Using Food Waste to Rear Mealworms

IN

DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2017,

Rethinking Waste Streams:

Using Food Waste to Rear Mealworms

En omprovning av avfallsfloden: anvandning av matavfall till att odla mjolbaggar

ANDREEA TOCA

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Rethinking Waste Streams:

Using Food Waste to Rear Mealworms

En omprövning av avfallsflöden: användning av matavfall till att odla mjölbaggar

Andreea Toca

Degree Project in Environmental Strategies, Second Cycle

Rethinking Waste Streams: Using Food Waste to Rear Mealworms

En omprövning av avfallsflöden: användning av matavfall till att odla mjölbaggar Degree Project in Strategies for Sustainable Development, Second Cycle

AL250X, 30 credits Author: Andreea Toca Supervisor: Rebecka Milestad Examiner: Mattias Höjer

Division of Environmental Strategies Research (fms)

Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering
 School of Architecture and the Built Environment


KTH Royal Institute of Technology 


Summary in English

In needing to create a better and more sustainable future for our world, changing our diet and finding a sustainable ‘protein of the future’ is one of the necessary steps we must take. This thesis explores the relatively fresh, but not unheard of, concept of using food waste to rear mealworms for human consumption, in the Swedish context. It talks about why we should switch our protein source and how we can do it, by taking the reader step-by-step through the process of producing alternative proteins, and the various scales it can happen. The thesis is written from a waste management perspective and argues for viewing food waste as a resource, by utilising said resource to meet the demands of alternate systems (i.e.

growing alternative protein sources), thereby closing the loop. Interviews are combined with literature in

such a way that the two compliment each other to make up for missing information, as the subject matter

of using food waste to rear insects is still quite fresh and not discussed at great length in literature,

especially in the Swedish context. The overarching theoretical point of departure comes from Bill Mollison’s

and David Holmgren’s permaculture principles of design, which argues for a holistic view on production,

consumption, the environment and just generally how we choose to live our lives. The thesis recommends

that a good starting point in rearing insects with food waste, is through community initiatives and discusses

how this is possible to achieve. The author hopes that this thesis can be used as a guide, whether it is used

by a private individual, an interested group or community, or even municipal actors, to achieve a more

sustainable future, and help change the norm of our waste, going to waste.

Sammanfattning på svenska

För att skapa en bättre och mer hållbar framtid är en förändring i vår kost genom att hitta ett hållbart alternativt protein, ett av de nödvändiga stegen vi måste ta. I denna studie undersöks det relativt nya men inte helt okända konceptet att använda matavfall för att föda upp mjölmaskar för livsmedelskonsumtion, i en svensk kontext. Studien diskuterar varför vi bör ersätta vår nuvarande proteinkälla och hur vi kan göra det. Läsaren guidas steg för steg genom processen att producera alternativa proteiner och de olika skalor det kan göras i. Studien är skriven ur ett avfallshanteringsperspektiv och argumenterar för att matavfall ska ses som en resurs som kan användas för att möta efterfrågan på alternativa system (det vill säga alternativa proteinkällor) och därigenom sluta cirkeln. Intervjuer kombineras med litteratur och kompletterar på så sätt varandra och fyller i kunskapsluckor, eftersom ämnet att använda matavfall till uppfödning av insekter fortfarande är relativt nytt och inte diskuteras i särskilt stor utsträckning i litteraturen, särskilt inte i Sverige.

Den övergripande teoretiska utgångspunkten kommer från Bill Mollisons och David Holmgrens

permakulturprinciper, som argumenterar för en helhetssyn på produktion, konsumtion, miljö och i stort

hur vi väljer att leva våra liv. Studien rekommenderar att en bra utgångspunkt för uppfödning av insekter

med matavfall är genom samhällsinitiativ och den diskuterar hur detta kan uppnås. Författaren hoppas att

denna studie kan användas som en guide, oavsett om den används av en privatperson, en intressegrupp

eller till och med av kommunala aktörer, för att uppnå en mer hållbar framtid och bidra till att ändra synen

på vårt avfall, till att det ses som något mer än enbart avfall.


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Rebecka Milestad, for guiding me along and through this process

and for always coming back to me with straightforward and constructive criticism. Thanks to my friends

Charlotte and Stina for translating my summary into Swedish. I would also like to thank all the individuals

that took time out of their day to be interviewed by me and shared their vital knowledge and areas of

expertise with me. I was humbled by the grave interest and support that all have provided, especially the

insect community. Both Rebecka and the interviewees believed in me and my work and that was integral to

helping me stay motivated, so thank you!


Abbreviations

EAA

Essential amino acids

EU

European Union

DDGS

Dried distillers’ grains with solubles

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the UN)

FCR

Feed conversion ratio

FSC

Food supply chain

GHG

Greenhouse gas emissions

GWP

Global warming potential

MWh

Megawatt hour

UN

United Nations

UNU

United Nations University

WHO

World Health Organisation

Contents

Summary in English i

Sammanfattning på svenska ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abbreviations iv

Contents v

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Overall Aim and Specific Objectives 2

1.2 Research Questions 3

1.3 Methodological Approach 3

1.4 Theoretical Frameworks 7

1.4.1 The Permaculture Theory 8

1.4.2 The Waste Hierarchy Framework 11

1.4.3 Closed-Loop Systems and Life Cycle Thinking Frameworks 12

2 Findings: Food Waste Landscape 13

2.1 Food Waste and Food Insecurity 13

2.2 Food Surplus vs. Food Waste 15

2.2.1 Food Surplus 15

2.2.2 Food Waste 15

2.3 Swedish Food Waste 16

3 Findings: Insects 21

3.1 The Landscape Surrounding Entomophagy 21

3.2 Tenebrio molitor 25

3.2.1 Environmental Impacts 26

3.3 Rearing Tenebrio molitor 28

4 Analysis: Insects and Food Waste in Context 32

4.1 Food Waste for Insects 32

4.2 Scaling Up for The Royal Seaport 33

4.3 Scales of Applications 35

4.3.1 Small-Scale 36

4.3.2 Medium-Scale 36

4.3.3 Large-Scale 37

5.1 Challenges of the System 41

5.2 Opportunities and Potentials of the System 43

5.3 Conclusions 44

References 46

Figures and Images 46

Literature 47

Videos 49

Appendix I - Glossary 50

Appendix II - Supplementary Figures 52

1 Introduction

Humans have a peculiar relationship to food. We rely on it in order to survive, however, the busier we get and the more globalised our society becomes, the more distant our connection to food becomes, and the less we know about where it is grown or how it is produced. This phenomenon of how we produce our food (what came to be known as the agricultural revolution), has caused us to have an insecure food supply. The Oxford Dictionary defines food insecurity as “the state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food” (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). An insufficient supply isn’t so much about lacking quantity as it is about lacking access or money to be able to purchase food (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014).

Currently, we waste around 33% of the food that we produce, the majority of which is wasted in the consumption stage (the last stage) of the food supply chain, and most of the grains we produce aren’t even for human consumption; they either go to feed either livestock, or are used to create fuel (bioethanol) (Davis et al., 2016). Producing livestock not only accounts for 18% of global, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (van Huis et al., 2013), but they also require a lot of land and water use to grow. Available, arable land for food production is limited and growing scarcer, and expanding land for agriculture production only contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions (Oonicx and de Boer, 2012). Slowing down this expansion is a necessary push towards sustainable agriculture (ibid.). The agricultural sector is the leading consumer of water, and in the United States, 77% of all water use is from the agricultural sector (Davis et al., 2016). The expected increase in global population to 9 billion inhabitants by the year 2050 places increasing strain on the environment, including our water sources, our land use and therefore our food production system. “As the issue of global food security is becoming increasingly important in the local and global agendas, the reduction of food losses and waste throughout the [food supply chain], as well as alternative diets, are considered as a first step towards achieving food security” (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014: 109-110). Knowing all this, the question is, how can 9 billion individuals be fed a nutritionally sufficient diet while not destroying the planet?

That’s where insects come in! Insects have been eaten for thousands of years by humans, in various cultures, however they haven’t been very prominent in western cultures or diets (van Huis et al., 2013). Insects can offer a much needed environmental relief from livestock production, as they have been shown to emit less greenhouse gases, and require less resources (i.e. water, land and feed) to grow (Oonicx and de Boer, 2012) but are very nutritious as they are high in protein, fat, vitamins and minerals (Li et al., 2013). Due to these characteristics, they can be considered the ‘protein of the future’.

1

The starting point of this thesis was introduced by Maria Lennartsson of Stockholm Stad, who is working alongside the Centre for Sustainable Communications at KTH on a project titled “SPOC”, which is looking at the Royal Stockholm Seaport and their waste streams (including both food and water waste) and how they can be made better (i.e. more sustainable). This is where the idea and possibility of rearing insects for human consumption using food waste, came into play. The Royal Seaport is Stockholm’s largest development project which aims to be completed by 2030, with 12,000 new residences and 35,000 new workplaces. It also aims to be a model for sustainable urban planning and development (Stockholm Stad, 2017). In response, this thesis aims to tackle a rethink in the design of our current food and waste management system, to look at food waste as a resource and make the system cyclic rather than linear. This is not a new idea, as we can draw inspiration from nature: “this view of waste as a potential abundance can be seen everywhere in nature because over time any unused resources will, by system co-evolution, become the energy source for something else” (Holmgren, 2002: 112). Outputs that are not used are called

‘pollutants’ (Holmgren, 2002). This thesis not only aims to find a cyclic solution to food waste, but also aims to use all the outputs of a systems, whether in that system alone, or in the demands of another system. This thesis won’t explore ideas on how we should prevent food waste, although the author does believe this is the first and foremost option, as do many scholars and interviewee’s of this thesis (Holmgren, 2002; Interview 1;

Interview 4; Interview 7).

1.1 Overall Aim and Specific Objectives

The aim of this thesis is to produce a work that stems from a waste management perspective to rethink the

design of our current food and waste systems, in order to tighten or close the loop through the integration

of multiple systems. This thesis outlines how we can divert one resource stream to meet the demands of

another resource stream, with our starting off point being food waste, attempting to meet the demands of

our future protein needs. Thus, the objective is both to explore food waste as a resource for creating

alternative protein products and to explore insects as a protein source for human consumption. Further, the

author hopes that this thesis can be used to develop a guide for rearing mealworms, for the use of future

interested parties, be it, individuals, groups or communities, or even municipalities. This thesis tries to give

a concise view on the topics of food waste and insects, and what the environmental impacts currently are

surrounding these different resource streams. In combining these two resource streams, the scope is not to

compare the insect stream to other possible uses, but rather, to explore the feasibility and practicalities of

rearing insects on food waste and the positive effects of this. However it is impossible to include every

single aspect related to food waste and insects. Areas that are not mentioned are noted throughout the

thesis as being beyond the scope of this thesis. Although this thesis places more emphasis on the

environmental pillar of sustainability (as opposed to placing emphasis on economical and social as well), I

want it to be understood that no where in this thesis am I claiming that using food waste to rear insects for

human consumption is more sustainable than using food waste for different applications. This would be an

unsubstantiated claim, as my research has led me to no studies to support the theory. However I do believe that in order to have a sustainable future, we must employ multiple initiatives in order to achieve that future, and thus I am suggesting to use food waste to rear insects for human consumption as one of multiple ways we can tackle the issue of food waste and the issue of ‘protein of the future’, together at once.

The objectives to be identified in this thesis are as follows:

A. Defining types of food waste, why they occur and from where do they occur?

B. Define why insects are a suitable use for human consumption.

C. Identify the feasibility and practicalities of rearing insects with food waste at various scales.

D. Identify how joining two resource streams together achieves a more sustainable future and creates a closed-loop and/or pollutant-free system.

E. Identify the challenges, future opportunities and bottlenecks that can occur from joining these two resource streams together.

1.2 Research Questions

The topics of food waste and insects along with the aim, scope and objectives have led to the formulation of the following research questions;

1. Is it possible to get the food waste stream to meet the demands of the insect stream and create a closed-loop, pollutant-free system in the process? Is it possible for the insect stream to meet the demands of the food waste stream?

2. How does creating a closed-loop and/or pollutant-free food and protein system help the Royal Stockholm Seaport Area, and what does that say about larger contexts?

1.3 Methodological Approach

Multiple methods were utilised to gather a solid foundation of background information in order to be able to purpose answers to the research questions. Some sections of the thesis also includes calculations in order to make the concepts seem more realistic and feasible. It should be noted that all the methods utilised were done so to the best of my abilities and based on what resources and information I had at my disposal, at the time of writing.

