Insects, as a food and or feed source, represent an emerging protein source relevant to farmers, feed companies, food companies and food marketers globally. The growth of this industry is somewhat restricted due to outdated food and feed regulations covering insect use. The regulations also do not allow the use of all potential insects as food and feed. Governments aim to ensure food and feed safety, and each country has its own substantive and procedural rules for this purpose. However, the regulatory demands and differences between countries complicate the international marketing strategies for insect products. Food and feed regulation are separate; feed regulation may allow insect usage even when they are not allowed as food. Some countries have specific rules for novel foods, while others do not. This paper compares insect food and feed regulation of the primary production and marketing areas: the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Australia. In addition, the situation in selected countries in Central and South America, Asia and Africa is also discussed.

Macroalgae-based products are increasing in demand also in Europe. In the European Union, each category of macroalgae-based products is regulated separately. We discuss EU legislation, including the law on medicinal products, foods including food supplements and food additives, feed and feed additives, cosmetics, packaging materials, fertilizers and biostimulants, as well as biofuels. Product safety and consumer protection are the priorities with any new products. Macroalgae products can be sold as traditional herbal medicines. The novel food regulation applies to macroalgae foods that have not previously been used as food, and organic macroalgae are a specific regulatory category. The maximum levels of heavy metals may be a barrier for macroalgae foods, feeds, and fertilizers. Getting health claims approved for foods based on macroalgae is demanding. In addition to the rules on products, the macroalgae business is strongly impacted by the elements of the general regulatory environment such as agricultural/aquacultural subsidies, maritime spatial planning and aquaculture licensing, public procurement criteria, tax schemes, and trade agreements.

According to the Porter hypothesis, regulations on environmental emissions under certain conditions can promote eco-innovation. This is why the technologic

The need to create more sustainable food systems calls for careful attention to justice in making the transition. However, to achieve a just transition and create policies to support the goal of developing sustainable food systems, we need more knowledge of the ways current policies tackle justice. This knowledge can reveal blind spots and development needs and increase the transparency of potentially conflicting goals, which is essential for designing just transition policies. From the normative perspective of food justice, a food system should produce three principal outcomes: food security and nutrition, livelihoods and fair income, and environmental sustainability. In this article, we take these outcomes as the starting point to study how they relate to the distributive, procedural, and recognitive aspects of food justice in the context of Finnish food policies. Our data consist of Finnish policy strategies relating to the national food system and data from interviews with experts involved in the policy processes. Our results suggest that food security and farmer livelihoods have dominated justice related considerations at the cost of environmental sustainability. Although these are important for distributive justice and for recognizing vulnerabilities, the current setting reveals risks regarding the possibilities of transitioning to a low-carbon food system. The invisibility of the often-invisible groups is also notable in the policy documents. To promote justice more broadly, there should be greater emphasis on environmental sustainability as well as procedural and recognitive justice and opportunities for diverse people to participate in food policymaking.