Next Article in Journal
Energy-Saving Speed Planning for Electric Vehicles Based on RHRL in Car following Scenarios
Previous Article in Journal
RETRACTED: An Exploratory Study of the Intrinsic Mechanisms of Occupational Stigma Consciousness, Career Development, and Work–Life Balance among Female Leaders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/su152215946
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Building Muscles from Eating Insects

by
Rafaela Flores Kuff
*,
Thelma Lucchese-Cheung
,
Filipe Quevedo-Silva
and
Arthur Mancilla Giordani
Management and Business School, ESAN Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79046-460, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 15946; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215946
Submission received: 3 June 2023 / Revised: 23 June 2023 / Accepted: 23 June 2023 / Published: 14 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research and market data have shown a growing demand for sports supplements and increasing consumers’ awareness regarding their health and environmental attributes. An extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework was tested to explain insect-based protein bars and powder consumption among 256 Brazilians who are gym users and consume conventional sports supplements and results were analyzed using PLS-SEM. Perceived risk outperformed attitude as a predictor, diminishing the intention to consume insect-based sports supplements. Health proved to be the most important explanatory factor of attitude, while sustainability resulted in a smaller effect and taste impact was not significant. Whereas media was significant and a relatively strong predictor of the subjective norm, experts were not. Media content, such as social media, receives more attention and the information that gym users value is not predominantly provided by health professionals in the case of muscle-building products. Policymakers, marketing professionals, consumer psychology and product development can also benefit from the results to provide clear and accessible information about supplements across all sporting communities to reduce risk perception and increase acceptance.

1. Introduction

In recent years, entomophagy has seen exponential advances in scientific knowledge about insects and their uses by humans [1], the industrial sector has become increasingly involved in the breeding, processing and commercialization of edible insects [2] and the global edible insect market size was evaluated to be USD 55 million in 2019 and is projected to reach USD 710 billion by 2026. Included in this projection are the most produced insects for human consumption: beetles, locusts, crickets and ants, which are mainly incorporated in protein bars [3]. Their consumption has been mostly part of the diet of Asian, African and some Latin American countries, such as Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Brazil [4], which contribute to the market; however, many countries are also expected to contribute to this growth, such as the USA, UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands [5].
Research has shown that edible insects are currently promoted through the consumption of protein bars [6]. Indeed, the main forms of commercialization of edible insects are flavored snacks, energy bars and powders (which are predominantly sold as sports supplements) [7]. Accordingly, the general sports supplement market has seen notable growth in recent years [8] and the demands of its target market [9,10] are consistent with an increasing awareness of high-quality nutrition and the potentially higher protein aspect of insect-based proteins compared to conventional ones has the potential to boost the edible insect market [3].
Recently, there has been some research addressing insects and sports nutrition [11,12,13,14,15] and there are some promising results [14]. For instance, supplementation with insect protein can have similar effects to isocaloric carbohydrate supplement, enhancing muscle mass and strength gains in young men during progressive resistance training [16]. According to [11], insects are nutritious and contain high levels of vitamins and minerals in addition to emitting much lower GHG with high feed-to-protein conversion rates and low water requirements. They are able to provide a high rate of the recommended daily protein intake and provide more calcium than conventional protein sources (meat, chicken and pork) [17].
The demand for sports nutrition products has been guided by increased health, well-being and environmental awareness [9,10]. Consumers are demanding products that encompass all these aspects, which is presented as a challenge for sports supplement producers [9,10]. From this perspective, there are some companies that try to address this challenge by endeavoring to enter the market of insect-based sports supplements; some examples of companies and products and their nutritional information are provided in Table 1. For many countries, there are no regulatory barriers to the production and marketing of this kind of product, mainly in the countries where eating edible insects is traditional [18], and the EU (European Union) recently authorized the use of insects as food, which is promising for the market [19].
Despite all the benefits and possible applications of edible insects as an option for sports supplements, the extant products on the market and the positive regulatory scenario, the literature has shown that the success of this food innovation depends on the acceptability and needs of consumers [22] Particularly, the work of [13] is one of the first that addresses the acceptance of insects as supplements by consumers, with a focus on professional athletes. However, sports supplements are defined as specialized products that, today, are designed not only for athletes but also for active people in order to improve their nutritional intake, health, well-being, performance and muscle growth [9]. Challenges emerge in this context, as insects can be often underestimated as a representation of underdeveloped societies [23], and research has reported a wide range of consumption barriers, such as disgust [24] cultural factors [25], perceived risk [26], taste [27] and unsafety [28], while individuals have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the subject [29].
Considering the opportunities and the barriers, it is vital to understand how the potential market of active people is affected by variables such as risk perception and recommendations by health professionals, which proved to be a high influencing factor in the consumption of edible-insect-based food [30,31]. In order to investigate these issues and propose and test a comprehensive model of gym users’ intention to consume insect-based protein bars and powders, we surveyed a sample of 256 consumers who regularly attend the gym and consume sports supplements.
For this, we applied the fundamental Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [30,32,33,34,35], which has been validated as a useful model for predicting behavioral intentions about food and, therefore, many studies have included additional components to predict their variance [35,36,37]. TPB helps to explain the behavior of consumers by considering their most basic beliefs that can influence their attitude and intention to behave in a certain way. The assumption underlying our approach is that acceptance of insect-based protein bars and powders depends on health beliefs [27,38,39,40], taste, sustainability [33,41,42,43,44], attitude, experts, such as health professionals’ recommendations and media, as well as subjective norms [31,45,46] as intention predictors and perceived risk as a predictor of both attitude and intention [26,30,39,47,48].
This paper is structured as follows. We propose the theoretical framework in Section 2. In Section 3, we illustrate the materials and methods. Section 4 contains the main results of our work and finally, we conclude and discuss some implications for theory and market practices.

