The welfare of farmed insects concerns treatment of insects raised for animal feed, as food or pet food, and other purposes such as honey and silk, for use in generating recombinant proteins, or for biological control applications.
Debate over insects' capacity for welfare Scientists remain uncertain about the existence and degree of pain in invertebrates, including insects. However, a recent review of the neurobiological and behavioral evidence consistent with the hypothesis of pain found strong evidence consistent with precautionary treatment in at least two orders of insects at the adult life stage (Blattodea and Diptera), ultimately considering evidence from over 350 studies. This may explain why 67% of surveyed animal behavior researchers ascribed emotions (of which pain is one), to some, most, nearly all or all insects and why 82% of surveyed entomologists stated they cared about insect welfare due to the intrinsic value of the animal. Both the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, and the 2024 New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, suggest that there is a realistic possibility of insect consciousness; the New York Declaration signed by many animal ethicists, welfare scientists, neuroscientists, entomologists, and consciousness researchers. As a result of the growing evidence base supporting the plausibility of insect pain and sentience, insect welfare is being increasingly discussed in all settings where insects are used and managed, including laboratory settings. Vincent Wigglesworth suggested a precautionary approach of anaesthetizing insects during potentially painful procedures. John Cooper has written about techniques for "Anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia of invertebrates" including insects. Neil A. C. Bennie and colleagues proposed a method for chemical euthanasia of insects and other terrestrial arthropods. As of 2024, the Insect Welfare Research Society guidelines for protecting and promoting insect welfare in research recommend chemical agents, rapid freezing, immersion in alcohol following anesthesia, or crushing/grinding as methods that may humanely euthanize insects. Insect welfare is currently not regulated in research settings, resulting in the frequent reporting of some low-welfare practices such as vivisection (live dissection of an animal without anesthetics) in the discipline. Recent research suggests that the Canadian public believes insect welfare in research should be regulated to 2/3rds the level of oversight given to vertebrates. Some authors, including animal ethicists and academics that research insect farming, have begun extending discussions of insect welfare beyond the laboratory to the domain of raising insects for food, feed, or pet food. The Dutch Animal Act, which went into effect on 1 January 2013, created a regulatory framework for farm-animal welfare based on the Five Freedoms, and the law specifically lists a number of insect species as "production animals" whose wellbeing needs to be respected. Dutch politician Marianne Thieme asked a series of questions suggesting concern that insect farming would multiply the number of animals farmed and killed for human consumption. Robert Nathan Allen of the pro-entomophagy organization Little Herds feels that the welfare of insects is important, though he believes well managed farms can maintain high standards of care. Some entomophagy suppliers highlight the importance of humane insect treatment, though the industry recognizes that evidence on which practices actually result in humane treatment is currently lacking. For instance, World Ento uses the name "Good Karma Killing" to describe its process of freezing insects into a stasis state, but this method is not expected to produce a humane death according to the American Veterinary and Medical Association. A 2013 FAO report on "Edible insects" includes a section encouraging high standards of welfare in entomophagy operations, despite uncertainty about whether insects can suffer. Others feel that considering the wellbeing of farmed insects is going too far. Rhys Southan suggests that even most vegans do not care a lot about insects, but that "Insects are to animal rights what Larry Flynt is to the First Amendment—you have to uphold their rights even if you don't want to, or the whole thing falls apart." He goes on to propose satirical slogans that insect-rights activists might use against entomophagy. However, data on public perceptions suggests that many members of the mainstream American public care about insect welfare in farming, particularly younger consumers, as do traditional animal welfare NGOs in Europe. Accordingly, animal welfare scientists have suggested that insect farmers may care about insect welfare for social and economical reasons, such as consumer confidence in the industry's adherence to high ethical standards for animal rearing, maintaining their social license to operate, and brand differentiation opportunities that increase industry maturation. Some recent anecdotes suggest there is growing public interest in insect welfare, at least in research: public outcry over lethal wasp scientific surveys in the UK resulted in a BBC podcast episode about lethal sampling with entomologist Adam Hart and a publication about invertebrate research ethics.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
