ENTOMOPHAGY. EATING INSECTS TO ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM, FOR PEOPLE AND THE PLANET. LUCA VENTURELLI
POLITECNICO DI MILANO AA 2019–2020
THESIS BY LUCA VENTURELLI AA 2019–2020 SUPERVISED BY IRENE BENGO, LAURA GALLUZZO, FRANCESCO GERLI DOUBLE MASTER DEGREE IN PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEM DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF DESIGN, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT POLITECNICO DI MILANO
ENTOMOPHAGY. EATING INSECTS TO ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM, FOR PEOPLE AND THE PLANET.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, inevitably, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and family. Without them I would surely have been much more bored than this and I will be forever grateful to them for their support in this academic track and in my personal growth. Then my supervisors, whose contribution was fundamental in directing and shaping the work. Above all I would like to thank Francesco, who has been so passionate about this topic and has always been both available and an excellent contributor throughout the research. I would like to thank Federica, who has supported every line of this thesis, every screw fixed in the wood, every frustration and every unhealthy idea I have had during this period. If it was not for her presence and her continuous support, for the blind trust she has always given me, I would probably still be at the beginning of this path. Really, thank you. Thanks to all the people who participated in the field research activities, directly and indirectly. Your support for this theme and participation in the activities were fundamental. Thanks also to those who are no longer there, those who are still there, those who will arrive and those who I hope will come back sooner or later. I particularly miss some of you and I am sorry that I am not near you more often than this. In the end you have all been equally wonderful and important, for better or for worse. To all the colleagues at Assist Digital who listened to my ideas, helping me to give them concrete form. Especially to Marzia, both for availability and precious time. And certainly to Carla, Federica, Giulia, Alessia and Livia. To Alexandra Elbakyan, who since 2011 and with extreme ardor, is active in opening the doors to global scientific research wide shut. Thanks to the wonderful contribution of Sci-Hub this thesis has been able to sink its roots in an accessible and thriving soil.
RINGRAZIAMENTI Prima di tutto, inevitabilmente, vorrei ringraziare i miei genitori e la mia famiglia. Senza di loro sicuramente mi sarei annoiato molto di più di così e gli sarò per sempre grato per il supporto in questo percorso universitario e nella mia crescita personale. Poi i miei relatori, il cui contributo è stato fondamentale nel direzionare e dare forma all’elaborato. Soprattutto vorrei ringraziare Francesco, che si è appassionato tanto a questo tema ed è sempre stato sia disponibile che un ottimo sostegno durante tutta la ricerca. Vorrei ringraziare Federica, che ha supportato ogni riga di questa tesi, ogni vite fissata nel legno, ogni frustrazione e ogni idea malsana che ho avuto in questo periodo. Se non fosse stato per la sua presenza e il suo continuo spalleggiamento, per la fiducia cieca che mi ha sempre dato, probabilmente sarei ancora agli inizi di questo percorso. Grazie davvero. Grazie a tutte le persone che hanno partecipato alle attività di ricerca sul campo, direttamente e indirettamente. Il vostro sostegno verso questo tema e la partecipazione alle attività sono stati fondamentali. Grazie anche a chi non c’è più, a chi c’è ancora, a chi arriverà e a chi spero prima o poi si farà rivedere. Qualcuno di voi mi manca particolarmente e mi spiace non avervi vicino più spesso di così. Alla fine siete stati tutti ugualmente stupendi e importanti, nel bene e nel male. A tutti i colleghi di Assist Digital che hanno ascoltato le mie idee, aiutandomi a dargli una forma concreta. Soprattutto a Marzia, sia per la disponibilità che il tempo prezioso. E sicuramente a Carla, Federica, Giulia, Alessia e Livia. Ad Alexandra Elbakyan, che dal 2011 e con estremo ardore, è attiva per aprire liberamente le porte della ricerca scientifica globale. Grazie al meraviglioso contributo di Sci-Hub questa tesi ha potuto affondare le radici in un terreno accessibile e rigoglioso.
ABSTRACT
Contemporary worldwide mass networks of food production, distribution and consumption are economically viable, but environmentally unsustainable and socially uneven. The work carried out in this master thesis is a research study aimed at investigating a major innovation that could possibly disrupt the actual food systems, entomophagy, ie. the consumption of insects for nutritional purposes. The main solutions currently possible for the mitigation of this problem have been identified through systematic research in order to identify the main possibilities and the most likely to succeed, both historically emerged (vegetarianism and veganism) and emerging (plant-based meat and entomophagy). At a first analysis the food consumption of insects has proved to be an alternative with considerable potential from a nutritional and environmental point of view and a systemic enabler of new production and consumption models. This option has therefore been compared with the vegetarian and the plant-based alternatives through three perspectives: environmental, nutritional and perception by potential users.
SINOSSI
Le attuali reti mondiali di produzione, distribuzione e consumo collettivo di prodotti alimentari sono economicamente valide, ma non sostenibili dal punto di vista ambientale e socialmente disomogenee. Il lavoro svolto in questa tesi è uno studio di ricerca finalizzato a indagare una grande innovazione che potrebbe eventualmente scardinare i sistemi alimentari attuali, l’entomofagia, cioè il consumo di insetti per scopi nutrizionali. Le principali soluzioni attualmente possibili per la mitigazione di questo problema sono state individuate attraverso una ricerca sistematica al fine di individuare le principali possibilità e le più promettenti, sia quelle storicamente emerse (vegetarianesimo e veganismo) sia quelle emergenti (carne di origine vegetale ed entomofagia). Ad una prima analisi il consumo alimentare di insetti si è rivelato un’alternativa con notevoli potenzialità dal punto di vista nutrizionale e ambientale e un abilitatore sistemico di nuovi modelli di produzione e consumo. Questa opzione è stata quindi confrontata con la possibile alternativa vegetariana e con quella di carne di origine vegetale attraverso tre prospettive: ambientale, nutrizionale e di percezione da parte di potenziali utenti.
PART I ENTOMOPHAGY AND THE MAIN ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL PROTEINS IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MEAT PRODUCTION
PART II POSSIBLE SYSTEMIC CONFIGURATIONS TO DEPLOY A SCALABLE INSECT FARMING SUPPLY CHAIN
1. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CRISIS 27 EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 28 CLIMATE CRISIS CAUSES AND THE HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 29 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND THE MEAT ISSUE
6. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM 103 INDUSTRIAL AND CENTRALIZED 104 AGRO-INDUSTRIAL AND DIFFUSED 104 DOMESTIC AND CAPILLARY 105 THE METABOLIC RIFT 109 TOWARDS WHICH FUTURE 110
2. THE MAIN MEAT ALTERNATIVES 35 ENVIRONMENTAL VEGETARIANISM AND VEGANISM PLANT-BASED MEAT IMITATIONS 37 ENTOMOPHAGY 40 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 47 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 47 STUDY METHODOLOGY 47 CHOICE OF COMPARABLE ELEMENTS ANALYSIS DIMENSIONS DEFINITION ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS 4. NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS 55 AMINO-ACID PROFILE 57 CHOLESTEROL AND FATTY ACIDS VITAMINS 59 MINERAL SALTS 60
48 48 51
58
5. USER ANALYSIS 65 SAMPLE DEFINITION 75 SENSORY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 81 SURVEY LAYOUT DEFINITION 82 TESTING PANEL DEFINITION 82 ACTIVITY RESULTS 95
35
31
7. ACTION RESEARCH 113 CHOICES OF SPECIES FOR FARMING 114 DIY KIT V– 01. 122 DIY KIT V– 02. 126 DIY KIT V– 03. 130 DIY KIT V– 04. 134 USER TESTING 138 8. CONCLUSIONS 145 FOOD PRODUCTS 147 COMMUNICATION VALUES 151 PRODUCTION SYSTEM 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 SITOGRAPHY 165 LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS 169 LIST OF FIGURES 171
INTRODUCTION
“If we tried to produce all the food needed in 2050 using today’s production systems, the world would have to convert most of its remaining forest, and agriculture alone would produce almost twice the emissions allowable from all human activities.” Tim Searchinger, COP24 Katowice Conference, December 2018 (the Guardian, 2018, ws.) The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), included in the international plan Agenda 2030, are a series of internationally shared objectives that recognize the importance of developing living conditions centered on human well-being and the health of natural systems, through common challenges of transformation that all countries are called to face (United Nations, 2015). In August 2015, 193 countries agreed on a development plan geared towards 17 main goals to achieve shared well-being. Among these, poverty reduction, food security, the search for widespread psychophysical well-being, access to education and the development of gender equality are the first ones. The 2nd out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals aims in fact at “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.”(United Nations, 2015, website). Yet, ensuring everyone has access to a nutritious diet in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges we are currently facing. By 2050, the global population is expected to rise to 10 billion people. Can enough food be produced sustainably for everyone on this planet? As the global population grows, incomes are expected to grow across the developing world. These conditions would bring an expected overall food demand increase of more than 50%, and a correlated demand for animal-based foods increase of 70% (Searchinger et al., 2018). Meat derivatives are one of the main polluters in the worldwide food sector. Currently livestock production uses two-thirds of
global agricultural land and is responsible for approximately half of agriculture’s related emissions. And to sustain the rising levels of livestock production of the last decades, the share of agriculture in overall anthropogenic GHG emissions increased between 17% and 32% (Smith & Gregory, 2013). And now more than ever strong action is needed to tackle the environmental effects of the climate crisis before irreversible damages will contaminate the global ecosystem (Abbasi et al., 2015; Clark & York, 2005; Stern, 2006). Among the emerging alternatives to reduce worldwide meat consumption Entomophagy is considered to be a possible game changing solution, able to impact the nutritional food chain both in western and emerging countries (Shelomi, 2015; Arnold Van Huis et al., 2013; Vantomme et al., 2012). Therefore, the scope of this research thesis is to assess the potentialities of Entomophagy as a viable global alternative to animal protein sources. Two research questions shape the course of the investigation across the layout of the text. The first one, addressed in the first part is: In the rising necessity to shift from meat protein sources to substitute ones, can entomophagy (i.e. the practice of eating insects) be a valid alternative at a global scale? The answer to this question takes in consideration three main perspectives: environmental, nutritional and users’ perception. Subsequently, the major trends related to current insect farming methods are taken into account, shifting the research perspective to the supply side. In this context three main systemic configurations are emerging. In fact currently many independent realities are emerging worldwide in the insect breeding sector, following three main production models: industrial and centralized, agro-industrial and widespread, domestic and capillary. Therefore, the
second research question is shaped: Taking into account the three emerging trends in the entomophagy sector (Industrial & centralized, Agroindustrial & diffused, Domestic & capillary) DIY home production could be the most profound shift from the free market economic model. Could this approach be a feasible process for mass insect farming? To answer the second question an action research on DIY production has been carried out in first person during the course of the investigation. The text is structured in two main parts, each one mainly focused on the first and second research questions respectively. Part 1 contains chapters one to five. Chapter 1 is setting the theoretical context regarding Climate crisis, i.e. the set of environmental conditions, influenced by human activity, that are deeply modifying current global temperature and environmental cycles. This chapter identifies the main causes of climate change and ends with a focus on the food sector and livestock related emissions worldwide. Chapter 2 presents the main alternatives to animal protein sources, namely: vegetarianism, plant-based meat alternatives and entomophagy. Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 each focus on a different perspective of analysis used to investigate the different alternatives and compare them to understand if entomophagy could be a viable partial substitute of meat products consumption. Chapter 4 is focused on the environmental analysis of each alternative, leveraging scientific data already produced in literature. Chapter 4 shows a nutritional analysis that has been carried out comparing the nutritional profiles of each substitute in comparison to meat products. Chapter 5 evaluates each option in a live tasting of food samples with a panel of users, to assess entomophagy acceptance and the perceptions related to meat and substitute samples.
Throughout the research also the different elements analysed and compared have been kept as much as possible unvaried, in order to evaluate the same items across the three perspectives. Beef, Pork and Poultry have been considered as meat baselines, Tofu has been selected as the main vegetarian alternative and two commercial products, namely the Beyond Burger and the Impossible Burger represented the plant-based substitutes. Crickets and Mealworms have been used as insect species, mainly considering that they are currently among the most consumed species worldwide (Arnold Van Huis et al., 2013). Part 2 embraces two additional chapters, seven and eight. In chapter 7 an introduction on the main productive trends that are occurring in commercial insect farming is given, focusing on their influence in the environment. Chapter 8 focuses on the direct prototyping and experimentation of insect farming in a domestic context, to verify if this possible productive approach could be a viable system in mass production. Four prototypes have been tested both in terms of performances and in potential users adoption. The conclusions of the research work express a series of suggestions and possible interest areas to be leveraged for following research studies on the topic or as starting point for design projects.
PART 1 ENTOMOPHAGY AND THE MAIN ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL PROTEINS IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MEAT PRODUCTION
1. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CRISIS
“There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.” (P.6) English economist and academic Nicholas Stern opens with these few words, in a clear and fiery way, the Climate change report released for the Government of the United Kingdom (Stern, 2006). Current forecasts of the effects of climate change are far from reassuring: an increase in global temperature of 2°C would lead to a decrease in the total of 15% of the world’s GDP, reaching 25-30% for a increase above 3°C (Burke et al., 2018). And according to Stern (2006), the lack of concrete action at global level would lead to an increase in average temperature of 2°C already in 2035, with a higher probability by 50% that the long-term increase exceeds 5°C. As a human society, we are not only addressing this change through the effects it is generating in our ecosystem, but also as main proponents of this change. The huge transformation that we are involuntarily implementing in the ecosystem has created such obvious signs that it has led to the definition of a new geological era, that of Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002).
Chart 1, The Hockey stick graph (Mann et al., 1999, p.760)
opments are self-enhancing due to the occurrence of specific conditions (National Geographic, 2019). In the last 10.000 years we have been blessed with an unusual constant temperature. This has allowed civilization to develop. Subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun have been responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we have seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity (Mann et al., 1999). As Chart 1 shows evidently, changes observed in Earth’s climate in the last centuries are primarily driven by human activities, in particular due to the consequent developments raised starting from the Industrial Revolution. Modern scientific research relates the main cause to fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising the average surface temperature. Nevertheless, global warming is only one aspect of climate change.
Climate change is the long-term alteration of the average temperature and typical weather patterns in a place. These changes have a broad range of observed effects for a long period of time, that is why the term “climate” differs from the term “weather” (Shaftel, 2016). The global climate is influenced by a great variety of factors in a hyper interconnected system, the consequences resulting both in positive or negative Over the course of human recent history, atmosfeedbacks on the environment. Thus, certain devel-
28
pheric gas levels have varied dramatically. The result is a change in the climate referred to the Earth as a whole. The visible effect is what is called “extreme weather” in specific locations and contexts. Since the 20th century, scientists have used observations from the ground, air and space, along with theoretical models to forecast future scenarios by monitoring the present, studying the past and predicting variations of all the factors that could affect Earth’s climate. Scientists from all latitudes are warning us that we are living in an environmental crisis, data and evidence is in front of everyone. Even in the media and collective discourse we are witnessing a great shift of attention towards climate change and the global warming issues. Moreover, new guidelines and taxonomy are spreading to better and scientifically inform about what is happening to our planet, by communicating a sense of urgency and being more clear about the responsibility of human activity. Proof of this is the new pledge the Guardian released in May 2019: “Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change” (“The Guardian’s Climate Pledge 2019,” n.d.; Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019). EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Since the late 19th century, the Earth’s average temperature has increased radically, the effects that scientists predicted in the past as the result of global climate crisis are now occurring. The Climate Science Special Reports, released every year at the National Climate Assessment, warn us that the last 100 years have been the warmest in the history of modern civilization with record-breaking that are expected to continue over climate timescales (Jackson, 2017; Wuebbles et al., 2017). More and more, in recent years we have been wit-
nessing long-term effects of global warming all over the world, with precise trends and indicators of a globally changing climate. According to Jackson (2017, NASA ws.) at a global scale the main effects are the following: 1. Temperature change As stated before, recent decades have seen greater warming in response to greenhouse gas over land as well on the ocean. In general, winter is warming faster than summer (especially in northern latitudes), and also nights are warming faster than days. 2. Trends in Global Precipitation The amount of global mean precipitation changes as a result of a mix of fast and slow atmospheric responses to the changing climate. On a global scale annual-maximum daily precipitation has increased by 8.5% in the last century, increasing its frequency both in wet and dry regions affecting soil moisture and land cover. As a result, some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages. 3. Trends in global extreme weather events A consistent alteration in the frequency, duration and magnitude of extreme weather events is one of the most important consequences of a warming climate. This led, on one hand, to the increasing of heat waves, on the other to frequencies of cold waves and low temperature. All of this, along with strong convection and wind shear, represents favorable conditions for the increase of tornadoes, storms and tropical cyclones. 4. Global changes in Land Processes Land cover changes are both consequences and influences on global climate. Human activity such as deforestation, urban development or intensive
29
farming, to mention a few, interact with local, regional and global climate processes by affecting natural cycles and its ecosystems.
Chart 2 - Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector (Our World in data, 2016., ws.)
5. Global changes in sea ice, glaciers and land ice Ice is melting worldwide: polar ice caps, glaciers and the ice sheets that cover Greenland or West Antarctica. Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise with the consequently damage of coastlines due to flood and erosion. 6. Global changes in sea level Global sea levels are rising more than 3mm a year. Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats, melting ice is challenging species and some populations have already collapsed. Yet, the sea level rise is the cause of people emigration from their islands, such as Kiribati, the first country in the central Pacific that will swallow up as a result of climate change. 7. Effects on species As temperatures and ecosystems change, many species are thriving or on the move. Not only animals but also plants are migrating towards better warming due to greenhouse gases released from conditions. Others such as that polar bears will not burning coal, oil, and gas. Each of the past three decades has been warmer adapt, risking extinction. than any preceding decade since records began in Thankfully in 2016, 196 representatives of State par- 1850. An increment of 2°C compared to the pre-inties signed the Paris Agreement within the United dustrial temperature, is considered the threshold Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, beyond a possible radical change in the global ento adopt measures to keep the global average vironment (Mengpin & Friedrich, 2020; Ritchie & temperature limit to 1.5°C by reducing the green- Roser, 2017). Is also proven that human activity adds house-gas emission (United Nations Framework enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing Convention on Climate Change, 2016). global warming and its collateral effects (Crutzen, CLIMATE CRISIS CAUSES AND THE HUMAN RE- 2002).
SPONSIBILITY Global warming refers to the increase of glob- For this reason, there is an imminent need to drasal temperature, mainly focusing on human-caused tically reduce our impact on Earth, by diminishing
the concentrations of some of them in particular: carbon dioxide (Co2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2o) and fluorinated gases (comprised of HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and NF3) (Ritchie & Roser, 2017). Co2 is the most commonly produced gas by human activities, it is responsible for 64% of man-made global warming (currently 40% higher than it was back in the pre-industrial age). However, it is not only the level that matters, but also the rate of Co2: it takes decades to achieve larger changes, and this situation doesn’t give species and planetary ecosystems time to evolve and adapt (Jackson, 2017).
30
31
As of November 2020 89% of CO2 emissions is gen-
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND THE MEAT ISSUE Food, energy and water have been defined by the United Nations as the ingredients of sustainable development. As the world’s population is rapidly expanding, the demand for all three has seen a rapid increase. Yet, ensuring everyone has access to a nutritious diet in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges we face: it is the 2nd out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that aims at “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” (United Nations, 2015) When it comes to tackling climate change, tr food
Chart 3 - Global greenhouse gas emissions from food production (Our World in data, 2016., ws.)
Chart 4 - Greenhouse gas emissions per type of food product (Our World in data, 2016., ws.)
erated by the use of fossil fuels, needed to literally power our lives. Energy consumption, in fact, is by far the biggest source of Co2 emission, responsible for a whopping 73.2% worldwide, including transportation, electricity, heating/cooling system, manufacturing, construction and other industrial fuel combustion. The second top sector that produces emissions is agriculture, with livestock, crop cultivation, land use and deforestation responsible for 18.4% of global emissions. Ther two are followed by industrial processes of chemicals (5.2%) and waste (3.2%).
is responsible for approximately 26% of global GHG emissions, and 4 are the categories to take into account: Livestock, which is responsible for 12% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Crop production, which accounts for 27%, of which 6% is destined to animal feed. Land use, that includes the conversion of forests, grasslands or other natural environments into cropland. It is responsible for 24% of food emissions. Food processing, transport and packaging which all goes under the umbrella of the supply chain, reaching 18% of food emissions. Worth to mention within the supply chain is also the food waste, currently less than 2% of organic waste is valorised and put back
32
to the productive process, and food waste emissions are large (3.3 billion tonnes of CO2eq). Reducing emissions from food production is one of the most urgent and greatest challenges: the current food system has supported a fast-growing population, but the model no longer can be undertaken (United Nations, 2015). As also stated in the compelling report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, there are socio-economic opportunities in building a new sustainable paradigm: “Shifting to a circular economy for food presents an attractive model with huge economic, health, and environmental benefits across the food value chain and society more broadly.” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). In the landscape of environmental pollution a particular focus is gaining increasing attention in the last decades, the one of worldwide meat production and consumption (Macdiarmid et al., 2015; Springmann et al., 2016). The focus is on animal products for two main reasons. On one hand their consumption is dominant in the food systems both for land use and environmental impacts (Herrero et al., 2016). On the other hand mammals are considered relatively inefficient in converting inputs into human-edible food (FAO, 2006, Mottet et al., 2017). As represented in Chart 4 different types of foods produce very distant levels of GHG emissions: a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, while pig meat just 1 kilogram per kg. Overall, animal-based foods tend to pollute more than plant-based ones and for most foods the majority of GHG emissions result from land use change (shown in green), and from processes at the farm stage (brown).
A substantial reduction in overall GHG emission could be achieved by changing demands on agricultural production and in animal protein products (Havlík et al., 2014). The consequent sparing of agricultural land would also provide options for further climate change mitigation measures, including reforestation and increased bioenergy production (Humpenöder et al., 2014). In the next chapter three main alternatives to animal protein consumption are presented. In recent years Vegetarianism, Plant-Based alternatives and Entomophagy have spread at a global scale for their potential to reduce meat consumption in the next decades and reshape current production systems towards a more sustainable configuration.
Figure 1 – A screenshot from the movie “Cowspiracy: The sustainability secret” depicting a concentrated animal livestock as responsible for consuming land, water, and ecosystems, and releasing massive amounts of GHG gas (Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret, 2014, movie)
2. THE MAIN MEAT ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL VEGETARIANISM AND VEGANISM The first social response in order to reduce meat environmental impact has been to actually cut it from everyday diets. In the following section vegetarianism and veganism are treated at the same level, even though the two lifestyles are not the same nor interchangeable. Vegetarians largely just avoid the consumption of meat and/or fish, while vegans choose not to partake in any form of animal exploitation. They avoid egg, dairy products, honey or any other animal byproduct and the most radical are coherent even when they shop clothes, for example avoiding wool and leather (Future Kind, 2020). Both the trends are rising, as veganism and environmental vegetarianism are practices motivated by the will to cut the negative environmental impact of meat production. From 2012 to 2017 the meat-free food demand grew by 987% (Grand View Research, n.d.). Indeed, in very recent years, veganism has been reframed towards the gains from the diet, from the health perspective and the positiveness both for the person and for the planet. Whereas before, being vegetarian or vegan was usually viewed like a sacrifice. The trend is increasing giantly in the space of a decade, and the big plant-based shift is undoubtedly cultural, whose motivations range from adopting a healthier lifestyle, climate change activism or animal rights standpoint (Hancox, 2018). Information passes freely and easier now thanks to the digital, thus consumer awareness and eating habits are changing fast, it is not overstating saying that a new veg movement is taking shape. In fact the veg market reached $12.69B in 2018, projected to expand 9.6% from 2019 to 2025 (Grand View Research, n.d.).
annual amount of Co2 emitted by typical UK diets is 2,055 kg for meat-eater regimes, 1,391 kg for vegetarian diets and 1,055 kg for vegan ones. The spread of vegetarianism and veganism would reduce the impact of GHG emission and help decrease global warming, with important consequences to the environment, such as: Avoiding excessive Co2 production from livestock Reducing methane and N2o production from livestock industry and from cows and sheeps Saving large amounts of water (to produce a kilo of beef vary, from 13.000 lt up to 100.000 lt of water) Avoiding further pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans caused by animal waste, antibiotics and hormones, alongside chemicals, fertilizers, or pesticides from feed crops Reducing destruction of soil and rainforest. Decreasing soil erosion, desertification and deforestation due to livestock farming. Diminishing destruction of wildlife habitats & endangered species
As much as regards nutritional benefits, the World Health Organization’s first statement is echoing and reinforcing the need for a healthier diet: ”Eat a nutritious diet based on a variety of foods originating mainly from plants, rather than animals” (World Health Organization, n.d.). Adopting plant-based diets could reduce global mortality by 6–10%, averting 8.1 million premature deaths per year. Recent studies has proven that consuming plant-based products have strong positive effect to our health, in particular decreasing significantly the risk of heart diseases, reducing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and helping people who are overweight to reduce body fat (Oxford Martin School, 2020; Springmann et al., 2016). Environmental and nutritional benefits But changing consumer preferences towards a low According to Scarborough et al. (2014), the average meat consumption diet is still difficult due to cultur-
al, social and personal associations with meat consumption, despite the benefits for both health and the environment (Macdiarmid et al., 2015). In this direction a new market segment has taken shape over the past decade. Is a new food product paradigm that leverages exactly this sensorial aspect. Instead of trying to change users’ perspective on their diets is it possible to create new vegetarian products that emulate existing ones? Starting from this first questioning the Plant-based meat alternatives emerged, as described in the next section.
36
37
PLANT-BASED MEAT IMITATIONS Plant-based meat, vegan meat, or more pejoratively, fake meat are the most common names to define a meat analogue that approximate texture, flavor, appearance of specific types of meat by using vegetarian or vegan ingredients and chemicals. Tofu and Seitan are meat analogues too, the most ancient imitation in searching for alternatives to meat protein for ethical reasons and food shortage.
Figure 2 – A sample of the evergrowing range of vegan products (Mead, 2017, The Guardian ws.)
Figure 3 – Vegan activist during the World’s first Vegan Day on the 1st of November, 2019 ( Plant Based News, 2020, ws.)
Alongside the growth of vegetarianism and veganism, in countries with economic wealth, we are witnessing a growing interest and awareness to find alternative proteins to meat. As changing radically eating habits towards plantbased diet is not tempting for everyone, the market of plant-based meat is rising, both for environmental concern and animal rights. Thanks to new technologies and special ingredients, startups and innovative food companies are emulating the customer experience of eating meat to a great standard of quality and analogy. In 2018 plantbased food sales increased 17% and the plant-based market along with the cultured meat (lab-created meat) could be worth around $ 85B by 2030 (Mckinsey & Company, 2019; Yaffe-Bellany, 2019). Compared to other alternatives, plant proteins are the most well established and derived from protein-rich seeds through dry or wet fractionation. The most popular type is soy, followed by pea and subtypes (such as chickpea or lupin). Currently, several companies are launching their plant-based protein transforming the sector from niche to mainstream. Across a great amount of supermarkets in America and Europe consumers can find plant-based meat.
in the market: Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. Beyond Meat has been the first company to produce plant-based meat in 2009. Founded by Ethan Brown in Los Angeles, California, the company’s first product launched in 2012 was designed to emulate chicken and sold frozen. The company started selling its plant-based chicken product in the United States in 2013, and in 2014 it expanded its presence from 1,500 to 6,000 stores across the US, also increasing its product portfolio to a beef patty and pork sausages imitations (Hughes, 2015). Beyond Meat trades on the United States NASDAQ exchange under the symbol BYND and as of November 2020 had a market value of $8.61B, starting from $3.8B on the day of its initial public offering in May 2019. (Business Insider, 2020) Impossible Foods was founded in 2011 by Stanford biochemistry professor Patrick O. Brown and launched its first product Impossible Burger in 2016. In 2009, the former academic decided to devote a sabbatical year to investigate the elimination of intensive animal husbandry and in 2010 co-organized a conference in Washington, D.C., to raise public awareness of the issue. However, the event had little impact, and Brown decided immediately afterwards that the best way to reduce animal farming would be to offer a competing product on the free market (Jacobsen, 2017). The company is headquartered in Redwood City, California and is currently selling its products both in restaurants and in supermarkets across the USA. In 2019, it announced it would be working on “whole cuts of beef”, including steak (The Spoon, 2019). In total, Impossible Foods has raised $1.3 billion over 12 rounds of funding from investors including Google Ventures, Viking Global Investors, UBS, and Bill Gates (Fehrenbacher, 2014; Nguyen, 2015).
PLANT-BASED MEAT DISRUPTORS Despite the recent entry into the market of big players like Tyson and Nestle, two are the main compa- Plant based meat products are made from protein nies who have been going ahead to claim dominance concentrates, fats, binding agents to hold together
38
Figure 5 – Beyond Meat’s analytical laboratory. Scientists identifying the signature aroma molecules of meat. (Beyond Meat, 2020, ws.)
Figure 6 – Beyond burger (Beyond Meat, 2020, ws.)
39
Figure 7 – Impossible burger (Impossible Foods, 2020, ws.)
Figure 8 – The industrial process of making heme, originally found in soybean roots, with the same slightly metallic taste and aroma of blood. (Impossible Foods, 2020, ws.)
Figure 4 – Reference picture of pea protein isolate ( generic web research, n.d.)
the various ingredients and flavors. Beyond Burger sources proteins and carbohydrates from plant-based sources like peas, beans, potatoes and brown rice. But on top of the long list of ingredients, the primary source of proteins is pea isolate, which compared with protein isolated from grains contains a better balance of essential amino acids. Using heating, cooling, and pressure, the fibrous texture of meat is recreated from plant-based proteins throughout the manufacturing process. Then, the company mixes in fats, minerals, fruit and vegetable-based colors, to replicate the appearance, juiciness, and flavor of meat (Beyond Meat, 2020). The red bloody sensation of plant based meat is one of the key components of this products’ success, but also a source of nutritional criticism (Bandoim, 2020; Kubala, 2020; Robinson, 2016). Compared to its competitor Beyond Meat achieves the “red color” from raw beet extract. As shown below, instead Impossible Foods uses genetically modified fermented beetroot components to produce a composite called heme (Capritto, 2019). Whereas Beyond Meat is strictly non-GMO, the Impossible Burger is not organic. The product received the Kosher certification and the Halal certification in 2018, but recently faced backlash about using genetically modified ingredients that contain the pesticide glyphosate (Thomas, 2019). The Impossible Burger is mainly made with soy protein concentrate, which is a processed ingredient prepared by isolating the protein fraction from carbohydrates of defatted soymeal. Acid leaching, aqueous ethanol extraction and moist heat-water leaching are the three basic processes used for carbohydrate removal. Heavily processed soybeans inevitably lose many of the benefits of the raw food, that is why in the process vitamins and minerals to fortify the burgers are added in the raw mixture to replace the nutrients lost during processing (Guo, 2009).
Regarding company’s products there is currently a controversial issue focused on the use of soy leghemoglobin, or “heme”, the key ingredient that makes the burger “bleed” like real meat while cooking. Heme is a molecule found in plants and animals that carries oxygen through bloodstream, making blood red, meat pink, and giving the burger its slightly metallic flavor and aroma when exposed to sugars and amino acids (Robinson, 2016). Impossible Foods claims with a bold and convincing narrative and communication that its product is better for Humans and the Earth than a beef burger. But the scientific community believes that the actual health benefits of the burgers should be taken with a degree of skepticality. The main controversy is focused on heavily processed ingredients usage, on the unbalanced nutritional composition and on the direct health uncertainty around Heme. As regards the last ingredient, despite being deemed GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the North American FDA council (Food and Drug Administration), its long-term safety for humans is still unknown (Bandoim, 2020; Kubala, 2020). THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SOY The main criticism as regards the actual environmental footprint of plant based meat alternatives is that an increase in overall soy consumption, is driving soy depletion and tropical deforestation (Glenza, 2019). Brazil is the main soy producer globally. In the season 2019/2020 the country produced 37% of worldwide soy, with an estimated increase for the 2020/2021 season of +7.7%. Yet soy is the second-highest agricultural cause of deforestation on a global scale, second only to beef. In Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, large natural areas of the Cerrado and Chaco - two of South America’s richest landscapes - are destroyed in favour of soybean cultivation. Along with the Amazon rainforest, these ecosystems are threatened by expanding production of soy (World
Wildlife Fund, 2016). This cereal is also responsible for soil erosion and degradation, water depletion, and a substantial increase in greenhouse gases for various aspects of the production. Tropical countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay are currently experiencing the negative double effect of an increase in emissions for production and a reduction in absorption capability due to deforestation and area conversion. The Brazilian government estimates that the conversion of the Cerrado alone accounted for an increase in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to more than half of total UK emissions for 2009 (Thomas, 2019). The social impacts of the tropical areas transformation play also an important role in environmental controversy of soy. In the three countries the concentration of farmland in the hands of a few industrial producers has pushed small farmers and communities off the land and encouraged exploitation of workers. Survival International, the world movement for the rights of indigenous people, notes that expansion of agricultural and pasture land endangers 650,000 Brazilian Indians in more than 220 tribes (Survival, n.d.).
Figure 9 – Mechanical harvesting of soy in the deforested territories of Cherrado and Chacho, Brazil (WWF, 2020, ws.)
40
ENTOMOPHAGY The practice of insect consumption, known as entomophagy, from the Greek éntomon (insects) and phagein (eating), is an ancient food practice conducted by humans for millennia. It is estimated that insect consumption is currently practiced regularly by about 2 billion people worldwide and 2,000 species are recognized as edible for human consumption (Van Huis et al., 2013; Megido et al., 2014). Most of them have common nutritional characteristics, with insects being a nutritionally valuable food due to their high fat, protein and micronutrient content (Nowak et al., 2016; Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013). Recently, the attention towards entomophagy has been revived by growing publications and commercial initiatives led by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), which for years has been trying to promote this practice also in western countries (Arnold Huis et al., 2013). In many countries in Asia, Central America and Africa the main source of supply of edible insects is harvesting from natural resources, as edible insects populate a wide variety of habitats, such as aquatic ecosystems, forests and agricultural fields. Yet edible insects can also be bred under the control of human activities, in a comparable way to current animal husbandry methods. From an environmental point of view, they can also be produced in a more sustainable way than animal protein sources as they have a lower emission profile as they are more efficient in converting biomass into protein and calories (Abbasi et al., 2015; Van Huis et al., 2013). For these reasons, in recent years, FAO is engaged in a program called “Edible Insects” which aims to promote the use of insects for human food and feed production, with potential impacts on health and the environment. Insects are poikilotherms, which means that they do not consume energy to regulate their body temperature, a condition that enables
insects to convert most of the calories introduced through their diet into physical mass. MARKET EVOLUTIONS IN THE ENTOMOPHAGY SECTOR According to the market intelligence company Coherent Market Insights, the global edible insect market is expected to reach US$ 850 million in revenues by the end of 2027, growing at a CAGR of 6.7% during the period of forecasted analysis 2020 to 2027. As regards the current situation in 2019 the Asia-pacific region represented the majority market share with a 33% of global revenues, followed by Middle East & Africa and Latin America, respectively. Interest on sustainable food supply is participating in the growing demand for insect protein (Coherent Market Insights, 2020). The feasibility of promoting edible insect farming as sustainable protein heavily depends on social acceptance, and in the Western world insects are largely unfamiliar and mostly considered as a taboo. Processed insect products such as cookies, snack bars or powders could play an essential role in normalising entomophagy, detaching the perception from the usual imaginary (Collins et al., 2019). Furthermore, population’s exposure to insects for food and subsequent increase in demand and innovation adoption is crucial for the successful deployment of insect farming for food (Laar et al., 2017; Stull et al., 2018). As much as regards product typology, currently insects flour and protein bars are the main items commercialized. Flour is the main form of insect protein due to its ease of use as a basic and versatile ingredient for food products and many major food processing companies around the world are adopting it as an ingredient in their formulations. However, particularly in the United States and European countries, insect protein bars are currently on the rise. The market for this product is expected to grow at
41
a CAGR of 42% until 2025 (Global Market Insights, 2020). According to the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF), the global production of insects reached 6 thousand tonnes in 2018. The growth of the insect protein market has been boosted also by the technological advancements in the field of insect rearing, where robotics and data-driven technologies are the main current forms of automations. The use of insect protein in food and feed to reduce depletion of natural resources is also supported by several governments and NGOs such as IPIFF and Insect Protein Association of Australia (IPAA). These organizations are also actively providing financial and marketing assistance to insect farmers, thus supporting the growth of the farming sector. A set of acquisitions have also occurred in recent times, entrusting market growth and continuing to raise competition in the market. The first acquisition in the insect protein market aimed at a vertical integration of the value chain has been performed in 2018 by Aspire Food Group. This U.S. based manufacturer of cricket powder acquired Exo, whose core business is cricket protein production, in March 2018. After the acquisition, Exo began using cricket powder from Aspire in its bars and Aspire changed the Aketta line of cricket products to the Exo brand. In September 2017, Protix acquired Fair Insects BV, a leading company specialized in crickets, mealworms and grasshoppers rearing to expand its business portfolio. In December 2018, AgriProtein, which focuses on flies and larvae production, acquired Belgian insect feed company Millibeter to expand its network of activities in the European region. The emerging market for insect proteins is likely to be consolidated by global food giants. The high growth potential of the market is motivating companies like McDonald’s Corporation and Nestlé (who launched in November 2020 an insect based pet
food through the Purina brand) to move towards direct entry into the business (Coherent Market Insights, 2020). Increasing competition is likely to result in lower prices for insect proteins, facilitating access to medium size producers of processed foods and snacks and a subsequent diffusion on distribution channels. Yet to date still many legal barriers exist. Currently in Europe insects cannot be used for food and feed purposes, even if with the release of the Green deal action plan, a set of policy initiatives by the European Commission with the aim of making Europe climate neutral in 2050 intentions on policies seem to have taken a different direction. According to the official communication from the Commission, related to their Farm to Fork Strategy research area: “A key area of research will relate to microbiome, food from the oceans, urban food systems, as well as increasing the availability and source of alternative proteins such as plant, microbial, marine and insect-based proteins and meat substitutes.” (European Commision, 2020, ws.) MAIN ISSUES IN THE DIFFUSION OF ENTOMOPHAGY Insects have great potential as an alternative source of protein, but further research is urgently needed before mass production farming technologies will diffuse globally, in order to avoid unforeseen ecosystemic issues (Van Huis et al., 2013; Shelomi, 2015; Vantomme et al., 2012). Three main issues are crucial when considering human induced mass insect farming: possible environmental externalities, sanitary practices and zootronic infections prevention, ethical aspects. ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES Environmental sustainability is a key justification for
42
Figure 10 – An Acheta Domesticus Cricket resting on a leaf (generic web research, n.d.)
43
Figure 14 – Hundreds of bug species are used as a source of food in Mexico and insects are a part of the culinary heritage (generic web research, n.d.)
Figure 11 – A detail of a 60,000 square feet cricket farm in North America, the largest in the country (Entomo Farms, 2018, ws.) Figure 12 – Detail wiew of a frozen locust
entomophagy development, however currently few are the studies that researched the impacts of potential sustainability counter effects related to mass rearing of insects. Potential grey areas in unforeseen environmental externalities have been explored by Åsa Berggren and colleagues (2019) in their study: Approaching Ecological Sustainability in the Emerging Insectsas-Food Industry. According to the authors:
tive on the possible new sustainability ecosystem and its inputs, leveraging in particular the necessity to investigate a possible role of insects as “converters” of non-nutritive biowaste and using feed crops to enhance local biodiversity. The latter regards the management of unwanted system products, i.e. the additional interferences with the environment that insect farming may cause indirectly, such as escapees, diseases, insect manure usage, and methane production. On one side authors argue that current risk evaluation systems developed within invasive species ecology and management may be partially reused in the context of insect farming, but they also stress the need of additional examination for each species suitable for breeding, in order to evaluate and prevent significant ecological spill-outs. The authors therefore conclude that the macro areas of investigation that they propose are essential to shape large-scale insect rearing research and its implementation into policy and industry goals to create environmentally viable standards in the sector (Berggren et al., 2019).
“The emerging insects-as-food industry is increasingly promoted as a sustainable alternative to other animal protein production systems. However, the exact nature of its environmental benefits are uncertain because of the overwhelming lack of knowledge concerning almost every aspect of production: from suitable species, their housing and feed requirements, and potential for accidental release. If ecological sustainability is to be a hallmark of mass insect rearing for consumption, ecologists need to engage in research related to sustainability criteria that are directly linked to key elements of the development of SANITARY PRACTICES AND ZOONOTIC INFECTIONS the industry.” (Berggren et al., 2019, p.132) PREVENTION The risk of zoonotic infections, the type of diseases The academic team outlines the main areas that will which spread from wild animals to humans suddenimpact key sustainability criteria to direct further ly causing epidemic diffusion, is currently more than industry development towards a better defined en- ever a top of the list problem. With the sudden diffuvironmental track.In particular they stress the rele- sion of the virus SARS Covid-19 throughout the world vance of three main aspects. during 2020 the risk of a new pandemic wave, widely The first one relates to the choice of insects to be foreseen by many authors in the academic commubred: currently, the emerging industry focuses on nity (Fan et al., 2018; Keog, Brown et al., 2010), is an a narrow range of potential edible species and the issue of major relevance in regards to entomophagy. further investigation of new ones could provide interesting discoveries in terms of nutritional and Van Huis et al. treat this issue in the report they progrowth profiles. duced for FAO in (2013), stating that currently there The second is focused on sustainable feed produc- is not enough scientific information to determine tion, where the authors consider a broader perspec- if insect farming could generate potential vector
Figure 13 – An example recipe from the book “On eating insects”, collecting stories and recipes on entomophagy (Nordic Food Lab, 2017, p.52)
Figure 15 – Swiss made Essento Insects Snacks. Currently sold in restaurants, e-commerce and available on the shelves of supermarkets across Switzerland, Germany and France (Essento, 2020, ws.)
channels to facilitate the transmission of harmful part in guaranteeing that rearing processes would emerging pathogens to humans. be executed in the most secure conditions. Both risk According to the authors: guidelines and sanitary standards should be implemented in terms of normative guidelines to facilitate “Because insects are taxonomically much the diffusion and implementation of mass rearing. more distant from humans than conventional livestock, the risk of zoonotic infections is ETHICS expected to be low. Nevertheless, insects are Currently, EU legislation on animal welfare is based potential vectors of medically relevant path- on a set of principles conceptualized in 1965 by ogens, including the eggs of gastrointestinal the UK Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, helminths found in human faeces. The risk of chaired by F. Rogers Brambell which formulated five zoonotic infections (transmitting diseases from key points focused on the intensive farming of veal humans to animals and back) could rise with calves, pigs and chicken (Brambell, 1965) the careless use of waste products, the unhy- They describe the standards that the animal progienic handling of insects, and direct contact duction industry should ideally follow, regarding the between farmed insects and insects outside condition of production animals. The five points are: the farm due to weak biosecurity.” (Van Huis et al., 2013, p.66) The freedom from hunger and thirst The freedom from discomfort Therefore, the adoption of proper sanitation prac- The freedom from pain, injury and disease tices is an important matter to reduce the occur- The freedom to express normal behaviour rence of disease and safety problems, to reduce po- The freedom from fear and distress. tential infectious conditions both for insects and for workers. Ethical aspects regarding insect rearing are still unThe main sources of contamination in insect rearing der investigation and are a predominant research facilities are newly introduced insects, staff and field in developing sustainable and human farming the airflow in the facility and nutritional ingredients. practices. At the moment research studies of how To reduce microbial contamination by air, air filtra- mass rearing influences insect welfare is insufficient tion is one of the most important tools to use. Clean to draw definitive conclusions and the topic is conworking rooms are essential as well and access to sidered a priority issue to be addressed (A. Van Huis, rearing areas should only be permitted to trained 2017). staff members, avoiding visits from non profession- On top of adequate rearing conditions, one of the al members to prevent contamination by humans. main aspects to be investigated for a proper insect As much as regards nutrition, many components of welfare is the development of humane slaughtering human induced diets contain various fungi and practices. On this issue an ongoing debate is curbacteria and to prevent population growth of these rently ongoing in the entomology scientific commumicroorganisms it is important to adopt proper nity, and the main alternatives discussed are expostoring practices, such as maintaining the feed as sure to hot steam or water, inhaled anesthetics, live dry as possible. shredding or freezing (Gjerris et al., 2016). In general specific sanitary practices are an essential At the current moment the main methods used in
44
commercially farmed insects for feed and food consumption are freezing, together with live shredding and hot steaming. The choice of these three main methods is that regardless of animal welfare, they allow producers to avoid potentially harmful chemicals in the final food product which could be introduced by anesthetics. According to van Huis and colleagues hypothermia is a humane way to euthanize insects. The scholars suggest that insects should be chilled at a temperature higher than 0°C before freezing them to slow vital activities down and reduce possible sensitivity. Insects are poikilotherms, which means that they do not consume energy to regulate their body temperature, which varies depending on the temperature of their environment (Van Huis et al., 2013).
Figure 16-18 – First culinary experiments. Boiling, roasting and a first recipe tasting
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The scope of this analysis is to assess at a first level the environmental impacts of Meat protein sources and of different vegetarian, Plant-based and Insect protein sources. The analysis has been carried out by the scouting of existing data, from a systematic literature review, to be used as building blocks of an overall performance matrix. The methodology used on the sourced references to evaluate impacts of each alternative is the one of Life Cycle Assessment, currently the most reliable source of information in terms of environmental related studies. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one of the fundamental tools for the implementation of a sustainable design and production policy. Today this discipline represents the main operational tool of “Life Cycle Thinking”, a new way of thinking about industrial production cycles developed in the late ‘60s. Through this approach a gradual design consideration of the environmental and energy implications related to the technical characteristics necessary for production has been created. The term LCA was first used in 1990 at the SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) congress in Smuggler Notch, USA, where it has been defined as follows: “LCA is a process that allows to assess the environmental impacts associated with a product, process or activity, through the identification and quantification of material and energy consumption and emissions into the environment and the identification and evaluation of opportunities to reduce these impacts.” (Fava et al., 2014). LCA is therefore an objective process of evaluation of the environmental loads associated with a product, process or activity, through the identification and quantification of energy and materials used and waste released into the environment. The assess-
ment includes the entire life cycle of the product, process or activity, from the extraction of materials to final disposal. STUDY METHODOLOGY As a reference base for the comparative analysis, the study produced by Alexander et al. (2017) has been used as a methodological framework. The approach of the study conducted by the authors focuses in the first part on reviewing a pool of already produced LCA analysis, extracting key data for a cross-comparison of relevant dimensions for the food products studied. To carry out the study elaboration, the same approach has been adopted. The phases of the methodology used were: Choice of the analysed alternatives Systematic review of the studies Choice of the comparison metrics Cross comparison of data sourced, with values conversion when necessary. The overall mathematical computations carried out during this research phase are available online through an open access Google Sheets file, linked at the end of the text after the bibliography. The main scope of this choice is to make the file available to the minor academic community formed mainly by Bachelor and Master degree students, to facilitate successive analysis on this topic. The analysis carried out is a LCA cross-review, i.e. an high level overview of the main alternatives. The actual impact of each alternative may vary largely on the effective context of sourcing, production and use of the product. The cradle-to-gate approach (meaning a partial consideration of the whole lifecycle path), has been adopted in the study as the main literature references in the assessment of meat sources (de Vries & de Boer, 2010) and insect based
48
proteins (Oonincx & de Boer, 2012) leveraged it. Nethertheless this first level approach is already a valuable element of comparison, according also to Alexander et al. (2017).
from academic literature have been reviewed and used as a source of data to compare the different alternatives. The literature review has been conducted with two different objectives that were then integrated. The CHOICE OF COMPARABLE ELEMENTS first objective was to identify the necessary analysis The individual elements analysed in the study are: dimensions, the second was to have access to valid Beef, Pork, Poultry for the types of meat, taken as data that could be used for a comparison between baselines. For these items a detailed LCA study has the various product alternatives identified. been conducted by (de Vries & de Boer, 2010). Tofu is considered as a vegetarian alternative, as sug- Starting from the sources proposed by Alexander et gested by Alexander et al. (2017), using as main ref- al. (2017), the first pool of studies have been idenerence the study in Tofu production conducted by tified. From that reference point, the literature reSahirman et al. (2014). Beyond Meat and Impossible search has been carried out through the sources citfoods have been considered as Plant-based Meat ed by the first pool of scientific papers and through a reference products. These two companies are the parallel research on Microsoft Academics to find the first players to have competed in the industry, and most cited and referential researches produced on they represent the two principal options of protein the topic. isolate usage, via Soy extract or via Pea extract. LCA After the initial research, particular attention has studies divulgated by the companies have been used been put in narrowing as much as possible the numin this case. As much as regards insects, Crickets and ber of sources used to identify the most relevant Mealworms have been selected as alternatives, fol- and comparable ones. Using as much as possible lowing the direction of Alexander et a. (2017) and few data pools in the comparison of the same metric considering that they are currently among the most among the different alternatives analyzed allows in consumed species worldwide (Van Huis et al., 2013). fact to have a more precise overview of the effective The choice of the alternatives has been guided both impact of each category. The detailed list of referby the fact that they may be seen as the most rep- ences used is accessible in the previously mentioned resentative per each category and that for each of Google Sheets file. them quality comparable data was present in literature.For each alternative the analysis has been ANALYSIS DIMENSIONS DEFINITION carried out by considering the impact of one kg of The cross metrics used in the analysis are: GHG whole final product and one kg of final weight of emissions, Land use, Energy Use, Feed to protein efprotein per alternative, where the latter has been ficiency - i.e. Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) per procalculated by considering the edible percentage tein weight - and Comprehensive Water use. and protein percentage contents of each option, The choice of key metrics used to validate the analapproach derived by Alexander et al. (2017). ysis has been derived from the ones majorly diffused in the most relevant studies produced to date in the context of analysis, which also allowed to use more SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW easily comparable parameters among the alternaFor the purpose of this analysis relevant sources tives.
