Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines how food neophobia and food interest affect culinary intentions regarding edible insects, highlighting implications for future food security.
Edible insects are a promising source for sustainable protein transformation due to their low environmental impact, high nutrient density, and suitability for circular food systems; however, despite their high technical potential, culinary and societal acceptance remains low. While the literature has largely focused on consumer acceptance, culinary professionals’ intention to incorporate edible insects into recipes has been understudied. This study examines the direct and indirect associations of perceived future food insecurity with the intention to incorporate edible insects into recipes, mediated by food neophobia and food interest. Protection Motivation Theory was used as a guiding theoretical lens to conceptualize perceived future food insecurity as a threat-related contextual perception, rather than as a full test of the theory. Data were collected from 400 culinary students across seven regions of Turkey; confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were applied. The direct effect of perceived future food insecurity on recipe incorporation intention was not significant (β = −0.015). However, perceived future food insecurity was negatively associated with food neophobia (β = −0.212) and positively associated with food interest (β = 0.138); food neophobia was negatively associated with recipe incorporation intention (β = −0.225), whereas food interest was positively associated with it (β = 0.715). Both indirect effects were statistically significant, indicating indirect-only mediation. The findings provide context-specific evidence extending the edible-insect literature from personal consumption intention toward professional recipe incorporation intention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Onat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: