Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Underpinning
1.2. Model Development
2. Method
Questionnaire and Scaling
3. Analysis
3.1. Construct Validity and Reliability
3.2. Structural Model
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Food Neophobia
4.2. Perceived Importance of Meat
4.3. Food Choice Values
4.4. Behavioral Intension
4.5. Plant-Based vs. Insect-Based Comparisons
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Veldhuizen, L.; Giller, K.; Oosterveer, P.; Brouwer, I.; Janssen, S.; Van Zanten, H.; Slingerland, M. The Missing Middle: Connected action on agriculture and nutrition across global, national and local levels to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building Climate Resilience for Food, Security and Nutrition; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2020).
- Bajželj, B.; Richards, K.S.; Allwood, J.M.; Smith, P.; Dennis, J.S.; Curmi, E.; Gilligan, C.A. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 924–929. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, B.M.; Beare, D.J.; Bennett, E.S.; Hall-Spencer, J.A.; Ingram, J.; Jaramillo, F.; Ortiz, R.; Ramankutty, M.; Sayer, J.A.; Shindell, D. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiseman, S.A.; Dötsch-Klerk, M.; Neufingerl, N.; de Oliveira Martins, F. Future Food: Sustainable Diets for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet. Int. J. Nutrol. 2019, 12, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sabaté, J.; Harwatt, H.; Soret, S. Environmental Nutrition: A New Frontier for Public Health. Am. J. Public Health 2016, 106, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostolidis, C.; McLeay, F. To meat or not to meat? Comparing empowered meat consumers’ and anti-consumers’ preferences for sustainability labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClements, D.J. Future Foods: How Modern Science is Transforming the Way We Eat; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Huis, A.; van Itterbeeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.; Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security (FAO forestry Paper, 171); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2020).
- Cappellozza, S.; Leonardi, M.G.; Savoldelli, S.; Carminati, D.; Rizzolo, A.; Cortellino, G.; Terova, G.; Moretto, E.; Badaile, A.; Concheri, G.; et al. A first attempt to produce proteins from insects by means of a circular economy. Animals 2019, 9, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kusch, S.; Fiebelkorn, F. Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuorila, H.; Hartmann, C. Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schösler, H.; de Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 2012, 58, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lockwood, J.A. The Infested Mind: Why Humans Fear, Loathe and Love Insects; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rozin, P.; Vollmecke, T. Food likes and dislikes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1986, 6, 433–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rozin, P.; Fallon, A.E. A perspective on disgust. Psychol. Rev. 1987, 94, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faccio, E.; Fovino, L.G.N. Food Neophobia or Distrust of Novelties? Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes toward GMOs, Insects and Cultured Meat. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siegrist, M.; Hartman, C.; Keller, C. Antecedents of food neophobia and its association with eating behavior and food choices. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeiler, T.; Egloff, B. Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat. Appetite 2018, 130, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amato, P.R.; Partridge, S.A. The vegetarian lifestyle. In The New Vegetarians; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1989; pp. 137–174. [Google Scholar]
- Alley, T.R.; Potter, K.R. Food neophobia and sensation seeking. In The Handbook of Behavior, Food and Nutrition; Preedy, V.R., Watson, R.S., Martin, C.R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 707–724. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, L.; Bogdan, A. The Role of Plant-Based Foods in Canadian Diets: A Survey Examining Food Choices, Motivations and Dietary Identity. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2019, 25, 355–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schouteten, J.J.; De Steur, H.; De Pelsmaeker, S.; Lagast, S.; Juvinal, J.G.; de Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Verbecke, W.; Gellynck, X. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant- and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Luciano, C.; De Aguiar, L.; Vriesekoop, F.; Urbano, B. Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Luciano, C.A.; Vriesekoop, F.; Urbano, B. Towards food security of alternative dietary proteins: A comparison between Spain and the Dominican Republic. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Weele, C.; Feindt, P.; van der Goot, A.; van Mierlo, B.; van Boekel, M. Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.; Evans, G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Barcellos, M.D.; Aguiar, L.K.; Cardozo, G.C.; Vieira, L.M. Willingness to try innovative food products: A comparison between British and Brazilian consumers. Braz. Admin. Rev. (BAR) 2009, 6, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bäckström, A.; Pirttilä-Backman, A.; Tuorila, H. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales. Appetite 2004, 43, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capitanio, F.; Coppola, A.; Pascucci, S. Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness 2010, 26, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.; Zhang, L.; Lee, J. Not all organic food is created equal: The role of product type, perceived authenticity, and construal level. J. Mark. Commun. 2019, 25, 820–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyhorn, F.; Muller, A.; Reganold, J.P.; Frison, E.; Herren, H.R.; Luttikholt, L.; Mueller, A.; Sanders, J.; Scialabba, N.; Seufert, V.; et al. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 253–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Van Loo, E.J.; Gellynck, X.; Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 2013, 62, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smetana, S.; Palanisamy, M.; Mathys, A.; Heinz, V. Sustainability of insect use for feed and food: Life Cycle Assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinrich, R. Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat Substitutes. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roininen, K.; Lahteenmaki, L.; Tuorila, H. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite 1999, 33, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.E.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, E.; Wilson, C.; Eresshefsky, S.; Tsuji, T.; Schiffman, J.; Pitts, S.; Reeves, G. Convergent and discriminant validity of attenuated psychosis screening tools. Schizophr. Res. 2011, 134, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W.; Peterson, R.A.; Brown, S.P. Structural equation modelling in marketing: Some practical reminders. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 2008, 16, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishyna, M.; Chen, J.; Benjamin, O. Sensory attributes of edible insects and insect-based foods—Future outlooks for enhancing consumer appeal. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 95, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdiarmid, J.; Douglas, F.; Campbell, J. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 2016, 96, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Piazza, J.; Ruby, M.; Loughnan, S.; Luong, M.; Kulik, J.; Watkins, H.; Seigerman, M. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite 2015, 91, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Country | n | Gender | Age | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male% | Female% | Prefer not to Say | Mean ± SD | Range | ||
China | 571 | 38.0% | 60.8% | 1.2% | 31.2 ± 11.6 | 19–72 |
USA | 539 | 24.6% | 75.4% | NA * | 44.1 ± 21.7 | 18–71 |
France | 484 | 59.9% | 31.8% | 8.3% | 29.0 ± 17.3 | 18–68 |
UK | 366 | 23.8% | 76.2% | NA | 32.0 ± 16.8 | 19–67 |
New Zealand | 268 | 46.8% | 53.2% | NA | 37.9 ± 12.9 | 18–70 |
Netherlands | 231 | 37.7% | 62.3% | NA | 29.6 ± 15.4 | 17–70 |
Brazil | 216 | 43.1% | 56.9% | NA | 38.3 ± 22.1 | 17–77 |
Spain | 210 | 49.5% | 48.1% | 2.4% | 35.1 ± 19.5 | 19–83 |
Dominican Republic | 206 | 32.5% | 66.0% | 1.5% | 26.2 ± 9.5 | 16–69 |
Total | 3091 | 38.9% | 59.3% | 1.8% | 34.1 ± 15.4 | 16–83 |
Scales and Items | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|
Food Neophobia | 0.795 | 0.844 | 0.355 | |
08.1R. I am constantly sampling new and different foods | 0.576 | |||
08.2. I do not trust new foods | 0.662 | |||
08.3R. I like foods from different countries | 0.615 | |||
08.4. If I do not know what is in a food, I will not eat it | 0.523 | |||
08.5R. At dinner parties I will try a new food | 0.565 | |||
08.6. Some foods look too weird to eat | 0.485 | |||
08.7. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before | 0.673 | |||
08.8. I am very particular about the foods I eat | 0.506 | |||
08.9R. I will eat almost anything | 0.588 | |||
08.10R. I like to try new foods from all over the world | 0.717 | |||
Food Tech Neophobia | 0.746 | 0.829 | 0.495 | |
09.1. The benefits of new food technologies are often grossly overstated | 0.585 | |||
09.3. There are plenty of tasty foods around so that we do not need to use new food technologies to produce more | 0.745 | |||
09.5. New food technologies decrease the natural quality of foods | 0.792 | |||
