Edible Insects Have More Iron Than Sirloin Beef

Beetles, eaten in several parts of the world, amply supply this essential nutrient to a meat-poor diet

A "Pestaurant" or temporary bug restaurant, was set up in front of Faneuil Hall in Boston, MA, where people could chow down on food made with bugs. Menu items included grasshopper burger, meal worm fired rice, bbq buffalo worms to name a few.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Move over meat. Beetle larvae consumed as food in some parts of the world deliver as much iron to the body, gram per gram, as beef (J. Ag. Food Chem. 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b03286).

Iron is an essential dietary mineral, but there’s widespread iron deficiency among populations that eat little or no meat. That’s because humans absorb much less iron from plant-based foods than from meat, says Gladys O. Latunde-Dada of King’s College London. What makes meat-based iron so easy for humans to absorb is heme, an iron-carrying cofactor found in blood. Although insects don’t have heme, Latunde-Dada was inspired to study the invertebrates after watching a United Nations forum on insect farming as a way to combat greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming. “If we are going to eat insects, we’ll need to see if they have enough iron,” she says.

Insects are part of diets in South and East Asia, Africa, and South and Central America. Latunde-Dada’s team studied four common food insects from these regions—grasshoppers (Sphenarium purpurascens), crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus), mealworms (Tenebrio molitor), and buffalo worms (Alphitobius diaperinus)—and compared them to sirloin beef. As a first step, the researchers simply measured how much iron the insects had. They crushed dried insects into a powder and used spectrophotometry to quantify the iron content, as well as that of other essential micronutrients, including calcium, magnesium, and zinc. Crickets had the most iron—12.91 mg/100 g, just shy of beef’s 15.47 mg/100 g.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Next the researchers looked at bioavailability: How much of that iron can humans actually absorb? This is affected by a range of factors—for example, an insect could contain abundant iron, but the iron may be poorly absorbed due to food particle size or encapsulation by insect cell components that can’t be degraded by human digestion. To test this, the researchers first mixed the insect powder with digestive enzymes at low pH to imitate conditions in the stomach, then added bile-pancreatic extract at neutral pH to mimic the small intestine. The researchers, again using spectrophotometry, determined the iron content of the digested material. To measure bioavailability, they then added the digested samples—each containing 20 μg of iron—to human epithelial cell cultures. After incubation, the researchers measured how much ferritin—a protein that stores iron—the cells contained. Even though crickets had the highest iron levels overall, iron uptake from buffalo worms, a type of beetle larvae, was the clear winner, even besting sirloin beef.

“I was a bit surprised at how well some of the insects did in comparison to the sirloin,” says Darja Dobermann, a graduate researcher at University of Nottingham who is studying how cultivating and eating insects can combat malnutrition “I had anticipated that insects would perform better than a plant-source iron but would not have guessed they would be close to the same level as a meat-source iron.” The next step, Latunde-Dada says, is to confirm these findings in humans. If people consumed more nutritious insects, it could benefit their health and the environment, she says.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on November 8, 2016.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe