PROSECUTORS SOUGHT A YEAR IN JAIL OVER MICHELIN ANT SORBET
Prosecutors asked a Seoul court to jail the representative of a Michelin-starred restaurant for a year over ant sorbet the restaurant allegedly served.
The request came at a sentencing hearing on July 20, 2026, at Seoul Western District Court, where Judge Lee Se-chang presided. The restaurant’s representative, identified only as Mr. A, and its operating corporation were charged with violating South Korea’s Food Sanitation Act. Prosecutors also sought a 20 million won fine for the corporation.
Prosecutors alleged the restaurant imported dried ants from the United States, Thailand and elsewhere and served them on sorbet as part of a course meal. They estimated 40,996 ants went onto about 12,200 servings, and said the practice ran for years.
The defense said the ants were a minor, optional garnish. “They were used only as a garnish to add acidity to the dessert sorbet, and in advance we offered fermented vinegar or edible flowers instead to guests who did not want ants, so the actual provision rate was about 60%,” a defense attorney said.
How the case began
Health authorities opened an investigation after customer reviews with photos of ant-garnished dishes appeared online, The Straits Times reported.
The sorbet was a palate cleanser served during the course meal, and ants are not on South Korea’s approved edible-insect list, The Korea Times reported.
Health authorities’ analysis found the ants “contained up to 55 times more heavy metals than typical edible insects,” The Chosun Daily reported.
Court documents did not name the restaurant or its owner, BBC News reported.
What the defense argued
The owner admitted the restaurant served ants but argued they appeared in only a small part of a multicourse menu.
The defense said diners who declined ants could get fermented vinegar or edible flowers instead. It also argued the ants were there to add acidity, a sour taste, to the sorbet.
The defense asked for leniency. It argued the restaurant already held its Michelin rating before the controversy and that the controversy had no decisive effect on sales.
The court was scheduled to rule on September 2, 2026.
