| Literature DB >> 36141915 |
Marta Ros-Baró1, Patricia Casas-Agustench1,2, Diana Alícia Díaz-Rizzolo1,3, Laura Batlle-Bayer4, Ferran Adrià-Acosta5, Alícia Aguilar-Martínez6,7, Francesc-Xavier Medina6,7, Montserrat Pujolà8, Anna Bach-Faig6,9.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to examine the health outcomes and environmental impact of edible insect consumption. Following PRISMA-P guidelines, PubMed, Medline ProQuest, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until February 2021. Twenty-five articles met inclusion criteria: twelve animal and six human studies (randomized, non-randomized, and crossover control trials), and seven studies on sustainability outcomes. In animal studies, a supplement (in powdered form) of 0.5 g/kg of glycosaminoglycans significantly reduced abdominal and epididymal fat weight (5-40% and 5-24%, respectively), blood glucose (10-22%), and total cholesterol levels (9-10%), and a supplement of 5 mg/kg chitin/chitosan reduced body weight (1-4%) and abdominal fat accumulation (4%) versus control diets. In other animal studies, doses up to 7-15% of edible insect inclusion level significantly improved the live weight (9-33%), reduced levels of triglycerides (44%), cholesterol (14%), and blood glucose (8%), and increased microbiota diversity (2%) versus control diet. In human studies, doses up to 7% of edible insect inclusion level produced a significant improvement in gut health (6%) and reduction in systemic inflammation (2%) versus control diets and a significant increase in blood concentrations of essential and branched-chain amino acids and slowing of digestion (40%) versus whey treatment. Environmental indicators (land use, water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions) were 40-60% lower for the feed and food of edible insects than for traditional animal livestock. More research is warranted on the edible insect dose responsible for health effects and on environmental indicators of edible insects for human nutrition. This research demonstrates how edible insects can be an alternative protein source not only to improve human and animal nutrition but also to exert positive effects on planetary health.Entities:
Keywords: alternative proteins; edible insects; health; planetary health; sustainability; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141915 PMCID: PMC9517137 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Risk of bias in animal and human studies on the health effects of edible insects.
| Animal Studies | Selection Bias | Performance Bias | Detection Bias | Attrition Bias | Reporting Bias | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Seo et al. [ | - | - | - | - | ? | ? |
| Bergmans et al. [ | ? | - | - | - | - | - |
| Dabbou et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | ? |
| Bovera et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | ? |
| Biasato et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gasco et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Agbemafle et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Pessina et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | ? |
| Ahn et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | ? |
| Ahn et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skau et al. [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - |
| Bauserman et al. [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - |
| Nirmala et al. [ | - | ? | + | ? | - | ? |
| Stull et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Vangsoe et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Vangsoe et al. [ | - | ? | - | - | - | - |
Summary of risk of bias: review of the opinions of the different authors on each element of bias risk for each study. The minus sign (-) indicates low risk of bias, plus sign (+) high risk of bias, and question mark (?) unclear risk.
Figure 1Flow chart of the selection of reviewed articles.
Effect of edible insects on animal health.
| Author, Year, Country | Type of Animal, Sample Size (Male/Female), Age | Duration (Days) | Insect | Intervention (n) | Insect Inclusion Level of CFP (g/100 g Expressed in %) | Variables/Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim et al., 2016 (Korea) [ | C57BL/6J mice | 56 | All groups (a–e) start with: | (b) 1% 2 | Food intake and body weight were reduced (b,e) compared to (a,b) respectively (S). | ||
| Ahn et al., 2016 (Korea) [ | Wistar rats, 50 (50/-), 14 weeks | 30 |
| (a) Control + HFD (n = 10) | (b) 0.0005 | Weight of abdominal and epididymal fat, AST, ALT, total cholesterol, and glucose were lower after (b,c) compared to (a) (S). | |
| Seo et al., 2017 (Korea) [ | BALB/c mice, 35 (35/-), 5 weeks | 42 | (a) ND (10% fat) (n = 7) | (c) 0.01% | Body weight gain, epididymal white adipose tissue size and volume decreased after (c,d) compared to (b) (S). | ||
| Dabbou et al., 2018 (Italy) [ | Ross 308 CD1-IGS broiler chicken, 256 (256/-) ND | 35 | (a) HI0 (n = 64) | (a) 0% | Dietary HI inclusion (b–d) positively influenced growth performance up to 10%, in terms of improved live weight and daily feed intake during the starter period (S). | ||
| Bovera et al., 2018 (Italy) [ | Hy-line Brown hens, 162 (-/162), 16 weeks | 140 | (a) Control group: corn-soybean meal-based diet (n = 54) | (b) 7.3% | Serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels were reduced after (b,c) compared to (a) (S). Serum globulin levels were higher after (c) compared to (a,b) (S). | ||
| Biasato et al., 2018 (Italy) [ | Label Hubbard hybrid | 140 |
| (a) Control group: corn-soybean-gluten meal-based diet (n = 70) | (b) 7.5% |
| Small intestine revealed similar villus height, crypt depth, and villus height crypt depth ratio between (a,b) (NS). |
| Gasco et al., 2019 (Italy) [ | Crossbred rabbits, 200 (ND), 36 days | 41 | (a) Control group: 1.5% soy-bean oil (n = 40) | (b) 0.75% | Weight gain and feed intake was affected similarly after (a–e) (NS). | ||
| Agbemafle et al., 2019 (Ghana) [ | Sprague–Dawley rats, 66 (66/-), 21 days | 35 |
| (a) Normal rats + Casein + ferrous sulfate (n = 8) | (d) 15.4% | After malnourished treatment, weight gain, bone mineral content and lean and fat mass increased similarly after (d,f,g) compared to (e) (NS). | |
| Lokman et al., 2019 (Malaysia) [ | Cobb500 broiler chickens, 100 (150/-), 150 days | 42 |
| (a) Control: Baseline diet (n = 30) | (b) 0.05% chitin | Body weight and feed intake improved after (b) compared to (c) (S). | |
| Bergmans et al., 2020 (USA) [ | Mice, 65 (65/-), 3 weeks | 66 |
| (a) Control group: Standard adult diet 2018 (n = 10–12) 5 | After malnourished treatment and recovery diets, there was an increment weight (34%) after (b) compared to (a) (NS). | ||
| Pessina et al., 2020 (Brazil) [ | Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) 24 (24/-) and age-matched WKY rats (controls) 18 (18/-), 9 weeks | 28 | (a) SHR SD (n = 8) | (b) 0.29% | Systolic BP, heart rate, and coronary perfusion pressure were reduced after (b,c) compared to (a) (S). | ||
| Ahn et al., 2020 (Korea) [ | BKS.Cg-m+/+Leprdb, heterozygous (DB-Hetero, normal) (db/+) male mice (11/-), 12 weeks | 30 |
| (a) Normal Hetero (DB-Hetero) | (d) 0.0005% | Capacity to reduce glucose, ALT, AST, ALP, LDL-cholesterol and BUN levels increased after (d) compared to (b) (S). |
1 Injection at week 17 and week 18; 2 g/100 mL; 3 induced obesity; 4 malnourished diet; 5 Start with initial weaning diet 2020 for 10 days; S: significant; NS: non-significant; CFP: complementary food product; HFD: high fat diet; HD: Hypoprotein diet; DMSO: dimethyl sulfoxide; ALLD: Allomyrina dichotoma larvae; AD: Acheta domesticus; LFD: low-fat diet; ER: endoplasmic reticulum; ND: normal diet; TM:Tenebrio molitor; ALT: alanine transaminase; AST: aspartame transaminase; GS: Gryllodes sigillatus; HI: Hermetia illucens; AD: Acheta domesticus; RF: Rhynchophorus phoenicis fabricius; MD: malnourished; Fe: Iron; SD: standard diet; BP: blood pressure; DB: diabetes; CaG: Dung beetle (C. molossus) glycosaminoglycan; GbG: Grillodes bimaculatus glycosaminoglycan; LDL: low density lipoprotein; ALP: alanine transaminase; SHR: spontaneously hypertension rats; WKY: Wistar Kyoto Rats; CRP:C-reactive protein; BUN: Blood urea nitrogen; SOD: Superoxide dismutase; GPX: Glutathione peroxidase.
Effect of edible insects on human health.
| Author, Year, Country | Type of Study | Subjects, | Duration (Days) | Insect | Intervention | Daily Food Portion of Intervention with Insects | Insect Inclusion Level of CFP (g/100 g Expressed in %) | Insect Inclusion of CFP (Expressed in g) for Each Age Group | Protein Inclusion Level of CFP: g/100 g (Expressed in %) | Protein of CFP Per Day (Expressed in g). | Variables/Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skau et al., 2015 (Cambodia) [ | Randomized, single-blinded trial | Infants, 419 (220/119), 6 months | 270 |
| (a) WF: Rice-based 1 CFP with small fish and edible spiders (n = 106) | 1. Infants 6–8 months: 50 g. | a1,a2,a3 = 1.8% | (a.1) 0.9 g | (a)15.4% | Total weight increases in (a), (b) compared to vs c) (NS). | ||
| Bauserman et al., 2015 (Democratic Republic of Congo) [ | Cluster- randomized controlled trial | Infants, 222 (113/109), 6 months | 540 |
| (a) Usual diet 2 (n = 110) | Infants 6–12 months of age: 30 g | (b.1) 6.9 (b.2) 10.3 | Stunting prevalence, no differences were observed between (a,b) (NS). | ||||
| Nirmala et al., 2017 (Indonesia) [ | Non-randomized controlled trial | Infants, 23 (12/11), 1–5 years | 45 |
| (a) Usual diet (n = 10) | 2 pieces of 50 g | (b) 9.70% | (a) 3.9 ±1.7 | Weight and height no changes were observed between a) and b) (NS) | |||
| Stull et al., 2018 (USA) [ | Double-blinded randomized crossover trial | Healthy adults, 20 (9/11), 18–65 years | 14 |
| (a) Control breakfast meal (n = 10) | Shake + pumpkin muffin (160 g) | (b) 14.78% | (a) 9 | Bifidobacterium animalis increased 5.7 more in (b) compared to (a) (S) | |||
| Vangsoe et al. A 2018 (Denmark) [ | Randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial | Healthy young adults, 18(18/-), 18–30 years | 56 |
| (a) Isocaloric carbohydrate bar (n = 9) | 2 bars a day | (b) 0.04% 3 | (a) 7.2 |
| Morphological adaptations such as hypertrophy or muscle strength show no changes in (a) compared to (b) (NS). | ||
| Vangsoe et al. B 2018 (Denmark) [ | Randomized, cross-over study | Healthy young adults,6 (6/-), 18–30 years | 1 |
| (a) Drink placebo (water) | 400 mL per day | (d) 7.6% 4 | (d) 30.5 g isolate powder | (b) 25 g |
| Blood concentrations of EAA, BCAA and leucine increased in (b–d) compared to (a) over a 120 min period (S). |
1 Severe malnutrition; 2 stunning rates; 3 isolated powder 82% protein; 4 30.5 g/400 mL; S: significant NS: non-significant; CFP: complementary food product; WF: win food; WF-L: win food lite; CSB: corn soy blends; FFM: fat free mass; sTfr: soluble transferrin receptor; Fe: iron; Hb: hemoglobin; TNF-α: plasma tumor necrosis factor-alpha; AA: amino acid; EAA: essential amino acids; BCAA: branched-chain amino acids.
Effect on environmental indicators of edible insects consumed as animal feed and human food.
| Animal Feed Consumption (kg Edible Protein) | Human Food Consumption (kg De Protein) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste-Feed Insects | Non Waste Insects | ||||||||||||
| Insect | Author, Year, Country | Land Use (m2) | GHG (Kg CO2 eq) | Energy Use (MJ) | Author, Year, Country | Land Use (m2) | GHG (Kg CO2 eq) | Energy Use (MJ) | Author, Year, Country | Water Footprint (m3) | Land Use (m2) | GHG (Kg CO2 eq) | Energy Use (MJ) |
|
| Thévenot et al., 2018 (France) F,J [ | 6.35 | 5.77 | 217.37 | Oonincx et al., 2012 (USA) F [ | 17.68 | 13.16 | 167.23 | |||||
| Miglietta et al., 2015 (Italy) F,I [ | 23 | ||||||||||||
|
| Van Zanten et al., 2015 (Netherlands) A,J [ | 0.07 | 1.43 | 18.98 | |||||||||
|
| Salomone et al., 2016 (Italy) B,I [ | 0.05 | 2.1 | 15.1 | |||||||||
| Muys et al. 2014 (UK) C,I [ | 0.06 D | 2.1 | 15.1 | ||||||||||
|
| Halloran et al., 2017 (Denmark) F,I [ | 3.97 G | |||||||||||
A: Poultry manure; B: food waste; C: brewery waste; D: manual harvest; E: automatic harvest; F: mixed diet; G: current situation; H: future scenario; system boundaries: (I: from cradle to farm and J: from cradle to meal).
Environmental indicators of traditional livestock animals for food.
| Traditional Livestock Animals for Food (kg de Protein) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal | Author, Year, Country | Water Food Print (m3) | Land Use (m2) | GHG (Kg CO2 eq) | Energy Use (MJ) |
|
| Vries and de Boer. 2010 (Netherlands) F [ | 47–64 | 21–53 | 95–236 | |
| Miglietta et al. 2015 (Italy) F [ | 57 | ||||
|
| Vries and de Boer. 2010 (Netherlands) F [ | 42–52 | 18–36 | 80–152 | |
| Miglietta et al. 2015 (Italy) F [ | 34 | ||||
|
| Vries and de Boer. 2010 (Netherlands) F [ | 144–258 | 75–170 | 177–273 | |
| Miglietta et al. 2015 (Italy) F [ | 112 | ||||
F: Mixed diet.
Figure 2Resource use and environmental impact parameters of insect farming versus the production of other livestock (Data on resource use and environmental obtained from Table 3 and Table 4).
Figure 3Edible insects and Sustainable Development Goals according to the three dimensions of food sustainability.