Data on brain and heart activity collected in a study led by Portuguese researcher Andreia Ferreira, from UBI, indicates that curiosity and attention may outweigh the initial repulsion towards insect-based foods.
People who are reluctant to try insect-based foods may end up eating more than they bargained for — and become more open to expanding their diet in the future, according to research published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
O, published in Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economicsanalyzed how consumers respond, emotionally and physically, to insect-based foods, which have been studied as one of the traditional sources of animal protein.
The European Union officially recognized insects as new food in 2018 and, since then, . The list includes yellow mealworms, migratory grasshoppers, house crickets and smaller mealworms, sold frozen, dried or even in powder form.
The main author of the study, Andreia Ferreiraa doctoral candidate at the University of Beira Interior in Portugal, and her colleagues wanted to better understand how consumers might react to these new options.
To do this, they combined traditional surveys with neuroscience tools that measured participants’ brain activity and heart rate while they tasted insect-based food products.
The study involved 38 adults in Portugal, aged between 18 and 55, who had never tried insect-based foods. Participants began by filling out a survey about their level of knowledge and their opinions regarding insect products.
They then sampled an insect-based protein bar and a cereal bar while researchers recorded their physiological responses through electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG).
The researchers expected participants to have little knowledge about insect-based foods, preferred the cereal bar and had stronger physiological reactions to the insect product.
Instead, the results revealed that people were often more curious and receptive than you would expect.
“The results were very surprising“, stated Andreia Ferreira at APA. “It was really an unexpected result, as the literature indicated that consumers tend to reject these new foods. The results show us the relevance of tasting experiences in promoting this new alternative.”
To understand whether people’s expectations influenced their reactions, some participants were correctly informed about the bar they were eatingwhile others were told they were tasting a cereal bar when in reality it was an insect-based bar.
Andreia Ferreira / ResearchGate
The results were very surprising, says Andreia Ferreira
Physiological measurements showed that participants became more attentive and engaged while consuming the insect-based bars. The researchers also observed increases in cardiac activity during the test, which they interpreted as signs of greater physiological activation and attention.
These patterns emerged even when participants were unaware they were eating an insect-based product, suggesting that the response was not driven solely by expectations associated with the consumption of insects.
After tasting both products, participants were asked directly about Which bar did you prefer?. Overall, they showed more likely to choose the insect-based protein bar than the cereal bar.
The researchers say the results suggest that the direct exposurelike sample testing, can play an important role in reducing hesitancy around insect-based foods and helping consumers feel more comfortable with the idea.
“From a practical point of view, the results of our study reveal the need forincrease communication about insect-based foods as alternatives and novelties in the European market”, stated Ferreira.
“Communication should not only present insect-based foods as ‘new’, but also clearly explain its potential advantages nutritional and sustainability compared to other protein alternatives”, concludes the researcher.
The results also suggest that unfamiliar foods can be evaluated differently after people try them. In this study, participants often expressed uncertainty or surprise when talking about insect-based foods before the test, but many reported positive reactions after trying the product.
The authors emphasize that the study was exploratory and had several limitationsincluding a relatively small sample, and that future studies will be needed, with larger and more diverse groups of participants, to better understand how consumers respond to insect-based foods in different cultures and different types of products.