2. Theoretical Framework

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [32,49] is a fundamental theory that has been applied over time to predict the intention of consumers [30,31,33,34,44,50].
The intention that leads to a certain behavior is determined by three types of beliefs: behavioral beliefs, referring to positive and negative perceived outcomes of the behavior and the subjective evaluation of these outcomes; normative beliefs, referring to the perceived expectations and behaviors of important individuals or groups that are considered as references, in addition to the personal motivation to comply with their references; and control beliefs, referring to the perceived presence of factors that can influence the capacity of an individual to perform the behavior, along with the perception that these factors can facilitate or interfere with behavioral fulfillment [49]. In general, [32] (p. 181) explained that the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely its fulfillment must be. Figure 1 illustrates our conceptual framework with the proposed constructs.

2.1. Intention

Due to the complex nature of consumer behavior [51], multiple variables have been verified to seek a deeper understanding of the determinants of edible insect consumption and on which level they could affect consumption intention. In the history of food consumption, the preference of our ancestors for insects has shifted to considering them as vermin, instead of believing them to be a valued food item [52]. Therefore, the tendency may be to predominantly think about the animal and not on its characterization as food (i.e., as flour, powder, snacks, protein bars), which may still incite feelings and sensations about the animal [53].
Given all the literature that has been reported, the efforts of the various stakeholders to shift consumer mentality to consider insects as a possibility are notable [54]. Accordingly, as Brazilians have demonstrated in past research, they are not very familiar with the idea of entomophagy [55,56], measuring these consumers’ intentions regarding edible insects is important [35]; for instance, if there is nutritional potential, we must make an effort to comprehend if the intention changes when the animal is transformed, e.g., presented as a functional product as flour or protein bars, and if there is a way of deconstructing consumers’ negative assumptions about insects through the insertion of familiarity [57].

2.2. Attitude

The attitude toward behavior is linked to behavioral beliefs [49]. The individual’s attitude toward an object is determined by the subjective values of the object’s attributes in interaction with the associations’ strength [58] (p. 31).
Attitude proved to significantly explain the intention to consume insect-based food [31,34,50]. Attitude is identified by [33] as one of the most significant factors in determining the intention to consume insect-based products. To test this variable explanatory strength in the proposed context, we consider the current demands consumers are expressing, such as improved nutritional intake, health and well-being [9]. Therefore, we believe that presenting insect-based protein bars and whey protein would mean presenting products that are able to meet consumers’ needs [10], generating positive attitudes and intentions and considering the positive behavioral beliefs and subjective values that could be related to the product [49]. Accordingly, the first hypothesis is:
H1. 
Attitudes toward consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein are positively related to the intention to consume them.

2.3. Subjective Norms (SN)

As reported by [32] (p. 188), subjective norms are the likelihood of being under social pressure to determine whether or not to perform a behavior. Research has found that the subjective norm explains 16% of 54% of the intention to consume insect-based food variations [31]. Therefore, if the consumption of edible insects is approved by family, peers, the media and health professionals, this may increase the intention to consume [31,45,59,60,61]. Social aspects, such as how consumers are thought of by others, can significantly impact the consumption of a specific group; this effect performs as an endorsement or a legitimization of the consumption of the new food. As reported by [62], the subjective norm is one of the sufficient factors in determining behavior, and we also regard exploring this determinant for our study object as a contribution to the extant literature on entomophagy.
Under this perspective, research has reported health professionals’ recommendations and media influence on edible insect product acceptance, both being considered social influence factors [45,59]. Likewise, other studies reported that recommendations from officials, media and peers tend to increase most consumers’ willingness to pay more for insect-based powder/flour [63]. Accordingly, in the sports nutrition category, protein is the most demanded product, and media and sports nutrition recommendations promote this demand. Consequently, consumers are increasingly seeking high-protein products [9].
Accordingly, the second, third and fourth hypotheses are:
H2. 
Subjective norms in relation to consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein are positively related to the intention to consume them.
H3. 
Experts’ recommendations are positively related to subjective norms.
H4. 
Media recommendations are positively related to subjective norms.

2.4. Health (Additional Variable)

Insect-based products are discussed as a superfood (food that promises health and well-being) by stakeholders such as entrepreneurs, farmer co-ops and R&D professionals who focus on a business opportunity within the market of health-conscious consumers. Along with açaí, avocado and quinoa, edible insects are studied in the marketing of superfoods and solution foods regarding the health and wellness provided by this source of protein [64], and its acceptance is more challenging than the vegetal options.
Under this perspective, research has demonstrated that consumers who are concerned with health issues are more likely to show interest in edible insects as an alternative protein source [39,65]. For instance, the research of [64] reported cricket powder protein bars as the most successful insect-based food products sold in the USA. The public for this product comprises primarily health-conscious individuals aiming to increase their protein intake and maintain body weight [66]. Moreover, of the range of factors that can influence our eating habits, arguments related to improved personal health are reported as the most influential in shifting behavior [33,67]. Health is consistent with the cognitive component of attitude regarding the consequences of the behavior [49]. Accordingly, the fifth hypothesis is:
H5. 
Health belief is positively related to the attitude to consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein.

2.5. Taste (Additional Variable)

Recent research has demonstrated that taste is considered a convincing argument in favor of edible insect consumption [65]; therefore, it is considered an important factor in the acceptance of edible insects [27,31,68,69,70,71].
The relationship between taste and attitudes follows the principle that attitude has an affective and a behavioral component, which includes emotions and feelings associated with an object; the affective component is considered postcognitive and is derived from attribute beliefs that are evaluated in an expectancy-value manner [72]. Accordingly, [73] has proposed that liking or disliking expectations may be determined by specific memories of similar experiences; people are able to remember attributes about foods that were recently consumed without conscious awareness [74]. Therefore, past experience with a dairy or vegetal whey protein or protein bar may elicit expectations about the insect-based products and familiarity may be considered in taste expectancy.
Research has shown taste acceptance for energy and protein bars enriched with cricket flour by consumers with little or no familiarity with the products. In this specific study, the evaluated protein and energy bars were, according to the producers, meant to serve as a dietary supplement for individuals such as sportspeople and people interested in a healthy lifestyle [75].
Accordingly, the sixth hypothesis is:
H6. 
Taste is positively related to attitudes toward consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein.

