Secondly, risk perception was measured directly by asking participants whether they believed that the consumption of insects induces health risks for humans or animals. Responses were given as "Yes," "No," or "Don't know." A majority of 62.5% participants indicated their belief that consumption of insects does not induce health risks, while 26.1 and 19.7% of respondents believed consumption to pose a health risk to humans and animals, respectively. Respondents were less concerned about the use of insects as feed than as food, with 63.3% of respondents overall in favor of using insects as feed (27.1% were overall not in favor of this use) but only 46.6% overall in favor of using insects as food (47.6% were overall not in favor of this use). Insects as food were seen more favorably among those living in cities than those living in the countryside. Differences were observed between different age groups, with 18-29-year-olds most favorable and 14-17-year-olds and those aged 65+ least favorable. Individuals with lower levels of educational attainment also indicated less favorable views of insects as food than individuals with a high school or university degree.
Respondents believing a health risk to be linked to consumption were asked to specify possible health risks in an open question. The transfer or outbreak of diseases was listed by 54.5% of respondents, followed by toxins (26%), and allergies/intolerances (16.8%).
When asked to list possible reasons for consuming insects (N = 1,000), high protein content was the reason most frequently listed (33.7%), followed by providing additional sources of nutrition for the world population (17.1%), nutrition/vitamin content (14.2%), low costs and effort of husbandry (13.1%), high availability (12.3%), providing an alternative to presently available food (7.3%) or feed options (6.9%), sustainability of insect husbandry (5.2%), pleasant taste (4.6%), establishment as food in other cultures (2%), curiosity or interest in trying the novel consumption experience (1.8%), a view of insects as a normal food and edible animal species similar to others (1.7%), a healthy consumption choice (1.6%), or easy to prepare (0.6%), with 1.5% listing other reasons and 14.9% indicating they could not think of any possible reasons for consuming insects.
Asked to list possible reasons for not consuming insects, disgust was listed by far the most frequently (45.7%), followed by concerns about hygiene and insects as carriers of diseases (14.9%), the lack of familiarity with insects as a food (13.4%), animal abuse concerns and lack of trust in suitable husbandry practices (11.8%), interference in natural ecosystems/threat of extinction or loss of species diversity (11.2%), avoidance of animal-based products or meat-free diets (4.4%), digestibility (4.0%), concerns over taste (3.4%), the availability of sufficient other foods (2.7%), concerns over preparation (1.3%), poisonous quality (0.9%), difficult husbandry (0.8%), and contaminants (0.7%), with 1.1% listing other reasons and 11.4% indicating they could not think of any possible reasons not to consume insects.
Lombardi et al. conducted an experiment with 200 students at an Italian university which investigated the role of information and carriers (specific insect-containing products:pasta, cookies, and chocolate bars) on the willingness to pay for insect-based food. Different carriers generated different results in terms of willingness to pay for conventional and insect-based versions of the products. Food Neophobia and Beliefs and Attitudes toward insects negatively affected the willingness to pay. In the adapted version of the beliefs and attitudes toward insects scale used, several items relating to risk perception were assessed. Participants' belief that eating insects would increase risk of infectious disease was relatively low (M = 2.52, SD = 1.504, Range = 1-7). Relating to insects generally rather than as a food, participants' belief that insects carry harmful microbes (M = 3.09, SD = 1.642, Range = 1-7) or contain harmful toxins (M = 2.83, SD = 1.368, Range = 1-7) was also rather low than high (low ratings indicated low belief). Participants believed that insects are highly nutritious (M = 4.75, SD = 1.613, Range = 1-7), while fewer participants believed that humans eating insects is not natural (M = 2.97, SD = 1.842, Range = 1-7). A group comparison contrasted the impact of individual vs. community health benefit information on willingness to pay, showing a positive effect of either type of information with a slightly higher impact of individual benefits information.
Meixner conducted a web-based survey with participants from Austria, Germany and Switzerland (n = 620). To measure risk perception, a scale consisting of four Items was used: (1) "Insects are unhygienic and dirty," (2) "The consumption of insects poses a hazard to human health," (3) "Insects are not suitable for human consumption," and (4) "The consumption of insects is fraught with risk." The consumption of insects was not perceived as particularly risky (M = 23.82, response scale 0-100).
