Posted on Leave a comment

Representing Edible Insects in Parliament


As part of Nottingham Day in Parliament on 25 October, a team from Woven Network travelled to Westminster to represent and promote edible insects in the Houses of Parliament.

Woven Managing Director Nick Rousseau (Unconventional Connections) and Woven members Tony Askins (Next Step Foods) and Ross Bell (Kric8) were on hand to promote members’ products and the exciting potential of our growing UK-based edible insect industry.


Speaking to a representative of the Food Standards Agency, Tony received the impression that Brexit has “the potential to facilitate a smoother progression through the novel food process”, as any decisions and requirements of the FSA will presumably not have to be ratified by other EU members or the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority).

He was also informed that the Conservative government “could be good for the industry, as they are pro-entrepreneurship and less keen on regulations that might get in the way of business”.


Nick Rousseau had this to say:

We turned up at the “Green Room” which was on the other side of the square opposite the Houses of Parliament and set out our stall.  It was very impressive and the largest selection of insect-based food products I had certainly ever seen – possibly the largest in the UK.  We had everything from whole insects, flour, insect flavoured snacks, bars (with pieces to taste), pasta and pasta sauce as well as the Eat Grub recipe book and various bits of literature.

We all went over for the talk and discussion about the future of food in one of the rooms in Parliament, giving us a chance to see what it is like on the inside.  Very grand!  As a result of my lobbying, one of the University lecturers talked about insects and the potential role they could play, which I was able to pick up on along with a number of others in the Q&A.  Certainly some interest and I emphasised that there are plenty of successful products already on the market.

I had two conversations following the talk with the Chair of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (levy organisation) and Sat Bains the chef – who agreed to talk to me later about experimenting with insects in his restaurant.


Comments from the day’s feedback form included:

Coffee and Vanilla, Dark Chocolate – both tasted okay, but in my mind I can’t get over the yuck factor, sorry!

Kric8 – dry roasted crickets. Tastier than I expected!  I like the texture!

Crunchy insects are great especially crickets –delicious!

Very tasty – liked the honey and mustard – get them in the high Street!

If only more people had an opportunity to try these innovative products – Excellent.  Why not book a stall at Sutton Bonnington Farmers Market at UoN SB Campus?

Woven Network plan to be involved with similar events in the future, and will be promoting insects as food and feed at Food Matters Live 22-24 November.


Interested in joining Woven Network? Click here for full details of our membership packages.

And if you’re interested in trying some tasty insect snacks, visit our Marketplace to order your roasted crickets, energy bars, protein powders and more!

Posted on

Summary of the EFSA Risk Profile

Who are the EFSA?

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent EU agency, established after a series of food crises in the 1990s, to be a source of scientific advice and communication on food chain risks. Their workload is set by requests from either the European Commission, the European Parliament, or EU Member States.

This report was requested by the European Commission, and you can read the full text here.

Belgium, France, Iceland and the Netherlands had previously conducted their own risk assessments related to insects as food or feed.

The request came in advance of the EU decision whether or not to categorise edible insects as Novel Foods, and on 25 November edible insects were categorised as Novel Foods. This has imposed new regulations on companies involved in the sector.

The request was presumably also motivated by a lack of data and knowledge regarding edible insects. This was also the conclusion of the EFSA – more data regarding edible insects is needed.

In a nutshell

No significant microbiological risk.

Further research and data generation is strongly recommended.

A number of important recommendations for insect farmers and processors are made.

Most of the potential risks (and potential benefits) are likely to come from the type of substrate used, and corresponding farming and processing practices.

Focus areas

In the format of a risk profile, the report focuses on four main areas:

  1. Biological hazards (bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi, prions)
  2. Chemical hazards (heavy metals, toxins, veterinary drugs, hormones)
  3. Allergenicity
  4. Environmental hazards

Findings overview

More research is highly recommended

See “Recommendations” below.

No significant microbiological risk

When fed on currently allowed materials (not on waste streams), rearing insects is not expected to be any more dangerous than rearing other livestock, in terms of microbiological hazards.

Insects are also much more genetically different from us than other livestock (birds, mammals), presenting a much lower risk of zoonotic diseases. In theory the same should apply for prion diseases such as vCJD.

– Matt Anderson

The hazards associated with rearing insects on waste streams (e.g. kitchen waste, garden and forestry waste, human and animal manure, slaughterhouse waste) need to be specifically assessed.

Hazards are affected by a range of factors

The EFSA acknowledged that biological and chemical hazards are influenced by:

  • Specific production methods
  • Specific substrate used
  • Stage of harvest
  • Insect species
  • Methods used for further processing

Environmental risks are comparable to other animals

“Hazards related to the environment are expected to be comparable to other animal production systems.”

It is important to note that the EFSA are referring specifically to potential environmental hazards, not potential environmental benefits. Potential environmental benefits include: substituting soy beans, substituting fishmeal, livestock emissions, water footprint, land footprint, and food-conversion efficiency.

– Harold Stone

Collation of existing data

The report pulls together existing data on production, consumption, supply chain, food and feed.

This report confirmed the lack of data regarding the consumption of edible insects. European trends in insect eating can only be estimated from sales of insect products. Other than the inclusion of insects as a category in the EFSA’s own standardised food classification system (FoodEx2), there have so far been limited attempts to acknowledge insects as a food category in Europe.

– Matt Anderson

Findings in detail


The concern is whether bacteria could be pathonogenic to humans (e.g. Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter). Unlike poultry and larger animal livestock, these pathonegnic bacteria are unable to replicate inside the insect gut, which reduces the risk.

Substrate choice and processing methods still need to be carefully regulated, and further research is needed.


The report considers the potential transfer of viruses from insects to humans. There is no evidence of a jump having ever occurred.

Humans can act as vectors for some human viruses (e.g. dengue fever) which are able to replicate within the insect. Again however, there is no evidence of this in farmed insects to date.

There is also no scientific evidence for insect virus infections inducing major metabolic changes in insects, that would in turn produce substances toxic to humans.

Further research is nevertheless recommended.


Parasites should not be a problem in properly managed closed farming environments, because they will not have access to all of the hosts needed to complete their life cycles.


The risk of insect-derived prions infecting humans is zero, but there may be a risk of insects acting as vectors for our own prions.

This could be a problem if insects are raised on human or animal derived substrates (e.g. slaughterhouse or sewerage). Further research is recommended into this.

Chemical hazards

For toxins, the focus is on the substrate used.

For heavy metals, pesticides and biocides, further research is recommended.

For hormones and veterinary drugs, insects should undergo the same testing as other animals.


Allergic reactions to insects can be caused by inhalation or contact, and primarily occur with people who regularly come into contact with insects – e.g. entomologists and fish bait breeders. There have been cases of allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock in humans from consumption.

The potential for allergic reactions cannot be controlled by choice of substrate, as is the case for most of the risks discussed in the report.

The obvious solution, provided the risks assessed through research are not higher than acceptable levels, is to inform consumers of the insect content and potential allerginictiy and/or cross-reactivity of insect-derived products through adequate food labelling.

– Matt Anderson


“Boiling insects for five minutes is an efficient process for eliminating Enterobacteriaceae but not spore-forming bacteria. Thus, storage at refrigeration temperature (5 to 7 °C) is suggested.”

A few minutes of boiling is also recommended before roasting.


The report explores a variety risks associated with semi-cultivation practices (rearing insects in open habitats).

The potential for nutrient-rich fertilizers derived from insect-production waste is also explored.


Farming and processing

Boil and refrigerate, and boil before roasting, to eliminate spore-forming bacteria.

Introduce controlled antimicrobial use for insect farming, keep a close watch on bacterial populations in case resistance develops.

“The adoption of existing waste management strategies should be applicable for managing waste from insect production. Assessment of the individual production systems will determine the precise strategy to be adopted on a case by case basis.”

Ensure the proper management of closed farming environments, to reduce the risk of parasites.

For allergen risks, food labelling “insect content” and “potential shellfish allergy” should be considered.

There is lack of pre-marketing human results and reports of workers’ sensitisations.

On processing, the EFSA found “a lack of information relation to precise details regarding processes used.” Perhaps insect farmers and processors could help provide the EFSA and others with such details.

There is also potentially a lot more to be learned from countries and cultures with histories of eating (and processing) insects.

– Harold Stone


More research (specific assessment) of rearing insects on substrates such as kitchen waste, garden and forestry waste, slaughterhouse waste, and human or animal manure.