2.6. Sustainability (Additional Variable)

Many studies have reported sustainability as an important factor in influencing consumers’ attitudes regarding insect consumption [33,41,43,67,68]. Studies have reported that knowing about pollution reduction benefits could convince consumers to eat insect-based food [68] as the waste generated in insect farms is minimal and the GHG emissions are much lower than in stockbreeding, for example, and there is a higher food conversion ratio [15]. Research has reported that individuals that are new to the idea of eating insects demonstrated curiosity or rationalized considerations concerning insects’ sustainability [41,76]. Likewise, another study demonstrated that beliefs are influenced by the perception of environmental protection [33], while another showed that individuals that integrate environmental issues into their beliefs have a better perception of edible insects [43]. Accordingly, the seventh hypothesis is:
H7. 
Sustainability is positively related to attitudes toward consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein.

2.7. Perceived Risk (Additional Variable)

The health variable can be considered antagonistic to the perceived risk [39]; therefore, communication about positive factors could promote entomophagy, as health aspects could influence consumers as a barrier to the perceived risk [30]. Nevertheless, ref. [26] investigated the determinants of consumption and highlighted perceived risk as greater, even in relation to the benefits derived from entomophagy.
Research has demonstrated that, in the current market, risk perception is among the major barriers to the acceptance of edible insects [25]. Perceived risk is often found when consumers face uncertainty, as in this case they can view a new product as a set of benefits or risks [77], and, regarding edible insects, consumers may not distinguish them from disease-transmitting insects, and so associate them with physical risks [47]. Insects are rejected, as humans’ instinctive nature leads people to avoid foods viewed as unsafe or unknown as a form of protection against diseases [78].
We expect perceived risk to be related to attitude and intention to consume, as it functions as an obstacle to performing a behavior. Accordingly, the eighth and ninth hypotheses are:
H8. 
Perceived risk is negatively related to the attitude to consuming insect-based protein bars and whey protein.
H9. 
Perceived risk is negatively related to the intention to consume insect-based protein bars and whey protein.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

We conducted a quantitative and descriptive study to verify the proposed antecedents of attitude and intention to consume insect-based protein bars and powders. An online survey was conducted with consumers due to the coronavirus pandemic and with the approval of the ethics committee. The questionnaire was prepared in Google Forms and shared by the authors on social media from March to April 2021, characterizing a convenience and snowballing sample [79]. The target population was made up of consumers that regularly attend gyms to practice physical activities and take sports supplements. The minimum size of the convenience sample was estimated by G*Power 3.1.9.7 software, considering the following parameters: test power (Power = 1 − β error prob. II) of 0.80 and effect size (f2) of 0.15 [80]. We obtained a total of 256 responses, 55% of which were submitted by men, and 77% were aged between 21 and 40 years; therefore, mostly younger adults. A total of 47% of the sample had completed higher education and 28% had a monthly family income of BRL 1567.50 to BRL 3135.00. Table 2 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

3.2. Measures

The questionnaire introduced the participants to a brief description of insect protein bars and powders that were being presented in pictures, followed by the filter questions: (1) Do you attend gyms to practice physical activities regularly? (yes or no) and (2) Do you consume sports supplements, such as protein bars and powders? (yes or no). These two questions were intended to select the proposed target group.
With the pictures of protein bars and powders from an extant brand of insect-based products, there was a text asking the participants to observe them and stating that they “consisted of insect-based energy bars and protein powders from Isaac Nutrition that are rich in vitamins B2 + B12, contained all the essential amino acids and are high in protein and many important minerals”. This information is consistent with the literature [1,27,81,82,83].
First, the participants demonstrated their attitude toward the products and for this, we used four items adapted from [34]. The other constructs were assessed, respectively, in the following order: health was measured using four items adapted from [84]; sustainability was measured using three items adapted from [33,34,44]; taste was measured using three items adapted from [46] and [34]; expert recommendation was measured using three items adapted from [33] and [46]; media recommendation and subjective norms were measured using three items each, adapted from [34]; perceived risk was measured using three items adapted from [85] and [34]; and, finally, intention to consume was measured using three items adapted from [34]. Seven-point Likert-type scales with response categories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (fully agree) were used for all the measurements. Lastly, participants were asked to answer some demographic questions.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model

We conducted initial analyses using SPSS to explore data and did not confirm the normality of distributions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p < 0.05). Therefore, as a partial least squares SEM shows higher robustness with non-normal data [86], SmartPLS version 3.3.3 was used for structure equation modeling (SEM) and the validity of the constructs.
Convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs were established by estimating the average variance extracted (AVE) and maximum shared variance (MSV), respectively. Adequate convergent validity is reached when AVE > 0.5 [87], whereas discriminant validity is present when AVE > MSV. To further establish discriminant validity, the square root of AVE should be greater than the correlations between constructs [88]. We considered acceptable a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60 [89] and a composite reliability of CR > 0.7 [90]. Partial PLS are defined by two sets of linear equations: the internal model, which establishes relationships between the latent variables (LVs), and the external model, which relates the LVs and their indicators [87]. Through this technique, the causal and hypothetical relationships between the constructs were determined and a measurement model with nine latent variables was specified.

4.2. Reliability and Validity of Measures

The initial measurement model was composed of 29 items reflecting nine latent constructs. For the convergent validation, we analyzed the average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha; the values, reported in Table 3, indicate that all the values fell within the acceptable range to ensure the reliability of the scales. It was necessary to remove one health indicator, whose factor loads (correlations) had an unacceptable value, to obtain a satisfactory AVE value (>0.50). After this procedure, all the LVs presented a satisfactory fit and the discriminant validity of the model was addressed.
The criterion of [91] was used to determine the discriminant validity of the model. The square roots of the AVE values of each construct were compared to the correlations between the constructs (or latent variables), presented in Table 4. All the values of the correlations were lower than the square roots of the AVE values. Therefore, the fitted model had discriminant validity between the constructs.

4.3. Structural Model

The evaluation of the path model consisted of a significance test of the identified relationships. Table 5 presents the path analysis, indicating the path coefficients (β), the standard error (SE), t and p-values, along with the effect size (ƒ²). To execute the Student’s t-test, 500 repetitions were used.
Accordingly, the analysis indicated that intention is positively influenced by attitude and subjective norms, leveraging support for H1 (β = 0.317, t = 4.786, p = 0.000, ƒ² = 0.137) and H2 (β = 0.239, t = 5.447, p = 0.000, ƒ² = 0.119). In contrast, H3 did not obtain support; therefore, experts (i.e., health professional recommendations) did not influence subjective norms (β = 0.146, t = 1.696, p = 0.090, ƒ² = 0.016); on the other hand, media significantly and positively affects subjective norms (β = 0.589, t = 6.731, p = 0.000, ƒ² = 0.252), therefore supporting H4. The results also demonstrated that health beliefs (β = 0.484, t = 7.038, p = 0.000, ƒ² = 0.279) and sustainability (β = 0.143, t = 2.291, p = 0.022, ƒ² = 0.035) significantly and positively affect attitude, while perceived risk significantly and negatively affects attitude (β = −0.191, t = 3.030, p = 0.002, ƒ² = 0.043) and intention (β = −0.407, t = 7.566, p = 0.000, ƒ² = 0.263).
According to what is presented in Table 4, the effect size (ƒ²) is based on a change in the R², instead of the size or significance of the path coefficient, it starts measuring the size of the effect by this change [88]. For [92], an ƒ² value of 0.15 indicates an average effect, while 0.35 indicates a large effect. The larger effects observed are due to media and health effects on subjective norms and attitude, respectively, and due to perceived risk on intention.
In addition, the intention to consume insect-based foods presented an R² of 69%, the subjective norm presented an R² of 50% and attitude an R² of 67%, which, according to Cohen’s classification [90], represents a large effect. The PLS-SEM is reported in Figure 2.

5. Discussion

This study proposes and tests a comprehensive model of gym users’ intention to consume insect-based protein bars and powders, incorporating measures of health, sustainability, taste and perceived risk in the TPB model. Most of our hypotheses were confirmed.
Consumption intention was positively associated with attitude and subjective norms and negatively associated with perceived risk. Attitude had a significant effect in other studies with models derived from an adapted TPB [31,33,34,46,60]. In keeping with this literature, the belief that consuming insect-based protein bars and powders can be a good thing and coherent with gym users’ diets was one of the most significant effects in determining intention toward the products in our study, after perceived risk. In conformity, subjective norms had a significant effect on intention; therefore, the opinions of peers, friends and family matter for gym users when choosing to consume insect-based protein bars and powders.
Next, perceived risk had a negative and significant effect both on the intention to consume and on the attitude toward insect-based protein bars and powders. This is in line with what is reported by [93], that the belief of health-damaging consequences of insect consumption makes individuals significantly more reluctant to eat insects. Insect-based foods, in addition to being unfamiliar to many consumers, may incite negative feelings, which can make them perceive them as a risky food source [47]. In comparison, a study by [94] demonstrated that sports supplements in general are not seen as risky, maybe because of the unawareness about the existence of possible risks or the exposure to unsolicited social media posts, generally not provided by health professionals; therefore, indicating in our study that the bars and powders were composed by insects may have changed this perception.
In general, it is widely indicated by research that clear and accessible information about supplements is needed across all sporting communities to reduce risk perception [25,47,94]. This reduction can be benefited by aggregate efforts from public policies, i.e., regulators such as marketing, consumer psychology and product development [95]. Public policies and marketing efforts are particularly relevant since research has demonstrated that negative perceptions regarding the reliability of a country’s foods, due to poor involvement of a diversity of regulatory bodies such as food safety and conservation authorities and ministries of the environment, health and agriculture, negatively impact the intention to consume [96]
In line with this, this discussion provides arguments for the effect of experts (i.e., health professional recommendations) on subjective norms, which was not statistically significant, unlike the media, which had a positive and significant effect; therefore, based on [94], it is reasonable to assume that these gym users are used to consuming content from social media and not content predominantly provided by health professionals, indicating that it does not matter who provides information, but maybe the type or quality of information that is being given.
In accordance, the health variable provides a perspective for this, as it had the greatest effect on attitude, proving to be a relevant aspect for the sample, which is expected to be more health conscious [39,65,97]. Along with the media, these may be two possible strategies for risk mitigation that comprise multiple efforts, whereas edible insects are on the agendas of stakeholders, such as entrepreneurs, farmers and R&D professionals, who consider insects as a super-food [64] in the market, and media efforts comprise nutritional guides of public health, for example, in addition to television and internet. Therefore, the use of health awareness is an opportunity for a target market that did not show a strong effect of taste or sustainability on attitude.
Although sustainability demonstrated a significant effect on attitude, it was a small one; therefore, it was not shown to be the leading factor influencing gym users’ attitudes toward consuming insect-based protein bars and powders. In line, [98] discuss that when confronted with the option of changing from dairy protein powders to plant-based ones, sustainability was not the primary reason for the choice, but it played a role, and the authors demonstrated that the valued attributes for dairy protein powders are animal happiness and welfare, “green” farming practices or organic farming, low emissions, water and energy use and environmentally friendly packaging [99].
One assumption for this result is that our sample may have not made strong welfare associations about insects as a protein source, as they usually make regarding cows, nor did they strongly think of emissions, water and energy use, considering the possible unfamiliarity with the product attributes. In addition, another perspective is that sustainability aspects were not mentioned before the questionnaire, and therefore, the sample may be unaware of the sustainability benefits of this protein production to the detriment of other conventional ones.
Finally, taste did not demonstrate a significant effect on attitude. We assume that while the product type may be used predominantly for its functionality in contrast to its hedonic properties, so taste was not a relevant factor for the sample in this case.

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

The achieved results allowed us to contribute to expanding our understanding of gym users’ intentions toward insect-based products, mainly protein bars and powders. However, we can point out some limitations. First, considering the convenience characteristic of our sample, results should not be generalized to the entire population. Second, there should have been the inclusion of the information variable [100], as we provided nutritional benefits information but did not measure its impact. Furthermore, we did not explore a control group to gauge the impact of the information that was provided. In addition, tasting sessions could provide results and evidence that may be closer to the behavior of the research participants [42]. Future studies could also benefit from including a moderator into the model, such as neophobia or the application of perceived risk, for instance, to explore its relationship with the significant health variable. Finally, a qualitative investigation is needed on the meaning of healthy aspects for gym users, as they are more prone to receive advice from social media, which may not come predominantly from health professionals.