In the context of a master's thesis Manhartseder, risk perception relating to insects as food was measured in Austrian participants using a web-based survey. Participants rated their agreement with five statements relating to insects (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Respondents were aged 16-65 (n = 164, M = 34.03, SD = 12.71) and 59.6 % of the sample were female; the sample was not population representative.
Participants' relatively high agreement with "They are not presently part of our diets" (n = 164, M = 6.01, SD = 1.76) indicated insects were viewed as a novel food. "Insect products are identical to any other new, unfamiliar foodstuff introduced to the market" received much lower agreement (n = 144, M = 3.81, SD = 2.06), suggesting that insect-based foods may be considered a special case of novel food. If true, this could indicate that cognitive processes involved in the perception, acceptance and decision to consume relating to novel foods in general might not apply to insect-based foods and should thus not be generalized unless based on information about consumers' willingness to consume insects in particular. "Insects are not edible" received low agreement (n = 161, M = 2.86, SD = 1.92), indicating a tendency to view insects as edible rather than not. "Insects are horrible" was positively agreed with (n = 159, M = 5.34, SD = 1.98), but "Insects are hazardous and can transmit diseases" was barely agreed with (n = 135, M = 3.55, SD = 2.01). This indicates that factors other than attributions of hazard and disease contributed to the perception of insects as "horrible." Agreement with "Insects are not the solution to our environmental problems with respect to meat consumption" (n = 149, M = 5.52, SD = 1.96, Range = 1-7) may present a tentative indication that barriers to insect consumption in this sample outweighed any environmental motivations that might have incentivised consumption.
A systematic literature review on the perception and acceptance of insects as food focuses on European willingness to consume insects and its predictors, and strategies to increase acceptance of edible insects. Europeans' willingness to consume insects is considered very low, with survey data indicating willingness to consume insects as a meat substitute in only 19% of the population. Higher willingness to consume was associated with male gender, but no other sociodemographic factors were identified as impacting the willingness to consume insects as food. No associations with food contamination, health risks or primitive diets were found in people's perception.
A study conducted in the Netherlands explored the sensory perceptions of three unusual novel foods claimed to be present in beef burger patties. Participants consumed burger samples with different novel ingredient proportions. Taste expectations were more negative when a food had never been tested before. Consumption experience was determined mainly by the food's properties. Low willingness to eat was linked to food appropriateness more than the food's actual taste.
Verneau et al. demonstrated that communication choices could positively impact willingness to consume insects in 282 university students (Denmark: n = 141; 65 Females, M = 23.35, SD = 3.40; Italy: n = 141; 74 females, M = 23.87, SD = 4.25). Highlighting (1) social benefits or (2) individual benefits of introducing insects' proteins into human diet (experimental groups) or (3) information irrelevant to insects (control group) affected participants' behavioral intentions and consumption behaviors. Highlighting consumption benefits impacted behavioral intention positively; this effect carried over to consumption behavior. The impact of information on social benefits on behavioral intention was more long-lasting than information on individual benefits. Increased familiarity and male gender positively affected intention to consume. Negative implicit attitudes toward insects were identified as a barrier to consumption, though this did not impede the positive impact of health information. Higher levels of consumption intention and behavior were found in the Danish than the Italian sample, indicating potential effects of food culture: the well-established Italian cuisine may reduce cultural openness to novel foods. Gere et al. conducted a study to understand the readiness of Hungarian consumers to adopt insects. Food neophobia was identified as the main barrier to insect consumption.
A literature review on factors affecting entomophagy acceptance and adoption in Western food cultures provides a conceptual framework identifying key factors related to acceptance and adoption of insects and insects-based foods.
Tan et al. explored the contribution of sensory-liking and food appropriateness to the willingness to eat unusual food among Dutch beef consumers. Food appropriateness, but not the experienced sensory-liking nor individual traits like food neophobia or gender, predicted willingness to eat unusual foods.
Verbeke investigated Belgian consumers' readiness to adopt insects as a meat substitute. Gender, age, familiarity, food neophobia, convenience and environmental food choice motives, as well as meat-related attitudes and future meat consumption were identified as significant predictors. Food neophobia made the largest contribution to consumers' readiness to adopt insect substitution.
De Boer et al. examined the relationship between motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from "environmentally friendly proteins," including insects. The results indicate that there is potential for a dietary shift toward "environmentally friendly proteins" among Dutch consumers, but only 4% of participants chose insect-based snacks. A hybrid meat and meat-substitute snack was chosen most frequently, though consumers with high involvement in food, taste and reflection orientation and high levels of education and an urban background were more likely to choose plant-based alternative sources of protein (in this study, lentils, and seaweed).
Kim et al. reviewed current trends related to insects as food resources among consumers, industry, and academia, revealing a steady increase in entomophagy worldwide. van Huis overview of edible insects as an alternative protein source for human food and animal feed discusses research pathways to make insects a viable sector in food and agriculture. Mancini et al.'s literature review on European consumers' readiness to adopt insects as food noted that acceptability of edible insects in European countries was the topic of very few publications.
An entomophagy perception survey and hedonic test study among Belgian participants concluded that insect tasting sessions are important to decrease food neophobia and that insect integration into Western food culture will involve a transitional phase with minced or powdered insects incorporated into ready-to-eat preparations.
An experiment with 26 Italian students found that insects were not easy to identify by taste alone. The authors suggest that consumer acceptance may be facilitated when insects are processed into flour or pastes and reduced when packaging displays insect images.
A literature review on edible insects focusing on ecological and economical aspects provides insights into the rearing of insects and highlights the development of scientific research and its focus on ecological concerns and economical implementation in this field. Another literature review contrasts the perception and consumption of insects as traditional foods with the Western attitude toward edible insects.
A web-based survey with 428 Swiss participants investigated willingness to eat insects. Participants made fewer positive evaluations and more negative evaluations of snacks containing insects than snacks not containing insects based on their images. Willingness to eat insects was predicted by disgust/uneasiness, inertia/dissatisfaction and positive emotional evaluations. The authors suggest the marketing of snacks containing processed insect ingredients.
A study with 179 undergraduate students at a US university investigated factors influencing willingness to attend an insect tasting. Different aspects of disgust (animal reminder and core disgust) reduced willingness to taste insects. Following a priming to reflect on cooking processes, willingness to attend the tasting was less reduced in those with low sensitivity to animal remind disgust.
An experiment with 231 young, Italian adults measured behavioral intention and action of eating novel food products containing insect flour in the following month. Beliefs in the positive effects on health and the environment positively impacted attitudes and intention to consume. Disgust, incompatibility with local food culture, and lack of products in the supermarket were barriers to consumption intentions.
A field experiment in Kenya with a community sample of 432 participants investigated how consumers evaluated sensory attributes of buns blended with cricket flour. The effects of information on the evaluation, personal involvement and emotions were also tested. Providing product information affected sensory evaluation of the products' sensory attributes.
In a sample of 887 participants from Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic, Piha et al. compared how consumer knowledge influences willingness to buy insect food products in central and northern Europe. Distinct types of knowledge and food neophobia affected willingness to buy mainly indirectly, mediated by general attitudes. Subjective and objective knowledge predicted willingness to pay in northern but not central Europe, food neophobia in central more than in northern Europe. Product experience was a predictor in both regions.
An online survey on Dutch consumer practices related to meat, meat substitution and meat reduction demonstrated the impact of meal formats, product familiarity, cooking skills, preferences for plant-based foods and motivational orientations toward food on the intention to prepare the presented meals at home (N = 1,083).
An experiment in which 104 Swiss participants consumed traditional tortilla chips or cricket flour chips suggested that acceptance of insect consumption in unprocessed form might be increased after having consumed insect-based chips.
Studying willingness to consume insects in American and Indian samples, Ruby et al. showed perceived benefits of eating insects were related to nutrition and environmental sustainability, and the most common risks related to risk of disease and illness (N = 399).
In a combined experimental and web-based survey study using a Dutch sample, consumers evaluated appropriate and inappropriate mealworm products along with original mealworm-free products (N = 135 willing tasters for the sensory study; N = 79 unwilling tasters for the online study). Appropriate product context improved expected sensory-liking and willingness to buy mealworm products. Mealworm products were expected and experienced to taste different from original mealworm-free products, but taste preferences were similar to the original.
