Literature review explores consumer acceptance of novel foods, highlighting digital influences and barriers to acceptance.
The accelerating urgency of global public health challenges, biodiversity loss, and climate change has driven rapid innovation in novel foods and alternative proteins, including cultured cells, fermentation-derived components, plant-based meats, insects, and algae, which promise nutritious, sustainable, and ethical dietary choices with lower environmental footprints. Although technologies have advanced, consumer perception and preferences remain key hindrances due to perceptual, cultural, and sensory challenges. This semi-systematic narrative literature review aims to incorporate interdisciplinary studies (2020–2025) that span sensory science, AI-driven marketing, behavioral economics, and policy analysis to explore consumer incentives, barriers, and intervention approaches associated with novel food categories. Of 1260 initial records, 310 duplicates were removed, 530 were excluded at title/abstract screening, 233 were excluded at full-text review, leaving 197 studies for the final synthesis. The focus is on understanding cultural contexts, cognitive biases, digital and social influences, and the global framing impacts that shape consumer adoption. Consumer perceptions and preferences are primarily influenced by health benefits, ethical concerns, and environmental sustainability; however, neophobia, sensory unfamiliarity, trust deficits, and price temper these factors. Preliminary evidence suggests that AI-generated personalization, transparent labeling, behavioral nudges, and social norms may be useful tools for overcoming resistance to change, though the effectiveness of AI-driven personalization in actual purchasing behavior is not yet firmly established. Cultural diversity affects acceptance routes, with culturally established insect consumption differing from Western neophobia. Future studies should integrate interdisciplinary methodologies, longitudinal cross-cultural analyses, and innovative technologies to enhance communication and product design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manzoor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: