{"title":"美国消费者对用昆虫喂养牲畜的动物食品的接受程度和支付意愿","authors":"E. Fukuda, P. Omana Sudhakaran, M. Drewery","doi":"10.1163/23524588-20220146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Insects have potential to be integrated into livestock feeding systems to enhance sustainability of food production. However, Western consumers generally oppose insects as food and it is unknown if U.S. consumers will accept animal food products from livestock fed insects. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate U.S. consumers’ acceptance of and willingness to pay (WTP) for animal products from livestock fed insects with an emphasis on identifying underlying drivers that shape acceptance. We developed a questionnaire-based survey that was distributed via convenience sampling to adult U.S. consumers (n = 361). A multinomial logit model was used to identify drivers affecting consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed; the dependent variable had three categories representing consumer attitude: supportive, neutral, or opposing. Of respondents, 34% accepted insects as livestock feed, 15% were opposed, and 52% were neutral. Respondents more likely to accept insects as livestock feed were younger (18-24 vs 35-44 years; ), had higher average household income ($50,000-$100,000 vs <$25,000; ), and higher educational attainment (master’s degree vs high school diploma; ). The factors that, if true, would most strongly influence consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed were: ‘If I knew the insects were healthy for the livestock’ (74% of respondents); ‘If I knew it would not affect the balance of our eco-system’ (66%); and ‘If I knew it would lessen the environmental impact of livestock production’ (61%). For WTP, 21% of respondents were willing to pay less for animal products from livestock fed insects, 72% of were willing to pay the same, and 7% were willing to pay more. Our findings outline demographics of most likely U.S. consumers for animal products from livestock fed insects and indicate that outreach should highlight environmental, animal welfare, and economic benefits of insects as livestock feed to increase U.S. consumer adoption.","PeriodicalId":48604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Insects as Food and Feed","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for animal food products from livestock fed insects in the United States\",\"authors\":\"E. Fukuda, P. Omana Sudhakaran, M. Drewery\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/23524588-20220146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Insects have potential to be integrated into livestock feeding systems to enhance sustainability of food production. However, Western consumers generally oppose insects as food and it is unknown if U.S. consumers will accept animal food products from livestock fed insects. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate U.S. consumers’ acceptance of and willingness to pay (WTP) for animal products from livestock fed insects with an emphasis on identifying underlying drivers that shape acceptance. We developed a questionnaire-based survey that was distributed via convenience sampling to adult U.S. consumers (n = 361). A multinomial logit model was used to identify drivers affecting consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed; the dependent variable had three categories representing consumer attitude: supportive, neutral, or opposing. Of respondents, 34% accepted insects as livestock feed, 15% were opposed, and 52% were neutral. Respondents more likely to accept insects as livestock feed were younger (18-24 vs 35-44 years; ), had higher average household income ($50,000-$100,000 vs <$25,000; ), and higher educational attainment (master’s degree vs high school diploma; ). The factors that, if true, would most strongly influence consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed were: ‘If I knew the insects were healthy for the livestock’ (74% of respondents); ‘If I knew it would not affect the balance of our eco-system’ (66%); and ‘If I knew it would lessen the environmental impact of livestock production’ (61%). For WTP, 21% of respondents were willing to pay less for animal products from livestock fed insects, 72% of were willing to pay the same, and 7% were willing to pay more. Our findings outline demographics of most likely U.S. consumers for animal products from livestock fed insects and indicate that outreach should highlight environmental, animal welfare, and economic benefits of insects as livestock feed to increase U.S. consumer adoption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Insects as Food and Feed\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Insects as Food and Feed\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-20220146\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENTOMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Insects as Food and Feed","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-20220146","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
