CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE STUDIES ON ALTERNATIVE PROTEIN SOURCES: INSIGHT REVIEW

Öz

As the world's population grows and climatic conditions worsen, the world's current resources are rapidly depleting. Human behavior exacerbates this adverse situation. One of these behaviors is traditional eating habits. A traditional diet that consists of animal-based proteins consumes more resources and pollutes the environment to a greater extent. The traditional diet, which consists of mostly animal-based proteins, may turn towards plant-based proteins. In addition to plant-based proteins, in recent years scientists have focused on exploring alternative protein sources that do not pollute the environment and require fewer resources. Plant-based proteins, algae, insect-based proteins, and cultured meat have all been identified in the literature as alternative protein sources that may be consumed alone (in dry or concentrated form) or added to foods. While alternative protein sources are still being developed, the consumer's opinion on these sources is being assessed. So, in this review, consumers' knowledge, acceptance, and attitude to alternative protein sources are discussed. Data shows that plant-based protein sources, including algae, are now widely claimed to be more accepted than traditional protein sources. It has also been established that most individuals are prejudiced toward insect-based protein and cultured meat due to lack of sufficient information.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alternative protein sources
• consumer acceptance
• consumer attitude
• sustainability

ALTERNATİF PROTEİN KAYNAKLARI ÜZERİNE TÜKETİCİ KABULÜ, TUTUMU VE BİLGİ ÇALIŞMALARI: DERLEME MAKALESİ

Öz

Dünya nüfusu arttıkça ve iklim koşulları kötüleştikçe, mevcut kaynaklar hızla tükenmektedir. İnsan davranışları bu olumsuz durumu daha da kötüleştirmektedir. Bu davranışlardan biri de geleneksel beslenme alışkanlıklarıdır. Hayvansal proteinlere dayalı bir geleneksel diyet, daha fazla kaynağı tüketir ve çevreyi daha fazla kirletir. Çoğunlukla hayvansal protein içeren geleneksel diyet, bitki temelli proteinlere doğru yönelebilir. Son yıllarda bilim adamları, çevreyi kirletmeyen ve daha az kaynak gerektiren alternatif protein kaynaklarını keşfetmeye odaklanmıştır. Bitki temelli proteinler, algler, böcek temelli proteinler ve kültürlenmiş et, literatürde belirtildiği gibi tek başına tüketilebilen (kuru veya konsantre formda) veya yiyeceklere eklenen alternatif protein kaynakları olarak tanımlanmıştır. Alternatif protein kaynakları hala geliştirilmekte olup tüketicilerin bu kaynaklara yönelik görüşleri değerlendirilmektedir. Bu derlemede, tüketicilerin alternatif protein kaynaklarına yönelik bilgi, kabul ve tutumları tartışılmaktadır. Veriler, bitki temelli protein kaynaklarının, alglerin de içinde bulunduğu, geleneksel protein kaynaklarından daha fazla kabul edildiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, çoğu bireyin yeterli bilgiye sahip olmadığı için böcek temelli protein ve yapay et konusunda önyargılı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alternatif protein kaynakları
• tüketici kabulü
• tüketici tutumu
• sürdürülebilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Acquah, J. B., Amissah, J. G. N., Affrifah, N. S., Wooster, T. J., Danquah, A. O. (2023). Consumer perceptions of plant based beverages: The Ghanaian consumer's perspective. Future Foods, 7, 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.fufo.2023.100229
2. Ahnen, R. T., Jonnalagadda, S. S., Slavin, J. L. (2019). Role of plant protein in nutrition, wellness, and health. Nutrition Reviews, 77(11), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuz028
3. Akande, O. A., Falade, O. O., Badejo, A. A., Adekoya, I. (2020). Assessment of Mulberry Silkworm Pupae and African Palm Weevil larvae as alternative protein sources in snack fillings. Heliyon, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.heliyon.2020.e03754
4. Al-Thawadi, S. (2018). Public perception of algal consumption as an alternative food in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 25(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/25765299.2018.1449344
5. Awobusuyi, T. D., Pillay, K., Siwela, M. (2020). Consumer acceptance of biscuits supplemented with a sorghum–insect meal. Nutrients, 12(4), 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12040895