Baker et al. investigated the role of contextual information on insect consumption, specifically the impacts of images and descriptions on risk perceptions and purchase intent (three experiments; N1 = 221; N2 = 200; N3 = 201). The results suggest that, in restaurant settings, risk perception may be increased when food images contain insects in animal form, though the difference was observed only in combination with a vague, not an explicit text description. In retail settings, packaging image (containing an insect or not) impacted risk perception; text description (vague or explicit) did so only when combined with an image. Explicit text descriptions increased risk perceptions. This study's results could indicate that visual or descriptive information elicit disgust responses, which may then sensitize consumers to potential consumption risks.
In a web-based survey of German (n = 502; MAge = 44.3, SDAge = 14.2, RangeAge = 20-69; Proportion male = 0.48) and Chinese (n = 443; MAge = 44.2, SDAge = 13.1, RangeAge = 20-69; Proportion male = 0.49) samples, Chinese participants rated insect-based foods more favorably and indicated greater willingness to eat the tested food products than German participants, who also reported higher willingness to eat processed insect-based foods compared to the unprocessed foods.
Disgust toward eating insects is a barrier to consumption. There is some evidence that this disgust does not relate to general pathogen disgust of perceived susceptibility to infection, which would suggest that fear of disease/contamination/illness is not the origin of disgust toward eating insects. Animal reminder disgust, one of the three main disgust domains alongside core and contamination disgusts, was highlighted as a barrier to willingness to taste insects. Participants less sensitive to animal reminder sensitivity were better able to overcome their disgust and consider that cooking transforms the insect-derived ingredients, classifying them as food and thus reducing the insects' "animalness." Animal reminder sensitivity was found to be greater in women than men, which could factor into gender differences in insect consumption readiness. The impact of animal reminder disgust may be reduced by processed or unprocessed state of the food and may explain some of the reduced willingness to consume unprocessed compared to processed state insect-based food. Animal reminder disgust may also contribute to the increased risk perception evoked by insect-containing food images and explicit text descriptions.
Insect consumption or proxy measures (e.g., attitudes, behavioral intention) are higher among individuals with past consumption experience in some settings but not others, for example when food contained whole animals. The context of past consumption (a one-off novelty experience vs. cultural habits) may influence this relationship. The presence or absence of additional barriers or facilitating factors, such as processed vs. unprocessed state of insect-based food, may confound effects of familiarity.
Individuals high in food neophobia, a general weariness of consuming novel foods, are less likely to consume insects as a novel food and less willing to pay for or consume insect-containing products. The stronger relationship between food neophobia and willingness to pay for insect-containing food in central compared to northern Europe indicates that this relationship is likely impacted by other barriers and facilitating factors.
Several studies indicate that consumption of insect-based foods is more acceptable, in particular for individuals with low willingness to consume insects and those who have not tried insects before. Willingness to consume insects in unprocessed form may be increased in individuals who have consumed insects in the past, suggesting that introducing individuals to insect-based foods in processed form may increase the likelihood they will consume insects in unprocessed form in the future. Therefore, familiarity effects are likely to interact with the state of insect-based foods in their impact on individuals' willingness to eat insect-based foods and should be considered in future studies relating to the state of insect-based foods and their impact on willingness to eat. Unprocessed forms of insect-based food may also reduce animal reminder disgust and constitute an effective way to reduce this barrier to consumption as well as the barrier of novelty.
Any effects of contextual information on insect consumption behavior and attitudes are likely to represent a complex interplay of factors.
The degree of trust in the sources providing information may impact their effect, with some indication that scientific researchers, well-known relatives, the government, and persons using insect-based food products being trusted while food producers and famous persons may not be. There may however be cultural differences in the respective ratings of different informational sources; for example, consumer organizations may be more trusted by Dutch than Australian participants.
Information given about products seems to have inconsistent effects on attitudes and behavior. Some evidence suggests that the choice to consume insects, willingness to pay, or consumption acceptance are not influenced by information received. Other findings indicate that information about social of individual benefits of introducing insects' proteins into human diet positively impacted intention to consume, with longer-lasting effects from information highlighting social benefits. In contrast, highlighting individual or community health benefits of insect consumption was found to impact willingness to pay positively, but with greater impacts from highlighting individual benefits. Underlying differences in the effect of individual vs. collective benefit perception may impact differently on investment choices (e.g., by measuring willingness to pay) than on other constructs related to insect consumption, such as intention to consume. Explicit product descriptions highlighting the animal content on the other hand may reduce purchase intent, though such effects may interact with the presence of visual stimuli.
The visibility of insects as whole animal and visual animal reminders (e.g., images evoking thoughts of the live animals) may constitute a barrier to consumption. These findings are consistent with animal reminder disgust as a barrier to consumption and the facilitating effects of processed as opposed to unprocessed forms of insect-based foods. However, there is some evidence than the effects of insect images interact with contextual text information given. It is likely that information (visual or text) that evoke thought of the live animal elicit animal reminder disgust and/or increase risk perception, thus reducing consumption behaviors or proxy measures thereof. However, this effect may not be detectable when animal reminder disgust is evoked by other contextual sources (e.g., the impact of visual information may be detectable only when animal reminder disgust is not already evoked by text descriptions).
The inconsistency in findings regarding contextual information seem to indicate a complex interplay of factors each associated with a comparatively low effect size. Large enough studies and samples to identify small effects, investigate the interactions between various contextual information factors, and account for the impact of other factors on consumption attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, would be needed to reliably investigate the relative roles of various contextual informational factors and their interactions.
Insect consumption and related cognitions and intentions are affected by cultural and social context and norms. Individuals are more likely to consume insects when they believe many of those surrounding them to do so as well. This indicates that humans do not inherently fear or avoid insect consumption (e.g., based on biological instincts), but rather that avoidance is a result of not having experienced the food as safe to consume based on others' (social norm) and the individual's own (familiarity) experience. Cultural differences such as the lower willingness to consume insect-based foods in a German compared to a Chinese sample support this notion. Addressing social factors and perception could therefore be an effective strategy in promoting insect consumption. For example, consumption of insects or sharing of positive past consumption experiences by trusted persons in individuals' social circles (e.g., friends or family) might improve the perception of insect-based food consumption as a social norm and standard, rather than an exception. Positive consumption experiences among individuals low in barriers such as disgust would therefore be expected to positively influence the views and consumption behaviors of their social circles.
There was a high degree of variability in the sociodemographic criteria of the samples of the studies reviewed. Given the likely impact of cultural influences on insect consumption perceptions, intentions, and behaviors, cross-cultural comparison studies conducted using samples representative of the respective populations would be required to reliably identify the role of sociodemographic criteria in diverse contexts. In particular, it is difficult to investigate the role of age on insect consumption behaviors and attitudes, partly because many of the above studies were conducted in disproportionately young populations due to the use of student samples or web-based methodologies. The identification of male gender as a facilitating factor for willingness to consume insects in a systematic literature review is a promising indicator that women may be less likely to consume insects than men. Such differences may be linked to increased animal reminder sensitivity sometimes shown in women compared to men. Regional differences in insect consumption behaviors, intentions, and attitudes have been identified in various studies and indicate that social and cultural contexts notably impact individuals' attitudes and behaviors.
The literature search yielded 332 unique references; 12 publications were identified as most relevant from the article abstracts and included in the literature review (see Table 2). Key information extracted from each publication in order to inform the design of the communication strategy are summarized below.
A population representative telephone survey in the Spanish population showed participants (n = 650) considered beef as one of the least safe products (M = 2.61, SD = 1.43, response scale = 1-5; higher scores indicating greater safety perception). Out of the 18 food products rated by participants, the items "beef" and "imported food" were joined for the second least safe food product, with only "ready-to-eat meals" perceived as less safe and thus the least safe item. Pork (M = 3.66, SD = 1.05, Range = 1-5) was perceived as notably safer, ranking 7th least safe out of the 18 food products. Standard deviation of safety perception ratings was greatest for beef, indicating great variability among consumers' risk perceptions. According to the authors, this pattern may result from differential impact of food scares on less experienced beef consumers who rely on mass media as an information source, which amplifies a negative perception of food safety in contrast with more experienced consumers who rely on other sources of information such as public authorities and whose food safety perceptions are less impacted by food scares and mass media. Angulo and Gil propose an economic framework for the relationship between food and beef safety perceptions, socioeconomic variables, beef safety incidents, risk retrievers and purchasing likelihood. Applying this framework, higher beef risk perception was linked to lower confidence in food safety in general as well as lower frequency of purchasing beef and lower per person consumption levels. The authors argue that more experienced beef consumers may draw information about the product from wider sources of information, resulting in greater trust in food safety information provided by public authorities. The price of beef products was also linked to beef risk perception, with higher prices linked to higher perceived risk. Though the relationships between beef risk perception and socioeconomic characteristics were not investigated in this study, general confidence in food safety was higher in individuals (1) with higher education levels, (2) less influenced by mass media in their purchasing decisions, and (3) paying more attention to food labels and more confident in the information included on them.
Dwan and Miles report the findings of an experimental study performed on a community sample of 167 community-dwelling participants in the UK. The impact of health information about the link between red meat and cancer on participants' belief that red meat can cause cancer was measured. Attitudes toward red meat (including ratings of agreement relating to the nutritional properties and health benefits of red meat) were also assessed, but sample means were not reported in this study. Participants more ready to accept the link to cancer risk had more negative attitudes toward red meat (including, but not limited to, perceived health risks and benefits), evaluated the information provided more favorably, were lower in ambiguity aversion and meat consumption. However, because sample means of participants' attitudes toward red meat were not reported and acceptance of the risk associated with red meat consumption was only measured after exposure to specific health information, no inferences about population risk should be drawn.
Gaspar et al. investigated changes in attitudes and perceived risk knowledge relating to red meat following exposure to health information and the role of information avoidance tendencies in British, Belgian and Portuguese participants (N = 174). Perceived knowledge and attitudes toward red meat were measured before as well as after exposure to health information. Overall sample means were not reported. Individuals low in information avoidance had less positive attitudes (M = 4.85, SD = 1.38, Range = 1-7) and higher perceived knowledge (M = 4.32, SD = 1.06, Range = 1-7) relating to red meat than individuals high in information avoidance (Attitudes: M = 5.51, SD = 1.19, Range = 1-7; Knowledge: M = 4.10, SD = 0.67, Range = 1-7). Exposure to health risk information about red meat led to a decrease in positive attitudes and an increase in perceived knowledge in both high and low information avoiders. This indicates that both groups' risk perception can be influenced by information, though it may constitute a challenge to engage high information avoiders in the risk communication process which would expose them to such information.
A survey of 1,004 Polish participants assessed beef consumption habits and related motives and beliefs. The third most frequently stated reason for beef consumption was "It is healthy" (39% of respondents), with "Due to health-related reasons" the second least frequently stated (10% of respondents). The percentage of respondents between 26 and 40 years of age indicating health benefits as the reason for their beef consumption was higher than in other age groups. The relative importance of different factors or sources of information for consumers' decision to buy beef are reported, with press articles (7%), advertising (9%), labeling information (10%), seller's recommendation (10%), and exposition in the store (12%) receiving the lowest number of top ratings, while the desire to prepare a specific dish (44%), respondents' own expertise/wont (34%), medical advice (24%) and opinions of others, e.g., family, friends (19%) received the highest number of top ratings. However, medical advice also received the second highest number of lowest ratings (29%), indicating that some individuals are highly influenced by medical advice, while others are very little influenced by this factor.
Hornibrook et al. conducted a survey on 687 Irish consumers who buy pre-packed beef in supermarkets to assess their perceived risk and risk reduction strategies. Risk perception was assessed only in relation to purchasing choices, with food safety being the most important factor in purchasing choices. When comparing the relative importance of risks relating to financial, time, psychosocial, physical and performance losses, the avoidance of physical risks (food poisoning and consuming meat from an animal with BSE) was rated most important. Individuals with children rated the avoidance of physical risks as more important than individuals without children. Participants also rate the usefulness of various information sources in relation to beef. Consumer-dominated sources of information (e.g., past experience, recommendations from family and friends, quality assurance symbols) were rated the most useful (M = 4.00, SD = 0.83, Range = 1-5; M = 3.94, SD = 0.85, Range = 1-5; M = 3.83, SD = 0.85, Range = 1-5, respectively). Information from consumer organisations (M = 2.78, SD = 0.83, Range = 1-5), the department of health (M = 2.89, SD = 0.75, Range = 1-5), and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (M = 3.06, SD = 0.75, Range = 1-5) were rated as far less useful in contrast. Gender and age differences in the usefulness ratings of different sources of information were also detected; for example, older participants rated past experience as more useful.
