Reclaiming Sustainability: Combating Greenwashing and Embracing Transparent, Deforestation-Free Supply Chains

By Sureyya Topaloglu, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant

To stay updated on the latest industry developments, such as the Organic Food and Food Sustainability Digest or the Packaging Sustainability Digest & Report, subscribe to FoodChain ID’s Reports & Digests.

 “Sustainability” is a word we encounter so frequently that its original meaning has become diluted. Once a concept that carried the weight of urgent environmental and cultural responsibility, the topic of sustainability now risks becoming a catch-all phrase in a sea of competing claims.

Introduction: The Erosion of Sustainability’s Meaning

From environmental concerns like deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions to cultural sustainability, such as preserving traditional food systems, the food sector intersects with many facets of sustainability. Unfortunately, a flood of unverified, overly broad claims has led to a phenomenon known as greenwashing, causing consumer fatigue and obscuring sustainability progress. In order to maintain sustainability’s integrity, greenwashing must be confronted head-on, and transparent, verifiable actions must be taken to ensure benefits for both the planet and society.

The Growing Consumer Demand for Sustainability

Research consistently shows that eco-conscious purchasing habits are on the rise. Even with cost-of-living pressures and record food inflation, more than four-fifths (80%) of global consumers say they are willing to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods. This shift is not just reshaping product development but also propelling brands that align with sustainability values toward stronger sales and increased loyalty.

In the food industry, this demand is translating into a preference for locally sourced, ethically produced and environmentally friendly products. For example, a World Economic Forum report emphasizes the growing desire for transparency within supply chains and underscores the importance of educating consumers about sustainable practices.

Combating Greenwashing: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

To address the heightened consumer demand for sustainability, food businesses must prioritize transparency, traceability and verifiability in their operations to avoid greenwashing. This begins with thoroughly mapping the supply chain to ensure every ingredient’s origin, production methods and environmental impact are traceable and transparent.

One effective strategy is adopting third-party certifications that validate sustainability claims, such as organic, fair trade or specific environmental standards. These certifications must be clearly communicated on packaging or in marketing materials to avoid vague or misleading terms like “eco-friendly.” For example, FoodChainID offers a range of sustainability certifications, including Carbon Credit Verification and Regenerative Agriculture Certification, which help businesses demonstrate their commitment to sustainable practices.

Additionally, regulatory frameworks, such as the EU’s Green Claims Directive, push companies to back up environmental claims with credible scientific evidence. Compliance with such regulations significantly reduces the likelihood of making exaggerated or unverifiable claims, ensuring that sustainability assertions are genuine and supported by clear data.

The European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR): Ensuring Deforestation-Free Supply Chains

The EU’s Green Claims Directive, alongside the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), is setting new standards for sustainability across industries. The EUDR mandates that applicable products entering the EU market must be verifiably deforestation-free, creating a clear legal and ethical framework for businesses to follow.

Food production is one of the largest drivers of deforestation, with commodities like soy, palm oil, and cocoa being closely linked to forest degradation. Ensuring a deforestation-free supply chain is no longer just a best practice—it is a pending legal obligation. By leveraging services and technologies such as certification systems and satellite monitoring, food firms can guarantee traceability and transparency across their supply chains, complying with evolving regulations and meeting increasing consumer demand for sustainability.

Conclusion: A Path Toward Genuine Sustainability

As sustainability continues to evolve from a buzzword into a pressing reality, food companies must rise to the challenge of embracing verifiable, impactful sustainability practices. Addressing greenwashing is only the first step—companies must build transparent, accountable supply chains and ensure that their claims are backed by evidence.

Connect with FoodChain ID for technology and expert-guided services that help brands and manufacturers meet market demands for sustainable packaging.

By Gul Basak Kiroglu, Regulatory Trends Product Manager

The global packaging industry is experiencing a significant shift towards sustainability, driven by increasing consumer awareness, environmental responsibility and regulatory pressure. A 2022 Sustainable Packaging Consumer Report found that 86% of US consumers are more likely to purchase a product from a brand or retailer if the packaging is considered sustainable. According to a joint study by NIQ and McKinsey in 2023, 92% of shoppers say sustainability is important when choosing a brand today. Searching for a recycling symbol, mark or claim on the product labels is now a routine to consumers.

Beverage containers such as plastic, glass bottles and cans are a focus for global efforts to increase participation in recycling. In the United States alone, approximately 51 million tons of plastic waste was generated in 2021, with beverage containers comprising a significant portion. Only about 5% of all plastic waste was recycled in the US, highlighting the need for effective waste management strategies.

Photo source: Corowa Free Press

Beverage Container Deposit Systems

Beverage Container Deposit Systems (BCD), also known as Bottle Bills, are at their core waste management initiatives designed on one simple principle: to encourage the recycling of beverage containers by imposing a small deposit at the point of sale. The deposit is refunded to consumers when they return the empty containers for recycling to a designated collection point, such as reverse vending machines, retail stores or recycling centers. The primary goals of these systems are to reduce litter, increase recycling rates and promote environmental sustainability.

The schemes can vary in design and implementation but generally include key components such as a Deposit Amount, a Collection Infrastructure and a Recycling Process.

Several countries have successfully implemented BCD systems, showcasing diverse approaches to maximizing efficiency and public participation:

The Danish Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) is one of the oldest legislation implemented for the beverage containers’ deposit and covers glass, metals and PET. It was implemented in 1981 and last amended in 2022. Switzerland’s ordinance on Beverage Containers was implemented in 2000 and last amended in 2022.

Canadian Provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta have robust deposit return systems. In British Columbia, the “Return-It” program allows consumers to receive refunds for a wide range of containers, including plastics, metals, and glass.

The Container Deposit Schemes (CDS) in several Australian states (Victoria, Capital Territory) were implemented in the past couple of years.

The South Korean Act on Recycling Resources from 2023 has a specific chapter on the deposit mentioning “… for the facilitation of the recovery, reuse, recycling, etc. of containers and disposable cups (hereinafter referred to as “containers, etc.”), an amount of money apart from the outbound shipping, import, or sale price (hereinafter referred to as “resource circulation deposit”) shall be included in the price of products…”

In conclusion, Beverage Container Deposit Systems have been shown as effective tools in boosting recycling rates and minimizing litter. By providing financial incentives and creating convenient return options, these systems promote responsible consumer behavior. As countries continue to face environmental challenges, BCD systems offer a sustainable solution that benefits both communities and the planet. Through shared knowledge and best practices, the global community can work towards more effective recycling initiatives and a greener future.

By Aslı Tuncer Madge, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant

Packaging is everywhere: protecting our products, our food, and even our fragile egos when that online order arrives safely. But have you ever thought about what happens to the packaging once it has served its purpose? Enter recycled materials, the unsung heroes in the sustainability narrative. In this blog post, we will explore how companies producing recycled packaging materials are making strides in sustainability, and why food companies should care—spoiler alert: it is more than just for show.

To stay informed on packaging sustainability, food contact materials and many other topics, subscribe to FoodChain ID’s monthly Reports & Digests.

The Recycling Revolution: Where Are We Now?

Recycled materials have taken center stage as global governments and industries recognize the need to reduce waste and carbon footprints. According to the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), the Netherlands has made headway in using recycled plastic for packaging, but there is still a long road ahead for achieving sustainability goals, particularly in meeting safety and quality standards for food contact materials.

Multilayer packaging, which is commonly used in food products, presents another challenge. Due to its complexity, the material is difficult to recycle. However, new solvent-based recycling methods are being explored to address the challenges, which could transform the industry. These methods break down multilayer plastics into their components, making recycling more feasible.

Why Should Food Companies Care?

Aside from the obvious sustainability benefits, switching to recycled materials can provide significant cost savings for companies. Recycling processes like chemical depolymerization are already showing promise in reducing the overall environmental footprint of packaging while allowing for greater reuse. The expansion of reusable packaging schemes such as Reposit in the UK signals an industry-wide shift towards long-term, reusable solutions.

Even more interesting, brands are starting to innovate in how they use recycled materials. For instance, KYSU recently launched a packaging line made entirely from recycled materials, which is making waves in the industry for its environmental benefits and its ability to compete with traditional packaging solutions on both cost and quality.

What About Safety?

The safety of recycled packaging, especially in food contact materials, has been a major concern for regulatory bodies. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continues to evaluate the safety of recycled plastics intended for food packaging. Recent assessments have cleared specific processes for producing recycled plastics, but stricter regulations might be coming as research evolves.

