Consumer acceptability of plant-, seaweed-, and insect-based foods as alternatives to meat: a critical compilation of a decade of research

References

• Adámek, M., A. Adámková, J. Mlček, M. Borkovcová, and M. Bednářová. 2018. Acceptability and sensory evaluation of energy bars and protein bars enriched with edible insect. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences 12 (1):431–7. doi: 10.5219/925.
   Google Scholar
• Aschemann-Witzel, J., and A. O. Peschel. 2019. Consumer perception of plant-based proteins: The value of source transparency for alternative protein ingredients. Food Hydrocolloids 96:20–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayivi, R., S. Ibrahim, H. Colleran, R. Silva, L. Williams, C. Galanakis, H. Fidan, J. Tomovska, and S. A. Siddiqui. 2021. COVID-19: Human immune response and the influence of food ingredients and active compounds. Bioactive Compounds in Health and Disease 4 (6):100. doi: 10.31989/bchd.v4i6.802.
   Google Scholar
• Bahmid, N. A., J. Heising, V. Fogliano, and M. Dekker. 2020. Packaging design using mustard seeds as a natural antimicrobial: A study on inhibition of pseudomonas fragi in liquid medium. Foods 9 (6):789. doi: 10.3390/foods9060789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balzan, S., L. Fasolato, S. Maniero, and E. Novelli. 2016. Edible insects and young adults in a north-east Italian city an exploratory study. British Food Journal 118 (2):318–26. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banovic, M., and T. Otterbring. 2021. Athletic abs or big bellies: The impact of imagery, arousal levels, and health consciousness on consumers’ attitudes towards plant-based protein products. Food Quality and Preference 87:104067. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banovic, M., A. Arvola, K. Pennanen, D. E. Duta, M. Brückner-Gühmann, L. Lähteenmäki, and K. G. Grunert. 2018. Foods with increased protein content: A qualitative study on European consumer preferences and perceptions. Appetite 125:233–43. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barba, F. J., N. S. Terefe, R. Buckow, D. Knorr, and V. Orlien. 2015. New opportunities and perspectives of high pressure treatment to improve health and safety attributes of foods. A review. Food Research International 77:725–42. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.05.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartkowicz, J. V., A. Morska, and Gdyni. 2017. Tri-city consumers attitudes towards eating edible insect as an alternative source of food. Handel Wewnętrzny 1:156–66.
   Google Scholar
• Bekker, G. A., A. R. H. Fischer, H. Tobi, and H. C. M. van Trijp. 2017. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite 108:245–54. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biondi, B., and L. Camanzi. 2020. Nutrition, hedonic or environmental? The effect of front-of-pack messages on consumers’ perception and purchase intention of a novel food product with multiple attributes. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.) 130:108962. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boukid, F. 2021. Plant-based meat analogues: From niche to mainstream. European Food Research and Technology 247 (2):297–308. doi: 10.1007/s00217-020-03630-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boukid, F., and M. Castellari. 2021. Veggie burgers in the EU market: A nutritional challenge? European Food Research and Technology 247 (10):2445–53. doi: 10.1007/s00217-021-03808-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouvard, V., D. Loomis, K. Z. Guyton, Y. Grosse, F. e Ghissassi, L. Benbrahim-Tallaa, N. Guha, H. Mattock, and K. Straif. 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet. Oncology 16 (16):1599–600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brückner-Gühmann, M., M. Banovic, and S. Drusch. 2019. Towards an increased plant protein intake: Rheological properties, sensory perception and consumer acceptability of lactic acid fermented, oat-based gels. Food Hydrocolloids 96:201–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.05.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, C., and H. Sanctorum. 2021. Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite 161:105161. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caparros Megido, R., C. Gierts, C. Blecker, Y. Brostaux, É. Haubruge, T. Alabi, and F. Francis. 2016. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference 52:237–43. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caparros Megido, R., L. Sablon, M. Geuens, Y. Brostaux, T. Alabi, C. Blecker, D. Drugmand, É. Haubruge, and F. Francis. 2014. Edible insects acceptance by belgian consumers: Promising attitude for entomophagy development. Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (1):14–20. doi: 10.1111/joss.12077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chouhan, N., H. Vig, and R. Deshmukh. 2021. Meat substitute market by product type (tofu-based, tempeh-based, TVP-based, seitan–based, quorn-based, and others), source (soy-based, wheat-based, mycoprotein, and others), and category (frozen, refrigerated, and shelf stable): Global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2021–2027. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/meat-substitute-market.
