Subtopic Deep Dive

Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects
Research Guide

What is Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects?

Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects examines psychological, cultural, sensory, and marketing factors influencing willingness to consume insect-based foods worldwide.

This subtopic analyzes barriers like disgust and taboos through surveys and experiments. Studies test processing methods and information strategies to boost appeal. Over 2,000 citations across 20+ papers from 2013-2020 highlight trends in Western aversion versus traditional acceptance.

Curated Papers

Key Challenges

Why It Matters

Consumer acceptance determines market viability for insects as sustainable protein amid rising demand (van Huis, 2015; 275 citations). Overcoming cultural biases enables mainstream adoption, reducing livestock environmental impact (Dobermann et al., 2017; 484 citations). Marketing and processing innovations, like those in Kim et al. (2019; 403 citations), support food security by integrating insects into diets (Grasso et al., 2019; 298 citations).

Key Research Challenges

Cultural Disgust Barriers

Western consumers show strong food disgust toward insects despite nutritional benefits (Lammers et al., 2019; 204 citations). Surveys reveal sensation seeking and sustainability awareness weakly predict acceptance (Orsi et al., 2019; 253 citations). Interventions like information provision yield mixed results (Mancini et al., 2019; 179 citations).

Sensory Appeal Limitations

Insect texture and flavor deter repeat consumption even after trials (Kim et al., 2019; 403 citations). Processing technologies aim to mask insect origins but face scalability issues. Consumer panels highlight need for familiar formats like burgers (Lee et al., 2020; 262 citations).

Marketing Information Bias

Information on benefits often fails to shift willingness-to-pay due to prior biases (Pascucci and de‐Magistris, 2013; 38 citations). Seminars on ecology and gastronomy predict intentions variably (Mancini et al., 2019; 179 citations). Cross-cultural differences complicate global strategies (Wilkinson et al., 2018; 165 citations).

Essential Papers

Opportunities and hurdles of edible insects for food and feed

Darja Dobermann, J. A. Swift, L. M. Field · 2017 · Nutrition Bulletin · 484 citations

Abstract Entomophagy, the consumption of insects, is promoted as an alternative sustainable source of protein for humans and animals. Seminal literature highlights predominantly the benefits, but w...

Edible Insects as a Protein Source: A Review of Public Perception, Processing Technology, and Research Trends

Tae‐Kyung Kim, Hae In Yong, Young-Boong Kim et al. · 2019 · Food Science of Animal Resources · 403 citations

This review summarizes the current trends related to insect as food resources among consumers, industry, and academia. In Western societies, edible insects have a greater potential as animal feed t...

Older Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the European Union

Alessandra Grasso, Yung Hung, Margreet R. Olthof et al. · 2019 · Nutrients · 298 citations

Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) is a growing concern on account of an aging population and its negative health consequences. While dietary protein plays a key role in the prevention of PEM, it al...

Edible insects contributing to food security?

A. van Huis · 2015 · Agriculture & Food Security · 275 citations

Because of growing demand for meat and declining availability of agricultural land, there is an urgent need to find alternative protein sources. Edible insects can be produced with less environment...

Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market — A review

Hyun Jung Lee, Hae In Yong, Minsu Kim et al. · 2020 · Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · 262 citations

Plant-based meat analogues, edible insects, and cultured meat are promising major meat alternatives that can be used as protein sources in the future. It is also believed that the importance of mea...

Eating edible insects as sustainable food? Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany

Luigi Orsi, Lara Louisa Voege, Stefanella Stranieri · 2019 · Food Research International · 253 citations

Animals Fed Insect-Based Diets: State-of-the-Art on Digestibility, Performance and Product Quality

Laura Gasco, Ilaria Biasato, Sihem Dabbou et al. · 2019 · Animals · 241 citations

In 2018, the industrial compound feed production throughout the world was 1.103 metric billion tons, which was an increase of 3% compared to 2017. In order to meet the needs of the increasing popul...

Reading Guide

Foundational Papers

Start with Pascucci and de‐Magistris (2013; 38 citations) for information bias in WTP; van Huis (2015; 275 citations) contextualizes security needs driving acceptance research.

Recent Advances

Prioritize Dobermann et al. (2017; 484 citations) for hurdles overview; Kim et al. (2019; 403 citations) and Orsi et al. (2019; 253 citations) for perception trends and models.

Core Methods

Theory of Planned Behavior (Mancini et al., 2019), food disgust scales (Lammers et al., 2019), and processing tech reviews (Kim et al., 2019) form core techniques.

How PapersFlow Helps You Research Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects

Discover & Search

Research Agent uses searchPapers and exaSearch to find high-citation works like 'Opportunities and hurdles of edible insects for food and feed' by Dobermann et al. (2017; 484 citations), then citationGraph reveals clusters on disgust barriers from Lammers et al. (2019) and Orsi et al. (2019). findSimilarPapers expands to regional studies like Wilkinson et al. (2018; Australian acceptance).

Analyze & Verify

Analysis Agent applies readPaperContent to extract survey data from Kim et al. (2019), then runPythonAnalysis with pandas computes meta-statistics on acceptance rates across 10 papers. verifyResponse (CoVe) and GRADE grading verify claims like 70% disgust prevalence (Lammers et al., 2019) against raw abstracts, flagging contradictions in cultural bias effects.

Synthesize & Write

Synthesis Agent detects gaps in processing acceptance post-Grasso et al. (2019), flags contradictions between sustainability awareness and purchase intent (Orsi et al., 2019). Writing Agent uses latexEditText for survey result tables, latexSyncCitations integrates 15 papers, and latexCompile generates polished reviews; exportMermaid visualizes acceptance factor flows.

Use Cases

"Run statistical meta-analysis on disgust scores from insect acceptance surveys in Europe."

Research Agent → searchPapers (10 papers) → Analysis Agent → readPaperContent + runPythonAnalysis (pandas meta-analysis of means/SDs) → CSV export of forest plot data showing 65% average disgust rate.

"Draft LaTeX review section on German vs Australian insect acceptance with citations."

Synthesis Agent → gap detection (Orsi 2019 vs Wilkinson 2018) → Writing Agent → latexEditText (intro para) → latexSyncCitations (12 refs) → latexCompile → PDF with formatted comparison table.

"Find code for modeling consumer intention predictors from Mancini 2019."

Research Agent → paperExtractUrls (Mancini et al. 2019) → Code Discovery → paperFindGithubRepo (logistic regression scripts) → githubRepoInspect → Python sandbox verification of intention model R²=0.42.

Automated Workflows

Deep Research workflow conducts systematic review: searchPapers (50+ acceptance papers) → citationGraph → DeepScan (7-step: extract methods → runPythonAnalysis on TPB models → GRADE). Theorizer generates hypotheses like 'disgust mediates sustainability effects' from Lammers (2019) + Orsi (2019) contradictions. DeepScan verifies regional biases chain: Wilkinson (2018) → exaSearch → CoVe.

Try Doxa for Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects Research

Frequently Asked Questions

What defines consumer acceptance of edible insects?

It covers psychological disgust, cultural taboos, sensory evaluations, and marketing responses to insect foods (Lammers et al., 2019; Orsi et al., 2019).

What methods measure acceptance?

Surveys on willingness-to-try, hedonic scales for disgust, and conjoint analysis for willingness-to-pay dominate (Mancini et al., 2019; Pascucci and de‐Magistris, 2013).

What are key papers?

Dobermann et al. (2017; 484 citations) on hurdles; Kim et al. (2019; 403 citations) on perceptions; Orsi et al. (2019; 253 citations) on German determinants.

What open problems remain?

Scaling sensory-masking processing, longitudinal repeat-consumption trials, and cross-cultural marketing models lack empirical depth (Kim et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020).