09.7R. New products using new food technologies can help people have a balanced diet | 0.673 | |||
09.8R. Innovations in food technology can help us produce foods in a sustainable manner | 0.707 | |||
Healthiness Influence | 0.716 | 0.838 | 0.633 | |
10.1R. The healthiness of food has little impact on my food choices | 0.718 | |||
10.2. I am very particular about the healthiness of the food I eat | 0.842 | |||
10.3R. I eat what I like and I do not worry much about the healthiness of food | 0.822 | |||
Environmental Impact Influence | 0.647 | 0.810 | 0.588 | |
12.1. When I buy foods I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment | 0.699 | |||
12.2. I am worried about humankind’s ability to provide the nutritional needs for all people living on earth now | 0.830 | |||
12.3. Something drastic has to change in order to feed all the people on earth by 2050 | 0.766 | |||
Meat Nutritional Importance | 0.779 | 0.873 | 0.698 | |
13.1. Eating meat is necessary for obtaining beneficial nutrients | 0.871 | |||
13.2. The nutritional benefits of meat can easily be matched by alternative protein sources | 0.732 | |||
13.3. Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet | 0.894 | |||
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance | 0.941 | 0.962 | 0.895 | |
14.1. The taste of meat is important to me | 0.952 | |||
14.2. The texture of meat is important to me | 0.955 | |||
14.3. The smell of meat is important to me | 0.931 | |||
Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.786 | 0.854 | 0.546 | |
19.1. Plant-based protein is healthy | 0.836 | |||
19.2. Plant-based protein is safe to eat | 0.697 | |||
19.3. Plant-based protein is nutritious | 0.840 | |||
19.4. Plant-based protein is more sustainable | 0.765 | |||
19.6. Plant-based protein is cheaper | 0.506 | |||
Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.726 | 0.845 | 0.646 | |
20.1. Willing to try plant-based protein | 0.752 | |||
20.2. Willing to purchase plant-based protein | 0.891 | |||
20.3. Willing to pay more for plant-based protein | 0.760 | |||
Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.890 | 0.920 | 0.699 | |
35.1. Insect-based protein is healthy | 0.907 | |||
35.2. Insect-based protein is safe to eat | 0.880 | |||
35.3. Insect-based protein is nutritious | 0.886 | |||
35.4. Insect-based protein is more sustainable | 0.830 | |||
35.6. Insect-based protein is cheaper | 0.653 | |||
Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.823 | 0.893 | 0.740 | |
36.1. Willing to try insect-based protein | 0.915 | |||
36.2. Willing to purchase insect-based protein | 0.946 | |||
36.3. Willing to pay more for insect-based protein | 0.697 |
Fornell-Larcker Criterion | Environmental Impact Influence | Food Neophobia | Food Tech Neophobia | Healthiness Influence | Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | Meat Nutritional Importance | Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance | Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental Impact Influence | 0.767 | |||||||||
Food Neophobia | −0.102 | 0.595 | ||||||||
Food Tech Neophobia | −0.066 | 0.214 | 0.704 | |||||||
Healthiness Influence | 0.217 | −0.012 | 0.061 | 0.796 | ||||||
Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.180 | −0.255 | −0.178 | 0.014 | 0.836 | |||||
Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.105 | −0.284 | −0.118 | 0.004 | 0.525 | 0.860 | ||||
Meat Nutritional Importance | −0.325 | 0.112 | 0.030 | −0.189 | −0.130 | −0.024 | 0.835 | |||
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance | −0.241 | −0.004 | −0.004 | −0.143 | −0.049 | 0.055 | 0.632 | 0.946 | ||
Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.316 | −0.128 | −0.098 | 0.174 | 0.201 | 0.047 | −0.456 | −0.304 | 0.739 | |
Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.279 | −0.168 | −0.120 | 0.205 | 0.184 | 0.181 | −0.494 | −0.391 | 0.451 | 0.804 |
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio | ||||||||||
Environmental Impact Influence | ||||||||||
Food Neophobia | 0.194 | |||||||||
Food Tech Neophobia | 0.180 | 0.266 | ||||||||
Healthiness Influence | 0.317 | 0.171 | 0.124 | |||||||
Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.241 | 0.296 | 0.219 | 0.078 | ||||||
Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.154 | 0.334 | 0.145 | 0.064 | 0.586 | |||||
Meat Nutritional Importance | 0.458 | 0.219 | 0.070 | 0.266 | 0.160 | 0.065 | ||||
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance | 0.313 | 0.180 | 0.048 | 0.180 | 0.060 | 0.079 | 0.729 | |||
Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.434 | 0.217 | 0.166 | 0.217 | 0.240 | 0.083 | 0.559 | 0.328 | ||
Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.398 | 0.281 | 0.180 | 0.288 | 0.239 | 0.280 | 0.644 | 0.457 | 0.563 |
Scale | AVE | R2 | Q2(CVC) | Q2(CVR) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.699 | 0.042 | 0.532 | 0.027 |
Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.740 | 0.310 | 0.466 | 0.213 |
Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.546 | 0.243 | 0.342 | 0.119 |
Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.647 | 0.331 | 0.308 | 0.200 |
Average Score | 0.658 | 0.232 | 4.20% | |
AVE × R2 | 0.152 | |||
GoF = √(AVE × R2) | 0.390 |
Hypothesized Path Relationship | Coefficient | t-Stat | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Food Neophobia → Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | −0.172 | 10.713 | <0.001 |
Food Neophobia → Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | −0.089 | 5.195 | <0.001 |
Food Tech Neophobia → Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.005 | 0.320 | 0.749 |
Food Tech Neophobia → Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | −0.070 | 4.549 | <0.001 |
Meat Nutritional Importance → Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.015 | 0.751 | 0.452 |
Meat Nutritional Importance → Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | −0.273 | 12.672 | <0.001 |
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance → Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.067 | 3.272 | 0.001 |
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance → Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | −0.137 | 6.983 | <0.001 |
Meat Nutritional Importance → Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | −0.123 | 4..91 | <0.001 |
Meat Nutritional Importance → Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | −0.379 | 16.505 | <0.001 |
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance → Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.063 | 2.583 | 0.010 |
Meat Taste, Texture, Smell Importance → Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | −0.007 | 0.309 | 0.757 |
Environmental Impact Influence → Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.162 | 7.642 | <0.001 |
Environmental Impact Influence → Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.176 | 9.725 | <0.001 |
Healthiness Influence → Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | −0.035 | 1.504 | 0.133 |
Healthiness Influence → Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits | 0.061 | 3.636 | <0.001 |
Insect-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits → Insect-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.487 | 38.956 | <0.001 |
Plant-Based Protein Suitability/Benefits → Plant-Based Protein Willingness to Try, Buy, and Pay More | 0.265 | 14.276 | <0.001 |
Scale Items (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) | Mean | t-Stat |
---|---|---|
19.1. Plant-based protein is healthy | 4.192 | 35.759 * |
35.1. Insect-based protein is healthy | 3.432 | |
19.2. Plant-based protein is safe to eat | 4.076 | 38.583 * |
35.2. Insect-based protein is safe to eat | 3.221 | |
19.3. Plant-based protein is nutritious | 4.142 | 27.410 * |
35.3. Insect-based protein is nutritious | 3.555 | |
19.4. Plant-based protein is more sustainable | 3.641 | 15.151 * |
35.4. Insect-based protein is more sustainable | 3.272 | |
19.5. Plant-based protein is tastier | 2.645 | 14.236 * |
35.5. Insect-based protein is tastier | 2.327 | |
19.6. Plant-based protein is cheaper | 3.253 | 6.795 * |
35.6. Insect-based protein is cheaper | 3.086 | |
20.1. Willing to try plant-based protein | 2.633 | 43.130 * |
36.1. Willing to try insect-based protein | 1.928 | |
20.2. Willing to purchase plant-based protein | 2.392 | 43.136 * |
36.2. Willing to purchase insect-based protein | 1.677 | |
20.3. Willing to pay more for plant-based protein | 1.699 | 30.968 * |
36.3. Willing to pay more for insect-based protein | 1.278 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
de Koning, W.; Dean, D.; Vriesekoop, F.; Aguiar, L.K.; Anderson, M.; Mongondry, P.; Oppong-Gyamfi, M.; Urbano, B.; Luciano, C.A.G.; Jiang, B.; et al. Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292
de Koning W, Dean D, Vriesekoop F, Aguiar LK, Anderson M, Mongondry P, Oppong-Gyamfi M, Urbano B, Luciano CAG, Jiang B, et al. Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins. Foods. 2020; 9(9):1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292
Chicago/Turabian Stylede Koning, Wim, David Dean, Frank Vriesekoop, Luis Kluwe Aguiar, Martin Anderson, Philippe Mongondry, Mark Oppong-Gyamfi, Beatriz Urbano, Cristino Alberto Gómez Luciano, Bin Jiang, and et al. 2020. "Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins" Foods 9, no. 9: 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292
APA Stylede Koning, W., Dean, D., Vriesekoop, F., Aguiar, L. K., Anderson, M., Mongondry, P., Oppong-Gyamfi, M., Urbano, B., Luciano, C. A. G., Jiang, B., Hao, W., Eastwick, E., Jiang, Z., & Boereboom, A. (2020). Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins. Foods, 9(9), 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292