Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2024)
Julio-Diciembre

Articles

Proteins of the future: a bibliometric study of alternative food acceptance

https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.20278306.v14.n2.2024.18162

Published 2024-09-15

Carlos Fernando Osorio-Andrade
Universidad del Valle, Buga, Colombia

Carlos Alberto Arango-Pastrana
University of Valle, Cali, Colombia image/svg+xml

Juan Manuel Candelo-Viáfara
University of Valle, Buga, Colombia image/svg+xml

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the state of research linking alternative proteins with consumer attitude and behavior, through a bibliometric analysis of 265 documents indexed in Scopus. The methodology involved the identification of descriptive indicators such as temporal evolution of publications, journals, authors and most cited documents. A qualitative content analysis was also carried out to determine research designs, data sources and predominant analysis techniques. The results show an exponential growth of publications since 2018, with majority contributions from Europe and North America. In terms of methodological aspects, quantitative and empirical survey-based studies predominate. The literature linkage evidenced three streams: overcoming cultural barriers towards edible insects, factors predicting general acceptance of alternative proteins, and acceptance drivers specifically for plant-based meat substitutes. Future research opportunities include the need for more comparative studies across countries and population segments, experimentation with communication and packaging strategies, forms of gradual insertion into the diet, and analysis of microbial and fungal protein sources.

Keywords

alternative proteins, innovative foods, entomophagy, consumer behavior

PDF

Author Biography

Carlos Fernando Osorio-Andrade

Advertising Communicator, PhD in Administration.

Carlos Alberto Arango-Pastrana

Professional in Foreign Trade, PhD in Industrial Organization and Business Management

Juan Manuel Candelo-Viáfara

Business Administrator, PhD in Administration.

