Insect producers should also care about insect welfare, because improved animal welfare goes hand in hand with improved productivity, for example through reduced mortality, improved health, improved product quality, improved disease resistance and reduced medication, lower risk of zoonoses and foodborne diseases, and higher willingness to pay by consumers, as well as societal benefits such as farmer job satisfaction and contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility.
Political Advisor
Eurogroup for Animals (EfA)
Animal Welfare Consultant
Industrial insect farming is starting to soar in Europe. It is touted as a ‘sustainable’ form of agriculture with insect facilities seeming to have a smaller environmental footprint than other livestock systems. Yet, behind its image as a “sustainable” food source for people, insect farming is mainly about insects being used as feed for animals, with the growing industry predominantly driven by a need to feed other farm animals in intensive systems.
Therefore, its success depends on an increased demand for (and consumption of) animals, shifting focus from the necessary move towards a more plant-based diet, that is an integral aspect of creating more sustainable food systems. The latter, moreover, is an objective of the European Union (EU).
THE WRONG ANSWER TO THE WRONG QUESTION
However, the distinction between farming insects for food or feed is not readily made. Farmed insects are claimed to be sustainable because they are “alternative proteins” that could reduce the human consumption of (other) animal products.
The term “alternative” is poorly chosen, unlike yeasts, algae or cultivated meats, insects are animals. This is not merely a semantic issue, misrepresenting the nature of insect farming leads, inevitably, to misunderstanding the industry and its impacts on the food system.
Insect farming does not answer the question of how to make the food system more sustainable, because it does not ask it. Insect farming is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
Worryingly, the effects of this expanding sector and its apparent contradictions have flown mostly under the EU’s radar. There are significant knowledge gaps among key decision-makers about how industrial insect farming could affect animal welfare, the climate and our food systems. This context is, however, critical in shaping the industry as it develops, as well as the various food, farming and animal welfare legislations it interconnects with.
Unfortunately, there is no joined-up, systemic nor strategic thinking in the EU regarding insect farming. Rather, the authorisation process focuses on details and not the bigger picture. Individual EU departments and agencies take individual technical issues and deal with them technocratically, in their particular silo.
With policymakers behind the curve (the European Commission even stating that there is an “overwhelming lack of knowledge” regarding all aspects of this sector), industry leaders are calling the shots when it comes to insect farming. In turn, their suggestions for the growth of the field are underpinned by industry needs, namely, productivity and cost-efficiency.
As a result, the welfare of insects in these farming systems has been neglected in decisions made about the sector so far, with little acknowledgement of their behavioural needs or even their sentience.
INSECT WELFARE MATTERS
Animal welfare is characterised as the physical and mental wellbeing of an animal. Whether we are concerned with the welfare of an animal depends on whether the animal is capable of feeling, and therefore capable of having negative physical and mental experiences (like pain and suffering) as well as positive ones (like pleasure or joy). This is known as sentience, from the Latin word for feeling.
Historically, insects and all other invertebrates have been assumed to be insentient, reflected for example in the exclusion of insects from animal welfare protection legislation. This assumption is not founded in a scientific case against sentience in these animals, and may lie instead in our reduced ability to empathise with organisms with decreasing similarity to us (similarly to birds, fish and other invertebrates compared to mammals) and with organisms we spend less time with (such as those we do not tend to keep as companions in our homes).
This assumption is beginning to change with increased scientific research. For example, a review of evidence for sentience in the invertebrate taxa of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans led to the UK government including these animals in the newly formed Animal Sentience bill. The framework used in this review, specifically focusing on the ability to feel pain, was recently used to review the evidence for pain in insects. Researchers found strong evidence for pain in adult flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches and termites, and substantial evidence in adults of the remaining insect orders (except beetles). They also found substantial evidence for pain in juvenile flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, termites, butterflies and moths. Although there were significant research gaps, they found no good evidence that any insects failed any of the criteria for pain. With increasing research our understanding of sentience in insects, especially in the more intensely studied species such as bees, continues to grow.
An approach widely accepted by scientists and policy makers is the precautionary principle, which dictates that where at least some evidence for the sentience of an animal exists, even if not fully conclusive, precautionary measures should be taken to protect their welfare. This approach advocates for sensible, cost-effective strategies to prevent suffering in animals that may be caused by human interventions. Based on the evidence, we should be adopting the precautionary principle when farming insects.
It is not only the scientific evidence of sentience which suggests that we should consider insect welfare. Even in the absence of full scientific consensus, there is growing public concern about the treatment of insects, in both the farming sector and the research sector. Therefore, if insect farming is to be socially acceptable, it should take animal welfare seriously, something beginning to be recognised by the International Platform of Insects as Food and Feed (IPIFF).
Insect producers should also care about insect welfare, because improved animal welfare goes hand in hand with improved productivity, for example through reduced mortality, improved health, improved product quality, improved disease resistance and reduced medication, lower risk of zoonoses and foodborne diseases, and higher willingness to pay by consumers, as well as societal benefits such as farmer job satisfaction and contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility.
What can insect producers do to ensure good insect welfare? There are open access scientific resources on insect welfare recommendations, for example in the Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, including papers with welfare considerations for specific species such as the black soldier fly. Such research is continuing to be published. Producers can engage with animal welfare scientists and entomologists, for example through special interest groups, and support insect welfare research through collaboration.
Like for other farmed animals, if insects are to be farmed, the facilities they are housed in and the processes need to be designed to insure their wellbeing. With little knowledge around insect welfare and even less regulatory scrutiny, just about anything goes. Issues can be brushed aside or minimised. Like the issue of insects thriving in gregarious settings, which is used as a justification to increase insect population density in facilities. Yet there is evidence that even with gregarious species, overcrowding not only hinders their capacity to behave normally, but can be a trigger for abnormal aggressivity and cannibalism.
EU POLICY NEEDS TO CATCH UP WITH INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT
In the EU, strong action on animal welfare is a concern. Citizens overwhelmingly believe that the European Union should act more decisively. A pan-European survey conducted by Eurobarometer in 2016 indicates that 94% of Europeans consider protecting animal welfare important. More specifically, 89% believe there should be EU legislation requiring people using animals for commercial purposes to care for them. More recently, a European Citizens’ Initiative called “End the Cage Age” obtained over 1.4 million signatures across the EU.
Insect farming, however, is following the path that the other intensively farmed animal sectors took. Starting from a total disregard for their animals’ welfare and, only slowly over decades, complying to stricter animal welfare legislation. Yet, despite improvements in animal welfare regulations in the EU over time, animals in intensive facilities are still systematically treated with cruelty and existing legislation flouted.
Insects may be smaller and less cuddly than most other farmed animals, but their welfare, too, should fall under Europeans’ moral expectations. The “alternative protein” discourse that erroneously surrounds the insect farming industry acts as a fig-leaf removing some of the realities of intensive insect farming from citizens’ and, more importantly, policy makers’ sight.
Currently, the European Union cannot or is not willing to look at insect welfare legislation. Formally, for the European institutions to act on the welfare of animal species, the latter need to be considered sentient. This recognition requires existing science on insect sentience to be officially recognised by the European institutions, a process that can last many years.
Considering the expected growth of the insect farming industry, this recognition process should be launched quickly. EU legislation needs to pick up the pace and catch up with industry development. For this, EU policy makers should stop referring to insects as “alternative proteins” and fully integrate that insects are animals. It would not be morally acceptable for trillions of individual insects to suffer needlessly.
To properly inform the debate surrounding insect farming and to allow the EU to make sound policy decisions, the welfare of insects must therefore be thoroughly investigated. Just like any other sentient being, insects deserve to lead happy, fulfilled lives, where all their natural needs are met.
