Context matters: how different information influences consumer preferences and willingness to pay for animal products fed with insects

Journal of Insects as Food and Feed (2025) DOI:10.1163/23524588-00001373 brill.com/jiff Research article Context matters: how different information influences consumer preferences and willingness to pay for animal products fed with insects M.A.C. Mustapa , N. Kajad and Z. Kallas* Centre for Agrofood Economics and Development-UPC-IRTA (CREDA), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), 08860 Castelldefels, Spain; *z[email protected] Received 19 August 2024 | Accepted 14 February 2025 | Published online 14 March 2025 Abstract The use of insects as an alternative source of animal feed is gaining interest due to their positive environmental impact. Consumers are generally more accepting of using insects as sustainable feed for animals than consuming insects directly. However, limited research exists on how different informational contexts influence consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for insect-fed animal products. This quantitative study addresses this gap by surveying 1,006 consumers in Spain, stratified by age and gender. Using the Heckman sample selection model, the results reveal that the probability of purchasing insect-fed animal products increases with younger age, municipal market shopping, online shopping habits, and a positive attitude towards inflation, while it decreases in households with elderly members. In contrast, neophobic attitudes and negative attitudes towards adding insects in animal feed significantly reduce the likelihood of purchasing these products. In the outcome equation, WTP is significantly influenced by household income, education level, online shopping behaviour, anthropocentric attitude, and negative attitude towards adding insects in animal feed. Higher household income is associated with lower WTP, while online shopping increases WTP. Higher education levels are linked to lower WTP for chicken and pork but are not significant for eggs. Consumers with a stronger anthropocentric attitude and negative attitudes towards using insects in animalfeed are less willing to pay for these products. Consumers’WTP premiums for insectfed animal products range from 21% to 31%, with the highest premiums observed when no specific information about insects’ rearing, treatment, or processing is provided. Budget constraints and trust issues regarding sustainable insect feed are the main barriers to acceptance. These findings suggest that raising awareness about insect feed production, and emphasising animal welfare practices could enhance consumer acceptance. Furthermore, the substantial WTP for these products highlights their potential as premium items in the Spanish market. Keywords alternative protein – consumer acceptance – information frame – insects as feed – sustainability 1 Introduction The global demand for protein-rich food sources has intensified owing to population growth, rising income, and changing dietary preferences (Henchion et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019). This surge in demand has placed immense pressure on traditional animal agriculture systems, raising concerns regarding sustainability, environmental impacts, and ethical considerations. In response, alternative protein sources, such as insects, have gained Published with license by Koninklijke Brill BV | DOI: 10.1163/23524588-00001373 © M.A.C. Mustapa et al., 2025 | ISSN: 2352-4588 (online) This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license. 2M.A.C. Mustapa, N. Kajad and Z. Kallas attention for their potential to address these challenges (Sun-Waterhouse et al., 2016). Recent EU regulations have approved the use of insect meal in aquaculture, poultry, and pig farming (European Commision, 2017). Food systems are a major contributor to climate change, accounting for 21% to 37% of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 2019; Rosenzweig et al., 2020). Within this system, the meat industry is one of the most significant contributors, accounting for 54% of all emissions (Caro et al., 2014; OECD/FAO, 2021). Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify and implement novel, sustainable feed sources for livestock to meet the growing demand for animal-derived proteins while ensuring food availability for future generations. Insects hold promise as an alternative protein source due to their high nutritional value, efficient feed conversion rates, and relatively low environmental footprint compared to conventional livestock (Batat and Peter, 2020; Rodríguez-Miranda et al., 2019; van Huis, 2016). They can be reared on low-quality nutrient sources and organic waste streams, offering a sustainable and resource-efficient solution for the growing demand for proteins (Dörper et al., 2021). Consuming insects has the potential to reduce GHG emissions and land use compared with traditional farming practices (Aidoo et al., 2023; van Huis, 2020). A growing body of evidence suggests that insects can serve as sustainable and nutritious alternatives to conventional protein sources, thus contributing to food security and environmental sustainability (Aidoo et al., 2023). Numerous studies have reported that consumer attitudes towards animal products that feed on insects are generally positive, with a notable willingness to consume them (Bazoche and Poret, 2021; Gasco et al., 2019; Mancuso et al., 2016; Mustapa and Kallas, 2023; Verbeke et al., 2015). Spartano and Grasso (2021) explored the impact of information on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for eggs from insect-fed hens. Their study concluded that information highlighting the environmental benefits, sustainability, and welfare improvements associated with insect-fed hens could mitigate feelings of disgust and food neophobia among UK consumers. Similarly, Barscis et al. (2017) investigated how information affects acceptance of entomophagy (the practice of consuming insects) in Belgium. During a taste test in which participants evaluated bread samples falsely labelled as containing an insect product, those who had attended an information session rated the appearance, flavour, and overall liking of insect-free labelled bread significantly higher. This finding underscores the profound influence of prior knowledge and expectations on perceptions of insect-based foods. Furthermore, Sogari et al. (2021) found that providing information on the benefits of using insects in feed production could encourage environmentally conscious Italian consumers to purchase insect-fed duck meat products. However, there are limited studies on consumer preferences and WTP for animal-product-fed insects, particularly in Spain. Our study aims to address this gap by examining how different contexts of information, specifically how insects are treated and processed for animal feed, affect consumer preferences and acceptance. While numerous studies have highlighted the positive influence of information about environmental benefits and sustainability on the acceptance of insectfed animal products (Rabadán et al., 2023; Sogari et al., 2021), this study uniquely focuses on the impact of different informational contexts on consumer acceptance in Spain. Specifically, it examines how various types of information about the use of insects as feed for farmedanimal products (e.g. chicken meat, pork, and hen eggs) affect consumer acceptance. The findings provide valuable insights for developing effective marketing strategies and promoting sustainable food production. By exploring the role of information in shaping consumer perceptions, this study contributes to the broader adoption of insect-based feed in animal agriculture, supporting global efforts to enhance food security and environmental sustainability. 2 Material and methods Participants and data collection A survey was conducted across Spain using a consumer panel on the QualtricsXM platform and was completed in January 2023. The survey aimed to gather a nationally representative sample of quotas based on gender, age, and geographic area, reflecting the data from the national census. A total of 1,017 valid responses were collected from individuals aged 18 years and above who were involved in household purchase decisions and had purchased pork, chicken, and eggs at least once in the last three months. After the application of the ‘solemn oath’ method proposed by De-Magistris and Pascussi (2014) to reduce hypothetical bias and analyse ‘true’ WTP, 1,006 responses (98.9%) were ultimately included. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three groups, each exposed to a different informational context: (1) video and text descriptions (n = 331), (2) Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 Impact of Information on Preferences for Insect-Fed Animal Products 3 Figure 1 Communication channel framework. video only (n = 336), and (3) no additional information (n = 339). Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Centre for Agrofood Economics and DevelopmentUPC-IRTA (CREDA) Ethics Committee (approval number PID2019-111716RB-I00), and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the collection. The study employed three distinct information formats, as shown in Figure 1: • Format 1: A YouTube video from the CREDA channel discussing the benefits of using insects as an alternative feed in poultry and pig production, complemented by insights into the production of insectbased feed production and data from the European Court of Auditors (2021) on the contribution of animal production to global GHG emissions. • Format 2: The same video without supplementary information. • Format 3: No additional information provided. Table 2 illustrates the specific details of these formats. Survey design and measures The questionnaire comprised six sections: (1) screening questions; (2) eggs, chicken, and pork consumption habits; (3) cheap talk, solemn oath, and different informational context attributions regarding egg, chicken, and pork produced from insect-fed livestock and poultry; (4) the expected WTP of chicken, pork meat, and eggs fed by animal feed enriched with insects; (5) attitudes and beliefs related to insect-fed animal products, including the food neophobia trait and environmental attitudes; and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. Supplementary Material S1 provides the survey questionnaire used in this study. To reduce the hypothetical bias of the questionnaire approach, the ‘cheap talk’ and solemn oath scripts (deMagistris and Pascucci, 2014) were included as ex ante methods to analyse the trueWTP (Figure 2).The respondents who said no to the solemn oath were a minority (1.2%) of the sample and were excluded from the study, with all remaining (1,006) respondents then completing the cheap talk and accepting the solemn oath together. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 4M.A.C. Mustapa, N. Kajad and Z. Kallas Figure 2 Cheap talk and solemn oath details. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.70 for each predictor, indicating strong reliability (Cheung et al., 2024; Heale and Twycross, 2015). The factor loadings were also greater than 0.60, indicating good validity (Heale and Twycross, 2015). Supplementary Material S2 provides detailed information regarding the items used in this study. Contingent valuation method The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is an econometric tool employed to elicit consumers’ stated preferences and estimate their expected WTP for a specific product or service (Haab et al., 2020). This approach is particularly useful for products or services that are not available in the market, as it allows for the holistic valuation of these items, without needing to describe them by their attributes or levels. In the context of the case study provided, the CVM was used to determine how much consumers were willing to pay a premium for the three types of animal products. Using different elicitation methods, including payment cards and open-ended and dichotomous choices, the CVM allows a direct assessment of WTP (Khalil et al., 2024). Data collection and reference prices To account for the varying reference prices of conventional products, respondents were first asked to report the prices they typically pay for 1 kg of chicken meat, 1 kg pork, and 12-pack of eggs through open-ended questions. These self-reported prices served as a baseline for calculating the premium WTP for each respondent. The premium WTP was defined as the additional amount respondents were willing to pay for products derived from animals fed with insects, relative to the price they usually pay for conventional products. The reported price ranges for conventional products were as follows: • Chicken meat (1 kg): €5.00 to €15.00, with a mean of €6.83 (SD =€2.14). • Pork (1 kg): €5.00 to €15.00, with a mean of €7.13 (SD =€2.35). • Eggs (12-pack): €1.00 to €10.00, with a mean of €3.31 (SD =€1.63). The reference prices varied among respondents, with some dispersion observed. However, the standard deviations indicate that most responses fell within a reasonable range, meaning the variation does not significantly impact the analysis. This consistency supports the meaningful analysis of premium WTP. Relationship between reference prices and willingness to pay (WTP) Given these variations in reference prices, it was necessary to analyze their impact on respondents’ WTP for sustainably fed products. The relationship between the price consumers typically pay for conventional products and the premium they are willing to pay was analyzed to ensure consistency. The results indicate that higher baseline reference prices generally correspond to higher WTP premiums. This result is consistent with economic theory, which suggests that consumers who pay higher baseline prices may perceive greater value in sustainability attributes and be more willing to pay a premium. This finding underscores the importance of incorporating individual reference prices into the analysis of WTP for sustainable products. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 Impact of Information on Preferences for Insect-Fed Animal Products 5 Elicitation process The CVM process in this study involved two steps. In the first step, respondents were presented with a payment card format (Table 1) and asked to select an interval representing the additional premium they would be willing to pay for a sustainably fed product. The payment card included options ranging from ‘Nothing extra’ to ‘More than €5.00’, in €0.50 increments. Respondents who selected the ‘Not willing to pay more’ option were directed to a follow-up question probing the rationale behind their decision. This allowed the differentiation between protest responses and genuine refusals, reducing potential preference bias. In the second step, respondents who selected a premium interval were asked to specify the exact additional amount they would be willing to pay above the conventional product price. This two-step approach ensured a more precise estimation of their WTP while addressing potential biases in the elicitation process. The Heckman sample selection model The Heckman sample selection model, also known as the type 2 Tobit model (Quah and Tan, 2009), is a statistical technique used to correct for sample selection bias in regression analysis (Amore and Murtinu, 2021). The model was estimated using the NLOGIT software version 5. The Heckman sample selection model is advantageous in dealing with datasets with a large number of zero observations, especially when studying consumer behaviour for a novel product. Addressing selection bias through a two-step modelling process ensures more accurate and reliable estimates of consumer WTP and other expenditure-related metrics. The first step involves determining whether an individual is willing to purchase a product. This decisionmaking process was modelled using a probit regression model. The selection equation was as follows: Y⁎ i=α 0+α ijZij +ε i where Y⁎ i: the binary response variable (Y⁎ i= 1 indicates that the respondent is willing to pay more for the product, and Y⁎ i= 0 indicates that the respondent is not willing to pay more for the product). α0: the intercept term αij: the coefficient of the explanatory variables Zij: the explanatory variables εi: the error term The second step involves understanding the premium amount willing to be spent by those who have decided to pay more. This was modelled using a linear regression model: Yi=β 0+β ijXij +βλ i+ui where Yithe continuous outcome variable representing the premium price consumers are willing to pay β0the intercept term βij the coefficients to be estimated Xij The vector of explanatory variables for expenditure λithe inverse Mills ratio from the probit estimation uithe error term 3 Results Sociodemographic characteristics and descriptive statistics The sociodemographic characteristics of the survey respondents are summarised in Table 2. Approximately half of the respondents (50.1%) were female. The age distribution shows that 30.2% were between 18 and 34 years old, 33.1% between 35 to 54 years, and 36.7% aged 55 years or older, indicating a good range across different age groups. In terms of education, the majority of respondents had a high level of education (53%). Regarding monthly household income, the majority of consumers earned less than €2,000 per month (59.8%), and consumers perceived their household financial income as an average (40.6%). The descriptive statistics of the survey items are presented inTable 3.The mean scores (M) of the attitudinal variables indicated that on average, consumers had high food neophobia (M = 6.06, SD = 1.58), a high ecocentric environmental attitude (M = 6.38, SD = 1.24), and a moderate attitude towards insects as an animal feed alternative (M = 4.76, SD = 1.72). WTP for animal products fed with insects by information group Table 4 presents the average consumers’ WTP for 1 kg of chicken, 1 kg of pork, and a 12-pack of eggs fed with insects, categorised by the type of information provided to the respondents. Consumers from different groups showed varying levels of WTP premiums. The results also show that the average premium price consumers were willing to pay for 1 kg of chicken fed with insects was €1.59 (23% of the average market price of 1 kg of conventional chicken), for 1 kg of pork fed with insects Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 6M.A.C. Mustapa, N. Kajad and Z. Kallas Table 1 Detail of the information channel randomly attributed to respondents Group 1 Video transcript: From the body of Coleoptera and flies like this one we obtain insect flour; this flour is very rich in animal protein that is manufactured from vegetable waste. The process is simple, the insects feed on the waste of plant residues and once they die, they are transformed into this flour which is then used in the manufacture of animal