This page lists the main challenges we have identified concerning the economic viability and environmental impact of insects for food and feed.

Insect farming has attracted considerable attention over the past decade, attracting several billion dollars in investment and being touted as an environmentally-friendly solution for our food system. However, a significant gap exists between the sector's initial promise and the facts: our research indicates that insect proteins are often uncompetitive both economically and environmentally.

Economic challenges

• Unclear added value
  A series of interviews with insect farming experts indicates that "at present, the insect industry is failing to deliver real economic, environmental or social value", and that obstacles such as consumer acceptance need to be overcome before a positive impact can be made.

• High production costs
  Insect meal is two to ten times more expensive than conventional feeds for farm animals, such as fish meal or soybean meal, which is a major barrier to its adoption.

  • According to the most in-depth study on production costs, "insects are unlikely to become part of large-scale animal feed in the near future" (Leipertz et al. 2024)

• Economic fragility
  Several major companies have recently encountered financial difficulties, highlighting the economic fragility of the model and increasing investor scepticism.

  • The sector has attracted some $2 billion in investment worldwide, but numerous failures testify to the market's volatility.

• Ÿnsect went into receivership in March 2025 despite investing €600 million. In 2023, sales amounted to €656,000, while losses totaled €80 million - 100 times more. Since 2023, the company has laid off 90% of its staff.

• Many insect farming companies are on the brink of bankruptcy, including Agronutris in France ($100 million investment), the Scandinavian leader Enorm biofactory ($55 million) and the largest cricket farm, Aspire Food Group in Canada ($42 million).

• "We need a clear, established and definitive success, whereas all we have so far are clear, established and definitive failures", says a member of the European Insect Union (IPIFF) quoted by Le Figaro.

• Risk of offshoring
  Insect farming is unlikely to contribute significantly to food security in Western countries. Insects require temperatures of 25–30 °C to grow quickly, and Europe’s colder climate and high labour costs make it less competitive than tropical zones, such as Southeast Asia.

  • Combined with the challenges of scale, cost, and feed inputs, insect farming is unlikely to increase food independence in the near future.

• Overreliance on Public Funds
  Companies have received substantial financial support from governments worldwide, totalling hundreds of millions of euros. 

• Half of Ÿnsect's (France) funding is public, according to its co-founder. Aspire Food Group (Canada) has received over 35 M$ in public funding, but laid off 66% of its employees in November 2024. Innovafeed received a 12 M$ grant from the USDA in the United States.

• Minimum human consumption
  Contrary to public opinion, only 5% of insect farming funding is dedicated to human consumption, due to low consumer acceptance and cultural barriers.

• Despite initial enthusiasm, the industry underestimated the "yuck factor" of human food and the difficulty of using food waste to feed insects.

• The industry's main union in Europe, IPIFF, has stated that its aim is not necessarily to produce products to replace meat and fish, but rather supplements.

• The industry focuses mainly on animal feed, especially aquaculture. Pet food accounts for over half the market, but is mainly concentrated on a high-end niche segment.

• Insect-based fertilizers are expensive
  "Frass", a fertilizer derived from insect droppings, is generally too expensive for farmers($1,500-3,000/t compared with $300-350/t for compost/manure in Australia), and far less competitive than synthetic fertilizers.

• Limited competitiveness
  Given these difficulties, IPIFF recently stated that it "does not claim to replace soy or fishmeal, but to offer a complementary product at a premium price".

  • If insect meal is a high-end niche supplement, how can it significantly reduce pressure on marine biodiversity and deforestation?

  • In addition, other alternatives exist, such as algae oil and single-cell proteins used in fish feed, as well as soya from non-deforested areas.

Environmental challenges

General concerns

• Energy-Intensive Heating
  In temperate climates, insect farms often require significant electricity for heating to maintain a temperature of 25-30°C, a process that is often energy-intensive.

• Uncertainty about Insect-based Fertilisers
  A study commissioned by the UK government, and reviewing 50 scientific papers, stated that the usefulness and safety of spreading insect-based fertiliser (frass) in large quantities over farmland are unknown.

• Research indicates it can also generate significant greenhouse gas emissions when applied.

• Biodiversity Risks
  Some studies warn of potential threats if farmed insects escape into the wild, raising concerns about ecosystem disruption and disease spread, especially if they are genetically selected or non-native.

Insects as Animal Feed

• Limited Use of Waste to Feed Insects
  Despite initial industry hopes, the use of food waste to feed insects remains limited, primarily due to logistical, regulatory, and health constraints, even in countries where its use is authorized.

• Most of the largest insect farms use high-quality agricultural by-products derived from grains, thereby directly competing with conventional animal feed or even human food, often resulting in a greater environmental impact.

• According to the CFO of market leader Innovafeed: "Although there is some great longer-term upside [in using waste], it is extremely difficult to build an industry with a consistent quality product if your main input has a high level of variability".

• Added Inefficiencies
  Insects generate conversion losses when they are used to feed other animals. Feeding grain to insects and then feeding those insects to farmed animals increases resource use and results in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to direct feeding.

• A study found that even if fed on waste, insects could demonstrate environmental benefits only if they replace meat in the human diet.

• Higher Emissions than Current Feed
  Most studies suggest that insect-based animal feeds have a higher carbon footprint than soybean meal or fishmeal when insects aren’t raised on true waste.

• According to a study commissioned by the UK government and validated by industry experts, insects emit 5 to 13 times more greenhouse gas than soybean meal, even when insects are fed food waste. They also perform worse than fishmeal.

• Insect meal performed worse than soybean meal on 13 out of 16 environmental metrics (such as energy use or land use).

• Regarding aquaculture, a 2022 review concludes that insects have a “huge” impact regarding global warming, energy consumption and water consumption.

• A large food sector investor network, FAIRR, has said that insects are “not the answer” for aquaculture.

• Water Consumption Issues
  Several studies have found that insect rearing has, surprisingly, a higher water footprint per kg than pork, chicken and beef.

• Supporting Intensive Livestock Farming
  Even if insects were to become competitive, providing an additional animal feed source may indirectly lead to an increase in high-volume meat production, which has well-known environmental and public health challenges.

Insects as pet food

• High Pet Food Emissions
  Insect-based pet foods can emit two to ten times more greenhouse gases than traditional pet foods that use slaughterhouse by-products.

• According to a study, pet food emits around 1 – 2 kg CO2e per kg of protein, while insects emit from 3 to 24 kg CO2e per kg of protein (if not fed on waste)—source: page 35 of this preprint.

Insects as human food

• Mainly Competing with Existing Plant-Based Products
  Only around one in ten insect-based foods are designed as meat substitutes, and they primarily aim to compete with more established plant-based alternatives.

  • Insect-based snacks, pasta, and biscuits likely have a higher environmental impact than conventional products.

• Underperforming Versus Plant-based Options
  Insect-based proteins have a larger environmental impact than plant-based alternatives, and they are less accepted by consumers.

• Minimal Meat Substitution
  Less than 1% of insect-based products aim to replace meat, undermining the key claim that insects will replace steaks.

For a non-list overview of the challenges, you can check the following links in French: Challenges and Environmental Impact.

If you have any question, please contact us at contact@onei-insectes.org