昆虫有可能被纳入牲畜饲养系统,以提高粮食生产的可持续性。然而,西方消费者普遍反对将昆虫作为食品,美国消费者是否会接受用昆虫喂养家畜生产的动物食品尚不得而知。因此,本研究的目的是评估美国消费者对用昆虫喂养牲畜生产动物产品的接受程度和支付意愿(WTP),重点是找出影响接受程度的潜在驱动因素。我们编制了一份基于问卷的调查表,通过方便抽样的方式向美国成年消费者(n = 361)发放。我们使用多叉 Logit 模型来确定影响消费者接受昆虫作为家畜饲料的驱动因素;因变量有三个类别,分别代表消费者的态度:支持、中立或反对。在受访者中,34% 接受昆虫作为家畜饲料,15% 反对,52% 持中立态度。更有可能接受昆虫作为牲畜饲料的受访者年龄更小(18-24 岁 vs 35-44 岁;),平均家庭收入更高(50,000-100,000 美元 vs <25,000;),受教育程度更高(硕士学位 vs 高中文凭;)。如果情况属实,对消费者接受昆虫作为牲畜饲料影响最大的因素是如果我知道昆虫对牲畜健康有益"(74% 的受访者);"如果我知道它不会影响我们生态系统的平衡"(66%);以及 "如果我知道它能减轻畜牧生产对环境的影响"(61%)。就购买意愿而言,21% 的受访者愿意支付较低的价格购买用昆虫喂养的牲畜生产的动物产品,72% 的受访者愿意支付相同的价格,7% 的受访者愿意支付更高的价格。我们的研究结果概括了最有可能购买用昆虫喂养的牲畜的动物产品的美国消费者的人口统计学特征,并表明宣传工作应突出昆虫作为牲畜饲料的环境、动物福利和经济效益,以提高美国消费者的采用率。
Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for animal food products from livestock fed insects in the United States
Insects have potential to be integrated into livestock feeding systems to enhance sustainability of food production. However, Western consumers generally oppose insects as food and it is unknown if U.S. consumers will accept animal food products from livestock fed insects. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate U.S. consumers’ acceptance of and willingness to pay (WTP) for animal products from livestock fed insects with an emphasis on identifying underlying drivers that shape acceptance. We developed a questionnaire-based survey that was distributed via convenience sampling to adult U.S. consumers (n = 361). A multinomial logit model was used to identify drivers affecting consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed; the dependent variable had three categories representing consumer attitude: supportive, neutral, or opposing. Of respondents, 34% accepted insects as livestock feed, 15% were opposed, and 52% were neutral. Respondents more likely to accept insects as livestock feed were younger (18-24 vs 35-44 years; ), had higher average household income ($50,000-$100,000 vs <$25,000; ), and higher educational attainment (master’s degree vs high school diploma; ). The factors that, if true, would most strongly influence consumer acceptance of insects as livestock feed were: ‘If I knew the insects were healthy for the livestock’ (74% of respondents); ‘If I knew it would not affect the balance of our eco-system’ (66%); and ‘If I knew it would lessen the environmental impact of livestock production’ (61%). For WTP, 21% of respondents were willing to pay less for animal products from livestock fed insects, 72% of were willing to pay the same, and 7% were willing to pay more. Our findings outline demographics of most likely U.S. consumers for animal products from livestock fed insects and indicate that outreach should highlight environmental, animal welfare, and economic benefits of insects as livestock feed to increase U.S. consumer adoption.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Insects as Food and Feed covers edible insects from harvesting in the wild through to industrial scale production. It publishes contributions to understanding the ecology and biology of edible insects and the factors that determine their abundance, the importance of food insects in people’s livelihoods, the value of ethno-entomological knowledge, and the role of technology transfer to assist people to utilise traditional knowledge to improve the value of insect foods in their lives. The journal aims to cover the whole chain of insect collecting or rearing to marketing edible insect products, including the development of sustainable technology, such as automation processes at affordable costs, detection, identification and mitigating of microbial contaminants, development of protocols for quality control, processing methodologies and how they affect digestibility and nutritional composition of insects, and the potential of insects to transform low value organic wastes into high protein products. At the end of the edible insect food or feed chain, marketing issues, consumer acceptance, regulation and legislation pose new research challenges. Food safety and legislation are intimately related. Consumer attitude is strongly dependent on the perceived safety. Microbial safety, toxicity due to chemical contaminants, and allergies are important issues in safety of insects as food and feed. Innovative contributions that address the multitude of aspects relevant for the utilisation of insects in increasing food and feed quality, safety and security are welcomed.