when choosing a substrate as both wild and farm-raised insects are vulnerable to bio-accumulation of chemical contaminants like cadmium and lead. Depending on region, some substrates may not be allowed as insect feed; manure and former foodstuffs containing meat and fish are ineligible as insect feed in Europe, but are common in Africa after being composted or heat-treated. By-products of insect production include chitin, frass, and lipids, which have the potential to be repurposed for use in medical applications, crop, and biodiesel production respectively (Chavez, 2021). Rearing substrates to focus on include fruit, vegetable, and animal by-products, algae, industrial by-products, manure digestate sludge, straw, and restaurant, catering, and municipal leftovers and waste.
| Table 2: Benefits and limitations of insect feeding substrates | ||
| Substrate types | Benefits | Limitations |
| Fruit and vegetable by-products | · Converts and diverts waste products into edible food
· High availability in industrial regions (Barbi et al., 2020) · Meets current feed regulations (Barbi et al., 2020) |
· Lower protein/energy content (Barbi et al., 2020).
· May require more feeding substrate to achieve adequate growth – coupled with “higher transportation costs, long growing periods, and higher energy consumption”, this ultimately has a negative environmental impact (Smetana et al., 2016:747) · Seasonal variations of available fruit and vegetable by-products affects available nutrition within the insect (Barbi et al., 2020) |
| Manure digestate sludge - manure; faeces; sludge; abattoir waste | · Converts and diverts waste products into edible food
· High increase of energy within the insect (>3000 kcal/kg) compared to initial substrate (<1000 kcal/kg) (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) · Insect-based feeds grown on cow manure have a positive environmental impact (Smetana et al., 2016) |
· Prohibited in many regions, due to regulations concerning pathogen transmission including transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021)
· May require treatment (compost, heat) before use (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) · Insect-based feeds raised on chicken manure have a negative environmental impact due to lower utilization and need for treatment of leftover material (Smetana et al., 2016) |
| Industrial by-products – brewery and winery by-products | · Converts and diverts waste products into edible food
· Results in some of the shortest development times and high energy increase relative to rearing substrate (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
· Relatively low biomass yields (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
| Restaurant and food waste - buffets; catering; municipal; household | · Converts and diverts waste products into edible food
· Insects grown on municipal organic waste have a positive environmental impact (Smetana et al., 2016) |
· Prohibited in many regions due to potential food safety issues
· Insects (~5500 kcal/kg) are not as efficient at increasing energy available from restaurant and food waste (~4500 kcal/kg) in comparison to other substrates (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
| Animal based products/ by-products - hides; hairs; feathers; bones | · Converts and diverts waste products into edible food | · Relatively low biomass yields (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021)
· Not currently a common rearing substrate for insects, dearth of literature available |
| Straw - crop residues; legumes; dry cereal stems and leaves | · Converts and diverts a major agriculture by-product, that when poorly managed contributes to environmental degradation (Gao et al., 2019)
· The highest prepupal dry weights and fastest development times were observed on insects reared on rice straw (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
· Does not guarantee adequate insect biomass yields (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021)
· Contains anti-nutritional factors like cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (strongest negative impact), all other types of straw resulted in longest development times (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
| Algae - brown algae; seaweed | · Contain essential nutrients like iodine, sterols, eicosapentaenoic acid, vitamin E, insects can act as a carrier to humans or livestock (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) | · Does not guarantee adequate insect biomass yields, contain anti-nutritional factors like alginate and fucoidan (Pinotti & Ottoboni, 2021) |
| *Based largely on studies completed with black soldier fly larvae | ||
In a life-cycle assessment of insect-based processed products as food and feed, it was found that the sustainability of the practise should not be assumed, and is based largely on the chosen rearing substrate, with low value, nutritious agri-food products and wastes with high environmental impacts found to be the most sustainable options (Smetana et al., 2016). As processing of insects into powders and feeds has a large environmental impact, fresh, whole insects as the final protein product should be encouraged (Smetana et al., 2016).
