Invisible Insects: A New Raw Material for Foodtech

The global search for sustainable protein alternatives has positioned insects, particularly crickets, as a promising solution within the foodtech industry. Their high nutritional value, efficient feed conversion, and low environmental footprint have been widely documented by organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2013). However, despite their advantages, consumer acceptance remains one of the main barriers to scaling insect-based foods.

In recent years, a key concept has emerged to address this challenge: the idea of the “invisible insect.” This approach refers not to the absence of insects in food products, but to their transformation into formats such as powders where their original shape is no longer visible. Research shows that consumers in Western markets are significantly more willing to try insect-based foods when insects are incorporated in non-visible forms (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Tan et al., 2016).

Consumer Perception and the 'Invisible Insect' Strategy

Food neophobia, the reluctance to eat unfamiliar foods, plays a crucial role in the rejection of edible insects. Studies indicate that visual cues strongly influence acceptance: the presence of recognizable insect features such as legs or wings can trigger disgust responses (Rozin & Fallon, 1987; Tan et al., 2016).Taking into consideration that insects are often associated with unhygienic environments and unpleasant imagery, the idea of consuming them can trigger strong aversion. The visibility of features such as wings or legs reinforces this reaction, as they are commonly perceived as disgusting. Moreover, within the collective imagination, insects are linked to dirty, humid, or contaminated spaces rather than clean or controlled environments, making it even more difficult for consumers to accept them as food. This resistance tends to increase in regions where insect infestations are common, as the association with pests further amplifies rejection.

In this context, the “invisible insect” strategy becomes essential. By using cricket protein powder, companies can deliver the nutritional and environmental benefits of insects while aligning with familiar consumption patterns. The result is a product that looks, tastes, and feels similar to conventional foods, significantly lowering the psychological barrier to entry, even producing products that likely look similar to those that are already in the market. For example: cookies with cricket protein powder; the user already has an idea of how a cookie looks and how it tastes. Texture also plays a critical role. Whole or partially processed insects can create unpleasant sensory experiences, particularly when consumers encounter unexpected hard fragments. In contrast, finely milled cricket powder allows for smoother textures and better integration into products, such as protein bars, snacks, and baked goods.

At this stage, it is also crucial to apply the “invisible insect” approach to ready-to-eat products. This not only removes the visual barrier but also reduces the consumer’s fear of cooking with an unfamiliar ingredient. When users are required to prepare the product themselves, additional friction appears: they may lack ingredients, deviate from recipes, or feel uncertain about the process. If the final result is not as expected, the failure is often attributed to the new ingredient — in this case, cricket protein — rather than to the preparation itself.

For this reason, successful market adoption relies on a combination of strategies: offering familiar product formats, ensuring convenience through ready-to-eat options, and incorporating insects in an “invisible” form. Together, these elements significantly increase consumer acceptance and trust.

The Role of Packaging, Language, Culture

Beyond formulation, packaging and communication strategies are key drivers of consumer acceptance. When consumers encounter the word “cricket” on packaging, their initial reaction is often curiosity mixed with hesitation. At this stage, visual design becomes decisive.

Transparent packaging, familiar product formats, and appealing colors can help reframe expectations. When consumers see a product that resembles something they already know, such as a snack or a protein bar, they are more likely to engage with it. This aligns with research suggesting that familiarity and context significantly influence willingness to try novel foods. (Siegrist, 2008). However, successful communication goes beyond design. Language, cultural context, and regulatory frameworks play a critical role in shaping perception. Simply placing the word “cricket” on packaging is not enough and in some cases, it can even put off consumers if not handled carefully.

In certain markets, regulations require clear front-of-pack labeling indicating the presence of insects, ensuring full transparency. In others, this information may appear within the ingredient list, allowing brands more flexibility in how they introduce the concept. Importantly, the “invisible insect” strategy does not imply hiding ingredients, but rather presenting them in a way that aligns with consumer expectations and reduces initial rejection.

Cultural background further influences acceptance. In regions where entomophagy has historical or Indigenous roots, consumers may be more open to trying insect-based products, even if crickets themselves are not traditionally consumed. In contrast, in many European markets, food traditions are deeply rooted and protected, which can create resistance to novel ingredients. For example, in countries like Italy, public discourse around insect-based foods has been closely tied to the preservation of culinary heritage, shaping both regulation and consumer perception. Meanwhile, in parts of Latin America, insect-based products are more often framed as innovation, creating a more receptive environment.

For this reason, packaging and communication must be adapted to each market. It is not only about naming the ingredient, but about explaining it: where it comes from, its nutritional value, and its environmental benefits compared to conventional proteins. Providing this context helps consumers move from uncertainty to understanding, increasing their willingness to try. The success of cricket-based products depends on a 360 strategy, one that integrates product design, clear communication and cultural sensitivity.

Implications for Foodtech Innovation

The development of insect-based products highlights a broader principle within foodtech: innovation must balance novelty with familiarity. While sustainability and nutrition are strong value propositions, they are not sufficient on their own to drive consumer behavior.

Products that deviate too far from established sensory expectations risk rejection, regardless of their benefits. Therefore, integrating insects in “invisible” formats represents not only a marketing strategy but also a product development principle.From a physiological perspective, finely ground insect protein may also offer advantages in digestibility and versatility, further supporting its use in processed formats (FAO, 2013).

Ultimately, the success of insect-based foods will depend on gradual adoption. Rather than positioning insects as a radical replacement, companies are increasingly framing them as a complementary and accessible protein source. As the foodtech industry evolves, the “invisible insect” strategy could play a decisive role in bridging the gap between sustainability innovation and consumer acceptance — transforming crickets from a niche concept into a scalable global ingredient.

References

• FAO. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security.

• Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption. Appetite.

• Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., et al. (2016). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference.

• Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review.

• Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies. Journal of Food Science.