Abstract
Edible insects are increasingly recognized as sustainable protein sources capable of contributing to global food security and climate-aligned dietary transitions. However, their integration into formal food systems depends not only on techno-functional validation but, critically, on regulatory frameworks that ensure safety, traceability, and consumer confidence. While Europe and parts of Asia have established regulatory mechanisms, Latin America—despite its high biocultural diversity and entomophagy heritage—remains largely excluded from these governance structures, resulting in informality, limited investment, and marginalization from high-value markets. This Perspective aims to stimulate dialogue on how Latin America might design context-sensitive governance pathways for edible insects. It argues that regulation, when conceived as a tool for inclusion and sovereignty rather than mere control, can articulate four complementary pillars: science-based safety standards, cultural recognition, digital traceability, and regional cooperation. A practical roadmap is proposed to guide regulatory evolution through phased implementation—from baseline assessment and multi-stakeholder engagement to the establishment of adaptable, science-based standards and continuous regulatory improvement. Positioning edible insect governance within broader sustainability and food sovereignty agendas could enable Latin America to shift from being a passive biodiversity provider to an active normative contributor in global food policy. Conversely, regulatory inertia risks deepening exclusion and allowing external standards to dictate the future of the region’s biocultural resources. By framing regulation as a space for negotiated governance rather than top-down enforcement, this discussion opens a strategic conversation toward inclusive, culturally grounded, and future-oriented insect policy frameworks.
1 Introduction
The global food system is undergoing a paradigm shift as novel protein sources gain prominence in response to mounting pressures on agricultural land, climate stability and nutritional security. Among these alternatives, edible insects have emerged as a strategic resource due to their high feed conversion efficiency, reduced environmental footprint and rich cultural heritage in various regions of the world (). While scientific evidence increasingly supports their nutritional value, safety considerations () and techno-functional potential (), the integration of insects into formal food markets is not driven by technological readiness alone. Rather, it depends fundamentally on the existence of regulatory frameworks capable of ensuring safety, standardization and consumer confidence.
Regulation has therefore become a decisive factor in shaping the future of the insect-based food sector. In regions such as the European Union, the establishment of legal definitions, authorization pathways and hygiene standards has enabled the emergence of structured value chains, export-oriented enterprises and innovation ecosystems backed by investor confidence. In contrast, regions with long-standing entomophagy traditions, such as Latin America, remain largely excluded from these evolving global markets due to the absence of harmonized policies that recognize edible insects as legitimate components of the formal food system (). This situation reveals a deeper structural issue: regions with high biocultural value often remain outside global regulatory conversations, limiting their ability to influence emerging standards and participate competitively in expanding markets. The development of regulation is not merely an administrative requirement but a matter of food sovereignty—understood here as the right of nations and communities to define their own food systems, policies, and production models according to ecological, social, and cultural priorities— cultural recognition, and fair participation in global trade. The region’s ability to translate its biodiversity and ancestral knowledge into regulated, high-value food systems will determine whether edible insects remain confined to informal circuits or become part of a strategic bioeconomy aligned with sustainability agendas.
Accordingly, this Perspective article aims to stimulate critical debate and policy reflection on how Latin America could design context-sensitive regulatory pathways for the formal integration of edible insects into food systems. It seeks to connect scientific evidence, cultural dimensions, and governance challenges to propose a conceptual roadmap for regional regulation grounded on four complementary pillars: science-based safety standards, cultural recognition, digital traceability, and regional cooperation. By articulating these elements within a strategic and forward-looking framework, the work aspires to contribute to the regional and global dialogue on inclusive, culturally embedded, and adaptive governance of emerging food systems.
2 Edible insects on the global agenda
Worldwide, edible insects are gaining momentum as sustainable, nutritious and versatile food sources. Their low environmental footprint and high protein content position them as promising alternatives amid growing pressure on traditional food systems (). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has long highlighted entomophagy as a strategy to advance sustainable diets, reduce ecological impacts, and improve food security ().
Markets in Europe, North America and Asia are leading the way toward adopting insects as food and feed. There, insect-based products—ranging from protein powders to gourmet snacks—are supported by awareness campaigns and regulatory frameworks that guarantee safety and consumer trust. In the European Union, upon approval by the European Food Safety Authority, insects have been classified as “novel foods” since 2015, with four insect species—lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) (), yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) (), house cricket (Acheta domesticus) () and migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) ()—approved and farmed for food applications. Canada applies a “novelty” test, while the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows insects as food provided, they comply with good manufacturing and hygiene practices ().
Asia offers further examples of regulatory-driven development. Thailand has developed a dynamic and increasingly structured insect sector, with more than 20,000 registered cricket farms operating under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) schemes, supported by national training programs on food safety, hygienic processing and supply chain traceability. Beyond basic market integration, Thailand has linked insect production to a broader Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economy strategy, incorporating digital tools such as blockchain for transparency, and promoting sustainable supply chain management through TOWS-based policy alignment and stakeholder coordination. This proactive regulatory-enabling environment has allowed Thailand to transition from traditional harvesting to an export-oriented, innovation-driven insect bioeconomy, positioning the country as a reference in the Asia-Pacific region for insect governance and supply chain sustainability (). In China, silkworm pupae (Bombyx batryticatus) remain the only insect explicitly recognized within the national food catalog and regulated for human consumption, reflecting a long-standing cultural and medicinal tradition. However, recent policy discussions framed within national food diversification strategies and emerging interest in insect-derived functional foods suggest a growing openness to consider additional species for future regulatory inclusion (). South Korea has already approved T. molitor as a “new food,” creating export opportunities (). In contrast, most African nations, despite centuries of insect consumption, still lack clear regulatory frameworks (; ). These examples illustrate both the uneven global regulatory landscape and the urgency for Latin America to define its own path. A comparative overview of regulatory approaches highlights these global asymmetries. While the European Union and parts of Asia have advanced toward formal approval processes, Latin America remains without a harmonized framework.
At the same time, private investment in insect-based food and feed is growing exponentially, particularly in Europe, North America and Asia. Dozens of start-ups and venture capital-backed companies are scaling insect biomass production and processing technologies, while Latin America remains absent from this global innovation map. Without regulatory clarity, the region risks being overlooked by investors, further widening the competitive gap.
3 Latin America’s paradox
Latin America holds one of the world’s richest entomological diversities and a long history of insect consumption. From chapulines (Sphenarium purpurascens) and chicatanas (Atta mexicana) in Mexico to palm weevil larvae (Rhynchophorus palmarum) in the Amazon, hundreds of species are integral to indigenous diets and culinary traditions (). This cultural and biological heritage could position the region as a reference in sustainable insect production.
Most insects are still harvested seasonally from the wild and sold without sanitary oversight, while small-scale farming of species such as crickets and mealworms is only beginning to emerge. An incipient processing sector has started producing flours and snacks, yet export volumes remain negligible due to regulatory and certification barriers. Although global edible insect production already exceeds 60,000 tons per year, Latin America contributes only around 10% to this figure, despite its vast entomological biodiversity ().
In Latin America, legislation concerning edible insects remains fragmented and generally lacks specific regulatory frameworks. Mexico, traditionally a leader in entomophagy, has yet to establish clear regulations governing the farming, commercialization, and sale of edible insects, leading to legal ambiguities. Although some insect-derived products have been certified as organic under existing agricultural standards, there are no formal quality control or safety guidelines for their collection or production. Chile has developed regulations for the use of insects as ingredients in animal feed through the Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG), which includes insects in its list of approved ingredients for feed and supplements. In Argentina, the most significant step toward a regulatory framework related to edible insects has also occurred within the animal feed sector: the country has officially incorporated provisions for the production and sanitary control of insect-derived ingredients intended for animal feed into its Regulation for the Inspection of Plants Producing Insect Derivatives, representing a preliminary move toward broader regulation of the sector (). Brazil, meanwhile, operates under general food safety legislation without explicit provisions for edible insects, relying on broad sanitary norms rather than specific insect-related rules. Overall, the absence of specific regulation across the region poses challenges in terms of food safety, quality assurance, and sustainability, underscoring the need for coherent national and regional standards.
This situation reveals a structural paradox: the region possesses both the biological resources and ancestral knowledge to lead the edible insect sector, yet the absence of formal regulation keeps production largely informal and economically marginal. Without recognized standards, food safety concerns remain insufficiently addressed () and producers are effectively excluded from international markets that demand certified and traceable products.
4 Risks of inaction
From a policy perspective, regulatory inaction generates systemic vulnerabilities that undermine the development of safe and competitive edible insect value chains in Latin America. These vulnerabilities manifest through three interrelated risks affecting food safety, economic participation, and regional sovereignty:
4.1 Food safety risks
Microbiological and chemical hazards are well documented in insect products when processing is inadequate (). In Europe, strict regulatory oversight for novel foods, including edible insects, reflects growing concern about pathogens, allergenicity and process contaminants. In Latin America, where most insects are commercialized through informal markets, consumers are especially exposed. Without hygiene protocols, allergen labeling or contaminant thresholds, the likelihood of food safety incidents increases, with direct implications for public health surveillance and consumer trust.
4.2 Economic exclusion
High-value markets in Europe, North America and Asia require safety certifications and traceability schemes that most Latin American producers cannot meet under the current informal scenario. Even when insects are inherently safe and nutritious, the lack of recognized standards effectively prevents access to these markets. This exclusion discourages investment, limits technological upgrading and constrains the emergence of value-added enterprises capable of generating rural employment and resilient local economies.
4.3 Loss of competitive advantage
Rather than leveraging biodiversity and ancestral knowledge as strategic assets, the absence of regulation risks relegating these resources to invisibility in the international arena. Latin America could lead the global edible insect sector by positioning culturally embedded, biodiversity-rich products with distinct identity. However, without formal recognition and regulatory visibility, these species and practices remain invisible in trade negotiations. Ironically, regions with fewer edible insect species and weaker cultural ties—such as the European Union and the United States—are currently defining the dominant regulatory models.
Ultimately, regulatory inaction not only undermines food safety and market competitiveness but also erodes food sovereignty. By failing to establish its own standards, Latin America risks becoming a regulatory taker rather than a regulatory maker, ceding the authority to define quality, safety and authenticity criteria to external actors.
Nevertheless, aligning regional frameworks with existing international standards does not imply replicating them uncritically. Instead, Latin America should strategically adapt these models to its own cultural, ecological, and institutional realities while ensuring compatibility with the requirements of competitive global markets. Such alignment would facilitate international trade and mutual recognition of safety and quality standards, without compromising regional sovereignty or the inclusion of indigenous and small-scale actors in the regulatory process.
4.4 A regional opportunity
Despite these risks, Latin America retains a strategic opportunity to move from diagnostic awareness to coordinated regulatory action. Building a coherent, science-based, and culturally grounded framework will require approaches adapted to regional realities—acknowledging informal economies, indigenous knowledge systems, and institutional asymmetries rather than replicating external regulatory models.
To be effective, this framework should be articulated around four interdependent regulatory pillars:
Science-based safety standards — including clear thresholds for microbial and chemical contaminants, allergen labeling requirements and context-adapted sanitary protocols.
Cultural recognition — integrating indigenous knowledge and protecting traditional harvesting and preparation practices within formal standards, preventing their marginalization.
Transparency and traceability — incorporating digital verification tools such as QR codes and blockchain to certify origin, production conditions and cultural attribution.
Regional cooperation — coordinating efforts through existing platforms such as Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR, from Mercado Común del Sur), the Andean Community or Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC, from Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños) to prevent fragmented national policies and facilitate intra-regional trade flows.
These pillars should function not as parallel components but as interconnected governance mechanisms. Their interaction aims to guarantee food safety, secure cultural integrity, enable access to formal markets and avoid regulatory fragmentation. This integrated logic is represented as a cogwheel, where each component is necessary to sustain the movement of a regional regulatory system.
A progressive roadmap could accelerate this transition. First, establish a regional evidence base documenting edible insect species, consumption patterns and associated risks. Second, convene a multi-stakeholder forum that includes indigenous communities, scientific institutions, small producers and regulatory agencies. Third, define harmonized benchmarks for safety and quality that are both scientifically robust and culturally sensitive. Finally, launch pilot regulatory implementations to test feasibility and allow iterative adaptation before large-scale adoption. Such an approach would not only improve safety and competitiveness but also ensure regulatory inclusivity. A framework that incorporates ancestral knowledge and protects small-scale actors can transform regulation from a barrier into a tool for economic empowerment and cultural recognition. To move from conceptual pillars to actionable governance, a practical implementation roadmap is required. Table 1 provides the functional components needed to operationalize the proposed framework; however, moving from principles to practice demands a sequenced regulatory trajectory capable of guiding regional implementation.
Table 1
| Regulatory pillar | Strategic objective | Operational mechanism/example of implementation | Key actors involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Science-based safety standards | Guarantee food safety and compliance with international sanitary norms | Establish microbial and chemical contaminant thresholds; develop Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) protocols specific to insect processing; harmonize laboratory validation methods. | National food safety authorities, academic laboratories, Codex Alimentarius national committees |
| Cultural recognition | Safeguard ancestral entomophagy practices and prevent cultural erasure | Introduce cultural denomination labels; formally recognize traditional harvesting and preparation methods within sanitary guidelines | Indigenous councils, ministries of culture, local cooperatives, UNESCO heritage programs |
| Traceability and transparency | Enable certification, consumer confidence and access to export markets | Implement QR code or blockchain-based traceability systems; develop digital sanitary certification platforms; require provenance documentation | Ministries of agriculture, digital innovation agencies, customs authorities, export promotion boards |
| Regional cooperation | Avoid fragmented national regulations and strengthen geopolitical negotiation power | Develop MERCOSUR/CELAC joint guidelines; establish mutual recognition of inspection and certification schemes; coordinate regional training programs | Regional economic blocs (MERCOSUR, Andean Community, CELAC), FAO regional offices, trade ministries |
Operational mechanisms and institutional actors for each regulatory pillar in the proposed Latin American framework.
Rather than functioning as a fixed institutional prescription, this table is intended as a flexible policy instrument that can be adapted to national contexts and regulatory capacities to support progressive and culturally grounded governance.
Roadmap for a Regional Regulatory Framework: From Principles to Implementation.
Designing a coherent regulatory framework for edible insects in Latin America requires a phased and strategic approach that balances scientific rigor, cultural legitimacy and institutional feasibility. Rather than mirroring existing European or Asian models, the objective is to build a flexible governance architecture capable of accommodating both traditional harvesting systems and emerging industrial-scale production, while ensuring that all products meet minimum safety, traceability and quality standards acceptable at regional and international levels. The following roadmap outlines five sequential and iterative phases to guide this process.
The following roadmap outlines five sequential and iterative phases to guide this process (Figure 1).
Figure 1
4.4.1 Phase 1—Baseline assessment: build a regional evidence foundation
A comprehensive diagnostic should document edible insect species, their local names, harvesting or farming practices, consumption contexts and market presence across Latin America. This assessment must also identify microbiological and chemical risks, nutritional variability and informal commercialization dynamics, many of which fall outside sanitary oversight. Mapping these dimensions will allow regulatory bodies to identify priority species, high-risk practices and potential entry points for early standardization.
4.4.2 Phase 2—Multi-stakeholder engagement: institutionalize dialogue and legitimacy
Regulatory development must be co-constructed with indigenous communities, smallholder producers, food safety authorities, academia, and emerging insect-based enterprises. Establishing a Regional Forum on Edible Insects under platforms such as CELAC, MERCOSUR or the Andean Community could provide a formal space for policy consultation, ensure cultural recognition and prevent top-down regulatory imposition detached from territorial realities.
4.4.3 Phase 3—Science-based standards: define adaptable and culturally sensitive benchmarks
Once priorities and actors are identified, regionally aligned standards should be drafted covering nutritional labeling, contaminant thresholds, allergen declarations, hygienic processing protocols and traceability criteria. These standards should draw from Codex Alimentarius and novel food frameworks but include culturally grounded clauses that recognize traditional preparations without compromising safety.
4.4.4 Phase 4—Pilot implementation: test regulatory feasibility in real-world contexts
Pilot programs in selected countries should trial the application of draft standards in both artisanal and semi-industrial contexts. These pilots would validate sampling protocols, processing controls, labeling formats and digital traceability tools (e.g., QR-ledger systems or blockchain certification), allowing regulators to adjust guidelines based on empirical performance rather than theoretical design.
4.4.5 Phase 5—Adaptive evolution: ensure long-term regulatory resilience
Finally, the framework should be designed as an evolving system rather than a static regulation. Continuous monitoring mechanisms, feedback loops from producers, and periodic technical reviews every 3–5 years can ensure alignment with new scientific evidence, market dynamics, and cultural transformations. The integration of data platforms and real-time traceability systems can support adaptive governance—conceived here as a flexible, evidence-based regulatory process that evolves through continuous feedback, monitoring, and stakeholder participation— and regional regulatory harmonization.
4.5 Beyond safety: positioning insects in sustainable food systems
A regional regulatory framework could also help align edible insect production with broader sustainability and development goals. By incorporating life-cycle assessment indicators such as carbon footprint, water use and biodiversity impacts, regulations could directly connect insect biomass production with climate commitments and nature-positive food system transitions. This alignment would not only reinforce consumer confidence and facilitate export certifications but also enable Latin American countries to position insect production within their national strategies for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and regional agendas such as CELAC’s Plan for Food and Nutrition Security.
Importantly, regulation can also act as a mechanism for distributive justice within agri-food chains. Many of the communities that have historically preserved entomophagy practices—particularly indigenous and rural populations—are currently excluded from formal value chains and benefit capture. The inclusion of “inclusive regulatory measures,” such as geographic or cultural origin recognition, preferential certification pathways for community-led production or labels acknowledging biocultural contributions, could redistribute value more equitably and prevent the concentration of the emerging insect industry in a few industrial actors.
Under this perspective, edible insects become more than a novel protein source: they function as an entry point for rethinking food governance in megadiverse regions. A regulatory framework that embeds biocultural values in food safety governance—that is, one that integrates biodiversity conservation with the protection of cultural heritage and traditional knowledge— could allow Latin America to pioneer a new model of sustainability regulation that goes beyond risk control and actively promotes biodiversity stewardship, equity, and territorial development. However, regulatory development also entails potential challenges that must be critically acknowledged. The creation of new legal frameworks may increase bureaucratic complexity and impose compliance costs that disproportionately affect small-scale or community-based producers. Excessive standardization could unintentionally marginalize informal actors who lack the financial or technical capacity to meet certification and traceability requirements. Therefore, any regulatory strategy should balance safety and market access goals with inclusivity and proportionality, ensuring that regulation becomes an enabling rather than exclusionary instrument. Mechanisms such as simplified certification pathways, collective compliance schemes, and technical assistance programs could mitigate these risks and promote equitable participation across the sector. Such a model would resonate not only within the region but also across other biodiversity-rich yet under-regulated territories, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, opening the door to South–South regulatory cooperation and knowledge diplomacy.
4.6 Turning heritage into strategy
Latin America’s edible insects embody more than protein; they represent biocultural heritage, territorial identity and livelihood systems for many indigenous and rural communities. With a coherent regulatory framework, the region could transform these assets from fragmented practices into a strategic advantage within the global protein transition. Certified products labeled as safe, sustainable and culturally rooted could access premium markets and position Latin America not merely as a raw material supplier but as an origin of differentiated, high-identity insect-based foods.
Such recognition would also allow edible insects to be embedded within broader narratives of territorial identity and gastronomic heritage, similar to how geographical indications and denomination of origin schemes have elevated the value of specific products in other sectors. Insects like Rhynchophorus palmarum, Atta mexicana or Sphenarium purpurascens could evolve from informal seasonal foods into culturally protected bioeconomy assets, backed by regulatory legitimacy.
