Edible insects are a well – admire food source in many regions of Africa,Asia and the America.Globally over 2,000 species are know to be edible and consumed by approximately 2 billion people.

Insect consumption is usually promoted for 3 major reasons

• Nutrition value
• Environment benefits
• Live-hood improvement (social & economical factors)

The demand for affordable, alternative and sustainable protein sources is surging globally due to the increase in the world’s population, which is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations proposed a global initiative to increase use of insects as food and feed to ensure future food security.

Risks Associated with insects as a food ingredient

Insects may contain biological agents and substances that can cause a health threat to consumer. European food safety authority has stated that the risks highly depended on the;

• Species of insect
• The feed they consume
• Environment they inhabit
• The production & processing methods

This makes it difficult to control the hazards engaging with the food that the insects consume in the wild. Due to this risk EU countries practice to farm insects in controlled environment with sanitary techniques.

Microbial Hazards

Insects may be infected with pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria,viruses,fungi and protozoa.

As per the specific studies on the microbiology safety of insects;

• In West Africa, pathogenic bacteria including staphylococcus aureus,Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus cereus that may pose risk to the health have been reported in association with Oryctes monoceros and Oryctes owariensis.
• Wild harvested raw grass hoppers (Ruspolia differens) form Eastern Africa were found to be highly contaminated by Enterobacteriaceae, lactic acid bacteria, yeast & molds and bacteria endospores.

Chemical Hazards

Insects- derived food and feed products may contain hazardous chemicals such as environmental contaminants like heavy metals, organochlorines such as dioxins, mycotoxins and plant toxins.

Concentration of heavy metals in insects depend on the;

• Characteristics of the element
• Concentration in the substrate
• The insects species
• Their growth stage

A study on dried grasshoppers, that found the high lead content and the dehydration increased lead concentration, while yellow meal worm and black soldier fly larvae showed that the insects accumulate cadmium, lead and arsenic.

How to reduce risk by processing methods

Processing of edible insects can help lower the microbial load and the chemical hazards present in the insects. The processing methods can be applied solely or in combination.

Studies reported that either deep fried, smoked or toasted, Enterobacteriacea and lactic acid bacteria were completely eliminated while endospores were not.

In addition studies reflect that;

• Combination of wet heating and dry heating helped lower E.coli and S.aureus.
• Drying or acidification were controlling Enterobacteriaceae and bacterial endospores.
• Blanching followed by either chilled storage or industrial microwave drying is considerably affect the log reduction of microbial count.

When considering on the microbial load and nutritive value with a focus on protein digestibility and fatty acids composition, studies showed that boiling and cooking under vacuum were the most efficient techniques to reduce microbial load while maintaining the high levels of protein & polyunsaturated fatty acids of meal worms.

Drying processing of insects,toxin substances or process contamination such as hetero-cyclic aromatic amines, acrylamide and furans can be formed be chemical reactions between the insects and other ingredients.

In addition to a thermal treatments, appropriate storage methods are important.

However this subject are requires further research.

References – “An industrial innovation or a food safety concern?”,by John N.Kinyuru, RNutr and Jeremiah Ng’ang’a.

Basically Food safety management system is consists with three parts which are;

• Food Safety – Mitigation of unintentional/ accidental adulteration ; Science based
• Food defense – Mitigation of intentional adulteration ; Ideologically motivated
• Food fraud – Mitigation of intentional adulteration ; Economically motivated

The two main types of economically-motivated adulteration are:

• Sale of food which is unfit and potentially harmful, such as:

– Recycling of animal by-products back into the food chain;

– Packing and selling of meat with unknown origin;

– Knowingly selling goods past their ‘use by’ date.

• Deliberate mislabelling of food, such as:

– Products substituted with a cheaper alternative, e. g. farmed salmon sold as wild, or Basmati rice adulterated with cheaper varieties;

– False statements about the source of ingredients, i.e. their geographic, plant or animal origin.

A general approach to prevent food fraud can be summarised as follows:

1.Conduct vulnerability assessment, including:

– Know your materials and risks (history, economic factors, geographical origins, physical state, emerging issues);

– Know your suppliers (manufacturer, broker, history);

– Know your supply chain (length, complexity, supply & demand arrangements, ease of access);

– Know your existing control measures.