Dr Arnold van Huis has also specifically identified a “particular need for research into the water footprint of producing edible insect protein, as there is currently no publication on this”.

– Harold Stone

More research

The EFSA highly recommends further data generation, and identifies the following uncertainties:


  • There are no systematically collected data available on insect consumption in European countries;
  • The pattern of consumption may only be estimated through sales data of insect product;
  • How and to what extent the inclusion of insects in gastronomy and in the product range of food suppliers can impact the general consumption pattern in the population is unclear but holds the potential for a rapid change in future consumption patterns;
  • There is lack of consolidated information relating to the magnitude and frequency of managed feeding of insects to farm animals.


  • There is a lack of studies on the occurrence of human and animal bacterial pathogens in insects processed for food and feed are very scarce in the scientific literature;
  • Insect virus infections do induce major metabolic changes in insects and may produce substances toxic to humans, but there is no scientific evidence for such a case;
  • There is lack of information relating to the likelihood of human viruses such as norovirus, rotavirus, Hepatitis E and A being passively transferred from feedstock through residual insect gut contents;
  • Information in the literature refers to non-European areas (mostly Asia) and to insects harvested in the wild, and so the risk of parasites can be very different from what is found in farmed insects, with strict control of environmental conditions and substrates applied;
  • There is lack of information on the extent to which insects act as mechanical vectors of prions.


  • Published data on hazardous chemicals in reared insects in scientific literature are scarce;
  • Data on accumulation/excretion of chemical contaminants from the substrates are very limited;
  • To date, there is lack of information on the use of veterinary medicines for the treatment of insects to be used for food and feed;
  • No information is available on the potential formation of food-processing contaminants during processing insects.


  • There is lack of pre-marketing human results and reports of workers’ sensitizations.


  • There is a lack of information relating to precise details of the processes used.


  • There is lack of information on the environmental impact of different mass-rearing insect productions systems.

Outside of this list the report also seems to suggest further research into:

  • The interaction between production methods, substrates used, stage of harvest, species and developmental stage, and methods for further processing;
  • Specific assessment of waste stream substrates.


“There are questions about how farming methods could introduce food safety risks, for example, microbiological contamination. It is likely that appropriate techniques will control risks, but as it is a new sector there may not be established good practice.”

Eoghan Daly, The Institute of Food Safety Integrity and Protection (interviewed by Environmental Health News)


“Addressing the European protein deficit through the use of novel feeds is key to ensuring our future food security, so this opinion is a positive development.”

Dr Adrian Charlton, PROteINSECT


“This opinion is an important stepping stone in furthering our understanding of the potential of insects as a protein source It provides valuable insight against which PROteINSECT can continue to communicate our research findings to key stakeholders across Europe and beyond, on production, processing, quality, safety and consumer acceptance around insect protein for animal feed.”

Dr Elaine Fitches, PROteINSECT


“EFSA concludes that the main risks come from the rearing and processing methods and not from the insects … Insects should be allowed in aquaculture.”

Antoine Hulbert, IPIFF

Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons

Posted on 1 Comment

European Food Safety Authority Opinion

EFSA - Featured Image

The EFSA published its Opinion on the relative safety of insects for food and feed, compared with other sources of protein on 8 October.

You can read the report here:

This sets out both what is known about the extensive consumption of insects but also all the areas where not enough is known.  It should be a useful reference point for those looking to work up research proposals but also needs to be considered carefully by the industry to look for ways to minimise risks while still offering high quality products.

Those developing insect farming technologies will also find this very useful.


Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons

Posted on

Edible Insects Research

On the 8th of October 2015, the Scientific Committee of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a “Scientific Opinion” outlining the risk profile relating to the production and consumption of insects as food and feed. This document was commissioned by the European Commission ahead of their forthcoming decision on whether insects should fall into the category of Novel Foods, which would subject edible insect companies to much stricter regulations (more details coming soon).

One of the most useful things to come of this exercise has been the collation of existing data surrounding edible insects, their production and consumption, focussing on the entire supply chain, from farmed insect to human food or animal feed. Gaps in our current understanding of the science involved were highlighted and recommendations for further edible insects research were made. Those specifically relevant to entomophagy are summarised below.

EFSA Recommendations for Further

Edible Insects Research

Consumption Trends

European trends in insect eating can so far only be estimated from sales of insect products. Other than the inclusion of insects as a category in the EFSA’s own standardised food classification system (FoodEx2), there have so far been limited attempts to acknowledge insects as a food category in Europe.

The EFSA did, however, note that not only are insects eaten as snacks in some European countries, they are now appearing in the menus of high-cuisine restaurants, such as Archipelago in London and Grub Kitchen in Wales, the latter devoted solely to edible insects.

They add that this inclusion of insects in gastronomy has the potential for a rapid change in future consumption trends, but this needs to be quantified through the analysis of insect consumption in national consumption surveys.

If approval as a human food is granted, increasing consumer demand and the rise of edible insect companies will further strengthen their place in the market.


Bacteria can be found both within the gut of an insect and on its surface, as they are with any animal, us included. Bacterial content in itself is not, however, the issue; it is whether bacteria pathogenic to humans can be propagated through the farming of insects, either for human or animal consumption.

The EFSA was not so much concerned with bacteria that were pathogenic to the insects themselves, since insects are genetically so different from us that a case of “entomopathogenic” bacteria developing the ability to infect human hosts would be highly unlikely. They were, however, concerned with the potential for insects to act as vectors for known human and animal pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli and Campylobacter. Studies have indeed shown that this is possible (Holt et al., 2007; Leffer et al., 2010), but unlike poultry and larger animal livestock, these pathogenic bacteria are unable to replicate inside the insect gut, meaning that this risk can essentially be mitigated as long as substrate choice and processing methods are carefully regulated.

Nevertheless, this opinion is based on scarce evidence in the scientific literature. The ESFA therefore recommends further research into the prevalence of human pathogens in farmed insects.

An additional concern involves antimicrobial resistance, since antibiotics are made use of in insect farms in cases of pathogenic outbreaks, or simply in order to improve insect yields and longevity (Hirose et al., 2006; Eilenberg et al., 2015). It is therefore advised to introduce controlled antimicrobial use for insect farming, and to keep a close watch on bacterial populations in case resistance develops.


The story for viruses is much the same as for that of bacteria. Insects have a multitude of viruses that affect them, but they are all specific at either the family or species level so are of no threat to humans. The EFSA did consider whether some insect viruses with taxonomically related groups affecting vertebrates (e.g. viruses for polio, Hepatitis A, etc.) had the potential to jump to humans, but some studies have shown that insect viruses do not replicate in human cells (El Far et al., 2004), and there is no evidence of such a jump having ever occurred.

Insects do, however, act as vectors for some human viruses (e.g. dengue fever, West Nile disease, etc.) which are actually able to replicate within the insect (King et al., 2012). There is therefore a need to determine whether these kind of viruses can be found in farmed insects, but there is no evidence of this to date.

Similarly, it will be necessary to investigate the potential survival of vertebrate viruses within insects in order to evaluate whether insects may aid in the propagation of viral disease outbreaks, regardless of whether the virus is able to replicate within the insect.


Insects are known to harbour parasites and there have been rare occurrences of transmission of these to humans, although all instances were non-European.

Most of these reports involved trematodes (parasitic flatworms, or flukes). These animals tend to have very complex life cycles involving at least two hosts, one of which is almost always a specific species of snail. An example of such a life cycle for Dicrocoelium dendriticum, a trematode worm that can infect humans through eating ants (Jeandron et al., 2011), is shown below.

The EFSA notes that the risk of parasite infections such as this can be significantly reduced in properly managed closed farming environments, since the parasites will not have access to all of the hosts required to complete their life cycle, nor will the farmed insects be exposed to the parasites in the first place.


Prions are a strange one. They are not living organisms; they are composed entirely of protein – misfolded protein – yet it is widely accepted that they are able to replicate by stimulating their normally folded counterparts found in humans and animals to take on their own misfolded configuration. Since the immune system does not recognise them, they can’t be fought in this way, leading to diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and variant CJD, taking on the apparent behaviour of an unregulated viral infection.

Any animal would need the properly folded prions in their system (found naturally in our cell membranes) in order for a misfolded prion infection to replicate by using them as templates. Insects, however, do not have prion-encoding genes, so the risk of insect-derived prions infecting us is zero. Where the risk lies is in whether they can act as vectors for our own prions. Fortunately, due to the same genetic basis, mammalian prions cannot replicate within insects, but studies have found that they can be carried by them (Thackray et al., 2012; 2014).

The key issue with prions is that farmed insects would need to be fed on human- or animal-derived substrates, such as slaughterhouse by-products or human sewerage, for any potential risks to arise, but this is only going to be a possibility for insects raised for feed since these substrates are not made use of in the farming of insects for human food.


Chemical contaminants that may accumulate in insects through their substrate can be broken down into the following categories:

Heavy Metals

Data on heavy metal uptake by insects is mostly limited to studies on cadmium and lead, but it has been shown that these metals are accumulated in insects through their substrate or from the soil (Vijver et al., 2003; Diener et al., 2011). More research is needed on the uptake of other metals and on the heavy metal content found in different forms of substrate.


Insect toxins are naturally produced by some insect species, but they usually advertise their toxicity through the use of vivid colours to ward of predators. There is no evidence that the most commonly farmed insect species produce these kinds of toxins. Insects do have the ability to accumulate toxins from plants and fungi, so the issue for farmed insects is primarily related to the control of toxin levels in their substrate.

Hormones & Veterinary Drugs

Veterinary drugs, hormones and antimicrobial agents are sometimes added to substrates to fend off disease or promote growth in farmed insect populations, and residues have been found to accumulate in the insects (Charlton et al., 2015). The EU veterinary drug legislation does not currently cater for insect farming, but testing for these kind of compounds can be managed in much the same way as is practised with other foods of animal origin.

Pesticides & Biocides

Very little data exists on the accumulation of pesticides in farmed insects, but most insects tested had levels below the danger threshold (Charlton et al., 2015). Pesticide accumulation is obviously a concern for insect farming, especially if the insects are destined for the plate, but again, close control and traceability of the substrate used should be practised. Similarly, care must also be taken with the use of any biocides for the cleaning and disinfecting of farming equipment.


This is a big one for insect farmers, since there have already been cases of allergic reactions and even anaphylactic shock in humans (Siracusa et al., 2003; Ji et al., 2009). Moreover, the potential for allergic reactions cannot be controlled by choice of substrate, as has been the case for most of the risks discussed so far.

Allergic reactions occur in individuals either because they are already sensitised to insect allergens, the allergen has cross-reactivity with something else they are allergic to (e.g. shellfish), or the allergen is responsible for a completely new food allergy in the individual. The ESFA advises risk assessments need to be informed by further research into these three types of allergic reactions and their relative potential to develop in the population.

The obvious solution, provided that the risks assessed through research are not higher than acceptable levels, is to inform consumers of the insect content and potential allergenicity and/or cross-reactivity of insect-derived products through adequate food labelling.

Farming Methods

The processing and storage methods used following insect harvesting are also key considerations for food safety, as contamination can occur after the farming process, as was the case when five people in Kenya died of botulism after eating termites stored in plastic bags for four days during transport (Knightingale & Ayim, 1980).

A study into different processing methods for mealworms and crickets revealed that the only means of destroying all Enterobacteriaceae and spore-forming bacteria was through a combination of boiling the insects for five minutes, followed by refrigeration at 5 to 7 ºC (Klunder et al., 2012). The study also showed that roasting alone did not eliminate bacteria, so boiling beforehand was again advised.

Environmental Risks

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) takes into account many of the risk factors already discussed in this article, their potential to be released into the environment, and any knock-on effects that this may cause. The sustainability of our food sources is another factor that is becoming increasingly more important, and was also therefore considered by the EFSA.

The environmental risks involved in insect farming largely depend on the waste management strategies in place, as is the case for any type of livestock agriculture, but also on the levels of some of the contaminants already mentioned (heavy metals, pesticides, etc.) that might be present in the insect waste. Insect frass, for example, is known to be nutrient-rich and therefore may act as an efficient fertiliser, but risks of environmental contamination may then come into play if the safety criteria for them are not adhered to in the first place.

As far as the sustainability of insect farming is concerned, it does appear to be more favourable than traditional livestock farming (more details here), but the EFSA suggests that more data is required to evaluate the extent to which this is the case, specifically for the mass-rearing of insects compared to that of larger livestock.

Charlton, A. J., Dickinson, M., Wakefield, M. E., Fitches, E., Kenis, M., Han, R., … & Smith, R. (2015). Exploring the chemical safety of fly larvae as a source of protein for animal feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(1), 7-16.

Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., Gutiérrez, F. R., Nguyen, D. H., Morel, A., Koottatep, T., & Tockner, K. (2011). Black soldier fly larvae for organic waste treatment—prospects and constraints. In Proceedings of the WasteSafe—2nd International Conference on Solid Waste Management in the Developing Countries. Khulna, Bangladesh.

Eilenberg, J., Vlak, J. M., Nielsen-LeRoux, C., Cappellozza, S., & Jensen, A. B. (2015). Diseases in insects produced for food and feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(2), 87-102.

EFSA Scientific Committee (2015). Scientific Opinion on a risk profile related to production and consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA Journal, 13(10), 4257, 60 pp.

El-Far, M., Li, Y., Fédière, G., Abol-Ela, S., & Tijssen, P. (2004). Lack of infection of vertebrate cells by the densovirus from the maize worm Mythimna loreyi (MlDNV). Virus research, 99(1), 17-24.

Hirose, E., Panizzi, A. R., & Cattelan, A. J. (2006). Potential use of antibiotic to improve performance of laboratory-reared Nezara viridula (L.)(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Neotropical entomology, 35(2), 279-281.

Holt, P. S., Geden, C. J., Moore, R. W., & Gast, R. K. (2007). Isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis from houseflies (Musca domestica) found in rooms containing Salmonella serovar Enteritidis-challenged hens.Applied and environmental microbiology, 73(19), 6030-6035.

Jeandron, A., Rinaldi, L., Abdyldaieva, G., Usubalieva, J., Steinmann, P., Cringoli, G., & Utzinger, J. (2011). Human infections with Dicrocoelium dendriticum in Kyrgyzstan: the tip of the iceberg?. Journal of Parasitology,97(6), 1170-1172.

Ji, K., Chen, J., Li, M., Liu, Z., Wang, C., Zhan, Z., … & Xia, Q. (2009). Anaphylactic shock and lethal anaphylaxis caused by food consumption in China. Trends in food science & technology, 20(5), 227-231.

King, A. M. Q., Adams, M. J., Carstens, E. B., & Lefkowitz, E. J. (2012). Virus Taxonomy: Ninth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, Elsevier Inc.

Klunder, H. C., Wolkers-Rooijackers, J., Korpela, J. M., & Nout, M. J. R. (2012). Microbiological aspects of processing and storage of edible insects. Food Control, 26(2), 628-631.

Knightingale, K. W., & Ayim, E. N. (1980). Outbreak of botulism in Kenya after ingestion of white ants. BMJ, 281(6256), 1682-1683.

Leffer, A. M., Kuttel, J., Martins, L. M., Pedroso, A. C., Astolfi-Ferreira, C. S., Ferreira, F., & Ferreira, A. J. P. (2010). Vectorial competence of larvae and adults of Alphitobius diaperinus in the transmission of Salmonella Enteritidis in poultry. Vector-borne and Zoonotic diseases, 10(5), 481-487.

Siracusa, A., Marcucci, F., Spinozzi, F., Marabini, A., Pettinari, L., Pace, M. L., & Tacconi, C. (2003). Prevalence of occupational allergy due to live fish bait. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 33(4), 507-510.

Thackray, A. M., Muhammad, F., Zhang, C., Denyer, M., Spiropoulos, J., Crowther, D. C., & Bujdoso, R. (2012). Prion-induced toxicity in PrP transgenic Drosophila. Experimental and molecular pathology, 92(2), 194-201.

Thackray, A. M., Zhang, C., Arndt, T., & Bujdoso, R. (2014). Cytosolic PrP can participate in prion-mediated toxicity. Journal of virology, 88(14), 8129-8138.

Van Huis, A., Itterbeeck, V. J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., & Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. Available at:

Vijver, M., Jager, T., Posthuma, L., & Peijnenburg, W. (2003). Metal uptake from soils and soil–sediment mixtures by larvae of Tenebrio molitor (L.)(Coleoptera). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 54(3), 277-289.