Content uploaded by Gabriele Spatola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriele Spatola on Apr 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
Available online 22 March 2024
0963-9969/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Novel foods, old issues: Metabarcoding revealed mislabeling in insect-based
products sold by e-commerce on the EU market
Alice Giusti
1
, Gabriele Spatola
1
, Simone Mancini , Roberta Nuvoloni , Andrea Armani
*
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Edible insects
Food authentication
Next generation sequencing technologies
Food Fraud
Consumer’s protection
Ofcial control
ABSTRACT
Insects intended for human consumption are considered Novel Foods according to EU legislation. marketed in
form of powders, bars, snacks are increasingly available on the EU market, especially on e-commerce. The
commercial form and the way of distribution make IBPs particularly prone to mislabeling. Literature concerning
the mislabeling occurrence in IBPs is extremely scarce. In this study, 46 processed IBPs were collected on nine EU
e-commerce platforms (e-CO) to be authenticated by metabarcoding. A 200 bp region from 16S rRNA gene was
used as molecular target. Sequencing data were processed using DADA2 R package, and sequences were taxo-
nomically assigned through BLAST analysis against GenBank. Procedural blanks and positive controls were
included in the analysis, and threshold values were established to lter the nal data. The mislabeling rate (i. e.
the mismatch between the species declared on the IBP label and the species identied by metabarcoding) was
calculated. Overall, a high mislabeling rate (33.3 %) was observed, although this percentage is inuenced by the
e-CO platform and the insect species, with A. domesticus particularly involved. The use of species not listed in
authorized Novel Food (e. g. Gryllus locorojo), and/or the partial replacement of high value species with lower
value species was highlighted for the rst time in processed IBPs. The presence of insect pests was also detected.
Metabarcoding was conrmed as an effective tool for IBPs authentication. Also, outcomes from this study can
provide useful data on the main issues involving the EU IBPs’ market, that can represent an incentive to reinforce
both ofcial controls and FBO’s self-controls on these poorly investigated products.
1. Introduction
The world population will reach an estimated 9.7 billion in 2050
(FAO, 2021). Consequently, the demand for protein-rich food is
growing, and the world will have to produce 70–100 % more food
(McKenzie & Williams, 2015). In this context, the interest in the use of
insects as food is increasing worldwide (Van Huis, 2020). This global
attention on entomophagy is especially due to the lower environmental
impact of insects’ production, compared to conventional livestock
(Nadeau et al., 2015; Oonincx & De Boer, 2012; Van Huis & Oonincx,
2017). Moreover, some edible insects were proved to have signicantly
healthier Nutrient Value Score than beef and chicken (Payne et al.,
2016), which makes them valuable alternative proteins.
At the EU level, insects intended for human consumption are
considered Novel Food, meaning “any food that was not used for human
consumption to a signicant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997” as
provided by the Regulation EU No 2015/2283. Novel Foods must be
authorized by Commission Implementing Regulations (CIRs) that add
them to the “Union List of Novel Food”. Nowadays, some Food Business
Operators (FBOs) have been authorized to place dened types of insects
based-products (IBPs) on the EU market. These IBPs can be made with
yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) (CIR EU 2021/882; CIR EU 2022/
169), migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) (CIR EU 2021/1975), house
cricket (Acheta domesticus) (CIR EU 2022/188; CIR EU 2023/5) and
lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) (CIR EU 2023/58). Each CIR
also provides the commercial categories (e. g. whole frozen, dried,
powder etc.) in which IBPs can be marketed, the percentage of insect
allowed for each commercial category, and the specic labeling
requirements.
The acceptance rate of the EU consumers towards edible insects is
reported to be still low (Kornher et al., 2019). This is mainly due to the
sense of disgust for the entomophagy practice, which is far away from
the traditional behaviors of Western citizens (La Barbera et al., 2018;
Mancini et al., 2019a, Sogari et al., 2019). Thus, reducing the visibility
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrea.armani@unipi.it (A. Armani).
1
These authors equally contributed to this work.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Research International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114268
Received 9 February 2024; Received in revised form 19 March 2024; Accepted 20 March 2024
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
2
of insects by using them as ingredients of IBPs can represent a valid
option to overcome rejection to insects’ consumption (Tzompa-Sosa
et al., 2023). For this reason, different kinds of processed IBPs (such as
powders, bars, snaks) are currently available and growing on the EU
market (Spatola et al., 2024; Mancini et al., 2022). These IBPs are mainly
sold online through e-commerce platforms (Spatola et al., 2024; Pippi-
nato et al., 2020).
The distance selling method (e-commerce) was reported as an
important way of distribution of not authorized Novel Food on the EU
market (DGSANTE, 2019). In addition, the whole insect key features
that lack in processed IBPs may encourage to commit illicit substitution.
Indeed, the possibility that less valuable or not-authorized species un-
declared in the label are added/mixed with the declared one in a multi-
species matrix should be considered. In addition, IBPs are sold for higher
prices with respect to other foods of the same category (Lombardi et al.,
2019; Spatola et al., 2024), further making them particularly prone to
deceptive practices, especially mislabeling. According to the EU Com-
mission, mislabeling is the false claims or distortion of the information
reported on the label (European Commission, 2018), and it is currently
the preponderant form of food fraud in the EU (Visciano & Schirone,
2021). Respect to insects sold for human consumption, mislabeling data
are still very scarce. A recent study evaluating the labeling compliance
to EU legislation of IBPs sold online identied issues respect to the in-
formation to consumers (Spatola et al., 2024). Non-compliances were
mainly related to the absence, incompleteness, or in-accuracy of the
“additional specic labeling requirements“ reported by CIRs, such as the
“name of the food” and “allergens’ statement” (Spatola et al., 2024).
Food authentication consists of verifying that the nature and char-
acteristics of the food match with label declarations (Morin & Lees,
2018), and DNA-based techniques are the analytical tools most used for
this purpose (Giusti et al., 2023a). DNA barcoding has been especially
used for the authentication of sh/seafood and meat/poultry (Fernandes
et al., 2021; Galimberti et al., 2015; Giusti et al., 2023a; Hellberg et al.,
2017; Nehal et al., 2021). As regards insects used as food, this technique
was applied only in one study analyzing whole preserved and prepared
insects sold in UK (Siozios et al., 2020). In this study, cases of disparity
between barcode identity and package contents was actually revealed
(Siozios et al., 2020).On the contrary, DNA barcoding represents a
central component of insect species identication for environmental and
agriculture biosecurity purposes (Armstrong, 2010; Hodgetts et al.,
2016; Piper et al., 2019). Interestingly, its potential use in the identi-
cation of insect pest species in processed food was tested (Watanabe
et al., 2023). The efciency of DNA barcoding is however limited by the
number of target species that can be simultaneously identied. Outputs
generally show only one species, usually the most represented in the
sample, failing to identify the others (Giusti et al., 2024). This limitation
makes DNA barcoding not appropriate for the analysis of complex
matrices consisting of multiple species (Giusti et al., 2024; Haynes et al.,
2019).
Metabarcoding, or target amplicon sequencing, is a combination of
DNA barcoding with Next Generation Sequencing Technologies (NGS)
which could allow to overcome DNA barcoding limits, by detecting a
larger number of species in a sample simultaneously (Fernandes et al.,
2021). The high potential of this method in analyzing complex mixed
insect communities was highlighted (Piper et al., 2019). Additionally, it
was successfully applied to the authentication of insects used for human
consumption in the study of Hillinger et al. (2023), which is currently
the only available.
The aim of the present study was to authenticate processed IBPs
collected on different EU e-commerce platforms by metabarcoding, to
collect data on composition and possible mislabeling pattern for this
type of less investigated Novel Foods. Results from this study could
extend the eld of application of this technique to IBPs analysis, sup-
porting both ofcial control and companies’ self-control plans.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sampling
2.1.1. IBPs collection. A total of 46 IBPs were purchased from nine
different e-commerce platforms (e-CO1 to e-CO9), selected among those
reported in Spatola et al. (2024) as selling authorized IBPs within the EU
market. The collection was performed in the period October-November
2023 (Table 1). A convenience, non-probabilistic sampling was con-
ducted, structured to include a proportional number of IBPs per type and
brand, notwithstanding the market availability in the collection period
and the e-CO possibility to ship in Italy. The IBPs were composed of the
four insect species currently used in the authorized IBPs at the EU level,
A. domesticus, A. diaperinus, T. molitor and L. migratoria. The collected
IBPs included powders, premix, pasta, chips, cookies, bars, crackers,
sausages, etc. (details in Table 1), and they were conventionally grouped
in categories (Table 1). The IBPs composed of whole insects were not
included.
2.1.2. Reference samples. Morphologically identied specimens of the
species: A. diaperinus, A. domesticus, L. migratoria, T. molitor, Hermetia
illucens and Zophobas morio (total 12 specimens) and of honeybee (Apis
mellifera) (this last to be used as extraction positive control as described
in section 2.2.2) were provided by the Department of Veterinary Sci-
ences of the University of Pisa, Italy.
2.2. Preparation of the IBPs’ samples and total DNA extraction
2.2.1. Preparation of the IBPs’ samples. For the IBPs other than pow-
ders and premix (Table 1), half of the package content was taken and
nely ground to a powder or homogeneous paste in a steel blender with
removable blades. Grinding was carried out under a chemical fume hood
to avoid contamination between successive grindings sections (GS) due
to the persistence of traces of powdered product. The hood worktop was
also deterged and decontaminated between successive GS. The GS were
sorted into species and ordered as follows: i) GS-1 and GS-2 included 15
IPBs made of A. domesticus (n =10 and n =5, respectively, powders/
premix excluded); ii) GS-3 and GS-4 included eight IPBs made of
A. diaperinus (n =4 for each GS, powders/premix excluded); iii) GS-5
included six IBPs made of T. molitor (powders excluded). The IPB
made of L. migratoria, being a powder, was not included in the GS. To
highlight that, when IBP-8 and IBP-9 (protein bars made with insects –
A. diaperinus -, chocolate, and fruit) packages were opened, specimens of
larval stages of common insect pests were found. These samples were
however analyzed after removing the pest larvae in order to not ground
them during the preparation of the samples.
Two powdered samples (duplicates) from each grinded IPB and from
the IPBs already made of powder/premix were taken for the subsequent
analysis, for a total of 92 IPBs’ samples (i. e. 46 IBPs in duplicates).
2.2.2. Total DNA extraction. Total DNA was extracted from the
reference samples (section 2.1.2.) and from the 92 IBPs’ samples (sec-
tion 2.2.1.) using NucleoSpin®Food (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG,
Düren, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. All DNA
extraction procedures were conducted under a chemical fume hood.
Overall, seven DNA extractions sessions (from EXT-0 to EXT-6) were
performed, each referrable to one extraction day (seven extraction
days). The reference samples were processed in EXT-0. EXT-1/EXT-2
and EXT-3/EXT-4, EXT-5 and EXT-6 included the IBPs’ samples obtained
from A. domesticus, A. diaperinus, L. migratoria, T. molitor, respectively.
Each total DNA extraction from EXT-1 to EXT-6 also included one
sample of A. mellifera to be used as extraction positive control and one
procedural blank, with no tissue.
2.2.3. Total DNA evaluation. The total DNA concentration and purity
were evaluated with Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop
Technologies, Wilmington, DE, US) by two subsequent measurements of
the absorbance value at 260 nm and calculation of A260/A280 and of
A260/A230 ratio according to manufacturer’s indications. Ratios A260/
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
3
A280 and A260/A230 around 2.0 were considered as satisfactory values
of DNA purity. At the end of this phase, total DNA samples of IBPs’
duplicates were pooled together, so that the IBPs samples returned to be
46.
2.3. Primer testing
The 16Sr RNA region (200 bp) was amplied from DNA samples
obtained by the reference samples using the primer pair Fwd-I-3 (5
′
-
TWACGCTGTTATCCCTAAGG-3
′
) and Rev-I-1 (5
′
- GACGAGAA-
GACCCTATAGA-3
′
) proposed by Hillinger et al. (2023). The following
PCR protocol was adopted: 15 min initial denaturation at 95 ◦C, fol-
lowed by 35 cycles of 30 s each at 95 ◦C, 58 ◦C, and 72 ◦C, and a 7 min
nal elongation at 72 ◦C. PCR products were resolved by electrophoresis
on a 2 % agarose gel (GellyPhor LE, Euroclone SPA, Milano, Italy)
stained with GelRed™ Nucleid Acid Gel Stain (Biotium, Hayward, CA,
USA). The presence of PCR products of the expected length was visu-
alized by UV light transilluminator.
2.4. Metabarcoding analysis
2.4.1 Library preparation, validation, and quantication. The overhang
adapter sequence reported in the Illumina 16S Metagenomic Sequencing
Library Preparation Guide (LPG) (https://support.illumina.com/down
loads/16s_metagenomic_sequencing_library_preparation.html) were
added to the primer pair Fwd-I-3/ Rev-I-1 as follows: forward overhang
5
′
-TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG- [Fwd-I-3] and
reverse overhang 5
′
GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG-
[Rev-I-1]. Overall, 62 DNA samples were amplied, including: a) 46
IBPs samples; b) six extraction positive controls; c) six procedural
blanks; d) two PCR positive controls; e) two PCR negative controls (with
no DNA). For each sample, the following PCR reaction was set: 2.5 µl of
DNA, 5 µl of primer forward overhang, 5 µl of primer reverse overhang,
12.5 µl of 2x KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix (KAPA Biosystems). The
same PCR program reported in section 2.3 was used and the presence of
PCR products of the expected length was visualized by UV light trans-
illuminator. Then, the AMPure XP beads kit (Beckman Coulter S.r.l.) was
used to purify the amplicons following the manufacturer’s instructions.
Dual indices and Illumina sequencing adapters were attached to obtain
the nal libraries using Illumina® DNA/RNA UD Indexes Set A, Tag-
mentation, following the manufacturer’s instructions. The nal libraries
were further cleaned up using AMPure XP beads kit (Beckman Coulter S.
Table 1
Insect-based products (IBPs) collected in this study, with relative description and
e-commerce platform (e-CO). The categories were conventionally assigned
based on the label information.
IBP Declared
species
Label information Category e-CO
IBP-
1
A. domesticus Cricket powder Powder e-
CO2
IBP-
2
T. molitor Sfogliette Snacks e-
CO1
IBP-
3
T. molitor Vanilla cookies Bakery
products
e-
CO1
IBP-
4
T. molitor Pizza chips Snacks e-
CO1
IBP-
5
T. molitor Insect powder Powder e-
CO1
IBP-
6
A. domesticus Cricket cracker Bakery
product
e-
CO4
IBP-
7
A. domesticus Cricket cracker Bakery
product
e-
CO4
IBP-
8
A. diaperinus Protein bar with insects,
chocolate and fruit
Protein
product
e-
CO8
IBP-
9
A. diaperinus Protein bar with insects,
chocolate and fruit
Protein
product
e-
CO8
IBP-
10
A. diaperinus Protein bar with insects,
caramel and fruits
Protein
product
e-
CO8
IBP-
11
A. diaperinus Crispy bakes Bakery
product
e-
CO4
IBP-
12
A. domesticus Cricket our Powder e-
CO4
IBP-
13
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
14
T. molitor Mealworm powder Powder e-
CO2
IBP-
15
A. domesticus Garlic chips Snack e-
CO2
IBP-
16
A. domesticus Chips Snack e-
CO2
IBP-
17
A. diaperinus Crisp bread Bakery
product
e-
CO5
IBP-
18
A. domesticus Chocolate squares with cricket
our and peppermint
Chocolate
product
e-
CO5
IBP-
19
A. diaperinus Chocolate squares with
buffalo worm our and peanut
butter
Chocolate
product
e-
CO5
IBP-
20
A. domesticus Oat cricket protein breakfast Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
21
A. domesticus Strawberry cricket protein
blend
Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
22
A. domesticus Protein bar with cricket,
chocolate and fruit
Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
23
A. domesticus Protein bar with cricket,
chocolate and fruit
Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
24
A. domesticus Protein bar with cricket,
chocolate and fruit
Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
25
A. domesticus Protein bar with cricket,
peanut butter and cinnamon
Protein
product
e-
CO6
IBP-
26
A. domesticus Pea cricket chips Snack e-
CO6
IBP-
27
A. domesticus Pea cricket chips Snack e-
CO6
IBP-
28
A. domesticus Cricket pasta Pasta e-
CO6
IBP-
29
A. domesticus house cricket powder Powder e-
CO7
IBP-
30
A. diaperinus Buffalo worm powder Powder e-
CO7
IBP-
31
L. migratoria Grasshoppers powder Powder e-
CO7
IBP-
32
T. molitor Cracker with insect our Bakery
product
e-
CO3
IBP-
33
T. molitor Cracker with insect our Bakery
product
e-
CO3
IBP-
34
A. domesticus Chewing Spoon Bakery
product
e-
CO2
IBP-
35
A. diaperinus Buffalo sausages Meat product e-
CO9
Table 1 (continued )
IBP Declared
species
Label information Category e-CO
IBP-
36
A. diaperinus Fusilli Pasta e-
CO8
IBP-
37
A. diaperinus Fusilli Pasta e-
CO8
IBP-
38
T. molitor cacao cookies Bakery
product
e-
CO1
IBP-
39
A. diaperinus Buffalo larvae our Powder eCO9
IBP-
40
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
41
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
42
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
43
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
44
A. diaperinus Dry mix of buffalo worm our,
plant protein and spices
Premix e-
CO4
IBP-
45
A. domesticus Fusilli Pasta e-
CO4
IBP-
46
A. domesticus Fusilli Pasta e-
CO4
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
4
r.l.) before validation and quantication. For the validation, 1 µl of a
1:50 dilution of each nal library was run on an Agilent 4150 TapeS-
tation D1000 ScreenTape assay (Agilent Technologies Inc.) to verify the
size. The nal libraries were quantied using a uorometric quanti-
cation method (Qubit 4 Fluorometer, Thermo Fisher Scientic, USA).
The nal DNA concentration was calculated in nM, based on the size of
DNA amplicons as determined by Agilent 4150 TapeStation D1000
ScreenTape assay (Agilent Technologies Inc.), and applying the formula
reported in Illumina LPG. Finally, aliquots of 5 µl of diluted DNA from
each library were mixed for pooling libraries with unique indices.
2.4.2. Miseq loading and sequencing. Pooled libraries were denatured
and diluted according to Illumina LPG instructions before Miseq loading.
Pooled libraries were loaded using MiSeq Reagent Micro Kit v2 (300-
cycles), and the run included a 20 % PhiX to serve as an internal control.
2.4.3. Bioinformatic analysis. Folder containing fastq les with raw
reads were processed to generate amplicon sequence variants (ASVs)
using DADA2 R package (Callahan et al., 2016). Representative se-
quences for each ASV were taxonomically assigned through BLAST
analysis against GenBank (https://blast.Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi)
with a minimum percentage identity of 97 % and minimum query
coverage of 95 %.
2.5. Data ltering and IBPs authentication
2.5.1. Data ltering based on threshold. Threshold values were estab-
lished to lter the nal data of IBPs. In particular, for each extraction
session, the respective positive control was analysed, and the threshold
corresponded to the rst most representative percentage of sequences
found for the species (or higher taxonomic rank) other than the expected
one (A. mellifera).
2.5.2. IBPs authentication and label comparison. Once the data from
IBPs were ltered by removing species (or higher taxonomic rank) found
in percentages ≤of the considered threshold, the IBPs nal composition
was evaluated. Outcomes of the molecular analysis were compared to
the species declared on the IBPs label to evaluate eventual mislabeling,
intended as an observed mismatch between the species declared on the
IBP label and the species detected by molecular analysis. A 95 % Con-
dence Interval (95 % CI), with alfa =5 % was calculated.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. IBPs collection
The IBPs sampling was originally planned based on the outcomes of
our previous study in which the main authorized IBPs and relative e-
commerce platforms selling within the EU market were investigated. In
that study, IBPs made with A. domesticus and T. molitor were found to be
the most sold online, followed by A. diaperinus and L. migratoria, which
had a marginal role (Spatola et al., 2024). These outcomes were also in
line with a previous survey (Pippinato et al., 2020). In the present study,
the sampling was however strongly affected by the actual IBPs market
availability at the time of collection, as well as by the inability of some e-
commerce platforms to ship in Italy. Thus, the species and/or type
representativeness of our sampling did not fully reect the previously
exposed market scenario. Indeed, only eight IBPs (17.4 %) labeled as
T. molitor were collected, even though in the study of Spatola et al.
(2024) IBPs of this species were the second most abundant online. The
majority of collected IBPs were instead labeled as A. domesticus (n =20;
43.5 %), followed by IBPs made with A. diaperinus (n =17; 36.9 %).
Finally, only one IBP (2.2 %) labeled as L. migratoria was collected. This
latter case partially reects the market scenario. Indeed, the weedy
nature and capability to be a pest for crops of L. migratoria (Scanlan
et al., 2001), together with some feeding behaviors (Van Peer et al.,
2021) of this species, may negatively inuence FBOs to rear this insect.
The sampling diversity was also observed with respect to the e-
commerce platforms. Indeed, while for e-CO4 and e-CO6 the number of
collected IBPs were 12 and 9 respectively, in the others the number was
lower, until for both e-CO5 and e-CO7 only two IBPs were collected.
Finally, according to the categories conventionally dened in this
study (Table 1), the IBPs included: nine “bakery products”, nine “protein
products”, eight “powder”, six “premix”, six “snacks”, ve “pasta”, two
“chocolate products” and one “meat product” (Table 1). Whole insects,
although found to be the IBPs most available online (Boukid et al., 2023;
Spatola et al., 2024), were not collected in this study.
3.2. Total DNA extraction and evaluation
Total DNA was successfully extracted from all the reference samples
(including the six extraction positive controls) and the 92 IBP duplicates.
Respect to the reference samples, 1633,4 ng/µl (range 794.5–2984.7 ng/
µl), with ratios A260/A280 and A260/230 in the range of 2.05–2.24 and
1.74–2.45. Respect to the IBPs, an average DNA concentration of 1047.8
ng/µl (range 46.6–3369.8 ng/µl), with ratios A260/A280 and A260/
A230 in the range of 1.85–2.19 and 1.72–2.28, respectively. Finally, the
total DNA extracted from the six procedural blanks presented a low
average concentration (0.48 ng/µl; range −1.6 – 2.03 ng/µl) and low
ratios A260/A280 (1.12–1.50) and A260/A230 (0.36–1.28).
3.3. Molecular target selection and primer testing
To date, in ecological studies, the most used molecular marker for
insect species identication by both DNA barcoding and metabarcoding
is the Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) (Elbrecht et al., 2016; Martoni et al.,
2022; Marquina et al., 2019b; Piper et al., 2019; Remmel et al., 2024).
This gene was also used to authenticate insects sold as food in UK
(Siozios et al., 2020). However, in the case of metabarcoding, the COI
low presence of high conserved nucleotide sites for design of universal
PCR primers was considered as a weakness (Deagle et al., 2014, Elbrecht
et al., 2016; Marquina et al., 2019b; Piper et al., 2019). Contrariwise, the
16S rRNA gene presents highly conserved core sequences for primer
binding and variable regions providing for taxonomic resolution (Clarke
et al., 2014; Deagle et al., 2014). Thus, this gene has been proposed and
used for insects’ species identication by metabarcoding, and its ef-
ciency has been by far recognized (Clarke et al., 2014, Elbrecht et al.,
2016, Marquina et al., 2019a; Piper et al., 2019). Additionally, accord-
ing to Giusti et al. (2024), 16S rRNA gene is the most used for meta-
barcoding in food of animal origin. Accordingly, also in the only one
study that authenticate insect species in processed food products by
metabarcoding (Hillinger et al., 2023), the 16S rRNA gene was selected
as target. In particular, the capability and efciency of different primer
pairs in amplifying a 200 bp fragment from 16S rRNA gene was tested in
vitro on eighteen insect species; the species selection criterion was the
afliation of these insects to the main representatives of edible insects,
and the four authorized at the EU level were included (Hillinger et al.,
2023). The nally selected primer pair (Fwd-3 and Rev-I-1) was re-
ported as applicable for the detection of insect species even in processed
or complex foods down to an insect content of only 0.1 % (Hillinger
et al., 2023). Moreover, the selected 16S rRNA region was compared in
silico for 1100 insect species, and it was observed that 92 % of these
species could be discriminated from each other (Hillingher et al., 2023).
Although we decided to use the 16S rRNA primer pair proposed by
Hillinger et al. (2023) in our analysis, we further assessed it on reference
specimens belonging to some edible insect species, testing all the four
included in authorized Novel Food. As expected, all the species were
successfully amplied.
3.4. Metabarcoding
3.4.1. Libraries validation and quantication. The 62 libraries obtained
from the samples (46 IBPs, six extraction positive controls, six proce-
dural blanks, two PCR positive controls and two PCR negative controls)
presented an average size of 377 bp (range 365–390 bp). To note,
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
5
indeed, that although the 16S rRNA molecular target was actually 200
bp in length, the observed library size was inuenced by the presence of
primers, adaptors, and indexes. Libraries obtained from two out of the
six procedural blanks, as well as the library of IBP-24, presented too low
concentrations (average 1.84 ng/µl; range 0.66) to be sequenced, so that
they were discarded. All the remained libraries (n =59) presented an
average concentration of 180.3 ng/µl (range 0.66–560 ng/µl) and were
therefore maintained and pooled to be uploaded on the Illumina MiSeq
sequencer.
3.4.1. ASVs generation and taxonomic assignment
Overall, 307 ASVs were generated from the fastq les of the 59
sequenced samples. Of them, 254 (82.7 %) were taxonomically assigned
to a species (n =232; 91.3 %) or to a genus (n =23; 9.1 %). By applying
the established criteria of minimum percentage identity (97 %) and
minimum query coverage (95 %), the remaining 53 ASVs (17.3 %) were
not assigned (NA).
In IBPs labeled as A. domesticus (n =19), sequences assigned to the
expected species were the most represented in 94.7 % of the cases (18
IBPs), with percentages ranging from 52.90 % to 99.25 % (Table SM-1).
Sequences assigned to A. diaperinus were instead predominant (92.31 %)
in one of these IBPs (IBP-18). Interestingly, sequences assigned to Gryllus
locorojo were also found in 78.9 % (n =15) of the IBPs labeled as
A. domesticus, and in ten of them the sequence percentages were
considerable (from 11.61 % to 44.26 %) (Table SM-1). To note that this
species has never been handled in our laboratory so that an eventual
environmental contamination during the workows can be excluded.
In IBPs, labeled as A. diaperinus (n =17), sequences assigned to the
expected species were the most represented in all the cases, with per-
centages ranging from 99.97 % to 100.00 % (Table SM-1). Interestingly,
sequences assigned to mammal species (Sus scrofa and Bos taurus) were
also found in IBP-35, although in low percentages (0.05 %). However,
since the used primer pair was specically designed for insects (Hillinger
et al., 2023), the observed percentage of mammal sequences was
probably underestimated. Indeed, the IBP-35 was included in the cate-
gory “meat product”, so that the presence of mammals in the ingredients
could have been not excluded, even though no indication of pork and
beef meat was reported in the ingredient list.
In the case of the unique L. migratoria IBP (IBP-31)85.06 % of the
sequences were assigned to the expected species, but a considerable
percentage of sequences (14.11 %) were also assigned to A. domesticus.
Finally, sequences of the expected species (T. molitor) were pre-
dominant in all the IBPs labeled as T. molitor (n =8), with percentages
ranging from 90.73 % to 99.96 % (Table SM-1). To note,sequences
assigned to the insect pests Plodia interpunctella and Cryptolestes pusillus
were found in IBP-8 and IBP-9, respectively, in which larval stages of
common insect pests were found and removed (section 2.2.1).. Other
than in the visible contaminated products, sequences assigned to other
insect pest species (Dermester ater, Amyelois transitella, Bruchus pisorum,
and Sitophylus oryzae) were also found in ten out of the 45 analyzed IBPs
(22.2 %). Details about the pest species found in the IBPs are reported in
Table SM-2.
Finally, A. mellifera was found to be highly predominant in all the six
extraction positive controls, with percentages ranging from 99.89 % to
100 % (Table 2). In these samples, sequences not assigned to the ex-
pected species belonged to contaminant DNA that presumably origi-
nated from cross-contamination with IBPs during the extraction. Indeed,
the contaminant species was in most cases the species declared on the
label of the IBPs of the relative extraction group (Table 2).
3.4.3. Threshold denition and data ltering. The rst thresholds
considered to lter the IBPs data according to the extraction group are
reported in Table 2, ranging from 0.00 % (EXT-2) to 0.09 % (EXT-3).
They resulted rather low, so that, with few exceptions, the IBPs taxo-
nomic patterns before and after the data ltering appeared quite similar
(Table SM-1).
The use of positive controls to establish a sequence threshold below
which a detected organism may be considered a contaminant (false
positive) is a well-recognized and recommended practice in meta-
barcoding analysis (Giusti et al., 2023b;Piper et al., 2019). A systematic
review on metabarcoding applied to the authentication of foodstuff of
animal origin reported that only 13 % of the analyzed studies included
positive controls (Giusti et al., 2024). Moreover, it was observed that
only 26.1 % of the studies ltered the data using thresholds, which were
mostly of 1 % or 2 % (Giusti et al., 2024). It should be underlined that
studies applying metabarcoding to the species identication of insects
usually reported lower thresholds to lter the data. For instance,
Elbrecht et al. (2016) reported a value of 0.003 %, while Marquina et al.
(2019a)of 0.4 %. However, since these studies analyzed environmental
samples, such “permissive” thresholds were needed. Indeed, environ-
mental samples typically contain hundreds of specimens of phyloge-
netically different taxa (Elbrecht et al., 2016), and all should be
detected. Contrariwise, in studies aimed at food product authentication,
the effective removal of organisms other than the product ingredients
could make it necessary to resort to higher thresholds. If the 1 %
threshold is applied to data of the present study, sequences that should
be probably interpreted as false positives are removed. Among them,
sequences of pest insect species D. ater, A. transitella, C. pusillus P.
interpunctella B. pisorum, and S. oryzae (see section 3.6) or sequences
from A. mellifera, which is the extraction positive control (Table SM-1).
Data ltered according to the 1 % threshold are reported in Fig. 1 and
Table 3, and they can be interpreted as reecting the IBPs species
composition.
Sequences assigned to the species found in IBPs and extraction pos-
itive controls were also found in the procedural blanks, but in a very low
number (few tens). We therefore considered this data unable to affect
the IBPs authentication results. Actually, despite all the precautions to
avoid environmental and cross-contaminations, a certain amount of
contaminant DNA in the procedural blanks is unavoidable, as it can
occur at any stage of the metabarcoding process, through contamination
from environmental or laboratory sources (e.g., due to aerosolization
and subsequent contamination of gloves, pipetting devices, laboratory
surfaces, etc., in addition to reagents) (Alberdi et al., 2019; Drake et al.,
2022; Jusino et al., 2019).
3.5. Label comparison and mislabeling evaluation
3.5.1. Overall. Based on data ltering by applying the selected
thresholds (section 3.4.2), 15 out of the 45 sequenced IBPs were found
mislabeled. Therefore, the overall mislabeling rate was 33.3 %, (95 % CI
32.0–34.6) (Table 3). To underline, however, that this percentage was
inuenced by the insect species and the e-commerce platform. Indeed,
most of the mislabeled IBPs (n =11; 73.3 % of the mislabeling cases)
Table 2
Results obtained from positive controls of each extraction group and rst
thresholds used to lter the data.
Extraction
group
sequences
(%)
Extraction group ltering
threshold (%)
EXT-1 Apis mellifera 99.97 ≤0.02
NA 0.02
Acheta
domesticus
0.01
EXT-2 Apis mellifera 100 0
EXT-3 Apis mellifera 99.89 ≤0.09
Alphitobius
diaperinus
0.09
EXT-4 Apis mellifera 99.95 ≤0.05
Alphitobius
diaperinus
0.05
EXT-5 Apis mellifera 99.98 ≤0.02
NA 0.02
EXT-6 Apis mellifera 99.98 ≤0.02
NA 0.02
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
6
were found in IBPs labeled as A. domesticus, followed by A. diaperinus (n
=2; 13.3 %), L. migratoria (n =1; 6.7 %) and T. molitor (n =1; 6.7 %).
Mislabeling cases divided for each species are reported in the following
sections. The higher number of mislabeled IBPs was observed in e-CO4
(n =6/12; 50.0 %) and e-CO6 (n =5/8; 62.5 %), which were the most
sampled (see section 3.1). e-CO-9 has a high rate of IBPs with mis-
labeling as well, probably related to the only two IBP analyzed from this
platform. However, six e-commerce platforms out of nine (~67 %) sold
mislabeled IBPs. Further details about distribution of mislabeling cases
across species and e- commerce platforms are reported in Fig. 2 and
Table 4. As a novel and largely under-researched food product, risk
assessment into the vulnerability of insect products to adulteration is
almost non-existent (Traynor et al., 2024). According to a recent review,
no published study was found which investigated the potential fraud in
edible insect food supply chains (Traynor et al., 2024). Actually, we
found that cases of mislabeling are reported in products made of whole
insects sold for human consumption in the EU market (Siozios et al.,
2020). However, in that study, the detected mislabeling cases were not
linked to species used in currently authorized IBPs (Siozios et al., 2020).
Contrariwise, no mislabeling cases in insects sold for human consump-
tion in the EU market were detected in the other two available studies on
this topic (Hillinger et al., 2023; (Kim et al., 2019). Therefore, other than
conrming e-commerce as an important way of distribution of not
authorized Novel Food on EU market, as previously suggested by
DGSANTE (2019), our results highlighted for the rst-time mislabeling
cases in processed not whole IBPs authorized in the EU.
3.5.2 Mislabeling in IBPs labeled as A. domesticus. Mislabeling cases
were found in 57.9 % (11 out of 19) of the IBPs labeled as A. domesticus.
They were especially linked to the presence of G. locorojo or other Gryllus
spp. together with the declared species. This type of mislabeling
involved almost all the mislabeled IBPs of A. domesticus (n =10; 90.9 %).
According to the literature, G. locorojo has been considered one of the
crickets species reared to produce food and feed, together with
A. domesticus, Gryllodes sigillatus, Gryllus assimilis, and G. bimaculatus
(Ortiz et al., 2016; Govorushko, 2019). G. locorojo was rst described in
2012, both morphologically and molecularly, through the analysis of the
16S rRNA gene (Weismann et al., 2012). However, in that context, no
reference sequences were deposited on ofcial databases. Indeed, in our
study, reads/ASV were assigned to G. locorojo based on six sequences
(GenBank accession number OQ379913-19) produced in another un-
published study, which were the only available for this species. Weiss-
man et al. (2012) observed that many commercial breeders in Europe
claim to sell G. assimilis, but they were selling G. locorojo, which was
probably imported into Europe from South America in the late 1970
′
s or
1990
′
s. To note that, since epizootic A. domesticus Densovirus (AdDNV)
outbreaks devasted the U.S. cricket industry in 2009 (Pham et al., 2013;
Weismann et al., 2012), G. locorojo, presumably virus-resistant, has been
introduced as an alternative (Pham et al., 2013; Weismann et al., 2012).
Therefore, even though G. locorojo was detected as substitute species of
G. assimilis only in the pet-food industry (Weismann et al., 2012), our
results could suggest its usage also for food production. In our opinion,
two different scenarios would be possible: i) some FBOs involved into
the farming and production of cricket powder also use G. lojorojo even
though this latter one is not authorized to be placed on EU market as
food, ii) FBOs are persuaded to use G. assimilis but they are uncon-
sciously rearing and producing powder with G. lojorojo. In any case
neither G. assimilis nor G. locorojo powders are actually authorized as
Novel Food in the EU.
In the remaining mislabeled IBP of this group (IBP-18), sequences
assigned to A. diaperinus were found in very high percentage (92.31 %)
respect to those assigned to the declared A. domesticus (5.41 %). This can
be considered an evident replacement of A. domesticus with
A. diaperinus. Furthermore, IBPs of the same typology labeled as
A. domesticus and A. diaperinus, were sold at the same price on the e-
commerce platform involved (e-CO5). These facts could suggest that
during the production process a replacement of A. domesticus with
A. diaperinus may have occurred involuntarily. However, the risk of
commercial fraud must be taken into account, also considering that
powder of A. diaperinus larvae sale price was around 15,000
€
per ton of
product, rather than sales prices for A. domesticus range from
€
18,182 to
€
84,590 per ton of product (Niyonsaba et al., 2021).
3.5.3 Mislabeling in IBPs labeled as A. diaperinus. The only one case of
mislabeling observed for this group (IBP-35) (mislabeling rate 5.9 %)
was related to the presence of undeclared S. scrofa and B. taurus in a
product described as sausages made of insects (A. diaperinus) and
poultry. To deepen this aspect, 16S rRNA complete sequences of the
species S. scrofa, B. taurus and G. gallus (20 sequences for each species)
were retrieved on GenBank and aligned with the used primer pair (Fwd-
I-3 and Rev-I-1). As a matter of fact, in silico testing may not always
reect the real primer amplication performance. However, it can be
used to speculate primers capability in amplifying the molecular target.
As expected, also considering the high degree of conservation of 16S
rRNA gene (Armani et al., 2016) a low number of mismatching bp (one
to three) was observed in both Fwd-I-3 and Rev-I-1. This could have
allowed the amplication of S. scrofa and B. taurus from the IBPs. In the
case of poultry (G. gallus) the amplication failing could have been
Fig. 1. Sequence composition of the analyzed IBPs, after the data ltering by applying 1% threshold. Each histogram represents the percentage of sequence assigned
to different insect species for each IBP.
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
7
related to the two near mismatching bp at the 3
′
position of the Rev-I-1
(Armani et al., 2016).
The low rate of mislabeling found in IBPs labeled as A. diaperinus,
could be due to the fact that these IBPs were recently authorized (CIR EU
2023/58). Moreover, A. diaperinus is less expensive than other insect
species, such as A. domesticus (Niyonsaba et al., 2021). Indeed, even
though the average protein content and nutritional value of A. diaperinus
is generally considered one of the highest (Rumbos et al., 2019), this
species is also a certain pest of stored food and chicken facilities
(Rumbos et al., 2019). Moreover, it is a vector of foodborne pathogens
such as Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. (Barua et al., 2023;
Rumbos et al., 2019) possibly posing a higher safety risk for consumers,
especially when good hygiene practices were not correctly applied. For
all the above-mentioned reasons, in a context of fraudulent sub-
stitutions, A. diaperinus could be thought as the “substituent” rather than
the “substituted” species.
3.5.4 Mislabeling in IBPs labeled as L. migratoria. A mislabeling case
related to the presence of a considerable number of sequences assigned
to A. domesticus was observed in the unique IBP labeled as L. migratoria
(IBP-31) (mislabeling rate 100 %). In both species, the protein content is
high and technological properties are widely studied (Acosta-Estrada
et al., 2021; Clarkson et al., 2018; Mohamed, 2015;), resulting that both
L. migratoria and A. domesticus can be considered of high commercial
value. However, IBPs made with L. migratoria have higher sales price
than IBPs made with the other species, even within the same food
category (Pippinato et al., 2020). For instance, Pippinato et al (2020)
reported a price of 49.5
€
for 100 g of L. migratoria powder, against 12.8
€
for 100 g of A. domesticus powder. In addition, in a previous study
(Spatola et al., 2024) we noticed that the price of 1Kg of L. migratoria
powder varied from 378.00
€
to 905.30
€
(depending on the seller),
costing around the double of 1 Kg of A. domesticus powder sold by the
Table 3
Comparison between label declaration and metabarcoding. [a]: this IBP was not
considered mislabeled since P. interpunctella was a pest; [b]: This IBP was
considered mislabeled, since, although sequence assigned to S. scrofa e B. taurus
were found in percentage below the 1% the presence of these species was not
declared.
Declared
species
Sample Category e-CO Species ID mislabeling
A. domesticus IBP-6 Bakery
product
e-
CO4
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-7 Bakery
product
e-
CO4
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-15 Snack e-
CO2
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-16 Snack e-
CO2
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-26 Snack e-
CO6
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-27 Snack e-
CO6
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-28 Pasta e-
CO6
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, G.
bimaculatus
YES
A. domesticus IBP-34 Bakery
product
e-
CO2
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-45 Pasta e-
CO4
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-46 Pasta e-
CO4
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-1 Powder e-
CO2
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-12 Powder e-
CO4
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-18 Chocolate
product
e-
CO5
A. diaperinus, A.
domesticus, G.
locorojo
YES
A. domesticus IBP-20 Protein
product
e-
CO6
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-21 Protein
product
e-
CO6
A. domesticus, G.
locorojo, Gryllus
sp.
YES
A. domesticus IBP-22 Protein
product
e-
CO6
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-23 Protein
product
e-
CO6
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-24 Protein
product
e-
CO6
NS NS
A. domesticus IBP-25 Protein
product
e-
CO6
A. domesticus NO
A. domesticus IBP-29 Powder e-
CO7
A. domesticus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-8 Protein
product
e-
CO8
A. diaperinus, P.
interpunctella
NO
[a]
A. diaperinus IBP-9 Protein
product
e-
CO8
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-10 Protein
product
e-
CO8
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-11 Bakery
product
e-
CO4
A. diaperinus, A.
domesticus
YES
A. diaperinus IBP-17 Bakery
product
e-
CO5
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-19 Chocolate
product
e-
CO5
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-30 Powder e-
CO7
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-35 Meat
product
e-
CO9
A. diaperinus
(S. scrofa, B.
taurus)
YES
[b]
Table 3 (continued )
Declared
species
Sample Category e-CO Species ID mislabeling
A. diaperinus IBP-36 Pasta e-
CO8
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-37 Pasta e-
CO8
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-13 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-39 Powder eCO9 A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-40 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-41 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-42 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-43 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
A. diaperinus IBP-44 Premix e-
CO4
A. diaperinus NO
L. migratoria IBP-31 Powder e-
CO7
L. migratoria, A.
domesticus
YES
T. molitor IBP-2 Snacks e-
CO1
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-3 Cookies e-
CO1
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-4 Snacks e-
CO1
T. molitor, A.
diaperinus, L.
migratoria
YES
T. molitor IBP-5 Powder e-
CO1
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-14 Powder e-
CO2
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-32 Bakery
product
e-
CO3
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-33 Bakery
product
e-
CO3
T. molitor NO
T. molitor IBP-38 Bakery
product
e-
CO1
T. molitor NO
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
8
same e-commerce platform. For all these reasons, a voluntary partial
replacement of L. migratoria with A. domesticus was hypothesized in our
previous study, being economically protable. However, more data are
required for IBPs of this species.
3.5.5 Mislabeling in IBPs labeled as T. molitor: Only one IBP (IBP-4)
(mislabeling rate 12.5 %) was found mislabeled for the co-presence of
A. diaperinus and L. migratoria (Table 1). It is difcult to see any eco-
nomic advantage in replacing T. molitor with L. migratoria, being the
price of L. migratoria from 2.9 to 4 times higher than the price of
T. molitor, according to Pippinato et al (2020) and Spatola et al. (2024),
respectively. Instead, regarding A. diaperinus, fraudulent partially sub-
stitution could be a valuable hypothesis. Indeed, A. diaperinus powder is
averagely cheaper than T. molitor powder (Pippinato et al., 2020) and
different studies suggest that their nutritional composition are quite
similar (Van Broekhoven et al., 2015). However, A. diaperinus, being a
pest (Rumbos et al., 2019), has a faster reproductive cycle than T. molitor
(Kureˇ
cka et al., 2021), which contributes to the reduction in production
costs in terms of yield per mass (Herdeiro et al., 2024). Additionally,
even though separate production lines have been set up in Netherlands,
previously, to facilitate the production for human consumption,
T. molitor and A. diaperinus were commonly reared on the same mixed-
grain substrate (Van Broekhoven et al., 2015). Therefore, the presence
of A. diaperinus could depend on this production strategy.
4. Conclusions
Metabarcoding was proved effective in authenticating different
kinds of IBPs. The used 200 bp 16S rRNA target region allowed to
identify at the species level almost all the obtained sequences. For the
rst time, mislabeling rate was assessed in processed IBPs authorized to
be sold in the EU market. An overall mislabeling rate of 33.3 % (was
observed, although this percentage was inuenced by the e-commerce
platform and the species considered.. Given the type of mislabeling
cases, i. e. the use of insect species not authorized in the EU and/or the
partial replacement of high value species with lower value species, the
possibility of facing voluntary deceptive practices cannot be excluded.
These ndings can enlarge the still limited knowledge on the fraud
occurrence in these products. Indeed, being IBPs considered Novel
Foods and therefore still occupying a limited market share, they are
probably less investigated with respect to other foods and, consequently,
mislabeled IBPs may more easily enter the market. This study conrms
e-commerce as particularly vulnerable to fraudulent activities. Howev-
er, more data is needed to better depict the scenario. Finally, the method
validation is crucial to be used as support for ofcial controls and FBO’s
self-controls. Indeed, an increased efciency and effectiveness of con-
trols in this products may contribute to boost EU citizens’ condence in
consuming edible insects.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Alice Giusti: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
Gabriele Spatola: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal anal-
ysis, Data curation. Simone Mancini: Writing – review & editing,
Formal analysis. Roberta Nuvoloni: Investigation. Andrea Armani:
Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition,
Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
Fig. 2. Mislabeled IBPs according to the labeled species and the e-commerce platform (e-CO).
Table 4
Mislabeled IBPs with relative distribution respect to the declared species and the e-commerce platform (e-CO).
e-CO Declared species Mislabeledfor e-CO
(%)
A. domesticus T. molitor A. diaperinus L. migratoria
mislabeled n. IBPs mislabeled n. IBPs mislabeled n. IBPs mislabeled n. IBPs
e-CO1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 20.0
e-CO2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
e-CO3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
e-CO4 5 5 0 0 1 7 0 0 50.0
e-CO5 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 33.3
e-CO6 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5
e-CO7 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 33.3
e-CO8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0.0
e-CO9 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 50.0
TOT 11 19 1 8 1 17 1 1 33.3
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
9
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the University of Pisa under the “PRA –
Progetti di Ricerca di Ateneo” (Institutional Research Grants) - Project
no.13 PRA_2022-2023_“Next Generation Sequencing per la valutazione
del rischio in food e feed a base di insetti (NGS-Ins)”. Progetto Eccellenza
“Open Science in Co-Creative Animal Research” OSCAR.
Authors wish to thank Prof. Antonio Felicioli for providing Apis
mellifera specimens and Prof. Maurizio Mazzei for his support in data
analysis.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114268.
References
Acosta-Estrada, B. A., Reyes, A., Rosell, C. M., Rodrigo, D., & Ibarra-Herrera, C. C.
(2021). Benets and challenges in the incorporation of Insects in food products.
Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, Article 687712. https://doi.org/10.3389/
FNUT.2021.687712/BIBTEX
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Bohmann, K., Gopalakrishnan, S., Lynggaard, C., Nielsen, M., &
Gilbert, M. T. P. (2019). Promises and pitfalls of using high-throughput sequencing
for diet analysis. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(2), 327–348. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1755-0998.12960
Armani, A., Giusti, A., Guardone, L., Castigliego, L., Gianfaldoni, D., & Guidi, A. (2016).
Universal primers used for species identication of foodstuff of animal origin: Effects
of oligonucleotide tails on PCR amplication and sequencing performance. Food
Analytical Methods, 9, 1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-015-0301-9
Armstrong, K. (2010). DNA barcoding: A new module in New Zealand’s plant biosecurity
diagnostic toolbox. EPPO Bull, 40, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2338.2009.02358
Barua, S., Bailey, M., Zhong, K., Iduu, N., Dormitorio, T., Macklin, K., & Wang, C. (2023).
Research note: Role of darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus) and litter in
spreading and maintaining Salmonella enteritidis and campylobacter jejuni in
chicken ocks. Poultry Science, 102(11), Article 103061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psj.2023.103061
Boukid, F., Sogari, G., & Rosell, C. M. (2023). Edible insects as foods: Mapping scientic
publications and product launches in the global market (1996–2021). Journal of
Insects as Food and Feed, 9(3), 353–368.
Callahan, B., McMurdie, P., Rosen, M., et al. (2016). DADA2: High-resolution sample
inference from illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods, 13, 581–583. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nmeth.3869
Clarke, L. J., Soubrier, J., Weyrich, L. S., & Cooper, A. (2014). Environmental
metabarcodes for insects: In silico PCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias.
Molecular Ecology Resources, 14(6), 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-
0998.12265
Clarkson, C., Mirosa, M., & Birch, J. (2018). Potential of extracted locusta migratoria
protein fractions as value-added ingredients. Insects, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/
insects9010020
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 (Text with EEA relevance); C/2021/7987; OJ L 402, 15.11.2021, p.
10–16.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/882 of 1 June 2021 authorising the
placing on the market of dried 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 (Text with EEA
relevance); C/2021/3744; OJ L 194, 2.6.2021, p. 16–20.
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 (Text with EEA relevance); C/2022/658; OJ L 28,
9.2.2022, p. 10–16.
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
(Text with EEA relevance); C/2022/695; OJ L 30, 11.2.2022, p. 108–113.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/5 of 3 January 2023 authorising the
placing on the market of Acheta domesticus (house cricket) partially defatted
powder as a novel food and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470
(Text with EEA relevance); C/2023/6; OJ L 2, 4.1.2023, p. 9–14.
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 (Text with EEA relevance); C/2023/20; OJ L 5,
6.1.2023, p. 10–15.
Deagle, B. E., Jarman, S. N., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2014). DNA
metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: Not a perfect match.
Biology Letters, 10(9), 20140562. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0562
Drake, L. E., Cuff, J. P., Young, R. E., Marchbank, A., Chadwick, E. A., &
Symondson, W. O. (2022). An assessment ofminimum sequence copy thresholds for
identifying and reducing the prevalence of artefacts in dietary metabarcoding data.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13(3), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-
210X.13780
Elbrecht V, Taberlet P, Dejean T, Valentini A, Usseglio-Polatera P, Beisel J, Coissac E,
Boyer F, Leese F. (2016). Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA
metabarcoding of insects. PeerJ 4, Article e1966. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1966.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DGSANTE),
2019. Ofcial controls on internet sales of food in EU Member States – Overview
report, Publications Ofce. Retrivied from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2772/
57153.
European Commission. (2018). Food fraud: What does it mean? European Commission.
Retrivied from https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/eu-agri-foodfraud-network/what-
does-it-mean_en.
Fernandes, T. J., Amaral, J. S., & Mafra, I. (2021). DNA barcode markers applied to
seafood authentication: An updated review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 61(22), 3904–3935. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1811200
Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2021). Looking at edible
insects from a food safety perspective. Rome. DOI: 10.4060/cb4094en.
Galimberti, A., Sandionigi, A., Bruno, A., Bellati, A., & Casiraghi, M. (2015). DNA
barcoding in mammals: What’s new and where next? Hystrix, 26(1), 13. https://doi.
org/10.4404/hystrix-26.1-11347
Giusti, A., Malloggi, C., Lonzi, V., Forzano, R., Meneghetti, B., Solimeo, A., … Armani, A.
(2023b). Metabarcoding for the authentication of complex seafood products: The
sh burger case. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 123, Article 105559.
Giusti, A., Malloggi, C., Magagna, G., Filipello, V., & Armani, A. (2024). Is the
metabarcoding ripe enough to be applied to the authentication of foodstuff of animal
origin? A systematic review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13256
Giusti, A., Malloggi, C., Tinacci, L., Nucera, D., & Armani, A. (2023a). Mislabeling in
seafood products sold on the Italian market: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Food Control, 145, Article 109395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.109395
Govorushko, S. (2019). Global status of insects as food and feed source: A review. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 91, 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2019.07.032
Haynes, E., Jimenez, E., Pardo, M. A., & Helyar, S. J. (2019). The future of NGS (next
generation sequencing) analysis in testing food authenticity. Food Control, 101,
134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.02.010
Hellberg, R. S., Hernandez, B. C., & Hernandez, E. L. (2017). Identication of meat and
poultry species in food products using DNA barcoding. Food Control, 80, 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.04.025
Herdeiro, F. M., Carvalho, M. O., Nunes, M. C., & Raymundo, A. (2024). Development of
healthy snacks incorporating meal from Tenebrio molitor and Alphitobius diaperinus
using 3D printing technology. Foods, 13(2), 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods13020179
Hillinger, S., Saeckler, J., Domig, K. J., Dobrovolny, S., & Hochegger, R. (2023).
Development of a DNA Metabarcoding method for the identication of Insects in
food. Foods, 12(5), 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12051086
Hodgetts, J., Ostoj´
a-Starzewski, J. C., Prior, T., Lawson, R., Hall, J., & Boonham, N.
(2016). DNA barcoding for biosecurity: Case studies from the UK plant protection
program. Genome, 59(11), 1033–1048. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2016-0010
Jusino, M. A., Banik, M. T., Palmer, J. M., Wray, A. K., Xiao, L., Pelton, E., Barber, J. R.,
Kawahara, A. Y., Gratton, C., Peery, M. Z., & Lindner, D. L. (2019). An improved
method for utilizing high-throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of
insectivorous animals. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(1), 176–190. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1755-0998.12951
Kornher, L., Schellhorn, M., & Vetter, S. (2019). Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer
Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany. Sustainability 2019,
Vol. 11, Page 1878, 11(7), 1878. DOI: 10.3390/SU11071878.
Kim, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Jung, S. K., Kim, M. Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2019). Development and
validation of ultrafast PCR assays to detect six species of edible insects. Food Control,
103, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.03.039.
Kureˇ
cka, M., Kulma, M., Petˇ
ríˇ
ckov´
a, D., Plachý, V., & Kouˇ
rimsk´
a, L. (2021). Larvae and
pupae of Alphitobius diaperinus as promising protein alternatives. European Food
Research and Technology, 247, 2527–2532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-
03807-w
La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., & Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding westerners’
disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations.