49
As much as regards the main metrics Alexander et al. (2017) the use of the Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) and Energy Use to evaluate Mealworms, Crickets and Tofu meat, leveraging data produced in previous researches. Oonincx & de Boer (2012) base their analysis on GHG emissions, Land Use, and Energy Use, producing a novel study for Mealworms impact and sourcing the work of Vries & de Boer (2010) which analysed the impact of Beef, Pork and Poultry. Both LCAs for the assessment of the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger are sourced by companies’ reports, respectively produced by the Center for Sustainable systems of University of Michigan (Heller & Keoleian, n.d.) and Quantis (Khan et al., 2019). In the study the researches have been based on the comparison of GHG Emissions, Land Use and Energy Use among other key metrics.
This information was missing in many insect related literature as also Halloran et al. (2016) denote, and was not present in Tofu evaluation and PB studies. As regards the main meat alternatives, the application of this concept was presented by Pimentel et al (2004) and has been used as a starting point for further development. Virtual water is a measurement referring to the amount of fresh water used in the production and commercialization of food and consumer goods. The concept of Virtual Water was developed in 1993 by the academic of King’s College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies John Anthony Allan. For his relevant contribution in sustainability research, the professor received in 2008 the Stockholm Water Prize from the Stockholm International Water Institute.
The last metric used to assess the different alternatives has been the one of Virtual Water use. The application of this perspective on the study has been considered of major importance because currently many insect based products are marketed in an erroneous way, leveraging incorrect information that does not communicate transparently effettive consumption. As Figure 19 shows, the expressed value for crickets is of 1l solely. This number takes in consideration the amount of water used in insect rearing alone (which effectively is extremely low), not accounting for the necessary water to produce dry feeding, as the effective value ranges instead from ca 2500 to 5500 liters. On the same reference however, the value for Beef (22000l) includes this information (Eat Grub, 2018). The amount of virtual water use may vary significantly in real life contexts, due to the complexity of variables that influence the food system across the whole production chain. For example when considering the amount of water needed to irrigate cropland to be destined to feed production, substantial changes may occur due Figure 19 – Company website showing erroneously the resources needed to produce 1kg of protein across animals (Eatgrub,2020,ws.) to geographic region, irrigation methods and cli-
50 Environmental comparison of Meat and Meat Alternatives Environmental comparison of Meat and Meat Alternatives
emissions (kg CO2-eq) use (m2 Energy use (MJ) protein efficiency (kg) GHG emissions (kgGHG CO2-eq) Land use (m2 y) EnergyLand use (MJ) Feedy) to protein efficiency (kg) Feed Waterto use (kl) GHG emissions
Land use
Energy use
Feed to protein efficiency
51
Water use (kl)
Water use
Beef
Pork
matic conditions. Throughout the analysis the data for virtual water consumption has been sourced as maximum value across each of the alternatives, as it represents the maximum threshold of impact possible for each alternative, and because the relative contribution of each alternative was approximately equivalent for mean and low values.
Poultry
Tofu meat
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS The results provided through the comparison study suggest that livestock production is the main polluter among the alternatives and that many substitute protein sources would present valuable environmental impact profiles, capable of substantially reducing the current agricultural footprints from livestock food production.
Beyond meat
In fact Beef is overall the most impacting source of animal proteins. Virtual water consumption is the metric which negatively outperforms each of the other alternatives, with a total amount of 565,8kl of water needed per kg of Beef meat. Beef has the greatest impact also in Land use (245,2m2y) and food conversion (131,6kg). It is second to the Impossible Burger in GHG emissions (175,1kg CO2-eq), and follows both Plant based alternatives in terms of energy use (273,3 MJ). Pork meat represents the second-highest polluting alternative in terms of Land use (62,8m2y), Water use (72,7kl) and Feed needs (60,6kg). Energy needs (237MJ) are lower to the ones of Beef and Plantbased alternatives, while GHG emissions are less than a third (54,2kg CO2-eq) for both of them.
Impossible Foods
Mealworms
Crickets
0,0
100,0
Chart 5 – Environmental comparison of Meat and Meat Alternatives
200,0
300,0
400,0
500,0
600,0
700,0
Poultry is the only meat alternative that has an interesting environmental pollution profile, with an overall impact comparable to the ones of Tofu and Mealworms. Overall poultry produces 37,4kg CO2eq of GHG emissions, uses 51,3m2y of land, 152,2MJ of energy, 22,7kg of feed and 31,8kl of water.
Tofu is an all-round alternative with the lowest impact in terms of energy (143MJ), and a profile of land usage (25,3m2y), GHG emissions produced (29,2kg CO2-eq), feed (5,6kg) and water use (30,1kl) close to the one of Insects and Poultry (which have among the lowest impacts in these categories). As much as regards the two Plant-based alternatives, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods require significant lower levels of land use (respectively 16,3m2y and 12,9m2y), feed (respectively 5,2kg and 2,4kg) and water (respectively 6,3kl and 6,9kl) than Beef and Pork. However the Impossible foods alternative consumes the highest level of energy (337MJ) of all the protein sources and produces a considerable amount of GHG emissions (184,2kg CO2-eq) if compared to its competitor. The value of the last parameter is depending on the energy sources that the company adopts, that in the case of Impossible Foods are fossil fuels ones. The Beyond meat alternative produces one of the lowest amounts of GHG emissions (20kg CO2-eq), using instead a lower level of energy (287MJ) imputable to variations in the production process between the two companies. Mealworms (173MJ) and Crickets (221,1MJ) energy quota is relatively high, as insects require heating throughout the whole rearing process (being cold-blooded animals). Each of the two alternatives produces significantly less pollution than meat products, and their contribution is comparable to the ones of Tofu and Plant-Based alternatives. In respect to these two categories both insect species can be viable solutions in terms of environmental impact. In particular, Mealworms require 18m2y of land and produce 14kg CO2-eq of GHG emissions. They additionally require 12,3kg feed and 11,1kl water. Crickets necessities in terms of land are slightly higher (21,9m2y) and produce approximately five
52
times the amount of GHG emissions (60,5kg CO2eq). However even in this case the difference in greenhouse gases production is imputable to the use of different sources of energy, together with the detailed configuration of farming plants, as both species have a similar ideal growing temperature interval (23-30°C) and produce the same traces of metabolic GHG emissions. Lastly, if compared to Mealworms, Crickets also require less feed (8,3kg) and water (5,4kl). At a cradle-to-gate level insects result in a viable alternative to animal proteins. Their impact is largely lower in all the analysis dimensions, except for energy usage, where both insect species resulted in a value close to the ones of meat. As much as regards energy consumption it is worth mentioning that currently innovative solutions have been developed in pushing the technology boundaries of insect farming further and reduce energy costs both from an environmental and economical point of view. In this context for example, the italian company BEF Biosystems (2020), which will be presented in more detail in Chapter 7, farms mealworms larvae and Hermetia Illucens flies in semi-autonomous hubs built close to Biogas facilities. This strategic choice allows both to save heating costs for the facility, as they are recovered from the Biogas plants, and to feed insects on a quota of biowaste delivered to the site. At a next level of research, the effective impacts of insects in respect to other alternatives would need to be measured through a cradle-to-cradle comparisons considering cross-evaluation of functional units of products, as the environmental weight of packaging, transport, processing and distribution of different products could vary deeply from the results produced and among each alternative analysed. For example a localized urban farm which re-
uses energy will have a lower impact if compared to a centralized one. The purchase of raw insects to be used in recipes sold through reusable Tupperware as packaging will have a different impact if compared to powder and packaged protein integrators.
53
4. NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS
The nutritional value of food is measured by the analysis of individual quantity and relative ratio of the essential macronutrients and micronutrients present. In a well-balanced nutritional regime, the amount of carbohydrates, fat, protein, minerals, and vitamins equals the need of the individual with the composition of the diet consumed (British Nutrition Foundation, 2018; Gebhardt & Thomas, 2002) The majority of individuals, when extraneous to particular nutritional or medical conditions, share similar fundamental dietary needs, based on an ideal ratio of macro and micro nutrients assumption. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Federation of African Nutrition Society (FANUS) or the Federation of Asian Nutrition Societies (FANS), are just few of the many institutions existing worldwide to provide at a national and international level guidelines accessible both to dieticians and individuals. For example in Italy, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition (SINU) expresses these individual suggestions in nutritional charts regarding Reference Intake Levels of Nutrients and Energy usually referred as LARN (acronym). The recommendations for healthy adult individuals are of a daily consumption of 55% in carbohydrates, 30% fats and 15% proteins as macronutrients (SINU, 2014), plus a detailed daily average suggested level of each micronutrient expressed in micrograms (eg. 105 mg of Vit C for adult males). The guidelines recommend also t o avoid as much as possible foods that present extreme nutritional imbalances in their nutritional values or the ones that contain unwanted, dangerous elements, such as toxic or carcinogenic substances. The first category includes for example heavily processed and refined products, such as soft drinks, commercial desserts or usual fast food items, which
are often rich in refined sugar and saturated or transgenic fats. The latter represents those aliments that are naturally containing unwanted toxic substances such as rapeseed oil, or items that during their production process have been contaminated by chemical substances related to human activity. In this case the final food products may contain traces of pesticides if coming from agriculture, hormones and antibiotics in farming or heavy metals if the food chain is related to fishing activities (Hussain, 2016). SINU guidelines thus encourage the consumption of foods which present nutritional profiles close to the ideal ones, that represent a valid intake when integrated with complementary items in a daily diet. This can happen for example when eating meat and vegetables in the same meal, a combination that allows to intake both proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals and fiber. But meeting the ideal nutritional requirements in everyday diets is a complex activity where dietary values are just one of the variables, among behavioural conducts of subjects over time and individual metabolic peculiarities, that deeply influence the final nutrients absorption for biological functions (Eastwood, 1997). Therefore, the final nutritional value of a diet is strictly dependent both on the correct integration produced during the meal combination and the subjective factors that influence nutrients absorption. In this context, the role of nutritional suggestions is to analyse the composition of food to understand its properties and compare them with the ideal nutritional requirements. This practice allows to understand how a particular food can be integrated with others to provide the adequate value of desired benefits in everyday nutrition. The analysis carried out in this chapter aims to analyse the nutritional profile of insects in comparison
56
57
Table 6 – Macro nutrients content per each alternative analysed
to the main type of meat sources and to the main protein alternatives, the first taken as baseline and the others as comparable options. The study has been carried out by scouting the nutritional values of the items from USDA public accessible resources for meat and tofu (USDA, n.d.). Two main Plant-based products have been taken as references: the Impossible burger and the Beyond Meat burger, for which the nutritional data has been accessed from information publicly disclosed by the companies (Beyond Meat, 2020; Impossible Foods, 2020). As much as regards insects the most extensive research in literature at present moment has been produced by Rumpold & Schlüter (2013) therefore being the reference point for the nutritional value of the two species analysed in the process: Mealworms and Crickets. According to the standard practice carried out in evaluating different food items, each alternative has been considered by the amount of edible percentage (how much of the consumed food can be metabolized) and a 100g reference quantity per each item. Data sourced for the analysis were all already measured per 100g of edible content, therefore no adaptation has been necessary. In the following section the nutritional profiles are presented and compared to assess the dietary potential of insects in comparison to meat and the main protein alternatives.
Beef
Pork
Poultry
Tofu meat
Beyond Meat
Impossible foods burger
Mealworms
Crickets
energy content
268,00
120,00
243,00
76,00
230,09
212,39
205,60
140,20
Protein
16,98
20,65
14,72
8,08
17,70
16,81
18,70
20,50
Fat
21,31
12,27
19,98
4,78
15,93
12,39
13,40
6,80
Carbohydrates
0,97
0,00
0,00
1,87
0,00
7,96
(traces)
(traces)
Fiber
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,30
1,77
2,65
5,70
3,20
Macro nutrients per 100g edible mass
(kcal)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
MACRONUTRIENTS The analysis of macro nutrients takes in consideration the main elements necessary for a diet: Proteins, Fats, and Carbohydrates. Energy content and Fiber content are also considered in this section. Table 6 shows different macronutrient contents for each alternative. As far as energy content, Beef has the highest value per 100g, with 268Kcal followed by Poultry (243Kcal) and the Beyond meat burger (230Kcal). Between the two insect alternatives Mealworms show the highest value (205Kcal), mainly because of their higher fat content, which is almost doubled if compared to Crickets. Pork and Crickets have a similar protein content, as they both contain approximately 20g of them per unit. Mealworms follow subsequently with 18,7g and Beef is the forth in order with 16,9g. As much as regards Tofu, is the food product with the lowest protein content, with just 8,08g in total. Beef and Poultry have the highest fat content, with 21,31g and 19,98g per unit respectively. Both Plant based alternatives, Pork and Mealworms contain between 12 and 15g ca and Crickets (6,8g) and Tofu (4,78g) present the lowest fat content.
Carbohydrates are close to 0g for all the alternatives, except for the Impossible Burger, which being based on soy proteins, contains 7,96g of carbohydrates. Fiber content is relatively low in all the alternatives, with Mealworms and Crickets containing 5,7g and 3,2g per unit respectively. Meat products do not contain any fiber (fibers are principally present in vegetable food items). From this first level of analysis is possible to state that both the insect alternatives present an interesting macro nutrients profile. They have a high content in proteins, a mid fat presence and contain a small amount of fibers. The different types of meat have a similar profile, with beef having the highest fat content and the lowest protein one. Tofu is overall a relatively low caloric density product, having the least amount of macro nutrients and energy in the category. The Plant based alternatives present instead a nutritional profile which at a first level is comparable to the ones of Insects and Meat. AMINO-ACID PROFILE Table 7 shows different amino-acid contents for each alternative. Amino Acids are protein components, which may be seen as the building blocks that form long protein chains. Essential amino acids are the ones necessary for life, that human beings are
58
59
Table 8 – Fatty acids and Cholesterol content per each alternative analysed
not able to synthesize in sufficient quantities and must therefore be taken with food. In total the essential protein components for humans are nine: Tryptophan (W), Threonine (T), Isoleucine (I), Leucine (L), Lysine (K), Methionine (M), Phenylalanine (F), Valine (V) and Histidine (H). Except for Plant based products (whose data was not available), for each alternative are presented the levels of each of the nine essential amino acids. The main reference in this case is the amino-acid outline of Beef, which has been taken as a baseline due to the similitude of its profile to the ideal intake of each essential component. What is relevant at a first level of analysis is to note that all the alternatives present a valid source of the nine essential amino acids, a condition that already helps to state that all these types of foods may be a reliable source of proteins when compared to meat. The main focus point in a first-level comparison is the quantity per portion of Tofu, which results less
dense when compared to the other alternatives, due to its overall low macronutrients content. CHOLESTEROL AND FATTY ACIDS When present in the blood cholesterol circulates transported by components called lipoproteins. It is possible to distinguish between the latter LDL (Low Density Lipoproteins) and HDL (High Density Lipoproteins); while the former distributes the cholesterol produced by the liver to organs and tissues, the latter follows the reverse path, transporting the excess cholesterol present in organs and tissues to the liver, which disposes it. Thus, while HDL helps to get rid of circulating cholesterol excess LDL promotes atherosclerosis, which is the sedimentation of cholesterol in blood vessels that can trigger heart attacks or ictuses. Reported in the Table 8 is the LDL content of different alternatives. As a general point of reference meat is among the foods with the highest cholesterol content overall. Poultry scores
Table 7 – Amino acid content per each alternative analysed Beef
Pork
Poultry
Tofu meat
Beyond Meat
Impossible foods burger
Mealworms
Crickets
Tryptophan (W)
0,19
0,32
0,12
0,12
N/A
N/A
0,15
0,13
Threonine (T)
0,74
0,84
0,69
0,40
N/A
N/A
0,77
0,74
Isoleucine (I)
0,76
0,90
0,57
0,44
N/A
N/A
0,94
0,94
Leucine (L)
1,34
1,50
1,22
0,71
N/A
N/A
1,99
2,05
Lysine (K)
1,41
1,70
1,31
0,45
N/A
N/A
1,02
1,10
Methionine (M)
0,44
0,52
0,40
0,11
N/A
N/A
0,24
0,30
Phenylalanine (F)
0,66
0,79
0,58
0,43
N/A
N/A
0,66
0,65
Valine (V)
0,83
0,96
0,58
0,45
N/A
N/A
1,10
1,07
Histidine (H)
0,58
0,77
0,53
0,22
N/A
N/A
0,59
0,48
Proteic profile (essential amminoacid content) (g/100g)
Essential fatty acids (essential fatty acids content)
ω-6 fatty acid
linoleic acid or LA (18:2n-6) (g/100g)
ω-3 fatty acid
α-linolenic acid or ALA (18:3n-3) (g/100g)
Cholesterol (mg/100g)
Beef
Pork
Poultry
Tofu meat
Beyond Meat
Impossible foods burger
Mealworms
Crickets
0,52
0,13
0,41
2,38
N/A
N/A
3,48
2,29
0,23
0,07
0,24
0,32
N/A
N/A
0,14
0,06
72,00
63,00
143,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
(traces)
(traces)
the higher value (143mg), as avian species skin is a cholesterol dense tissue. Considering also that industrially bred individuals are generally fed with feed (pellets) based on animal meal (containing in turn cholesterol), this datum can increase significantly depending on the breeding conditions of the animals. The environmental impact of poultry has resulted to be the lowest among meat alternatives and in line with the ones of insects and plant-based alternatives. When looking to everyday consumption the balance between sustainability and health related factors should be also taken into account, moderating the habitual consumption of this type of meat. Cholesterol is also a prerogative of animal products, in fact none of the vegetable based alternatives contains it. As much as regards insects, according to the scientific studies currently available cholesterol is present only in non-relevant traces. The Fatty acids presented in the analysis are linoleic acid (Ω-6) and Ω-linolenic acid (Ω-3). They are Essential Fatty Acids (EFA), i.e. those that must be introduced through the diet for an healthy regime. These fatty acids are necessary to the body, which is not able to synthesize them autonomously. Insects are a viable source of Ω-6 fatty acids with 3,48g and 2,29g for Mealworms and Crickets respectively. Tofu has the second-highest content with 2,38g while meat products have the lowest concentrations. As regards Ω-3 fatty acids Tofu has the highest content (0,32), followed by Beef and Poultry (0,23 and 0,24 respectively). Instead Meal-
worms and Crickets present a low overall content of this component. Even in this case data for Plant based alternatives was not available. VITAMINS Even vitamins are an essential micronutrient that the body is not able to synthesize autonomously. Table 9 shows different vitamin contents for each alternative.Vitamins are clustered as fat-soluble ones (A,D,E,K) and water-soluble ones (B,C). Different vitamins groups have different biochemical functions. The largest group of vitamins, the ones of group B, function as precursors for enzymatic cofactors, i.e. they alter together with enzymes the speed of the main chemical reactions in metabolism. Vitamin E and vitamin C have mainly antioxidant functions. Some, such as vitamin D, have regulatory functions similar to those of hormones, affecting mineral metabolism and growth of tissues and cells. A relevant point of attention is that regardless of the relative content of each vitamin, the majority of them is thermolabile, meaning that their chemical state is heavily modified with temperatures over 70°C approximately. Vitamins of this type are ascorbic acid (vitamin C), retinol (or vitamin A) and most components of the B group, specifically: Thiamine (vitamin B1), Riboflavin (vitamin B2), Pantothenic acid (vitamin B5), Folic acid (vitamin B9). Meat products have an overall low content of vitamins, and among the groups the contents to be high-
60
61
Table 9 – Vitamins content per each alternative analysed
lighted are solely Vitamin A in Poultry (45μg/100g) and Vitamin B1 (8,19mg), B2 (17,44mg) and B6 (7,07mg) for Pork. Tofu has an overall low vitamin content, and these components are separated during soy processing. Both Plant based alternatives are integrated with vitamins during the respective manufacturing processes, yet even in this case not all the values examined are available. As much as regards the Impossible burger the main vitamin present is Vitamin B1 (24,95mg), while the Beyond Meat burger has a relatively high content of Vitamin A (26,55μg/100g) of Vitamin B3 (9,73mg) and Vitamin C (23,89mg), the latter being added in the product to avoid oxidation at the raw state. Insects present the highest vitamin content among the various alternatives. Both Mealworms and Crickets have high values of Vitamin B3 (40,7mg and 38,4mg) and Vitamin B5 (26,2mg and 23mg). Crickets have also an high value of Vitamin B2 (34,1mg) Vitamin B12 (53,7mg), Vitamin C (30mg) and Vitamin E (13,2mg), For the same groups Mealworms present a lower but still significant content. In particular they contain Vitamin B2 (8,1mg) Vitamin B12 (4,7mg), Vitamin C (12mg) and Vitamin E (3,36mg). MINERAL SALTS Mineral salts play a fundamental role in the functioning of all living organisms, including humans. They perform numerous control, regulation and structure functions and are clustered in Macro Elements - present in moderate quantities in the body - such as Calcium, Phosphorus and Magnesium, and Oligoelements - present only in traces in the body such as Iron, Copper and Selenium. Although mineral salts constitute a relatively small part of the human body (about 6-7% of body weight), they play a key role in the constitution of many tissues and are essential factors for biological functions and growth. Table 10 shows different Mineral salts contents for
each alternative. Calcium (Ca) forms the rigid material of bones and teeth, helps regulate blood coagulation and muscular functioning. Tofu has the highest content (350mg), followed by Poultry (187mg) and the Impossible Burger (150,44mg). Crickets and Pork contain 40,7mg and 35mg respectively, while Mealworms, Beef and the Beyond meat values from 10 to 20mg. Phosphorus (P) contributes together with calcium to the formation of rigid material of bones and teeth. It is also important for the energetic transformations that take place in the cells. Crickets (295mg) and Mealworms (285mg) contain the highest values. Magnesium (Mg) promotes the maintenance of a balanced Ph in the blood, regulates the heart rhythm and has a vasodilator action. Food items with the highest content are Beyond meat (39mg) and Tofu (30mg), while both insects contain values of approximately 1mg. Sodium (Na) regulates the exchanges between cells and body fluids, being therefore useful for the balance of water in the body. However this mineral is generally (and often erroneously) considered as a negative element since it also contributes to the incidence of hypertension. The Plant based alternatives contain the highest quantity of this mineral, with a content of 345,13mg and 327,43mg for the Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger respectively. Potassium (K) participates in muscle contraction, including that of the heart muscle and helps regulate the balance of fluids and minerals inside and outside the cells. Mealworms and Crickets average in this mineral content with 341mg and 347mg respectively. Iron (Fe) becomes part of the hemoglobin molecule that makes up the red blood cells. It therefore transports oxygen and carbon dioxide into the bloodstream. Copper (Cu) has an essential role in the human body
Vitamins
Beef
Pork
Poultry
Tofu meat
Beyond Meat
Impossible foods burger
Mealworms
Crickets
Vitamin A
0,00
0,00
45,00
0,05
26,55
N/A
0,00
0,00
Vitamin B1
0,09
8,19
0,10
0,08
1,33
24,96
2,40
0,40
Vitamin B2
0,17
5,14
0,14
0,05
2,12
0,35
8,10
34,10
Vitamin B3
2,17
17,44
5,25
0,20
9,73
4,69
40,70
38,40
Vitamin B5
0,29
1,46
0,77
0,07
1,68
N/A
26,20
23,00
Vitamin B6
0,35
7,07
0,28
0,05
1,42
0,35
8,10
2,30
Vitamin B7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Vitamin B9
0,01
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
1,57
1,50
Vitamin B12
0,00
0,55
0,00
0,00
0,03
0,03
4,70
53,70
Vitamin C
0,00
0,00
2,00
0,10
23,89
N/A
12,00
30,00
Vitamin D
N/A
0,00
N/A
0,00
N/A
0,00
0,01
0,01
Vitamin E
N/A
0,14
N/A
0,00
N/A
N/A
3,36
13,20
Vitamin K
N/A
0,00
N/A
2,40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Carotenoids (µg/100g)
Thiamin (mg/100g)
Riboflavin (mg/100g)
Niacin (mg/100g)
Pantothenic acid (mg/100g)
- (mg/100g)
Biotin (µg/100g)
Folate (mg/100g)
- (mg/100g)
Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(Img/100g)
(µg/kg)
for the proper functioning of various enzymes: among its most important functions are participation in energy metabolism and the production of red blood cells, bones and connective tissues. Zinc (Zn) is necessary for the functioning of various hormones, including thyroid, insulin, sex hormones and growth hormone. Manganese (Mn) promotes liver and kidney function, calcium attachment to bone tissue, iron metabolism and vitamin use. Selenium (Se) is an indispensable component for the formation of antioxidant enzymes, indirectly hindering the oxidation of certain molecules on cell membranes. Overall the contribution of each of the micronutrients is similar in the different alternatives, except for
Manganese, where Mealworms (80,10mg), Crickets (33,70mg) and the Beyond Meat burger (39,82mg), present higher values relatively different from the other products. In the analysis carried out one main limitation can be attributed to the comparison of Tofu as a unique alternative to protein source. Yet the primary scope of this comparison was to assess the potential value of insects as an alternative to animal proteins, therefore the superficial aspect of reporting a vegetarian alternative solely is not considered as invalidating. Even if Tofu may lack a nutrient dense profile, a vegetarian diet is not to be considered a scarce alternative to animal proteins. Looking at the adoption of a mainly vegetarian diet in fact, many are scientifically backed benefits. Con-
62
63
Table 10 – Mineral salts content per each alternative analysed Mineral salts
Beef
Pork
Poultry
Tofu meat
Beyond Meat
Impossible foods burger
Mealworms
Crickets
Calcium, Ca
10,00
35,00
187,00
350,00
17,70
150,44
16,90
40,70
Phosphorus, P
160,00
207,00
132,00
97,00
N/A
159,29
285,00
295,00
Magnesium, Mg
17,00
17,00
12,00
30,00
39,82
N/A
0,52
1,15
Sodium, Na
67,00
69,00
40,00
7,00
345,13
327,43
53,70
134,00
Potassium, K
267,00
288,00
104,00
121,00
N/A
539,82
341,00
347,00
Iron, Fe
2,01
1,06
1,22
5,36
4,87
3,72
2,06
1,93
Copper, Cu
0,07
1,22
0,07
0,19
0,28
N/A
0,61
0,62
Zinc, Zn
4,90
2,56
1,90
0,80
5,75
4,87
5,20
6,71
Manganese, Mn
0,01
0,08
0,02
0,61
39,82
N/A
80,10
33,70
Selenium, Se
0,02
0,03
0,02
0,09
N/A
N/A
0,03
0,02
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
(mg/100g)
suming plant-based products have a strong positive effect on our health, in particular decreasing significantly the risk of heart diseases and of developing type 2 diabetes (Oxford Martin School, 2020; Springmann et al., 2016). As much as regards Plant-based alternatives, their beneficial value has to be considered carefully. This type of emerging products may bring some environmental benefits (without considering soy production controversies), but they still are highly processed foods and their nutritional profile is unbalanced in saturated fats and sodium contents. Therefore, habitual consumption of these food items, should be mainly occasional. On this perspective, Chelsea Debret, independent author and freelance content writer, states in a non academic, but coherently documented and motivated manner:
regularly for their nutritional value, as a supplement for actual plant-based foods, or as a dietary supplement, then you may suffer the health consequences down the road. If you’re choosing to eat plant-based meats on occasion for their delicious flavour, meat-like quality, and to do a little something for the environmental and animal activism, then it seems you got the “not a healthy food memo” down pat.” (Debret, 2019, One Green Planet, ws.)
Considering insect alternatives, it is possible to confirm that they have a higher quality of nutrition than macro-livestock in terms of protein, lipids, carbohydrates and vitamins. Insects have high crude protein levels, contain all essential amino acids, are rich in fatty acids and have a limited content of dietary fibre. The composition of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in mealworms is comparable to that of fish, and other insects with ideal fatty acid ratios are “If you’re choosing to eat plant-based meats house crickets. Both species have a higher content
of protein and vitamins than Beef and generally superior than the ones of the main alternatives cited. Although the nutritional content of many insects is well-described in the literature, an important element to be considered is that a consistent variation of nutritional values depends on diet, sex and environmental factors of the individuals farmed.
5. USER ANALYSIS
The last perspective of analysis is focused on users. What is the perception of users towards the idea of consuming insects as partial replacement to meat? Which of the possible alternatives would they prefer? In western countries insect consumption is largely unfamiliar if not a taboo. Will users be ready to overcome their habits and if yes, for which motivations?
ity were significantly important and regarding the factor benefits, people might not be aware of the benefits of entomophagy. Participants did significantly like the taste of insect products and they did not think eating insects proposed a risk to them. Participants also associated insects with natural food and the results underlined that this value was important for the participants. As much as regards trust the results from the survey indicated that inAmong the possible questions, this analysis focuses formation was seen as trustworthy when the source on four main objectives. was scientific or a peer influence, but not when proFirst of all to gather knowledge on the perception of moted commercially. Cultural values and the fit in the main alternatives to meat current heating habits and needs was also be found Secondly about the readiness to consume insects to be particularly relevant for the adoption. for food, and as a third point if users would prefer to eat preparations with visible insects or if the option Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and into have processed insects is more suitable. dividual experience as determinants of acceptance The last object focuses on a broader perspective on (Tan et al., 2015) consumption and is to understand which communi- The aim of the research was to investigate percepcation values can be more effective in involving us- tual differences and varied expectations in the culers towards entomophagy. tural contexts of the Netherlands and Thailand, by discussing with users through pictures and proposA review of the actual state of the art in literature ing tasting activities of insect based foods during a has been conducted to investigate if some of these series of focus groups. objectives have been already considered and to Four focus groups were conducted in the Netheridentify the different approaches used across the lands and four in Thailand. In each context both studies. Four most relevant studies have been con- ‘eaters’ and ‘non-eaters’ have been interviewed (reducted to date and are briefly highlighted in the fol- spectively users with previous experiences on eating lowing paragraphs in order of publication. insects or not) for a total of 54 participants. The results of the study did underline that users perceived Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Entomophagy: stimuli differently according to their knowledge and A Survey and Experiment in Australia and the Neth- made judgments according to expectations that diferlands (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014) fered according to their cultural background and The authors conducted an online survey among 134 individual experiences. The study provided insights Dutch and 75 Australian. Seven factors were iden- into a set of acceptance and rejection factors of untified as factors influencing consumer acceptance familiar food items and strengthened the necessity based on an initial literature review (price and qual- to properly communicate consumption benefits asity, benefits, risks, naturalness, trust, attitude and sociated with entomophagy when insect consumpculture, fit with consumer needs). tion is proposed in a new cultural context. The survey results showed that both price and qual-
66
Exploring young foodies’ knowledge and attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy (Sogari et al., 2017) The study was conducted at the Italian University of Parma in April 2017, engaging students of the Department of Food Science in a tasting activity based on biscuits samples containing insect flour. The study was conducted after a similar experimentation of the author, that involved 46 individuals who answered a questionnaire before being engaged in a similar tasting activity (Sogari, 2015). This experimentation was structured in five parts, of which the first four were either instructive or asked a set of questions through a survey, and the latter was the tasting activity based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Almost all users present to the initiative tasted the sample proposed and was willing to try other edible insects in the future.
Given the strong experiential component linked to the research objectives, the methodology used was the one of a “live survey”, in other words a tasting session with a quali-quantitative approach, where users were offered a series of individual tasting samples with related questions to be answered. The direct interaction with participants also gave the opportunity to investigate particular elements of interest through a live interaction with the users. The possibility to have direct experience of the different types of tasting produced more reliable data if compared to the option of investigating past experiences (maybe incomplete) or hypotheses that could have been subjectively biased.
The test development was guided by three key questions. The first was regarding the entity of the tasting samples needed to generate relevant, comparable and transversal perceptions for each meat alternative. The second about the methodology and metrics to be used in evaluating perceptions in order A Survey of Public Opinion about Entomophagy in to obtain valid results in the sensory analysis. The Erciyes University (Yüksel & Canhilal, 2018) third, regarding the type of users to involve in the The last research reviewed has been conducted by tasting, considering the context of innovation adopthe authors in Erciyes University of Turkey to inves- tion research in the food sector. tigate entomophagy and the reasons for rejecting entomophagy. The main tool used for the research was a questionnaire survey that recruited 610 participants, did not include a direct experience of entomophagy through tasting and has been conducted in the faculty campus. The authors reported that only 20% of the participants were willing to try edible insects and that the most given reason for rejection of entomophagy was the disgust factor (47%). According to the authors, the result of their research has highlighted that the young generation in Turkey is not ready to consume insects as food and that this attitude will presumably change with the diffusion of increasing awareness about the benefits of edible insects.
67
A variety of samples bought from an italian supplier have been used for an initial cooking exploration. The process starts by freezing live insects to euthanize them, subsequently boiling them to reduce their bacterial load. At this stage they are ready to be consumed whole or processed, for example by grinding them in a minced meat fashion or by transforming them into powder.
68
69
Figure 20-24 – Samples of live insects and the boiling process of freezed individuals
The insects after being boiled. In this case they have been drained, dessicated and trimmed to powder thanks to small scale domestic appliances.
70
71
Figure 25-29 – The dessication and powdering process, together with a set of bags containing various samples
72
At this stage also some experiments to verify texture and consistency of the samples, in the search of a viable alternative meat dough have been conducted. Initially the results were quite poor and a set of iterations has been necessary to identify a viable process and recipe.
Figure 30,31 – Powdered insects mixed into a dough and a cooking test
73
74
75
SAMPLE DEFINITION The first key question in the development of the test was therefore the definition of the recipe to be tasted by the users. The proposed food should have been lateral to the alternatives, allowing to present the four ingredients not according to their peculiarities, but through a preparation that would make them directly comparable. The direct presentation of the food, for example a steak, a plant based hamburger and fried grasshoppers, would not have isolated the taste-olfactory component of the different alternatives. At the same time the preparation should have allowed to be strongly focused on the taste of the main ingredient without altering it. The sample should have been a conceptually valid and not abstract food, possibly a preparation already consumed across the alternatives proposed, so as to reinforce the common ground among them and being referable to a real experience. It should then have allowed to hide the entity of the ingredient itself, so as not to reveal it directly to the visual impact and allowing to set up a blind test. Condition that was particularly relevant in order to evaluate the taste as the main element, abstracted from any other connotation of liking, habit or eventual disgust given by food neophobia. It was also necessary to be able to evaluate insects as a slightly visible and totally hidden alternative at the same time. Therefore, investigating the various recipes prepared with the current ingredients and considering the previously mentioned factors of non-alteration of taste and comparison, meatballs were chosen for the test. The origins of meatballs are historically uncertain, but over time this type of preparation has spread throughout the world and today virtually every cuisine culture that adopted any type of meat con-
sumption has his recipe for meatballs. Regarding meat, meatballs lend themselves very well to reuse regrinded meat leftovers. The plant based alternatives have so far managed to replicate only minced forms of meat preparations, with the iconic product being the hamburger. Even in this case the meatball works very well as a reliable preparation to be used. As for insects, the main forms of consumption regards either the fresh ingredient, or dried insects processed into paste or powder. Also in this case the meatballs lend themselves very well to accept insects transformed into paste or powder in the version where they must not be visible, and to integrate whole insects into the dough where they must instead appear. The number of samples has been synthesized to a minimum, to avoid creating many choices that could have been redundant and barely perceptible in terms of differences. For this reason, for example, different types of ingredients were not considered, such as beef, chicken, or pork for meat or different species of insects for entomophagy. Instead, the most representative ingredients have been scouted and proposed through a tasting set of four samples in the test. The first, the baseline, was a meatball made from ground beef. The second, a meatball containing plant based meat obtained by mixing hamburgers. The last two meatballs, with powdered crickets in the third and a combination of powdered crickets and whole insects in the fourth. The choice of this species was guided by a concise research that defines it as an ideal insect for a first tasting, both for the perceived flavour and for the disgust factor towards the animal itself, considered quite limited (Tan et al., 2015). Following the traditional Italian recipe, the meatballs
76 Figure 32 – The tasting trays containing meatballs, used during the test with users
have been prepared with a base of pre-soaked dry bread, which allows to bind the dough and smoothen the perception of the main ingredient taste, which would otherwise be too monothematic, but without denaturing it. The 4 meatballs made for tasting all contained the same proportion of main ingredient (meat or alternative) and bread as a binder, they were seasoned only with salt and pepper avoiding additional spices and they were coated with fine breadcrumbs to make them more comparable in appearance and external texture. On the one hand, isolating the taste of the single ingredient in a transversal way between the various samples and keeping it as unaltered as possible is a positive factor. But it also means that the taste element is taken as the main reference point and therefore user liking or disliking becomes more dependent on subjective preferences. The two insect based meatballs were prepared with these ingredients for the first time, so while for beef meatballs or plants based meat it was easier to provide a consistent food quality, insect based meatballs were first experiments and could have had subsequent improvements especially from the texture point of view . The choice to focus on directly comparable samples allowed to make a first test and evaluate taste abstracted from other cultural components. But it is also an approach that aims to be considered as a first level of research, to be followed by more detailed and diversified experiments that highlight the peculiarities and contrasts of individual foods.
78
Figure 33-39 – Meatballs preparation process for the live survey with users
79
80
81
SENSORY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Once the type of samples had been defined, it was necessary to identify the correct methodology to effectively evaluate the taste of the four alternatives. The sensory analysis of food is an interdisciplinary science that includes the evaluation, assessment and interpretation of various food product characteristics that can be perceived by the human sensory organs. The American Society for Testing and Materials (2020) and Institute of Food Technologists (2018) defines sensory analysis as: “A scientific method used to awaken, measure, analyze and interpret those responses to products that are the result of perception through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing” (ASTM International, 2020; IFT Institute of Food Technologists, 2018, ws.). Through the lenses of this discipline, human beings act as a measuring instrument. In sensory analysis, two main types of tests can be distinguished. Analytical or objective sensory analysis aims to generate data as neutral and impartial as possible, comparable to those produced by chemical or physical measuring devices. In contrast to this, the so-called hedonic evaluation emphasizes the subjective impression, such as popularity or preference for a product. The latter is the approach that has been adopted to evaluate the various alternatives in tasting activities using the book Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development as a reference for practical application (Moskowitz et al., 2006). The book expresses the long term experience of the author team of Moskowitz, Beckley, and Resurreccion: three leading practitioners in the field who each possess both academic and business acumen. Throughout the layout of the manual different ap-
proaches are explained focusing on key aspects of sensory analysis, backed up by illustrative case histories, with reflections on strengths and weaknesses in each approach by the authors. By drawing from the book’s indications the core methodology and relative metrics for sensory evaluation have been defined, together with a set of precautions on questions order, synthesis and panel size. The core of the survey was based on a section proposed sequentially for each meatball composed by an acceptance test and a FACT scale. Acceptance tests measure consumer acceptance or liking of a product, which may be defined as an experience, or feature of experience, characterized by a positive attitude toward the food. The basic components for a test of this type are the metrics evaluated and the scale through which the metrics are quantified. The five major metrics used in acceptance tests are: Appearance, Aroma, Flavour, Texture & Overall liking of the product. The metrics have been measured singularly with a 5 points hedonic scale, which is considered to be the most neutral way to assess liking or disliking of a product. In a 5 points scale there are two equally spaced categories for liking, a neutral point, and then a corresponding two equally spaced categories for disliking. The user simply records the degree of liking using the scale as a reference. The FACT rating scale measures the acceptance of a product through the attitude towards a food consumption with a measure of expected action that the consumer might take (to consume or not consume the food). The FACT scale comprises nine categories, which express the intent of consuming the tasted food from every opportunity the user would have, to only if
82
someone else would force the consumption. SURVEY LAYOUT DEFINITION In the text the authors state that the appropriate base size is not a fixed element. Good practice usually works with 25–50 responses per product, with suggestions of at least 40 to 50 to obtain a minimum viable and solid set of results for a product testing. For this analysis 33 participants have been involved across different sessions. The authors focus the attention on questions sequence across the survey, regarding mainly which ones are priority questions, the selection of the question that should be the first and the position of demographic questions. According to the authors questions should be carefully and strategically positioned in the questionnaire to avoid influencing the perception of participants on the tasting activity. The placement of the questions on the questionnaire may affect the usefulness of the information obtained. The most important questions should be asked first. Next, the sequence of questions is based on the order attributes are perceived: visual appearance, aroma, flavour, and taste, then texture and aftertaste. Placement of the overall liking question first on the questionnaire is preferred by many sensory professionals. Being this question the most important one in the questionnaire the main reason for its positioning is the above mentioned relevance and preservation from successive influences. Lastly, demographic questions should be located at the end of a survey, after the most important research issues have been answered. The survey used to evaluate the samples has been divided into two sections. The first one used for the blind test of the four samples, containing the hedonic scale and the FACT scale proposed for each meatball. A second section, accessible only after finishing
the tastings, investigated several aspects related to entomophagy and requested some information for user profiling and demographic data. On the first page a short introductory text provided detailed information for the test. It was explained to users that they could smell, touch and taste every single meatball several times, but going sequentially from number 1 to number 4 and filling in only once the part related to the evaluation of that meatball without being able to go back. Once the first part related to tasting was completed, users could access the next one, containing questions about insect consumption and profiling. Initially users were asked if they had ever consumed insects before and which type of insect preparations would they consume more often. Then they would have been informed of the environmental and health benefits related to insect consumption, asked if they were already aware of this information and how the two facts influenced their approach towards consumption. Finally users were asked if they were curious about discovering new tastes by eating insects again in the future, and in which quantity they would have been inclined to reduce their meat consumption in favour of insects. TESTING PANEL DEFINITION The main object of the research is the evaluation of the possibility of entomophagy spreading as an alternative to meat compared to other possible solutions. The two main alternatives considered both fall into the category of Novel Foods, which are “new” foods or ingredients compared to those traditionally intended. For this reason they are considered innovative foods, at least for the fact that their presence in everyday life differs from the previously widespread customs and represents a novelty. In order to evaluate the possibility of spreading entomophagy as a food innovation, a screening test and a profiling in the tasting survey have been de-
83
veloped in order to categorize the users to whom the activity has been proposed according to the model “Diffusion of Innovations”, proposed in 1962 by Everett Rogers (2003). Rogers’ innovation adoption curve is a model that classifies those who adopt innovations into various categories based on the idea that some individuals are inevitably more open to innovation than others. Already in 1962 the author argues that: “The concept of categories is important because it shows that all innovations must go through a natural, predictable, and sometimes long process before they become widely adopted within a population.”(Rogers, 2003, p.133) The categories that Rogers identifies are: Innovators (2.5%) Early adopters (13.5%) The early majority (34%) Late majority (34%) Laggards (16%) The adoption categories identified are important because people belonging to the categories of innovators and early adopters are easier to convince into acquiring new solutions. In a process of mutual influence, innovators and early adopters contribute to spreading innovation initially through a process of opinion leadership, to the point of involving the majority (early and late) who make up 68% of the target population. The transition from innovators to early majority adopters is identified by the author as the critical mass point, i.e. the point from which communication efforts are no longer necessary to encourage the adoption of an innovation. The author defines critical mass as “the point after which further diffusion becomes self- sustaining.” which leads to the involvement of the majority of users,
which determines whether an innovation is successful or not. In the analysis context the transition from the model to a series of questions to cluster users and place them in one of the five categories was done through the analysis of the definitions of the different types of users given by the author plus the following contributions in literature. The screening test was composed by five questions to categorize users in one of the five categories of innovation curve clusters. The final questions were related to one’s favourite dish, the frequency of new tastes, being first or last in tasting something new, openness to new unknown foods and a self-definition in terms of inclination to novelty in nutrition. To facilitate the attribution to one of the five categories each question of the test was asked in the form of a multiple-choice question, with five responses and a single selection, each of which identified one of the five categories of users. By cross-referencing the answers to these questions with the age (also collected through the screening test) it was possible to identify in an adequate way the belonging of users to one of the five categories. The screening test was initially tested to assess its accuracy, submitting it to a first panel of users with whom then a direct confrontation with their self-perception has been made. The final test was then submitted to a pool of potential participants through a digital survey and the quota of users who self declared interested in participating in the tasting activity was then invited to the test. Since the test was conducted anonymously, it would not have been possible to use the previously collected data to maintain the already collected identification of the users. For this reason, key questions were again placed within the test to categorize the users and reattribute them to the adoption model.
84
Figure 40-48 – First tasting session with 13 users, continues in pages 82,83
85
86
87
88
Figure 49-57 – Second tasting session with 11 users, continues in pages 86,87
89
90
91
92
Figure 58-61 – Examples of two remote sessions, which in total included 9 users
93
94
95
ACTIVITY RESULTS As stated in the introduction of this chapter, the scope of this analysis has been focused on three main objectives related to entomophagy. First of all the test aimed at investigating the readiness to consume insects for food. The second objective was to understand if users would prefer to eat preparations with visible insects or processed ones. Lastly, the focus is on a broader perspective on consumption aimed at understanding which communication values would be more effective in involving users towards entomophagy.
or to this experience. The test resulted in an overall balanced appreciation of the 4 different tastes, with a slightly higher preference for the meat and plant based alternatives. In particular meat received scores of high appreciation (14-18) for Overall liking, Aroma, Flavour and Texture, with the majority of users expressing a neutral position on Appearance. The type of meat used in the preparation was relatively high in fat content, and among the four alternatives this meatball was the one that changed shape the most during cooking. As much as regards propensity to consumption, this alternative received an average declaration of propensity from half of the users, while the rest was generally equally divided between more intense propensity and less intense propensity, as visible in Charts 11 & 12.
33 have been surveyed throughout the tasting activities. Of them, half were female and half male testers, with the majority (28) being between 20 and 40 y.o., two users between 40 and 60y.o. and 3 aged between 60 and 80y.o.. According to the questions of the screening test, 5 were early adopters, 22 were food innovators and 6 were majority users. Among The Plant-based meatball, received more balanced the group 26 users (78,8%) did not taste insects pri- scores in Overall liking, and Taste, while as much as
Taste meatball #1 and assign a score to each of the following metrics
I don’t like it at all
I do not like it very much
Overall liking
Aroma
I don’t like it nor I dislike it
Taste
I like it quite enough
Consistency
Regarding Meatball #1
I would eat it at every occasion I would eat it very often I like it and i would eat it occasinally I don’t like it but I would eat it occasionally I would almost never eat it I would only eat it if I had no other choices I would only eat it if they forced me
Charts 11,12 – Tasting results of Sample #1
I particularly like it
Appereance
regards Aroma, Consistency and Appearance this item received the highest scores among the trials. Is worth mentioning that among the four alternatives this one was the only containing industrialized raw ingredients, which during their deployment probably has been submitted to a careful process of food engineering in trying to reach the most inviting sensorial perception possible. Even at the raw state the aroma of Plant-based minced burgers was pungent and attractive and when cooked an heavily salted sensation predominated as taste. In fact also as regards propensity this item scored an higher interest in habitual consumption, as visible in Charts 13 & 14.
ly for all the metrics except for Appearance, where the majority of testers expressed a high degree of liking, as visible in Charts 15 & 16. Among the four this meatball received a low propensity in habirudinary consumption, with solely 9 testers stating they would eat it habitually. When discussing the degree of liking with participants, many reported that the overall consistency was not of their liking and that the absence of use of spices in combination with insect flavours, concurred to create a generally dull taste sensation. This meatball was realized starting from cricket flour and also the consistency of the raw mix was relatively dry and difficult to manage. Further exploration of related recipes is necessary Interestingly, all the testers tried at least partially to raise organoleptic standards in this case. the insect based meatballs, except for one person which did not consume the fourth meatball (visible insects) as is, but manually extracted one of the in- The second insectball scored relatively better in sects and tasted it. terms of Overall liking, Aroma, Flavour and Texture, Between the two insect based meatballs, the one but with the lowest overall score in terms of Appearwith completely processed insects ranked average- ance. Even if half of the testers expressed a medi-
Taste meatball #2 and assign a score to each of the following metrics
I don’t like it at all
I do not like it very much
Overall liking
Aroma
I don’t like it nor I dislike it
Taste
Appereance
Regarding Meatball #2
Chart 13,14 – Tasting results of Sample #2
97
um-high propensity in the idea of consuming this food, the visual perception of insects created a high level of resistance in many cases. The majority of users demonstrated (and verbally expressed after the tasting activity) a mixed sense of curiosity and hesitation. In general the previously cited behaviour of removing whole insects from the meatball and eating them alone has been perpetuated among many testers. As visible also on Charts 17 & 18, the idea of consuming insects as a visible component of a preparation received the lowest degree of preferences. When asked why many users stated that they considered the fact of having an insect in their food unusual and almost disturbing, resembling the image of rotten food. In the idea of maintaining insects visible in food preparations, a preferable way would be the one of using them in recipes as the main ingredient, unprocessed. In fact when testers have been asked in which form would they prefer to consume insects in the future, only 5 (15,2%) stated that they would like them to be
perceptible and visible, like in meatball four and 9 (27,3%) stated that they would prefer them as main ingredient. The majority however, stated that they would prefer insects as transformed ingredients. 14 participants (42,4%) declared that they would prefer to eat insects either in recipes where they are perceivable as much as regards taste and aroma, and 11 testers (33%) stated that they would prefer a meat comparable product. In this last directions it will be particularly important to focus on the qualitative sensorial aspects of the preparations, to produce food items which are engaging and pleasant, as also emerged within the tasting results of meatball #3. Of all the participants to the test 32 stated that they would be interested in consuming insects again, and only 1 tester was reluctant to the idea of it. Unfortunately during the tasting activities it has not been possible to identify at the moment the user to better clarify the reasons for this choice. Even if this
Taste meatball #3 and assign a score to each of the following metrics
I like it quite enough
Consistency
96
I particularly like it
I don’t like it at all
I do not like it very much
Overall liking
Aroma
I don’t like it nor I dislike it
Taste
I like it quite enough
Consistency
Regarding Meatball #3
I would eat it at every occasion
I would eat it at every occasion
I would eat it very often
I would eat it very often
I like it and i would eat it occasinally
I like it and i would eat it occasinally
I don’t like it but I would eat it occasionally
I don’t like it but I would eat it occasionally
I would almost never eat it
I would almost never eat it
I would only eat it if I had no other choices
I would only eat it if I had no other choices
I would only eat it if they forced me
I would only eat it if they forced me
Chart 15,16 – Tasting results of Sample #3
I particularly like it
Appereance
datum may appear to be biased (the percentage of interest is 97%), is considered to be trustworthy with a degree of approximation due to two interrelated aspects. On one hand for the newness of entomophagy, and on the other hand for the relatively minimal trial possibility related to the two meatballs solely. 23 users (69,7%) were already informed on the environmental benefits of insect consumption, compared to 11 users (33,3%) which stated that they were aware of the nutritional benefits of entomophagy. The influence of the two factors in motivating a possible shift from animal based products to insect alternatives is predominant in the environmental values as seen in Chart 19, and is related to individual nutritional benefits to a medium-high extent, as seen in Chart 20. Lastly as represented in Chart 21, 32 users on 33 stated that they would consider to replace to a cer-
tain extent their meat consumption with insect food, while just 1 user (very likely the one that was not willing to consume insects again) stated that he/she would not renounce meat consumption. In conclusion, the results of the analysis reported a relevant interest toward entomophagy from a consistent group of testers. In terms of readiness the majority of users across adoption categories demonstrated to be open both to an initial trial and to different extents to a possible habitual consumption. Preparations with insects processed received the highest preference (75,7%), followed by the possibility to consume insects as whole elements in a dish (27,5%). Just a small category of users (15,2%) indicated that they would prefer to eat insects partially mixed in food recipes. However the latter is a form of preparation that also created negative perceptions (resembling rotten food), thus being not suggested as an attractive direction by the author.
Taste meatball #4 and assign a score to each of the following metrics
I don’t like it at all
I do not like it very much
Overall liking
Aroma
I don’t like it nor I dislike it
Taste
99
As much as regards communication values, sustainability highly motivated the majority (67,7%) of testers. However both environmental and nutritional benefits were reported to create a relevant engagement from a large share of users. Therefore a focus on sustainability or the combination of the two are expected to generate the maximum results in terms of communication contents.
How much does the environmental factor affect your predisposition to buy and consume insects, at least partially reducing meat consumption?
Chart 19 – Influence on consumption motivations from Environmental values
I like it quite enough
Consistency
98
I particularly like it
How much does the nutritional factor affect your predisposition to buy and consume insects, at least partially reducing meat consumption?
Appereance Chart 20 – Influence on consumption motivations from Nutritional values
Regarding Meatball #4
How much would you be willing to reduce meat consumption by replacing it with insect food? I would eat it at every occasion I would eat it very often I like it and i would eat it occasinally I don’t like it but I would eat it occasionally I would almost never eat it I would only eat it if I had no other choices I would only eat it if they forced me
Chart 17,18 – Tasting results of Sample #4
Chart 21 – Propensity on meat consumption reduction by replacing it with entomophagy
PART 2 POSSIBLE SYSTEMIC CONFIGURATIONS TO DEPLOY A SCALABLE INSECT FARMING SUPPLY CHAIN
6. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM
The second part of this research focuses on the issue of supply chain innovations related to insect farming. Currently different systemic streams are trending in western countries in regard to rearing both for animal feed and human food outputs. The focus on the production side is motivated by the fact that the nutritional innovation based on entomophagy will not be able to diffuse in Western countries until there would be a low cost, constant supply of insect products to be distributed in the market. As discussed in Chapter 5, from this point of view cultural adoption hurdles related to the disgust factor of consuming insect creatures is a secondary matter (perspective supported both by scientific literature and by the discoveries of the user test). Insect farming has gained global attention mainly in the last two decades, and traditionally the main source of animals for consumption worldwide was wild harvest, accounting for approximately 90% of total nutritional insects. This practice has been carried out over the centuries without interfering massively with natural ecosystems, mainly due to the overall low level of harvesting activity. Yet many insect species, such as bees, are recognized as a crucial component in vegetation pollination, essential for worldwide reproductive flows (Losey & Vaughan, 2006). On top of that harvesting insects carries a great deal of uncertainty on potentially hazardous substances that the animals could have absorbed through their diet, while reared individuals are part of a closed and controlled reproductive cycle, where the possible food related contaminations are kept to minimum. Therefore in the development of an entomophagy supply chain, farming should be the main driver of production, able to provide the adequate supply in the market and to maintain natural ecosystem balances unaltered (Nadeau et al., 2015; Raheem et al., 2019).
Yet the current worldwide cost of insects is far higher than any other type of meat. The viability of the main protein alternatives is presented in [Cit Chart Protein] extracted by a research carried out by Zafer Bashi and colleagues in the Mckinsey & Company report Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on (Mckinsey & Company, 2019). The professional team highlights that soy and pea proteins lead the price competition, while currently cultured meat and crickets powder are not economically feasible alternatives at scale. The authors conclude that supply-side innovations are necessary to identify higher efficiency technologies that would lower the price and help entomophagy spread. Commercial farming is spreading throughout Europe and the USA, though at a wider scale is currently unclear how edible insect farming can be increased and deployed in a safe way that would avoid unforeseen environmental externalities. To date there is little scientific research exploring the integration of insect farming with existing agricultural systems, but what seems to be clear is that for the current food sector entomophagy would probably be a disruptive innovation, able to create new markets and value systems while replacing or displacing old ones (Shelomi, 2015; Christensen & Raynor, 2003).
104
Which will be the most widespread systemic configuration in insect rearing is still to be defined. Currently many independent realities are emerging worldwide in the insect breeding sector, following three main production models: industrial and centralized, agro-industrial and widespread, domestic and capillary. INDUSTRIAL AND CENTRALIZED This approach is based on an industrial model and involves the creation of manufacturing facilities, few in number and located in industrial areas, with the highest production capacity among the three alternatives. Within the sites, the work phases are divided and the output standardized and serialized. Two main realities in this field are Ynsect and Agriprotein. The first one is a French startup founded in 2011, which built in 2014 a first plant of 3400 m2 based in Dole, France with a full production capacity of around 1T of insects per day (GSE - Global Solutions and Engineering, 2014). The company focuses its activities on rearing Tenebrio Molitor larvae in highly automated conditions to produce feed derivatives, currently for fisheries and for livestock in the near future. Throughout its history the company collected a total of $372M in equity and debt funds, of which $224M in equity and debt in 2020 alone to finance the construction of its second plant in Amiens, France - set to open in 2022 (TechCrunch, 2020). The latter is a British company that applies the same industrial logic breeding black soldier fly larvae to produce feed for livestock and aquaculture. The production approach of the company focuses on a circular economy strategy, where organic waste from landfills is repurposed as feedstock to raise the insects. Founded in 2018, the company raised 11$M in initial investments, including two grants from the Gates Foundation. The company started its activi-
ties with a first plant in Cape town and is planning to build 100 global fly farms by 2024 and 200 by 2027, having gathered $120M in several rounds of funding as of now (AgriProtein, 2019). AGRO-INDUSTRIAL AND DIFFUSED This approach uses small production centers widely distributed throughout the territory as the core of the production system. The change of configuration in comparison to the canonical industrial model is based on the principle of distributed manufacturing, where the individual units are not isolated cells active at local level, but part of a shared network, coordinated through information technology systems (Leitão, 2009). The grid configuration makes it possible to move from a single large centralized pipeline whose outlet is massive distribution systems, to a network of small pipelines with each cell located in its micro-geographical market of reference, allowing a significant reduction in distribution requirements, first of all reducing the environmental weight of transport otherwise necessary. These systems are conceptualized to be units of smaller size and output compared to industrial centers, they vary in surface area per single cell from 50 to 350 m2 and work operations in the centers are standardized but conducted in a semi-automatic way. The two main examples in this category are Entocube and BEF. The first one, born in Italy in 2015, relies on the network of Biogas production centers currently present in Italy, recovering the heat needed for breeding from the dissipated energy from the centers and exploiting the current logistic network for the connection of plant resources. BEF centers mainly breed Tenebrio Molitor Larvae and Black soldier Flies, producing as output feed, fertilizers for agriculture and additives for the pharmaceutical industry. To date BEF has realized the
105
construction of a first pilot plant of 350 m2 in Casalnoceto, Italy that at full capacity is able to produce about 0.4T of finished products per day (BEF Biosystems, 2020; Massa Critica, 2019). The latter is a finnish startup that uses repurposed shipping containers to farm Acheta Domesticus crickets. Each node is approximately 50 m2 in area and can host from 100.000 to 1M live insects during the production phases. Entocube was founded in 2014 and received 360k€ in funding up to 2018 and an overall of 685k€ to date to scale the diffusion of insect farming plants across Europe (Crunchbase, n.d.). The startup strategy is to reuse already heated indoor spaces where to install its units, facilitating adopters in ramping up the production with setup and rearing training (EntoCube, 2018; Good News from Finland, 2018). One of the nodes installed by the startup took place in a repurposed 500-year-old farm in Finland, who saw its pigs farming business profits slowly decline. The current facility is up and running from two years with an average production capacity of 3.5 Kg of insects per day (Chirps, 2018). DOMESTIC AND CAPILLARY The latest trend through which the production of insects for food purposes is growing is related to a domestic rearing, where insects are not bred for commercial purposes, but mainly to be consumed by the group that breeds them in a modern self-subsistence approach. This shift from the model of neoliberal economies has been conceptualized in 1980 by Alvin Toffler in his book the The third wave, where the author anticipates the rise of capillary production systems, where users are not more passive consumers, but they possess and rule their own production systems (Toffler, 1980). The renewed marketing academic Philip Kotler defines this type of users as people who “hunt or grow their own food, make their own clothing, and create their own amusements.” (Kotler, 1986).
The development of technological solutions for the domestic production is still in a state of initial ferment and the configuration of the products varies significantly for materials, forms and principles of operation, depending strongly on the species bred. The average production of these systems varies between 50-100g per day and the maintenance activities of the farms are conducted mainly through the labor of the domestic inhabitants. Such realities can be both commercial products and open source DIY kits. Two principal references in this field are Hive, by Livin Farms and the OpenBugFarm kit. Hive by Livin Farms is a commercial product produced as a result of a Kickstarter campaign launched in 2015, which raised 145k$. The campaign was launched following an incubation program that the company attended in Shenzhen at HAX, an incubator active in growing technology startups that focus on hardware R&D at the heart of their project. Livin Farms’ product is a small automated tower of about 80 cm in height, designed to be used at table level. The kit allows to breed Tenebrio Molitor larvae and is equipped with a heating and ventilation system, as well as a series of sensors to ensure ideal breeding conditions. At maximum capacity the kit is able to produce 70g CA of insects per day (Livin Farms, 2020). The OpenBugFarms project is the result of an independent research project carried out by a group based in San Francisco, which started in 2014 as an open source system to allow the free diffusion of insect farming as innovation. According to the group’s website: “The kit is suitable for education, research and commercial exploration. Our goal is to allow anyone to produce enough bugs to experiment with entomophagy, while developing technologies and practices to bring high volume pro-
106
107
duction within reach” (Open Bug Farm, 2014, Ws.) The kit is composed of a small plastic pipe frame (roughly the size of a chair) and two mosquito net bags that host Tenebrio Molitor larvae during their entire juvenile state. At full capacity the kit is able to produce 100 g of insects per day. After the initial independent research the project has been funneled into a startup company called Tiny Farms, whose main activity was to carry out insect rearing research at a broader scale. The Open source system is no longer updated, but the kit files are available for download from the official page of the group. The overall number of effective downloads and constructed kits has not been tracked by the collective, but according to their founders there is evidence of an initial adoption that spread across the world (Wired, 2014).
Figure 62 – The Hive, by Livin Farms, home product for mealworm farming (Livin farms, 2020, ws.)
108
109
THE METABOLIC RIFT As we saw in Chapter 1 in regards to the climate crisis, what we are experiencing is a global turning point. As a human society, we are not only facing this change through the effects it is generating in our ecosystem, but also as the main proponents of this change. We are plunged into a drastic crisis, which we are causing, which involves us globally and for which we should prioritize a change containing the most catastrophic future effects. The main changes related to climate crisis are attributable to human activities, responsible for the disruption of global biospheric sinks and the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The huge transformation that we are involuntarily actuating in the ecosystem has created such obvious signs that it has led to the definition of a new geological era, that of Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002). Academic researchers in the economic, sociological and ecological fields have analyzed the historical evolution of the industrial and modern period, looking for a correlation between productive-economic activities and their effects on global climatic conditions (Clark & York, 2005; Foster, 1999; Schnaiberg, 1980). The current scientific debate has focused on two main theories that propose an interrelation between the climate crisis and the neoliberal economic system: the theory of Metabolic rift and the Treadmill of production. The concept of Metabolic rift refers to the separation of an ecological metabolism compared to that of an artificial system parallel to it, with consequent deterioration of the natural cycle (Foster, 1999). This theory, originally developed by John Bellamy Foster, American professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, takes up Marxist thought and its criticism of agricultural capitalism. For Marx the separation between urban centers and rural areas is a particular geographical manifestation of the Met-
abolic Rift with respect to the soil nutrient cycle. In the evolution of his contemporary research Foster extends the Metabolic Rift concept to the general economic system (Foster, 2000), a perspective that was later shared by other academic figures, including Brett Clark (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Utah) and Richard York (Professor of Environmental Sociology at the University of Oregon). According to the two researchers: Due to capitalism’s inherent expansionary tendencies, technological development serves to escalate commodity production, which necessitates the burning of fossil fuels to power the machinery of production. As this process unfolded historically, it served to flood carbon sinks and generate an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Technological “improvements” have actually increased the amount of resources used, since expansion in production typically outstrips gains in efficiency a situation known as the Jevons paradox. The theory of the metabolic rift reveals how capital contributes to the systematic degradation of the biosphere.” (Clark & York, 2005, p.391). The second of the theories on this topic is to be attributed primarily to the work of research carried out by the American sociologist Allan Schnaiberg. In his 1980 treatise “The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity” the author states that internationally economic growth interests tend to produce negative effects on the development of production systems that are ecologically efficient, by putting in place discussion of forecasts regarding the theories of ecological modernization, which argue the opposite (Schnaiberg, 1980). Schnaiberg argues that the rapid development and the rapid economic growth of the after World War II
110
have led to a disproportionate demand for natural resources, parallelized by the adoption of new technologies of transformation, which have required exponential energy consumption and therefore generated a state of environmental degradation. The concept of the Treadmill is derived from the apparent immobility of this economic system, where a large amount of resources are used without generating a tangible social benefit. In this context, the conversion of ecological resources into economic resources leads to a cyclical spiral of systemic growth, extraction of resources and accumulation of waste, which translates into the environmental consequences of climate change (Schnaiberg et al., 1994). The two theories come to the same conclusion following two similar arguments and are clearly against the different positions of the “Theory of the dematerialization (Ayres & van den Bergh, 2005; Porter & van der Linde, 1995), that support the possibility of decoupling economic growth from deterioration of natural resources thanks to an increase in technological efficiency sufficient to make sustainable capitalism possible. On this hypothesis Foster (and later on Clark and York) draw the contribution of by political economist William Stanley Jevons, who in the nineteenth century analyzed the technological evolution of coal transformation processes, stating that the increase in production efficiency often encourages increased demand to cause of the reduction in market prices, thus moving away from a decrease in consumption. This effect, known as the “Jevons paradox”, has been recently deepened and supported by the formulation of a model developed in the European transport panorama, which verifies its apparently contradictory thesis (Freeman et al., 2016). The explanation of this paradox, as both Foster and Clark and York claim, lies in the tendency to expan-
sion inherent in capitalism. This tension, very similar to what Schnaiberg defines as the Treadmill of production, often flows into triggering fictitious growth and self-referred accumulation of economic capital (Marx, 1885), reflected in a fracture of the environmental metabolism. TOWARDS WHICH FUTURE This set of economic theories represents the main ones advocating the need to change the current economic system so that business activities do not produce negative effects on the environment and society. Among the main sources in literature, the necessity to act is stressed also by Stern (2006) which in the actual context summaries as an externality of the actual economic model: “Greenhouse gases are, in economic terms, an externality: those who produce greenhouse-gas emissions are bringing about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and on future generations, but they do not face the full consequences of their actions themselves.” (Stern, 2006) A recent exploration in economic ethics aimed at facilitating the transition of business management to a more sustainable approach is Corporate Social Responsibility. This contemporary economic studies branch, focused on diffusing both practices and accountability standards is defined by the European commision as: “A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commision, 2016) In the specific context of entomophagy diffusion, a
111
promising direction in the creation of sustainable innovation streams would be to explore systemic alternatives that better interface with the environment and the communities in which they operate, since from a purely technological point of view the necessary maturity of manufacturing viability has already been reached. Thanks to a network approach based on distributed manufacturing business actors could adopt the agro-industrial and diffused approach, creating new market models within the emergence of this food-related innovation based on the principles of distributed economy (Johansson et al., 2005). For example the Italian startup BEF, presented in the previous section, was well aware of the market trends focused on an industrialized direction when starting its activity. In shaping its operations, it decided to move away from the centralized direction and take a different approach, following the principles of the circular economy on a local scale (BEF Biosystems, 2019). Between a business as usual option, one focused on distributed economy and a third leveraging the prosumption approach, the latter would represent the more radical shift among the three alternatives, moving towards an anti-market economy approach. The magnitude of this shift would be even greater if the production systems used were not manufactured by commercial realities, as in the case of Livin Farms, but were independently built in a DIY perspective. The direction of self-production represents however a system with potentialities and limits. On the one hand, the complete abstraction from a production-to-sell logic could allow a better balance between demand and production, as historically happened in the self-subsistence economy, but with a higher production efficiency thanks to the intrinsic capabilities of the biological functions of insects. As we have seen in Chapter 3 (related to
the environmental analysis), these animals have a much higher capacity to transform water and feed resources than the mammals species, with a much lower demand for rearing land. On the other hand, this solution would also require the highest level of responsibility and involvement on the part of its users, whose productivity and retention of this practice over time would depend solely on their own efforts. In the search for alternative systems of consumption and production, the agro-industrial and DIY alternatives are not mutually exclusive. But in the first case already some entrepreneurial realities have been established at an international level, while in the second direction no systematic research has yet been carried out for the evaluation or not of this path. From these considerations the second research question has taken shape: Taking into account the three emerging trends in the entomophagy sector (Industrial & centralized, Agroindustrial & diffused, Domestic & capillary) DIY home production could be the most profound shift from the free market economic model. Could this approach be a feasible process for mass insect farming? In the next chapter we will investigate whether the possibility of autonomous insect breeding in a capillary perspective is a feasible direction in which to focus efforts to innovate. The research will be conducted through the definition of the most suitable species to be raised in the domestic environment, the prototyping of a pool of DIY projects together with the definition of evaluation metrics to validate the systems, and a comparison with possible users to investigate the possibility of adopting this method.
7. ACTION RESEARCH
The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the implementation of an insect farm in the domestic environment, able to provide the necessary yield to meet the dietary needs of a reference housing context and being integrated into the daily habits of users who could manage it. An initial desk research aimed at finding previous experiences online has been carried out initially, but given the relative lack of comprehensive data for a cross evaluation of a generic system per given context, it was chosen to directly prototype a series of models, carrying out the evaluation through an action research. The field study started in April 2020 and lasted until mid-November 2020, using the author’s home as a reference context.
This chapter begins with the research and definition of potential species to be used for farming in the domestic environment, that identifies crickets (Acheta domesticus) and beetles (Tenebrio molitor) as species suitable for the research. The reference housing context taken as a model and the evaluation parameters proposed for the assessment of prototypes are then presented. The central part of the chapter focuses on the projects implemented, reporting the main components and the individual metrics scoring used to compare the prototypes and identify whether they are able to produce a sufficient amount of insects as output. The chapter ends with the results of a focus group carried out with potential users, necessary to evaluate the actual adoptability of these prototypes through confrontation with a pool of The insects required to start the colony were pur- possible early adopters. chased from Italian Cricket Farm, a company operating in the Italian market, which breeds and markets insects for use as pet food. The actual European norms do not regulate entomophagy yet, thus a human commercialization of insect based products is prohibited across many countries in the EU. Yet throughout the whole production chain the company adopts sanitary standards which make its products also suitable for human consumption and is distributing online packaged Cricket flour as a market testing product .(Italian Cricket Farm, 2019) For the tasting activity carried out with prospect users a minor share of insects used in the recipes were grown in the prototype farms, while the remaining part was bought at the time of cooking directly from the company. The formal and functional definition of the projects to be realized was made through an online scouting of DIY projects. During the experimentation a total of four prototypes have been realized, two of which cloned from DIY projects, one revised with minor functional and formal modifications and one designed from scratch taking as reference an industrial model.