feed, it is used for chicken, for pork in which experiments have already been done with good results, shrimps and also one of the sites where they can be used for the production of livestock feed, as well as for the production of animal feed for domestic pets. https://www.youtube.com/embed/XJw3i2a2qxo Information: Food production accounts for 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which 53% comes from animal production, 29% from crops and 18% from the supply chain (transportation, packaging, and sales). To increase the sustainability of animal production, recently, in August 2021, the European Commission approved regulation No. 2021/1372 in which the use of insects in poultry (chicken and hens) and pig feed is authorised. The regulation is based in part on the fact that the production of insects is more environmentally sustainable than the production of other protein sources for animal feed. Group 2 Video transcript: From the body of Coleoptera and flies like this one we obtain insect flour; this flour is very rich in animal protein that is manufactured from vegetable waste. The process is simple, the insects feed on the waste of plant residues and once they die, they are transformed into this flour which is then used in the manufacture of animal feed, it is used for chicken, for pork in which experiments have already been done with good results, shrimps and also one of the sites where they can be used for the production of livestock feed, as well as for the production of animal feed for domestic pets. https://www.youtube.com/embed/XJw3i2a2qxo Group 3 No information is given Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 Impact of Information on Preferences for Insect-Fed Animal Products 7 Table 2 Payment card format used in the contingent valuation method Question: Producing chicken/pork/chicken eggs fed with sustainable feed with insect meal involves higher costs for farmers. Taking into account that You have indicated that You usually pay (displaying the respondent’s previous answer) euros for a kilo of chicken breast that You usually buy for home consumption. How much more would You be willing to pay for a kilo of chicken/pork feed with sustainable feed with insect meal? Chicken (1 kg)/Pork (1 kg)/Chicken egg (per package): • Nothing extra • Less than €0.50 •€0.50-1.00 •€1.00-1.50 •€1.50-2.00 •€2.00-2.50 •€2.50-3.00 •€3.00-3.50 •€3.50-4.00 •€4.00-4.50 •€4.50-5.00 • More than €5.00 was €1.50 (21% of the average market price of 1 kg of conventional pork), and for 12 eggs from insect-fed hens was €1.04 (31% of the average market price of 12 conventional eggs). For 1 kg of chicken, consumers in Group 1 (who received both a video and additional information) indicated that they were willing to pay an average premium of €1.53 above the standard price, while those in Group 2 (who only watched a video) were willing to pay €1.41 more. Notably, consumers in Group 3 (who received no information) showed the highest willingness, with an average premium of €1.97 per kilogram. Similarly, for 1 kg of pork, consumers in Group 1 had an average premium of €1.51. Consumers in Group 2 showed a lower WTP premium of €1.29. Group 3 expressed the highest WTP premium for pork, at €1.71. For a package of 12 eggs, Group 1 consumers indicated an average premium of €1.04. By contrast, Group 2 consumers were willing to pay an average premium of €0.80. Finally, Group 3 showed the highest averageWTP premium for eggs, at €1.14. The results show that when consumers did not receive information regarding how insects are reared, treated, and prepared for animal feed consumption, theirWTP was high, and significantly different from that of the other two groups in this case. Furthermore, consumers who watched the video along with information related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions showed increasedWTP compared to those who watched solely the video. Descriptive statistics of WTP Figure 3 presents a description of the WTP premium for 1 kg of chicken meat, 1 kg of pork, and a 12-pack of eggs. The results indicate that for 1 kg of chicken meat, 34.4% of the respondents are unwilling to pay any premium. Among those who are willing to pay, most are inclined to pay modest amounts: 16.5% are willing to pay between €0.50 and €1.00, and 9.1% are willing to pay less than €0.50.The percentage of respondents willing to pay decreases as the premium amount increases, with only 8.2% willing to pay more than €5.00. However, it is notable that the percentage of respondents willing to pay a premium of more than €5.00 increases slightly compared to the preceding premium category, going against the general trend. The average WTP premium is €1.59. A similar trend is observed for 1 kg of pork, with 37.2% of