Introduction
Evidence from livestock production indicates that American and European consumers often rank animal welfare at least as highly as, and often higher than, environmental sustainability in shaping their purchasing decisions. For instance, Lusk and Briggeman (Reference Lusk and Briggeman2009) surveyed American consumers and found that improving farm animal welfare ranked above environmental impact, and Denver et al. (Reference Denver, Christensen, Lund, Olsen and Sandøe2023) compared the willingness-to-pay of individuals in Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom for different attributes of pork products, finding that consumers were more willing to pay a price premium for animal welfare than sustainability attributes. (Additionally, see: Heng, Peterson and Li, Reference Heng, Peterson and Li2013; Schmiess and Lusk, Reference Schmiess and Lusk2022; Denver et al., Reference Denver, Christensen, Lund, Olsen and Sandøe2023; Schütz et al., Reference Schütz, Sonntag, Christoph-Schulz and Faletar2023; Ammann et al., Reference Ammann, Mack, El Benni, Jin, Newell-Price, Tindale, Hunter, Vicario-Modroño, Gallardo-Cobos, Sánchez-Zamora, Miškolci and Frewer2024.) Moreover, there are various real-world case studies that illustrate how animal welfare can be a critical component of an industry’s social license to operate (SLO) (Hampton, Jones and McGreevy, Reference Hampton, Jones and McGreevy2020).
Though it is reasonable to wonder whether concern about animal welfare generally would apply to insects specifically, the evidence supports the claim that it does, at least to some degree. Studies suggest that many in the United States and United Kingdom believe that insects can feel pain, that there is considerable support for protecting animals even when the capacity for pain is uncertain, and that the degree to which individuals believe that insects can feel pain is positively correlated with their degree of ethical concern about insect farming (Rethink Priorities, 2021; Fukuda et al., Reference Fukuda, Carrasco, Perez, Fischer and Drewery2023). Moreover, the insect as food and feed industry’s decision to market its products as high welfare (e.g., IPIFF, 2022) suggests that these survey results do not reflect an idiosyncratic view of the general public.
Nevertheless, current discussions of insect production emphasize sustainability over animal welfare (see, e.g., Lange and Nakamura, Reference Lange and Nakamura2023; Kłobukowski, Śmiechowska and Skotnicka, Reference Kłobukowski, Śmiechowska and Skotnicka2025). This does not match what is known about consumer priorities regarding animal welfare versus sustainability more generally. So, while it is possible that consumer priorities will be substantially different in the insect case, absent evidence to that effect, the mismatch provides reason to think that the insect industry’s emphasis on sustainability benefits may not be sufficient to maintain public trust as production practices become better known. (While the insects-as-food-and-feed sector has not yet been the focus of widespread consumer attention regarding welfare, limited concern may reflect limited awareness rather than indifference, as research on emerging food sectors suggests that consumer concern tends to increase as familiarity and transparency rise; see Fonseca and Sanchez-Sabate, Reference Fonseca and Sanchez-Sabate2022.) This forum article contends that existing trends in consumer attitudes toward animal welfare may help anticipate where concern is most likely to develop as insect farming scales.
Themes in consumer concern: visibility and naturalness
Consumer concern does not apply evenly across all welfare issues; instead, when asked about particular farm practices, consumers tend to prioritize those that are most visible, intuitively cruel, and emotionally salient (Grandin, Reference Grandin2014), whereas husbandry problems that are less visible or understood rank lower in spontaneous concern (Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Regan, McKernan, Benson, Hanlon and Dean2022).
Practices that involve mutilating animals or causing acute pain—tail docking, dehorning, castration without pain relief, beak trimming—draw strong condemnation from the public. European focus groups have deemed many routine mutilations ‘unnecessary’ and unacceptable when informed about them (Fonseca and Sanchez-Sabate, Reference Fonseca and Sanchez-Sabate2022). A US survey of 1,200 residents rated the welfare impact of 12 common dairy farming practices: tail docking and dehorning were viewed as having the most negative effect on cattle welfare, by far (Widmar et al., Reference Widmar, Morgan, Wolf, Yeager, Dominick and Croney2017). Respondents across demographics ranked these two practices as the least beneficial and most harmful to animal well-being, more so than issues like housing or diet.
Consumer concern extends to housing that severely restricts normal behavior—keeping hens in battery cages, sows in gestation crates, or animals in overcrowded sheds. In a seven-country EU survey, consumers often cite ‘conditions in poultry production’ as a first worry, followed by the welfare of pigs (Kjærnes, Miele and Roex, Reference Kjærnes, Miele and Roex2007). A 2024 US poll found 90% favor laws requiring breeding pigs to have enough space to stand up, turn around, and stretch, and 81%–82% support banning the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages (Niemiec et al., Reference Niemiec, Mertens, Crooks, Kogan and Santiago-Ávila2024). These numbers are reflected in broad bipartisan approval for measures like California’s Proposition 12.
Consumers also want humane slaughter: 60% of US shoppers in 2021 said that ‘how animals are handled during slaughter’ mattered to them when buying meat (FMI: Roerink, Reference Roerink2021). Scandals about inhumane slaughter tend to spark public outcry in both regions. Rough handling and improper euthanasia are widely condemned when exposed. As Grandin (Reference Grandin2014) notes, basic husbandry failures—leaving sick or injured animals untreated or allowing abuse—‘keep showing up on activists’ videos’ and always provoke public anger.
Many of these concerns link to valuing animals living ‘naturally’, including having some measure of behavioral freedom (Alonso, González-Montaña and Lomillos, Reference Alonso, González-Montaña and Lomillos2020). In surveys, many people express that farm animals should have access to the outdoors, the ability to socialize, and enrichment to avoid boredom. Over 75% of Americans agreed it is important that farm animals are raised in conditions that allow them to behave naturally (Niemiec et al., Reference Niemiec, Mertens, Crooks, Kogan and Santiago-Ávila2024).
Genuine welfare problems like air quality, chronic stress, boredom due to lack of enrichment, or subclinical health issues play a secondary role, as they are less visible to the casual observer. Unless these issues are translated into more relatable terms, they fail to provoke much public reaction. However, this is not to suggest that these welfare issues are trivial, either for the animals or in terms of public concern. A major reason for these differences is awareness. Many consumers simply do not know about certain routine practices or their consequences. One study noted the UK public was largely unaware that piglets often have their teeth clipped days after birth; once informed, people rated that procedure as very painful and had low tolerance for it (Connor and Cowan, Reference Connor and Cowan2020). This suggests that lack of visibility and comprehension, not lack of sympathy in principle, explains the lower level of concern. When hidden issues are explained in plain terms, consumers can and do recognize their severity. Still, it remains the case that some welfare issues are much more likely to cause consumer concern than others.
Application to BSF production
Extending these patterns to black soldier fly (BSF) production suggests some existing practices may be more likely than others to activate consumers, particularly if visual footage or descriptions become widespread. Commercial BSF processors commonly finish larvae in convection ovens at 70°C–90°C for 10–15 min to aid dehydration and sanitation (Larouche et al., Reference Larouche, Deschamps, Saucier, Lebeuf, Doyen and Vandenberg2019). This means that larvae may remain alive until core body temperatures approach their critical thermal maximum, displaying escape behaviors for minutes before mortality.
BSF are most economically reared at relatively high densities; however, studies repeatedly show that crowding elevates aggression and cannibalism, with stocking beyond ~10 larvae cm2 increasing bite wounds, frass bacterial load, and mortality (Yakti et al., Reference Yakti, Schulz, Marten, Mewis, Padmanabha, Hempel, Kobelski, Streif and Ulrichs2022). This is connected to the problem of pathogens that ‘liquefy’ larvae or cause blackened cadavers to accumulate in bins (Eilenberg et al., Reference Eilenberg, Vlak, Nielsen-LeRoux, Cappellozza and Jensen2015). Because infected individuals are often cannibalized, pathogens spread quickly and produce visually graphic mortality events.
These examples highlight that there are some easily visualized harms associated with insect production. Given consumer responses to comparable harms in conventional livestock production, a negative consumer response is possible. Barrett et al. (Reference Barrett, Chia, Fischer, Tomberlin and Purkayasthaforthcoming) offer comprehensive welfare recommendations covering all parts of the BSF life cycle. However, given the potential financial costs of improvements, producers face prioritization decisions.
Based on the analysis of consumer attitudes toward livestock welfare, certain BSF welfare issues may generate strongest concern as they most closely parallel practices that have consistently generated the strongest public opposition in conventional animal agriculture: inhumane slaughter mirrors the slaughter concerns that affect 60% of US consumers’ purchasing decisions; starvation of adults echoes reservations about feed deprivation; larval cannibalism is gruesome in ways that mirror other bodily mutilations; lethal overheating involves visible suffering; genetic modifications and spatial constraints raise naturalness concerns.
While other welfare issues matter from a purely ethical standpoint, consumers may be less likely to be concerned about disturbance-associated stress, humidity levels, pathogens, nutritional inadequacies, or transportation—issues that are not as visible and are less likely to be perceived as unnatural. Insofar as producers are trying to set priorities, they may want to begin with the more probable drivers of consumer concern. The research on livestock industries shows that welfare problems involving visible harms can rapidly erode public consent and trigger regulatory responses. Given that consumer concern tends to grow with awareness, proactively addressing these most emotionally salient welfare issues represents a strategic investment in maintaining industry legitimacy.
Conclusion
Public concern for animal welfare appears to broaden as awareness increases. For example, fish welfare now receives EU-level legislative attention; octopus farming prompted anticipatory opposition, leading two US states to prohibit the practice. Concern about insect production has not yet reached this salience. However, consumer attitudes toward animal use tend to shift once practices become familiar and visible. Several current BSF practices resemble categories that elicit the strongest public opposition along dimensions of visibility and perceived naturalness. This suggests welfare considerations may become increasingly relevant to the social license to operate for insect agriculture as the sector expands. As Barrett and Adcock (Reference Barrett and Adcock2023) argue, integrating animal welfare science into insect production is not only ethically motivated but strategically important for sustaining industry legitimacy over time.
Author contribution
The author conceived and drafted all elements of this article.
Funding statement
B.F. has not received dedicated funding for this project and has no acknowledgements to disclose.
Competing interests
B.F. reports serving as Treasurer of the Insect Welfare Research Society. No other potential conflicts of interest are declared.
Ethical approval
This research study did not require any human participation or experimentation on human or non-human animals.
AI tool use
AI was not used for any purpose in creating this manuscript.
Open access
