News

This study (open access) tested 119 commercial products of insect flour, composite food and animal feed using two DNA-based methods, real-time PCR and metabarcoding, to check whether the insects claimed on the packaging were actually present.

The headline result is that 50% of the products contained insect species not listed on the label, or lacked the species that were declared. The detailed results are explained within the article and there are not always clear-cut interpretations (particularly for feed, where – for example -  it is not illegal to fail to declare all protein species within a pet food recipe).  However, some trends were clear.

• Many producers are unspecific about species identification, using general terms such as “cricket” which do not differentiate between legal and non-legal species
• Cross-contamination between different insect species is endemic
• Regulatory test methods (PCR) are not fit to tell whether the banned practice of rearing insects on substrate containing meat/bone has been used (because the method will also detect, for example, permitted animal-derived substrates such as egg shell)

The authors conclude that traceability and cross-contamination control needs to be improved in this nascent industry, before insects become mainstream, to avoid loss of public trust.

This paper (open access) reports the results of an authenticity testing survey of insect-containing food and feed products, purchased both within and outside the EU.

119 commercial products were tested for the declared insect species, using two DNA-based methods, real-time PCR and metabarcoding,. All samples (test portions of 100 mg) were extracted following the method recommended by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Animal Proteins in Feedingstuffs

The authors report that 50% of the products contained insect species not listed on the label, or lacked the species that were declared. In particular, cross-contamination was observed when manufacturers worked with more than one type of insect.  Some products contained insects that are not currently allowed for use in the European Union. Some insect meals also contained traces of animal DNA, which may come from the substrates the insects were raised on. The authors point out that this could cause legal problems if these meals are used in certain types of animal feed.

The authors conclude that their study highlights the need for better quality control in the insect production chain. It also shows that DNA tests are useful tools for authenticating the declared insect species in food and feed products.

Photo by Yeyo Salas on Unsplash

This study (purchase required) evaluated two portable NIR spectrometers (900–1700 nm and 1450–2450 nm) and a benchtop FTIR device (4000–550 cm⁻¹) for authenticating edible insect flours. The reference data were constructed from flours produced in-house from insects or larvae purchased online: mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) larvae (23 samples), buffalo worm (Alphitobius diaperinus) larvae (28 samples) and crickets (Acheta domesticus) (28 samples).  Data-Driven Soft Independent Modelling Class Analogy (DD-SIMCA) and soft Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA), were used on the spectral data.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) showed that spectral data of pure insect flours were clustered in the scores plot. DD-SIMCA achieved 100 % sensitivity (SNS) in the test set using FTIR for all insects. NIR Spectrometer in the range of 1450–2450 nm reached 100 % SNS and 100 % specificity (SPS) for buffalo worm and mealworm flour. sPLS-DA showed class sensitivity (CSNS) between 75 % and 100 %, for all three devices tested, with spectrometer in the range of 1450–2450 nm reaching class efficiency rate (CEFF) and total efficiency (TEFF) values ranging from 93 % to 100 %. Also, PLSR achieved RMSEP values as low as 0.44 %, demonstrating its robustness as a tool.

The authors conclude that IR spectroscopy with soft modelling is a non-destructive solution for authenticating insect flours, filling the current gap in rapid and reliable analytical tools for this emerging industry.

Photo by Olga Kudriavtseva on Unsplash

This study (purchase required) assessed the nutrient composition and labelling accuracy of twenty-nine commercially available insect-based pet foods: twenty-four dog foods and five cat foods.  All were labelled as complete and balanced. Twenty were labelled as hypoallergenic. The products were analysed for proximate composition, essential amino acids, and mineral content (calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, copper, iron, zinc, selenium, mercury, and molybdenum) according to AOAC guidelines. The ‘hypoallergenic’ products were assessed for animal DNA using next-generation sequencing.

The results were compared with label declarations, considering nutritional and legal tolerances, as well as recommendations from FEDIAF and NRC for the intended species and life stages (g/1000 kcal ME). Heavy metals were compared to maximum tolerable limits from the FDA.

The analysis revealed that 22 products (76%) did not comply with declared nutritional values and tolerances for at least one nutrient, with nine products (31%) showing discrepancies in two or more; key issues were in crude fibre and metabolizable energy. Three products (10%) met FEDIAF’s recommendations, and seventeen (59%) met NRC’s recommendations. Only one (3%) adhered to both label and FEDIAF’s recommendations. Most nutritional inadequacies were seen in selenium, calcium, phosphorus, Ca/P ratios, and taurine, potentially posing health risks to pets.

Fifteen out of twenty (75%) hypoallergenic-labelled products complied with the labelled species.

Despite the potential benefits of insect-based pet foods, this study underscores the need for further research and stricter quality control to ensure safety and efficacy, ultimately improving pet nutrition and consumers’ trust.

Photo by Hulki Okan Tabak on Unsplash