6. Batista, A. P., Niccolai, A., Fradinho, P., Fragoso, S., Bursic, I., Rodolfi, L., ... Raymundo, A. (2017). Microalgae biomass as an alternative ingredient in cookies: Sensory, physical and chemical properties, antioxidant activity and in vitro digestibility. Algal Research, 26, 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.07.017
7. Baybars, M., Ventura, K., Weinrich, R. (2023). Can in vitro meat be a viable alternative for Turkish consumers?. Meat Science, 201, 109191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109191
8. Bryant, C., Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite, 161, 105161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161

9. Can, B., Bayram, H. M., Öztürkcan, S. A. (2021). Solution recommendations for environmental problems: overview of current sustainable nutrition practices. Food, 46(5),1138-1157. https://doi.org/10.15237/gida.GD21062
10. Castro Delgado, M., Chambers IV, E., Carbonell‐Barrachina, A., Noguera Artiaga, L., Vidal Quintanar, R., Burgos Hernandez, A. (2020). Consumer acceptability in the USA, Mexico, and Spain of chocolate chip cookies made with partial insect powder replacement. Journal of Food Science, 85(6), 1621-1628. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1750-3841.15175
11. Clark, L. F., Bogdan, A. M. (2019). The role of plant-based foods in Canadian diets: A survey examining food choices, motivations and dietary identity. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 25(4), 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10454446.2019.1566806
12. Dagevos, H., Taufik, D. (2023). Eating full circle: Exploring consumers’ sympathy for circularity in entomophagy acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 105, 104760. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2022.104760
13. de Carvalho, N. M., Madureira, A. R., Pintado, M. E. (2020). The potential of insects as food sources–a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(21), 3642-3652. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10408398.2019.1703170
14. de Koning, W., Dean, D., Vriesekoop, F., Aguiar, L. K., Anderson, M., Mongondry, P., Oppong-Gyamfi, M., Urbano, B., Luciano, C. A. G., Jiang, B., Hao, W., Eastwick, E., Jiang, Z. V., Boereboom, A. (2020). Drivers and inhibitors in the acceptance of meat alternatives: the case of plant and insect-based proteins. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 9(9), 1292. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/foods9091292
15. Dupont, J., Fiebelkorn, F. (2020). Attitudes and acceptance of young people toward the consumption of insects and cultured meat in Germany. Food Quality and Preference, 85, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103983
16. El Zokm, G. M., Ismail, M. M., El-Said, G. F. (2021). Halogen content relative to the chemical and biochemical composition of fifteen marine macro and micro algae: nutritional value, energy supply, antioxidant potency, and health risk assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 14893-14908. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-020-11596-0
17. Embling, R., Neilson, L., Randall, T., Mellor, C., Lee, M. D., Wilkinson, L. L. (2022). ‘Edible seaweeds’ as an alternative to animal-based proteins in the UK: Identifying product beliefs and consumer traits as drivers of consumer acceptability for macroalgae. Food Quality and Preference, 100, 104613. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2022.104613
18. Enzing, C., Ploeg, M., Barbosa, M., Sijtsma, L. (2014). Microalgae-based products for the food and feed sector: an outlook for Europe. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, 19-37. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e35cfe33-3a16-46c7-8145-903c10bb430c/language-en
19. Florença, S. G., Correia, P. M., Costa, C. A., Guiné, R. P. (2021). Edible insects: Preliminary study about perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge on a sample of Portuguese citizens. Foods, 10(4), 709. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040709
20. Food and Agriculture Organization (2022). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en
21. Food and Agriculture Organization (2021). Report of the Expert Meeting on Food Safety for Seaweed Current Status and Future Perspectives. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0846en/cc0846en.pdf (Accessed 25 November 2022).
22. Garcia, E., Ramos Filho, F. S. V., Mallmann, G. M., Fonseca, F. (2017). Costs, benefits and challenges of sustainable livestock intensification in a major deforestation frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability, 9(1), 158. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su9010158
23. García-Segovia, P., Igual, M., Martínez-Monzó, J. (2020). Physicochemical properties and consumer acceptance of bread enriched with alternative proteins. Foods, 9(7), 933. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/foods9070933
24. Ge, W. A. N. G., T Plaster, M., Bai, Y. L., Liu, C. F. (2023). Consumers’ experiences and preferences for plant-based meat food: Evidence from a choice experiment in four cities of China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22(1), 306-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2022.09.008
25. Gere, A., Székely, G., Kovács, S., Kókai, Z., Sipos, L. (2017). Readiness to adopt insects in Hungary: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2017.02.005
26. Giacalone, D., Jaeger, S. R. (2023). Consumer acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies: A multi-country survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 408, 137119. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137119
27. Gousset, C., Gregorio, E., Marais, B., Rusalen, A., Chriki, S., Hocquette, J. F., Ellies-Oury, M. P. (2022). Perception of cultured “meat” by French consumers according to their diet. Livestock Science, 260, 104909. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.livsci.2022.104909
28. Grahl, S., Strack, M., Mensching, A., Mörlein, D. (2020). Alternative protein sources in Western diets: Food product development and consumer acceptance of spirulina-filled pasta. Food Quality and Preference, 84, 103933. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103933
29. Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older consumers’ readiness to accept alternative, more sustainable protein sources in the European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1904. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/nu11081904
30. He, J., Evans, N. M., Liu, H., Shao, S. (2020). A review of research on plant‐based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19(5), 2639-2656. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/15414337.12610
31. Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenelon, M., Tiwari, B. (2017). Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods, 6(7), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053
32. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. (2021). Meat Atlas, https://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/2021 09/MeatAtlas2021_final_web.pdf?dimension1=ecology (Accessed 20 September 2022).
33. Humbird, D. (2021). Scale‐up economics for cultured meat. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 118(8), 3239-3250. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bit.27848
34. Saldamlı, I., A. Temiz. (2017). Amino Acids, Peptides, Proteins, Food Chemistry, Hacettepe University Press.
35. Jensen, N. H., Lieberoth, A. (2019). We will eat disgusting foods together–Evidence of the normative basis of Western entomophagy-disgust from an insect tasting. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2018.08.012
36. Kristensen, M. D., Bendsen, N. T., Christensen, S. M., Astrup, A., Raben, A. (2016). Meals based on vegetable protein sources (beans and peas) are more satiating than meals based on animal protein sources (veal and pork)–a randomized cross-over meal test study. Food & Nutrition Research, 60(1), 32634. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v60.32634
37. La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Videbæk, P. N., Amato, M., Grunert, K. G. (2020). A self-report measure of attitudes toward the eating of insects: Construction and validation of the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103757. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2019.103757
38. Lafarga, T., Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R., Morillas-España, A., Villaró, S., García-Vaquero, M., Morán, L., ... Acién-Fernández, F. G. (2021). Consumer knowledge and attitudes towards microalgae as food: The case of Spain. Algal Research, 54, 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.algal.2020.102174
39. Lammers, P., Ullmann, L. M., Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust?. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.05.010
40. Letras, P., Oliveira, S., Varela, J., Nunes, M. C., Raymundo, A. (2022). 3D printed gluten free cereal snack with incorporation of Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) and/or Chlorella vulgaris. Algal Research, 68, 102863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102863
41. Li, H., Van Loo, E. J., van Trijp, H. C., Chen, J., Bai, J. (2023). Will cultured meat be served on Chinese tables? A study of consumer attitudes and intentions about cultured meat in China. Meat Science, 197, 109081. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.meatsci.2022.109081
42. Liu, J., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M. P., Chriki, S., Hocquette, J. F. (2021). Chinese consumers’ attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat. Foods, 10(2), 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods10020353
43. Losada-Lopez, C., Dopico, D. C., Faina-Medin, J. A. (2021). Neophobia and seaweed consumption: Effects on consumer attitude and willingness to consume seaweed. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 24, 100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100338
44. Lucas, B. F., Costa, J. A. V., Brunner, T. A. (2023). Attitudes of consumers toward Spirulina and açaí and their use as a food ingredient. LWT, 178, 114600. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.lwt.2023.114600
45. Mancini, M. C., Antonioli, F. (2022a). The future of cultured meat between sustainability expectations and socio-economic challenges. In Future Foods (pp. 331-350). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91001-9.00024-4
46. Mancini, M. C., Antonioli, F. (2022b). 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
47. Malek, L., Umberger, W. J. (2023). Protein source matters: Understanding consumer segments with distinct preferences for alternative proteins. Future Foods, 7, 100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100220
48. Marinova, D., Bogueva, D. (2019). Planetary health and reduction in meat consumption. Sustainable Earth, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-019-0010-0
49. Martínez-Monzó, J. (2021). Physicochemical and rheological characterisation of microalgae enriched ketchups and their sensory acceptability. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 26, 100424. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100424
50. 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
51. Mateti, T., Laha, A., Shenoy, P. (2022). Artificial meat industry: Production methodology, challenges, and future. Jom, 74(9), 3428-3444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-022-05316-x
52. Mellor, C., Embling, R., Neilson, L., Randall, T., Wakeham, C., Lee, M. D., Wilkinson, L. L. (2022). Consumer knowledge and acceptance of “algae” as a protein alternative: A UK based qualitative study. Foods, 11(12), 1703. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/foods11121703
53. Michel, P., Begho, T. (2023). Paying for sustainable food choices: The role of environmental considerations in consumer valuation of insect-based foods. Food Quality and Preference, 106, 104816. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2023.104816
54. Michel, F., Knaapila, A., Hartmann, C., Siegrist, M. (2021). A multi-national comparison of meat eaters' attitudes and expectations for burgers containing beef, pea or algae protein. Food Quality and Preference, 91, 104195. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104195
55. Mongi, R. J., Gomezulu, A. D. (2022). Descriptive sensory analysis, consumer acceptability, and conjoint analysis of beef sausages prepared from a pigeon pea protein binder. Heliyon, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10703
56. Moura, M. A. F. E., Martins, B. D. A., Oliveira, G. P. D., Takahashi, J. A. (2023). 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, 63(31), 10691-10708. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2085657
57. Naranjo‐Guevara, N., Fanter, M., Conconi, A. M., Floto‐Stammen, S. (2021). Consumer acceptance among Dutch and German students of insects in feed and food. Food Science & Nutrition, 9(1), 414-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2006
58. Niccolai, A., Venturi, M., Galli, V., Pini, N., Rodolfi, L., Biondi, N., ... Tredici, M. R. (2019). Development of new microalgae-based sourdough “crostini”: Functional effects of Arthrospira platensis (spirulina) addition. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-01955840-1
59. Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159, 105058. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.appet.2020.105058
60. Øverland, M., Mydland, L. T., Skrede, A. (2019). Marine macroalgae as sources of protein and bioactive compounds in feed for monogastric animals. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jsfa.9143
61. OECD/FAO 2023. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023-2032, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2023-2032_08801ab7-en (Accessed 25 December 2022).
62. Özdal, H. R., Nakilcioğlu, E. (2024). Alternatif protein kaynağı olarak yenilebilir böcekler ve tüketici kabulü. Gıda, 49 (3), 567-579. https://doi.org/10.15237/gida.GD24023
63. Özdin, S., Bayrak Özdin, Ş. (2020). Levels and predictors of anxiety, depression and health anxiety during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkish society: The importance of gender. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(5), 504-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020927051
64. Pakseresht, A., Kaliji, S.A., Canavari, M. (2022). Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat, Appetite, 170:105829. https://www.fao.org/3/cb5332en/cb5332en.pdf
65. Palmieri, N., Forleo, M. B. (2020). The potential of edible seaweed within the western diet. A segmentation of Italian consumers. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 20, 100202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100202
66. Palmieri, N., Nervo, C., Torri, L. (2023). Consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable alternative protein sources: Comparing seaweed, insects and jellyfish in Italy. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104735. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2022.104735
67. Piha, S., Pohjanheimo, T., Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Křečková, Z., Otterbring, T. (2018). The effects of consumer knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross regional study in Northern and Central Europe. Food Quality and Preference, 70, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.006
68. Piochi, M., Micheloni, M., Torri, L. (2022). Effect of informative claims on the attitude of Italian consumers towards cultured meat and relationship among variables used in an explicit approach. Food Research International, 151, 110881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110881
69. Profeta, A., Baune, M. C., Smetana, S., Broucke, K., Van Royen, G., Weiss, J., ... Terjung, N. (2021). Consumer preferences for meat blended with plant proteins–Empirical findings from Belgium. Future Foods, 4, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100088
70. Post, M. J. (2014). An alternative animal protein source: cultured beef. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1328(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12569
71. Rawiwan, P., Peng, Y., Paramayuda, I. G. P. B., Quek, S. Y. (2022). Red seaweed: A promising alternative protein source for global food sustainability. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 123, 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tifs.2022.03.003
72. Ruby, M. B., Rozin, P., Chan, C. D. (2015). Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the USA and India. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(3), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.3920/ JIFF2015.0029
73. Sampels, S. (2014). Towards a more sustainable production of fish as an important protein source for human nutrition, Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2332-2608.1000119
74. Siddiqui, S. A., Alvi, T., Sameen, A., Khan, S., Blinov, A. V., Nagdalian, A. A., ... Onwezen, M. (2022). Consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: a systematic review of current alternative protein sources and interventions adapted to increase their acceptability. Sustainability, 14(22), 15370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215370
75. Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C. (2019). Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite, 132, 196-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.appet.2018.09.016
76. Smart, M. A., Pontes, N. (2023). The role of consumer restraint versus indulgence on purchase intentions of hybrid meat analogues. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104738. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104738
77. Sogari, G., Amato, M., Biasato, I., Chiesa, S., Gasco, L. (2019). The potential role of insects as feed: A multi-perspective review. Animals, 9(4), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040119
78. Sogari, G., Caputo, V., Petterson, A. J., Mora, C., Boukid, F. (2023). A sensory study on consumer valuation for plant-based meat alternatives: What is liked and disliked the most?. Food Research International, 169, 112813. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112813
79. Spendrup, S., Hovmalm, H. P. (2022). Consumer attitudes and beliefs towards plant-based food in different degrees of processing–The case of Sweden. Food Quality and Preference, 102, 104673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104673
80. Stunda-Zujeva, A., Ruģele, K. (2018). Growing and Drying Spirulina/Arthrospira for Producing Food and Nutraceuticals: A Review. Key Engineering Materials, 762, 134-140. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.762.134
81. Takeda, K. F., Yazawa, A., Yamaguchi, Y., Koizumi, N., Shineha, R. (2023). Comparison of public attitudes toward five alternative proteins in Japan. Food Quality and Preference, 105, 104787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104787
82. Thavamani, A., Sferra, T. J., Sankararaman, S. (2020). Meet the meat alternatives: The value of alternative protein sources. Current Nutrition Reports, 9, 346-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13668-020-00341-1
83. Tiasto, V., Mikhailova, V., Gulaia, V., Vikhareva, V., Zorin, B., Kalitnik, A., Kagansky, A. (2018). Esophageal cancer research today and tomorrow: Lessons from algae and other perspectives. AIMS genetics, 5(01), 075-090. https://doi.org/10.3934/ genet.2018.1.75
84. Tso, R., Lim, A. J., Forde, C. G. (2020). A critical appraisal of the evidence supporting consumer motivations for alternative proteins. Foods, 10(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010024
85. 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
86. United Nations 2019. World Population Prospects 2019. https://population.un.org/wpp/ Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (Accessed 10 November 2022).