6. Conclusions

The current research contributes to the extant literature by providing empirical evidence that an extended TPB predicts gym users’ intentions to consume insect-based protein bars and powders, considering a sample of 256 Brazilians who are gym users and take sports supplements. In particular, the results demonstrated perceived risk as a strong predictor of intention, implying risk mitigation for this target market and a better understanding of risks, aiming to minimize them. Furthermore, our results showed that health had the greatest effect on attitude, as did sustainability to a lesser extent; therefore, health is a possible strategy for risk mitigation along with the media, which was a strong predictor for subjective norms. Strategies regarding media praise can benefit from the results and must also consider the type of information and from whom consumers will embrace, considering that the recommendation of experts (health professionals) did not demonstrate to be significant for them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.F.K., T.L.-C., F.Q.-S. and A.M.G.; data curation, F.Q.-S. and A.M.G.; formal analysis, R.F.K. and T.L.-C.; funding acquisition, T.L.-C. and F.Q.-S.; investigation, R.F.K. and T.L.-C.; methodology, F.Q.-S. and A.M.G.; resources, R.F.K.; software, F.Q.-S. and A.M.G.; validation, F.Q.-S. and A.M.G.; writing—original draft, R.F.K. and T.L.-C.; writing—review and editing, T.L.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by CAPES—Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel), grant number 001 and UFMS/MEC—Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul/Ministério da Educação e Cultura (Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul/Ministry of Education and Culture) in Brazil. This study was also part of a larger one financed by French National Research Agency (ANR—CRI-KEE).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (protocol code nº 40567320.1.0000.0021, 2 March 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. van Huis, A. Insects as Food and Feed, a New Emerging Agricultural Sector: A Review. J. Insects Food Feed. 2020, 6, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pippinato, L.; Gasco, L.; Di Vita, G.; Mancuso, T. Current Scenario in the European Edible-Insect Industry: A Preliminary Study. J. Insects Food Feed. 2020, 6, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahuja, K.; Mamtani, K. Edible Insects Market Size by Product (Beetles, Caterpillars, Grasshoppers, Bees, Wasps, Ants, Scale Insects & Tree Bugs), By Application (Flour, Protein Bars, Snacks), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2020–2026. 2020. Available online: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/edible-insects-market (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  4. van Huis, A.; Halloran, A.; Van Itterbeeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Vantomme, P. How Many People on Our Planet Eat Insects: 2 Billion? J. Insects Food Feed. 2022, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ros-Baró, M.; Sánchez-Socarrás, V.; Santos-Pagès, M.; Bach-Faig, A.; Aguilar-Martínez, A. Consumers’ Acceptability and Perception of Edible Insects as an Emerging Protein Source. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bartkowicz, J.; Babicz-Zielińska, E. Acceptance of Bars with Edible Insects by a Selected Group of Students from Tri-City, Poland. Czech J. Food Sci. 2020, 38, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Melgar-Lalanne, G.; Hernández-Álvarez, A.; Salinas-Castro, A. Edible Insects Processing: Traditional and Innovative Technologies. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1166–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sports Nutrition in Brazil; 2022. Available online: https://www.euromonitor.com/sports-nutrition-in-brazil/report (accessed on 2 June 2023).
  9. Arenas-Jal, M.; Suñé-Negre, J.M.; Pérez-Lozano, P.; García-Montoya, E. Trends in the Food and Sports Nutrition Industry: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2405–2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wesana, J.; Schouteten, J.J.; Van Acker, E.; Gellynck, X.; De Steur, H. On Consumers’ Use, Brand Preference and Equity of Sports Nutrition Products. Br. Food J. 2019, 122, 635–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Meyer, N.; Reguant-Closa, A. “Eat as If You Could Save the Planet and Win!” Sustainability Integration into Nutrition for Exercise and Sport. Nutrients 2017, 9, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nowakowski, A.C.; Miller, A.C.; Miller, M.E.; Xiao, H.; Wu, X. Potential Health Benefits of Edible Insects. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3499–3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Placentino, U.; Sogari, G.; Viscecchia, R.; De Devitiis, B.; Monacis, L. The New Challenge of Sports Nutrition: Accepting Insect Food as Dietary Supplements in Professional Athletes. Foods 2021, 10, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. López-Martínez, M.I.; Miguel, M.; Garcés-Rimón, M. Protein and Sport: Alternative Sources and Strategies for Bioactive and Sustainable Sports Nutrition. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 926043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ros-Baró, M.; Casas-Agustench, P.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Adrià-Acosta, F.; Aguilar-Martínez, A.; Medina, F.-X.; Pujolà, M.; Bach-Faig, A. Edible Insect Consumption for Human and Planetary Health: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vangsoe, M.; Joergensen, M.; Heckmann, L.-H.; Hansen, M. Effects of Insect Protein Supplementation during Resistance Training on Changes in Muscle Mass and Strength in Young Men. Nutrients 2018, 10, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jantzen da Silva Lucas, A.; Menegon de Oliveira, L.; da Rocha, M.; Prentice, C. Edible Insects: An Alternative of Nutritional, Functional and Bioactive Compounds. Food Chem. 2020, 311, 126022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Marimuthu, S.B.; Meijer, N. Regulations on Insects as Food and Feed: A Global Comparison. J. Insects Food Feed. 2021, 7, 849–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. European Commission. Small Insects—Big Impact! EU Authorises Insects as Food. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/items/712990/en (accessed on 22 June 2023).
  20. Jimini’s. Available online: https://www.jiminis.com/shop/lang/en/protein-bars/281-banana-chocolate-protein-bar.html (accessed on 22 June 2023).
  21. Exo Protein. Available online: https://exoprotein.com/collections/all-products (accessed on 22 June 2023).
  22. Gallen, C.; Pantin-Sohier, G.; Peyrat-Guillard, D. Cognitive Acceptance Mechanisms of Discontinuous Food Innovations: The Case of Insects in France. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2019, 34, 48–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Manunza, L. Casu Marzu: A Gastronomic Genealogy. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  24. La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Amato, M.; Grunert, K. Understanding Westerners’ Disgust for the Eating of Insects: The Role of Food Neophobia and Implicit Associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baker, M.A.; Shin, J.T.; Kim, Y.W. Customer Acceptance, Barriers, and Preferences in the U.S. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 387–399. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruby, M.B.; Rozin, P.; Chan, C. Determinants of Willingness to Eat Insects in the USA and India. J. Insects Food Feed. 2015, 1, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.H.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Stieger, M. Tasty but Nasty? Exploring the Role of Sensory-Liking and Food Appropriateness in the Willingness to Eat Unusual Novel Foods like Insects. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 48, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schardong, I.S.; Freiberg, J.A.; Santana, N.A.; Richards, N.S.P.d.S. Brazilian Consumers’ Perception of Edible Insects. Ciência Rural. 2019, 49, e20180960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Piha, S.; Pohjanheimo, T.; Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Křečková, Z.; Otterbring, T. The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on the Willingness to Buy Insect Food: An Exploratory Cross-Regional Study in Northern and Central Europe. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 70, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pambo, K.; Mbeche, R.; Okello, J.; Kinyuru, J.; Mose, G. Consumers’ Salient Beliefs Regarding Foods from Edible Insects in Kenya: A Qualitative Study Using Concepts from the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2016, 16, 11366–11385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pambo, K.O.; Mbeche, R.M.; Okello, J.J.; Mose, G.N.; Kinyuru, J.N. Intentions to Consume Foods from Edible Insects and the Prospects for Transforming the Ubiquitous Biomass into Food. Agric. Hum. Values 2018, 35, 885–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Menozzi, D.; Sogari, G.; Veneziani, M.; Simoni, E.; Mora, C. Eating Novel Foods: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict the Consumption of an Insect-Based Product. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 59, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vartiainen, O.; Elorinne, A.-L.; Niva, M.; Väisänen, P. Finnish Consumers’ Intentions to Consume Insect-Based Foods. J. Insects Food Feed. 2020, 6, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lucchese-Cheung, T.; De Aguiar, L.K.; Da Silva, R.F.F.; Pereira, M.W. Determinants of the Intention to Consume Edible Insects in Brazil. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lobb, A.E.; Mazzocchi, M.; Traill, W.B. Modelling Risk Perception and Trust in Food Safety Information within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Montano, D.E.; Kasprzyk, D. Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behavior, and the Integrated Behavioral Model. In Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice; Glanz, K., Rimer, B., Viswanath, K., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015; Volume 70. [Google Scholar]
  38. Verbeke, W.; Spranghers, T.; De Clercq, P.; De Smet, S.; Sas, B.; Eeckhout, M. Insects in Animal Feed: Acceptance and Its Determinants among Farmers, Agriculture Sector Stakeholders and Citizens. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015, 204, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hartmann, C.; Ruby, M.B.; Schmidt, P.; Siegrist, M. Brave, Health-Conscious, and Environmentally Friendly: Positive Impressions of Insect Food Product Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schlup, Y.; Brunner, T. Prospects for Insects as Food in Switzerland: A Tobit Regression. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. House, J. Consumer Acceptance of Insect-Based Foods in the Netherlands: Academic and Commercial Implications. Appetite 2016, 107, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Mora, C. Sensory-Liking Expectations and Perceptions of Processed and Unprocessed Insect Products. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2018, 9, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Onwezen, M.C.; van den Puttelaar, J.; Verain, M.C.D.; Veldkamp, T. Consumer Acceptance of Insects as Food and Feed: The Relevance of Affective Factors. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mancini, S.; Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Nuvoloni, R.; Torracca, B.; Moruzzo, R.; Paci, G. Factors Predicting the Intention of Eating an Insect-Based Product. Foods 2019, 8, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Berger, S.; Christandl, F.; Bitterlin, D.; Wyss, A.M. The Social Insectivore: Peer and Expert Influence Affect Consumer Evaluations of Insects as Food. Appetite 2019, 141, 104338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chang, H.-P.; Ma, C.-C.; Chen, H.-S. Climate Change and Consumer’s Attitude toward Insect Food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baker, M.A.; Shin, J.T.; Kim, Y.W. An Exploration and Investigation of Edible Insect Consumption: The Impacts of Image and Description on Risk Perceptions and Purchase Intent. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 94–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lombardi, A.; Vecchio, R.; Borrello, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L. Willingness to Pay for Insect-Based Food: The Role of Information and Carrier. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 72, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ajzen, I. Consumer Attitudes and Behavior: The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Food Consumption Decisions. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2015, 70, 121–138. [Google Scholar]
  50. Videbæk, P.N.; Grunert, K.G. Disgusting or Delicious? Examining Attitudinal Ambivalence towards Entomophagy among Danish Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, 103913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Köster, E.P. Diversity in the Determinants of Food Choice: A Psychological Perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ghosh, S.; Jung, C.; Meyer-Rochow, V.B. What Governs Selection and Acceptance of Edible Insect Species? In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 331–351. [Google Scholar]
  53. Haidt, J.; Rozin, P.; Mccauley, C.; Imada, S. Body, Psyche, and Culture: The Relationship between Disgust and Morality. Psychol. Dev. Soc. J. 1997, 9, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shockley, M.; Lesnik, J.; Allen, R.N.; Muñoz, A.F. Edible Insects and Their Uses in North America; Past, Present and Future. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 55–79. [Google Scholar]
  55. Costa Neto, E.M.; Cheung, T.L. Insects for Human Consumption: Consumers’ Perception on the Idea of Eating Insects. In Coletânea Nacional Sobre Entomologia; Atena Editora: Ponta Grossa, Brazil, 2019; pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bisconsin-Júnior, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Behrens, J.H.; Lima, V.S.; da Silva, M.A.A.P.; de Oliveira, M.S.R.; Januário, L.A.; Deliza, R.; Netto, F.M.; Mariutti, L.R.B. Examining the Role of Regional Culture and Geographical Distances on the Representation of Unfamiliar Foods in a Continental-Size Country. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pliner, P.; Pelchat, M.; Grabski, M. Reduction of Neophobia in Humans by Exposure to Novel Foods. Appetite 1993, 20, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ajzen, I. Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stock, P.V.; Phillips, C.; Campbell, H.; Murcott, A. Eating the Unthinkable: The Case of ENTO, Eating Insects and Bioeconomic Experimentation. In Biological Economies: Experimentation and the Politics of Agri-Food Frontiers; Le Heron, R., Campbell, H., Lewis, N., Carolan, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  60. Elorinne, A.-L.; Niva, M.; Vartiainen, O.; Väisänen, P. Insect Consumption Attitudes among Vegans, Non-Vegan Vegetarians, and Omnivores. Nutrients 2019, 11, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Choe, J.Y.; Kim, J.J.; Hwang, J. The Environmentally Friendly Role of Edible Insect Restaurants in the Tourism Industry: Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3581–3600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Frequently Asked Questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alemu, M.H.; Olsen, S.B. Kenyan Consumers’ Experience of Using Edible Insects as Food and Their Preferences for Selected Insect-Based Food Products. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 363–374. [Google Scholar]
  64. Schiemer, C.; Halloran, A.; Jespersen, K.; Kaukua, P. Marketing Insects: Superfood or Solution-Food. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 213–236. [Google Scholar]
  65. Halloran, A.; Flore, R. A New World of Ingredients: Aspiring Chefs’ Opinions on Insects in Gastronomy. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Halloran, A., Flore, R., Vantomme, P., Roos, N., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  66. Fulgoni, V.L. Current Protein Intake in America: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003–2004. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 1554S–1557S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gamborg, C.; Röcklinsberg, H.; Gjerris, M. Sustainable Proteins? Values Related to Insects in Food Systems. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 199–211. [Google Scholar]
  68. Caparros Megido, R.; Sablon, L.; Geuens, M.; Brostaux, Y.; Alabi, T.; Blecker, C.; Drugmand, D.; Haubruge, É.; Francis, F. Edible Insects Acceptance by Belgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development. J. Sens. Stud. 2014, 29, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Deroy, O.; Reade, B.; Spence, C. The Insectivore’s Dilemma, and How to Take the West out of It. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tan, H.S.G.; Verbaan, Y.T.; Stieger, M. How Will Better Products Improve the Sensory-Liking and Willingness to Buy Insect-Based Foods? Food Res. Int. 2017, 92, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lucchese-Cheung, T.; de Aguiar, L.A.K.; Spers, E.E.; De Lima, L.M. The Brazilians’ Sensorial Perceptions for Novel Food—Cookies with Insect Protein. J. Insects Food Feed. 2021, 7, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Edwards, K. The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and Change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Robinson, E.; Blissett, J.; Higgs, S. The Influence of Recent Tasting Experience on Expected Liking for Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mojet, J.; Köster, E.P. Texture and Flavour Memory in Foods: An Incidental Learning Experiment. Appetite 2002, 38, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Adámek, M.; Adámková, A.; Mlček, J.; Borkovcová, M.; Bednářová, M. Acceptability and Sensory Evaluation of Energy Bars and Protein Bars Enriched with Edible Insect. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2018, 12, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tinchan, P.; Stieger, M.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Insects as Food: Exploring Cultural Exposure and Individual Experience as Determinants of Acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Phillips, D.M.; Hallman, W.K. Consumer Risk Perceptions and Marketing Strategy: The Case of Genetically Modified Food. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hamerman, E.J. Cooking and Disgust Sensitivity Influence Preference for Attending Insect-Based Food Events. Appetite 2016, 96, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gil, A.C. Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa, 6th ed.; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ringle, C.M.; Da Silva, D.; Bido, D.D.S. Modelagem de Equações Estruturais Com Utilização Do Smartpls. Rev. Bras. Mark. 2014, 13, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. van Huis, A. Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in Assuring Food Security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baiano, A. Edible Insects: An Overview on Nutritional Characteristics, Safety, Farming, Production Technologies, Regulatory Framework, and Socio-Economic and Ethical Implications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 100, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Patel, S.; Suleria, H.A.R.; Rauf, A. Edible Insects as Innovative Foods: Nutritional and Functional Assessments. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Roininen, K.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Tuorila, H. Quantification of Consumer Attitudes to Health and Hedonic Characteristics of Foods. Appetite 1999, 33, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fandos Herrera, C.; Flavián Blanco, C. Consequences of Consumer Trust in PDO Food Products: The Role of Familiarity. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2011, 20, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for Building and Testing Behavioral Causal Theory: When to Choose It and How to Use It. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Kennesaw State University: Kennesaw, GA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  90. de Bido, D.S.; Da Silva, D. SmartPLS 3: Especificação, Estimação, Avaliação e Relato. Adm. Ensino Pesqui. 2019, 20, 488–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kröger, T.; Dupont, J.; Büsing, L.; Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of Insect-Based Food Products in Western Societies: A Systematic Review. Front. Nutr. 2022, 8, 759885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Catalani, V.; Negri, A.; Townshend, H.; Simonato, P.; Prilutskaya, M.; Tippett, A.; Corazza, O. The Market of Sport Supplement in the Digital Era: A Netnographic Analysis of Perceived Risks, Side-Effects and Other Safety Issues. Emerg. Trends Drugs Addict. Health 2021, 1, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shin, J.T.; Baker, M.A.; Kim, Y.W. Edible Insects Uses in South Korean Gastronomy: “Korean Edible Insect Laboratory” Case Study. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 147–159. [Google Scholar]
  96. Kuff, R.F.; Cheung, T.L.; Quevedo-Silva, F.; Giordani, A.M. The Country–of–Origin Label Impact on Intention to Consume Insect-Based Food. Appetite 2023, 180, 106355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Orsi, L.; Voege, L.L.; Stranieri, S. Eating Edible Insects as Sustainable Food? Exploring the Determinants of Consumer Acceptance in Germany. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schiano, A.N.; Gerard, P.D.; Drake, M.A. Consumer Perception of Dried Dairy Ingredients: Healthy, Natural, and Sustainable? J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 12427–12442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Schiano, A.N.; Harwood, W.S.; Gerard, P.D.; Drake, M.A. Consumer Perception of the Sustainability of Dairy Products and Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 11228–11243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Barsics, F.; Caparros Megido, R.; Brostaux, Y.; Barsics, C.; Blecker, C.; Haubruge, E.; Francis, F. Could New Information Influence Attitudes to Foods Supplemented with Edible Insects? Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2027–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 15946 g001
Figure 1. Full conceptual model with hypotheses.
Figure 1. Full conceptual model with hypotheses.
Sustainability 15 15946 g001
Sustainability 15 15946 g002
Figure 2. Structural equation model.
Figure 2. Structural equation model.
Sustainability 15 15946 g002
Table 1. Insect-based protein bars and powders on the market.
Table 1. Insect-based protein bars and powders on the market.
CompanyLocationProductNutritional Information
Jimini’sIle-de-FranceProtein bars enriched with Buffalo powderValues per 100 g: Energy 1839 kJ/441 kcal; Fats 24 g, of which saturated fat 4.9 g; Carbohydrates 36 g, of which sugars 31 g; Fiber 11 g; Protein 14 g; Salt
0.27 g [20].
Exo ProteinUnited StatesAcheta Protein BarsValues per 1 bar (50 g): 160 kcal; Total fat 7 g, of which saturated fat 1.4 g; Cholesterol 10 mg; Sodium 200 mg; Total Carbohydrates 21 g, of which Dietary Fiber 2 g; Total Sugars 2 g (includes 2 g of added sugars); Protein 14 g [21].
Acheta Cricket PowderValues per 11 g: 50 kcal; Total Fat 3 g, of which saturated fat 0.8 g; Cholesterol 25 mg; Sodium 45 mg; Total Carbohydrates 1 g, of which Dietary Fiber 1 g; Protein 7 g [21].
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics.
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics.
VariablesPercentage
Gender
  Male45.5
  Female55.5
Age
  Under 30 years 51.9
  31–40 years34.5
  41–50 years 7.7
  Over 50 years5.9
Highest education level
  Graduation35.3
  University degree 47.7
  High school diploma 17
Table 3. Validity and reliability of the constructs.
Table 3. Validity and reliability of the constructs.
Mean (SD)LoadingsAVECRCronbach’s Alpha
Attitude 0.6370.8730.805
ATT14.32 (1.97)0.903
ATT24.92 (2.23)0.753
ATT33.76 (2.22)0.881
ATT44.40 (2.40)0.626
Health 0.7620.9050.840
HEA35.15 (2.18)0.763
HEA34.38 (1.98)0.919
HEA44.05 (2.00)0.928
Taste 0.6210.8300.720
TAS14.02 (1.96)0.814
TAS2 4.22 (2.03)0.689
TAS3 4.65 (2.15)0.852
Sustainability 0.6750.8610.770
SUS14.08 (2.02)0.793
SUS24.45 (2.35)0.827
SUS34.29 (2.08)0.843
Expert recommendation 0.8180.9310.888
EXP14.56 (2.26)0.910
EXP23.57 (2.14)0.856
EXP3 4.41 (2.22)0.944
Media recommendation 0.7740.9110.852
MED1 4.19 (2.23)0.806
MED2 2.89 (1.97)0.920
MED33.18 (1.95)0.908
Subjective norms 0.6390.8350.700
SN13.63 (2.06)0.904
SN22.97 (1.97)0.911
SN34.70 (2.04)0.520
Perceived risk 0.5770.8010.643
PR13.17 (2.43)0.812
PR22.98 (1.87)0.840
PR32.73 (1.58)0.605
Intention 0.8420.9410.906
INT14.14 (2.22)0.939
INT24.44 (2.29)0.938
INT3 5.14 (2.32)0.875
Notes: ATT: attitude; HEA: health; TAS: taste; SUS: sustainability; EXP: experts; MED: media; SN: subjective norms; PR: perceived risk; INT: intention.
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
ATTEXPINTMEDSNPRTASHEASUS
ATT0.798
EXP0.6420.904
INT0.7470.7440.918
MED0.6080.8000.6280.880
SN0.5900.6170.6260.7060.800
PR−0.708−0.658−0.749−0.489−0.4910.760
TAS0.6580.6590.7540.5640.572−0.7000.788
HEA0.7880.6200.7720.5540.612−0.7290.6830.873
SUS0.6250.7200.5900.6680.639−0.6100.5810.6220.821
Notes: ATT: attitude; HEA: health; TAS: taste; SUS: sustainability; EXP: experts; MED: media; SN: subjective norms; PR: perceived risk; INT: intention.
Table 5. Path analysis.
Table 5. Path analysis.
HypothesesβSEt-Valuep-ValueDecisionƒ²
H1 ATT → INT0.317 ***0.0664.7860.000Supported0.137
H2 SN → INT0.239 ***0.0445.4470.000Supported0.119
H3 EXP →SN0.1460.0861.6960.090Not Supported0.016
H4 MED → SN0.589 ***0.0876.7310.000Supported0.252
H5 HEA→ ATT0.484 ***0.0697.0380.000Supported0.279
H6 SUS→ ATT0.143 *0.0622.2910.022Supported0.035
H7 TAS → ATT0.1100.0591.8790.060Not Supported0.016
H8 PR→ ATT−0.191 **0.0633.0300.002Supported0.043
H9 PR→ INT−0.407 ***0.0547.5660.000Supported0.263
Notes: ATT: attitude; HEA: health; TAS: taste; SUS: sustainability; EXP: experts; MED: media; SN: subjective norms; PR: perceived risk; INT: intention; *** significance p < 0.001; ** significance p < 0.01; * significance p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuff, R.F.; Lucchese-Cheung, T.; Quevedo-Silva, F.; Giordani, A.M. Building Muscles from Eating Insects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215946

AMA Style

Kuff RF, Lucchese-Cheung T, Quevedo-Silva F, Giordani AM. Building Muscles from Eating Insects. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):15946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215946

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuff, Rafaela Flores, Thelma Lucchese-Cheung, Filipe Quevedo-Silva, and Arthur Mancilla Giordani. 2023. "Building Muscles from Eating Insects" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 15946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215946

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop