EFSA cannot establish the safety of a house cricket powder

Teaser: EFSA cannot establish the safety of a newly submitted spray-dried Acheta domesticuspowder under the proposed conditions of use. The outcome is not based on a general objection to house crickets as food. Instead, the dossier shows how process control, food-contact materials, batch variability and specification determine whether the safety of a Novel Food can be assessed.

A product-specific opinion, not a judgement on house crickets

On 25 September, EFSA published its opinion on a spray-dried powder derived from the house cricket Acheta domesticus. The product was intended for use as a food in itself and as an ingredient in various foods for the general population. The responsible panel concluded that the safety of the product under the proposed uses and use levels could not be established on the basis of the evidence submitted [1].

The scope of this conclusion is narrow. EFSA assessed the product described in the application and produced by a specific manufacturing process. Other forms of Acheta domesticus are already included in the Union list, including frozen, dried and powder forms as well as a partially defatted powder [2]. The new opinion does not revoke those authorisations. Nor does it constitute a formal refusal of the new application: following the scientific assessment, the Commission and the Member States decide whether to authorise the product [3].

The pilot process and specification do not align

EFSA considers the pilot-scale process to have been described in adequate detail, but identifies steps and practices that may have contributed to cross-contamination and variability in microbiological parameters. Total aerobic mesophilic counts varied markedly between the batches tested; in some cases, elevated counts of presumptive Bacillus cereus, yeasts and moulds were reported. Mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons raised safety concerns, and phthalates were also detected. Because information on materials in contact with the product was incomplete, the source of the phthalates could not be determined [1].

The central deficiency therefore does not lie in a single analytical result. In EFSA’s view, the proposed specification limits did not adequately capture the observed batch variability and were insufficient to ensure product safety [1]. A specification can support an authorisation dossier only when the process description, representative batch data, contaminant controls and analytical limits describe the same industrial reality.

What the case means for new ingredients

The opinion is relevant beyond insect-derived foods to developers of new protein and fermentation ingredients. Pilot batches must provide more than sufficient material for analytical work and application testing. They must come from a process in which critical steps, food-contact materials, outsourced operations and hygiene controls can be traced. If spray-drying or another process step is contracted out, interfaces and responsibilities belong in the same chain of evidence and root-cause analysis as in-house production.

For procurement and raw-material approval, the species name alone is also too broad. An authorised food derived from Acheta domesticus does not automatically cover every powder made from the same species. Supplier eligibility, manufacturing identity, authorised form, specification, conditions of use and labelling must match the specific commercial product [2]. The same principle applies to other Novel Foods for which the organism or source material may appear familiar but the assessed product is defined by processing, concentration or other manufacturing conditions.

Yours, Andreas Gebhart

Sources

All sources last checked and accessed on 1 October 2026.

1. EFSA NDA Panel: Safety of Acheta domesticus spray-dried powder as a Novel Food, published 25 September 2026.
2. Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2022/188 and (EU) 2023/5, entries and conditions of use for Acheta domesticus and partially defatted powder.
3. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, Arts. 10–12.

Note: This News item provides professional context and does not replace a legal, microbiological, chemical or product-specific assessment. Images: AI-generated