Van Wezemael et al. report findings from 8 focus group studies with 7-9 participants each conducted in Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. All participants were beef eaters. Consumer perceptions of beef are reported on the basis of a qualitative analysis. The majority of participants considered beef as healthful and of positive nutritious value (specifically with respect to iron and proteins) resulting in positive health effects. High trust was expressed in food regulation. Few consumers worried about potential negative health effects of beef; carcinogenic, cardiovascular and other long-term effects were mentioned in this context, as well as possible disease transfer from animals to humans and obesity. Health risks were perceived to depend on consumption factors such as amount, type, preparation method and the presence of harmful residues in the beef. Participants associated unhealthfulness with cheap or low quality beef, beef with hormones or additives, packaged or canned beef or further processed beef products, beef sold or processed in unhygienic conditions, offals, expired beef, ready meals and BSE/food crises.
Van Wezemael et al. collected data from 2,520 regular beef consumers (504 each from France, Germany, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom) in an online survey. The study focused on assessing consumer acceptance of beef product and processing safety interventions, though various measures relating to safety perceptions are also reported. Results showed consumers to be overwhelmingly confident about purchased beef and beef product, though means and standard deviations were not reported.
Schroeder et al. report results from an international survey with 4,005 participants from Canada, the US, Japan and Mexico aiming to better understand consumer perceptions relating to beef in target markets for Canadian beef. Beef safety perception was measured, showing that beef was considered very safe or somewhat safe by the majority of respondents in Canada and the US, while notably, most respondents in Japan and Mexico considered beef either mostly safe or neither safe nor unsafe. The product type was an important variable in safety perception, with organ meat considered the least safe across all consumer groups, while steak and roast were considered safest by all respondents. The study further queried participants' past experience with food-borne illnesses, with 18.4% (Japan) to 39.7% (Mexico) of respondents having a family member who had experienced food-borne illness.
Branscheid et al. investigated consumers' sensory ratings in relation to sampled beef and lamb steaks; risk perception, knowledge or information requirements about beef were not measured. Branscheid discusses the quality of beef including the proportion of muscle to fatty tissue in a review paper. Risk perception relating to beef is not discussed.
A tendency to avoid information may result in more positive attitudes toward and perceived knowledge about red meat, with forced engagement reducing positive attitudes and increasing perceived knowledge in individuals high and low in information avoidance. This would indicate that informational engagement, though not sought out voluntarily by information avoidant individuals, reduces positive attitudes toward red meat overall. This contrasts with other results indicating that individuals less likely to engage heuristic cognitive processing of food choices (higher educational attainments, less influenced by mass media, engaging with food label information) may have higher beef safety perceptions, indicating a latent presence of heuristic risk perception primes may boost everyday risk perception in the population (e.g., due to coverage of food scares). The distinct constructs of beef safety perception and attitudes toward red meat may be differently affected by informational engagement and availability.
Information sources relied on to inform consumption behaviour vary between individuals are likely to vary across cultures. Many Polish consumers (N = 1,004) reported being influenced by own expertise, medical advice and opinions of others such as family and friends while other sources, such as press articles, advertising, labelling information, seller's recommendations, or exposition in the store were rated as little influential. Similarly, Hornibrook et al. find that consumer-dominated sources of information are rated as most useful by consumers, indicating the importance of personal experience for information sources to be considered trustworthy.
Fears regarding beef safety, linked to confidence in production standards and regulation, are one of the key barriers to meat consumption. Such fears are linked to different information engagement strategies, with the types of information sources that are trusted and the readiness to engage with risk or health information affecting individuals' risk and safety perceptions.
Positive health associations with beef consumption were found in Polish consumers, particularly in younger age groups; participants from Germany, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom [; eight focus groups, N = 65] also predominantly reported associations with positive health effects and nutritious value.
There are some indications of low awareness of negative health impacts of beef with respect to carcinogenic and cardiovascular disorders from small samples across European nations, with some larger studies indicating an overall confidence in the safety of beef products on the market, although a population representative survey of Spanish consumers found low beef and moderate pork safety perceptions. Health risks may be perceived to depend on consumption factors such as amount, type, preparation method, and presence of harmful residues; variations in risk perception could therefore be a result of different assumptions made by participants regarding consumption factors. Given the link between beef safety perception, media reporting, and trust in production standards and food safety regulation, there are likely to be fluctuations in safety perceptions over time and across nations.