Latin America mealworm regulation: feed frameworks emerging, human food nowhere

The paradox of Latin America

Latin America holds some of the world’s richest entomological diversity and centuries of entomophagy traditions — from chapulines (grasshoppers) and chicatanas (ants) in Mexico to palm weevil larvae in the Amazon. Despite contributing approximately 10% of global edible insect production, no country in the region has a comprehensive regulatory framework for insects as human food.

This is the central paradox: the region with the deepest biocultural heritage in entomophagy has the weakest regulatory architecture for formalising it.

The feed-first path: Brazil and Argentina

The most significant regulatory developments in Latin America concern animal feed, not human food:

Brazil — IN 344 (February 2025): The Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA) released Instrução Normativa No 344, establishing inspection procedures and sanitary standards for the processing of insect-derived ingredients for animal feed. This is the first formal regulatory framework for any insect product in Brazil, and it creates a precedent that could extend to human food. The regulation covers registration, inspection, labelling, and transit of insect-based animal feed products.

Brazil’s human food regulator, ANVISA, operates under general food safety legislation without explicit insect provisions. There is no novel food pathway comparable to the EU or UK.

Argentina — SENASA Resolution 1039/2024: The National Service of Agrifood Health and Quality (SENASA) incorporated provisions for the production and sanitary control of insect-derived ingredients intended for animal feed into its Regulation for the Inspection of Plants Producing Insect Derivatives. This is Argentina’s first step toward regulated insect production, but it is limited to animal feed.

Chile — SAG feed regulation: The Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) has developed regulations for insects as ingredients in animal feed, including insects in its list of approved ingredients for feed and supplements. No human food framework exists.

The pattern is consistent: the feed framework comes first, human food follows later (or not at all). This mirrors the EU’s own regulatory history, where insect feed approvals (2017 for aquaculture) preceded human food authorisations (2021 for T. molitor).

Mexico: tradition without regulation

Mexico has the most prominent entomophagy culture in Latin America, with insects consumed widely and commercially. Mealworms are consumed as part of the customary diet. Yet there are:

• No clear regulations for farming, commercialisation, or sale of edible insects
• No formal quality control or safety guidelines for collection or production
• Legal ambiguity for both traditional harvesters and commercial producers

Some insect-derived products have been certified as organic under existing agricultural standards, but this is product-level certification, not species-level regulatory approval. COFEPRIS (the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risk) has not issued insect-specific food safety guidance.

The academic case for regional regulation

A 2025 paper in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (Álvarez-Suárez & Liceaga) proposes a four-pillar regulatory framework for Latin America that has gained attention in academic and policy circles:

1. Science-based safety standards — contaminant thresholds, allergen labelling, GMP/HACCP protocols
2. Cultural recognition — protecting traditional harvesting and preparation practices within formal standards
3. Digital traceability — QR codes, blockchain certification for origin and production conditions
4. Regional cooperation — harmonised standards through MERCOSUR, Andean Community, or CELAC

This paper explicitly argues that Latin America should not simply import the EU novel food model but should design a context-sensitive framework that accommodates both traditional harvesting and industrial production. This is the most comprehensive regulatory proposal for the region, but it has not been adopted by any government.

The opportunity and the risk

The opportunity is clear: a country that establishes the first Latin American human food framework for insects will attract investment, create an export pathway, and set the standard others follow. Brazil’s IN 344 for feed suggests the political will exists — extending it to human food is the logical next step.

The risk is equally clear: regulatory inaction keeps producers in the informal economy, excludes them from high-value international markets, and cedes regulatory leadership to external actors. As the Frontiers paper argues, Latin America risks becoming a regulatory taker rather than a regulatory maker.

What producers should know

If you are producing or planning production in Latin America:

• For animal feed: Brazil, Argentina, and Chile have clear pathways. You can operate within established frameworks.
• For human food (export): Your most viable path is to target markets where T. molitor is approved (EU, US, Canada, South Korea, Australia/NZ) and meet their requirements directly. Latin American domestic regulation will not help you.
• For human food (domestic): You are operating in a legal grey area. Traditional consumption provides cultural cover, but there is no formal regulatory protection. Document everything. Use EU-level food safety standards as your benchmark — when regulation arrives, compliance will be easier if you are already there.

Bottom line

Latin America’s regulatory trajectory is feed-first, human-food-later. Brazil’s IN 344 is the most significant development, and its extension to human food is the event to watch. For now, Latin American producers targeting human food markets must look outward — to the EU, US, and Canada — because domestic regulation offers no pathway.