Interview: Cemalettin Kanaş 

In an era where traditional feed raw materials are shaken by geopolitical risks, insect protein is shifting from a 'niche' alternative to a strategic necessity. The IPIFF Secretary General shared with Feed Planet the 2030 vision of the insect sector, which has reached an investment volume of 2 billion Euros in Europe, the functional revolution in feed formulations, and the 'local protein cycle' model that decouples the supply chain from geopolitics.

STEVEN BARBOSA
IPIFF (International Platform of
Insects for Food and Feed)
Secretary General

The global agri-food sector is experiencing perhaps one of the most uncertain periods in its history. Following the experience of the Black Sea grain corridor crises, the escalation of tensions in the Middle East shaking logistics costs is forcing the world feed industry into a radical shift, questioning 'foreign dependency.' Within this strategic transformation, the insect sector stands out as a noteworthy 'defense line' on a global scale among new solutions to secure protein supply, particularly through European regulations. By liberating raw material procurement from transcontinental routes and localizing production, this model both minimizes geopolitical risks stemming from logistics and forms the most tangible link of the circular economy by converting waste into high-value protein.

Although insect protein has long been romanticized under the label of 'food of the future,' the industrial reality is built on much more concrete data. Today, commitments by global giants like Biomar and Skretting toward insect meal, alongside 2025 World Bank reports, prove that this sector has now reached technological maturity. Ingredients derived from Black Soldier Fly larvae offer a strategic option for feed formulators, not only due to high protein ratios but also because of their antimicrobial properties and 'cost-in-use' advantages.

This exclusive and extensive interview with Steven Barbosa, Secretary General of IPIFF (International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed), examines the sector's voice in Brussels and the binding policy changes expected by 2030. We hear directly from Secretary General Barbosa how insect meal, preparing to become a standard item in formulations, secures food safety through localized cycles. 

The warning emphasized by the Secretary General throughout the interview, "Europe has no more time to take decisive steps," serves as a clarion call for the entire global feed industry. In a world where borders are closing and shipping routes are blocked, these manifesto-like statements, which transform waste into protein and protein into local security, shed light on the future of the sector.

Could you briefly introduce your role at IPIFF and share how your background in EU policy has shaped your perspective on the insect sector's journey?

As Secretary General of IPIFF, my primary role is to serve as a bridge between the diverse operators of the European insect sector—from innovative startups to established agri-food players—and EU policymakers. In practice, this means reconciling the needs and perspectives of industry stakeholders and translating them into clear, evidence-based policy recommendations that support the sector's sustainable growth. My goal is to ensure that the voice of the insect value chain is not only heard but truly understood in Brussels. 

With nearly 20 years of experience working within and alongside EU institutions, I have seen firsthand how slowly policy can move, but also how strategic engagement can unlock meaningful progress.

What makes my job easier is knowing that this sector has the potential to significantly enhance the EU's environmental sustainability and strengthen its resilience against geopolitical instability, trade uncertainty, and climate change—by producing high-value outputs domestically, including food, animal feed, soil fertilizer, and a vast range of bio-industry applications. 

Finally, I am supported by a team of industry leaders that are highly skilled professionals who invest tremendous efforts in research and development within their business models. IPIFF is also privileged to count on the backing of some of the world's leading universities and research centers in the field of entomology. 

A SYNERGY, NOT A COMPETITION: INTEGRATING WITH TRADITIONAL FEED

In your view, where does the insect sector currently stand within the broader EU feed industry, and what role is it realistically expected to play in the coming decade?

The insect sector currently stands as a complementary and sustainable ingredient provider alongside other feed sectors. Rather than competing with established sources, insects offer a synergistic solution that integrates seamlessly into the broader EU feed industry.

Europe has emerged as a global leader in this movement, attracting over €2 billion in investment. These funds have fueled innovation in rearing and processing technologies, as well as the construction of large-scale production facilities. Such industrial-scale efforts have been instrumental in testing diverse approaches and validating—under real-world conditions—the technical feasibility, economic competitiveness, and environmental performance of insect production.

Recent geopolitical crises have underscored that Europe cannot afford to stand still. In an increasingly complex global landscape, the EU must look inward and actively support sectors like insect farming, which can reduce dependence on external uncertainties and enhance overall resilience.

