Mind the Gap
Why 70% of Countries Still Lack Insect Feed Regulations
By Rodrigo Llauradó Casares
With a background in social sciences and marketing, Rodrigo is a science communicator and content strategist specializing in turning topics related to biotechnology, sustainability, and the circular economy into compelling stories. He has written scientific articles, book chapters, and market reports, and has worked with several companies in the insect bioconversion, food, and feed sectors.
Without clear rules for insects, the bioconversion of organic waste is lost.
Insect farming, particularly the black soldier fly (BSF, Hermetia illucens), faces a central obstacle: regulation.
In most countries, a regulatory vacuum blocks the full development of this emerging industry, despite its potential to turn urban, agricultural, and industrial residues into protein for animal feed, oils for feed and non-feed uses, organic fertilizers (frass), and bioactive compounds for cosmetics.
Unlike soy and fishmeal, which matured under lighter initial barriers, insects have faced stricter requirements from the start (approximately 15 years ago), including novel food authorizations, livestock-level traceability, and substrate restrictions. The last is the main bottleneck: which substrates are allowed, which are not, and under what conditions.
This article examines how the absence of clear frameworks blocks investment, delays projects, and fuels commercial uncertainty in insect-based bioconversion. It closes with a minimal roadmap to guide countries toward functional rules for insects as waste bioconverters.
Global overview of insects as feed regulations
Based on national and regional frameworks, I estimate that 29.2% of countries, 57 out of 195, have clear regulations for insects as feed. These rules almost always restrict authorized substrates, usually excluding post-consumer waste and manure.
By “clear regulation” I mean a written and enforceable rule that explicitly authorizes insects in feed for at least one animal species and defines sanitary and substrate requirements. The countries are: 1) Europe: EU (27), Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, UK; 2) Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam; 3) Africa: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda; 4) Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay; 5) North America: Canada, US; 6) Oceania: Australia, New Zealand. This list is based on my research and may contain minor omissions or adjustments after review.
In contrast to soybean meal and fishmeal, which are traded under established rules in nearly all markets, more than 70% of countries lack defined rules for insects. If a similar gap applied to soy or fishmeal, hundreds of millions of tons would be blocked from use.
Limitations in substrate use
In most regulated markets, farms must use feed-grade materials, typically pre-consumer plant by-products such as discarded fruits and vegetables, cereal brans, brewer’s spent grains, and pulps, and in some cases low-risk animal by-products like whey and processed fish trimmings.
The complex streams where BSF larvae excel are usually excluded: segregated post-consumer organics, catering waste, municipal organics, retail fractions, and certain manures.
The paradox is that a technology built to handle difficult waste ends up competing for “clean” inputs that already have outlets, including livestock, biogas, and composting, and that do not maximize BSF’s value in landfill diversion and methane reduction. Meanwhile, thousands of tons of complex organics keep going to landfills or to costlier and less circular treatments.
The regulatory reasons behind this blockage include:
- Sanitary precaution: feed frameworks were designed for livestock and most countries apply the same logic to insects.
- Lack of common criteria: there are no harmonized substrate lists, analytical ranges, or insect-specific testing protocols, which leads regulators to prohibit by default
- Historical legacy: crises such as mad cow disease left a regulatory aversion to “circular” animal protein in the feed chain.
Treating insect producers like conventional feed manufacturers ignores their purpose, especially for BSF, to process complex waste.
The sector is asking not for unlimited substrates but for a broader, controlled list with traceable batches and defined analytical limits. Without a risk-based approach, countries miss a tool to divert organics from landfills, cut emissions, and recover nutrients locally.
The impact of the legal vacuum on the insect bioconversion industry
The lack of a clear legal framework for waste valorization through insects creates an environment of uncertainty that hinders industrial development.
The negative effects of this regulatory vacuum include:
- Supply and waste. BSF can turn complex organics such as segregated post-consumer waste, municipal fractions, and catering residues into protein, oil, and frass, but the absence of explicit rules blocks agreements with municipalities and managers. Tons of organics still go to landfills or incineration, and true circularity is lost.
- Commercial contracts on hold. If insect meal is not recognized as a feed ingredient, its use is illegal, and if frass lacks a clear category, fertilizer sales fall into a gray zone, which undermines bankability and scale.
- Investments and financing stalled. In countries without regulation, banks and funds see a risk of not getting licenses to operate at capacity, so proven startups struggle to move from pilot to industrial scale.
- Difficulty scaling. Profitability depends on whether municipal organics are allowed, which species can receive the protein, and whether frass is fertilizer or waste. Regulatory fog drives small, flexible builds that sacrifice efficiency.
- Costs misaligned with the mission of circularity. In a legal vacuum, authorities apply the strictest analogies or demand human-grade inputs, raising costs and distorting waste-valorization aims. Soy and fishmeal grew for decades under laxer environmental barriers while insects are asked for sustainability, traceability, and transparency from day one.
- Limiting safety standards. Without insect-specific parameters (substrate microbiology, metals, mycotoxins, etc.), companies and authorities operate in the dark. Some jurisdictions set clear limits, for example metals, but most do not or are not aligned.
- Public and political perception. “Unregulated” is perceived as “unsafe”, which fuels mistrust among consumers and decision-makers.
Even when technology works and sustainability indicators are positive, business does not scale because regulators lack certainty (1), citing Van der Spiegel (2016), state: “Clear and unambiguous regulation will level the playing field, encourage investments, add trust, and normalize the industry.” Only when clear rules of the game exist will a significant flow of capital reach this sector and insect protein become genuinely integrated into supply chains.
Counterfactual scenario: What if 70% of the world had no regulation for soy or fishmeal?
To assess the cost of today’s legal vacuum, imagine 70% of countries lacking rules for soy or fishmeal.
Soy is the most widely used plant protein in feed. In 2024 it reached 424.2 million tons, (2), so 296.9 million tons would lack a guaranteed market if most countries barred its trade. Food prices would spike and meat and egg output would drop.
Fishmeal is essential in aquaculture. In 2024 it totaled 5.4 million tons (3) so 3.8 million tons would be blocked without legal pathways. Shrimp, salmon, and other farmed fish would collapse in unregulated countries or switch to costly substitutes.
Much of the 20th century’s agricultural progress came from normalizing trade in inputs like soy and fishmeal through standards, harmonized tariffs, and Codex and WTO rules, which enabled near-universal market access. Without that scaffolding, protein supply would shrink, with oversupply and low prices in regulated markets and scarcity elsewhere.
Regulation enables markets. Without rules, even if the technology exists, protein does not reach the feeder. That is the situation for insects today, and in the regulated third, restrictive substrate lists still cut the circularity BSF can deliver. Hence the need for regulatory harmonization so insects can scale as soy and fishmeal already did.
Minimum roadmap for insect regulation
A practical roadmap can give countries a functional framework for insects as organic waste bioconverters and as a feed source. It should, at minimum, cover the following points:
- Proper trade classification
- Permission to use controlled waste streams
- Integration into feed registries and standards
- Product safety for meal, oil, and frass via insect-specific rules
- Alignment with international practices to support local acceptance and exports
Implementing these steps shifts the industry from a regulatory vacuum to proportional, risk-based rules that free innovation while safeguarding public health and the interests of consumers and traditional producers. Under such a framework, insects stop competing for “clean” inputs and process the complex organics that feed landfills and methane. That is how insect protein competes fairly with soy and fishmeal while delivering its low-footprint, waste-management promise.
References
- Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Marimuthu, S., & Meijer, N. (2021). Regulations on insects as food and feed: A global comparison. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 7(5), 849–856. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0066
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2025). Soybeans: World production, 2024. USDA FAS International Production Assessment Division (IPAD). https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/cropview/commodityView.aspx?cropid=2222000&sel_year=2024&rankby=Production
- Glencross, B. D. (2025). The modern face of marine ingredient production. Aquafeed: Advances in Processing & Formulation, 17(3), 46–47. https://magazine.aquafeed.com/books/wolv/#p=46
Enjoyed reading this article? You can read the full issue of our Beta Buzz #6: From Waste To Value publication here
