Proteins of the future: a bibliometric study of alternative food acceptance
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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.