Edible insects have attracted attention as a potential source of sustainable food. However, as in other developed countries, Japanese consumers have exhibited low acceptance of insect-based foods. Existing studies on consumer preferences for edible insects have mainly focused on Europe and the United States, while evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America remains limited. In particular, few studies have examined consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for insect-based foods or assessed the effectiveness of acceptance-enhancing strategies in Japan. Improving consumer acceptance therefore requires an understanding of consumer preferences and WTP, as well as differentiation of insect-based foods from conventional products through attributes such as nutritional value. To address these gaps, this study conducted an online survey incorporating a discrete choice experiment targeting Japanese consumers. The analysis pursued two objectives:estimation of consumer WTP for snack products containing cricket powder and evaluation of the effect of nutritional information on WTP through random assignment to information and no-information groups. Choice data were analyzed using a mixed logit model to account for preference heterogeneity. The results showed that the marginal WTP for snack products containing cricket powder ranged from −108.5 to −76.6 yen relative to conventional snack products, indicating strong aversion to insect-based foods among Japanese consumers. In contrast, nutritional information had no statistically significant effect on WTP, suggesting that health- and nutrition-related information alone is insufficient to mitigate negative perceptions or emotional responses. This reflects a mismatch between the information provided and consumer needs, or the possibility that any positive informational effect is offset by the strongly negative baseline valuation of the product. Overall, the findings suggest that expanding acceptance of insect-based foods in Japan requires a multifaceted approach beyond nutritional attributes alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tohya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: