4.4 Article

The role of species for the acceptance of edible insects: evidence from a consumer survey

Journal

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
Volume 121, Issue 9, Pages 2190-2204

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2019-0017

Keywords

Consumer acceptance; Visibility; Food neophobia; Insect food; Insect species; Willingness-to-try

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Even though insect products increasingly receive attention as a sustainable food alternative to meat, consumer acceptance remains low. The purpose of this paper is to test consumer acceptance of two different insect species with varying degrees of processing which led to different degrees of insects' visibility. Design/methodology/approach Insect dishes that varied according to species and degree of visibility were presented to participants of a self-administered personal survey within a meal context. Consumer acceptance was measured through the willingness-to-try the different dishes, and a hierarchical linear regression was applied to estimate the role of insect species. Findings Consumer acceptance can be improved by focusing on different forms of food processing and different insect species. The lower the visibility of insects, the higher the consumer acceptance, independent of insect species. However, this is not sufficient to overcome consumers' widely held rejection. Main barriers for consumer acceptance seem to be low social and cultural acceptance, fear of trying unknown products and a lack of taste experience. Originality/value A huge body of literature has examined determinants of insect consumption, but the majority of these studies did not consider the effects of insect species. The study's main objective is to close this research gap while checking the most relevant individual traits as identified through a literature review: food neophobia and familiarity, social and cultural norms, awareness of benefits of insect production, meat consumption and socio-demographics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available