LITERATURE AND VIDEOS

Literature in the form of books, articles (both scientific and in print), municipal publications and even videos were used to gather mostly quantitative, but at times also qualitative information. Literature was found both from recommendations from the SPOC project and the author’s thesis advisor, Rebecka Milestad, but the majority was found through the KTH Primo database. Key search words included;

‘insects’, ‘food waste’, ‘life cycle assessment food waste’, ‘mealworms’, ‘sustainability mealworms’, ‘life cycle

assessment mealworms’, etc. Literature on food waste was quite easily found, especially pertaining to a Swedish context, as this is of interest to the state and thus lots of organisations publish reports on food waste (i.e. Naturvårdsverket, Avfall Sverige, etc). Literature regarding insects was harder to come by, however. Despite this, lots of scientific studies and articles were found on heavily studied insects such as mealworms or solider flies, and thus the decision to focus on mealworms specifically for this thesis was a matter of not only the characteristics of the mealworms, themselves (this will be described later on in the thesis), but also due to a matter of available informational resources and research convenience. Not all video’s watched were entered into the reference list, as some video’s were used more as way to understand processes and precedents rather than a way to gather information. However, the same can be said for literature; many papers and studies were consulted, many of which said similar things or cited each other, but only those with more depth were cited and sourced in the reference list.

INTERVIEWS

Interviews were used in this thesis to gather both qualitative information as well as quantitative information. Semi-structured interviews, with open-ended, probing questions, were conducted to gather information as they provided the appropriate flexibility to ask and get answers to questions, while at the same time still keeping the flow of the discussion open (Saunders et al., 2012). While semi-structured interviews are mainly used to gather qualitative information (ibid.), sometimes quantitative questions were asked, for example, ‘What is the ratio between the amount of feed to amount of insects reared?’.

Interviewee’s backgrounds ranged from academia, to those in the biogas industry, those in the insect industry (including rearing, production of insect food and hobbyists), those familiar with the food waste landscape and those with societal perspectives on food and insects. This led to the grouping of interviewee’s based on their professional/hobbyist backgrounds, and thus the interview questions were similar for each background. However, generally each interview followed a structure of the following sort:

A. Overview of who the interviewee is/who they represent and what they do B. Specific questions pertaining to specific background

C. Thoughts and opinions on food waste and/or insect industry and the combination of both industries

D. Challenges/problem areas in their respective industry and where they see the future of that industry heading

E. Closing remarks

The majority of interviewees interviewed were in some way related to or had knowledge regarding insects, while there were not as many interviewees representing the food waste perspective , however this was also

necessary as there aren’t that many written perspectives about the insect industry in Sweden. In some instances, one interview led to another, as maybe one interviewee referred another knowledgeable individual. This is referred to as snowball sampling and although it is useful especially when it is difficult to

The author realises this is a self-imposed bias, however interviews about insects proved to be an easier way of extracting information

1

as opposed to reading literature, as not much literature currently exists, especially from the Swedish perspective.

identify subjects to interview (like in the case of this thesis, due to the relative newness of the insect industry in Sweden), it also presents a bias and a relatively homogenous sample as interviewees are more likely to refer others similar to themselves and their views, etc. (Saunders et al., 2012). All interviews were recorded through note taking along with audio-recording. Over the course of four weeks, a total of 13 interviews were conducted that you can find listed below in

. At times, follow up emails or phone calls were also held for reasons ranging from either clarification purposes to further discussion and/or feedback, and you can find these listed in

.

Interviewee Postion & Organisation Interview Date Method (Location) Reference

Background and Waste Interviews

Håkan Jönsson Professor at SLU Feb 23, 2017 in person (Uppsala) Interview 1 Erik Stenberg Co-founder of Rude

Food

Mar 1, 2017 phone interview Interview 2

Zeenath Hasan Lecturer at Linnaeus University and co- founder of Rude Food

Feb 24, 2017 phone interview Interview 3

Björn Vinnerås Professor at SLU Mar 1, 2017 phone interview Interview 4

Biogas Interviews

Michael Olausson Director Sweden and group VP at Scandinavian Biogas

Feb 21, 2017 in person (Stockholm) Interview 5

Natalie Lindkvist &

Gunnar Hagsköld

Informatör (Natlie) and process engineer (Gunnar) at VafabMiljö

Mar 2, 2017 in person (Västerås) Interview 6

Technical “how-to-do-it” Insect Interviews

Adam Engström Founder of Nutrient Feb 21, 2017 in person (Stockholm) Interview 7 Fredrik Davidsson Founder of Geoloc Feb 22, 2017 phone interview Interview 8 Insect Product Interviews

Nils Österström Founder of Tebrito AB Feb 15, 2017 phone interview Interview 9 Emma Aspholmer Co-founder of Hakuna

Mat

Feb 20, 2017 phone interview Interview 10

Societal Perspective Interviews

Anders Engström Founder of bugburger.se Feb 17, 2017 in person (Stockholm) Interview 11 Karin Wendin Professor at Högskolan

Kristianstad

Feb 22, 2017 phone interview Interview 12

Per Styregård Writer for Dagens Industri and food project

Feb 24, 2017 in person (Stockholm) Interview 13

TABLE 1 INTERVIEWS

TABLE 2 FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS

As the reader reads on, the unconventional structure of this thesis will become apparently. Due to the innovativeness of insect rearing here in Sweden, the author had to rely on the combination of both interviews and literature to paint a complete picture for this thesis, and thus in the ‘findings’ Sections (2 and 3) both literature and interviews are used together, side by side, to tell the complete story of what the food waste landscape and the insect rearing situation is like in Sweden. What one source lacks, the author hopes that the other makes up for it. Although different scales of insect rearing exist and interviews were conducted with individuals running both small and larger (i.e. industrial) scale operations, Section 3 only talks about the smallest scale. The lack of insect industry in Sweden presents a potential profit for those wishing to start in on this business, especially as the laws are about to change; it is a very exciting time for potential businesses as the markets are about to open. However, this also presents a problem in gathering information that can be shared in a platform, such as an academic thesis, as some operations and businesses have patents on their systems and/or require non-disclosure agreements. For that specific reason, large scale operations were not written about using perspectives from interviews, only from what was found in literature, and was manually scaled up by the author (see Section 4) to make it appear feasible. However, the scaled up calculations should be taken with a grain of salt, as they are included to make a potential context look possible, rather than to act as an accurate representation of a potential situation.

SITE VISITS

Being immersed in the sites of both the VafabMiljö biogas plant in Västerås and the Royal Stockholm Seaport area contributed to a better understanding of the processes and situations occurring at each location, and thus helped formulate this thesis in a more clear and concise manner. The biogas plant tour at VafabMiljö occurred on March 2

, 2017 in Västerås, followed by an interview with Natalie Lindkvist and Gunnar Hagsköld. The site visit to the Royal Stockholm Seaport occurred on March 14

, 2014 and was accompanied by a short presentation of the area and project plans given by Maria Lennartsson. The visit to the Royal Stockholm Seaport also included a stop outside a currently unused bunker space, which Maria Lennartsson, had originally thought of as being a potential site for the rearing of insects. The original ambitions for this thesis were to write about the rearing of insects with food and give it life by theoretically and visually placing it, at least for the time being, in this purposed bunker site. However, getting access to the site was an issue and the original ambitions were minimised. Unfortunately, this thesis does not provide

Interviewee Postion & Organisation Date Method Reference

Fredrik Davidsson Founder of Geoloc Mar 13, 2017 phone conversation Interview 14 Gunnar Hagsköld Process engineer at

VafabMiljö

Apr 7, 2017 &

May 25, 2017

email conversation Interview 15

Adam Engström Founder of Nutrient Mar 14, 2017 email conversation Interview 16

a specific, tangible location to envision this endeavour, but rather talks about this endeavour occurring within the Stockholm Royal Seaport, exact location unknown and to be determined and/or thought up by the reader.

and

shows photos of both sites.

1.4 Theoretical Frameworks

Over the course of doing research, various theoretical frameworks were read up on, consulted and considered, however the most overall encompassing theory is the theory of permaculture, a concept introduced by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in the late 1970’s, in Australia. The majority of this thesis is supported by thoughts that have emerged from this theory, or more specific concepts that have emerged as a result of this theory. Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 also discusses two of the most interesting and applicable concepts and/or frameworks that were taken into consideration apart from the permaculture theory, however the author views them as theories or frameworks that either belong within the permaculture concept or extend from it. Although permaculture is the overarching theory, the more specific frameworks of waste hierarchy and closed-loop systems/life cycle thinking are more directly and strongly applicable to the thesis. Much like the design guidelines of permaculture, which will be discussed later, the author views permaculture as a set of guidelines, that if incorporated, can achieve a holistic design of system. While on the other hand, waste hierarchy and closed-loop systems/life-cycle thinking work more specifically with the components that make up the design or system, in the case of this thesis, with food waste and insects. The author believes that permaculture works better when applied to a larger scale system, while waste hierarchy, closed-loop systems/life cycle thinking works well if applied to a specific component at any scale. The concepts and principles that are discussed below aren’t just only explicitly written about in this section, as they are too important and central to the topic, to not spill over into other sections and thus they can be found in other parts of this thesis as well.

FIGURE 1A LEFT: FOOD WASTE WAITING TO BE SORTED AT VAFABMILJÖ.

FIGURE 1B RIGHT: PHOTO OF INSIDE THE BUNKER SPACE AT THE ROYAL STOCKHOLM SEAPORT.

1.4.1 The Permaculture Theory

Permaculture can be taken literally to mean achieving a holistic, self-sufficient and sustainable agricultural system, however it is also more than that, as it can apply to everyday life. It envisions having consciously designed systems that emulate nature’s patterns and relationships while providing enough provisions (i.e.

food, fibre and energy) to meet local needs (Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture is not a science, but rather, “the use of systems thinking and design principles that provide the organising framework for implementing the above vision” (Holmgren, 2002: xix). The organising framework that Holmgren talks about consists of three ethical principles that extend out to seven domains, that Holmgren see’s as being essential in creating a sustainable culture (see

). The ethics are the guidelines and foundation of the design principles, which will be described later in this chapter, and which is what this thesis attempts to relate to.

Permaculture aims to holistically integrate utilitarian values while improving the long-term wellbeing of individuals. Permaculture stems from an ecological perspective rather than the economic perspective that dominates today’s modern society (ibid.).

ETHICS

At the central core of permaculture lies three ethical principles, which are “culturally evolved mechanisms” (Holmgren, 2002: 1) that regulate our self- interests, provide us with an inclusive view of ourselves, and guides us away from the bad and instead towards good outcomes (Holmgren, 2002). There are three overarching ethics that Holmgren (ibid.) discusses and they are; (1) caring for the earth, (2) caring for people and (3) setting limits to population and consumption.

Holmgren (ibid.) argues that both the second and third principles can be seen as coming from the first and that we should focus on learning from ancestors and cultures that have co-existed with their environment and

“survived for longer than any of our more recent experiments in civilisation” (Holmgren, 2002: 1).

Out of the three ethical principles, the author found the setting of limits to be the most interesting and applicable one to this thesis. Holmgren (2002) repeatedly writes and discusses throughout his permaculture manifesto the importance of recognising and acknowledging our limits, and it is the author’s understanding that the ethics of permaculture, and permaculture itself, is about staying within our limits. Holmgren (2002:

8) writes:

FIGURE 2 PERMACULTURE FLOWER, SHOWING THE THREE ETHICS IN THE MIDDLE AND THE SEVEN DOMAINS.

“A sense of limits comes from a mature understanding of the way the world works…Recognition of limits does not come from the experience of scarcity. Except in extreme famine and other natural disasters, scarcity is a culturally mediated reality; it is largely created by industrial economics and power, rather than actual physical limits to resources. This manufactured scarcity encourages unrestrained consumption and reproduction in the hope they will deliver security.”

Holmgren (2002) is saying that nature has limits, and we, as a society, must recognise and respect that, despite the fact that our society has imposed a sense of insecurity in us, in relation to the resources we have at our disposal.

THE TWELVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Holmgren (2002) has outlined twelve design principles in his permaculture theory. The purpose of the principles are to act as ‘slogans’ or ‘brief statements’ to the concept of Permaculture itself, embodying “a checklist when considering the inevitably complex options for design and evolution of ecological support systems” (Holmgren, 2002: xxv). The design principles are founded on the science of systems ecology, although the principles and permaculture itself is not a science. Holmgren (2002) believes that permaculture is a way to perceive the world from a systems thinking or design thinking perspective. The author believes that this systems/design thinking perspective is integral to urban planning, as urbanity is made up of complex systems. More efficient systems are integrated into one another, in the same way that nature lets the life cycle of one organism translate into the life cycle of another (i.e.

mushrooms decomposing dead plant matter). Systems thinking is very applicable to this thesis as well, because it attempts to link two previously unlinked systems in such a way that one output feeds into another’s inputs (i.e. food waste is the output, getting literally fed to the insects).

Figure 3

shows the twelve principles taken from Holmgren’s book. The author has chosen to only write about four out of the twelve principles, as she believes they are the most applicable ones to this thesis.