   Google Scholar
• Cicatiello, C., B. de Rosa, S. Franco, and N. Lacetera. 2016. Consumer approach to insects as food: Barriers and potential for consumption in Italy. British Food Journal 118 (9):2271–86. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Circus, V. E., and R. Robison. 2019. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. British Food Journal 121 (2):533–45. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contini, C., F. Boncinelli, E. Marone, G. Scozzafava, and L. Casini. 2020. Drivers of plant-based convenience foods consumption: Results of a multicomponent extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Food Quality and Preference 84:103931. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Boer, J., H. Schösler, and J. J. Boersema. 2013. Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat. Food Quality and Preference 28 (1):32–5. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickson-Spillmann, M., M. Siegrist, and C. Keller. 2011. Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference 22 (1):149–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Renzo, L., P. Gualtieri, F. Pivari, L. Soldati, A. Attinà, G. Cinelli, C. Leggeri, G. Caparello, L. Barrea, F. Scerbo, et al. 2020. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. Journal of Translational Medicine 18 (1):229. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02399-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dötsch-Klerk, M., D. J. Mela, and M. Kearney. 2015. Sustainable diets. Food Science and Technolog 29:32–5.
   Google Scholar
• Faber, I., N. A. Castellanos-Feijoó, L. van de Sompel, A. Davydova, and F. J. A. Perez-Cueto. 2020. Attitudes and knowledge towards plant-based diets of young adults across four European countries. Exploratory survey. Appetite 145:104498. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk, A., B. Sütterlin, and M. Siegrist. 2020. The stereotypes attributed to hosts when they offer an environmentally friendly vegetarian versus a meat menu. Journal of Cleaner Production 250:119508. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagaoua, M., and B. Picard. 2020. Current advances in meat nutritional, sensory and physical quality improvement. Foods 9 (3):321. doi: 10.3390/foods9030321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., M. M. Mekonnen, and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2013. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry 1-2:25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, P., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome, Italy: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Gere, A., G. Székely, S. Kovács, Z. Kókai, and L. Sipos. 2017. Readiness to adopt insects in Hungary: A case study. Food qQuality and pPreference 59:81–6. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gmuer, A., J. Nuessli Guth, C. Hartmann, and M. Siegrist. 2016. Effects of the degree of processing of insect ingredients in snacks on expected emotional experiences and willingness to eat. Food Quality and Preference 54:117–27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfray, H. C. J., P. Aveyard, T. Garnett, J. W. Hall, T. J. Key, J. Lorimer, R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. Scarborough, M. Springmann, and S. A. Jebb. 2018. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361 (6399):eaam5324. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González, N., M. Marquès, M. Nadal, and J. L. Domingo. 2020. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Research International 137:109341. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabowski, N. T., S. Tchibozo, A. Abdulmawjood, F. Acheuk, M. M’Saad Guerfali, W. A. A. Sayed, and M. Plötz. 2020. Edible insects in Africa in terms of food, wildlife resource, and pest management legislation. Foods 9 (4):502. doi: 10.3390/foods9040502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graça, J., A. Oliveira, and M. M. Calheiros. 2015. Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 90:80–90. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grahl, S., M. Strack, A. Mensching, and D. Mörlein. 2020. Alternative protein sources in Western diets: Food product development and consumer acceptance of spirulina-filled pasta. Food Quality and Preference 84:103933. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gullón, B., M. Gagaoua, F. J. Barba, P. Gullón, W. Zhang, and J. M. Lorenzo. 2020. Seaweeds as promising resource of bioactive compounds: Overview of novel extraction strategies and design of tailored meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 100:1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haard, N. F. 2018. Postharvest physiology and biochemistry of fruits and vegetables. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. O., T. H. Hyndman, B. L. Allen, and B. Fischer. 2021. Animal harms and food production: Informing ethical choices. Animals 11 (5):1225. doi: 10.3390/ani11051225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, C., M. B. Ruby, P. Schmidt, and M. Siegrist. 2018. Brave, health-conscious, and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers. Food Quality and Preference 68:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, C., J. Shi, A. Giusto, and M. Siegrist. 2015. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference 44:148–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, C., and M. Siegrist. 2016. Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference 51:118–22. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, C., and M. Siegrist. 2017. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 61:11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartvig, D., H. Hausner, K. Wendin, and W. L. P. Bredie. 2014. Quinine sensitivity influences the acceptance of sea-buckthorn and grapefruit juices in 9- to 11-year-old children. Appetite 74:70–8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkes, C., J. Jewell, and K. Allen. 2013. A food policy package for healthy diets and the prevention of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases: The NOURISHING framework. Obesity Reviews 14 (S2):159–68. doi: 10.1111/obr.12098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlongwane, Z. T., R. Slotow, and T. C. Munyai. 2020. Indigenous knowledge about consumption of edible insects in South Africa. Insects 12 (1):22. doi: 10.3390/insects12010022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek, A. C. 2010. Will novel protein foods beat meat? Consumer acceptance of meat substitutes: A multidisciplinary research approach: Vol. null (null, Ed.).