2.  Design mitigation strategy and implement mitigation measures.

3. Validate and verify mitigation measures, continually review food fraud management system.

1. Conduct vulnerability assessment

• The organization should document, establish and maintain a documented procedure for food fraud vulnerability assessment.
• Identification of possible vulnerabilities are based on likelihood of occurrence (O), Likelihood of detection (D) and Profitability (P) and therefore all information related to raw materials are categorized under them.

• Assessment of vulnerabilities are based on PRN score

Red – High profile raw material(s) with a genuine and current possibility of adulteration or substitution. If rigorous controls are not already in operation, then urgent additional work is needed to ensure their integrity and to confirm that only genuine materials are purchased.

Amber – The raw materials may provide an attractive target for adulteration or substitution. The site will need to ensure that all identified risks are managed or monitored.

Green – Materials are unlikely to be a target for adulteration or substitution based on the current information. Reassessment should be completed if new information becomes available.

2.Design mitigation strategy and implement mitigation measures

If the raw material falls on red or amber range preventive measures should be taken strictly while product falling on green range must be monitored and reassessment should be done if new information becomes available.

Depending on the perceived risk and precise details of the supply chain, assurance controls may include;

• Certificate of analysis from raw material suppliers that prescribed tests to demonstrate authenticity of the material.
• Raw material testing. Depending on the assessed risk, this could include positive release testing or periodic verification testing.
• ELISA and DNA testing (in conformation of species/varieties)
• Isotopic profiling (to identify geographic or botanic origin)
• Testing against legislative definitions
• Supply chain audits that include potential for fraud, adulteration, traceability and mass balance tests.

• Mass balance in critical points in supply chain.

3. Validate and verify mitigation measures, continually review food fraud management system.

System must be reviewed annually as well as in case of actual or potential failure of a preventive measure.

VACCP Template

Baking soda, bicarb soda and baking powder are all leaving agents used in baking, but they are chemically different.

Baking soda and bicarbonate of soda are different names for the same thing. In countries like Australia, they mostly refer to it as bicarbonate of soda, but, especially in America, it is referred to as baking soda.

Baking soda is a pure leavening agent: sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃). Sodium bicarbonate is a base- it’s alkaline. So if we encounter a baking recipe that uses baking soda, often that recipe will have an acidic element as well, such as vinegar, lemon juice, buttermilk, molasses, or yogurt. When baking soda is combined with moisture and an acidic ingredient (e.g., yogurt, chocolate, buttermilk, honey), the resulting chemical reaction produces bubbles of carbon dioxide that expand under oven temperatures. The carbon dioxide gas filters through the dough, searching for any pre-existing pockets of air. When it finds one, the carbon dioxide gas expands the pocket, causing the mixture to puff up. As the mixture stiffens and the carbon dioxide gas escapes, enlarged air pockets are left behind. The process is called “chemical leavening,” because the trapped CO₂ gas makes the dough or batter rise.

Baking powder is one-fourth baking soda and three-fourths acidifying agent (cream of tartar) and drying agent (cornstarch). Cream of Tartar is potassium bitartrate, also known as potassium hydrogen tartrate, which has a chemical formula of KC₄H₅O₆. Cream of tartar is an odorless white crystalline powder. Neither of these acidifying agent react with sodium bicarbonate until they are both:  wet and hot.

Baking powder is available as single-acting baking powder and as double-acting baking powder.

Single-acting powders are activated by moisture, so it should bake recipes which include this product immediately after mixing. Double-acting powders react in two phases and can stand for a while before baking. With double-acting powder, some gas is released at room temperature when the powder is added to dough, but the majority of the gas is released after the temperature of the dough increases in the oven.

So with the understanding of the composition of the these two ingredients, you can substitute the baking soda for baking powder and baking powder for baking soda.

Food fraud, food adulteration and food crime are most highlighted terms across the food supply chain. Illegal intentional deception for economic gain using food is known as a food fraud. This risk is in all stages of the supply chain and often cross international borders. According to the EU definition food fraud usually comprises misrepresentation as well as adulteration and in some definitions also theft, tampering, diversion, tax evasion, grey market and overrun. (EU, 2014)

Fraudsters are always using food as a pawn to make easy money to maximum gains and minimize losses, which include substitution, addition, dilution, tampering or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients or food packaging: and includes false or misleading statements made about product. Different ways of fraud in the market place are:

Hence it is clear that food fraud can have significant health and economic implications, but not always.

A single incident can permanently destroy a valuable brand, cause long term industry-wide losses, close off export markets and damage trust in public institutions. Recognizing this, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) required companies to conduct a food fraud vulnerability assessment and to prepare a food fraud mitigation plan.

GFSI currently recognizes the following schemes;

• BAP Seafood Processing Standard
• BRC Global Standard for Food Safety
• BRC Global Standard for storage and distribution
• BRC Global Standard for packaging and packaging materials
• Canada GAP
• China HACCP
• FSSC 22000
• Global Aquaculture Alliance Seafood
• Global G.A.P Harmonized Produce Safety Standard
• Global G.A.P Produce Safety Standard
• Global Red meat Standard
• IFS Food Standard
• IFS Logistics
• IFS PACsecure
• PrimuGFS Standard
• SQF Code

According to the GFSI guidance document it required companies to;

• Perform fraud vulnerability assessment to identify potential vulnerabilities and priorities food fraud measures.
• Have a food fraud vulnerability control plan in place the specifies the control measures the organisation has implemented to minimise the public health risk from the identified food fraud vulnerabilities and be supported by the organisation’s food safety management system.

Food fraud generally occurs where the potential for and the temptation of food fraud are high and the risk of getting caught and sanctions are low. In simply the combination of opportunities (suitable target), motivations (motivated offender) and inadequate control measures (guardianship) results the fraud. That is the science based framework for understanding food fraud risk. By analysing these three aspects, you can estimate the food fraud vulnerability for any food product or ingredient.

1. Opportunities – why offenders are able to commit fraud
2. Motivations – why offenders would want to commit fraud
3. Control measures – counteract the vulnerability resulting from opportunities and motivations.

• Opportunities-

Normally in a business every time there is a transaction, it means there is another opportunity to cheat. Opportunities can be identified as technical opportunities and opportunities in time and place. The opportunity of fraud is depend on the composition, qualities, production process, supply chain and geographic origin of food product or ingredient.

For example, liquid are more susceptible to fraud than others, complex foods with multiple ingredients generally offer greater fraud opportunity than simple-single-ingredient foods, longer supply chains result in higher food fraud risk, access of unauthorized personnel and lack of physical safeguards.

• Motivations

Motivations may due to the economic and market factors or cultural and behavioral factors. Economic motivation would be encouraged due to fulfill two main purposes: revenue maximisation or cost minimisation.

Economic and market factors –

• Special attributes that determine value

• Financial strains

• Level of competition

• Supply/demand and pricing

• Competitive strategy

• Economic health or conditions

Cultural and behavioral factors-

• Personal gains or desperation

• Ethical business culture

• Corruption level

• Victimisation

• Competitive strategy

• Blackmail

• Control Measures

Fraud control measures can counteract the vulnerability arising from opportunities and motivations. A food company’s primary fraud prevention measures are its food safety management and quality control systems, as well as food quality and safety managers and staff. Fraud controls require a similar generic approach but need to be focused on fraud issues taking into account its intentional nature. Control measures are subdivided as technical measures & managerial measures.

Technical measures refer to those aimed at detection of fraud by generating data and actual information on the prevalence of adulterated products. Maintaining monitoring systems for incoming material control that include systematic sampling plans, accurate and specific fraud detection methods, clear fraud monitoring produces and strict documentation are essential for fraud controls.

The managerial measures are more preventive in nature and aim at reducing opportunities and or motivations in the management system and the chain environment.

Specific controls include-

• Information systems (e.g. traceability, mass balance)

• Fraud monitoring and verification systems

• Whistleblowing guidelines and protections

• Ethical codes of conduct

• Legal framework and enforcement

• Social control chain network

• Contractual requirements

• Employee integrity screening

Vulnerability assessment can conducted by using simple quadratic model tool or spider web diagrams while considering the above mentioned criteria are taken into account.

The next article on steps to conduct a vulnerability assessment.