Conversely, failure to regulate risks relegating edible insects to informal circuits, reinforcing safety concerns and perpetuating marginalization. The region’s vast entomological biodiversity would then remain an untapped resource—while other regions with fewer edible insect species and weaker cultural ties consolidate regulatory leadership and shape future trade rules. In that scenario, Latin America would once again provide biodiversity without exercising sovereignty over its value.
The choice is therefore strategic: to treat edible insect heritage as a cultural legacy to be safeguarded, or as a structured policy asset capable of reshaping the region’s position in emerging food economies.
5 Conclusion and future perspectives
Latin America stands at a decisive crossroads in the governance of edible insects. These species are no longer limited to traditional or subsistence consumption; they are rapidly becoming globally traded food and feed commodities embedded in formal regulatory architectures. As international markets consolidate around standardized safety protocols, traceability mechanisms and recognized quality labels, Latin America cannot afford to remain fragmented or reactive. A regional regulatory framework is therefore not simply a technical requirement—it is a strategic tool to guarantee consumer protection, enable fair participation in global markets and recognize the cultural legitimacy of ancestral entomophagy practices.
Transforming the region’s extraordinary biocultural wealth into a regulatory and commercial strength requires proactive, coordinated action. Rather than importing external models, Latin America has the opportunity to design a context-sensitive regulatory system that integrates scientific safety standards, inclusive economic mechanisms and cultural recognition. Such a system would reposition edible insects not as informal resources but as emblematic elements of a sustainable, circular and identity-rich food future.
Looking ahead, several future perspectives emerge for the region:
Development of biocultural regulatory models that formally recognize indigenous entomophagy traditions within safety frameworks, potentially inspiring South–South regulatory cooperation with Africa and Southeast Asia.
Integration of edible insects into national climate and bioeconomy strategies, using life-cycle assessment metrics to align insect production with decarbonization and biodiversity conservation agendas.
Creation of “origin-linked quality labels” or protected cultural designation systems for emblematic edible insect species, strengthening territorial branding and gastronomic identity.
Inclusion of small producers through preferential certification schemes and digital traceability tools, ensuring that regulation becomes an enabler rather than a barrier for community economies.
Promotion of a Latin American regulatory coalition (via MERCOSUR, Andean Community or CELAC) capable of negotiating collectively in international trade arenas, shifting the region from regulatory taker to regulatory maker.
If these pathways are activated, Latin America could position itself not only as a major biodiversity reservoir but as a normative innovator in sustainable food governance. Conversely, regulatory inertia would widen the gap between biological potential and socioeconomic benefit, leaving others to define the future of a sector deeply rooted in Latin American heritage. The opportunity is clear: to move from biodiversity to regulatory leadership, from cultural legacy to strategic food diplomacy. By framing edible insect regulation as a vehicle for food sovereignty and adaptive governance rather than a mere technical compliance exercise, this work contributes to international policy debates on novel food governance and positions Latin America as a potential normative actor rather than a passive regulatory recipient. Rather than prescribing a definitive regulatory model, this discussion intends to open a regional policy dialogue on how Latin America might collectively shape its own governance pathways for edible insects, grounded in sovereignty, inclusivity and scientific evidence.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
JÁ-S: Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AL: Writing – review & editing, Investigation.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Universidad San Francisco de Quito through a POLI grant (Project ID: 17453) to José M. Álvarez-Suárez, and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Act formula fund project IND00034735 to Andrea Liceaga.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbrilS.PinzónM.Hernández-CarriónM.Sánchez-CamargoA. d. P. (2022). Edible insects in Latin America: a sustainable alternative for our food security. Front. Nutr.9:904812. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.904812
2
Aguilar-ToaláJ. E.Cruz-MonterrosaR. G.LiceagaA. M. (2022). Beyond human nutrition of edible insects: health benefits and safety aspects. Insects13:1007. doi: 10.3390/insects13111007
3
Aguilar-ToaláJ. E.Vidal-LimónA. M.LiceagaA. M. (2025). Advancing food security with farmed edible insects: economic, social, and environmental aspects. Insects16:67. doi: 10.3390/insects16010067
4
Alejandro RuizF. E.Ortega JácomeJ. F.TejeraE.Alvarez-SuarezJ. M. (2025). Edible insects as functional foods: bioactive compounds, health benefits, safety concerns, allergenicity, and regulatory considerations. Front. Nutr.12:1571084. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1571084
5
AnyasiT. A.AcharyaP.UdenigweC. C. (2025). Edible insects as an alternative protein source: nutritional composition and global consumption patterns. Future Foods12:100699. doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100699
6
Brena-MelendezA.RamírezJ. d. P. E.Garcia-AmezquitaL. E.AguirreM. D. R.LiceagaA.Tejada-OrtigozaV. (2025). Unveiling the protein profile and techno-functional potential of edible cricket protein concentrates: a comparative study of different body parts. Future Foods11:100612. doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100612
7
KrongdangS.VenkatachalamK.ChitovT.WangtueaiS.WongsaJ.ParametthanuwatT.et al. (2025). Edible insect production in Thailand: sustainable supply chain management. Insects16:827. doi: 10.3390/insects16080827
8
Lähteenmäki-UutelaA.MarimuthuS. B.MeijerN. (2021). Regulations on insects as food and feed: a global comparison. J. Insects Food Feed7, 849–856. doi: 10.3920/JIFF2020.0066
9
NiassyS.OmuseE. R.RoosN.HalloranA.EilenbergJ.EgonyuJ. P.et al. (2022). Safety, regulatory and environmental issues related to breeding and international trade of edible insects in Africa. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE41, 117–131. doi: 10.20506/rst.41.1.3309
10
SENASA (2024). Boletin oficial republica argentina - servicio nacional de sanidad y calidad agroalimentaria - Resolución 1039/2024. Servicio nacional de sanidad y calidad agroalimentaria. Available online at: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/313360/20240905 (Accessed October 26, 2025).
11
The European Commission (2021). Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2021/1975 of 12 November 2021 authorising the placing on the market of frozen, dried and powder forms of Locusta migratoria as a novel food under regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the council and amending commission implementing regulation (EU) 2017/2470. Official journal of the European Union. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1975&qid=1713206502842 (Accessed April 14, 2024).
12
The European Commission (2022a). Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2022/169 of 8 February 2022 authorising the placing on the market of frozen, dried and powder forms of yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food under regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the council, and amending commission implementing regulation (EU) 2017/2470. Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R0169&qid=1713207089700 (Accessed April 14, 2024).
13
The European Commission (2022b). Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2022/188 of 10 February 2022 authorising the placing on the market of frozen, dried and powder forms of acheta domesticus as a novel food under regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European parliament and of the council, and amending commission implementing regulation (EU) 2017/2470. Official Journal of the European Union. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R0188 (Accessed March 9, 2025).
14
The European Commission (2023). Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2023/58 of 5 January 2023 authorising the placing on the market of the frozen, paste, dried and powder forms of Alphitobius diaperinus larvae (lesser mealworm) as a novel food and amending implementing regulation (EU) 2017/2470. Official journal of the European Union. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R0058&qid=1713210323021 (Accessed April 14, 2024).
15
van HuisA.Van ItterbeeckJ.KlunderH.MertensE.HalloranA.MuirG.et al2013). Edible insects. Future prospects for food and feed security., FAO Forest, ed. FAO and Wageningen UR. Rome, Italy: Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
16
XieB.ZhuY.ChuX.PokharelS. S.QianL.ChenF. (2024). Research Progress and production status of edible insects as food in China. Foods13:1986. doi: 10.3390/foods13131986
Summary
Keywords
edible insects, regulation, food sovereignty, traceability, regional governance, food safety
Citation
Álvarez-Suárez JM and Liceaga AM (2025) Toward a regional regulatory framework for edible insects in Latin America: opportunities and challenges. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9:1731296. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1731296
Received
23 October 2025
Revised
08 November 2025
Accepted
10 November 2025
Published
21 November 2025
Volume
9 - 2025
Edited by
Laurent Dufossé, Université de la Réunion, France
Reviewed by
Evanson Omuse, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Kenya
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Álvarez-Suárez and Liceaga.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: José M. Álvarez-Suárez, jalvarez@usfq.edu.ec
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.