References

  1. Alemu, M. H., Olsen, S. B., Vedel, S. E., Pambo, K. O., & Owino, V. O. (2017). Combining product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess consumer preferences for insect-based food products. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.009
  2. Boeris, C. (2010). Aplicación de métodos bibliométricos a la evaluación de colecciones: el caso de la Biblioteca del Instituto Argentino de Radioastronomía. https://bit.ly/3RpTKjU
  3. Bogueva, D., & Marinova, D. (2022). Australian Generation Z and the Nexus between Climate Change and Alternative Proteins. Animals, 12 (19), 2512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192512
  4. Chen, H. S. (2022). Towards environmentally sustainable diets: consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for plant-based meat alternatives in taiwan. Nutrients, 14 (18), 3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14183853 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14183853
  5. Cox, D. N., Evans, G., & Lease, H. J. (2011). The influence of product attributes, consumer attitudes and characteristics on the acceptance of:(1) Novel bread and milk, and dietary supplements and (2) fish and novel meats as dietary vehicles of long chain omega 3 fatty acids. Food Quality and Preference, 22 (2), 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.003
  6. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Pandey, N. y Mishra, A. (2021). Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) research: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 135, 758-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.015
  7. Ford, H., Gould, J., Danner, L., Bastian, S. E., & Yang, Q. (2023). “I guess it's quite trendy”: A qualitative insight into young meat-eaters’ sustainable food consumption habits and perceptions towards current and future protein alternatives. Appetite, 190, 107025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107025
  8. Gómez-Luciano, C. A., de Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732
  9. Gupta, P. y Harris, J. (2010). How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63 (9-10), 1041-1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.015
  10. Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013
  11. Heijnk, V., Espey, A., & Schuenemann, F. (2023). A comparison of influencing factors on attitudes towards plant-based, insect-based and cultured meat alternatives in Germany. Food Quality and Preference, 110, 104966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104966 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104966
  12. Hirunyophat, P., NAKPATCHIMSAKUN, P., & FUENGKAJORNFUNG, N. (2023). The effect of the addition of pineapple residue (Ananas comosus L.) on texture, physicochemical properties, and sensory acceptability of the plant-based minced meatball. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 11 (2).
  13. Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56 (3), 662-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001
  14. House, J. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite, 107, 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.023
  15. Janik, A., Ryszko, A. y Szafraniec, M. (2020). Scientific landscape of smart and sustainable cities literature: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 12 (3), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030779 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030779
  16. Jiang, M., & Farag, K. W. (2023). Is China ready for change? Consumer behaviour towards buying plant-based meat alternatives: applying the COM-B model. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2022-0596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2022-0596
  17. Keramatfar, A., & Amirkhani, H. (2019). Bibliometrics of sentiment analysis literature. Journal of Information Science, 45 (1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518761013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518761013
  18. Ketelings, L., Benerink, E., Havermans, R. C., Kremers, S. P., & de Boer, A. (2023). Fake meat or meat with benefits? How Dutch consumers perceive health and nutritional value of plant-based meat alternatives. Appetite, 106616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106616
  19. Kumar, P., Chatli, M. K., Mehta, N., Singh, P., Malav, O. P., & Verma, A. K. (2017). Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57 (5), 923-932. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.939739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.939739
  20. Livia, J., Merino-Soto, C., & Livia-Ortiz, R. (2022). Producción científica en la base de datos Scopus de una Universidad privada del Perú. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, 16 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2022.1500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2021.1500
  21. Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2022). Italian consumers standing at the crossroads of alternative protein sources: Cultivated meat, insect-based and novel plant-based foods. Meat Science, 193, 108942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108942
  22. Marquis, D., Oliveira, D., Pantin-Sohier, G., Reinoso-Carvalho, F., Deliza, R., & Gallen, C. (2023). The taste of cuteness: How claims and cute visuals affect consumers’ perception of insect-based foods. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 32, 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100722 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100722
  23. Megido, R. C., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É., Alabi, T., & Francis, F. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004
  24. Molina-Collado, A., Salgado-Sequeiros, J., Gómez-Rico, M., Aranda-García, E., & De Maeyer, P. (2021). Key themes in consumer financial services research from 2000 to 2020: a bibliometric and science mapping analysis. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39 (7), 1446-1478. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2021-0043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2021-0043
  25. Moura, M. A. F. E., Martins, B. D. A., Oliveira, G. P. D., & Takahashi, J. A. (2022). Alternative protein sources of plant, algal, fungal and insect origins for dietary diversification in search of nutrition and health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2085657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2085657
  26. Realini, C. E., Driver, T., Zhang, R., Guenther, M., Duff, S., Craigie, C. R., & Farouk, M. M. (2023). Survey of New Zealand consumer attitudes to consumption of meat and meat alternatives. Meat Science, 109232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109232 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109232
  27. Rowe, F., Kanita, N., & Walsh, I. (2023). The importance of theoretical positioning and the relevance of using bibliometrics for literature reviews. Journal of Decision Systems, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2217646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2217646
  28. Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., Mora, C., Gariglio, M., Gasco, L., & Schiavone, A. (2022). How information affects consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for poultry farmed with insect-based meal and live insects. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 8 (2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2021.0034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2021.0034
  29. Stone, H., FitzGibbon, L., Millan, E., & Murayama, K. (2023). Encouraging willingness to try insect foods with a utility-value intervention. Appetite, 190, 107002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107002
  30. Tang, Q., & Chung, S. J. (2023). Effect of explicit frames on the sensitivity and acceptance of mealworm in protein shake. Food Quality and Preference, 104924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104924 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104924
  31. Tucker, C. A. (2014). The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite, 81, 168-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.022
  32. Tzompa-Sosa, D. A., Sogari, G., Copelotti, E., Andreani, G., Schouteten, J. J., Moruzzo, R., ... & Mancini, S. (2023). What motivates consumers to accept whole and processed mealworms in their diets? A five-country study. Future Foods, 7, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100225
  33. Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003
  34. Wang, Z., & Park, J. (2023). “Human-like” is powerful: The effect of anthropomorphism on psychological closeness and purchase intention in insect food marketing. Food Quality and Preference, 109, 104901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104901
  35. White, S. K., Ballantine, P. W., & Ozanne, L. K. (2022). Consumer adoption of plant-based meat substitutes: A network of social practices. Appetite, 175, 106037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106037
  36. Yu, F., Van, A. A., Patel, T., Mani, N., Carnegie, A., Corbie-Smith, G. M., ... & Dave, G. (2020). Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: a pilot study. Journal of Clinical and translational Science, 4 (4), 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.29

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.