That said, it is important to acknowledge that agricultural innovation sectors face a challenging environment. Long-established industries remain the cornerstone of EU policy and regulatory development. Nevertheless, the IPIFF and the EU insect sector are committed to working alongside all feed sectors. Our goal is to complement the real needs of EU citizens and industries, including other feed sectors. Collaboration is essential to improve sustainability and internal robustness, enabling Europe to better face global competition and uncertainty. 

Every sector has a place. For innovative sectors such as insects, however, targeted incentives are necessary to establish a level playing field with their more established feed industry counterparts.

BEYOND THE ROMANCE: THE 20% INCLUSION REALITY IN AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture is the primary growth engine for insect meal. What is the current adoption level in aquafeed, and which other segments (e.g., poultry or pet food) are showing the most immediate promise?

Insect meal is increasingly recognised as a strategic ingredient for sustainable aquaculture, though its current adoption level remains in a growth phase rather than mainstream. 

Major aquafeed producers such as Biomar and Skretting have publicly committed to investing in insect meal, driven by the need to reduce reliance on fishmeal. The 2025 World Bank Report and Global Aqua Feed Market Outlook both highlight a clear industry shift toward sustainable, insect-based proteins. Inclusion rates currently remain modest compared to fishmeal or soy, but research points out that insect meal can have an inclusion rate of up to 20% in diets for salmon and trout—without negative impacts on growth or feed conversion ratio (FCR). Importantly, insect meal is viewed as a complement to, not a replacement for traditional protein sources. 

Price competitiveness remains a challenge, but geopolitical instability, trade uncertainty, and climate change are making resilience a key purchasing factor. Recent developments illustrate this: Peru—which supplies 20% of global fishmeal and fish oil—announced a 36% reduction in its anchovy quota, underscoring the vulnerability of marine ingredients to environmental shocks. Such pressures accelerate strategic interest in insect meal as a long-term, stable aquafeed component. 

The EU aquaculture sector accounts for only 1% of global market share and remains heavily dependent on imported feed ingredients. The European Commission’s ongoing work toward a Vision for Aquaculture and Fisheries acknowledges that sustainable aquafeed will play an increasing role. 

TURKEY AND ASIA: THE RISING COMPETITION FOR EUROPEAN PRODUCERS

However, EU insect producers require strong policy backing to scale domestic production; otherwise, other regions (e.g., Asia,) are rapidly scaling up and others are addressing their own policy decision making to adopt insect meal as a mainstream aquafeed ingredient (e.g. Turkey). 

Beyond aquaculture, insect-processed animal proteins (PAPs) were authorized for pig and poultry feed in September 2023—a major regulatory milestone. This expansion opened significant new market opportunities. Insect PAPs offer a favorable amino acid profile, high digestibility, and functional properties (e.g., chitin with immunostimulatory effects), making them suitable for poultry and pigs as a partial replacement for conventional proteins. 

Pet food is also showing immediate promise. Insects are valued as a functional ingredient rich in protein, fats, minerals, and vitamins. The pet food segment faces fewer regulatory barriers and benefits from growing consumer acceptance of sustainable, novel ingredients for companion animals. 

Innovative sectors face an uneven playing field. Policies such as the EU Protein Diversification Strategy, the Bioeconomy Strategy’s focus on bio-based fertilizers, and the Vision for Aquaculture and Fisheries can help create market demand and level the playing field. 

Without targeted support, the EU risks losing its competitive edge in insect-based feed to other regions that are scaling up faster with fewer restrictions. The current global scenario is showing that Europe cannot take more time to take decisive decisions. We are too vulnerable to geopolitical instability, trade uncertainty and climate change.

CLOSING THE GLOBAL REGULATORY GAP

Where do you see the most significant regulatory gaps globally? Are we seeing a move toward harmonized standards that would allow for easier international trade of insect-derived ingredients?

While the insect farming industry is growing rapidly, several critical regulatory gaps persist globally, creating an uneven playing field. The most significant gaps include: 

• Fragmented or nonexistent frameworks: Many countries and regions still lack any specific legislation for insect-derived products.
• Inconsistent safety and quality standards: A major gap is the absence of globally harmonized safety and quality requirements.