114
CHOICES OF SPECIES FOR FARMING In Chapter 2 we mentioned the existence of more than 1900 species currently considered suitable for human consumption and in this section we will see how a selection of these species is particularly appropriate for industrial or domestic farming. As reported in (figure #) at a global perspective the most commonly eaten insect group is formed by various species of beetles under the order of Coleoptera, accounting for 31% of total consumption, directly followed by Lepidoptera (caterpillars, 18%) and Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants, 14%). Grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, belonging to the Orthoptera group are fourth in the list, with a 13% quota (Jongema, 2012).
Figure 63 – Most common insects species consumed worldwide (FAO, 2013, ws.)
Each species that belongs to a meta-group of insects has similar characteristics and presents peculiarities for the type of life cycle and average life span, nutrition, and living conditions such as den-
sity, temperature and humidity (inherited from the belonging natural habitat). For the peculiarity of the specific natural environments of origin, each group of species needs a different spatial configuration of breeding and precise climatic conditions. ORTHOPTERA For example Orthoptera Locusts and Crickets follow a linear life cycle, starting with the eggs hatching and ending with the death of the adult insect (figure #). For most of their life cycle insects are therefore able to move independently with the six legs they have from birth and their shape remains very similar throughout the life cycle, mainly increasing only in size. Therefore these insects tend to move considerably throughout their life and need to roam freely within the space in which they are reared. These species are bred in cages in the shape of a parallelepiped where the vertical space is exploited using egg cartons, wire nets or natural elements such as plant bark or palm leaves to allow the insects to climb on them or hide under them. The main variables in terms of containers from the industrial to the household context are the size of the individual cages and the technicality of the materials used in manufacturing. Feeding is usually provided using flat trays and hydration through a variety of solutions that avoid stagnation of free water to minimize the risk of drowning. COLEOPTERA In contrast to Orthoptera, Coleoptera species Tenebrio molitor (Mealworms) and Zophobas morio (Superworms) follow a life cycle divided into very different phases. The insect is born as a small larva that hatches from an egg, growing in size throughout the period of youth and turning into a pupa (resembling a sort of cocoon) to pass into the adult state (figure #). In this phase the insect changes consid-
115
erably its physical appearance and predisposes its body structure to transform itself definitively into the adult version, passing from an almost cylindrical larva to a six-legged insect. Therefore the beatles spend most of their rearing period as larvae, and for this reason they are usually bred in flat trays and do not need external support structures to move. They live in much higher densities than Orthoptera species and nourishment is provided by pouring fresh and dry vegetable feed directly into the tanks. The larvae are not supplied with an additional source of hydration as the insects can extract moisture from the fresh vegetables they are fed.
Figure 64, 64a – Lifecycle of mealworms and crickets (generic web research)
116
According to Arnold van Huis and colleagues, while presenting the most adopted species for farming in temperate regions in the FAO report Edible Insects, future prospects fo food and feed security: “The species most used are crickets (Gryllodus sigillatus, Gryllus bimaculatus and Acheta domesticus), mealworms (Zophobas morio, Alphitobius diaperinus and Tenebrio molitor), locusts (Locusta migratoria), sun beetles (Pachnoda marginata peregrine), wax moths (Galleria mellonella), cockroaches (Blaptica dubia) and maggots of the housefly (Musca domestica).” (Arnold Huis et al., 2013) And according to Ruparao Tulashiramji Gahukar, chairman of Arag Biotech, a Mumbai based company operating in Agricultural technology: “Regarding the insects currently farmed for protein, house crickets and yellow mealworms are probably the major ones, primarily because they are already a commercial success.” (Gahukar, 2016) Crickets are fed with a dried feed cereal mix together with a wide range of possible fresh vegetables. They need to move freely but they can be reared in quite crowded conditions at a density of 1000 insects/m2 (Makkar et al., 2014). Mealworms are typically fed on a mix of wheat bran and fresh vegetables, and they can be fed with vegetable waste transforming it into high quality feed (Makkar et al., 2014). The average area required for mealworm larvae is smaller than the one for crickets, allowing for a breeding density of 2500 larvae/m2 (Li et al., 2013). Drawing from the notions of main sources in literature, the two species which are particularly suitable
for rearing are crickets (Gryllodus sigillatus, Gryllus bimaculatus and Acheta domesticus) and beetles (Zophobas morio, Alphitobius diaperinus and Tenebrio molitor). Once the species that could be used as reference samples for the domestic breeding farm were identified, it was possible to define a clear research direction to determine the necessary space and materials to start the breeding process. In parallel to the research for the prototyping of the DIY system, some evaluation parameters were defined to evaluate the effectiveness and the actual potential of the built breeding kit. These set of KPIs and the underlying values that determine them are reviewed in the following section, together with the domestic contexts that sets the necessary performances to validate the prototypes.
118
ASSESSMENT METRICS To assess the systems’ effectiveness, in this section a specific reference housing context and a set of parameters for the evaluation of the main breeding performances are presented. The proposed metrics are linear KPIs that allow to measure how the prototype performs on individual parameters, for example the time for maintenance or the volume needed for breeding. The reference context defines a basic model of housing conditions that imposes a number of constraints on the system, such as the living space area or the amount of output needed to provide nutrition to users. The actual validity of the domestic system can be measured by comparing the score of the prototype for each metric, in reference to a specific context which sets target values for the KPIs. INITIAL REFERENCE CONTEXT The context is the housing unit taken as a model for the definition of constraints and requirements for the DIY system. Three variables are used to define the context: the number of users living the space, the output necessary for the caloric supply and the total living area of the home. For the research it was chosen to consider a minimal context, easily scalable for wider households in larger living spaces. The choice of the reference context was also constrained by the most accessible housing context available at the time of the research, which, however, is particularly suitable to be taken as a representative sample. The space under analysis is an apartment of 60sqm, usually inhabited by two people.
of the Mediterranean basin and has been recognized by UNESCO as a protected asset and included in the list of oral and intangible heritage of humanity in 2010 (Saulle & La Torre, 2010). Currently considered one of the best alimentary regimes, this model has been suggested in western countries by many Nutrition and Health Organizations as a healthy dietary pattern that may reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes (Evert et al., 2019; Van Horn Linda et al., 2016) For the definition of the output the suggestions proposed in the Mediterranean diet have been adapted to the research, replacing the recommended quantities of meat and derivatives on a weekly basis with comparable quantities of insect-based preparations. The target output for the system is 660g of crickets per week and 480g of mealworm larvae per week. The reference values have been chosen considering that three are the number of weekly portions of meat per individual suggested by the nutritional model. The conversion into nutritional values for the two species of insects was done through the data reported by (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013) and (Finke, 2002), which provide enough data to define a unit portion of 110g of crickets and about 80g of larvae. The portions contain approximately 120 kcal and 15g of protein, and can be consumed by eating whole insects or processing them in other culinary preparations.
As much as regards individual and subjective metrics, such as the Time available for the care of the colony or the expected Price threshold for the kit purchase, have been measured through a subsequent comparison with the users within a focus group activity, preFor the definition of the output the Mediterranean sented at the end of the chapter. diet model has been taken as a main reference for nutritional suggestions. This diet is inspired by tra- EVALUATION PARAMETERS ditional alimentary habits diffused in some countries A total of eight parameters is proposed to measure
119
DIY products’ effectiveness, which have been identified following three perspectives: according to the product built, according to the user who adopts it and according to the result obtained. According to the product, the metrics are those of Setup expenses and three-dimensional Volume necessary to accommodate the object in space. According to the user, the values measure the effort required to manufacture the kit, expressed in Fabrication difficulty and Making Time and the complexity and duration of the necessary maintenance phases, respectively Maintenance complexity and Weekly time. According to the result obtained, measured on a weekly basis through the economic amount of Input and the result in insects produced in Output.
raw materials for the construction of the kit, the cost of any additional items needed for the maintenance of the colony or breeding and the cost of insects needed to start the colony. It is a quantitative metric, calculated by adding the historical purchase price of all the necessary items. Being based on purchase data the metric should be considered as indicative, as the buying of the necessary raw materials is inevitably subjected to price variations according to the reference market.
Fabrication difficulty It is a qualitative metric obtained from the consideration of three different parameters: the complexity of production, the complexity of assembly and the degree of complexity of specific machinery or tools needed. Each sub-parameter has been rated with Most of the metrics identified are quantitative ones, the same weight among the three sub-metrics, retherefore numerical and objective, measured by the sulting in an arithmetic average of the final score. use of prototypes during the action research. For those metrics where a direct measurement of per- Making Time formance was not possible, the evaluation was car- The time required considers the sum of production ried out in a qualitative manner, assigning a score on time and total assembly time. In the optics of an a scale from 1 to 5, through the evaluation of specific open source diffusion of the prototypes the necessub-parameters. sary time would depend on the abilities of the single individual and the context of production. Yet since In their final logic structure the metrics have been the prototypes have been realized by the author in clustered in three categories: Accessibility, Pro- the same housing context, for the purpose of the ductivity and Maintenance. Respectively the three analysis it represents a quantitative metric of refercategories indicate how accessible in terms of eco- ence useful to the cross-evaluation of the systems. nomic cost and effort the making of a kit is, what is the level of productivity to be expected and what PRODUCTIVITY are the maintenance efforts required to keep the kit Input running properly. This metric evaluates the economic cost of the dry feed used on a weekly basis for the maintenance of ACCESSIBILITY the colony, which is the only input with a significant Setup expenses weight in terms of material resources that the farm It represents the total economic cost to be sus- needs. The amount of dry feed used during breeding tained initially for the farming start-up. varies according to the age growth of the individuals It is an aggregate metric that includes the cost of in the colony. The value has been calculated consid-
120
ering the weight of the feed used for the entire life cycle (measured with a common kitchen scale before being fed), dividing it by the number of weeks of the life cycle and thus obtaining an average reference value. It is a quantitative metric and also in this case its value is strongly variable according to the supplier, the purchase quantities and the type of feed used. Output This metric evaluates the amount of insects produced on a time basis. It is a quantitative metric, which has been calculated considering the average weight obtained at the time of harvest, broken down on a weekly basis. Given the purpose of breeding for food consumption this is one of the most relevant metrics in validating the analyzed system. In fact it is able to define if the prototype can provide a source of protein sustenance necessary for the maintenance of the household taken as reference. The DIY systems produced vary in functional configuration between single and multi-cell prototypes, i.e. kits that are based on one or multiple containers to raise insects. The average product cycle time (which in this case corresponds to the insect lifespan), generally a very important metric in evaluating output results, has not been considered. This is because although the cadence of harvesting can vary greatly depending on the life cycle of the insect, in multi-cell prototypes the growth stages are manageable in parallel so as to have a continuous harvest approximately on a biweekly basis. In the case of single cell prototypes it is not possible to do so, yet this condition is not supposed to be a limitation. The most common method for the collection and harvesting of bred insects is euthanasia by freezing. Even if it may seem a cruel practice it is currently considered the least invasive and less painful (as we saw in Chapter 2 on entomophagy
introduction) and the output of a constant flow of insects is therefore easily manageable with a homemade freezer. Volume needed This metric represents the total volume occupied by the prototype. It is a quantitative metric that shows the three-dimensional size of the object. Also the linear measurements of the three dimensions of the realized prototype will be reported in the description of the prototype, but given the formal flexibility in reconfiguring the objects and the diversity of the spatial configurations of the apartments, the volume was used as reference. MAINTENANCE Complexity Maintenance is the most onerous task regarding the insects breeding throughout their life cycle. The main activities concern the supply of dry and fresh feed, as well as cleaning operations, both ordinary and extraordinary. This is a qualitative metric that attributes an increasing score according to the complexity of the necessary operations, instead the effort needed in terms of time is considered in the last metric. Although most procedures require a very low level of knowledge, the complexity is mainly intended as the influence on the living space. During cleaning operations, for example, space is needed to sanitize the breeding containers and food waste and frass dust could easily disperse into the room where the cleaning operations are carried out. Weekly time This quantitative metric measures the necessary time to maintain the colony. It is an average datum calculated on a weekly basis that shows in aggregate the time needed for all the maintenance tasks, in particular the administration of food and cleaning
121
operations (i.e. the phases that are considered in the previous maintenance metric). The choice of measuring the information on a weekly basis is also linked to the subsequent interaction with the users, so as to create a time reference that can be easily framed, which has been analyzed during the focus group.
Figure 65 - Logic structure of the metrics provided to assess the DIY kits
ACCESSIBILITY Setup espenses
Fabrication difficulty
Making time
PRODUCTIVITY Input
Output
Volume needed
MAINTENANCE Complexity
Weekly time
DO IT YOURSELF KITS
CRICKETS FARMING DIY KIT V– 01.
122
123
The simplest version of a domestic do-it-yourself farming kit. To start a colony only a few cabinet boxes and egg cartons are mainly needed. This method is also used in commercial rearing. In fact the main reference for this design are online divulgation videos from a North American company that adopts this process for farming. However this method is also the most labour intensive, as it requires frequent maintenance processes to be repeated for each box. Figure 66 - Cowboy cricket Farms marketing director and co-founder James Roling explains how to set up a home DIY colony (CowboyCricetFarms, 2019, ws.)
COSTS
MAIN ELEMENTS
Materials: 54,00€ Accessories: 29,30€ Colony starter: 15,00€
x6
DIMENSIONS
x3
x18
60
x1500
x54
90
130
FIgure 67 - Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 01
COMPONTENTS Materials
EVALUATION
Accessories and comsumables
Item
Qty
Price
Item
Qty
Price
Ikea Samla Box 56x39x42 cm
6
36
Egg carton (30 pcs holder)
54
7,7
Ikea Pruta tupperware 15*15*4 cm
36
12
Plastic PP sheet 50*50 cm
2
4
Ikea Samla lid 39*28 cm
6
6
Plastic Bottle
6
/
54,00
Terracotta irrigation spike
6
17,6
Total
Total
29,30
ACCESSIBILITY
PRODUCTIVITY
Set up expenses
98,30 €
Fabrication difficulties
Mid-low
Making time
25 hours
Input (feed)
0,84 € * week
Output (food)
20g * week
Volume needed
0,70 m3
Complexity
4
Weekly time
8 h 10’ * week
MAINTENANCE
MAKING & MAINTENANCE In trying to reduce the time necessary to conduct all maintenance operations a few designs have been tested. In the end a box to be cleaned was connected with a clean one to make the crickets move autonomously from one container to the other. But even in this case the time required for connecting the boxes and cleaning them was too high to maintain the colony on a weekly basis.
Figure 68-74 – First DIY prototipe maintenance tests and process
124
125
CRICKETS FARMING DIY KIT V– 02.
126
127
In tropical countries crickets and locusts are reared in few large concrete tanks. Some Western companies reimagined this process by using large inox tanks which reduce the overall maintenance efforts needed to take care of the colonies. From these inspirations a new version of the colony designed by the author has been created with low-cost materials. In this case also the bottom of the tank was removable to facilitate cleaning operations. Figure 75 - Traditional cricket farm in Thailand. Crickets are reared in open large tanks, eventually covered by mosquito nets (Holloran et al, 2017, p.84)
COSTS
MAIN ELEMENTS
Materials: 41,00€ Accessories: 17,13€ Colony starter: 22,50€
x4
DIMENSIONS
x2
x2
x1500
x54
50
50
100
Figure 76 - Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 02
COMPONTENTS Materials
EVALUATION
Accessories and comsumables
Item
Qty
Price
Item
Qty
Price
Wooden lath 2*2*50 cm
36
18
Egg carton (30 pcs holder)
54
7,7
Wooden lath 2*2*100 cm
2
2
Plastic tray 15*30 cm
3
4,5
Wooden lath 2*4*50 cm
4
4
Rubber Bands
8
/
Wooden lath 2*4*100 cm
2
4
Plastic Bottle
1
/
1
0,5
1
2,9
6
2
Hollow PP panel 50*25*0,2 cm
Hollow PP panel 50*50*0,2 cm
Terracotta
irrigation spike
4
4
Tupperware 10*10*3 cm (CA)
2
4
Total
Fine metal mesh 50*25 cm
1
0,5
Fine metal mesh 50*50 cm
1
1
4
1
Bolt M3*80
4
1
Wooden screw 3,5*40
96
1
Hollow PP panel 50*100*0,2 cm
Bolt
M3*60
Total
41,00
ACCESSIBILITY
PRODUCTIVITY
17,13
Set up expenses
80,63 €
Fabrication difficulties
High
Making time
45 hours
Input (feed)
1,19 € * week
Output (food)
56 gr * week
Volume needed
0,25 m3
Complexity
Low
Weekly time
3h 20’ * week
MAINTENANCE
MAKING & MAINTENANCE
128
129
The tank has been designed also to be foldable, in the aim of reducing volume needs in the domestic environment, when not in use. The box sides are composed of wooden frames on which hollow PP panels are attached, to create a lightweight, cost-effective and hygienic rearing environment.
Figure 77-79 – Making process and a view of the foldable option
Figure 80-83 – The colony from above and the maintenance process, with the bottom removed
MEALWORMS FARMING DIY KIT V– 03.
130
131
This design has been based on the open source kit distributed by Open Bug Farm (2014). The system leverages the use of mosquito net bags which are hanged thanks to a plastic frame in order to facilitate airflow in the colony. The main concept of the open source design has been used in designing the version of the kit, which varied mainly in material used and some minor formal adjustments. Figure 84 - Openbug farm DIY kit. The opensource project gives online instructions on how to build a kit aimed at raising mealworms (Open Bug Farm, 2014)
COSTS
MAIN ELEMENTS
Materials: 41,00€ Accessories: 15,00€ Colony starter: 28,00€
x6
x2kg
x4
DIMENSIONS
50
x13 50
100
Figure 85 - Final prototype – DIY Mealworm farm, kit version 03
COMPONTENTS Materials
EVALUATION
Accessories and comsumables
Item
Qty
Price
Item
Qty
Price
Wooden lath 2*4*100 cm
4
8
Plastic trash bags
2
/
Wooden lath 2*4*50 cm
4
4
Large sifting tray (4mmØ mesh)
1
7,5
Wooden lath 1*4*50 cm
12
6
Large sifting tray (1mmØ mesh)
1
7,5
24
3
Total
Mosquito net 150*100 cm
6
5
Cotton strip 1,5*20 cm
24
11
PP rope 0,4Ø*600 cm
2
7,5
Bolt M3*60
8
2
8
2
72
1
Wooden rods 1Ø*3 cm
Bolt
M3*80 Wooden screw 3,5*40 Total
41,50
ACCESSIBILITY
Set up expenses
84,5 €
Fabrication difficulties
Mid-low
Making time
38 hours
Input (feed)
2,03 € * week
Output (food)
800 gr * week
Volume needed
0,25 m3
Complexity
Mid-High
Weekly time
5h 10’ * week
15,00
PRODUCTIVITY
MAINTENANCE
MAKING & MAINTENANCE Even in this case the kit has been designed to be foldable, to reduce volume needs in the domestic environment, when not in use. The kit has proved to be a volume effective design in the rearing of mealworms, but the maintenance phases have been quite difficult to manage, as mealworms tended to escape quite easily during the process.
Figure 86-90 – Details of the colony, the folded design and a view of the open bag during the maintenance phases
132
133
MEALWORMS FARMING DIY KIT V– 04.
134
135
The most common way to raise mealworms, both in domestic and industrial configurations is by using vertically stacked containers, where individuals are divided in the trays depending on their life stage. The reference in this case is a DIY open source project diffused through Instructables. The kit has been revised formally in few structural and assembly details, but the overall functioning process is the same. Figure 91 - DIY mealworm kit based on the usage of vertical stacked trays (Instructables, 2015)
MAIN ELEMENTS
COSTS Materials: 77,5€ Accessories: 15,0€ Colony starter: 28,0€
x16
x32
x2kg
x4
DIMENSIONS
x13 50X50 H200
Figure 92 - Final prototype – DIY Mealworm farm, kit version 04
COMPONTENTS Materials
EVALUATION
Accessories and comsumables
Item
Qty
Price
Item
Qty
Price
Wooden lath 2*4*200 cm
4
16
Large sifting tray (4mmØ mesh)
1
7,5
Wooden lath 1*4*30 cm
16
4
Large sifting tray (1mmØ mesh)
1
7,5
Wooden lath 1*4*40 cm
6
1,5
Total
Aluminium L shape profiles 1*3*40 cm
32
16
Ikea Trofast boxes 42*30*10cm
16
40
Cotton strip 1,5*20 cm
24
11
4
1
8
2
144
2
Bolt
M3*60 Bolt M3*80 Wooden screw 3,5*40 Total
77,50
ACCESSIBILITY
15,00
PRODUCTIVITY
Set up expenses
102,5 €
Fabrication difficulties
Mid
Making time
40 hours
Input (feed)
2,25 € * week
Output (food)
900 gr * week
Volume needed
0,5 m3
Complexity
Low
Weekly time
3h 10’ * week
MAINTENANCE
MAKING & MAINTENANCE In the kit the containers are easily accessible, facilitating both cleaning and feeding operations. No cover on the trays is required - as individuals cannot climb the smooth plastic walls - giving to the insects the necessary airflow for optimal living conditions. In the research experience conducted through this thesis this design has resulted in the most usable and productive system.
Figure 93-97 – Different views of the colony, with a detail of some individuals in the pupae stage
136
137
138
USER TESTING Once defined that at least one of the Kits might produce a sufficient quantity of insects for the domestic context of reference and with summary data on the metrics related to the human activities necessary to start and maintain the kit, it was possible to carry out a comparison with potential users. The research in this area was set up through an ethnographic approach and involved a panel of potential users invited to a focus group. The choice of this methodology - practice established both in the field of analytical marketing (Calder, 1977) and UX research (Nielsen Norman Group, 1997) - has been guided by the possibility of creating a contemporary interactive comparison with multiple users, where the emergence of new insights was evaluated on the spot with all members of the group, facilitating mutual interaction. Compared also to the possibility of conducting single interviews, this approach has allowed to reduce the overall effort of activities to be set up for the evaluation of prototypes. On top of this, the engaging approach of Action research provided the possibility of both creating a condition for insights to emerge, while proactively seeking transformative change in the interaction with users. In this practice in fact researchers themselves are immersed in the activity and without biasing users perceptions can actively influence them while conducting the research (O’Leary, 2007). In the specific context of the thesis, the session started with the presentation of the prototype and the main processing phases of farmed insects. Users have been followingly engaged in an interactive debate and through a digitally distributed short survey a specific set of questions related to the kits KPI’s has been evaluated. The module contained specific questions related to the KPIs previously defined for the evaluation of prototypes: the metrics related to volume, available time, price, plus the inclination to adopt a product rather than an open source kit. Only after
139
this initial evaluation - to avoid biases in individual perceptions - the discourse around the benefits of entomophagy has been continued in depth, leaving then room for a free discussion with open questions. The result of the activity is expressed below thanks to a selection of qualitative Key findings, after the presentation of the user screening rationale.
KEY PRODUCT FEEDBACKS 1. TIME COMMITMENT IS THE MAIN ADOPTION HURDLE The majority of users stated that they were not willing to put any time effort into the caring process, and would have preferred to buy ready-made products instead.
The selection of the user panel studied for the research followed the same logic adapted from the diffusion of innovation model by Everett Rogers implemented in the tasting test. A heterogeneous demographic group of Early Adopters who participated in the tasting trial was invited to this second activity, gathering a total of 10 participants, where the number of the sample is also defined for the possibility to gain the maximum level of results from the test (Nielsen Norman Group, 2020). Different selection logics were possible, for example the possibility to involve other categories of adopters or to implement another ad-hoc model derived from the adoption curve for the DIY context. The direction of involving a group of Early Adopters was chosen in connection with the rationale used in the tasting test, which guided the research at an overall level. Specifically, to analyze the propensity for innovation by the target cluster most likely to adopt and diffuse it, assessing first of all the perception of those potentially more likely to be involved in the adoption of entomophagy. To continue in a next level of analysis, between the two options mentioned above, the advice is to move towards an ad-hoc model for DIY predisposition (for example, users who are already autonomously close to this world or to digital manufacturing). As expected, during the tasting activity, the mass-market users have reacted with a low average interest and therefore their predisposition to a step of greater involvement as that of an independent breeding is expected to be null.
OBSERVATION During the activity, only three users stated that they could have been partially open to the idea of starting their own colony. When asked the reason for their answer to the remaining group, six users addressed that they would not have had necessary time to dedicate to the colony (even if in this phase the actual time needed for the farming process was not already disclosed).
OPPORTUNITY Initial practices for naturalisation could be imagined to reduce the disgust effect, for example with much smaller kits, for educational purposes. In addition, the design of a kit or product could limit as much as possible the presence of open containers, oppositely as in the prototypes realized.
3. VOLUME REQUIREMENTS MEET USERS’ EXPECTATION During the activity spatial requirements were investigated through comparison with common furnishing objects that could be easily interpreted in space. For example to the question of how much space could they dedicate to insect rearing some of the proposed answers were: a closet (about 200H*200L*50D cm), an armchair (about 100H*100L*50D cm), a chair (about 100H*50L*50D cm). OPPORTUNITY All users interested in insect farming have indicated The development of a mainly automated system that they could allocate sufficient space in their livcould facilitate the adoption of the home-breeding ing environment to ensure the necessary amount of process. However, users’ motivations were related output for their context. in a broad sense to the incompatibility that even a minimal effort would have in their lifestyle. 4. DIY KITS AND PRODUCTS ATTRACTED THE SAME INTEREST 2. THE DISGUST FACTOR IS A LIMITING AGENT During the activity it has been also investigated if Some users stated that even if the idea of approach- users could have been more interested in a product ing entomophagy on a regular basis did not influ- or a kit when considering insect farming. People who ence them negatively, the closeness with live insects demonstrated curiosity towards starting a domestic disgusted and scared them. colony did not express a preference among the two options, mainly indicating that they did not have a OBSERVATION clear answer on this choice. During the activity some adult Tenebrio Molitor individuals were used to explain the growth process. 5. INITIAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED IS ALIGNED WITH Four users (two men and two women) showed reluc- USERS’ PROPENSITY tance and moved slightly away from the explanation When discussing the price potential users would and then expressed disgust and fear at the idea of a have been open to spend in purchasing either a kit domestic breeding when interviewed. or a product for insect farming, the majority of the panel indicated sums from 80 to 300€, with only one person expressing 30€ as maximum potential in-
140
vestment. The majority of users seem to be willing to spend amounts substantially aligned with the required cost identified through the overall calculation carried out during the DIY kit action research. In conclusion, users interested in breeding have stated that they can dedicate space and economic resources compatible with the results obtained for Kit #3. The main limiting factors identified were related to the time and effort required and the disgust in the proximity of live insects. However, 7 out of 10 users indicated that they would only be interested in the purchase of a food product and 3 stated that they could consider breeding as an option, but only in parallel with the purchase of foodstuffs. From the results of this activity, it emerges that the easiest way to proceed in the process of entomophagy adoption appears to be oriented towards the promotion of food products and services. Result that appears to be related to the evolution of current styles of production, distribution and consumption, where both in retail distribution and in alternative forms (ethical purchasing groups and 0 km distributors) the gradual transition in recent decades has seen the majority of consumers disconnecting from livestock and agriculture in their daily lives. While further research through successive focus groups or on a quantitative basis will be able to deepen the results of the analysis, at least at the initial stage of adoption the domestic breeding context is not the most suitable option. For the purpose of the analysis presented in this thesis, the development of a widespread produc-
tion system and the marketing of insect-based food products are considered the best possible systemic direction, as presented in the research conclusions in the following chapter.
Figure 98-103 - Prototype and processes presentation during the action research activity
142
Figure 98-103 - Prototype and processes presentation during the action research activity
143
8. CONCLUSIONS
The research work carried out in this dissertation began with a preliminary analysis aimed at setting out the perimeters of climate change, the effects and repercussions that are being triggered on the environment and the main causes related to the emergence of this ecological shift. The scope of the study was then centered on the need to reduce the consumption of animal proteins and to identify possible alternatives to meet the future food needs of the planet. The main solutions currently possible for the mitigation of this problem have been identified through systematic research in order to scout the possibilities most likely to succeed, both historically emerged (vegetarianism and veganism) and emerging (plant-based meat and entomophagy). At a first analysis the food consumption of insects has proved to be an alternative with considerable potential from a nutritional and environmental point of view and a systemic enabler of new production and consumption models.This option has therefore been compared with the possibility of a vegetarian diet and that of a plant-based alternative through three perspectives: environmental, nutritional and perception by potential users. This direction was taken following the initial analysis to answer the first of the two research questions, namely:
as an effective alternative to animal derivatives was obtained, the need for another focus of exploration opened up, namely to verify whether sufficient technology readiness has currently been reached at the production stage to satisfy a global deployment of this nutritional approach. Following an initial context research, three categories of production systems currently developed have been identified and used as focus of the second research question: Taking into account the three emerging trends in the entomophagy sector (Industrial & centralized, Agroindustrial & diffused, Domestic & capillary) DIY home production could be the most profound shift from the free market economic model. Could this approach be a feasible process for mass insect farming?
An action research phase, focused on the making of four DIY prototypes for domestic insect breeding, was carried out to identify an answer to the second question. From this activity it emerged that there is currently one project that represents a technically feasible possibility. The kit is able to produce a sufficient amount of insects to meet the nutritional needs of those who would live in the domestic context, but when tested with users it emerged that potential adopters are not interested in including this In the rising necessity to shift from meat pro- type of solution in their daily lives. tein sources to substitute ones, can entomophagy (i.e. the practice of eating insects) be a The learning and discoveries obtained through desk, valid alternative at a global scale? ethnographic, quantitative and action research have been funneled into three synthesis clusters to define Entomophagy has proved to be among the best in future directions of project development. The purterms of environmental performances, a valid alter- pose of these macro directions is to facilitate the orinative from a nutritional point of view, and widely entation of innovative projects related to entomoaccepted as a food by most users who participated phagy, leveraging what resulted from the systematic in the tasting activity. Once a positive feedback in analysis produced. During the study have emerged these three factors on the adoption of entomophagy considerations and insights that can facilitate key
146
Figure 104 – One Hop cricket and mealworm bolognese (One hop Kitchen, 2017, ws.)
147
decisions and direct both further levels of research and design developments in this area. The three design directions are presented below, categorized at the level of: food products, communication values and production system. FOOD PRODUCTS
Figure 105 – Buffalo worms burger (Bugfoundation, 2019, ws.)
Figure 106 – Insects sushi (generic web research)
ble to meat, enabled by the intrinsic food versatility of insects as an ingredient, and not as a main route. The aim is not to lose the direct link to the replacement of animal proteins, in the emphasis on alternative protein seeking to reduce environmental impact related to meat consumption. In this context also the possibility to develop direct alternatives that mimic meat has proved to be an interesting way to promote the consumption of insects. For example Bugfoundation (2019) is a German Startup that produces insect burgers starting from crushed Buffalo worms, which are mixed with vegetarian ingredients (such as onions and tomato paste) and formed into patties, as shown in Figure 105.
TWO MAIN SUGGESTIONS WHEN DESIGNING ENTOMOPHAGY FOOD PRODUCTS TO TACKLE ANIMAL PROTEIN CONSUMPTION. FOCUS MAINLY ON MEAT ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS. CONSIDER ALSO WHOLE INSECT AS A STREAM SECONDARY TO MEAT SUBSTITUTES EVENTUALLY LEVERAGING THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF WHOLE INSECTS AS DECORATION. The versatility and variety of insects as ingredients also concerns the possibility to explore different As far as the design of new food products is con- tastes. As mentioned above, to date 1600 are the cerned, it is possible to define a series of mac- species of insects considered edible and most users ro-suggestions and directions, mainly derived from have expressed interest in the possibility of consumwhat emerged during the qualitative-quantitative ing insects again to explore new tastes. This path testing research. proves to be interesting not only to facilitate an initial interest, but also to provide a variety of products The development of insect based products with a in the hypothesis of a routine consumption. focus on mass involvement towards habitual consumption should be mainly oriented towards prod- The option to emphasize insects as whole elements ucts that see insects as transformed ingredients. to be consumed needs further consideration. Mainly users have preferred the idea of consuming As far as the results of the analysis are concerned, processed products, such as meatballs reminiscent this path is not to be considered as a first-tier direcof Turkish falafels or sauces such as the Italian ra- tion, but could result in a sub-layer that evolves a gout. For example One Hop Kitchen (2018) is a food new cultural identity and a culinary expressive lantechnology startup based in Toronto which has guage of whole insects. Especially in the hypothesis produced an alternative Bolognese sauce based on that the practice of entomophagy will spread and crickets alternative meat (Figure 104). become a new custom even in westernized countries In this category the development direction of con- and the general disgust towards insect consumpfectionery and bakery products with the addition of tion will have reduced. Note also that in Asian, South insect powder to fortify their protein content could American, and tribal cultures more broadly, this is also be an explorable pathway. In any case the au- the most widespread method of consumption at the thor’s advice is to develop this direction as a side moment. An example of this kind of experimentation addition to the development of products compara- could be an evolution of the concept of fusion cook-
148
149
Figure 111 – Sweet bakery product with insects (generic web research) Figure 112 – Example of decoration with locust of an insect-made burger (Essento, 2020, ws.)
Figure 107,108 – Essento Swiss Made insects-based products (Essento, 2020, ws.)
Figure 109 – Cricket Protein Bar (EXO, 2020, ws.) Figure 7 – Cricket protein Isolate (Nutribug, 2020, ws.)
ing (cooking style that crossovers different traditional culinary cultures), as shown in Figure 106 with a generic example of Insect Sushi. In any case, in the desire to spread this innovation initially, this was also the option that created the strongest impact and a greater sensation of disgust among users. It is particularly discouraged as a first taste of insects to try to reduce as much as possible any negative association towards this food practice. In the involvement of users the risk is in fact the one of a win or lose effect that on a scale could become detrimental. This path is therefore to be considered as an additional element to be pursued in parallel with the main one of a diffusion of processed products. In this case it could prove to be interesting for users who have already approached the consumption of insects - possibly even in a habitual way - and present itself as an alternative and variation to a habitual consumption. A good example of this mixed approach is the Swiss startup Essento (2020). This Zurich-based company sells its products both online with a proprietary e-commerce and through a network of retailers (to date mainly in Switzerland). Its products include both whole insect snacks as well as meatballs or hamburgers, as shown in Figure 107 & 108.
individuals or teenagers also. As a reference in this area Exo (2020) is an American startup that has developed as a launch product a high protein bar (Figure 109), while the Cricket powder protein supplement shown in Figure 110, is a product of the British startup Nutribug (2020).
Ultimately, the direction of proposing insects through food items as a visible mix within another product is strongly discouraged. An example of this direction is shown in Figure 111, which represents a bakery item containing whole insects. This is in fact the road that has generated the most disgust and uncertainty among the users with whom the test was carried out. Disgust because it mainly generated an impression of rotten food, while uncertainty because during the tasting some users hesitated for several moments and separated the insects from the food. They later communicated later that when they were tasting the sample they wanted to separate the insect from the dough in order to perceive them separately. In this macro direction the only way considered as possibly desirable is to create processed products where the insect is used as a decoration, as shown in Figure 112. In this case then a semantic connection would be created between the two food objects, communicating explicitly that the food is an insect-based product. This would mutually enhance the value of the two ingredients, but keeping the two Even the hypothesis of leveraging the high protein entities as separate. content of insects in the creation of supplement products can be considered as a secondary and parallel road. In this case the path considered more valid is to develop primarily snacks such as bars or pastries with high protein content, rather than protein powders for drinks or smoothies. Between the two types of products the first is considered as an item less tied to a strictly fitness oriented market segment and more open to a wider consumption, which could accommodate loosely health oriented
150
151
COMMUNICATION VALUES IN COMMUNICATING ENTOMOPHAGY TO BROAD AUDIENCES LEVERAGE THE OBJECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, GUSTATIVE AND NUTRITIONAL BENEFITS. THESE VALUES PROVIDE SPACE FOR DIVULGATION AND WOULD ALLOW THE CREATION OF COHERENT BRAND IDENTITIES THAT SHAPE STRATEGIES AND COMPANY GOALS.
Figure 113,114 – Entonote experience and a TEDX event in Bari at which the cultural association participated in 2019 (Entonote, 2020, ws.)
ment, in reality the drink contains the additive E120, a food color obtained from the cochineal that gives the aperitif its typical red color. The guests are then explained that they already habitually consume insects as food additives and from here the event continues with an escalation of various tastes once the threshold of fear from first impact has been reduced (Entonote, 2020). Similarly, in online blogs and articles it will be important to reduce possible friction towards this practice and to explain and leverage the objective benefits in order to create a common ground for habitual consumption.
The intrinsic and objective values related to entomophagy lend themselves to be coherently declined both in non-commercial forms of disclosure and in the communication of business realities aimed at the production and distribution of goods and serPRODUCTS AND SERVICES COMMUNICATION vices. From the analysis carried out with the users it is possible to highlight that both the environmental and ONLINE AND OFFLINE DISSEMINATION nutritional values and the possibility to explore the As for forms of dissemination both online and of- combinations of taste have received interest from fline, in the desire to spread the habit of the prac- the interviewees. These values can be used both intice of entomology to a mass audience, a focus on dividually and in combination, in relation to the pethe perceived benefits will be very important. This, culiarities of the target communication in scope. together with the creation of a shared discourse will In fact, none of the 3 features received a marked allow to make the idea of entomophagy an adopt- variation of interest compared to the others. On the able and widespread practice also in Western coun- one hand, therefore, the variety of these values can tries. allow to create alternatives that each focus on a parIn offline events it will be important to approach the ticular direction, such as products related to personidea of consumption to users in a gradual way in or- al nutritional well-being or everyday products that der to reduce a possible friction towards this food are an alternative to meat. On the other hand, broad practice. During a trade fair or event oriented to a products and services portfolios can be communifirst consumption experience users could be grad- cated for all the benefits they produce, it coherently ually introduced to insect-based foods, first pro- carried to users as value. cessed and then whole. In general it is possible to conclude that the only way For example Entonote, a cultural association, found- to avoid is to focus the communication direction on ed in Milan in 2013 and active in the dissemination the novelty of a possible consumption of insects as of entomophagy, takes advantage of this concept an end in itself, avoiding to emphasize actual values in the events it organizes. The first taste that offers and benefits that justify this food approach. its guests is a Crodino (Italian bottled aperitif) to sip as an appetizer. While users think of eating insects Leveraging these benefits will be more important in the saltines that are offered as an accompani- than considering the novelty factor of insects as an
152
153
Figure 116 - Smallgiants product page of the website and product reference. The company commercialises cricket based snacks (Small Giants, 2020, ws.)
end-in-itself and it will also be important to develop quality communications related to the comparable identities of the food sector. In fact, at this moment there are already commercial actors on the market that have evolved their proposal by vertically expanding their presence, starting from core businesses related to the breeding and production of insects. Considering as an example the showcase site of Kreca (historical Dutch breeder), is not directly perceivable the actual relevance of the products within the food sector and the overall tone of communication remain relatively sterile and lacking a strong food identity (Figure 115). Comparing Kreca’s identity with the one of Smallgiants, an UK based startup that produces cricket flour snacks, is possible to denote the wide difference both in visuals, tone, and messages. Not only the company’s webpage shows it’s packaged products and contents, making visually expicit that their core offering is related to food, but they also list on the main sections of their website the environmental and nutritional benefits that eating insects create. On top of this their first bold message is related to a direct selling proposition. What they are principally doing is transforming insects in a way that makes them pleasant and an everyday food snack (Figure 116).
Figure 115 - Kreca, product page of the website and product reference. The company sells freeze dried insects and flours (Kreca, 2018, ws.)
154
155
PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN SHAPING THE SUPPLY SIDE OF ENTOMOPHAGY, FOCUS ON URBAN AND DISTRIBUTED CONFIGURATIONS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AN EFFECTIVE LOCAL SYSTEM
Figure 117,118 - Ynsect production plant representing the industrial configuration and the trays contatining mealworms (Ynsect, 2020, ws.)
The supply side has been considered for the need to create a reliable and scalable production system for the spread of large-scale insect consumption. From a first analysis it is already evident that there is technological maturity to equalize the share of production currently linked to the breeding and processing of products derived from animal proteins. Currently in Europe and the United States the limit is not so much the technological one but the regulatory one. In this context however, the recent European strategic vision has been updated with the Green Deal strategic outlet (European Commission, 2020), a set of initiatives carried out by the European Commission with the overall objective of achieving climate neutrality in Europe by 2050. In the Farm to Fork strategy section the EU communicates the intention to devulgate 10€B to be invested in R&I related to food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture and the environment, considering also the scaling and development of Insect-based alternatives (European Commission, 2019). As already mentioned in Chapter 6, concerning the analysis of the main insect breeding methods currently diffused, there are three main alternatives that vary in scale of production and centralized or distributed approach. The production efficiency of the transformation of feed of plant origin into protein through insects does not vary significantly according to the scale of the production plant realized, as it is an intrinsic biological characteristic of the insects themselves. New possibilities related to mass production open up thanks to this factor, fa-
cilitating the transition towards a distributed manufacturing approach that creates new value streams if compared to centralized production. Let’s consider, for example, the two approaches used by the French startup Ynsect and the Italian BEF, where the former has so far implemented a single industrial plant in France - and is about to build a second one - (TechCrunch, 2020), while the latter has so far built 14 small facilities distributed in Italy (BEF Biosystems, 2019). The French company has decided to focus on the scale of its plants, developing through proprietary technology automated systems in a 3400m2 production site (GSE - Global Solutions and Engineering, 2014). Within the plant, the company exploits a linear production system, thus using dry cereal-based feedstuff obtained directly from agricultural production as feed for the mealworms it breeds. The use of feed of this type is necessary for the parceling and homogenization of the process, useful to constitute a production line as reliable and stable as possible. In fact, using replicable conditions in the breeding of mealworms, the company is able to transform the biological process into a measurable, repeatable and automated technological process. The Italian company decided instead to focus on a circular approach, using instead of dry feed, biowaste as the main source for the transformation of protein sources from insects. In the initial definition of what could have been their own company configuration, the founders considered the hypothesis of recovering urban organic garbage (eg. vegetable waste) from the current logistic flow. The organic residues are mainly disposed of by the citizens or small food and catering establishments, transported to urban sorting centers and then reallocated to composting or biogas transformation centers.
156
157
Figure 119,120 - Logic production scheme and a production cell based in Casalnoceto, Italy (BEF biosystems, 2020, ws.)
Initially the company considered the hypothesis of creating a single main node to process organic waste, but from their analysis the logistic flow would have been too expensive in the handling of waste to a single Italian hub (ca 600km of truck transit calculated). The company then considered to leverage the presence of the transformation structures already established, designing production systems to be installed near the existing biogas centers, in a distributed manufactory perspective. This approach has proved to be not only cost-effective from a logistic point of view, but also able to reduce the facility costs of the various plants by recovering the heat generated by the Biogas units. What is then the actual production efficiency of the individual systems varies as much as the entity of the single company innovation implemented. In any case, the possibility of a distributed production proves to be feasible and new systemic configurations can be imagined. Currently this type of approach is also carried out by the Fab Lab movement, collaborative realities that also offer access to users not specialized in digital manufacturing services. If initially this movement was born with a very narrow perspective on the need to democratise manufacturing through the use of digital fabrication technologies, it has recently changed its purpose. Started in 2014 by Tomas Diez (Urbanist and Fablab european spokesperson) and the then mayor of Barcelona, the Fab City initiative challenges cities to produce everything they consume by 2054. This public network is shaping new configurations towards the possibility of creating centers that are totally independent in terms of everything that is produced and consumed within the urban area (Fab City, 2016). Currently more than 34 cities adhered to the initiative, and among the many ones that partic-
ipated worldwide also Barcelona, Paris, Mexico city, Boston and Amsterdam are present. As difficult as it may be to set up urban livestock and backyard animals farming (at least for spatial needs), it is possible to imagine insect colonies. These distributed centers could be nested in the city territory or in the peripheries of urban centers, and the outputs of the farms could be processed in corollary systems and distributed locally in a 0 km farming perspective.
Figure 121 - Difference from a delocalized production system and a localized configuration enabled by data excange (FabCity, 2016, ws.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbasi, T., Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2015). Reducing the global environmental impact of livestock production: The minilivestock option. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.02.094 Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2017). Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security, 15, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001 ASTM International. (2020). Official Webpage. https://www.astm.org/ AXA Healthcare. (2020). Plant-based planet: Your questions answered. https://www.axaglobalhealthcare.com/en/wellbeing/global-access/ veganism-vegetarianism-around-the-world/ Ayres, R. U., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2005). A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms. Ecological Economics, 55(1), 96–118. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v55y2005i1p96-118.html Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press. Berggren, Å., Jansson, A., & Low, M. (2019). Approaching Ecological Sustainability in the Emerging Insects-as-Food Industry. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2018.11.005 Brambell, R. (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire Into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Calder, B. J. (1977). Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 353–364. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3150774 Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business School Press.
Eastwood, M. A. (1997). Principles of Human Nutrition (1st edition). Springer. European Commision. (2019). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381 Evert, A. B., Dennison, M., Gardner, C. D., Garvey, W. T., Lau, K. H. K., MacLeod, J., Mitri, J., Pereira, R. F., Rawlings, K., Robinson, S., Saslow, L., Uelmen, S., Urbanski, P. B., & Yancy, W. S. (2019). Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report. Diabetes Care, 42(5), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0014 Fab City. (2016). Global Initiative website. https://fab.city/ Fan, V. Y., Jamison, D. T., & Summers, L. H. (2018). Pandemic risk: How large are the expected losses? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(2), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.199588 Fava, J. A., Smerek, A., Heinrich, A. B., & Morrison, L. (2014). The Role of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Development and Application. In W. Klöpffer (Ed.), Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 39–83). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0178697-3_2 Figure 75. (2017). Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017 Finke, M. (2002). Complete nutrient composition of commercially raised invertebrates used as food for insectivores. Zoo Biology, 21, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10031 Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405. Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature.
Clark, B., & York, R. (2005). Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift. Theory and Society, 34(4), 391–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-005-1993-4
Freeman, R., Yearworth, M., & Preist, C. (2016). Revisiting Jevons’ Paradox with System Dynamics: Systemic Causes and Potential Cures. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(2), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jiec.12285
Coherent Market Insights. (2020). Edible Insects Market Size, Trends, Shares, Insights and Forecast—2027. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/edible-insects-market-3802
Future Kind. (2020). Vegan Statistics – New Data Investigation For 2020. Future Kind. https://www.futurekind.com/blogs/vegan/vegan-statistics
Collins, C. M., Vaskou, P., & Kountouris, Y. (2019). Insect Food Products in the Western World: Assessing the Potential of a New “Green” Market. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 112(6), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saz015
Gahukar, R. T. (2016). Chapter 4 - Edible Insects Farming: Efficiency and Impact on Family Livelihood, Food Security, and Environment Compared With Livestock and Crops. In A. T. Dossey, J. A. Morales-Ramos, & M. G. Rojas (Eds.), Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients (pp. 85–111). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802856-8.00004-1
Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23–23. https://www.nature.com/articles/415023a.pdf de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 128(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007 Debret, C. (2019, October 16). Are Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Healthy? Should We Be Eating Them? One Green Planet. https://www. onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/are-plant-based-meat-alternatives-healthy/
Gebhardt, S. E., & Thomas, R. G. (2002). Nutritive Value of Foods. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Nutrient Data Laboratory. Gjerris, M., Gamborg, C., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2016). Ethical aspects of insect production for food and feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2015.0097 Global Market Insights. (2020). Edible Insects Market Analysis 20202026 | Industry Forecasts. Global Market Insights, Inc. https://www.
162
gminsights.com/industry-analysis/edible-insects-market Grand View Research. (2020). Vegan Food Market Size & Growth Trends | Industry Report, 2019-2025. https://www.grandviewresearch. com/industry-analysis/vegan-food-market Guo, M. (2009). Soy food products and their health benefits. In Functional Foods (pp. 237–277). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1533/9781845696078.237 Halloran, A., Roos, N., Eilenberg, J., Cerutti, A., & Bruun, S. (2016). Life cycle assessment of edible insects for food protein: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(4), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-016-0392-8 Hancox, D. (2018, April 1). The unstoppable rise of veganism: How a fringe movement went mainstream. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/01/vegans-are-coming-millennials-health-climate-change-animal-welfare Havlík, P., Valin, H., Herrero, M., Obersteiner, M., Schmid, E., Rufino, M. C., Mosnier, A., Thornton, P. K., Böttcher, H., Conant, R. T., Frank, S., Fritz, S., Fuss, S., Kraxner, F., & Notenbaert, A. (2014). Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(10), 3709–3714. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1308044111 Heller, M. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2018). Beyond meat’s Beyond burger life cycle assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant-based and an animal-based protein source. Hughes, H. (2015). Best Food Writing 2015. Hachette UK. Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., Bodirsky, B. L., Weindl, I., Stevanovic, M., & Müller, C. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environmental Research Letters, 9(6), 064029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029 Hussain, M. A. (2016). Food Contamination: Major Challenges of the Future. Foods, 5(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods5020021 Institute of Food Technologists. (2018). Official webpage. https://www. ift.org/ Jongema, Y. (2012, August 14). List of edible insects of the world. WUR. https://www.wur.nl/en/Research-Results/Chair-groups/Plant-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Entomology/Edible-insects/Worldwide-species-list. htm Keogh Brown, M. R., Wren Lewis, S., Edmunds, W. J., Beutels, P., & Smith, R. D. (2010). The possible macroeconomic impact on the UK of an influenza pandemic. Health Economics, 19(11), 1345–1360. https:// doi.org/10.1002/hec.1554 Khan, S., Loyola, C., Dettling, J., Hester, J., & Moses, R. (2019). Comparative environmental LCA of the impossible burger with conventional ground beef burger.
Anankware, J. P., Kalra, N., Manu, G., Tandoh, A., Zobrist, S., Engmann, C., & Pelto, G. (2017). An Exploration of Edible Palm Weevil Larvae (Akokono) as a Source of Nutrition and Livelihood: Perspectives From Ghanaian Stakeholders. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 38(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572117723396 Leitão, P. (2009). Agent-based distributed manufacturing control: A state-of-the-art survey. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(7), 979–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2008.09.005 Lensvelt, E., & Steenbekkers, B. (2014). Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Entomophagy: A Survey and Experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53, 543–561. https://doi.org/10.10 80/03670244.2013.879865 Li, L., Zhao, Z., & Liu, H. (2013). Feasibility of feeding yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) in bioregenerative life support systems as a source of animal protein for humans. Acta Astronautica, 92(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.03.012 Losey, J. E., & Vaughan, M. (2006). The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects. BioScience, 56(4), 311–323. https://doi.org /10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:TEVOES]2.0.CO;2 Luetge, C. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-1494-6 Macdiarmid, J., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2015). Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eating less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011 Makkar, H., Tran, G., Heuzé, V., & Ankers, P. (2014). State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008 Mann, M., Bradley, R., & Hughes, M. (1999). Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophysical Research Letters. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759–762. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900070 Marx, K. (1885). Das Kapital (Volume II). Verlag von Otto Meisner. Mazzocchi, Leone, Agostoni, & Pali-Schöll, I. (2019). The Secrets of the Mediterranean Diet. Does [Only] Olive Oil Matter? Nutrients, 11, 2941. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11122941 Mckinsey & Company. (2019). Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/alternative-proteins-the-race-for-market-share-is-on Megido, R. C., Sablon, L., Geuens, M., Brostaux, Y., Alabi, T., Blecker, C., Drugmand, D., Haubruge, É., & Francis, F. (2014). Edible Insects Acceptance by Belgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(1), 14–20. https://doi. org/10.1111/joss.12077
Kreca. (2018). Official web page. https://www.krecafood.com/
Moskowitz, H. R., Beckley, J. H., & Resurreccion, J. H. (2006). Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development, 2nd Edition | Wiley. Wiley.Com. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sensory+and+Consumer+Research+in+Food+Product+Design+and+Development%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780813813660
Laar, A., Kotoh, A., Parker, M., Milani, P., Tawiah, C., Soor, S.,
Nadeau, L., Nadeau, I., Franklin, F., & Dunkel, F. (2015). The potential for
Kotler, P. (1986). The Prosumer Movement: A New Challenge For Marketers. ACR North American Advances, NA-13. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6542/volumes/v13/NA-13/full
163
entomophagy to address undernutrition. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 54(3), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2014.930032
in Food Science & Technology, 45(2), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tifs.2015.06.008
Nowak, V., Persijn, D., Rittenschober, D., & Charrondiere, U. R. (2016). Review of food composition data for edible insects. Food Chemistry, 193, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.114
Smith, P., & Gregory, P. J. (2013). Climate change and sustainable food production. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 72(1), 21–28. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002832
O’Leary, Z. (2004). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. SAGE.
Sogari, G. (2015). Entomophagy and Italian consumers: An exploratory analysis. Progress in Nutrition, 7, 311–316.
Oonincx, D. G. A. B., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2012). Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51145. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0051145 Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, E., Clark, S., Poon, E., Abbett, E., & Nandagopal, S. (2004). Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues. BioScience, 54(10), 909–918. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0909: WRAAEI]2.0.CO;2 Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97 Raheem, D., Carrascosa, C., Oluwole, O. B., Nieuwland, M., Saraiva, A., Millán, R., & Raposo, A. (2019). Traditional consumption of and rearing edible insects in Africa, Asia and Europe. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59(14), 2169–2188. https://doi.org/10.1080/104083 98.2018.1440191 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. https:// www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743222099 Rumpold, B. A., & Schlüter, O. K. (2013). Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 57(5), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201200735 Sahirman, S., & Ardiansyah, A. (2014). Assessment of tofu carbon footprint in banyumas, Indonesia-towards greener tofu. Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education of Mathematics And Sciences. Saulle, R., & La Torre, G. (2010). The Mediterranean Diet, recognized by UNESCO as a cultural heritage of humanity. Italian Journal of Public Health, 7, 414–415. https://doi.org/10.2427/5700 Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D. M., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584014-1169-1 Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA21747518 Schnaiberg, A., Schnaiberg, A., & Gould, K., Alan. (1994). Environment and society: The enduring conflict. St. Martin’s Press. Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., & Matthews, E. (2018). Creating a Sustainable Food Future. https://www. wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future Shelomi, M. (2015). Why we still don’t eat insects: Assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends
Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., & Mora, C. (2017). Exploring young foodies׳ knowledge and attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 7, 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2016.12.002 Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Stull, V. J., Wamulume, M., Mwalukanga, M. I., Banda, A., Bergmans, R. S., & Bell, M. M. (2018). “We like insects here”: Entomophagy and society in a Zambian village. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(4), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9878-0 Tacchini, G. (2020). Personal interview with one of the two co-founders of Entonote [Personal communication]. Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 42, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2015.01.013 Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. Morrow. Van Horn Linda, Carson Jo Ann S., Appel Lawrence J., Burke Lora E., Economos Christina, Karmally Wahida, Lancaster Kristie, Lichtenstein Alice H., Johnson Rachel K., Thomas Randal J., Vos Miriam, Wylie-Rosett Judith, & Kris-Etherton Penny. (2016). Recommended Dietary Pattern to Achieve Adherence to the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) Guidelines: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 134(22), e505–e529. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000462 Van Huis, A. (2017). Edible insects and research needs. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 3(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2017.x002 Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., & Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible Insects, future prospects fo food and feed security (Vol. 171). Vantomme, P., Mertens, E., & VanHuis, A. (2012). Assessing the Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in assuring Food Security. FAO. http://www. fao.org/3/an233e/an233e00.pdf Why eat insects and insect powders as a source of food? Eat Grub. (n.d.). Eat Grub. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www. eatgrub.co.uk/why-eat-insects/ Yaffe-Bellany, D. (2019, October 14). The New Makers of Plant-Based Meat? Big Meat Companies. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2019/10/14/business/the-new-makers-of-plant-based-meat-bigmeat-companies.html Yüksel, E., & Canhilal, R. (2018). A Survey of Public Opinion about Entomophagy in Erciyes University. Uluslararası Tarım ve Yaban Hayatı Bilimleri Dergisi, 4. https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.440555
SITOGRAPHY
Aalto University. (2019). 1.5 Degree Lifestyles. https://www.aalto.fi/en/ department-of-design/15-degree-lifestyles AgriProtein. (2019). Brief history of the company. AgriProtein. https:// agriprotein.com/about-us/ American Institute for Cancer Research. (2017, October 31). Pea protein is everywhere, is it healthy? American Institute for Cancer Research. https://www.aicr.org/resources/blog/health-talk-pea-protein-iseverywhere-is-it-healthy/ Bandoim, L. (2020, May 5). What The FDA’s Decision About Soy Leghemoglobin Means For Impossible Burger. Forbes. 2019 BEF Biosystems. (2019, October 11). Giuseppe Tresso of BEF Biosystems at Agroinsecta 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN-unr7jlW4&t=620s BEF Biosystems. (2020). Impianti di Allevamento Insetti per Bioconversione. BEF Biosystems. http://www.befbiosystems.eu/ Beyond Meat. (2020). Official company webpage. Beyond Meat. https://www.beyondmeat.com/ British Nutrition Foundation. (2018). Nutrient requirements. https:// www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/nutrient-requirements.html Bugfoundation. (2019). Official Company Webpage. https://www.google.com//home-en.html Business Insider. (2020). BYND Stock | BEYOND MEAT Stock Price Today | Markets Insider. Markets.Businessinsider.Com. https://markets. businessinsider.com/stocks/bynd-stock Capritto, A. (2019). Impossible Burger vs. Beyond Meat Burger: Taste, ingredients and availability, compared. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/ health/beyond-meat-vs-impossible-burger-whats-the-difference/ Chirps. (2018). Bugs Are Coming Soon to Your Dinner Table. Eat Bugs. https://eatbugsblog.com/blog/2018/7/5/bugs-are-coming-soon-toyour-dinner-table Crunchbase. (n.d.). Entocube—Crunchbase Company Profile & Funding. Crunchbase. Retrieved November 16, 2020, from https://www. crunchbase.com/organization/entocube Debret, C. (2019, October 16). Are Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Healthy? Should We Be Eating Them? One Green Planet. https://www. onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/are-plant-based-meat-alternatives-healthy/ Eat Grub. (2018). Why eat insects and insect powders as a source of food? Eat Grub. Eat Grub. https://www.eatgrub.co.uk/why-eat-insects/ EntoCube. (2018). Brief overview on farming process. https://entocube. com/en/farming/ Essento. (2020). Official Company Webpage. Essento – Essbare Insekten geniessen. https://essento.ch/ European Commision. (2016, July 5). Corporate social responsibility & Responsible business conduct [Text]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681 European Commission. (2020). Green Deal Strategy Institution-
al webpage [Text]. Commissione europea - European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_it EXO Protein. (2020). Official Company Webpage. https://exoprotein. com/ Fab City. (2016). Global Initiative website. https://fab.city/ Fehrenbacher, K. (2014, October 8). Meet Impossible Foods, another VC-backed veggie meat startup. Gigaom. https://gigaom. com/2014/10/08/meet-impossible-foods-another-vc-backed-veggiemeat-startup/ Glenza, J. (2019, March 14). Inside the Impossible Burger: Is the meatfree mega trend as good as we think? The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/14/impossible-burger-meat-fromcells-change-eating-habits Goal 7 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7 Good News from Finland. (2018, January 26). EntoCube to spread its wings internationally. Good News from Finland. https://www.goodnewsfinland.com/entocube-to-spread-its-wings-internationally/ GSE - Global Solutions and Engineering. (2014). ŸNSECT: Mixed-use building for insect breeding. https://www.gsegroup.com/en/realisation/ ynsect/ Impossible Foods. (2020). Official company webpage. Impossible Foods: Meat Made from Plants. https://impossiblefoods.com/ Italian Cricket Farm. (2019, April 1). Company website, product page. Italian Cricket Farm. https://www.italiancricketfarm.com/prodotto/ farina-di-grillo/ Jackson, R. (2017). The Effects of Climate Change. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects Jacobsen, R. (2017). The Biography of a Plant-Based Burger. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/news/the-biography-of-a-plant-basedburger Kreca. (2018). Official web page. https://www.krecafood.com/ Kubala, J. (2020, May 5). What Is the Impossible Burger, and Is It Healthy? Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/impossible-burger Livin Farms. (2020). Hive Explorer: Your Smart Mealworm Farm for Food Recycling. Hive Explorer. https://thehiveexplorer.com/ Massa Critica. (2019, January 28). A Casalnoceto in provincia di Alessandria una vera Bugsfarm integrata in un’azienda agricola. Massa Critica. https://www.massa-critica.it/2019/01/a-casalnoceto-in-provincia-di-alessandria-una-vera-bugsfarm-integrata-in-unazienda-agricola/ Mckinsey & Company. (2019). Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/alternative-proteins-the-race-for-market-share-is-on Mengpin, G., & Friedrich, J. (2020, February 6). 4 Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/greenhouse-gas-emis-
166
sions-by-country-sector
pensive-bug-farm-raises-another-224-million/
National Geographic. (2013, May 14). U.N. Urges Eating Insects; 8 Popular Bugs to Try. National Geographic News. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/5/130514-edible-insects-entomophagy-science-food-bugs-beetles/
The Guardian. (n.d.). The Guardian’s climate pledge 2019. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019
National Geographic. (2019, March 28). Climate Change. National Geographic Society. http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ climate-change/ Nguyen, C. (2015). Forget Lab Beef, Impossible Foods’ 100% PlantBased Cheeseburger Is Our Future. https://www.vice.com/en/article/539nj5/forget-lab-beef-impossible-foods-100-plant-basedcheeseburger-is-our-future Nielsen Norman Group. (1997). Focus Groups in UX Research. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/focus-groups/ Nielsen Norman Group. (2020). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-totest-with-5-users/ Nutribug Ltd. (2020). Official Company Webpage. Nutribug Ltd - Cricket Powder, Edible Crickets, Protein Bars and More... https://nutribug. com/ One Hop Kitchen. (2018). Facebook social page (only official web reference of the company). https://www.facebook.com/onehopkitchen/ Open Bug Farm. (2014). An innovation platform to stimulate interaction between farmers. Open Bug Farm. http://www.openbugfarm.com/ Oxford Martin School. (2020). Plant-based diets could save millions of lives and dramatically cut…. Oxford Martin School. https://www. oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201603-plant-based-diets/ Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2017). CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions Robinson, M. (2016). There’s a secret ingredient in the plant-based meat Google wanted to buy for $200 million. Business Insider. https:// www.businessinsider.com/secret-ingredient-impossible-foods-burger-2016-7 Shaftel, H. (2016). Overview: Weather, Global Warming and Climate Change. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate. nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change SINU. (2014). Tabelle LARN. https://sinu.it/tabelle-larn-2014/ Small Giants. (2020). Official Company Webpage. Small Giants. https:// eatsmallgiants.com/ Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113 Survival. (n.d.). Brazilian Indians. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/brazilian TechCrunch. (2020). Ÿnsect, the makers of the world’s most expensive bug farm, raises another $224 million. TechCrunch. https://social.techcrunch.com/2020/10/06/ynsect-the-makers-of-the-worlds-most-ex-
The Guardian. (2018, December 5). Beef-eating “must fall drastically” as world population grows. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/beef-eating-must-fall-drastically-as-world-population-grows-report The Spoon. (2019, January 8). Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown says They’ll Tackle Steak Next. The Spoon. https://thespoon.tech/video-impossible-foods-ceo-pat-brown-says-theyll-tackle-steak-next/ Thew Telegraph. (2019, July 22). Eating a vegan diet can cut your risk of developing diabetes by almost a quarter, says Harvard scientists. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/22/eating-vegan-diet-can-cut-risk-developing-diabetes-almost-quarter/ Thomas, P. (2019, May 21). 6 Reasons Impossible Burger’s CEO is Wrong About GMO Soy. Howl At The Moon. https://www.howlatthemoon.org. uk/6-reasons-impossible-burgers-ceo-is-wrong-about-gmo-soy/ UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2016). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/ the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement University of Warwick. (2020). Plant-based diets shown to lower blood pressure even with limited meat and dairy. ScienceDaily. https://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200724191441.htm USDA. (n.d.). Food Data Central. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html Wired. (2014). Out in the Open: Raise Your Own Edible Insects With This Free Kit. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2014/03/open-bug-farm/ World Health Organization. (n.d.). A healthy lifestyle. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/ disease-prevention/nutrition/a-healthy-lifestyle World Wildlife Fund. (2016). The story of soy. World Wildlife Fund. https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/the-story-of-soy Wuebbles, D. J., Fahey, D. W., Hibbard, K. A., DeAngelo, B., Doherty, S., Hayhoe, K., Horton, R., Kossin, J. P., Taylor, P. C., Waple, A. M., & Yohe, C. P. (2017). Executive summary. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0DJ5CTG Zeldin-O’Neill, S. (2019, October 16). “It’s a crisis, not a change”: The six Guardian language changes on climate matters. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment
167
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Chart 1. (1999). Mann, M., Bradley, R., & Hughes, M., Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophysical Research Letters. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759–762. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900070 Chart 2. (2016). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector Chart 3. (2016). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions Chart 4. (2016). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Chart 5. Environmental comparison of Meat and Meat Alternatives. Table 6. Macro nutrients content per each alternative analysed. Table 7. Amino acid content per each alternative analysed. Table 8. Fatty acids and Cholesterol content per each alternative analysed. Table 9. Vitamins content per each alternative analysed. Table 10. Mineral salts content per each alternative analysed. Charts 11,12. Tasting results of Sample #1. Charts 13,14. Tasting results of Sample #2. Charts 15,16. Tasting results of Sample #3. Charts 17,18. Tasting results of Sample #4. Charts 19. Influence on consumption motivations from Environmental values. Charts 20. Influence on consumption motivations from Nutritional values. Charts 21. Propensity on meat consumption reduction by replacing it with entomophagy.
Complete data sources used in the research for Environmental, Nutritional and Prototyping analyses are available at shorturl.at/jtCDE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. (2014). Andersen, K. (Producer), Andersen K. & Kuhn K. (Directors) Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret [Film]. Appian Way Productions Figure 2. (2018). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairysoya-maize
the test with users. Figure 33-39. (2020). Meatballs preparation process for the live survey with users. Figure 40-48. (2020). First tasting session with 13 users. Figure 49-57. (2020). Second tasting session with 11 users.
Figure 3. (2020). Plant Based News. https://plantbasednews.org/opinion/vegan-diet-best-planet-data-shows-why/?
Figure 58-61. (2020). Examples of two remote sessions, which in total included 9 users.
Figure 4. (n.d.). Reference picture of pea protein isolate, generic web research. https://plantbasednews.org/opinion/vegan-diet-best-planet-data-shows-why/?
Figure 62. (2020). The Hive, by Livin Farms, home product for mealworm farming. https://thehiveexplorer.com/
Figure 5. (2020). Beyond Meat’s analytical laboratory. Scientists identifying the signature aroma molecules of meat. https://www.beyondmeat.com/ Figure 6. (2020). Beyond Burger. https://www.beyondmeat.com/ Figure 7. (2020). Impossible Burger. https://impossiblefoods.com/ Figure 8. (2020). The industrial machinery process of making heme, the protein found in the roots of soybean plants, with the same slightly metallic taste and aroma of blood. https://impossiblefoods.com/ Figure 9. (2020). Mechanical harvesting of soy in the deforested territories of Cherrado and Chacho, Brazil. https://www.worldwildlife.org/ stories/the-story-of-soy Figure 10. (n.d.). An Acheta Domesticus Cricket resting on a leaf, generic web research. Figure 11. (2018). A detail of a 60,000 square feet cricket farm in North America, the largest in the country. https://entomofarms.com/our-story/
Figure 63. (2013). Most common insects species consumed worldwide, FAO, graphic representation by Bijou Concierge. http://www.bijouconcierge.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/which-insects-arewe-eating.jpg Figure 64,64a. (2020). Lifecycle of mealworms and crickets, generic web research. Figure 65. (2020). Logic structure of the metrics provided to assess the DIY kits. Figure 66. (2019). Cowboy cricket Farms marketing director and co-founder James Roling explains how to set up a home DIY colony. Figure 67. (2020). Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 01. Figure 68-74. (2020). First DIY prototipe maintenance tests and process. Figure 75. (2017). Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017 Figure 76. (2020). Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 02.
Figure 12. (2020). Detail wiew of a frozen locust.
Figure 77-79. (2020). Making process and a view of the foldable option.
Figure 13. (2017). On eating insects. Essays, stories and recipes (1° edizione). Phaidon.
Figure 80-83. (2020). Making process and a view of the foldable option.
Figure 14. (n.d.). Hundreds of bug species are used as a source of food in Mexico and insects are a part of the culinary heritage, generic web research. Figure 15. (2020). Swiss made Essento Insects Snacks. Currently sold in restaurants, e-commerce and available on the shelves of supermarkets across Switzerland, Germany and France. https://essento.ch/ Figure 16-18. (2020). First culinary experiments. Boiling, roasting and a first recipe tasting. Figure 19. (2020). Company website showing erroneously the resources needed to produce 1kg of protein across animals. https://eatgrub. co.uk/why-eat-insects/
Figure 84. (2020). Openbug farm DIY kit. http://www.openbugfarm. com/ Figure 85. (2020). Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 03. Figure 86-90. (2020). Details of the colony, the folded design and a view of the open bag during the maintenance phases. Figure 91. (2015). DIY mealworm kit based on the usage of vertical stacked trays, Instructables. https://www.instructables.com/Mealworm-Farm/ Figure 92. (2020). Final prototype – DIY Cricket farm, kit version 04. Figure 93-97. (2020). Different views of the colony, with a detail of some individuals in the pupae stage.
Figure 20-24. (2020). Samples of live insects and the boiling process of freezed individuals.
Figure 98-103. (2020). Prototype and processes presentation during the action research activity.
Figure 25-29. (2020). The dessication and powdering process, together with a set of bags containing various samples.
Figure 104. (2017). One Hop cricket and mealworm bolognese, One Hop Kitchen. https://www.facebook.com/onehopkitchen/
Figure 30,31. (2020). Powdered insects mixed into a dough and a cooking test.
Figure 105. (2019). Buffalo worms burger, Bugfoundation. https://www. google.com//home-en.html
Figure 32. (2020). The tasting trays containing meatballs, used during
Figure 106. (2019). Insects sushi, generic web research. https://www.
172
google.com//home-en.html Figure 107,108. (2020). Essento Swiss Made insects-based products. https://essento.ch/ Figure 109. (2020). Cricket protein Bar. https://exoprotein.com/ Figure 110. (2020). Cricket protein isolate. https://nutribug.com/ Figure 111. (n.d.). Sweet bakery product with insects, generic web research. https://nutribug.com/ Figure 112. (2020). Example of decoration with locust of an insect-made burger, Essento. https://essento.ch/ Figure 113,114. (2020). Entonote experience and a TEDX event in Bari at which the cultural association participated in 2019. https://www. entonote.com/ Figure 115. (2018). Kreca, product page of the website and product reference. The company sells freeze dried insects and flours. https:// www.krecafood.com/ Figure 116. (2020). Smallgiants product page of the website and product reference. The company commercialises cricket based snacks. https://eatsmallgiants.com/ Figure 117,118. (2020). Ynsect production plant representing the industrial configuration and the trays contatining mealworms, Ynsect. https://www.ynsect.com/ Figure 119,120. (2020). Logic production scheme and a production cell based in Casalnoceto, Italy, BEF Biosystems. http://www.befbiosystems.eu/ Figure 121. (2016). Difference from a delocalized production system and a localized configuration enabled by data excange, Fab City. https:// fab.city/
173
Don’t eat me please!