PRINCIPLE 5: USE AND VALUE RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND SERVICES

Holmgren (2002: 93) writes “permaculture design should make best use of non-consuming natural services to minimise our consumptive demands on resources and emphasise the harmonious possibilities of interaction between humans and nature”. This thesis aims to show that we can use what we already have to

FIGURE 3 THE TWELVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF PERMACULTURE.

achieve a more sustainable future. The overall message of this principle is of importance to the permaculture theory, closed-loop systems and the life cycle of products and services (see section 1.4.3).

Although this thinking may not impact the actual cycles of food waste and insects separately, it can definitely be applied when merging the cycles. For example, instead of using new food (a non-renewable resource) to cultivate insects, use food waste instead (a product that can be looked at as a resource).

Holmgren (2002) also writes about how utilising current ecosystem services (such as water purification and composting) helps produce sustainable systems and that we cannot produce a sustainable system if we try to isolate ourselves and our support systems from nature. This thought is important and applicable on a larger, more complex scale, when it comes to joining systems together, which will be talked about further on.

PRINCIPLE 6: PRODUCE NO WASTE

As briefly mentioned in the introduction, “an output of any system component that is not being used productively by any other component of the system” is defined as a pollutant (Bill Mollison in Holmgren, 2002: 111). The ‘producing no waste’ principle is about eradicating these pollutants as much as possible, by making use of all outputs in said system. This entire aim of this thesis is to try to fulfil this principle by closing (or at the very least minimising) the food waste loop, or in other words, finding way(s) to eradicate pollutants.

PRINCIPLE 8: INTEGRATE RATHER THAN SEGREGATE

Another important principle in the permaculture theory is to integrate systems, rather than to segregate them (i.e. utilising permaculture rather than monoculture). This principle talks about how “each element [of the system] performs many functions” (Holmgren, 2002: 160) rather than just a single serving function.

This principle is self-evident in nature (i.e. a tree trunk and branches hold up leaves that collect energy from the sun, while the sapwood transports water and nutrients to the the tree top and carbohydrates to the roots, while the tree itself provides a habitat for many species, the species benefit the wider ecosystem and also the tree itself) (Holmgren, 2002) and is important to keep in mind when designing systems. Although this concept is important and it is kept in mind throughout the thesis, this integration of systems is beyond the scope of the thesis.

PRINCIPLE 9: USE SMALL AND SLOW SOLUTIONS

In today’s modern society, we have a cultural bias in which we regard “growth in scale and speed, as

indications of what is good, effective and powerful” (Holmgren, 2002: 185). Th small and slow solutions

principle argues against this very bias. The principle discusses moving from a “fossil-fuel scale” society to

one with “natural, human-scale systems and solutions” (Holmgren, 2002: 186) because this is the

foundation of a humane, sustainable and democratic society (Holmgren, 2002). Holmgren argues that in

being self-reliant (in the case of this thesis this means producing our own food), we are utilising the

permaculture principle of small and slow solutions.

In using small and slow solutions, society must be self-regulating and not exploit abundance just because it is available to be exploited, society must stray from ‘giantism’ in order to allow for flexible technologies and innovations to occur and to allow for flexible applications of said technologies and innovations and the lifespan of a system (or corporation or institution, etc) must be taken into consideration. “The mismatch of scale and lifespan is close to the heat of unsustainability of industrial culture” (Holmgren, 2002: 192). There is a “common-sense understanding that big, powerful systems should be slow-changing and have a long lifespan” (Holmgren, 2002: 192). Small and slow solutions must take a long-term perspective and value persistence.

Although not all the principles are represented in this thesis, the author believes that since they are only

‘design guidelines’, it is possible to only represent a few of them, and still be representative of parts of permaculture. In permaculture, it is not stated that one must employ all guidelines in order to create a permaculture system, but at the same time it is probably not a permaculture system if you only employ one design guideline. The author leaves it to the reader to make up their mind on how intensely to associate the permaculture theory to this thesis, however, the author believes it is an important concept that adds to this thesis, rather than takes away, as the above four stated design guidelines are used throughout the thesis to create a holistic, closed-loop system.

1.4.2 The Waste Hierarchy Framework

There are various options available for managing and preventing food waste, each of which will produce different environmental outcomes.

shows the hierarchy of food waste management; an inverted triangle which displays the best management option at the top and moves down through to the least favourable option. This hierarchy is used as an environmental framework for managing food waste but does not consider social or economic sustainability issues (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) and as this thesis is only looking at the best environmental outcome for the management of food waste, it is an appropriate tool to use. The most preferable and obvious option for managing food waste is prevention which means that through changes in consumption habits, changes in processing and production systems, and/or changes in packaging and distribution, we throw away less food. This can happen through making the FSC more efficient, buying less food, buying only what you know you will eat,

FIGURE 4 FOOD WASTE RECOVERY HIERARCHY

etc. Second to prevention is redistribution, first to people and then to animals. There are already many movements that focus on consuming food that has been discarded, and the social movements of ‘dumpster diving’ or ‘freeganism’ and ‘gleaning’ focuses not only on the environmental impacts of redistributing food waste among people, but also on the social impacts (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). After prevention and re- distribution comes recycling, as in the recycling of nutrients back to the field through either composting or anaerobic digestion (biogas production). Second last is energy recovery through processes such as incineration. The last option and least favourable one is disposal, or non-management (i.e. no nutrient recovery, no energy recovery, no treatment of waste, etc).

The waste hierarchy framework can be seen as fitting into permaculture theory, as one can look at the waste hierarchy as a response to our limits of food production, availability of resources (i.e. land), etc. The most obvious way it relates to permaculture theory is through Principle 6: Produce no waste. As Bill Mollison has said (in Holmgren, 2002: 111), “an output of any system component that is not being used productively by any other component of the system” is defined as a pollutant. If we don’t use the ‘waste’ we have produced across all stages of the food supply chain , we are missing out on the potential of waste and creating

pollution.

1.4.3 Closed-Loop Systems and Life Cycle Thinking Frameworks This last framework, is a further extension of permaculture’s systems and design thinking perspectives. A system is classified as being closed-loop when it is designed in such a way that it integrates waste back into at least one of its stages of production. This type of system design puts emphasis on the entire life cycle of a product; from raw material extraction to the way it is disposed of. Closed-loop systems “focuses on recapturing and reusing material within a process, across processes, or across different products, and the use of biodegradable/bio-compostable materials to reduce the environmental impact of production and consumption” (Dekker et al. 2013; Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company 2014; Winkler 2011 in Davis et al., 2016: 12). This type of system can optimise efficiency in production cycles and allows for waste by-products to have smaller environmental impacts (Davis et al., 2016). The life cycle of a product is also tied to having a closed-loop system. A products life cycle has six stages; material sourcing, manufacturing and production, distribution, sales, consumption and use, and recycling and recovery (Davis et al., 2016). These six stages of a product life cycle, are very similar to the stages of the FSC, which will be described in the next chapter. Thus, one can draw the conclusion that the FSC is the life cycle of food (or in our case, food waste).