• Divergent substrate rules: There is no global agreement on what insects can be fed. The EU enforces strict rules, allowing only feed-grade, while other regions permit different inputs—creating trade barriers.
• Species and application limitations: Regulations often approve insect proteins only for specific uses. For example, the EU currently allows insect processed animal proteins (PAPs) for aquaculture, poultry, and pigs, but not for ruminants.
• Terminological ambiguity: As seen with other novel foods, the lack of standardized terminology for insect products across markets complicates the creation of harmonized international regulations and labeling laws.

Despite these gaps, there is a clear and deliberate move toward harmonized standards, driven directly by industry associations. The goal is to facilitate international trade while ensuring safety. IPIFF is actively working to build a cohesive global strategy: IPIFF and the UK Edible Insect Association have established a cooperation agreement to support mutual policy and regulatory development on both sides of the English Channel. 

IPIFF also collaborates with:

• North America: North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture (NACIA)
• Asia: Asian Food and Feed Insect Association (AFFIA)
• Australia: Insect Protein Association of Australia (IPAA)

While binding international laws are still evolving, these industry bodies are creating de facto standards that serve as benchmarks for global trade.

The IPIFF Guide on Good Hygiene Practices is a prime example. It incorporates HACCP principles and addresses specific concerns raised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The guide is now used as a reference by third-country operators (e.g., in Asia, the Middle East, and other regions) wishing to export insect products to the EU, effectively harmonizing their practices with EU standards.

In summary, although significant regulatory gaps remain—from a lack of basic laws in some countries to inconsistent safety rules in others, the industry is not waiting for governments to act alone. 

• More recently, IPIFF also working in close cooperation with China to build compliance, unified standards, and operational guidelines.
• Similarly, IPIFF is actively engaging with emerging markets for insect production, such as Brazil, Turkey, and the Middle East, which have approached the organization for guidance in developing their national sectors based on EU-level standards.

COST-IN-USE VS. PRICE PER KG: THE NUTRITIONAL UPGRADE

In practical, nutritional terms, what makes insect protein a compelling alternative for a feed formulator? Are there specific functional benefits (e.g., gut health, antimicrobial properties) that justify the premium?

In practical, nutritional terms, insect protein offers feed formulators a unique combination of high-quality amino acid profiles, functional bioactives, and sustainability-driven reliability that justifies its consideration—and often its premium. 

From a purely nutritional standpoint, insects like black soldier fly larvae (BSFL), mealworms, and crickets provide:

• Balanced essential amino acids comparable to fishmeal and often superior to many plant proteins (e.g., methionine and lysine levels are notably high in several species).
• Highly digestible protein (often >80–90%), reducing antinutritional factors found in soy or legumes.
• Consistent lipid profiles rich in lauric acid (BSFL), which itself has antimicrobial properties.

But the compelling case goes beyond basic nutrition. Functional benefits that directly impact animal health and performance include:

• Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs): Naturally present in insects, especially in response to microbial challenges during rearing. These AMPs have shown activity against Salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium perfringens in poultry and swine trials, potentially reducing the need for prophylactic antibiotics.
• Gut health modulation: Insect chitin and its derivative chitosan act as prebiotic fibers, promoting beneficial gut microbiota (e.g., Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium) while inhibiting pathogenic adhesion. Formulators have observed improved intestinal morphology and reduced inflammation.
• Reduced reliance on zinc oxide and copper: In weaned piglets, insect-based diets have demonstrated lower diarrhea incidence and improved gut barrier function, allowing formulators to move away from pharmacological levels of metals.
• Hypoallergenic potential: For pet food and aquafeed, insect protein avoids common allergens like beef, dairy, or soy, while offering high palatability.

Does this justify a premium?

Yes-when measured against performance outcomes. The premium reflects:

• Value substitution: Replacing fishmeal (volatile pricing) or soy (anti-nutritional factors, deforestation risks) with a stable, traceable, low-footprint protein.
• Health cost savings: Reduced veterinary interventions, lower mortality, and improved feed conversion ratios offset the higher per-ton ingredient cost in many trials.
• Regulatory and consumer drivers: In regions phasing out antibiotic growth promoters or heavy metals, insect protein provides a functional, non-pharmacological alternative.