Food Quality and Preference, 64, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODQUAL.2017.10.002
Lombardi, A., Vecchio, R., Borrello, M., Caracciolo, F., & Cembalo, L. (2019). Willingness
to pay for insect-based food: The role of information and carrier. Food Quality and
Preference, 72, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.001
A. Giusti et al.
Food Research International 184 (2024) 114268
10
Mancini, S., Sogari, G., Diaz, S. E., Menozzi, D., Paci, G., & Moruzzo, R. (2022). Exploring
the Future of Edible Insects in Europe. Foods 2022, Vol. 11, Page 455, 11(3), 455.
DOI: 10.3390/FOODS11030455.
Mancini, S., Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., Nuvoloni, R., Torracca, B., Moruzzo, R., & Paci, G.
(2019a). Factors Predicting the Intention of Eating an Insect-Based Product. Foods
2019, Vol. 8, Page 270, 8(7), 270. DOI: 10.3390/FOODS8070270.
Martoni F, Piper AM, Rodoni BC, Blacket MJ. 2022. Disentangling bias for non-
destructive insect metabarcoding. PeerJ 10, Article e12981 DOI: 10.7717/
peerj.12981.
Marquina, D., Andersson, A. F., & Ronquist, F. (2019b). New mitochondrial primers for
metabarcoding of insects, designed and evaluated using in silico methods. Molecular
Ecology Resources, 19(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12942
Marquina, D., Esparza-Salas, R., Roslin, T., & Ronquist, F. (2019a). Establishing
arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies
between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from malaise trap
catches. Molecular ecology resources, 19(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1755-0998.13071
McKenzie, F. C., & Williams, J. (2015). Sustainable food production: constraints,
challenges and choices by 2050. Food Sec, 7, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.100
7/s12571-015-0441-1.
Mohamed, E. H. (2015). Determination of nutritive value of the edible migratory locust
locusta migratoria, linnaeus, 1758 (orthoptera: Acrididae). International Journal of
Advances In Pharmacy, Biology And Chemistry, 4(1), 746–750.
Morin, J. F., & Lees, M. (2018). Food Integrity handbook A Guide to food authenticity
issues and analytical solutions. Eurons Analytics France, Tea & avoured tea
(Chapter 18) DOI: 10.32741/hb.
Nadeau, L., Nadeau, I., Franklin, F., & Dunkel, F. (2015). The potential for entomophagy
to address undernutrition. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 54(3), 200–208. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03670244.2014.930032
Nehal, N., Choudhary, B., Nagpure, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2021). DNA barcoding: A modern
age tool for detection of adulteration in food. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 41(5),
767–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2021.1874279
Niyonsaba, H. H., H¨
ohler, J., Kooistra, J., Van der Fels-Klerx, H. J., &
Meuwissen, M. P. M. (2021). Protability of insect farms. Journal of Insects as Food
and Feed, 7(5), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0087
Oonincx, D. G., & De Boer, I. J. (2012). Environmental impact of the production of
mealworms as a protein source for humans–a life cycle assessment. Article e51145
PloS one, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051145.
Ortiz, J. C., Ruiz, A. T., Morales-Ramos, J. A., Thomas, M., Rojas, M. G., Tomberlin, J. K.,
& Jullien, R. L. (2016). In Insect mass production technologies (pp. 153–201).
Academic Press.
Payne, C. L. R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., & Nonaka, K. (2016). Are edible insects
more or less ‘healthy’ than commonly consumed meats? A comparison using two
nutrient proling models developed to combat over-and undernutrition. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70(3), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2015.149
Pham, H. T., Iwao, H., Szelei, J., Li, Y., Liu, K., Bergoin, M., & Tijssen, P. (2013).
Comparative genomic analysis of Acheta domesticus densovirus isolates from
different outbreaks in Europe, North America, and Japan. Genome Announcements, 1
(4), 10–1128. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomea.00629-13
Piper, A. M., Batovska, J., Cogan, N. O., Weiss, J., Cunningham, J. P., Rodoni, B. C., &
Blacket, M. J. (2019). Prospects and challenges of implementing DNA
metabarcoding for high-throughput insect surveillance. GigaScience, 8(8). https://
doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz092
Pippinato, L., Gasco, L., Di Vita, G., & Mancuso, T. (2020). Current scenario in the
european edible-insect industry: A preliminary study. Journal of Insects as Food and
Feed, 6(4), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0008
Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
November 2015 on novel foods (NFR); OJ L 327, 11.12.2015, p. 1–22.
Remmel, N., Buchner, D., Enss, J., Hartung, V., Leese, F., Welti, E. A., & Haase, P. (2024).
DNA metabarcoding and morphological identication reveal similar richness,
taxonomic composition and body size patterns among ying insect communities.
Insect Conservation and Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12710
Rumbos, C. I., Karapanagiotidis, I. T., Mente, E., & Athanassiou, C. G. (2019). The lesser
mealworm Alphitobius diaperinus: A noxious pest or a promising nutrient source?
Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(4), 1418–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12300
Siozios S, Massa A, Parr CL, Verspoor RL, Hurst GDD (2020). DNA barcoding reveals
incorrect labelling of insects sold as food in the UK. PeerJ, 8, Article e8496 DOI:
10.7717/peerj.8496.
Sogari, G., Liu, A., & Li, J. (2019). Understanding edible insects as food in Western and
Eastern societies. In Environmental, health, and business opportunities in the new
meat alternatives market (pp. 166-181). IGI Global.
Spatola, G., Giusti, A., Mancini, S., Tinacci, L., Nuvoloni, R., Fratini, F., … Armani, A.
(2024). Assessment of the information to consumers on insects-based products
(Novel Food) sold by e-commerce in the light of the EU legislation: When labelling
compliance becomes a matter of accuracy. Food Control, 110440.https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110440.
Scanlan, J. C., Grant, W. E., Hunter, D. M., & Milner, R. J. (2001). Habitat and
environmental factors inuencing the control of migratory locusts (Locusta
migratoria) with an entomopathogenic fungus (Metarhizium anisopliae). Ecological
Modelling, 136(2–3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00424-5
Traynor, A., Burns, D. T., Wu, D., et al. (2024). An analysis of emerging food safety and
fraud risks of novel insect proteins within complex supply chains. npj Sci Food, 8, 7.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-023-00241-y.
Tzompa-Sosa, D. A., Sogari, G., Copelotti, E., Andreani, G., Schouteten, J. J., Moruzzo, R.,
Liu, A., Li, J., & Mancini, S. (2023). What motivates consumers to accept whole and
processed mealworms in their diets? A ve-country study. Future Foods, 7, Article
100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUFO.2023.100225
Van Broekhoven, S., Oonincx, D. G., Van Huis, A., & Van Loon, J. J. (2015). Growth
performance and feed conversion efciency of three edible mealworm species
(coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on diets composed of organic by-products. Journal of
Insect Physiology, 73, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.12.005
Van Huis, A. (2020). Insects as food and feed, a new emerging agricultural sector: A
review. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 6(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.3920/
JIFF2019.0017
Van Huis, A., & Oonincx, D. G. A. B. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects
as food and feed A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S13593-017-0452-8/FIGURES/1
Van Peer, M., Frooninckx, L., Coudron, C., Berrens, S., ´
Alvarez, C., Deruytter, D., … Van
Miert, S. (2021). Valorisation potential of using organic side streams as feed for
Tenebrio molitor, Acheta domesticus and Locusta migratoria. Insects, 12(9), 796.
https://doi.org/10.3390/INSECTS12090796
Visciano, P., & Schirone, M. (2021). Food frauds: Global incidents and misleading
situations. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 114, 424–442. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.010
Watanabe, S., Masamura, N., Satoh, S. Y., & Hirao, T. (2023). Technique for the
identication of insect species in processed foods based on three short DNA
sequences. Food Control, 109908.
Weismann, D. B., Gray, D. A., Pham, H. T., & Tijssen, P. (2012). Billions and billions sold:
Pet-feeder crickets (orthoptera: Gryllidae), commercial cricket farms, an epizootic
densovirus, and government regulations make for a potential disaster. Zootaxa,
3504, 67–88. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3504.1.3
A. Giusti et al.