4.5 Review

Edible arachnids and myriapods worldwide - updated list, nutritional profile and food hygiene implications

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECTS AS FOOD AND FEED
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 261-279

Publisher

WAGENINGEN ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3920/JIFF2020.0046

Keywords

arachnophagy; food anthropology; food safety; arthropod farming; pharmacology; toxicology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review explores the history of traditional consumption of arachnids and myriapods, providing an updated list of edible species worldwide. The consumption of these animals involves collecting from the wild and processing techniques such as heating and defanging. Safety concerns include the need to eliminate pathogens and toxins through proper cooking methods, and future research is necessary to evaluate chemical risks and establish arachnid and myriapod farming practices for food and industrial use.
Like insects, arachnids (spiders, scorpions, mites and ticks) and myriapods (millipedes and centipedes) also have a history of traditional consumption, either as foodstuff or medicine. In this review, an updated list of edible arachnids and myriapods is presented, showing that these animals are consumed worldwide. They are collected from the wild, and typical processing includes heating, defanging and, in certain cases, drying and grinding. The scarce data show a marked variation in nutrient composition that depends on the taxon and even sex, possibly also instar and feeding. Evaluating these traditions in terms of food safety, tick consumption must be discouraged, and heating steps are mandatory to eliminate pathogens, venoms, and urticating setae. For the future, more research will be necessary to assess chemical risks in wild-caught animals in terms of consumer safety and to get productive arachnid and myriapod farming for foodstuffs and industrial uses (pharmaceutical substances and silks) started.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available