This page lists the primary challenges we have identified regarding the economic viability and environmental impact of insects as a food and feed source.

Insect farming has garnered significant attention over the last decade, attracting several billion dollars in investment and being promoted as a solution to enhance the sustainability of our food system. However, a significant discrepancy exists between the sector's initial promises and the evidence: research shows that insect protein is often economically both uncompetitive and environmentally detrimental.

Economic challenges

• Lack of clear added value
  A series of interviews with insect rearing experts indicate that “currently the insect industry is not able to offer many economic, environmental or social values” and that barriers such as food acceptance need to be overcome before creating any positive impact.

• High Production Costs
  Insect meal costs two to ten times more than conventional livestock feed, such as fishmeal or soybean meal, creating a major barrier to adoption.

  • According to the most extensive study on their costs of production, “insects will likely not be part of mass farm 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 around $2 billion in investments globally, yet many high-profile failures demonstrate the market's volatility.

• Ynsect filed for insolvency in March 2025, despite $600 million in investment. In 2023, Ynsect’s product sales totalled €656,000, but the company incurred a loss of €80 million, which was 100 times that amount.

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

• "We need a clear, established, and definitive success, where we mostly have clear, established, and definitive failures," - quote from an insider at the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) in 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 public subsidies from governments worldwide, totalling hundreds of millions of euros. 

• In France, Ynsect has received half of its funding from public funds, according to the cofounder. In Canada, Aspire Food Group has received over $35 million in taxpayer support but has laid off 66% of its staff in November 2024. In the US, Innovafeed received a $12 million grant from the USDA.

• Minimal Human Consumption
  Contrary to public perception, only about 5% of the insect farming sector’s funding targets human food due to low consumer acceptance and cultural barriers.

• Despite initial enthusiasm, the industry underestimated both the “yuck factor” in human diets and the difficulty of using food waste to feed insects.

• The main EU industry syndicate, IPIFF, said they are “not necessarily aiming at producing products that will replace meat and fish,” but rather to produce complements.

• The industry primarily focuses on animal feed, including aquaculture. Pet food accounts for more than half of the market, but it primarily focuses on a niche premium segment.

• Insect-based fertilisers are expensive
  Frass, a fertiliser based on insect waste, tends to be too expensive for farmers. Evidence from an Australian study shows that frass costs between $1,500 and $3,000 per tonne, significantly higher than compost and manure, which cost $300–$350 per tonne, and is much less cost-effective than synthetic fertilisers used by most farmers.

• Limited Competitiveness
  Given these challenges, the European industry syndicate IPIFF recently conceded that it “does not claim to replace soy or fish meals used in conventional farming but rather to offer a complementary product for certain farmers, at a premium price”.

  • If insect meal is a niche, premium complement, how can it significantly reduce the pressures on marine biodiversity and deforestation?

  • Additionally, other alternatives exist, such as algal oil and single-cell protein as fish feed, or deforestation-free soy.

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, mainly due to logistical, regulatory, and health constraints, including in countries where its use is authorised.

• 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