Researchers have also started addressing the chemical contamination risks associated with recycled materials. Studies have found that careful selection and processing of recycled plastics can minimize contamination, making recycled materials safer for food packaging.

Innovation on the Horizon

From closed-loop systems to advanced sorting technologies, the recycling industry is rapidly evolving. Companies like UPM Specialty Papers are developing innovative solutions such as fiber-based materials that can easily replace single-use plastic in packaging. These developments not only reduce reliance on virgin materials but also offer a biodegradable alternative.

On a scientific front, new methods are being tested to improve the quality of recycled materials. For example, researchers are working on integrating AI and machine learning to sort and purify plastics, making the recycling process more efficient and reducing waste. A study on multilayer packaging suggests that with the right recycling technologies, we could soon be reusing more than 90% of our packaging waste.

The Future Is Green (and Recycled)

The takeaway for companies? Get on board with recycled materials if you want to stay competitive. As sustainability becomes a key consumer concern, embracing these innovations can give companies a valuable edge—not just in reducing their environmental impact, but also in aligning with future regulations and customer expectations.

Learn more about all of FoodChain ID’s technology and expert-guided services to help brands and manufacturers meet market demands for sustainable packaging.

Part of FoodChain ID’s ‘It Begins with You’ Webinar Series

In 2023, there were 506 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food recalls.  This is a five-year high for the food industry and 19.6% more events than those recorded in 2022. Undeclared allergens remained the leading cause of food recalls in every quarter of 2023 and continue to be the leading cause in 2024.  How do we reduce the risk of a recall due to a miscue in a formulation or due to the packaging? 

By Aslı Tuncer Madge, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant

Ever wonder if that packet of sweetener in your morning coffee is sweeter for the planet too? As the food and beverage industry faces mounting pressure to reduce environmental impacts, companies producing sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SE) are asking the same question: Is my product green enough?

The Pressure on Sugarcane as a Sweet Source

We all know that cutting back on added sugar in our diets is better for human health. But what about environmental health? One non-governmental organization, the World Wildlife Fund, has documented the historical negative environmental effects of traditional sugarcane production. The organization works with Bonsucro to encourage responsible sugar production, considering water usage and prevention of deforestation. FoodChain ID has worked with the Bonsucro initiative as the first certification body supporting the development of the global standard.

Within the context of recent issues, a review of sugarcane sustainability emphasizes the necessity for localized approaches that consider specific climatic conditions and the development of predictive models to anticipate pest and disease outbreaks. Adding to the pressure on the industry, sugar taxes in countries like South Africa are threatening the sugarcane industry, driving producers to explore alternatives such as sweeteners to stay competitive.

Sweeteners: A Lighter Footprint?

Sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, and stevia are becoming increasingly popular as substitutes for sugar. These alternatives generally require fewer natural resources than sugar to produce, making some claim that they are more environmentally friendly. For example, stevia, a plant-derived sweetener, has been praised for needing significantly less land and water compared to traditional sugarcane.

However, not all sweeteners are created equal when it comes to sustainability. Some artificial sweeteners involve energy-intensive chemical processes and rely on petrochemicals. These processes contribute to the carbon footprint, and waste generated during production can be problematic. That said, the sheer volume of sweeteners used per product is much smaller than sugar, which somewhat offsets these concerns. Recent research and initiatives, such as EU-funded SWEET project, are exploring ways to enhance the sustainability of sweeteners by developing more eco-friendly production methods and improving overall environmental impact.

Sweetness Enhancers: Efficiency at a Cost?

Sweetness enhancers, which make sugar taste sweeter, allow manufacturers to use less sugar while maintaining the same sweet flavor. Many sweetness enhancers are chemically derived, and their production may be harmful to the environment if not properly managed.

A recent study from researchers at the University of Florida shows a commonly used artificial sweetener, sucralose, may have negative effects on our freshwater ecosystems. It found that while sweeteners have a lower environmental footprint than sugar in terms of land and water use, the chemical processes involved in their production can release pollutants that affect air and water quality.

The Role of Innovation

Thankfully, sustainability in the S&SE industry is not a lost cause. Innovative companies are working on greener production methods for sweeteners and enhancers. For example, some are developing fermentation-based processes to produce natural sweeteners like stevia, cutting down on agricultural land use and reducing reliance on chemical synthesis. Others are focusing on better waste management and recycling systems to minimize the environmental impact of their chemical processes.

For confectionery companies and food producers, there is a growing opportunity to not only offer healthier products but also make a positive environmental impact. As consumer demand for eco-friendly products rises, there is a competitive edge to be gained by choosing sweeteners and sweetness enhancers with a lower environmental footprint.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The road to a fully sustainable sweetener industry is a bit bumpy. But, hey, at least it’s sweet! The key takeaway for companies? Research options with FoodChain ID using regulatory tools such as Regulatory Trends or Reports & Digests and services such as Carbon Credit Verification to maintain brand integrity.

So, as you stir that sugar-free sweetener into your coffee or tweak your next product formula, ask yourself: Is this as sweet for the planet as it is for my customers?

FoodChain ID and ReSeed announce the successful verification of farm-level carbon action quantification, demonstrating measurement of practices that support sustainable farming and forest conservation. With the goal to support a healthy planet, the partnership leverages each company’s unique, world-class expertise to incentivize, measure and verify the progress of carbon sequestration and storage through regenerative agriculture practices under a carbon credit verification standard.

Why Food and Beverage Brands Should Care about Carbon Credit Measurement

Sustainability claims are supportive of business objectives. According to data from NielsenIQ/McKinsey over a five-year period, products with ESG-related claims grew faster (28 percent growth) compared to products without such claims (20 percent growth). Brands also need independent measurement of sustainability claims to maintain consumer and regulatory trust. Recent US federal guidance on voluntary carbon market exchanges noted, “Voluntary Carbon Marketings must consistently deliver high-integrity carbon credits that represent real, additional, lasting, unique, and independently verified emissions reductions or removals.”

Carbon Credit Benefits to Amazon Farmers

The FoodChain ID verification announcement follows the partnerships’ 2023 commitment to support a healthy planet through regenerative agriculture practices. ReSeed’s local partners collected and processed data for carbon credit measurement using the ReSeed Digital Climate Impact Platform to allow monetization and incentivization for farmers deploying sustainable practices in the field. FoodChain ID served as the verifier, with independent technical experts performing audits. The verification announcement confirms the industry-leading sustainable practices of Afro-Brazilian farming families in a vulnerable Amazon forest community. These traditional farmers, in collaboration with supply chain partners, are implementing agricultural practices to protect the forest and contribute to supply chain decarbonization. By receiving payment for verifiable carbon conservation and sequestration, the farmers can continue sustainable agricultural practices. The project will eventually cover over 12,000 farms.

Key Facts on the Project: Supporting Farmers and the Planet

• 80% of the gross carbon credit value is sent directly to farmers as increased income and farmer support services.
• The project has the potential to reduce over 2 million metric tons of CO2 emissions

By Sureyya Topaloglu, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant

TOPLINE SUMMARY

The practice of “greenwashing” is prevalent across consumer products, driven by the economic value consumers place on sustainability. The European Union is working on sustainability regulations to prohibit generic environmental claims on products, including claims of environmental impacts without evidence and sustainability labels lacking approved certification schemes or validation by public authorities.

Packaging Sustainability Trends & Dashboard ‒ search emerging trends and hot-spots globally and regionally, with filters for environmental claims, recycling processes and more.

Carbon Credit Verification ‒ FoodChain ID and its partner ReSeed offer incentivization, measurement and verification of carbon sequestration progress through regenerative agriculture practices under a Carbon Credit Verification Standard.

It’s not hard to imagine the scenario: A restaurant promotes its new “eco-friendly” burger, claiming it’s made with “all-natural ingredients” and packaged in “biodegradable materials.” However, upon closer examination, it’s revealed that while the burger contains fresh components, the “natural” claim is not backed by any regulatory standard. Additionally, the biodegradable packaging is only available in select locations or for certain menu items, while the majority of the restaurant’s products are still sold in traditional non-degradable packaging.

Although the scenario is presented as hypothetical, the practice is common. When a business uses selective or misleading promotion of sustainable benefits while downplaying or ignoring other environmentally harmful practices, it is a known as greenwashing.

Greenwashing is not just an issue in the food industry. The practice is prevalent across consumer products, driven by the economic value consumers place on sustainability. In a broader context, greenwashing poses a major challenge to mitigating climate change. The consumer may believe that a company or entity is taking steps to safeguard the environment, thereby endorsing false or ineffective solutions to the climate crisis.

Sustainability Regulations to Address Greenwashing

The unregulated use of green claims such as eco, environmentally friendly and sustainable has escalated into a widespread issue on a global scale. Too often, product claims cannot be substantiated. Governments and intergovernmental bodies are now actively pursuing legislative measures to regulate unfounded environmental assertions. The United Nations has been urging action for years, and the European Union has initiated regulatory processes to ban greenwashing.

The EU is taking action against greenwashing and raising the bar for companies that make vague, incomplete or false statements regarding their environmental impact. The new directive published in November 2023, “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition,” aims to enhance consumer safeguards by prohibiting misleading advertisements. The legislation, approved by the EU Council and EC, awaits formal approval from the European Parliament and the national parliaments of all 27 EU countries. It will come into force in 2026 if all parties give their approval.

To stop greenwashing, the EU is planning to prohibit generic environmental claims on products, including claims of neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impacts without evidence, assertions of emission offsetting by the producer, and sustainability labels lacking approved certification schemes or validation by public authorities.

The FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard below displays the dramatic rise in citations covering environmental claims. The growing number of the articles from different sources shows increasing attention to the topic of sustainability claims and the potential for greenwashing.  

FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard (click to enlarge)

The European Union regulatory developments regarding greenwashing will undoubtedly resonate worldwide, with time revealing their impact. However, consumer expectations and any loss of trust caused by greenwashing will accelerate pressure for action on sustainability regulation and product claims. Further public research and surveys in this field will generate momentum for expediting legal proceedings. As stakeholders increasingly prioritize transparency and environmental responsibility, proactive measures taken now can pave the way for a legitimate sustainable future.

By Gul Basak Kiroglu, Regulatory Trends Product Manager

In the first decade of the 2000s, the amount of plastic waste generated globally rose more in a single decade than it had in the previous 40 years. Environmental regulations have also grown exponentially, driving the need for tools that monitor Regulatory Trends or search the Regulatory Library. While attention on plastics and the environment is not new, plastic waste has historically been perceived as an environmental concern only. In the last few years, the health effects of plastic exposure have come under scrutiny.

Microplastics and Regulatory Compliance

A significant portion of plastic waste results from the life cycle of traditional single-use plastics, which were originally designed primarily as oxo-degradable rather than bio-degradable or compostable. This meant that these plastics fragmented into small, persistently non-degradable pieces called microplastics, prompting a cascade of environmental problems. Despite growing environmental regulation, the production of single-use plastic waste continues to escalate, as highlighted in a recent article from CNN.

Microplastics originate not only from plastic waste but also from sources such as tires, textiles, and construction, and the minute particles have far-reaching health consequences. Initially the attention on microplastics focused on the marine environment, where they caused reduced food intake, delayed growth, oxidative damage and abnormal behavior for species in the sea food chain.

Scientists are now researching microplastics within infiltrated soil and air. Studies highlight the ubiquity of microplastics, with the compounds described as trace contaminants comparable to per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). In soil microplastics alter the characteristics of flora and fauna, while in the air, they are carried by the wind and also escape into the atmosphere from seawater, even reaching the Antarctic snow. This presence underscores the urgency of addressing microplastics as a global environmental challenge.

Health Effects of Microplastics Exposure

In addition to the environmental consequences, the health effects of microplastic exposure have recently come under scrutiny. Over the past few years microplastics, along with other emerging contaminants, have been detected in food and drinking water. A study from January 2024 revealed that bottled water can contain hundreds of thousands of previously uncounted tiny plastic bits, with a staggering 240,000 plastic particles found in a single liter. Ironically, a significant portion of these particles appear to originate from plastic filters used in the water purification process before bottling.

The implications of ingesting microplastics are profound, leading to serious health issues such as endocrine disruption, weight gain, insulin resistance, decreased reproductive health, and even cancer. Respiratory exposure to microplastics induces oxidative stress in the airways, resulting in symptoms like coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath. Additionally, fatigue and dizziness can occur due to low blood oxygen concentration.

FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard (click to enlarge)

Microplastics and Environmental Regulations: The Need to Adopt Holistic Strategies

To address the plastic crisis, numerous countries have implemented environmental regulations and prohibitions around the world. A pioneering move in this direction came from Bangladesh in 2002, making it the first country globally to impose a total ban on single-use plastics. As of the end of 2023, eight US states have banned single-use plastic bags. Simultaneously, researchers are intensively focusing on developing industrially viable alternative packaging solutions based on bio-polymers, offering hope in the quest for sustainable materials.

Microplastics, recognized as both chemical and physical contaminants, have become a critical concern in the realm of food and drinking water safety. Their ability to adsorb micropollutants makes them potent vectors of contamination, posing a dual threat to human health. As we grapple with the repercussions of plastic waste on both the environment and human well-being, it is imperative to adopt holistic approaches that encompass sustainable alternatives, thoughtful environmental regulations and heightened awareness to address this global crisis comprehensively.

By Asli Tuncer Madge, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant

Alternative proteins are gaining popularity as some consumers express concerns about the environmental sustainability, animal welfare and health impacts of conventional meat production. Research is examining the evidence for alternative protein sources contributing to a sustainable and diverse food system. Alternative proteins refer to a diverse range of protein sources that serve as alternatives to traditional animal-based proteins like meat, dairy and eggs. These alternative protein sources can come from various cultured (lab-grown) sources, plant-based or insects.

Despite their potential benefits, alternative proteins are still in the early stages of development and some forms are not yet accessible at a price point compared to traditional sources. Additionally, ongoing debates and regulatory challenges need to be addressed to fully realize the category’s potential and ensure responsible development and integration into the food system.

For the latest updates in food and beverage labeling, subscribe to the monthly FoodChain ID report on Food Additives and Labeling.

Cultured Meat Receives Early Regulatory Approval

Lab-grown meat has been legalized in three countries to date, with significant potential for expansion. Singapore was the first nation to authorize the sale of lab-grown meat, followed by the United States. Subsequently, the Netherlands became the first European nation to embrace lab-grown meat.

Europe Debates Cultured and Plant-based Meat

The first noteworthy opposition to cultured meat emerged from Italy. In November, the Italian government prohibited the production and commercialization of cultured meat, as well as the use of meat-related terms for plant-based meat substitutes. The Italian legislation’s opposition was rooted in the belief that lab-grown meat poses a threat to Italian culture and lifestyle. However, despite Italy’s efforts, when the law was submitted to the European Union (EU) for assessment, it faced rejection because of a “violation of notification.” The future of cellular agriculture remains an ongoing debate between EU countries. A note authored by the Austrian, French and Italian delegations and supported by those from the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, and Slovakia was discussed in the meeting of EU agriculture ministers on January 23, 2024.

Plant-based Proteins: Consider the Consumer Audience

Groups supportive of alternative protein point to a societal shift towards a more plant-based diet as a significant strategy for reducing the environmental impact of our food system. However, targeting a segment of consumers versus a broad market approach is likely a more realistic strategy. Recent research in the United States with a representative population sample highlighted the strength of positioning the benefit of sustainability. The study concluded that the top label choice among shoppers choosing alternative protein was a combination of “healthy” and “sustainable.”

The Buzz About Insects

Although consumers in some parts of the world might be hesitant based on the source, insects suitable for consumption are being marketed as alternative proteins. Advocates of insect protein cite low production cost, positive nutritional profile and reduced need for land and water compared to livestock production. In early 2023, the European Union authorized the sale of insects, specifically crickets, locusts, and darkling beetle larvae, for human consumption. The market for edible insects in Europe is expected to reach $2.98 billion (£2.3bn) by 2030. Italy has approved the utilization of insect flour for human consumption, albeit with the stipulation that it is not used in traditional dishes such as pasta and pizza.

The Future of Alternative Proteins

Although some governmental steps have been taken to advance alternative protein options, consumers in general remain conservative in their choices. As alternative proteins continue to navigate the complex landscape of consumer preferences, regulatory frameworks and cultural considerations, their transformative potential beckons, shaping the future of sustainable and diverse food systems.