Consumer perceptions of insect consumption: a review of western research since 2015
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Edible insects have been touted as a sustainable food of the future, but for Western consumers, the concept of entomophagy is largely unfamiliar and often disgusting. This review article discusses current trends in perceptual entomophagy research in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA since 2015, along with an analysis of the guiding theoretical approaches to predicting insect consumption. Instead of trying to convince unwilling consumers, sensory and consumer science should turn to optimising insect‐eating experiences for potential early adopters. Hedonic evaluations of insect‐based products highlight differences in regional palates, but certain emotional responses seem consistent, including a group of newly coined ‘food‐evoked sensation seeking emotions’. Through clear‐cut insect‐inclusive legislation and effective product development, entomophagy‐specific fear and disgust may diminish over time. Researchers, food companies and governments all play critical roles in integrating insects into modern food systems, but consumer behaviour will ultimately determine the success of novel foods like insects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it