Insect Meal in Transition: Functional Ingredient or Overhyped Innovation?
Updated: Sep 16
Insect meal is often touted as a sustainable source of protein and as the food of the future. Recent developments in the European Union do indeed point in a new direction: As of February 10, 2025, UV-treated powder made from whole yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) larvae may be used in various food products under certain conditions and within specified maximum limits. Approved product groups include, among others, bread and rolls, cakes, pasta, processed potato products, cheese and cheese products, as well as fruit and vegetable compotes. For certain baked goods, for example, up to four grams of powder per 100 grams of food is permitted.[1]
The key shift is that insect meal is no longer viewed merely as a potential substitute for meat or as a source of protein. It is increasingly being positioned as a functional ingredient—that is, a component intended to impart additional properties to a food product. This development, however, warrants critical scrutiny: there is a significant difference between genuine product innovation and a well-marketed promise of the future.
“Functional ingredient”—is this a useful term?
At first glance, the term “functional ingredient” suggests a clear added benefit. In this specific case, UV treatment can increase the vitamin D content of the powder. This results in a potential nutritional benefit. [2] Insect Meal in transition.
However, this benefit should not be overinterpreted. The EFSA assessed the product as safe under the conditions of use and quantities proposed by the applicant. This does not automatically mean that the product offers a relevant health benefit in everyday life compared to established sources of vitamin D. Furthermore, the EFSA assessment indicates that the conversion of a starting material into vitamin D3 during UV treatment was only minimal. [3]
The term “functional” is therefore particularly convincing when manufacturers can transparently quantify the specific added benefit. A mere reference to innovation or increased nutritional value is not sufficient for a critical evaluation.
Four Benchmarks for Future Development
Whether insect meal can become a permanent fixture as a functional ingredient depends on four key questions. These questions should not be asked only after the product has been launched, but should already be considered during product development, regulatory approval, and marketing communications.
Is the claimed added value measurable and relevant? A functional food requires more than just an interesting list of ingredients. The claimed benefit must be measurable and have recognizable significance for the target audience. In the case of UV-treated mealworm powder, the focus is particularly on its potential contribution to vitamin D intake. [3]
Therefore, it is not merely a matter of whether vitamin D is detectable in the powder. Rather, what matters is how much of the finished food would actually need to be consumed, what contribution this makes toward the recommended intake, and whether the benefit makes a practical difference compared to established sources of vitamin D. The protein content should also be considered in a nuanced way. A product is not automatically nutritionally superior simply because it contains insect protein. Quality, quantity, digestibility, and the overall formulation must all be taken into account.
Is insect meal actually superior to established ingredients? The mere novelty of an ingredient is not proof of its superiority. Manufacturers would have to demonstrate whether insect meal offers a concrete advantage over ingredients already available—such as legumes, soy protein, whey protein, yeast-based ingredients, or vitamin D-fortified products. In a fair comparison, it’s not just the protein content or a single nutrient that counts. Equally important are taste, texture, processability, price, shelf life, allergenic properties, and consumer acceptance. A higher price would only be plausible if the added value were clear to buyers. Otherwise, despite its innovative positioning, insect meal could simply be a more expensive alternative to ingredients already available.
How is the ingredient labeled and communicated? Insect ingredients must be clearly listed in the ingredients list. The Consumer Protection Agency points out that approved insects must be labeled with their corresponding names. [4] For UV-treated powder, information regarding the vitamin D produced by the treatment and the corresponding nutritional information may also be required. The exact conditions are set forth in the annex to the EU regulation. [1] Transparent communication is particularly important because acceptance of insects as food is often limited. While powder can be more easily integrated into existing recipes, the invisibility of the ingredient must not be confused with a lack of transparency. It would be problematic to use marketing language that relies primarily on terms such as “sustainable,” “natural,” or “healthy” without providing concrete evidence. Manufacturers should therefore clearly state the function of the insect meal, the amount it contains, and the specific product benefit it offers.
Is the environmental impact of the specific production system reliably documented? The sustainability arguments in favor of insect meal are plausible, but not automatically proven. The environmental impact depends largely on what the insects are fed and how much energy is required for breeding, climate control, drying, and processing. A recent scientific analysis highlights, in particular, the production of the feed substrate and energy consumption as key influencing factors. [5]
Thus, insect production can offer advantages under certain conditions, but this is not necessarily the case. If the insects are fed with feed produced through labor-intensive processes or processed in an energy-intensive manner, the ecological benefit can be significantly reduced. A robust assessment would therefore need to compare the specific product with a specific alternative—such as soy protein, legumes, whey protein, or meat. A comprehensive life-cycle analysis, clearly defined system boundaries, and transparent data are crucial. General statements about the sustainability of “insects” are not sufficient for this purpose.
Safety does not mean the absence of risk
The European Commission summarizes the EFSA assessment by stating that the authorized product is safe under the intended conditions of use. At the same time, it explicitly points out a potential allergy risk. People with allergies to crustaceans, dust mites, and, in some cases, mollusks may be particularly affected. In addition, allergens from the feed—such as gluten—may end up in the insect-based product consumed. [2]
The term “authorized” should therefore not be equated with “safe for everyone.” As with other foods, individual tolerance and complete labeling remain crucial.
Acceptance remains a problem
Even a product of nutritional interest must be accepted by people. A global overview of consumer preferences concludes that acceptance in Western countries is often limited by neophobia, disgust, and a lack of familiarity. Processed products containing invisible insect ingredients tend to be more readily accepted than whole insects. [6]
This explains why powders can be particularly attractive to manufacturers. From the consumer’s perspective, however, incorporating insects into a product must not become a strategy of concealment. Trust is fostered more effectively through clear labeling and transparent product benefits. Using insects in a way that is as inconspicuous as possible would be counterproductive in this context.
Conclusion: A Change of Course, with Reservations
Insect meal is clearly moving toward becoming a functional ingredient. The UV treatment of mealworm powder demonstrates that insect components can be specifically used to tailor nutritional value and develop new foods. [1]
However, this shift in direction should not be confused with an automatic breakthrough. The potential added value of vitamin D does not equate to a comprehensive health benefit. The safety assessment applies to specific conditions of use, allergy risks remain, and sustainability depends on the specific production system. Acceptance in Western markets is by no means guaranteed either.
Whether insect meal can establish itself as a functional ingredient in the long term will therefore depend on four questions:
Is the claimed added value measurable and relevant to the target audience?
Is insect meal truly superior to established ingredients?
Is the ingredient labeled and communicated in a transparent and understandable manner?
Is the environmental footprint of the specific production system reliably documented?
The most convincing approach, therefore, lies not in grand promises but in a pragmatic product logic: Insect meal can be a meaningful functional ingredient if it offers a demonstrable, relevant, and transparently communicated benefit. Without this benefit, the term “functional” risks becoming nothing more than a marketing label.
The future of insect meal will therefore likely not be determined by whether insects are permitted in principle. Rather, the decisive factor is whether manufacturers can demonstrate that their products offer genuine added value compared to established alternatives—ecologically, nutritionally, and economically.
Insect Meal: Functional Ingredient or overhyped Innovation? If you want to be sure that your groceries don’t contain any insect ingredients, do what many other satisfied users do and check your groceries for insect meal, insect fat, and other ingredients using the app www.insectinspect.app.
The app can scan the EAN code and the list of ingredients, and therefore offers the highest accuracy rates
Use your smartphone’s scanner to scan the EAN code and get a reliable list of unwanted insect ingredients. And of course, the app also works to check dog and cat food for unwanted insect additives such as house crickets, mealworms, grasshoppers, and buffalo worms.
Unlike comparable apps, this app can also read the ingredient list and is therefore not dependent on the EAN code being functional. This is important because a great many EAN codes are not stored in official databases such as Open Food Fact. In such cases, comparable apps come up empty and often display a question mark because they cannot read the ingredients. InsectInspect.app won’t let you down here, which is especially important for regionally sourced foods, as these are generally not listed in official databases. You can purchase the app here for iOS and here for Android. You can buy the app for a nominal fee and download it to your smartphone.
As of September 2026. Legal requirements and approved uses are subject to change. The applicable EU regulations and the information on the product packaging are authoritative.
Sources:
[1] Europäische Kommission: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2025/89, EUR-Lex
[2] Europäische Kommission: Fragen und Antworten zur Zulassung von Insekten als Novel Food.
[4] Verbraucherzentrale: Insekten als Lebensmittel – diese sind zugelassen, Stand 23. Februar 2026.
[5] Wissenschaftliche Übersichtsarbeit: Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated?.
[6] PubMed: Global review of consumer preferences and willingness to pay for edible insects and derived products.
[7] Europäische Kommission: Union list of novel foods.
OK.