the respondents unwilling to pay a premium. Most of those willing to pay prefer to pay smaller amounts, with 16.0% willing to pay between €0.50 and €1.00, and 8.8% willing to pay less than €0.50. The percentage of respondents willing to pay higher premiums decreases, with only 7.9% willing to pay more than €5.00. However, as with chicken, there is a slight increase in the percentage of respondents willing to pay a premium of more than €5.00 compared to the preJournal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 8M.A.C. Mustapa, N. Kajad and Z. Kallas Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the survey items (percentages, mean scores, and standard deviation) (n = 1,006) Dependent variables Frequency (%) Dependent variables Means (SD) Interpretation Explanatory variables Explanatory variables Gender (female) 50.1 Age Food neophobia 6.06 (1.58) High - 18-34 30.2 - 35-54 33.1 - 55+ 36.7 Food neophilia 4.77 (1.62) Moderate Education - Primary 6.30 - Secondary 40.8 Ecocentric environmental attitude 6.38 (1.24) High - University 53.0 Household income (monthly) - <2.000 €59.8 Anthropocentric environmental attitude 5.00 (1.38) Moderate - 2.000-3.000 €25.1 - 3.001-4.000 €6.50 - 4.001-6.000 €4.60 Attitude towards insect as an animal feed alternative 4.76 (1.72) Moderate - 6.001-8.000 €2.00 - >8.000 €2.00 Household perception of financial income - Far below average 10.2 - Below average 19.8 - Average 40.6 - Above average 24.6 - Far above average 4.90 Mean score interpretation: 1.00-3.00 = Low; 3.01-6.00 = Moderate; 6.01-9.00 = High. Table 4 Average premium willingness to pay (WTP) for animal products fed with insects, categorised by information groups Product categories Average premium WTP (€) ± standard deviation Group 1 (Video + Information) (n = 331) Group 2 (Video only) (n = 336) Group 3 (No information) (n = 339) Average premium WTP (Mean and SD) Chicken (1 kg) 1.53a ± 2.09 1.41a ± 2.10 1.97b ± 3.89 €1.59 ± 2.17 Pork (1 kg) 1.51a ± 2.14 1.29a ± 1.86 1.71b ± 2.57 €1.50 ± 2.15 Egg (Package of 12) 1.04a ± 0.09 0.80a ± 0.09 1.14b ± 0.09 €1.04 ± 1.45 Means of different informational contexts with similar superscript letters (a or b) within the same product category are not significantly different according to the Duncan multiple range test. SD = Standard deviation. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 Impact of Information on Preferences for Insect-Fed Animal Products 9 Figure 3 Distribution of willingness to pay (WTP) premiums for animal products fed with insects, categorised by product type. ceding category. The average WTP premium for pork is slightly lower, at €1.50. The WTP premium for a 12-pack of eggs also follows a similar pattern, with 37.3% of respondents unwilling to pay any premium. Of those willing to pay, 16.3% are willing to pay between €0.50 and €1.00, and 16.0% are willing to pay less than €0.50. As with chicken and pork, fewer respondents are willing to pay higher premiums, with only 1.6% willing to pay more than €5.00. However, unlike chicken and pork, there is no increase in the percentage of respondents willing to pay a premium of more than €5.00, with only 1.6% in this category. The average WTP premium for eggs is €1.04. Reasons for non-willingness to pay more for animal products fed with insects Figure 4 shows the distribution of reasons given by the protestors for being unwilling to pay a premium for insect-fed chicken meat, pork, or eggs, segmented into three groups. The highest percentage of respondents in all groups cited ‘I cannot pay more because my food budget does not allow it’ as the primary reason for rejection. This reason was cited by 41% of Group 1, 36% of Group 2, and 43% of Group 3, indicating that financial limitations are a significant barrier. The second most common reason was ‘I don’t trust this type of sustainable food with insect feed’. This was mentioned by 20.0% in Group 1, 26.0% in Group 2, and 23.0% in Group 3, highlighting a notable level of scepticism and distrust towards insect-fed sustainable food products. Figure 4 Percentages of reasons for non-willingness to pay for animal products fed with insects across different information groups. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 16 M.A.C. Mustapa, N. Kajad and Z. Kallas Gasco, L., Biasato, I., Dabbou, S., Schiavone, A. and Gai, F., 2019. Quality and consumer acceptance of products from insect-fed animals. In: Sogari, G., Mora, C. and Menozzi, D. (eds.) Edible insects in the food sector: methods, current applications and perspectives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 73-86. https://doi.org /10.1007/978-3-030-22522-3_6 Gorton, M., Yeh, C.H., Chatzopoulou, E., White, J., Tocco, B., Hubbard, C. and Hallam, F., 2023. Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics 209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023 .107852 Haab, T., Lewis, L.Y. and Whitehead, J., 2020. State of the art of contingent valuation. In: Kahn, J.R. (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Available at: https://www .oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref /9780190631918.001.0001/acref-9780190631918-e-450 Heale, R. and Twycross, A., 2015. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing 18: 66-67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129 Henchion, M., Moloney, A.P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J. and McCarthy, S., 2021. Review: Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal 15: 100287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal .2021.100287 Hyland, J.J., Regan, Á., Sweeney, S., McKernan, C., Benson, T. and Dean, M., 2022. Consumers attitudes toward animal welfare friendly produce: an island of Ireland study. Frontiers in Animal Science 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim .2022.930930 Ingenbleek, P.T.M. and Immink, V.M., 2011. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare 20: 11-19. https://doi.org/10 .1017/S0962728600002384 IPCC, 2019. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11 /SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf Ju, Y., Back, K.-J., Choi, Y. and Lee, J.-S., 2019. Exploring Airbnb service quality attributes and their asymmetric effects on customer satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management 77: 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm .2018.07.014 Kadanalİ, E. and Dağdemİr, V., 2016. Consumers’s willingness to purchase local food products. Khalil, R., Kallas, Z., Pujolà, M. and Haddarah, A., 2024. Consumerswillingness to pay for snacks enriched with insects: a trending and sustainable protein source. Future Foods 9: 100360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100360 Kim, S.W., Less, J.F., Wang, L., Yan, T., Kiron, V., Kaushik, S.J. and Lei, X.G., 2019. Meeting global feed protein demand: challenge, opportunity, and strategy. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 7: 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1146 /annurev-animal-030117-014838 Li, S. and Kallas, Z., 2021. Meta-analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite 163: 105239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105239 Mancuso, T., Baldi, L. and Gasco, L., 2016. An empirical study on consumer acceptance of farmed fish fed on insect meals: the Italian case. Aquaculture International 24: 14891507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-016-0007-z Miranda, S., Tavares, P. and Queiró, R., 2018. Perceived service quality and customer satisfaction: a fuzzy set QCA approach in the railway sector. Journal of Business Research 89: 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017 .12.040 Mustapa, M.A.C. and Kallas, Z., 2023. Towards more sustainable animal-feed alternatives: a survey on Spanish consumers’ willingness to consume animal products fed with insects. Sustainable Production and Consumption 41: 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.027 Nandi, R., Bokelmann, W., Gowdru, N.V. and Dias, G., 2017. Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to pay for organic fruits and vegetables: empirical evidence from a consumer survey in India. Journal of Food Products Marketing 23: 430-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2015 .1048018 Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A. and Braghieri, A., 2008. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 910-917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709 OECD/FAO, 2021. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021. Poortvliet, P.M., Van der Pas, L., Mulder, B.C. and Fogliano, V., 2019. Healthy, but disgusting: an investigation into consumers’ willingness to try insect meat. Journal of Economic Entomology 112: 1005-1010. https://doi.org/10.1093 /jee/toz043 Puteri, B., Jahnke, B. and Zander, K., 2023. Booming the bugs: How can marketing help increase consumer acceptance of insect-based food in Western countries? Appetite 187: 106594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106594 Quah, S.H. and Tan, A.K.G., 2009. A Heckman sample selection approach to the demand for organic food products: an exploratory study using Penang data. Journal of Food Products Marketing 15: 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10454440802537363 Rabadán, A., Molina, A. and Bernabéu, R., 2023. The role of information and attitudes towards more sustainable techJournal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17 Impact of Information on Preferences for Insect-Fed Animal Products 17 nologies in the acceptance of insects as a food ingredient. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 9: 845-854. https://doi .org/10.3920/JIFF2022.0145 Rodríguez-Miranda, J., Alcántar-Vázquez, J.P., Zúñiga-Marroquín, T. and Juárez-Barrientos, J.M., 2019. Insects as an alternative source of protein: a review of the potential use of grasshopper (Sphenarium purpurascens Ch.) as a food ingredient. European Food Research and Technology 245: 2613-2620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03383-0 Rosenzweig, C., Mbow, C., Barioni, L.G., Benton, T.G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E.T., Pradhan, P., RiveraFerre, M.G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F.N., Xu, Y., Mencos Contreras, E. and Portugal-Pereira, J., 2020. Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nature Food 1: 94-97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020 -0031-z Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., Mora, C., Gariglio, M., Gasco, L. and Schiavone, A., 2021. How information affects consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for poultry farmed with insect-based meal and live insects. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8: 197-206. https://doi.org/10 .3920/JIFF2021.0034 Sogari, G., Riccioli, F., Moruzzo, R., Menozzi, D., Tzompa Sosa, D.A., Li, J., Liu, A. and Mancini, S., 2023. Engaging in entomophagy: the role of food neophobia and disgust between insect and non-insect eaters. Food Quality and Preference 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104764 Sriwaranun, Y., Gan, C., Lee, M. and Cohen, D.A., 2015. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic products in Thailand. International Journal of Social Economics 42: 480510. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-09-2013-0204 Strzok, J.L. and Huffman, W.E., 2015. Willingness to pay for organic food products and organic purity: experimental evidence. AgBioForum 18: 345-353. Sun-Waterhouse, D., Waterhouse, G.I.N., You, L., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Ma, L., Gao, J. and Dong, Y., 2016. Transforming insect biomass into consumer wellness foods: a review. Food Research International 89: 129-151. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.foodres.2016.10.001 Tan, H.S.G., van den Berg, E. and Stieger, M., 2016. The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Quality and Preference 52: 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.foodqual.2016.05.003 Tiboldo, G., Casolani, N., Reguzzi, M.C., Cominelli, F., Coderoni, S., Arata, L. and Mazzoni, E., 2024. Factors influencing Italian consumers’ willingness to buy and pay for insectfed poultry products. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 10: 1661-1675. https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-00001041 Török, Á., Yeh, C.-H., Menozzi, D., Balogh, P. and Czine, P., 2023. Consumers’ preferences for processed meat: a bestworst scaling approach in three European countries. Agricultural and Food Economics 11: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186 /s40100-023-00277-4 van Huis, A., 2016. Edible insects are the future? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75: 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1017 /S0029665116000069 van Huis, A., 2020. Nutrition and health of edible insects. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 23: 228-231. https://doi.org/10.1097/mco.0000000000000641 Vapa-Tankosić, J., Ignjatijević, S., Kranjac, M., Lekić, S. and Prodanović, R., 2018. Willingness to pay for organic products on the Serbian market. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21: 791-801. Verbeke, W., 2015. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 39: 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016 /J.FOODQUAL.2014.07.008 Verbeke, W., Spranghers, T., De Clercq, P., De Smet, S., Sas, B. and Eeckhout, M., 2015. Insects in animal feed: acceptance and its determinants among farmers, agriculture sector stakeholders and citizens. Animal Feed Science and Technology 204: 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015 .04.001 Wu, J.-J., Hwang, J.-N., Sharkhuu, O. and Tsogt-Ochir, B., 2018. Shopping online and off-line? Complementary service quality and image congruence. Asia Pacific Management Review 23: 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.01 .004 Zarei, G., Asgarnezhad Nuri, B. and Noroozi, N., 2019. The effect of Internet service quality on consumers’ purchase behavior: the role of satisfaction, attitude, and purchase intention. Journal of Internet Commerce 18: 197-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1585724 Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 0 (2025) 1–17