Demystifying invasivorism as a management strategy

Biological invasions threaten biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, the economy, and human well-being. Attempts to eradicate, control, and minimize the impacts of invasive species include mechanical, chemical, and biological approaches, which often require substantial time and economic investments (1). Looking for alternatives, some stakeholders and governing institutions have sought to exploit invasive species economically as a control method. They’re aiming to develop a market while mitigating species impacts and spread. As a result, we are presented with a dilemma: Can the monetary interests arising from exploiting invasive species coexist with efforts to conserve the biodiversity they threaten? We believe that the answer, in most cases, is no.

Although “invasivorism” refers to the use of invasive species as food, we define it more broadly as the practice of utilizing invasive species (in any form) with the aim of minimizing their harms on people and biodiversity, justified on ethical, environmental, or health-related arguments.

There are cases in which adopting invasivorism could not substantially hamper any conservation measure, particularly when invasive populations are abundant, widely distributed, and currently lack effective control and/or eradication methods—see, for example, the case of invasive red swamp crayfish in Spain (2). However, the practice poses significant risks if pursued as a wide-ranging management response to biological invasions. In fact, such a utilization should not be framed as a management strategy itself, but rather as a context-dependent socio-economic practice with inherent risks. In short, invasivorism is not a silver bullet for managing invasive species; by itself, it is not a real solution.

Subpar Solution

Arguments justifying invasivorism point to the alleviation of environmental and socio-economic harms. This line of reasoning is rooted in the many population declines historically caused by overexploitation (3). These strategies often include commercial or recreational harvesting of marine and freshwater species to support fisheries (e.g., the Atlantic blue crab in the Mediterranean basin or the lionfish in the Caribbean Sea), trophy hunting (e.g., axis deer in Hawaii or Asian carp in the United States), utilization for animal feed (e.g., Prosopis species in the livestock diets of South Africa), or manufacturing material (e.g., macroalgae Rugulopteryx okamurae as a source of bioactive compounds), among others.

In recent years, proposals to manage invasive species through invasivorism have gained momentum (4, 5). With slogans along the lines of “If you can’t beat them, eat them!“, advertising campaigns, enterprises, television programs, books, chefs, restaurants (6), conservationists (7), and even governments have increasingly sought to engage stakeholders and the public in addressing the issue of biological invasions. In January 2025, for example, an Australian catch-up TV launched Eat the Invaders (8), a six-episode documentary highlighting the damage caused by rabbits, cats, cane toads, deer, camels, and carp in Australia and exploring how to turn ecological detractors into culinary opportunities. More recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has launched new campaigns, such as “Save a swamp, sauté a nutria” and “Be an ecosystem hero and eat the invaders” via social media, in which they also promote invasivorism by targeting species such as nutria or coypu, silver carp, and wild boar (9).

While invasivorism is fueled by messages of biodiversity conservation, it often fails to fully address broader environmental and socio-economic concerns.

Among lay citizens, the notion of eating invasive species to control them can generate enthusiasm and have some effects locally. However, the extent to which invasivorism mitigates environmental impacts and contributes to biodiversity conservation remains highly debatable. And drawbacks can be substantial—especially since, once implemented, ceasing ineffective or even harmful practices of invasivorism within communities and the business sector can be challenging (4).

Limited Benefits

With biodiversity declining at alarming rates and biological invasions emerging as a major driver of global change, society is responding. Analogous to other movements, such as climate activism (reducing the carbon footprint) or locavorism (the preference for local food), invasivorism proposes consuming invasive species as an altruistic means of mitigating their environmental impacts. Such practices range from making use of animals or plants already removed (rather than discarding them) to deliberately choosing invasive species over native counterparts.

These uses could potentially enhance invasive species awareness by reinforcing their societal perception as a problem, thereby facilitating the implementation of control-oriented measures. However, consumption-related habituation may also have the opposite effect, sparking a sense of closeness to exploited species that hinders control efforts. Feeding this sentiment, invasivorism campaigns usually employ positive messages—e.g., emphasizing excellent taste or versatility—which risks normalizing or trivializing species that pose well-documented threats to biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Experimental removals aimed at reducing invasive populations to manageable levels have shown promising results in some cases. Such interventions facilitate the recovery of native species, even if invasive populations are not fully eradicated—for example, the increase of native fish biomass through lionfish removals (10, 11). In principle, the consumption of invasive species may exert the pressure needed to reduce population sizes. But achieving this in practice is often challenging and complex, as it requires a comprehensive understanding of both the magnitude and direction of direct and indirect invader impacts. It also requires sustained management effort over time to prevent re-invasions.

In areas where management costs are unsustainable and biodiversity protection receives limited funding, invasivorism might be perceived as an alternative to resource-intensive management approaches. Even in these cases, however, such use may have unintended collateral effects. Turning an invasive species into a valued resource may run contrary to prevention initiatives; people may promote their spread to previously uninvaded areas, whether unintentionally or deliberately in pursuit of new income opportunities.

Building a Market

Creating a market for an invasive species entails great risks, as economic interests often diverge substantially from conservation objectives. Once a market is established and generates revenues, reducing the resource’s abundance becomes counterproductive. Revenues and harvesting costs depend on abundance and fluctuate over time (12). Low abundances usually lead to greater harvesting costs to maintain profitability, potentially reducing interest in the target species and ultimately allowing the invasive species to thrive again, as shown by bioeconomic models (13).

The case of the red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea offers one clear example (Fig. 1). Native to the northwest Pacific, it was intentionally introduced into the Barents Sea in the 1960s for exploitation as a fishing resource. While posing substantial negative impacts on benthic marine biota and traditional fisheries, it also represented a highly valued fishery resource. Overfishing led to a decline in red king crab abundance—which would have been beneficial for native biodiversity. But this reduction resulted in temporary bans to allow population recovery. Once abundance had rebounded, captures resumed, yielding considerable landings.

The red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus), here on ice at a seafood market, was intentionally introduced to the Barents Sea in the 1960s as a fishing resource. Overfishing led to its decline, but subsequent fishing bans led to the crab’s recovery—likely resulting in the intensification of the animal’s negative ecosystem and biodiversity impacts. Image credit: Shutterstock/Chen Te.

Policy Concerns

While invasivorism is fueled by messages of biodiversity conservation, it often fails to fully address broader environmental and socio-economic concerns. Lobbying by interest groups who have economic stakes in invasive species exploitation (aquaculture, agri-food, and timber industries, or fishermen and hunters) can spur invasivorism-based campaigns marketed as management strategies, thereby influencing environmental policy decisions. In particular, the economic benefits derived from exploiting certain invasive species can motivate opposition to their inclusion on legally binding lists of invasive species (e.g., national lists or European Union [EU] list; ref. 14). Such influence becomes evident during public consultation phases (15), potentially affecting the final decisions, and ultimately leaving these species unlisted. As a result, they are exempt from common regulatory restrictions applied to harmful invasive species, including prohibitions on introduction, breeding, transport, commercialization, or release.

Consider the case of the Atlantic blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), which has rapidly spread across Mediterranean coasts. Numerous scientific studies, as well as risk assessments, including the one issued by the EU scientific forum, have labeled this crab as a high-risk invasive species; yet, the species remains unlisted from the EU list and national lists of invasive species (e.g., the Spanish list; ref. 16).

Invasivorism often takes hold in the absence of comprehensive management capable of reconciling controlled economic exploitation of invasive species with biodiversity conservation objectives. Indeed, addressing such conservation objectives while marketing a valuable commercial invasive species entails complex management tasks, such as determining the number and type of traps to be deployed, designating action areas, and defining periodic monitoring campaigns and traceability (17). In the meantime, species can establish populations and cause harm, forcing stakeholders and communities to adapt rapidly. Invasivorism can also distort stakeholders’ perception of the severity of a biological invasion, creating the misleading impression that effective management is already in place, simply because the species is being consumed. And when financial gains take precedence over biodiversity and ecosystem values, research priorities and management strategies may shift according to the profitability of the invasive species (18).

Perception, Not Evidence

Invasivorism as a potential management strategy has gained momentum in the scientific literature, often examined from a socio-economic perspective through stakeholder surveys that assess one’s willingness to pay or exploit invasive species. Far less attention is given to rigorous risk assessments of ecological effectiveness or how social and economic outcomes interact with ecological processes over the long term. In other words, studies advocating invasivorism tend to emphasize potential benefits over challenges. For example, a US survey of about 200 fish consumers indicated market potential for invasive Asian carp, supporting human consumption as a management strategy (5). Yet, for it to be considered a viable management strategy, critical questions remain regarding sustainable harvest rates, population dynamics, and long-term socio-ecological implications. Without such information, promoting this as a management strategy remains speculative.

Public or stakeholder surveys hold immense value for understanding human perceptions and framing environmental management; however, they are not sufficient to evaluate invasivorism as an ecologically beneficial practice to control invasive populations (19). That is, invasivorism initiatives might enhance the social acceptability of acting against invasive species, but there’s been little systematic quantification as to whether the practice raises public awareness. That’s made the true impact difficult to assess.

In sum, invasivorism, when combined with measures that prioritize conservation goals over economic profit, could have a positive impact—for example, increasing public awareness within local communities. But there’s little scientific evidence to support invasivorism as a cornerstone of invasive species management. Any efforts to do so should be met with ecological risk assessments, careful economic analysis, and a serious dose of skepticism.