Entomophagy—Acceptance or Hesitancy in Romania

Abstract

This study analyzes the attitudes and perceptions of Romanian individuals regarding entomophagy, which is the practice of eating insects, with the explicit purpose of finding out the factors that influence acceptance and hesitancy using a questionnaire with 470 respondents. The study tackles various issues related to insect consumption, current eating habits, shopping habits, culture and tradition, the willingness and curiosity to try new foods, nutritional aspects, environment, knowledge about current events, and sustainability. The acceptance of insects as food, although studied more and more in the last few years, still has more questions than answers. Neophobia is part of the explanation, but so are the cultural determinants. The people who make the decisions could be an important matter, so targeting the decision makers with specific campaigns could make them more open to try new foods. Out of the factors that influence food choices, the top three answers were: taste, whether the food is perceived as healthy or not, and the price, so palatability is the most important aspect. Knowledge is another key factor that has to be improved, as most respondents do not have proper information about the benefits or the positive aspects of eating insects.

1. Introduction

Edible insects as part of a sustainable diet and the acceptance of including insects in human food are subjects that became increasingly popular in the last few years. There are now multiple studies [1,2,3] that analyze the acceptance or hesitancy that come with eating insects. Taste, palatability, and curiosity are just part of the many dimensions that can be taken into consideration when analyzing what it would take for the (Western) population to voluntarily accept entomophagy [4,5]. There is definitely a cultural determinant in accepting insects as food, and knowledge about the sustainability aspects [6] plays an important role in this issue. Although culture is not a solid monolith, it is also not prone to change easily. However, significant changes in cultural tastes have happened before, such as sushi, quinoa, or avocado [7,8] or different superfoods, such as goji berries. This may be the case for edible insects.

Understanding other people’s knowledge about insects as a food resource [1,6,9] is very relevant when trying to analyze individuals’ perception about consuming insects. Countries such as Spain or Mexico, which have a higher knowledge score [6], could be more predictable when it comes to accepting new foods. The knowledge score uses 11 items and statistical tests to search for knowledge differences among the respondents. Culture, age, gender, and income are other factors that must be taken into consideration when analyzing the sustainability of consuming insects. Factors such as intolerances or allergies should also be taken into consideration. Other studies focus on concerns about pollution and the environment [10,11] or on health and insects as an alternative protein source [12]. Food security, the increase of the human population, food availability, and the risk of hunger are all reasons for considering the sustainability of alternative food sources. Edible insects provide carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, and vitamins [13,14,15].

This study analyzes the attitudes and perceptions of Romanian individuals regarding entomophagy, the practice of eating insects, with the explicit purpose of finding out the factors that influence acceptance [16,17] and hesitancy. For this, age, gender, and income are the main socio-demographic variables that have been used for a better understanding of what describes a person that is more likely to accept insects as food. The issues of social influence [18] and influencers have also been addressed. The reactions to specific information about insects have also been measured.

2. Materials and Methods

This study presents the data gathered using a questionnaire with 470 respondents. The study tackles various issues related to insect consumption, current eating habits, shopping habits, culture and tradition, the willingness and curiosity to try new foods [19], nutritional aspects [13,14,15,20], environment [21], knowledge about current events, and sustainability [22,23]. The respondents were selected primarily based on their age, as the population between 18–30 years old will decide in the next decade whether insects will or will not be introduced in the eating habits of Romanian people. However, the +30-year-old population was not neglected, taking into consideration their current opinions and consumer behaviors and how they could be addressed for a successful introduction of insects in human food. The questionnaire was administered through the electronic platform Google Forms and via email and social media. The snowball methodology was also used. All the respondents were minimum 18 years of age and agreed to answer the questions. Each question had a ‘do not know/do not want to answer’ answer option. The software used for the statistical analysis was SPSS Version 28 from IBM, Inc. (Armonk, NY, USA). Basic descriptive statistics were used with crosstabs in order to understand the relationship between different variables [24]. No funding was received for conducting this study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Who Makes the Decisions?

Identifying those who are in control and make decisions regarding the household’s grocery shopping is a key aspect, as that could have a direct impact on the choice of buying a product that is or contains insects. The facilitators or inhibitors [25] of buying behaviors must be identified and their reasoning must be understood since they will decide upon the desirability of entomophagy [26]. Over 80% of the respondents manage, completely or partially, the grocery shopping for their families. There is a possibility that the member of the family managing the grocery shopping is also the one making the important decisions regarding the products they buy and also deciding whether an insect-based or an insect-containing product will be bought and consumed or not (see Figure 1). In addition, the family member buying the food has a higher chance of being more aware of the prices, the quantities needed to feed the family, and other aspects regarding cost-efficiency. In other words, the eventual awareness campaigns regarding the advantages of insect-based foods will need to primarily address this category of the population.

The

Table 1. Grocery shopping depending on gender.

		Are You the One Responsible for Grocery Shopping in Your Family?				Total
		Yes, Only Me	Yes, Sometimes	No	DK/NA
Gender	Female	27.6%	52.8%	19.2%	0.3%	100%
	Male	19.4%	61.2%	16.3%	3.1%	100%
Total		25.9%	54.6%	18.6%	0.9%	100%

below shows the fact that more female respondents do the grocery shopping for their entire families. However, 61.2% of the male respondents declare that they sometimes do this as well. By combining the yes; only me; and yes, sometimes categories, we see that both genders are equally involved in the management of grocery shopping in their households (approx. 80% for both). By looking solely at the no category, we might think that more female respondents have no involvement whatsoever regarding the grocery shopping matter, but statistically speaking, the difference in percentages compared to the male respondents could be easily attributed to the non-representativity of the sample and the sampling error. In addition, it would make sense to combine the no category and the don’t know/no answer (DN/NA) categories, as they both represent a lack of involvement from the respondent. By doing that, the percentages for both genders become virtually equal, although shopping could also be analyzed through gendered power relations [27].

Another important factor regards the member of the family responsible with cooking and preparing meals in their household. The member of the family who does the cooking has a higher chance of being more preoccupied with the ingredients that the meals and the products contain. In addition, there is a higher chance they are more aware of the quantities needed to cook a meal for all the members of the family, they make important decisions when it comes to buying food, and they are a very important target group for possible awareness campaigns regarding insects. Overall, 76% of the respondents cook for themselves and/or their families daily or a few times a week. However, we will have to see if this behavior changes with cooking insects, as right now, we have to find out if insects should be cooked daily and consumed or if there is a disadvantage of keeping them in a refrigerator. This piece of information is valuable if we try to find the relationships between the consumer behavior and the control of the consumer over the ingredients or the products they buy.

3.2. Who Tries New Foods? A Debate between Helthiness, Emotions, and Indulgence

Out of the factors that influence food choices—see Figure 2 (multiple choice question), the top three answers were: taste [28], whether the food is perceived as healthy or not, and the price [29,30]. The least important factors were: the doctor’s advice, the family’s advice, and the friends’ advice [1]. It is important to highlight the fact that the respondents’ primary groups (family and friends) and secondary groups (the doctor–patient relationship, for example) are surpassed when it comes to their influencing power by the respondent’s own curiosity and desire to try something new (52% of the answers proved this). The question was a multiple choice one, so the percentages are not cumulative with themselves, but they provide the “out of the 100%” percentage.

The openness to new foods [28] can also be analyzed and quantified by studying certain consumer behavior patterns. New foods describe two different situations: something that has never been tasted before and perceived as exotic (that could be avocado or sushi or snails) or an ingredient that was not used before. Either situation measures the curiosity and acceptancy of something new. For example, the respondents were asked how often they tried new foods. Over 4% try new foods weekly and 23% monthly. However, we cannot help but notice a conservatory relationship with food or neophobia [31,32] when it comes to the 11% who declared they only tried new foods annually and the 6% who never tried a new, unusual, exotic food. The majority of the respondents try a new food a few times a year, which suggests a more balanced conservatism, but the openness towards exotic, unusual foods is still surprisingly low.

Age seems to be a very important factor when it comes to the openness towards foods that are unusual or non-traditional [33,34,35]. The 18–25-, 26–35-, and 36–45-year-old age groups are the only ones where respondents try new foods weekly. The percentages are very similar, so the age intervals can be merged and conclude that the respondents aged 18 to 45 years old are more receptive towards trying exotic foods than the respondents aged 45 to over 65 years old (with 0%). The 18–25 year-old-age group try this type of food monthly: more than any other age group (27.1%). Compared to the weekly category, for merged age intervals (as the difference in percentages is not very high), respondents aged 18 to 55 try new, exotic foods monthly. The age range compared to the weekly category is significantly expanded. The 56–65+ age group seems to be, again, completely intolerant of the idea, with 0%.

The situation changes noticeably for the category that describes those who try a new food a few times a year. This is the category where the majority of the respondents fall, regardless of their age (

Table 2. Age and new foods.

		How Often Do You Try a New/Exotic Food?						Total
		Weekly	Monthly	A Few Times a Year	Annually	Never	DK/NA
Age	18–25 years old	4.9%	27.1%	46.7%	9.8%	5.9%	5.6%	100%
	26–35 years old	5.0%	16.7%	68.3%	6.7%		3.3%	100%
	36–45 years old	4.5%	19.7%	45.5%	19.7%	9.1%	1.5%	100%
	46–55 years old		16.0%	64.0%	12.0%	8.0%		100%
	56–65 years old			66.7%		16.7%	16.7%	100%
	65+ years old			71.4%	14.3%	14.3%		100%
Total		4.5%	23.4%	50.9%	10.9%	6.0%	4.5%	100%

). What is truly interesting is that the age groups that previously seemed to be quite conservative and reluctant to exotic products and tastes scored high in this category. The percentages for the 56–65-year-olds (with 66.7%) and the over-65-year-olds (with 71.4%) are similar to the percentages of the 26- to 35-year-olds (68.3%). The fact that the elderly respondents chose this answer in such high percentages after they scored 0% in the previous categories made us consider another factor as being significantly influential, even more than the person’s attitude towards the unusual and the exotic, and that is the income [36,37]. This hypothesis will be further discussed below. However, the 56–65 and the over 65 age groups are leaders in the never category, and missing answers make up 16.7% of the 56–65 years old age group’s total (which can be easily viewed as a way of expressing a lack of interest or even a lack of tolerance towards the idea). There could be other factors involved here, such as the busy schedule of the respondents in this category or the (lack) of opportunity to try new foods.

There is no certainty that gender [38,39] plays a role in influencing the frequency of culinary adventures. Male respondents seem to try new foods on a weekly basis more often than female respondents. However, women scored higher than men in the monthly category. As the percentages are quite similar, the small differences could be very well caused by the sampling error. About a third of both men and women try new/exotic foods weekly and monthly (27.5% for men and 28.2% for women). A more notable difference can be observed regarding the 8.4% difference between the men who try new foods once a year and the women in the same category. Men seem to be more open to new culinary experiences than women are, but the differences are not relevant.

The

Table 3. New exotic foods and income.

		Your Monthly Income Is						Total
		Under 100 lei	1001–1500 lei	1501–2000 lei	2001–2500 lei	2501–3000 lei	Over 3000 lei
How often do you try a new/exotic food?	Weekly	2.0%	6.2%	12.1%	5.7%	7.5%	3.8%	4.6%
	Monthly	24.2%	24.6%	21.2%	14.3%	27.5%	24.2%	23.6%
	A few times a year	51.0%	47.7%	48.5%	48.6%	45.0%	53.8%	50.4%
	Annually	11.1%	10.8%	6.1%	20.0%	7.5%	10.6%	10.9%
	Never	8.5%	1.5%	6.1%	2.9%	10.0%	4.5%	5.9%
	DK/NA	3.3%	9.2%	6.1%	8.6%	2.5%	3.0%	4.6%
Total		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

1 leu is 0.20 Euro and 0.22 Dollars.

below further investigates the previously formulated hypothesis: the frequency of trying a new or exotic food is not only influenced by the age of the respondent, but also by their income. This hypothesis was formulated as a result of the following reasoning: it is possible that the senior respondents do not try new foods weekly and monthly at all not because they are change resistant or very conservative, but because their income does not allow them to.

After analyzing the data, the hypothesis was invalidated. More exactly, the respondents with the lowest income category per month showcased a very similar consumer behavior to the respondents in the third income category per month. The factors mentioned before, the schedule and the opportunity to try new foods, could further explain the conservative behavior.

It is necessary to keep the following points in mind when discussing this matter:

• the lowest income per month category is heavily populated by college students. This has, most probably, affected the results considerably. In other words, college students are in this category as they do not have jobs, but their consumer behavior is related to their parents’ income.
• College students aged between 18 and 25 years make up the majority of the sample taken. They are overrepresented while the senior respondents with lowest income per month are either severely underrepresented or simply missing.

However, the majority of respondents over 65-years-old declared incomes in the second lowest income category per month. Thus, the earlier-formulated hypothesis regarding the income of the senior respondents and the frequency of culinary adventures could be confirmed through further research focusing on the low income of the elderly citizens and the influence it has on their food-shopping decisions.

The next question tackled the preferred shopping place of the respondents. This is important because different shopping places offer different types of foods. For example, hypermarkets, where 37% of the respondents usually do their groceries, offer a great variety of products, and most of them have entire aisles dedicated to special, exotic, unusual foods. Local markets and small-scale producers were chosen by 11% of the respondents. The majority, however, chose the supermarket (47%). Under 1% order their meals (complete dishes) online or over the phone.

The Table 4 below shows that the respondents with low monthly incomes do not automatically choose the small local markets or the small-scale producers as would be expected.

The Table 4 below shows that almost 80% of them prefer the supermarkets and the hypermarkets. However, the elderly were under represented in this sample, so these conclusions cannot be fully trusted.

Table 4. Crosstab where do you buy food and income.

		Your Monthly Income Is						Total
		Under 100 lei	1001–1500 lei	1501–2000 lei	2001–2500 lei	2501–3000 lei	Over 3000 lei
Where do you usually buy your food?	Supermarket	56.9%	60.0%	42.4%	42.9%	32.5%	38.6%	47.8%
	Hypermarket	34.0%	35.4%	36.4%	42.9%	45.0%	37.9%	37.1%
	Small neighborhood shops	4.6%	3.1%			2.5%	3.0%	3.1%
	Market/Small scale producers	4.6%	1.5%	21.2%	11.4%	20.0%	17.4%	10.9%
	Order food				2.9%		1.5%	0.7%
	DK/NA						1.5%	0.4%
Total		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

All age groups declared that eating healthy food is very important to them. It is true that the 56- to 65-year-olds take the lead with 83.3%, but all age groups scored very high.

Table 4. Crosstab where do you buy food and income.

		Your Monthly Income Is						Total
		Under 100 lei	1001–1500 lei	1501–2000 lei	2001–2500 lei	2501–3000 lei	Over 3000 lei
Where do you usually buy your food?	Supermarket	56.9%	60.0%	42.4%	42.9%	32.5%	38.6%	47.8%
	Hypermarket	34.0%	35.4%	36.4%	42.9%	45.0%	37.9%	37.1%
	Small neighborhood shops	4.6%	3.1%			2.5%	3.0%	3.1%
	Market/Small scale producers	4.6%	1.5%	21.2%	11.4%	20.0%	17.4%	10.9%
	Order food				2.9%		1.5%	0.7%
	DK/NA						1.5%	0.4%
Total		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

All age groups declared that eating healthy food is very important to them. It is true that the 56- to 65-year-olds take the lead with 83.3%, but all age groups scored very high.

3.3. Healthy or Tasty?

Whether the respondents perceive a certain type of food to be healthy [10,40,41] or not is a highly influential factor in their buying decision. Next, respondents had to define a healthy food in their own words. Out of a total of 471 people, 428 provided answers for this open ended question. The following percentages were calculated by counting every stand-alone term in each respondent’s answer. For example, if one respondent answered “natural, additives-free, sugar-free,” then his answer provided three terms. A total of 162 terms were used to calculate the percentages:

• No additives, Unprocessed foods 30.05%;
• Nutrients, Health 22.4%;
• Natural, Bio, Garden 20.06%;
• Vegetables, Fruits 6.7%;
• Low in calories, Low in fat 6.3%;
• Sugar-free 2.36%;
• Cooked 2.23%;
• Label 1.97%;
• Sub unitary 7.34%.

The sub unitary terms were:

• no semi-processed foods, no fast food, no sauces 0.52%;
• not of animal origin 0.26%;
• salt-free 0.65%;
• cereal 0.13%;
• rich in protein 1.6%;
• fresh-looking foods 0.52%;
• tasty 0.91%;
• gluten- free 0.26%;
• soy- free 0.13%;
• no spices 0.13%;
• rich in fiber 0.26%;
• source of energy 0.4%;
• fish 0.13%;
• foods from trusted sources 0.26%;
• Romania as country of origin 0.4%;
• non-packaged foods 0.26%;
• to be safe microbiologically and radioactively 0.13%;
• everything is healthy in the right amount 0.13%;
• avocado 0.13%;
• any type of soup 0.13%.

Taste [21,42,43,44,45] was also a very important factor for 62% of the respondents and an important factor for almost 26%. The problem with this factor is that taste is something subjective, so what tastes good for some people might be displeasing to others. The respondents’ personality [46,47] or the way they self-evaluate regarding their curiosity and current event knowledge [48,49] might play a role in their consumer behavior and their openness towards introducing insect-based foods in their own diets or in their pets’ diets. The following were measured [50,51,52]:

• knowledge about external politics (assuming that a person interested in current events is also curious about other cultures);
• knowledge about internal politics (including legislation, policies);
• knowledge about environmental issues (pollution, animal farming);
• concern about global issues (famine, wars, etc.);
• open-mindedness (related to curiosity and willingness to adopt new food habits);
• curiosity;
• risk aversion (courage versus reluctancy or conservatism).

The majority of the respondents see themselves curious and open-minded, but being knowledgeable regarding political matters (internal or external) is not a priority for them.

The majority of the respondents know about other cultures where eating insects is usual. Almost half of the respondents (44.9%) thought that young people would be the most open towards eating insects. However, almost a quarter of them (23.45%) could not identify such a category. As we can see above, young people are considered by all age groups to be the most open-minded when it comes to including insects in their diets. On the other hand, there is a large percentage of respondents who did not provide an answer. Half of the 46- to 55-year-olds included in the sample did so. Eccentric people are thought to be more open to including insects in their diets by half of the respondents. Underprivileged people are the next category, most probably because insects would be more cost-efficient.

As you can see in Figure 3, 7.45% of the respondents chose other. Only these respondents were asked to answer another open-ended question and express their opinion in their own words. This question generated 31 answers, two of which were eliminated (“don’t know” and an answer involving vulgar language). If a single respondent provided an answer including more than one relevant term (for example: “tourists and vegans”), these were counted as two separate entries. Thus, 31 answers provided us with 34 entries. The calculated percentages showed that above 41% of the respondents said that the cultural norms of the society are crucial when it comes to eating insects (example: Asian countries) [53,54]. Another 20% said that curiosity as a personality trait is very important.

3.4. Knowledge and Attitudes

The nutritional benefits [12,14,15] of consuming kinds of insects, such as crickets, ants, or beetles, are not known by 65% of the respondents. This creates the opportunity for awareness campaigns. Almost all age groups declared that they are not aware of the nutritional qualities of insect-based foods [55,56]. The 65+ category makes an exception, as 57% of the respondents said that they are knowledgeable regarding the matter. However, as we previously stated, this category is underrepresented in the sample, so the information cannot be trusted. The 56–65-year-old group did, again, score the highest in the DK/NA category, with 16.7%.

The level of education [57,58] does not influence the respondents’ frequency of trying new, exotic foods, as the majority of them chose a few times a year, regardless of the last level of schooling they completed (

Table 5. Education and how often you try new foods.

		How Often Do You Try a New/Exotic Food?						Total
		Weekly	Monthly	A Few Times a Year	Annually	Never	DK/NA
What is the highest level of school you have completed?	PhD		33.3%	44.4%	11.1%	11.1%		100%
	Postdoctoral studies			50.0%	50.0%			100%
	Some high school, no diploma	4.3%	26.1%	45.7%	17.4%	6.5%		100%
	High school, graduate	5.2%	25.1%	50.2%	9.1%	4.3%	6.1%	100%
	College, BA	4.9%	18.4%	52.4%	9.7%	7.8%	6.8%	100%
	Master’s degree	2.6%	23.7%	53.9%	13.2%	6.6%		100%
Total		4.5%	23.6%	50.7%	10.9%	5.8%	4.5%	100%

). In other words, there are mass-media sources (TV, radio, Internet) that allow all categories of the population to gain access to information. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that we had 0% of respondents with no schooling completed or respondents who only went to school up to 4th or 8th grade.

After the respondents were asked to read a short text on the benefits of including insects in one’s diet, they were asked to say which of the benefits they found the most interesting (Figure 4). The text was: “More and more studies in the field support the fact that food production has a considerable negative impact on the environment. One solution may be to reduce meat consumption or to create alternative sources of protein, such as insects.” Their nutritional value mattered the most to 55% of the respondents. However, almost 37% said that no benefit could convince them to eat insects.

When asked to rate their own openness to including insects in their diets on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all, 5 = very open to the idea), 67% of the respondents were reluctant to the idea (they chose 1 and 2 on the scale). Almost a fifth of them (18%) chose the middle ground, and only 14% said they would be open to the idea.

Almost 80% of the respondents do not personally know someone who eats insects (Figure 5). This is important because primary groups, such as family and close friends, and secondary groups are highly influential in the life of the individual and can shape or change habits and mindsets.

On the other hand, 40% of the respondents heard about Romanian people who have eaten or usually eat insects (from various TV shows where celebrities were challenged to eat insects, the radio, or the Internet) [59], so the subject is not entirely new for them.

Next, it was important to find out where did the respondents find out about Romanian people who have eaten or usually eat insects (Figure 6). For this, an open-ended question was used. The resulting data was processed in the same way as for the other open-ended questions: each stand-alone term that the answers provided was counted, so the answers of 176 respondents provided 204 entries/terms. The calculated percentages are below.

What kind of reaction people had when watching other people eat insects was investigated. Over half of the respondents described the reaction as neutral, and almost 30% of them described it as unpleasant. This is important because celebrities, for example (43% of respondents saw Romanian people eating insects on TV shows), have the power to influence other people.

Another open-ended question asked the respondents to write the very first three words that came to their mind upon hearing the word “insect” [60,61]. Out of the total of 471 respondents, 436 answered the question (Figure 7). After processing the qualitative data (for example, if one respondent wrote 3 words, their answer produced 3 entries and so on), we had 1297 entries, categorized as following:

For the other category, we did not provide further detail because the terms were not relevant as they did not describe feelings towards insects, such as “disgust” or “fear,” which were included in the analysis (example: “wings,” “small,” “tiny,” etc.). The majority of the respondents (almost 61%) feel disgust and repulsion towards insects while almost a fifth of them (17%) name the taste and texture as the main reasons why they are reluctant to eat insects. Out of the insect species of butterflies, larvae, ants, grasshoppers, bees, worms, cockroaches, spiders, the most well-received were the ants and the grasshoppers while worms and cockroaches scored the lowest. Over 35% of the respondents would be more willing to try insects in other forms, such as flour or biscuits, but 56% would still not try them.

3.5. The Future

A comparative analysis between the present and the future has been done by asking the respondents to think of their reactions when seeing others eating insects. The respondents were then asked to rate their responses on a scale from 1 to 5:

• how open they are to including insects in their own diet right now;
• how open they think Romanian people are to including insects in their diet right now;
• how open they think Romanian people will be to including insects in their diet 5 years from now.

While the majority of the participants were reluctant to include insects in their diets in the present and also said that Romanian people in general would think the same, we can see an encouraging change in the five years from now answers.

The respondents were asked to read another short text:

“More and more scientific studies have proved that food production negatively impacts the environment. Reducing the consumption of meat or switching to other protein sources, such as insects represent solutions to this problem.”

Then, the respondents were asked to reevaluate their opinions on a scale from 1 to 5 regarding three previously asked questions:

• how open they are to including insects in their own diet right now (Table 6);
• how open they think Romanian people are to including insects in their diet right now (Table 7);
• how open they think Romanian people will be to include insects in their diet in five years.

The evolution of their answers is presented below.

Table 6. How open are you to including insects in your diet as of now?

	Before Text	After Text
Not at all	268	242
2	103	81
3	54	68
4	27	59
Very open to the idea	12	18

Table 6. How open are you to including insects in your diet as of now?

	Before Text	After Text
Not at all	268	242
2	103	81
3	54	68
4	27	59
Very open to the idea	12	18

Table 7. How open do you think Romanians are towards including insects in their diets as of now?

	Before Text	After Text
Not al all	265	198
2	147	157
3	38	81
4	7	25
Very open to the idea	6	8

Table 7. How open do you think Romanians are towards including insects in their diets as of now?

	Before Text	After Text
Not al all	265	198
2	147	157
3	38	81
4	7	25
Very open to the idea	6	8

The results are promising, as they show that awareness campaigns regarding the benefits of eating insects would be able to change opinions and, maybe, even behaviors. Openness to including insects in the pets’ diets is higher. Almost half of the respondents do not think Romanians would do it, but a fifth are neutral, and almost 30% think they would be open to the idea. Most respondents have an omnivorous diet (83%). The others are vegetarians (8.60%), vegans (0.86%), or have other restrictions. This is relevant because a vegetarian or a vegan would probably not accept eating insects regardless of their nutritional or cost-related benefits. Whether respondents have children or not is important because the responsibility of feeding a baby or a child can modify the parents’ views and choices when it comes to food. In addition, we assumed that parents are more willing to search for information and pay more attention to labels and the nutritional value.

In the end, a K-means cluster analysis (

Table 8. K-means cluster analysis.

		Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
Q9. How much you consider yourself to be a person?	Informed about environmental issues	3.07	3.33	3.44	3.76
	Concerned with world affairs (famines, armed conflicts, etc.)	2.67	3.15	3.26	3.54
	Open to new	3.64	3.91	4.00	4.45
	How willing you are to consume insects?	1.32	3.05	3.44	4.07
	How willing you are to eat insects? [based on the fact that this could be a solution to reduce meat consumption and are healthy alternative sources of protein]	1.13	2.44	3.56	3.41
	How willing you are to eat insects? [based on the sensory idea that insects can be prepared in many forms—e.g., flour to bake and cook various foods]	1.25	3.03	3.67	3.93
Q23.How much you would like to consume the following insect species?	Butterflies	1.08	1.90	3.85	1.78
	Larvae	1.03	1.39	2.73	3.30
	Ants	1.09	2.12	3.69	3.93
	Crickets	1.06	2.22	4.00	3.97
	Bees	1.04	1.77	3.77	1.37
	Worms	1.01	1.24	2.08	2.50
	Cockroaches	1.02	1.44	2.50	2.46
	Arachnids/spiders	1.03	1.37	3.15	1.86
	Either one	1.02	1.77	2.79	2.52
	% of case in each cluster	63.6%	24.5%	5.7%	6.2%

) was used in order to identify relatively homogeneous groups of respondents based on characteristics such as an interest in innovation, heath awareness, emotions, and sensory issues.

Cluster 1 is a cluster that values emotional aspects and is the most reluctant of the four. The scores are mostly towards none and almost none (like a little and very little). The average score (3) on the degree of information on environmental issues surprisingly tends to be on the idea of being open to novelty by a large extent, but not when it comes to food, which is also an emotional choice. This is a reluctant group of individuals who prefer traditional foods.

Cluster 2 is a cluster that values sensory or other aspects non-associated with health importance. They show moderate scores in the first part of the model. They are aware of global issues and knowledgeable about the environment; they largely agree with their own openness to trying new things. However, they value sensory aspects in their decision-making processes about insects, so the respondents have a moderate (slightly elevated) view of introducing insects as a meal. The sensory aspects influence the possibility of consuming larvae, worms, arachnids, or beetles, which they tend to dismiss.

Cluster 3 is a cluster that seems to value healthfulness aspects. The respondents share characteristics between the previous and the last (4) clusters. They have even higher scores than those in 4 for the consumption of insects; here, the idea of novelty and of healthiness make them open to the idea of new experiences. They show the highest score for the consumption of insects in the form of flour or as a healthy alternative source of protein.

Cluster 4 is a cluster of consumers who value innovation aspects. They are highly willing to consume insects. They have the highest scores and are willing to consume insects. They also show the highest score for openness to the new as well as a higher level of information and preoccupation with world issues, compared to those in the previous clusters. They seem more willing to include the long term in personal nutrition and insects while cluster 3 shows more of the features of an experimental group and were captivated by the idea of innovation.

4. Conclusions

Acceptance [62,63,64] of insects as a food, although studied more and more in the last few years, still has more questions than answers. Neophobia [29,44,65,66] is part of the explanation, but so are the cultural determinants [67,68]. The people who make the decisions could be an important matter; over 80% of the respondents manage, completely or partially, the grocery shopping for their families, so targeting the decision makers with specific campaigns could make them more open to trying new foods. Sushi or seaweed are foods that became increasingly popular [7,8]. However, they were not novel, but part of a species already consumed. Edible insects are a challenge because we do not have a standard for comparison, so they are a new food category. One study [69] mentions eating habits, contradictory perceptions about the sustainability implications of insect farming, and the availability of insect-based products as the main challenges of this food group. The same study identifies sustainability, the disgust of consumers, and a lack of suitable insect-based food products on the market. Another study [70] mentions cost and technology as challenges as well as the need for honest and transparent labeling of the products that use insects as ingredients. Out of the factors that influence food choices, the top three answers were: taste, whether the food is perceived as healthy or not, and the price, so palatability is the most important aspect [71]. Knowledge [1,9] is another key factor that has to be improved, as most respondents do not have proper information about the benefits or the positive aspects of eating insects. The future is uncertain, but there is hope [72,73,74,75].