A comparison using two nutrient profiling
models developed to combat over- and undernutrition
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Insects have been the subject of recent attention as a potentially environmentally sustainable and
nutritious alternative to traditional protein sources. The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that insects are nutritionally
preferable to meat, using two evaluative tools that are designed to combat over- and under-nutrition.
SUBJECTS/METHODS: We selected 183 datalines of publicly available data on the nutrient composition of raw cuts and offal of
three commonly consumed meats (beef, pork and chicken), and six commercially available insect species, for energy and 12
relevant nutrients. We applied two nutrient profiling tools to this data: The Ofcom model, which is used in the United Kingdom, and
the Nutrient Value Score (NVS), which has been used in East Africa. We compared the median nutrient profile scores of different
insect species and meat types using non-parametric tests and applied Bonferroni adjustments to assess for statistical significance in
differences.
RESULTS: Insect nutritional composition showed high diversity between species. According to the Ofcom model, no insects were
significantly ‘healthier’ than meat products. The NVS assigned crickets, palm weevil larvae and mealworm a significantly healthier
score than beef (Po0.001) and chicken (Po0.001). No insects were statistically less healthy than meat.
CONCLUSIONS: Insect nutritional composition is highly diverse in comparison with commonly consumed meats. The food category
‘insects’ contains some foods that could potentially exacerbate diet-related public health problems related to over-nutrition, but
may be effective in combating under-nutrition.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2016) 70, 285–291; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2015.149; published online 16 September 2015
INTRODUCTION
As the world population rises, the global food system faces an
impending crisis,1 and a major component of this crisis is the
forecast that the livestock sector is growing at a rate that is
deemed unsustainable.2 Therefore, we must look to alternative
sources of protein that can be produced on a viable and
sustainable commercial scale, and in recent years edible insects
have been proposed as one potential ‘new’ protein source. The
main reason for this is that many insects can be farmed at
relatively low economic and environmental costs; farming insects
use up to 50–90% less land per kg protein, 40–80% less feed per
kg edible weight and produces 1000–2700 g less GHGEs (Greenhouse
gas emissions) per kg mass gain than conventional
livestock.3 However, particularly in Europe, insects are a new food
and information about the safety and nutritional value of edible
insects is scarce, particularly since they are such a diverse
category.4 Yet insects are already available to purchase in certain
shops across Europe. Due to restrictive legislation that allows only
whole, visible insects to be sold, current marketing practices may
alienate consumers who would otherwise purchase insect food.5
However, in order to combat this problem, an international
consortium known as IPIFF (International Platform for Insects as
Food and Feed) is currently working to change EU laws in favour
of greater freedom in marketing insects as food. This indicates
that insect foods are reaching EU (European Union) markets, but
also highlights the importance of systematic research into the
nutritional content and safety of commercially available insects for
human consumption.
Insects are not a new food, although they have not been farmed
on a commercial scale for use as human food until fairly recently.
Instead, the majority of edible insects are harvested from the wild,
particularly in remote rural regions and in tropical countries with
high biodiversity, where insects have been an important wild
source of protein and micronutrients for millennia.6 However,
insects are also a farmed or semi-farmed resource across the
world. European honeybees are thought to have been domesticated
for 7000 years,7 and the domestic silkworm, Bombyx mori,
has been farmed for at least 5000 years.8 Silkworm pupae,
a by-product of the silk-making process, are used as human food
in many areas of Asia.9 A relative of the silkworm, the mopane
caterpillar (Imbrasia belina), is sold widely in markets and
supermarkets across southern Africa, and the mopane trade is
estimated to be worth millions of US dollars.10 In recent years,
there have been systematic attempts to farm mopane worms in
intentionally planted mopane forests, to meet increasing demand
and to give rural women control over this important source of
income, and these have met with varying success.11 This is part
of a larger pattern: in many other areas of the world, NGOs
(Non-government organisations), government-funded research
teams, private companies and individual entrepreneurs are
1Department of Intercultural Studies, Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan and 2Nuffield Department of Population Health, The British Heart Foundation Centre on Population
Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Correspondence: CLR Payne, Nuffield Department of Population Health, BHF CPNP,
University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, OX3 7LF Oxford, UK.
E-mail: charlotte.payne@gmail.com
Received 27 May 2015; revised 7 July 2015; accepted 10 July 2015; published online 16 September 2015
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2016) 70, 285–291
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0954-3007/16
www.nature.com/ejcn
attempting to semi-farm insects that were traditionally wild
harvested. For example, insect-farming initiatives in Thailand now
produce palm weevils and crickets on a commercial scale,12 and
similar farming methods are currently being developed for the
African palm weevil13 and Mexican grasshopper, both of which are
highly valued foods in the regions in which they are harvested
from the wild.14 This shows an increasing interest in a fairly recent
phenomenon: insect farming for human food on a commercial
scale originated in Southeast Asia in the late 1990s.6
There are many advantages to farming insects. Crickets15 and
weaver ants16 have a high feed conversion efficiency compared
with traditional livestock. The greenhouse gas and ammonia
emissions of five edible insects are lower or comparable to
emissions from pig farming and far lower than published figures
for cattle farming,17 and a complete life cycle analysis of
mealworm production has shown that mealworms require less
land, comparable energy input and emit fewer greenhouse gases,
than milk, chicken, pork or beef.18 According to current research,
therefore, insects are a cheaper and more environmentally
sustainable to conventional livestock.
The health consequences of insect consumption are less clear.
The nutritional composition of many edible insects has been
tested, and many have favourable nutrient profiles, particularly in
the context of a locally-sourced traditional diet. For example, we
know that that the palm weevil larvae consumed in some parts of
Africa are high in lysine and leucine, both of which are found in
insufficient quantities in tubers, the traditional staple food in the
same regions.19 However, there is little experimental evidence to
suggest that insects are nutritionally preferable to other plant- or
animal-based protein sources. Insects have been considered as a
potential source of nutrients for human complementary feeding,20
but the results of human trials on health indicators are yet to be
published.
To address this lack of data linking health impacts with
increased insect consumption, in the present study we chose to
use evaluative tools developed ‘to classify foods based on their
nutritional composition’.21 These are known as nutrient profiling
models, and can be used to derive a ‘healthiness’ score for foods
based solely on their nutritional composition. A wide range of
approaches have been used towards the development of such
models, and opinion is divided over which approach is most
scientifically robust.22 The scores produced by nutrient profile
models have been validated against food-based dietary
guidelines,23,24 the opinions of nutrition experts,25 theoretically
constructed healthy diets,26 healthy diets achieved in populations26
and (most importantly) prospective health outcomes.25
In this study, we wish to understand the relative nutritional
value of commercially available insects and commonly consumed
meats in two scenarios tackling two different causes of dietrelated
ill health, under-nutrition and over-nutrition. For our model
developed to target over-nutrition, we chose the Ofcom model,
which is currently in use in the United Kingdom to regulate
broadcast advertising of foods to children,27 and is the basis of
regulation in Australia and New Zealand to both regulate health
and nutrition claims and support the ‘healthy stars’ voluntary
front-of-pack labelling scheme.28,29 We used the ‘Nutrient Value
Score’ (NVS) as a model that targets under-nutrition. The NVS is a
tool developed by the United Nations World Food Programme to
inform the composition of food baskets and commodity vouchers,
classifies individual foods on a continuous scale based on their
nutrient composition, with an emphasis on micronutrient content.30
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2016) 70, 285–291
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기