4.6 Review

Sustainable Food Systems: EU Regulatory Framework and Contribution of Insects to the Farm-To-Fork Strategy

期刊

FOOD REVIEWS INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 6955-6976

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/87559129.2022.2130354

关键词

Novel Foods; European legal framework; Consumer acceptance; Food allergy; Food policy; food microbiology; safety; Food science and technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 'Farm-to-Fork' strategy aims to transition to a sustainable and fair food system. Insects, as ideal sources of protein, play an important role in agriculture. However, their entry into the EU market requires authorization and risk assessment. Insect farming is expanding in Europe, but consumers require comprehensive information and protection.
The 'Farm-to-Fork' strategy aims to accelerate the transition to a sustainable food system and to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly. Insects contribute to the circularity of agriculture, and are ideal candidates to complement traditional sources of protein. The placement of insects on the EU food market needs to be authorized by the Commission following a risk assessment. To date, three insect species have been approved for their commercialization, while the use of insect proteins in feed is strictly regulated. Insect farming is an expanding industry in Europe, and more consumers want to try insect-based foods. To consolidate the insect market, it is very important to assure their safety. EFSA is the body in charge of assessing the risks related to the production and consumption of insects as food. Aside from the risks posed by contaminants or pathogens, insects may be a threat for certain allergic consumers, who might develop an adverse reaction mainly due to a cross-reactivity to crustaceans and/or house dust mites. Overall, the entry of insects into the EU market represents a great opportunity for the economic and ecological growth of the Community, however consumers need to be exhaustively informed and protected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据