We advise formulators to conduct cost-in-use analyses rather than comparing raw $/kg protein. When gut health, antimicrobial activity, and sustainability are factored in, insect protein is not merely an alternative—it is a strategic upgrade. 

THE 'MISSING LINK' IS CLOSING: FROM SPECIALTY TO COMMODITY

How critical is the ‘missing link’ of collaboration between insect producers and traditional feed manufacturers? Are we seeing enough integration to move insects from a ‘specialty’ ingredient to a ‘commodity’?

As I mentioned, insect producers work alongside traditional feed manufacturers in a seamless, complementary manner. We do not aim to replace established feedstuffs like soy or fishmeal. Instead, we position insects as a strategic co-ingredient—one that enhances the resilience, circularity, and performance of existing feed formulations. 

However, to be frank, the ‘missing link’ of collaboration is still partially missing, but it is closing faster than many expected. While we see excellent pockets of integration—especially in aquaculture (e.g., SalMar, Skretting, Biomar, Cargill) and pet food—true systemic collaboration across the wider compound feed industry remains nascent. The reasons are not technical but structural: differing production scales, price volatility, and lack of standardized quality metrics between insect protein and conventional meals.

That said, global shocks—geopolitical instability, trade uncertainty (tariffs on soy, fishmeal export restrictions), and climate change (overfishing, land-use pressures)—are forcibly driving synergetic cooperation. In Europe, where dependence on imported feed has reached critical levels, insects offer a locally produced, traceable, and climate-resilient protein source. Forward-thinking feed manufacturers are already investing in insect meal not as a niche additive, but as a risk-mitigation tool. 

Consequently, major feed manufacturers are treating insect meal as a strategic raw material, not a curiosity. For example, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) now allows insect meal in certified salmon feed, and several compound feed producers have dedicated insect meal silos. That is the hallmark of a commodity-in-the-making.

In conclusion, collaboration is not a ‘nice-to-have’—it is an essential survival strategy for the feed sector. The missing link is being forged by necessity. Within 5–7 years, insect meal will be a standard line item in feed formulation, not an exotic alternative. But to get there, both sides must co-invest in logistics, quality assurance, and joint R&D. We are ready. The question is whether traditional feed manufacturers will accelerate their pace. Here, policy incentives, once again, are crucial. Europe cannot afford to not act in current global environment.

2030 VISION: THE DECISIVE ROLE OF BINDING POLICY

Looking ahead, which single development be it a policy shift, a technological breakthrough, or a market trend will be most decisive for the European insect sector by 2030?

While technological advances and market trends will play important supporting roles, the single most decisive factor for the European insect sector by 2030 will be a binding policy shift toward protein diversification that explicitly includes insect-based ingredients and frass in EU industrial and agricultural strategies. Among the policy initiatives underway, the Protein Diversification Strategy (successor to the 2018 EU Protein Plan) stands out as the critical lever. 

The insect sector is technologically mature enough to scale, and market demand—particularly in aquafeed—is growing. Yet without a clear, long-term political commitment, investors and off takers remain hesitant. History shows that nascent bio-based sectors (e.g., electric vehicles, biofuels) only achieved scale when regulation created predictable demand. For insects, the same logic applies policy will de-risk investment and unlock procurement at the level needed by 2030. 

Until the 2018 Protein Plan, the renewed strategy is explicitly expected by EU Member States to include animal-based alternative proteins. In the July 2025 Agriculture and Fisheries Council, several Member States highlighted insects’ value—from circularity (waste-fed production) to nutrient-dense frass as fertilizer.

A protein diversification strategy with binding targets (e.g., a minimum share of insect meal in aquafeed or poultry feed by 2028–2030) would trigger the same investment wave that plant-based proteins saw post-2018, but on a faster timeline due to existing industrial readiness.

The Bioeconomy Strategy’s proposed €10 billion collective purchasing target for bio-based products (which can apply to insect frass as a specialized fertilizer) and standardized public procurement criteria can create immediate pull.

