Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42042466›Full record

ReviewInsects2026

Towards Bioethical and Functional Standards in the Slaughter Methods of Edible Insects: A Narrative Review.

Oscar Abel Sánchez-Velázquez, Alan Javier Hernández-Álvarez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Oscar Abel Sánchez-VelázquezSchool of Food Science & Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6129-671X
Alan Javier Hernández-ÁlvarezSchool of Food Science & Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4154-8630

Funding

UK National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre BB/Z51611/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of edible insect production has focused primarily on rearing, processing efficiency, safety, and nutritional composition, while the slaughter of insects has received comparatively little scientific and ethical scrutiny. This narrative review examines insect slaughter as a critical control point linking bioethics, physiology, and ingredient quality. The review synthesizes evidence from neurobiology, food science, and processing studies to evaluate how commonly used slaughter methods interact with biological aspects of insects. Existing literature shows that slaughter techniques influence protein stability and hydrolysis, lipid oxidation, antioxidant retention, techno-functional properties such as emulsification and gelation, as well as sensory attributes and consumer acceptance. Available evidence suggests that methods designed to rapidly suppress metabolic activity may be associated with improved preservation of certain nutritional and functional parameters, although findings remain species- and context-dependent. The review further highlights major knowledge gaps, including the lack of species- and life-stage-specific welfare indicators and standardized assessment protocols. Overall, the findings support the need to reconceptualize insect slaughter as a strategic upstream decision rather than a neutral processing step. Integrating ethical considerations with nutritional, functional, and regulatory perspectives is essential for establishing science-based standards and ensuring the responsible development of edible insect-based food and feed systems.

Indexed as

bioactive compoundsbioethicsentomophagyinsect farminginsect killing methodsinsect welfarenociceptionnutritional qualitytechno-functional properties

Identifiers

PMID42042466
PMCPMC13115859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.