Abstract
Two prominently discussed sustainable food alternatives—lab-meat and edible insects—elicit disgust among consumers, thereby preventing acceptance. While providing prospective consumers with more information on, for instance, the environmental benefits of lab-meat has shown some success in increasing consumer acceptance, we argue that the disgust response—the main barrier to the societal acceptance of these foods—is not addressed. This is, we argue, because disgust is not the result of misperceptions (e.g., edible insects carry diseases) and thus unlikely to be overcome by information alone. Building on the latest insights into the social origins of disgust, this manuscript reviews an alternative strategy to foster the broader acceptance of sustainable food alternatives that currently elicit disgust. Specifically, we explain why and how public exposure could be a promising avenue for marketers to reduce consumers’ disgust response and thus increase the acceptance of sustainable food alternatives.
Highlights
Greenhouse gas emissions and the entailing climate change are arguably one of the biggest threats to mankind’s prosperity in the 21st century
Disgust is a major barrier to the adoption of two prominently discussed sustainable food alternatives—edible insets and lab-meat
We propose that the social origin of disgust—deviance—can be tackled by public exposure therapy; via the salient behavior of formal institutions, food vendors, opinion leaders, and parents and caretakers, consumers could perceive widescale support for the consumption of sustainable food alternatives
Summary
Greenhouse gas emissions and the entailing climate change are arguably one of the biggest threats to mankind’s prosperity in the 21st century. Would require less land, emit fewer greenhouse gases, require less feed, and be less susceptible to diseases transmittable to humans than conventional livestock [8,9]. Despite these promising benefits, their adoption has not yet occurred on the larger scale. Edible insects, being linked to dirt [15] and infectious diseases [16], typically elicit disgust in Western consumers [12] Targeting these self-reported concerns (e.g., providing factual information to correct the misperception that “edible insects carry diseases”), we argue, will not suffice to convert consumers, as disgust is difficult to reason with. Whereas correcting misperceptions with information may fail to change consumers’ reaction toward sustainable food alternatives, we argue that increasing consumers’ exposure to the consumption of sustainable food alternatives has a better chance to reduce the consumers’ disgust response, and thereby making them more open to these alternatives
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
