Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio

Vol. 14 Núm. 2 (2024)
Julio-Diciembre

Artículos

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

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

Publicado 2024-09-15

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

Carlos Alberto Arango-Pastrana
Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia image/svg+xml

Juan Manuel Candelo-Viáfara
Universidad del Valle, Buga, Colombia image/svg+xml

Resumen

El presente estudio evaluó el estado de la investigación que vincula las proteínas alternativas con la actitud y comportamiento del consumidor, mediante un análisis bibliométrico de 265 documentos indexados en Scopus. La metodología identificó indicadores como: evolución temporal de publicaciones, revistas, autores y documentos más citados. También se realizó un análisis cualitativo de contenido para determinar diseños de investigación, fuentes de datos y técnicas de análisis predominantes. Los resultados muestran un crecimiento exponencial de publicaciones desde 2018, con aportes mayoritarios de Europa y Norteamérica. El acoplamiento bibliográfico evidenció tres corrientes: la superación de barreras culturales hacia los insectos comestibles, los factores que predicen la aceptación general de proteínas alternativas, y los impulsores de aceptación para los sustitutos vegetales de la carne. Las oportunidades de investigación futura destacan la necesidad de más estudios comparativos entre países y segmentos poblacionales, la experimentación con estrategias de comunicación y empaque, formas de inserción paulatina en la dieta, y el análisis de fuentes proteicas microbianas y fúngicas.

Palabras clave

proteínas alternativas, alimentos innovadores, entomofagia, comportamiento del consumidor

PDF (English)

Biografía del autor/a

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.

Citas

  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

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Artículos similares

1 2 3 > >> 

También puede {advancedSearchLink} para este artículo.