From hereafter referred to as FSC.

2

2 Findings: Food Waste Landscape

The following chapter presents a general background to food waste, various definitions of food waste and places these in the Swedish context. These findings are represented through the combined use of literature and interviews, although this is an unconventional way of presenting findings, the reason in doing so is that where one method lacks in information, the other one makes up for it. The following chapter, on insects, also follows the same structure, for the same reasons.

2.1 Food Waste and Food Insecurity

According to many scholars, reducing food losses and waste in the FSC in combination with promoting alternative diets, is one way we can work towards food security (Haberl et al., 2011; Schönhart et al., 2009;

Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004 in Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). Achieving food security is about increasing access to food, from an economics perspective, rather than about increasing supply (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014), and in the case of this thesis its about increasing access to affordable protein. Per Styregård (Interview 13), a freelance writer for Dagens Industri and food project manager at Openlab, also concurs that our greatest challenge in the food sector is distribution, as we already produce enough food, however it is not distributed equally, and/or individuals don’t get the right amount of food, or the right nutrition. Viewing food waste as a resource can be one way to minimise food waste, as then it isn’t technically waste; it leads to the question of ‘what is waste?’ (ibid.). It becomes a resource with a utile purpose, and since it can be applied to something like growing alternative proteins, which helps establish a more secure food network for the future, it’s not waste.

THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN LOSSES

Food waste is defined as “wholesome edible material intended for human consumption, arising at any point in the FSC that is instead discarded, lost, degraded or consumed by pests” (FAO, 1981 in Papargyropoulou et al., 2014: 108). In Sweden, residues from producing animal feed, which generally

2

stage, are not defined as food waste, and therefore are not considered in food waste calculations (Naturvårdsverket, 2016).

shows that food waste can occur at various stages throughout the FSC, such as production (agriculture), post-harvesting and processing (food processing and manufacturing) and at the retail level. However at the last stage, consumption, food waste is more closely linked to being a result of human behaviour (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014), and it includes not only households, but restaurants, catering businesses, and other institutions such as hospitals, schools, prisons, etc. In Appendix II,

A2.1

shows a table of the various, more defined, FSC stages and the reasons why food turns into waste. In Sweden, the consumption stage accounts for approximately 84% (or approximately 114 kg/person/year) of the total food waste produced through the FSC. Households produce the largest amount of food waste, coming in at around 100 kg/person/year, followed by restaurants and catering, which both produce around 7 kg/person/year of food waste each. The agriculture sector is the second largest producer of food waste, coming in at around 10.2 kg/person/year, while processing and manufacturing contributes around 8 kg/

person/year and finally the retail sector contributes the least with 3 kg/person/year of food waste (Naturvårdsverket, 2016).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FOOD AND FOOD WASTE

Food waste is linked to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases . When food waste ends

up in landfills and starts to decompose naturally, methane (CH

) and carbon dioxide (CO

) are released.

Both are GHG, however in this context, methane is the more potent gas as it traps 21 times more heat than carbon dioxide does (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) and since the scale of landfills are so large, the emissions are as well. It is estimated that the waste sector contributes to 3% of the worlds GHG emissions (ibid.).

All food, and for that matter, food waste, have embedded carbon footprints. This means that food accumulates the carbon footprint of any and all activities that are associated with producing, processing, manufacturing, transporting, storing, refrigerating, distributing and selling it (Padfield et al., 2012; Tuncer and Schroeder, 2011; Lundqvist et al., 2008 in Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). Food production amounts to more than 50% of global GHG emissions (Smetana et al., 2016). In particular, producing livestock accounts for 9% of carbon dioxide (CO

), 35-40% of methane (CH

), 65% of nitrous oxide (N

O) and 64% of ammonia (NH

) emissions (Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013), amounting to approximately 18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (van Huis et al., 2013). It should be noted that both methane (CH

) and nitrous oxide (N

O) have larger global warming potential than carbon dioxide (ibid.): “if CO

has a value of 1 GWP, CH

has a GWP of 23 and N

O has a GWP of 289” (IPCC, 2007 in van Huis et al., 2013: 62). In Appendix II,

shows the breakdown of where GHG emissions are produced in the livestock supply chain. Smetana et al. (2016) writes that one solution to reducing the GHG emissions is by substituting meat with lower environmentally impactful alternative, such as insects. Although ammonia

From hereafter referred to as GHG.

3

From hereafter referred to as GWP.

4

(NH

) is not a GHG, it is produced from livestock urine and manure and it contributes to phenomenons such as nitrification and soil acidification (van Huis et al., 2013).

2.2 Food Surplus vs. Food Waste

2.2.1 Food Surplus

Scholars agree that having a food supply that surpasses our nutritional requirements, in particular a supply of over 130% beyond our requirements, should ensure a secure food supply (Smil, 2004; Bender and Smith, 1997 in Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). This excess production of food is defined as food surplus and thus food waste becomes a product of said food surplus (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014).

Generally, a person doesn’t require more than 2000 kcal of food per day, and producing 30% more brings that figure to 2600 kcal per day, which fulfils nutritional requirements and ensures a secure food supply.

However, this amount is surpassed in the EU by almost 1000 kcal per day. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between food surplus that is desired and ensures a secure food supply and excessive food surplus that is undesired and produces food waste (ibid.).

2.2.2 Food Waste

AVOIDABLE FOOD WASTE

Food that is no longer wanted or is past its due date is defined as avoidable food waste. Most avoidable food waste was at one point edible, prior to being disposed of. Examples of avoidable food waste include bread, leftovers, or food that has gone moldy, etc (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Naturvårdsverket, 2012). In Sweden, avoidable waste comes from the retail and consumption stages of the FSC (Naturvårdsverket, 2016).

UNAVOIDABLE FOOD WASTE

Food waste that is unavoidable is comprised of inedible food such as fruit peels or skins, coffee grounds, meat bones, etc. Unavoidable food waste is generally appears during food production or preparation (Naturvårdsverket, 2012).

BY-PRODUCTS

By-products, or residual products, are a result of the processing and manufacturing stage in the FSC, where

the product “can be put to some form of use other than the intended use of the main

product” (Naturvårdsverket, 2012: 8). Dairies and slaughterhouses are two examples that produce by-

products to making animal feed. Not all by-products are consumed by humans, but this may be because of

the culture surrounding what we eat and don’t eat, or what may have been eaten at a certain point but is not

popular to eat now. An example of this is pigs’ trotters, which are edible, but not commonly consumed in Sweden today (Naturvårdsverket, 2012).

