Czech J. Food Sci., 2020, 38(3):192-197 | DOI: 10.17221/236/2019-CJFS

Acceptance of bars with edible insects by a selected group of students from Tri-City, PolandOriginal Paper

Joanna Bartkowicz ORCID...*, Ewa Babicz-Zielińska
Faculty of Physiotherapy and Health Sciences at Gdansk College of Health, Gdansk, Poland

Although entomophagy as a diet has been known since the dawn of humanity, it is still considered a novelty to the European market and consumers. This study was performed to evaluate the acceptance of a trend promoted by the FAO diet regarding selected young Polish consumers and it presents the results of a survey conducted among them. The primary goal of this study was to assess the acceptance of new edible insect products with mealworms Tenebrio molitor L. and house crickets Acheta domesticus L. These products were prepared in the form of four different types of bars; one without insects, one with whole mealworms, one with ground mealworms and one with ground crickets. According to consumers, the worst bars were the ones which contained the whole mealworms. Additionally, the main problems with accepting this product were caused by the colour of the ground crickets and visible whole pieces of the insects in the edible bars. The study proved that the acceptance of insect bars as food depends on the tastiness and smell. The acceptance of bars also depends on variants. The basic bar had the highest acceptance rate, while the bar with whole mealworms had the lowest one.

Keywords: house crickets; mealworms; new food; young consumers; entomophagy

Published: June 30, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Bartkowicz J, Babicz-Zielińska E. Acceptance of bars with edible insects by a selected group of students from Tri-City, Poland. Czech J. Food Sci. 2020;38(3):192-197. doi: 10.17221/236/2019-CJFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Babicz-Zielińska E., Rybowska A., Obniska W. (2009): The Sensory Evaluation of Food Quality. 2nd Ed. Wydawnictvo Akademii Morskiej, Gdynia, Poland: 9-72. (In Polish)
    2. Dicke M., Van Huis A., Peters M., Van Grurp H. (2014): The hockey stick pattern in the acceptance of edible insects in the Netherlands. Abstract book at Conference "Insects to Feed the World", Netherlands: 118.
    3. Gutkowska K., Kowalczuk I., Sajdakowska M., ŻakowskaBiemans S., Kozłowska A., Olewnik-Mikołajewska A. (2014): Consumers' attitudes towards innovations in the food market. Handel Wewnętrzny, 4: 80-93. (In Polish)
    4. Grunert K.G. (2005): Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32: 369-391. Go to original source...
    5. Hartmann C., Siegrist M. (2016): Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 51: 118-122. Go to original source...
    6. House J. (2016): Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite, 107: 47-58. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Jensen N.H., Lieberoth A. (2018): We will eat disgusting foods together - evidence of the normative basis of Western entomophagy - disgust from an insects tasting. Food Quality and Preference, 72: 2-30. Go to original source...
    8. Lensvelt E.J., Steenbekkers L.P. (2014): Exploring consumer acceptance of entomophagy: A survey and experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53: 542-561. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Lombardi A., Vecchio R., Borrello M., Caracciolo F., Cembalo L. (2018): Willingness to pay for insect-based food: the role of information and carrier. Food Quality and Preference, 72: 18-27. Go to original source...
    10. Mancini S., Moruzzo R., Riccioli F., Paci G. (2019): European consumers' readiness to adopt insects as food. A review. Food Research International, 1-44. Go to original source...
    11. Megido R.C., Gierts Ch., Blecker Ch., Brostaux Y., Haubruge E., Alabi T., Francis F. (2016): Consumer acceptance of insectbased alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52: 237-243. Go to original source...
    12. Megido R.C., Sablon L., Geuens M., Brostaux Y., Alabi T., Blecker C., Drugmand D., Haubruge È., Francis F. (2014): Edible insects acceptance by Belgian consumers: Promising attitude for entomophagy development. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29: 14-20. Go to original source...
    13. Menozzi D., Sogari G., Veneziani M., Simoni E., Mora C. (2017): Eating novel foods: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict the consumption of an insectbased product. Food Quality and Preference, 59: 27-34. Go to original source...
    14. Ruby M.B., Rozin P., Chan C. (2015). Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the USA and India. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1: 215-225. Go to original source...
    15. Schouteten J.J., de Steur H., de Pelsmaeker S., Lagast S., Juvinal J.G., et al. (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. Go to original source...
    16. Schösler H., Boer J., Boersema J. (2012): Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58: 39-47. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Shiv B., Fedorikhin A. (1999): Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26: 278-292. Go to original source...
    18. Siriamornpun S., Thammapat P. (2008): Insects as a delicacy and a nutritious food in Thailand (Chapter 16). In: Robertson G.L., Lupien J.R. (eds): Using Food Science and Technology to Improve Nutrition and Promote National Development. International Union of Food Science & Technology, 1-12.
    19. Sogari G. (2015): Entomophagy and Italian consumers: An exploratory analysis. Progress in Nutrition, 17: 311-316.
    20. Sogari G., Menozzi D., Mora C. (2018): Sensory-liking expectations and perceptions of processed and unprocessed insects product. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 9: 314-320.
    21. Song H., Schwarz N. (2009): If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20: 135-138. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Stock P.V., Phillips C., Campbell H., Murcott A. (2016): Eating the unthinkable: the case of ENTO, eating insects and bioeconomic experimentation. In: Le Heron R., Campbell H., Lewis N., Carolan M. (eds): Biological Economies: Experimentation and the Politics of Agri-food Frontiers, London, UK: 157-169. Go to original source...
    23. Tan H.S.G., Fischer A.R., Tinchan P, Stieger M, Steenbekkers P., van Trijp H.C. (2015): Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 42: 78-89. Go to original source...
    24. Tan H.S.G., Fischer A.R., van Trijp H.C., Stieger M. (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. Go to original source...
    25. Van Huis A., van Itterbeeck J., Klunder H., Mertens E., Halloran A., Muir G. Vantome P. (2013): Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper, UNFAO, Rome, Italy: 1-201.
    26. Verneau F., La Barbera F., Kolle S., Amato M., Del Giuduce T., Grunert K. (2016): the effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite, 106: 30-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content