Also, the Vision for Fisheries and Aquaculture can have a decisive role to increase the uptake of insect meal as aquafeed, which is backed by strong scientific validation (400+ papers), Market Reports (World Bank 2025 report) or aquafeed producers’ investments i.e. Biomar; Skretting), as mentioned above.

THE SIX-PILLAR MANIFESTO: ARCHITECTING A SHOCK-RESISTANT PROTEIN LOOP

Recent global disruption experiences (COVID-19, trade route uncertainties and the war in Iran) have exposed vulnerabilities in supply chains. How do insect-based ingredients strengthen food and feed security and build a more resilient, localized protein loop?

That’s a critical question, and the answer starts with recognising what those disruptions have in common: they all broke the link between where protein is produced and where it is needed. COVID-19 shut down logistics, trade route uncertainties choked key canals and ports, and the war in Ukraine cut off massive flows of sunflower meal and grain. In each case, regions that depended on imported soy, fishmeal, or other conventional proteins faced sudden shortages and price spikes.

Insect-based ingredients directly address this fragility by enabling a fundamentally different model—one that is localized, circular, and shock-resistant. 

First, insects decouple protein production from geopolitics. Most animal feed today relies on soybean meal from South America or fishmeal from contested oceans. When a war or trade dispute blocks those flows, you have no quick alternative. Insects, however, can be reared anywhere using local organic by-products. That means a region hit by an import ban can start producing its own protein internally, without waiting for ships or negotiating border openings. 

Second, insects create a truly localized protein loop: food waste that would otherwise go to landfill or emit methane is fed to insect larvae. Those larvae are processed into high-quality protein meal and oil for poultry, pig, or aquaculture feed. The insect excrement—called frass—becomes a powerful organic fertilizer that replaces imported synthetic fertilizers. That fertilizer grows local crops, which in turn generate more waste for insects. The entire loop can operate within a single city, region, or even a farm. If a border closes or a shipping lane is blocked, production simply continues because every input—waste, water, insects—is already local. 

Third, insect farming is incredibly fast and climate independent. Soybeans take three to four months to grow, require arable land, and are seasonal. Fishmeal depends on wild stocks and weather. In contrast, black soldier fly larvae complete their life cycle in six to eight weeks, and they can be raised vertically in climate-controlled containers anywhere—from a warehouse in Rotterdam to a shed in rural Kenya. Within weeks of disruption, you can scale up production to replace missing protein imports. 

Fourth, insects reduce exposure to energy and fertilizer shocks. COVID-19 and the war both caused natural gas prices to spike—gas is essential for synthetic fertilizer—and fuel costs for shipping feed ingredients skyrocketed. Insects require far less energy to produce protein per kilogram than conventional livestock. Moreover, because their frass replaces imported synthetic fertilizers, you break dependence on fossil-fuel-based agricultural inputs. That makes the entire feed system more resilient to energy price volatility.

Fifth, insects strengthen food security directly. In the feed sector, insect meal can replace 25 to 100 percent of fishmeal or soy in diets for poultry, pigs, and farmed fish. That reduces pressure on overfished oceans and deforested land. And in emergency scenarios—a blockade, a war zone, a post-disaster setting—edible insects can be farmed as a direct human protein source. They are shelf-stable, nutrient-dense, and do not require a cold chain, which is a huge advantage when infrastructure is damaged. 

Sixth, and this is crucial for resilience, insect farming is modular and redundant. Unlike a massive soy crushing plant in Brazil or a single vulnerable shipping canal like Suez or Bab el-Mandeb, insect farms can be small, distributed, and even mobile. You can have thousands of urban container farms or on-farm units. If one is destroyed or blocked, others continue operating. This built-in redundancy is exactly what fragile global supply chains lack.

Insect-based ingredients directly address the three core vulnerabilities exposed by recent disruptions: geopolitical dependence on imported protein, logistical fragility of long-distance shipping, and vulnerability to input shocks like energy and fertilizer price spikes. By turning unavoidable organic by-products into high-quality protein and fertilizer within a short, controllable, local cycle, insects build a protein loop that is not only more sustainable but fundamentally more shock-resistant. That is how they strengthen both food and feed security in an unstable world.