Tasting the Future: Sensory Evaluation and Perception of Insect-Based Products Among GenZ and Millennials

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Literature citations need to be corrected and adapted to the journal's requirements. In the text and tables, there is a lack of consistency in the notation of numbers. The list of references is not carefully prepared. I have marked some gaps in colour. It is necessary to correct and supplement: the names of journals, pages, doi.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. The revisions, including corrected citations, consistent notation of numbers, and updated reference details, can be seen in the revised manuscript. We are happy to make any further adjustments if needed. If further improvements are necessary; could you specify what you mean by “gaps in colour”?

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: In the end of the abstract, some directions for further studies should be pointed out.

Response 1: Has been added. See end of abstract.

Comment 2: Lines 39-44 and 79-82: References are missing.

Response 2: Has been added. See LLs 103-106. Reference 31.

Comment 3: In the introductory section, please explain GenZ and Millennials.

Response 3: Has been explained. See LLs 173-175.

Comment 4: Section 2.3. Why did you opt to choose only one centre for recruitment? This is a significant limitation.

Response 4: Although allowing for multiple recruitment location would make this methodological design even stronger, the methodological design chosen for this particular research project also allowed for the formation of a representative population due to its diverse nature. The University of West London has over 15000 students and staff providing a realist cross-section of the population in London from within that particular age group

Comment 5: Are the 118 participants representative of the study population? Can you please provide further discussion on this topic?

Response 5: 118 form a representative sample, although having more participants would be preferable. The typical number of participants for sensory evaluations of this type go in the range of 100 to 150 participants. We have added a comment to highlight this as a possible limitation. Please see LLs 235-237.

Comment 6: The presented tables must be well formatted, improved, and explained in the text.

Response 6: Has been improved. See all tables.

Comment 7: Improve your Discussion section. More investigations should be analysed and compared with the results obtained in this study. A subsection of strengths and limitations should be included.

Response 7: The Discussion section has been improved and a subsection on strengths and limitations has been added. See Discussion section. We are happy to make any further adjustments if needed.

Comment 8: Conclusions must be aligned with the revised abstract and directions for future investigations should be highlighted.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We have not made significant changes to the conclusion as we believe it is appropriately aligned with the revised abstract and reflects the main points of the study. However, if you feel that further adjustments are needed, we would be happy to revise it.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: "Insect proteins are suitable for human consumption..." — This opening is clear but could benefit from specifying the novelty of this research (e.g., the focus on GenZ and Millennials)!

Response 1: The novelty has been specified. See abstract; LLs 11-14.

Comment 2: The phrase "this alternative could be explored through innovative gastronomy landscapes" is vague. Please clarify how gastronomy could play a role in bridging awareness and acceptance gaps!!

Response 2: Has been explained in more detail. See LLs 10-11, 28-31, 122-129, 494-496.

Comment 3: The gap between awareness and behaviour (86% vs. 18.6%) is highlighted well but lacks context. Why is this gap significant compared to other sustainable alternatives (e.g., plant-based diets)?

Response 3: Has been explained in more detail. See LLs 18-22.

Comment 4: The role of chefs is mentioned but not supported by evidence in this section. Please strengthen this claim with a brief justification!! Could the role of chefs in overcoming cultural barriers be elaborated with specific examples?

Response 4: Has been strengthen and elaborated. See LLs 10-11, 28-31, 122-129, 494-496.

Comment 5: How does this study differ from previous research on insect-based products!?

Response 5: Has been elaborated in the abstract. This study uniquely focussed on young adults – specifically GenZ and Millennials (aged 18–30).

Comment 6: FAO's 2013 call for Western countries to promote insect consumption is relevant but slightly outdated. Please include recent updates or trends post-2020!!

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have included more recent updates and trends, while also retaining the FAO's 2013 call. We believe it is important to highlight the long-standing efforts by health organizations, to promote insect protein in Western countries, which demonstrates the continued relevance of this issue over time. See LLs 44ff.

Comment 7: The regulatory adaptation timeline is well-documented, but the global comparison (e.g., Singapore vs. EU/UK) could be condensed to maintain focus on the study's scope!!

Response 7: We have removed the global comparison between regions like Singapore and the EU/UK, as suggested, to maintain focus on the study's scope.

Comment 8: Typo "insects are associate with high micronutrient density" → should be "insects are associated with."!

Response 8: Has been changed.

Comment 9: The cultural aversion to insect consumption is crucial but underexplored. Please include specific examples or studies highlighting these barriers!

Response 9: Has been explained in more detail. See LLs 103ff.

Comment 10: Suggests "targeted education" as a solution but does not elaborate on what this entails. Please provide examples!!

Response 10: We provided more examples and explanation throughout the paper. Included a framework at the end of the Discussion.

Comment 11: Are there specific insect products that are more culturally accepted in Europe?

Response 11: There are generally no specific insect species that are more culturally accepted in Europe. However, it was made clear in this study that processed products in which no insect parts are visible are significantly favoured (see chapter 3 Results).

Comment 12: Could the authors clarify whether the regulatory frameworks mentioned hinder or facilitate market entry!?

Response 12: Has been explained in the Introduction. See LLs 64-68.

Comment 13: The description of the questionnaire is thorough but lacks clarity on whether participants were given a pilot test. Was the validity of the modified questions checked statistically!?

Response 13: The questionnaires used in the study were all validated and did not require a pilot test. To ensure the reliability and validity of the questions, we compiled these existing validated questionnaires into one comprehensive instrument. This approach ensured the robustness of the data while maintaining the integrity of the original instruments.

Comment 14: Samples were presented on "white and odourless paper plates." Could the use of neutral presentation methods affect participants' perceptions!?

Response 14: Although using 'neutral' methods could alter the sensory perceptions of the products, all of the samples were presented in the same manner, making the possible bias negligible. Furthermore, the methodological design followed ISO standards for sensory evaluation of food products as specified in section 2.2. Sensory Evaluation.

Comment 15: "Maximum of 4 samples were presented" — What was the rationale for this limitation? Please explain if this was to avoid participant fatigue!!

Response 15: Only 4 samples have been presented at the time to avoid participant fatigue as per the ISO standards presented before - LLs: 222-225, Please see the sentence at LLs: 217-218.

Comment 16: "59 panellists have been recruited" — Was this number sufficient for statistical power!?

Response 16: We have added additional commentary on this, please see LLs 240-241 and 235-2375.

Comment 17: Why were only 5 insect-based and 5 insect-free products tested? Could more variety have provided better insights!?

Response 17: We had to choose maximum of 10 products due to panel fatigue. Also, the 5 inset-based products were one of the most popular available on the market at the point of designing the study. We have added additional comment to explain this a little further, please see LLs 202-204.

Comment 18: Were there any dropouts in participation during the sensory evaluation? If so, how were they handled!?

Response 18: Thank you for your question. While there were some initial doubts about the nature of the tests at the start of the study, none of these concerns were deemed significant enough to impact the study, and therefore, they were not formally recorded. Any doubts regarding the nature of the products were captured during the first questionnaire.

Regarding participant dropouts, there were no significant dropouts during the sensory evaluation. The significance for two products was maintained with a minimum of 20 participants. The total number of participants for all four products was carefully managed to prevent sensory fatigue, with breaks provided between the product evaluations.

For reference, the minimum number of participants required for sensory evaluations is based on guidelines from Heymann, H. and Lawless, H.T. (2013) in Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices (Springer Science & Business Media).

Comment 19: "The survey was open across the world..." — Despite global outreach, the demographic is heavily skewed toward Europe. This limits the generalizability of findings!!

Response 19: While the survey was advertised globally through social media channels and professional networks, the sampling method was convenience and snowball sampling, leading to a demographic that is heavily skewed toward Europe. Yes, this is a limitation.

Comment 20: The discussion on neophobia is insightful but repetitive. Please condense the correlations to focus on actionable insights!!

Response 20: The discussion on neophobia has been condensed and we wrote a new abstract. See at LLs 284-298.

Comment 21: Participants who consumed insects before were more likely to try them again. This should be emphasized as a key finding and linked to potential interventions!

Response 21: An attempt was made to highlight this finding. See LLs 303-313.

Comment 22: Could the authors explore how gender differences (66.9% female participants) influenced the results!?

Response 22: In the Strengths and Limitations section of the Discussion an explanation has been given as to why the female majority of participants was not discussed in detail in this study.

Comment 23: Were there regional variations within Europe that impacted neophobia or acceptance!?

Response 23: 106 participants from Europe, 11 from Asia, 1 from Australia; no differentiation within Europe.

Comment 24: Repeats findings from results. Please focus more on interpreting why awareness does not translate to acceptance!

Response 24: We tried to focus more on the Interpretation. See the Discussion section.

Comment 25: "Blind tasting removed the barrier of disgust" — This is an important observation. Please recommend elaborating on how future product marketing could leverage this!!

Response 25: Has been elaborated further in the discussion. See LLs 467-475.

Comment 26: Suggests chefs should "hide the visual presence of insects." This is a strong recommendation but lacks specific examples of successful implementation!!

Response 26: Examples has been added, e.g. framework. See LLs 10-11, 28-31, 122-129, 494-496.

Comment 27: How do the findings align with marketing strategies in regions where insects are culturally accepted (e.g., Southeast Asia)!?

Response 27: In regions where the consumption of insects is normal, the connotation of these products is positive. This still needs to be improved in Western countries through education, marketing and other efforts. As this study shows, neophobia is still a major barrier that needs to be tackled. See framework at the end of Discussion.

Comment 28: Could the authors provide a framework or stepwise approach for introducing insect-based products in Western markets!?

Response 28: A framework has been added at the end of the discussion.

Comment 29: Table 1: The term "n participants" is unclear. Please replace with "number of participants."!!

Response 29: N has been exchanged with number of participants.

Comment 30: Why were figures not included to complement tables? For instance, a bar graph comparing sensory evaluation scores would be helpful!!

Response 30: Although adding figures would be another form of presenting the data, the authors think that due to the various characteristics of the population that have been collected, a tabular presentation of data provides a clearer overview.

Comment 31: "and are an extremely efficient and sustainable source of calories food" → should be revised for conciseness and clarity!!

Response 31: Has been revised. See LLs 44ff.

Comment 32: "did not correlated" → "did not correlate."!!

Response 32: Thank you. Has been changed.

Comment 33: "data curation: M.W., and A.T." → unnecessary comma after "M.W."!!

Response 33: Thank you. Has been changed.

Comment 34: Inconsistent use of past and present tense throughout the paper!!

Response 34: Thank you for pointing out. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for tense consistency, and any other issues we noticed have been addressed as well. If anything further stands out, please let us know.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Please standardize the serial number format of keywords.

Response 1: Has been standardised throughout the paper.

Comment 2: Please do not concentrate references at the end of a sentence or paragraph, and try to keep each reference separate and integrated into the author's presentation.

Response 2: We have placed more references within the text and not just at the end of a sentence.

Comment 3: Check for spaces between numbers and units throughout the text, e.g. “51.4kg” in line 56.

Response 3: Thank you. All spaces have been deleted.

Comment 4: Check the format of the “%” appearing throughout the text, e.g., the format of the “%” is different in lines 70 and 115.

Response 4: Has been checked and changed throughout the paper.

Comment 5: Adjust the font formatting and size of Table 4 to make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Response 5: We have adjusted and optimised all Tables.

Comment 6: The title of line 298 lacks a serial number.

Response 6: The serial number of the subheadings has been added.