Food security researchers are now recommending insect protein over plant-based alternatives for feeding vulnerable populations

A new review published in the journal Global Food Security is making waves with a pointed recommendation: when it comes to addressing malnutrition in vulnerable populations, insect protein may be more practical than plant-based alternatives in certain low-resource settings. The paper, authored by researchers at Wageningen University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, analyzed 34 studies across Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia and found that edible insects offered a unique combination of nutrient density, local availability, and low production costs that plant proteins sometimes struggled to match in those specific contexts.

Before anyone starts writing the obituary for plant-based protein, let's zoom out. The researchers were explicit that their recommendations apply to acute food insecurity scenarios — refugee camps, drought-affected regions, areas with limited agricultural infrastructure. In these environments, farming crickets or black soldier fly larvae can require dramatically less water, land, and feed than cultivating soybeans or processing pea protein isolate. A UN Food and Agriculture Organization report has long noted that crickets need six times less feed than cattle to produce the same amount of protein, but the new review highlights that insects also outperform many plant sources on bioavailable iron, zinc, and B12 — micronutrients critically lacking in malnourished populations.

The nuance matters here. The study doesn't argue that insect protein is universally superior to plant-based options. It argues that context is everything. In regions where soy or legume farming faces climate pressures — and climate change is reshaping agricultural viability across the Global South — locally farmed insects can fill nutritional gaps faster and cheaper. Meanwhile, in places with robust supply chains and food processing infrastructure, plant-based proteins remain highly effective and scalable. The researchers specifically praised fortified plant-based foods as strong options where distribution networks exist to support them.

This conversation about food access hits differently depending on where you're standing. We've explored how deeply our backgrounds shape our relationship with food — as one recent VegOut piece put it, for people who grew up in lower-middle-class households, food was about necessity long before it was ever about choice. That dynamic scales globally. For millions of people, the question of protein source has nothing to do with preference and everything to do with survival.

The plant-based industry shouldn't read this as a threat. If anything, it's a call to think bigger about accessibility. Companies like Beyond Meat and others in the future food space have spent years perfecting products for Western retail shelves. The challenge now — one the sector is increasingly aware of — is making affordable, nutrient-dense plant proteins available in the places that need them most. Some startups are already working on low-cost, shelf-stable plant protein blends designed for humanitarian aid contexts, which the researchers acknowledged as promising developments.

The takeaway from this research is refreshingly undogmatic: feed people with what works, where it works. In a Kenyan refugee camp, that might be cricket flour. In a Brooklyn grocery store, that might be tempeh. The goal is the same — getting adequate nutrition to human beings — and the path there doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all. For those of us who care about conscious eating, it's a good reminder that the most ethical food system is ultimately the one that actually feeds everyone. And as we've written before, our personal relationship with abundance often shapes how we think about what other people deserve on their plates, too.

Feature image by ThisIsEngineering on Pexels