Insect farming is often promoted as a win-win for animals, the planet, and the economy. Insects are touted as a sustainable alternative to traditional animal farming, with high feed efficiency and the ability to consume organic waste. But according to this article, much of the research supporting insect agriculture contains major flaws that may lead to overly optimistic conclusions. The authors argue that common assumptions in the field misrepresent the environmental and economic realities of commercial-scale insect farming.

The article identifies three “bugs” in how insect farming is studied:

1. Reliance on outdated environmental studies;
2. Unrealistic expectations about using food waste; and
3. Cost models that fail to reflect commercial realities.

These flaws can mislead policymakers, investors, and advocates, and obscure the true challenges of scaling insect farming as a sustainable solution to global protein production.

Between August 2023 and March 2024, the researchers surveyed studies on insect farming’s environmental impacts, feed inputs, and cost projections. Their goal was to uncover how past research may have contributed to inflated hopes for the industry.

Bug #1: Overreliance On Outdated Environmental Studies

Many studies praising insect farming’s environmental benefits rely on a few older sources, particularly a 2012 life-cycle assessment of mealworm production and the 2013 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that draws on it. These studies have been cited hundreds to thousands of times but no longer reflect commercial conditions.

For example, the 2012 life-cycle assessment focused on mealworms raised for human consumption in a small facility. It used human-grade feed like carrots and grains and excluded energy-intensive processing. It also assumed a 70-day development cycle, while today’s commercial farms use higher-quality feed to speed up growth to around 26 days. The FAO report assumed insects would replace meat, but most are used as animal feed or ingredients in snacks like energy bars — products that already have lower environmental impacts.

Because life-cycle assessments vary based on species, diet, geographical location, and production method, relying on outdated or narrow studies risks overstating insect farming’s benefits. Even recent studies often cite these early papers without acknowledging their limitations.

Bug #2: Assuming Insect Farms Will Use Food Waste

A common assumption is that insect farms will become more sustainable by feeding food waste. Some projections suggest insect farms could use 50% or more of a country’s annual food waste, converting it into valuable protein. These scenarios appear in reports by non-governmental organizations, governments, and researchers.

However, current industry practices tell a different story. Most large insect farms avoid food waste due to its inconsistency, contamination risks, and the high costs of collection and treatment. Instead, they tend to rely on grain-based substrates already used in conventional animal feed. A leading insect company executive noted that food waste is too variable to support consistent production at scale.

Even in countries with strong food waste recycling systems, only a small share of food waste is legally usable as feed, and competition from traditional animal agriculture and bioenergy sectors further limits its availability. These practical and regulatory barriers mean that the assumption of widespread food waste use isn’t realistic under current conditions.

Bug #3: Using Unrealistic Cost Estimates

Some studies suggest that insect farming could soon be cost-competitive with other protein sources. However, these projections often rely on unrealistic assumptions. For instance, one report assumed equipment would last 30 years — much longer than the five to 20 years estimated in other analyses. Other studies used inflated feed conversion ratios, misapplied dry matter estimates, or assumed unusually low electricity prices.

These assumptions can make insect farming appear more affordable than it actually is. In practice, many insect startups struggle to reach commercial scale, with production costs remaining high. Consumer demand is still uncertain, and investor enthusiasm appears to be cooling. Until cost models reflect actual input prices and production constraints, it’s difficult to assess the true financial viability of insect farming.

Toward More Accurate Research

The authors don’t argue that insect farming should be abandoned. Instead, they call for more rigorous, up-to-date, and realistic research. New life-cycle assessments should reflect current practices, including grain-based feed and energy use. Researchers should avoid assuming food waste will become a primary input without evidence that it’s practical. And cost estimates should draw from commercial-scale data rather than theoretical models.

For animal advocates, the message is one of caution. While insect farming might offer benefits in some cases, advocacy and policy decisions shouldn’t rely on best-case scenarios or outdated studies. By pushing for better data and more grounded assessments, advocates can ensure that sustainability claims reflect reality — and help identify where (and if) insect farming truly fits within a more ethical food system.