   Google Scholar
• Hoek, A. C., P. A. Luning, P. Weijzen, W. Engels, F. J. Kok, and C. de Graaf. 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 56 (3):662–73. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek, A. C., D. Pearson, S. W. James, M. A. Lawrence, and S. Friel. 2017. Shrinking the food-print: A qualitative study into consumer perceptions, experiences and attitudes towards healthy and environmentally friendly food behaviours. Appetite 108:117–31. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, L., and M. Møhl. 2000. The role of meat in everyday food culture: An analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen. Appetite 34 (3):277–83. doi: 10.1006/appe.2000.0324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House, J. 2016. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 107:47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imm, B. Y., Y. W. Heo, and J.-Y. Imm. 2021. Effects of plant-based content, flavor and texture information on consumer satisfaction with non-fried ramen. Food Quality and Preference 92:104221. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ismail, B. P., L. Senaratne-Lenagala, A. Stube, and A. Brackenridge. 2020. Protein demand: Review of plant and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development and production. Animal Frontiers 10 (4):53–63. doi: 10.1093/af/vfaa040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, N. H., and A. Lieberoth. 2019. We will eat disgusting foods together–Evidence of the normative basis of Western entomophagy-disgust from an insect tasting. Food Quality and Preference 72:109–15. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanerva, M. 2013. Meat consumption in Europe: Issues, trends and debates.
   Google Scholar
• Karolin Mittermeier-Kleßinger, V., T. Hofmann, and C. Dawid. 2021. Mitigating off-flavors of plant-based proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 69 (32):9202–7. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c03398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostecka, J., K. Konieczna, and L. M. Cunha. 2017. Evaluation of insect-based food acceptance by representatives of polish consumers in the context of natural resources processing retardation. Journal of Ecological Engineering 18 (2):166–74. doi: 10.12911/22998993/68301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• la Barbera, F., F. Verneau, M. Amato, and K. Grunert. 2018. Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Quality and Preference 64:120–5. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• la Barbera, F., F. Verneau, M. Amato, K. G. Grunert, and B. Schnettler. 2021. Acceptance of insect-based food in Chile: Evidence from a survey using the entomophagy attitude questionnaire (EAQ). Food Quality and Preference 93:104269. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laureati, M., C. Proserpio, C. Jucker, and S. Savoldelli. 2016. ANew sustainable p rot ein sources: consumers’willingness to adop t insect s as feed and food. Italian Journal of Food Science 28 (4).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzarini, G. A., V. H. M. Visschers, and M. Siegrist. 2017. Our own country is best: Factors influencing consumers’ sustainability perceptions of plant-based foods. Food Quality and Preference 60:165–77. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Goff, G., and J. Delarue. 2017. Non-verbal evaluation of acceptance of insect-based products using a simple and holistic analysis of facial expressions. Food Quality and Preference 56:285–93. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. J., H. I. Yong, M. Kim, Y.-S. Choi, and C. Jo. 2020. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market—A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 33 (10):1533–43. doi: 10.5713/ajas.20.0419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemken, D., M. Knigge, S. Meyerding, and A. Spiller. 2017. The value of environmental and health claims on new legume products: A non-hypothetical online auction. Sustainability 9 (8):1340. doi: 10.3390/su9081340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensvelt, E. J. S., and L. P. A. Steenbekkers. 2014. Exploring consumer acceptance of entomophagy: A survey and experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 53 (5):543–61. doi: 10.1080/03670244.2013.879865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardi, A., R. Vecchio, M. Borrello, F. Caracciolo, and L. Cembalo. 2019. Willingness to pay for insect-based food: The role of information and carrier. Food Quality and Preference 72:177–87. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Losada-Lopez, C., D. C. Dopico, and J. A. Faína-Medín. 2021. Neophobia and seaweed consumption: Effects on consumer attitude and willingness to consume seaweed. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 24:100338. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, K. S., M. Parker, A. Ameerally, S. L. Drake, and M. A. Drake. 2017. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plantbased alternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk? Journal of dairy science 100 (8):6125–38. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancini, S., R. Moruzzo, F. Riccioli, and G. Paci. 2019. European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food. A review. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.) 122:661–78. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.01.041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marberg, A., H. van Kranenburg, and H. Korzilius. 2017. The big bug: The legitimation of the edible insect sector in the Netherlands. Food Policy 71:111–23. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathur, M. B., J. Peacock, D. B. Reichling, J. Nadler, P. A. Bain, C. D. Gardner, and T. N. Robinson. 2021. Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite 164:105277. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menozzi, D., G. Sogari, M. Veneziani, E. Simoni, and C. Mora. 2017. Eating novel foods: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food qQuality and pPreference 59:27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michel, F., C. Hartmann, and M. Siegrist. 2021. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference 87:104063. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milinovic, J., P. Mata, M. Diniz, and J. P. Noronha. 2021. Umami taste in edible seaweeds: The current comprehension and perception. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 23:100301. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moruzzo, R., S. Mancini, F. Boncinelli, and F. Riccioli. 2021. Exploring the acceptance of entomophagy: A survey of Italian consumers. Insects 12 (2):123. doi: 10.3390/insects12020123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeeshani, H., A. Hassouna, and J. Lu. 2021. Proteins extracted from seaweed Undaria pinnatifida and their potential uses as foods and nutraceuticals. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2021:1–17. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1898334.
   Google Scholar
• Niva, M., and A. Vainio. 2021. Towards more environmentally sustainable diets? Changes in the consumption of beef and plant- and insect-based protein products in consumer groups in Finland. Meat Science 182:108635. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwezen, M. C., E. P. Bouwman, M. J. Reinders, and H. Dagevos. 2021. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 159:105058. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagliarini, E., C. Proserpio, S. Spinelli, V. Lavelli, M. Laureati, E. Arena, R. di Monaco, L. Menghi, T. Gallina Toschi, A. Braghieri, et al. 2021. The role of sour and bitter perception in liking, familiarity and choice for phenol-rich plant-based foods. Food Quality and Preference 93:104250. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmieri, N., and M. B. Forleo. 2020. The potential of edible seaweed within the western diet. A segmentation of Italian consumers. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 20:100202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascucci, S., and T. de Magistris. 2013. Information bias condemning radical food innovators? The case of insect-based products in the Netherlands. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 16:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peschel, A. O., S. Kazemi, M. Liebichová, S. C. M. Sarraf, and J. Aschemann-Witzel. 2019. Consumers’ associative networks of plant-based food product communications. Food Quality and Preference 75:145–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piha, S., T. Pohjanheimo, A. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Z. Křečková, and T. Otterbring. 2018. The effects of consumer knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross-regional study in Northern and Central Europe. Food qQuality and pPreference 70:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360 (6392):987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Possidónio, C., M. Prada, J. Graça, and J. Piazza. 2021. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite 156:104860. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Profeta, A., S. A. Siddiqui, S. Smetana, S. M. Hossaini, V. Heinz, and C. Kircher. 2021. The impact of Corona pandemic on consumer’s food consumption. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 16 (4):305–14. doi: 10.1007/s00003-021-01341-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi, X., and A. Ploeger. 2021. An integrated framework to explain consumers’ purchase intentions toward green food in the Chinese context. Food Quality and Preference 92:104229. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisch, L. A., C. R. Sunstein, and W. Gwozdz. 2017. Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges. Food Policy 69:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renner, B., G. Sproesser, S. Strohbach, and H. T. Schupp. 2012. Why we eat what we eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 59 (1):117–28. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, J., A. Soares, A. Pinto de Moura, and L. Cunha. 2021. Evaluation of consumers’ acceptance of bread supplemented with insect protein. In Sustainable innovation in food product design, 153–70. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61817-9_8.
   Google Scholar
• Rondoni, A., D. Asioli, and E. Millan. 2020. Consumer behaviour, perceptions, and preferences towards eggs: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Trends in Food Science & Technology 106:391–401. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, M. J. 2004. Meat alternatives — Market developments and health benefits. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15 (5):250–60. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2003.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saint-Eve, A., F. Irlinger, C. Pénicaud, I. Souchon, and S. Marette. 2021. Consumer preferences for new fermented food products that mix animal and plant protein sources. Food Quality and Preference 90:104117. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiano, A. N., W. S. Harwood, P. D. Gerard, and M. A. Drake. 2020. Consumer perception of the sustainability of dairy products and plant-based dairy alternatives. Journal of Dairy Science 103 (12):11228–43. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlup, Y., and T. Brunner. 2018. Prospects for insects as food in Switzerland: A tobit regression. Food Quality and Preference 64:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schösler, H., J. d Boer, and J. J. Boersema. 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58 (1):39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouteten, J. J., H. de Steur, S. de Pelsmaeker, S. Lagast, J. G. Juvinal, I. de Bourdeaudhuij, W. Verbeke, and X. Gellynck. 2016. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant- and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Quality and Preference 52:27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, B. 2020. The animal welfare battle: The production of affected ignorance in the Swedish meat industry debate. Culture and Organization 26 (1):75–95. doi: 10.1080/14759551.2018.1513937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheppard, B., and P. Frazer. 2015. Comparing social and intellectual appeals to reduce disgust of eating crickets. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 1 (2):4–23. doi: 10.18193/sah.v1i2.29.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., L. Frewer, and H. van Trijp. 2007. Understanding consumers of food products. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., and C. Hartmann. 2019. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite 132:196–202. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slade, P. 2018. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125:428–37. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sogari, G. 2015. Entomophagy and Italian consumers: An exploratory analysis. Progress in Nutrition 17 (4):311–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sogari, G., D. Menozzi, and C. Mora. 2017. Exploring young foodies knowledge and attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 7:16–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2016.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sogari, G., D. Menozzi, and C. Mora. 2018. Sensory-liking expectations and perceptions of processed and unprocessed insect products. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 9 (1012-2018-4129).
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, M., C. Cienfuegos, and J. X. Guinard. 2018. The Flexitarian Flip™ in university dining venues: Student and adult consumer acceptance of mixed dishes in which animal protein has been partially replaced with plant protein. Food Quality and Preference 68:50–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. S. G., A. R. H. Fischer, H. C. M. van Trijp, and M. Stieger. 2016. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference 48:293–302. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. S. G., E. van den Berg, and M. Stieger. 2016. The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Quality and Preference 52:222–31. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. M., S. Higgs, and C. T. Dourish. 2016. Test-retest reliability and effects of repeated testing and satiety on performance of an emotional test batterytest–retest reliability and effects of repeated testing and satiety on performance of an emotional test battery. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 38 (4):416–33. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2015.1121969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2019. World population prospects 2019: Highlights. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
   Google Scholar
• Vainio, A. 2019. How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: Eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite 138:72–9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dooren, C., M. Marinussen, H. Blonk, H. Aiking, and P. Vellinga. 2014. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy 44:36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loo, E. J., V. Caputo, and J. L. Lusk. 2020. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 95:101931. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., E. J. Van Loo, X. Gellynck, and W. Verbeke. 2013. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeke, W. 2015. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 39:147–55. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verneau, F., F. la Barbera, S. Kolle, M. Amato, T. del Giudice, and K. Grunert. 2016. The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite 106:30–6. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verneau, F., Y. Zhou, M. Amato, K. G. Grunert, and F. la Barbera. 2021. Cross-validation of the entomophagy attitude questionnaire (EAQ): A study in China on eaters and non-eaters. Food Quality and Preference 87:104029. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, O., and F. Scrimgeour. 2021. Willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet in China and New Zealand: Applying the theories of planned behaviour, meat attachment and food choice motives. Food Quality and Preference 93:104294. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendin, K., and I. Undeland. 2020. Seaweed as food–attitudes and preferences among Swedish consumers. A pilot study. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 22:100265. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye, T., and A. S. Mattila. 2021. The effect of ad appeals and message framing on consumer responses to plant-based menu items. International Journal of Hospitality Management 95:102917. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar