14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Novel foods: a risk profile for the house cricket ( Acheta domesticus)

      research-article
      SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Sweden, , , , ,
      EFSA Journal
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      house cricket, entomophagy, novel foods, food safety, risk profile

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Novel foods could represent a sustainable alternative to traditional farming and conventional foodstuffs. Starting in 2018, Regulation ( EU) 2283/2015 entered into force, laying down provisions for the approval of novel foods in Europe, including insects. This Approved Regulation establishes the requirements that enable Food Business Operators to bring new foods into the EU market, while ensuring high levels of food safety for European consumers. The present risk profile tackles the hazards for one of the most promising novel food insects, the house cricket ( Acheta domesticus). The risk profile envisages a closed A. domesticus crickets rearing system, under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points ( HACCP) and good farming practices ( GFP), in contrast with open cricket farms. The methodology used involves screening the literature and identifying possible hazards, followed by adding relevant inclusion criteria for the evidence obtained. These criteria include animal health and food safety aspects, for the entire lifespan of crickets, based on the farm to fork One Health principle. When data were scarce, comparative evidence from close relatives of the Orthoptera genus was used (e.g. grasshoppers, locusts and other cricket species). Nevertheless, significant data gaps in animal health and food safety are present. Even if HACCP‐type systems are implemented, the risk profile identifies the following considerable concerns: (1) high total aerobic bacterial counts; (2) survival of spore‐forming bacteria following thermal processing; (3) allergenicity of insects and insect‐derived products; and (4) the bioaccumulation of heavy metals (e.g. cadmium). Other hazards like parasites, fungi, viruses, prions, antimicrobial resistance and toxins are ranked as low risk. For some hazards, a need for additional evidence is highlighted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption

          Background Greenhouse gas (GHG) production, as a cause of climate change, is considered as one of the biggest problems society is currently facing. The livestock sector is one of the large contributors of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Also, large amounts of ammonia (NH3), leading to soil nitrification and acidification, are produced by livestock. Therefore other sources of animal protein, like edible insects, are currently being considered. Methodology/Principal Findings An experiment was conducted to quantify production of carbon dioxide (CO2) and average daily gain (ADG) as a measure of feed conversion efficiency, and to quantify the production of the greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) as well as NH3 by five insect species of which the first three are considered edible: Tenebrio molitor, Acheta domesticus, Locusta migratoria, Pachnoda marginata, and Blaptica dubia. Large differences were found among the species regarding their production of CO2 and GHGs. The insects in this study had a higher relative growth rate and emitted comparable or lower amounts of GHG than described in literature for pigs and much lower amounts of GHG than cattle. The same was true for CO2 production per kg of metabolic weight and per kg of mass gain. Furthermore, also the production of NH3 by insects was lower than for conventional livestock. Conclusions/Significance This study therefore indicates that insects could serve as a more environmentally friendly alternative for the production of animal protein with respect to GHG and NH3 emissions. The results of this study can be used as basic information to compare the production of insects with conventional livestock by means of a life cycle analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            New approaches narrow global species estimates for beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods.

            It has been suggested that we do not know within an order of magnitude the number of all species on Earth [May RM (1988) Science 241(4872):1441-1449]. Roughly 1.5 million valid species of all organisms have been named and described [Costello MJ, Wilson S, Houlding B (2012) Syst Biol 61(5):871-883]. Given Kingdom Animalia numerically dominates this list and virtually all terrestrial vertebrates have been described, the question of how many terrestrial species exist is all but reduced to one of how many arthropod species there are. With beetles alone accounting for about 40% of all described arthropod species, the truly pertinent question is how many beetle species exist. Here we present four new and independent estimates of beetle species richness, which produce a mean estimate of 1.5 million beetle species. We argue that the surprisingly narrow range (0.9-2.1 million) of these four autonomous estimates--derived from host-specificity relationships, ratios with other taxa, plant:beetle ratios, and a completely novel body-size approach--represents a major advance in honing in on the richness of this most significant taxon, and is thus of considerable importance to the debate on how many species exist. Using analogous approaches, we also produce independent estimates for all insects, mean: 5.5 million species (range 2.6-7.8 million), and for terrestrial arthropods, mean: 6.8 million species (range 5.9-7.8 million), which suggest that estimates for the world's insects and their relatives are narrowing considerably.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Fungi and Food Spoilage

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                EFSA J
                EFSA J
                10.1002/(ISSN)1831-4732
                EFS2
                EFSA Journal
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1831-4732
                28 August 2018
                August 2018
                : 16
                : Suppl 1 , EU‐FORA: Series 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/efs2.2018.16.issue-S1 )
                : e16082
                Author notes
                Article
                EFS2E16082
                10.2903/j.efsa.2018.e16082
                7015497
                32626053
                0d589b82-183a-415c-a384-309b458d6ae9
                © 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 15, Words: 8204
                Categories
                EU‐FORA: Series 1
                EU‐FORA: Series 1
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.5 mode:remove_FC converted:21.01.2020

                house cricket,entomophagy,novel foods,food safety,risk profile

                Comments

                Comment on this article