87. United Nations 2022. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/ (Accessed 20 November 2022)
88. Uribe-Wandurraga, Z. N., Igual, M., Guallar-de Rufino, R., Savall, C., García-Segovia, P., van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security, FAO, http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/ i3253e.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2022)
89. Vural, Y., Ferriday, D., Rogers, P. J. (2023). Consumers’ attitudes towards alternatives to conventional meat products: Expectations about taste and satisfaction, and the role of disgust. Appetite, 181, 106394. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106394
90. Yüksel, E., Canhilal R. (2018). A survey of public opinion about entomophagy in Erciyes University. Uluslararası Tarım ve Yaban Hayatı Bilim Dergisi 2018;4(2):203-208. https://doi.org/ 10.24180/ijaws.440555
91. Zor, M., Menevşeoğlu, A., Ufuk, S. (2024). Plant-based meat: A sustainable alternative to meat. FOOD,49 (3) 504-516 doi: 10.15237/ gida.GD23147
92. Waehrens, S. S., Faber, I., Gunn, L., Buldo, P., Frøst, M. B., Perez-Cueto, F. J. (2023). Consumers' sensory-based cognitions of currently available and ideal plant-based food alternatives: A survey in Western, Central and Northern Europe. Food Quality and Preference, 108, 104875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104875
93. Wendin, K., Undeland, I. (2020). Seaweed as food–Attitudes and preferences among Swedish consumers. A pilot study. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 22, 100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100265
94. Weickert, S., Grahl, S., Weinrich, R. (2021). Algae production technology: Effect of framing on German consumer acceptance. Algal Research, 58, 102401. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.algal.2021.102401
95. Wendin, K. M., Nyberg, M. E. (2021). Factors influencing consumer perception and acceptability of insect-based foods. Current Opinion in Food Science, 40, 67-71. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cofs.2021.01.007
96. Weinrich, R. (2018). Cross-cultural comparison between German, French and Dutch consumer preferences for meat substitutes. Sustainability, 10(6), 1819. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su10061819
97. Weinrich, R., Strack, M., Neugebauer, F. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Science, 162, 107924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924
98. Weinrich, R., Busch, G. (2021). Consumer knowledge about protein sources and consumers’ openness to feeding micro-algae and insects to pigs and poultry. Future Foods, 4, 100100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100100
99. Weinrich, R., Elshiewy, O. (2023). A cross-country analysis of how food-related lifestyles impact consumers' attitudes towards microalgae consumption. Algal Research, 70, 102999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.102999
100. Wild, F., Czerny, M., Janssen, A. M., Kole, A. P., Zunabovic, M., Domig, K. J. (2014). The evolution of a plant-based alternative to meat. Agro FOOD Industry Hi Tech, 25(1), 45-49.
101. Wilkinson, K., Muhlhausler, B., Motley, C., Crump, A., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. (2018). Australian consumers’ awareness and acceptance of insects as food. Insects, 9(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9020044 Wilks, M., Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2), e0171904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
102. Workie, E., Mackolil, J., Nyika, J., Ramadas, S. (2020). Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture, and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100014
103. World Health Organization 2020. Obesity and overweight. https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (Accessed 15 November 2022).
104. World Economic Forum 2019. Meat: The Future Series Alternative Proteins 2019. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Alternative_Proteins.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2022).
105. Xue, L., Prass, N., Gollnow, S., Davis, J., Scherhaufer, S., Östergren, K., ... Liu, G. (2019). Efficiency and carbon footprint of the German meat supply chain. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(9), 5133-5142. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.est.8b06079