According to an online social media post covered by Snopes, Cricket Powder, being sold and marketed as Acheta Powder, is being snuck into many food products. According to the post, this is being promoted as a “good thing.” While Snopes has been waiting for a corporate response email since 2024, an examination of the facts, including labelling requirements and the sheer economic reality of using such an ingredient will shed light on the veracity of this claim.
The FDA Labelling Laws: Can You Use “Acheta” as an Ingredient Listing to “Sneak in Cricket Powder”?
No. According to the social media post by a user called iFunny @NotAGlobe, you should read all labels if you don’t want to eat crickets, cricket flour or powder. These insect-derived ingredients are being labelled as Acheta Protein and are being included in chips, biscuits, grain and protein bars, and some breads and pastas. If true, this would be highly illegal. If a consumer doesn’t recognize “Acheta” as “Cricket,” it fails the “common or usual” test. This rule is simple: A food ingredient must use a name recognized as identifying that ingredient by most consumers. Even a more glaring problem: it’s highly expensive!
The Worm Burger Myth: The McDonalds “Worm Burger” Controversy
— The original “expensive filler” rumor. Earthworms cost significantly more per pound than ground beef.
The Acheta Protein “Dietary Supplement” Claim
The Snopes article mistakenly assumes that, because Acheta Protein (cricket derived protein powder) can be marketed as a dietary supplement, that it could then be used in food products in a way that it is not subjected to food labelling laws, or safety laws.
It is true that if you buy a bag of “Acheta Protein Powder” to put in your smoothie, that is a Supplement. However, if a company puts that same protein in a cereal bar, the final product is food.
FDA Insect (Cricket) Labelling Requirements
Once the “cricket powder” becomes a food or is used in food, it must follow strict Nutrition Facts and Allergen labeling. In the EU, the laws are even stricter: Regulation (EU) 2023/5 specifically mandates that the label must state “Acheta domesticus (house cricket) powder” and include a warning for shellfish allergies in close proximity to the ingredient list.
The “common name” rules are found in 21 CFR 101.4 – Food; designation of ingredients. Specifically, Paragraph (a)(1) explicitly states: “Ingredients… shall be listed by common or usual name in descending order of predominance by weight…” This means that it is illegal for a food company to put cricket protein powder into a food and list the ingredient as “Acheta.” It must be a specific name like cricket, cricket powder, cricket protein, or any similar name that would be recognizable the average person. In other words, you can’t use a scientific name like Acheta to sneak insects into a food product. If this occurred, it would be flagged as misbranding by any standard FDA inspection.
onspiracy theorists claim you have to be a detective to find the ‘hidden’ crickets in your food, but the FDA actually provides the magnifying glass. A search of the FDA’s UNII Service turned up the common name “house cricket” for ACHETA DOMESTICUS and other scientific names pertaining to crickets. The UNII is used by the FDA to help them track the various names used for an ingredient so that, in case one of these scientific names shows up on an ingredient label, the agency knows exactly what it is. In this case, should the FDA find the name “Acheta” on a label, they would immediately be able to identify it as “cricket.”
In the UNII database, Acheta Domesticus is given the unique identifier P9S201X6LH. This page identifies “House Cricket” as the primary name. This shows the the FDA identifies Acheta and “house cricket” as being one and the same and, furthermore, that the agency would expect the common use labelling to identify the ingredient with the commonly understood name of cricket. A company cannot claim then, that they are “required” to use the Latin name. The FDA’s own labelling rules and their naming database shows otherwise.
This doesn’t mean that the name “Acheta” cannot appear on a label! However, it must be accompanied by “cricket” because Acheta alone does not meet the common name requirement. Perhaps more importantly, it must be accompanied by an explicit allergen warning!
The Castoreum Mystery: Beaver Anal Glands in Raspberry Flavor
— Another case where the “gross” ingredient is actually a rare, high-cost perfume-grade substance, not a cheap additive.
The “Shellfish Problem”: Why Hiding Crickets is a Legal Suicide Mission
The “iFunny” theory suggests that food giants are sneaking insects into your pantry to save a buck, but this ignores a high-stakes biological reality: chitin.
Crickets are arthropods, and like shrimp, crab, and lobster, their exoskeletons contain a structural protein called chitin. For the millions of Americans with shellfish allergies, ingesting cricket powder can trigger the exact same immune response,ranging from hives to life-threatening anaphylaxis.
The Massive Legeal Liability: Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Protection Act (FALCPA), manufacturers must clearly disclose ingredients that pose a known allergen risk. If a company like Frito-Lay or Nabisco were to “sneak” Acheta powder into a cracker without a clear warning, they wouldn’t just be “tricking” you, they would be handing a blank check to every personal injury lawyer in the country.
This is why brands like Chirps and Exo don’t just list the ingredient; they include bold warnings stating: “People with a shellfish allergy may also be allergic to crickets.” In the world of corporate risk management, the “secret” isn’t worth the settlement.
The Economic Reality: It’s a “Good Thing” They Want You to Know!
The “iFunny” post does get one thing right. It is true that companies using Acheta powder in their food products very much want you to know about what a good thing it is! It’s “good” because cricket protein powder is an incredibly expensive ingredient to use in a food. A $20 a pound, they aren’t trying to trick you, they are happily trumpeting their use of this premium ingredient.
The reality is simple, a company “sneaking” crickets into bread is like a counterfeiter printing $20 bills on $50 paper. It’s a business model that leads to immediate bankruptcy.
The Cabbage Onion Theory: White Castle Onions and the Cabbage Myth
— The rumor that they use “cabbage soaked in onion juice” ignores the fact that onions are actually cheaper than cabbage.
The Reality of “Mini-Livestock”: High Protein, Higher Difficulty
To be clear, the “ick factor” of the iFunny rumor ignores a biological truth: Crickets are perfectly edible, highly nutritious, and packed with protein. Pound for pound, Acheta powder offers a nutrient profile similar to other sustainable “mini-livestock” like mealworms or grasshoppers.
However, the idea that these insects are being used as a “cheap, hidden filler” falls apart when you look at the economics of insect farming:
- Climate Control: Unlike corn or wheat, crickets require precise, tropical-level heat and humidity 24/7. A single cold snap or a malfunction in the HVAC system can wipe out an entire “herd” in hours.
- Labor Intensive: Because they must be raised for human consumption under FDA Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP), they cannot simply be scooped up from a field. They require specialized feed, vertical “cricket condos,” and rigorous cleaning to prevent disease.
- The Processing Wall: Turning a live insect into a shelf-stable, neutral-tasting powder is a multi-step industrial process involving dehydration and milling that further drives up the price.
Case Closed: If a company were looking for a cheap way to pad their bottom line, they would reach for soy or pea protein every time. Crickets are a premium, sustainable protein source, not a secret ingredient. In the food industry, “Acheta” isn’t a code for a conspiracy; it’s a label for an expensive, niche product that companies are legally (and economically) required to disclose.
The CulinaryLore Standard: > In the age of viral rumors, many “fact-checks” rely on reporting, contacting agencies or companies and waiting for a quote. While quotes provide color, they are not a substitute for rigorous and thorough research. The FDA is not going to contact you and explain to you all about “Acheta Powder.” Likewise, contacting major snack food companies to ask them about whether they are sneaking insects into their food under the name of Acheta is like waiting for that noisy cricket to stop chirping.
A company spokesperson can be vague or nonresponsive, but Federal Law is specific. By auditing primary sources like the FDA’s labeling mandates and the national ingredient registry, and the basic logic of cost, we don’t have to wait for a “yes or no” from a corporate office. We can see the legal and economic boundaries that make the rumor impossible. Real research isn’t about who you talk to; it’s about knowing which primary records hold the evidence, and understanding the patterns that identify these viral rumors as just that…rumors. At CulinaryLore, I don’t report what other folks tell me, I do the heavy and tedious research to bring you the answers, so you can go back to enjoying your cricket protein bar.
The Final Word on Cricket Protein Being Snuck into Foods in Summary
- The Legal Wall: 21 CFR 101.4 mandates the use of “common or usual” names. “Acheta” is a genus; “Cricket” is the name.
- The Regulatory Blueprint: The FDA’s own UNII registry lists “HOUSE CRICKET” as the PRIMARY identifier for the substance.
- The Safety Trigger: Because of chitin, any manufacturer “sneaking” crickets in would be creating a massive shellfish allergy liability.
- The Economic Reality: Crickets are a premium, climate-controlled protein, not a cheap filler. You don’t “hide” an ingredient that costs 50x more than wheat flour.
Further Reading
On Edible Insects & Protein:
On Labeling & Ingredient Truths:
- The Aspartame in Milk Labeling Petition
- The Truth About McDonald’s French Fries and Beef Flavoring
- What is “Grade D” Beef? (And Does it Exist?)