Food waste is defined as the combination of both avoidable and unavoidable waste, however depending on how rigid your definition of food waste is, this may or may not include by-products (Naturvårdsverket, 2012). As mentioned previously, in Sweden, by-products are usually not classified as food waste or included in food waste calculations, and for the purpose of this thesis, by-products will not be considered as food waste.

The distinctions made between the different types of food waste (avoidable and unavoidable), shows that food waste prevention is only feasible to a certain extent, as there will always be a certain amount of food that will become unavoidable waste (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). While on the other hand, avoidable food waste definitions can vary between individuals, i.e. some people peel their potatoes, while others may not (Naturvårdsverket, 2012). Naturvårdsverket (2012) cautions against using the definition of avoidable food waste in national objectives, as it invites subjectivity and is difficult to agree on a common definition, although this will change in the future.

Also, a distinction needs to be made between the prevention of food waste and the management of food waste. Preventing food waste is done through activities that reduces waste generation, such as reducing the amount of food surplus produced, while waste management entails finding ways to utilise food waste once it is already generated (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) and thus it can be argued that waste management is about viewing food waste as a resource. This thesis takes its point of departure from the waste management perspective, and argues towards viewing and utilising food waste as a resource in such a way that no extra pollutants are produced. The most idealistic view, and one that is in accordance with the permaculture principles, is one where a resource from a system, in this case food waste, fulfils the needs of another system.

2.3 Swedish Food Waste

As mentioned previously, food is lost across all stages in the FSC, the majority of which is lost at the last

stage; consumption (household, catering and restaurants). At the national level, almost 74% of food waste

comes from households, amounting to approximately 100 kg/person/year of food waste. In particular, in

Stockholm, 65% of food waste comes from businesses, which can range from catering companies to

restaurants (Stockholm Vatten och Avfall, 2016) rather than households. From sorted, household food waste

(i.e. waste coming from households that has been separated and sorter prior to collection), it was found that

41% of food waste is composed of vegetables, followed by 31% leftovers, 17% bread, 7% meat and 4% is

composed of others (Naturvårdsverket, 2016). When food becomes waste, a number of things can happen

FIGURE 6 WHAT HAPPENS TO HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE IN SWEDEN

to it. In 2015, in Sweden, 472,130 tonnes of sorted, household food waste was collected (Avfall Sverige, 2016b). It is estimated that Stockholm produces between 100,000 to 120,000 tonnes of food waste in all, however it is difficult to collect all of it (Interview 5). For the future, it is estimated that between 70 to 85 thousand tons of food waste will be able to be collected in Stockholm (ibid.).

visually represents food waste along the FSC and the different outcomes of food waste, including pollutants of each outcome,

while the following sections below describes in more detail the various ways food waste is managed.

HOME COMPOSTING

In Sweden, 9.4% (of 472,130 tonnes) of sorted food waste is composted at home (Avfall Sverige, 2016a;

2016b). Home composting decays organic matter (food) leaving valuable nutrients in the soil, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, that can be returned to the fields to grow new food (Rutledge et al., 2011).

Because the scale of home composting is so small, this process generally does not produce any methane gas (CH

). Although composting is in the middle of the food hierarchy (

), it is a closed-loop system and from that perspective it is the best outcome of all the current outcomes (6A-F in

).

COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING

9.5% (of 472,130 tonnes) of sorted household food waste goes to commercial composting (Avfall Sverige, 2016a; 2016b), which is similar to home composting, as it also returns valuable nutrients back to the fields.

However, the large scale of commercial composting releases methane gas (CH

) into the atmosphere (EPA, 2017).

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

The majority of collected food waste in Sweden, approximately 67% (of 472,130 tonnes), undergoes anaerobic digestion to produce biogas and fertiliser (Avfall Sverige, 2016a; 2016b). Depending on their size, some biogas facilities view biogas production as the by-product of recycling food waste and returning nutrients to the fields (Interview 6), while some biogas facilities see the recycling of nutrients as the by- product to biogas production (Interview 5). According to Michael (ibid.), larger facilities focus on biogas production and smaller ones focus on returning nutrients to the field. Out of these two outcomes, the fertiliser stream is a closed-loop system, while the biogas stream produces vehicle fuel, which as we know emits carbon dioxide (CO

) into the atmosphere. The actual process of anaerobic digestion can release methane gas (CH

), however this depends on the efficiency of the production facility. In Sweden, biogas facilities are required to burn, or flare, any methane gas that is released from production, but this happens on the rare occasion (Avfall Sverige, 2016b; Interview 6). Anaerobic digestion also falls into the middle of the waste hierarchy similar to composting, however it also produces pollutants.

Referring to the permaculture theory definition discussed earlier.

5

CO-DIGESTION ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

Another form of anaerobic digestion is known as co-digestion, which involves food waste and sludge waste undergoing anaerobic digestion (Interview 15). 14% (of 472,130 tonnes) of sorted, household food waste in Sweden gets digested with sludge (Avfall Sverige, 2016a; 2016b). Co-digestion has similar outcomes as the previously mentioned anaerobic digestion, meaning that vehicle fuel, carbon dioxide, methane gas and fertiliser are all products of the process. However, since co-digestion uses food waste in combination with sludge, the nutrients from the fertiliser by-product cannot be returned to the fields (as it does not qualify for certification) (Interview 15). Also in this context, co-digestion means the substrates are being treated at a waste water treatment plant, which means that this process also emits nitrous oxide (N

O) into the atmosphere (EPA, 2017).

INCINERATION

Although in the research process I have not stumbled upon specific statistics on the amount of food waste that gets incinerated, there are statistics on how much household waste is incinerated. In 2015, Sweden

incinerated 2,284,210 tonnes of household waste to produce 14,702,670 MWh of heat and 2,304,610 MWh of electricity. From those figures, 392,290 tonnes of that were collected by Stockholm, and when incinerated that amounted to 1,967,580 MWh of heat and 238,570 MWh of electricity for Stockholm (Avfall Sverige, 2016b). Although it is hard to say how much food waste makes up household waste, VafabMiljö estimates that approximately 15% of the food waste it receives is rejected; 6.5% is sent to be incinerated, 8% is sent to be composted and about 0.5% is sent to landfills (mostly composed of sand and gravel) (Interview 15).

Other than electricity and heating, the outcomes, or rather pollutants of incineration is carbon dioxide.

Incineration falls into the recovery category of the waste hierarchy, as energy is recovered from the waste, however this is the second least desired option in the waste hierarchy.

LANDFILLS

Only 0.8% of household waste in Sweden ends up in landfills, and it is prohibited in Sweden to throw organic waste into landfills (Avfall Sverige, 2016b). However, in a Naturvårdsverket (2016) publication, it was shown that unsorted household waste was found to contain food waste, so it would not be unsubstantiated to claim that landfills probably do contain some food waste, although the exact figure would be hard to come by and it is probably a very small amount. Placing waste in landfills is the last desired option in the waste hierarchy, as you are merely just disposing of the waste. The pollutants of landfills includes releasing carbon dioxide and methane gases and small amounts of other gases (Avfall Sverige, 2016b). It is possible to recover some energy from landfill gas, but not all of it. Energy recovery of landfill gas is similar to energy recovery from incineration, as it produces electricity and heat, although the amount of electricity and heat produced is small in comparison to that of incineration (Avfall Sverige, 2016b) and thus it is not shown in

.


Household waste is waste that is thrown in the garbage at home. The contents of household waste can carry anything, including food

6

COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Food waste in Sweden is collected by municipalities, and each municipality sets its own guidelines for collections. Once household waste is placed into garbage bins in the streets, it becomes the property of the municipality, while catering and retailers are allowed to sell their waste as commercial waste (Interview 4).

Generally, food waste can be collected either in brown paper bags, coloured plastic bags (different colours,

for different types of waste) or in kitchen/sink disposal units (Interview 5). Each collection system has its

own pros and cons and sustainability issues to debate, however debating these is beyond the scope of this

thesis. In the Royal Stockholm Seaport, kitchen/sink disposal units have been introduced in the new built

residences.


3 Findings: Insects

3.1 The Landscape Surrounding Entomophagy

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Entomophagy is the practice of eating insects which refers to both animals, humans and insects as the consumers of insects (van Huis et al., 2013). Human entomophagy is what this thesis will be referring to when talking about ‘entomophagy’. Historically, entomophagy was influenced by religion, as food practices are influenced by culture, which in turn are influenced by religion (ibid.). Currently, more than 2,000 insect species have been eaten traditionally in 113 countries around the world, however, most of these insects are being consumed outside of Europe (Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013). Today, most insects are collected in the wild, however insect rearing has been in practice for over 7,000 years, in order to produce silk and honey (ibid.). Nowadays, there is an issue with collecting insects, as uncontrolled over-collecting can lead to extinction of certain species and forest destruction, as insects have a role to play in nature. Insects facilitate plant reproduction through pollination, they biodegrade waste by breaking down dead plant and organic matter so that fungi and other bacteria can consume them, and they naturally control pests, as most insects prey on other insects (van Huis et al., 2013). However, this thesis focuses on insects that are reared, and not those that are collected in the wild.

ADVANTAGES OF ENTOMOPHAGY

Insects are generally promoted as food for three main reasons; health reasons, environmental reasons and

economics or social factors (van Huis et al., 2013). Health-wise, insects are rich in protein, calcium, iron and zinc and they contain good fats (ibid.). To not reiterate myself twice, more information on nutrition and health benefits can be found in section 3.2. Insects as a whole species compared to livestock, not only emit less GHG’s, but they also have a “higher feed conversion efficiency” meaning they require less food to produce the same amount of biomass, they have a high reproduction rate in a shorter amount of time, they take up less space to rear and they are just as nutritious (if not more) than conventional livestock (van Huis et al., 2013; Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013). More information on the environmental impacts can be found in section 3.2.1. Rearing insects does not have to be a high-tech or expensive endeavour, as it is possible to start growing insects with low-tech and low investments and thus this makes it accessible even to less fortunate parts of society, which in turn provides people with a livelihood.

3

LEGALITY

Currently, the majority of EU countries, including Sweden, prohibit the selling of food items that contain insects. In Sweden, insects can be used for feed of pets and fur animals, and those used for animal feed are regarded as farmed animals themselves, so they have strict regulations on what they can be fed (Liljenström, 2017). The Netherlands and Belgium (House, 2016), as well as England and Denmark (Interview 11) are some of the countries that permit the commerce of insect products (across state borders as well). Anders Engström (Interview 11) of bugburger.se researched much on the legal situation here in Sweden when starting up his blog. Following the occurrence of mad cow disease, the Novelty Food Act was introduced (ibid.), and although no specific EU legislation explicitly mention insects, they fall under the umbrella of the Novelty Food Act, therefore prohibiting their commerce (House, 2016). In the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom it is possible to sell the whole insect, but not just, for example, protein powder derived from insects, because a whole insect is not labeled as a food ingredient (Interview 11). Nils Österström (Interview 9) of Tebrito AB, an insect food company based in Sweden believes that each EU country just has different interpretations of the law, as all the EU countries have to follow the same legislation. Many interviewees have commented on how the market is ready for insects, its just the legislation that is getting in the way (Interview 9; Interview 10), with Nils (Interview 9) stating that if it were legal to sell insect food, he would be able to sell everything he produces. Björn Vinnerås (Interview 4), a professor at SLU, doesn’t think he has ever heard of a system that doesn’t function without government subsidies. The legislation is about to be amended here in Sweden (Liljenström, 2017), but this uncertain future for the legal situation regarding insect consumption hinders investment, growth of the insect market (Interview 9) and thus consumer acceptance.

THE CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE

House (2016) identifies that in addition to developing technologies for automation of rearing and processing insects, and getting past legislative barriers, consumer acceptance is still problematic in terms of establishing the insect food market, especially in the West. Acceptance is not just merely a psychological or sensory issue, it is also about demographics, disgust sensitivity, food neophobia, different attitudes and also various other general or food-related characteristics (ibid.). Acceptance is also about getting consumers to integrate insects into their diet, rather than just merely getting consumers to try them. Generally, consumer acceptance is framed as: the need “to eradicate or greatly reduce the Western-driven stigma over the use of insects of food” (Costa-Neto & Dunkel, 2015: 54 in House, 2016: 50).

Consumers that have a low disgust sensitivity, low food neophobia, higher sensation seeker traits, are male,

are already familiar with insects, are more willing to reduce their meat consumption, are environmentally

and nutritionally interested and are curious, are identified as consumers that would be more willing and

open to trying insect food (House, 2016). Things like having a poor sensory experience (i.e. insects that

don’t taste good) contributes to a rejection of insect food, while concealing of insects foods (i.e. powdered

or ground up insects) contributes to a higher acceptance, as does creating insect foods that resemble