Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
F A C U L T Y O F S C I E N C E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C O P E N H A G E N
Master’s thesis Jonas Astrup Pedersen
Disgusting or delicious Utilization of bee larvae as ingredient and consumer acceptance of the resulting food
Academic advisor: Michael Bom Frøst Co-supervisors: Josh Evans, Ben Reade Submitted: 01/04/14
2
Title page
Name of department: Department of Food Science Author: Jonas Astrup Pedersen Title / Subtitle: Disgusting or delicious / Utilization of bee
larvae as ingredient and consumer ac-ceptance of the resulting food
Academic advisor: Michael Bom Frøst 1, 2 Co-supervisors: Josh Evans 2, Ben Reade 2 Submitted: 01/04/14 1 Department of Food Science, Sensory Science, Faculty of Science, University
of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 30, DK-1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark
2 Nordic Food Lab c/o Noma, Strandgade 93, DK-1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark
3
Acknowledgements
I gratefully thank and concede my academic advisor, Michael Bom
Frøst, whom have served guidance and been helpful throughout the
academic process and its embedded considerations. I also thank co-
supervisors, Josh Evans and Ben Reade for interesting conversa-
tions, Davide Giacalone for a brief discussion on particular results,
Edith Salminen for being extremely helpful with practicalities in
relation to carrying out consumer tests, Belinda Nielsen for provid-
ing ceramic service, and research interns of Nordic Food Lab for
inputs in the creative gastronomic explorations of bee larvae as
well as the many delicious family meals, gathering the team around
the table everyday at lunch.
Thank you University of Copenhagen, thank you Nordic Food Lab.
God appetit!
Jonas Astrup Pedersen, Marts 2014
4
Abbreviations
TETT
CATA Check-all-that-apply
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations
FCP Free-Choice-Profiling
FNS Food Neophobia Scale
FP Free Profiling
JAR Just-about-right
NFL Nordic Food Lab
NPD New product development
PCA Principle Component Analysis
PLS Partial Least Square
UFP Ultra-Flash Profile
VST Variety-seeking tendency
5
Abstract
A gastronomic exploration and utilization of the deliciousness of bee larvae as ingredient was
carried out based on Creative design method in order to study the consumer acceptance of the
resulting food. Three vegetable based soups were created and cooked for consumer test differed
in having: (1) visible bee larvae, (2) no visible bee larvae and (3) no bee larvae. A central loca-
tion test was set up at three different shopping centers in Copenhagen, striving to aim a meal
situation. Consumers (n = 92) evaluated a six-item Food Neophobia Scale (FNS), willingness to
try and eat bee larvae, liking, 13-item check-all-that-apply (CATA), how similar or different the
perceived flavor of the samples was according to the expected and satisfaction as likelihood of
recommending others to try bee larvae. Liking was found above neutral for all three soups. Soup
with no bee larvae was liked the most, soup with visible bee larvae the least. Two-way multiple
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out with liking as response. Significant difference
was found amongst the soups, not between serving orders or test locations. Probability of liking
was found correlated to food neophobia for both soups containing bee larvae. Willingness to try
and eat bee larvae was found above neutral, proposing soup as an appropriate chosen gastro-
nomic context for bee larvae. Dichotomized groups by liking suggest a positive correlation be-
tween willingness to try and eat bee larvae and liking. ANOVA-Partial Least Square (A-PLS)
was used to analyze product differences obtained from CATA. No significant descriptor was
found performing external preference mapping with CATA and liking, but ‘Visible bee larvae’ is
indicated to be the only design factor and CATA attribute to affect sample variation, suggested
as a visual hurdle for even higher liking and acceptance. CATA and FNS-scores was used to
carry out PLS. ‘Easy to eat’ was the only descriptor found to have significant effect on sample
variation, hence believed to fulfill one of the main features of the concept within the develop-
ment process. Effects of how similar or different the perceived flavor of the samples was accord-
ing to the expected are approached by theories of sensory and hedonic expectations, suggesting
bee larvae as novel ingredient and soup as appropriate gastronomic context. Mean value for the
likelihood of recommending others to try bee larvae was found above neutral, indicating that
satisfaction was provoked in consumers. The choice of methodology and collaboration between
University of Copenhagen and Nordic Food Lab was found useful in order to approach what
food might become an integrated delicious ingredient in Western diets in the future. This study
has taken the first steps but encourage further research to be carried out.
6
Content
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... 3!
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... 4!
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 5!
CONTENT ....................................................................................................................... 6!
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9!
1! FOOD EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................... 11!1.1! Person ................................................................................................................................................................ 13!
1.1.1! Food neophobia ........................................................................................................................................... 15!1.1.2! Expectations ................................................................................................................................................ 16!1.1.3! Disgust and willingness .............................................................................................................................. 18!1.1.4! Satisfaction and loyalty ............................................................................................................................... 20!
1.2! Context ............................................................................................................................................................... 21!1.3! Product .............................................................................................................................................................. 22!
1.3.1! Novel foods and new product development ............................................................................................... 22!1.3.1.1! Check-all-that-apply ........................................................................................................................... 23!
1.4! Creative design methodology ........................................................................................................................... 24!
2! GASTRONOMIC EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 26!2.1! Nordic Food Lab ............................................................................................................................................... 26!
2.1.1! Discerning Taste: Deliciousness as an Argument for Entomophagy ......................................................... 26!2.1.2! Utilization of bee larvae as ingredient ........................................................................................................ 27!
2.2! Creative design step 1: prioritizing, selection and set up .............................................................................. 30!2.2.1! Bee larvae soup ........................................................................................................................................... 30!
2.3! Creative design step 2: sensory evaluation ..................................................................................................... 33!2.3.1! Napping® with Ultra Flash Profile ............................................................................................................. 33!2.3.2! Evaluation of Napping® with Ultra Flash Profile ...................................................................................... 34!
2.4! Creative design step 3: consumer test ............................................................................................................. 36!
3! MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................ 37!3.1! Consumers ......................................................................................................................................................... 37!3.2! Locations ............................................................................................................................................................ 37!3.3! Samples .............................................................................................................................................................. 39!3.4! Questionnaire .................................................................................................................................................... 39!3.5! Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 41!
7
4! RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 44!4.1! Effect of food neophobia .................................................................................................................................. 45!4.2! Willingness ........................................................................................................................................................ 46!4.3! Liking ................................................................................................................................................................. 47!4.4! Expectation and recommendation .................................................................................................................. 48!4.5! Descriptive dimension ...................................................................................................................................... 49!
5! DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 52!5.1! The role of neophobia ....................................................................................................................................... 52!5.2! Impact of willingness ........................................................................................................................................ 52!5.3! Liking and satisfaction ..................................................................................................................................... 53!5.4! The descriptive dimension ............................................................................................................................... 54!5.5! Expectancy ........................................................................................................................................................ 55!5.6! Considerations and future perspectives ......................................................................................................... 56!
6! CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 58!
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 59!
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 67!Appendix I: Recipes ................................................................................................................................................... 67!Appendix II: Tukey test ............................................................................................................................................. 68!Appendix III: Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................................... 69!
8
Graphical content
FIGURES Figure 1. Sensory science as product-person relations in a continuum. ....................................................................... 12!Figure 2. Conceptualization of product, person and context. ....................................................................................... 13!Figure 3. Schematic representation of the curiosity hypothesis. .................................................................................. 17!Figure 4. Napping® data structure. .............................................................................................................................. 34!Figure 5. Bi-Plot for the nine prototype recipes. .......................................................................................................... 35!Figure 7. Proportional Odds Model: ’Non-visible’. ..................................................................................................... 45!Figure 6. Proportional Odds Model: ’Visible’. ............................................................................................................ 45!Figure 9. Boxplot of total liking for ’Spinderiet’, ’Fields’ and ’Torvehallerne’. ......................................................... 47!Figure 8. Boxplot of total liking for ’Visible’, ‘Non-visible’ and ’Vegetable’. ........................................................... 47!Figure 10. Correlation loading plot of CATA-Liking. ................................................................................................. 50!Figure 11. Correlation loading plot of CATA-Neophobia including descriptors for CATA. ...................................... 50!Figure 12. A-PLS CATA. ............................................................................................................................................. 51!
TABLES Table 1. Ten-item FNS-questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 15!Table 2. Psychological categories of acceptance and rejection. ................................................................................... 19!Table 3. Design setup: the concept in Frame 1 and prioritized attributes in Frame 2 made into nine ‘recipes’. ......... 31!Table 4. Six-item FNS-questionnaire. .......................................................................................................................... 39!Table 5. List of check-all-that-apply (CATA) attributes. ............................................................................................. 40!Table 6. Mean values overview. ................................................................................................................................... 44!Table 7. ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’ mean values for ’Willingness’. .......................................................................... 46!Table 8. ANOVA: ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’. Response: ‘Willingness’. .................................................................. 46!Table 9. Two-way multiple ANOVA. Sample and Group. Response: ‘Liking’. ......................................................... 48!Table 10. Two-way multiple ANOVA. Sample and Location. Response: ‘Liking’. ................................................... 48!Table 11. Total counts of check-all-that-apply attributes for each recipe .................................................................... 49!Table 12. p-values from Tukey test: group comparison of liking. ............................................................................... 68!
FRAMES Frame 1. Description of the main features of the concept behind the bee larvae products. ......................................... 31!Frame 2. Attributes prioritized for experimentation. ................................................................................................... 31!Frame 3. Recipe 1. Visible bee larvae, much vegetables aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae .............. 32!Frame 4. Recipes for consumer test ............................................................................................................................. 36!
PICTURES Picture 1. Bee larvae in brood comb. ........................................................................................................................... 29!Picture 2. Bee larvae separated from brood comb. ....................................................................................................... 29!Picture 3. Consumer evaluating. ................................................................................................................................... 43!Picture 4. Soups in pots. ............................................................................................................................................... 43!
9
Introduction
There are two facts that cannot be contradicted: 1) rapidly growth of the human population cre-
ates an increased demand for food; and 2) only limited energy and land resources are available to
produce this food (Pimentel et al., 1975; Yen, 2009). As a central topic within the consequences
of these arguments and its prerequisites, lies the production of livestock and meat products. The
current high consumption of such products has been addressed as a key subject, if Western con-
sumers are to shift towards a diet implicating greater sustainable concerns (Leitzmann, 2003;
Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003; Reijnders & Soret, 2003; Schösler et al., 2012). In perspective,
compared to plant-protein production, meat-protein production requires, on average, 10 times the
land (Leitzmann, 2003), alternatively, 10 g of vegetable protein are needed to produce 1 g of
animal protein (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2007; Reijnders & Soret, 2003). Of the entire worlds har-
vest of grain, approximately 40% is fed to animals. Half of this grain would be sufficient in order
to feed all hungry persons on Planet Earth (Leitzmann, 2003).
About forty years ago, acclaimed anthropologist, Douglas (1972) introduced how meals in Unit-
ed Kingdom follow underlying systems of rules, and how the status of meet is connected to the
meals structural aspects. She identified hierarchies of people’s valuation of food on a trans-
cultural basis, in which meat was ranked the highest being the center of meals (Douglas &
Nicod, 1974). In other words, meat constitutes itself as the most sacred, powerful, highly priced,
and yet potentially, most defiling food (Holm & Møhl, 2000). Considering the vast variety of
factors influencing food patterns and consumer behaviorism, shifting focus from the popular
meat to either substitutes or alternatives, will most likely require a profound social transition
(Schösler et al., 2012).
One type of food, inherent, familiar and regularly eaten by at least two billion people worldwide,
thus still immense taboo of the Western societies (Huis et al., 2013), could poses qualities to
encounter above-mentioned issues and dilemmas. The food in focus is insects. To emphasize the
relevance of insects, a 2013 report published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of The
United Nations (FAO), lists several reasons for eating insects, called entomophagy, with con-
cepts of health, environmental and livelihood aspects as argument (Huis et al., 2013). Although
scientific work and academic motivation primarily seems focused on insects as food due to its
10
nutritional properties as well as its sustainable way of produce (Yen, 2009), no one appears to
pay attention to the mere idea of insects as utterly delicious. However, the Nordic Food Lab
does.
In Denmark, bee larvae are a by-product of apiculture and so constitutes the most abundant
source of farmed insects within the country. Nevertheless, Denmark has no tradition for eating
insects. An exploration of culinary approaches and knowledge in combination with academic
basis, argumentation and creative design method is launched. This is done in order to contribute,
meet and envision aspects of what could be tasteful and culinary incorporated foods of the future
in Western diets in general, and in Danish diet in specific,
The purpose of this research and development is to utilize bee larvae as ingredient and investi-
gate the consumer acceptance of the resulting foods. Experimental work should generate results
to answer following:
! How does food neophobia effects acceptance of food with bee larvae?
! Which sensory attributes characterize bee larvae?
! Are bee larvae as ingredient and the gastronomic context found appropriate?
11
1 Food experience
Whenever eating, drinking or otherwise experiencing food flavor, human senses rarely operate
independently even though they are anatomically separated (Yeomans et al., 2008). Perceiving
flavor is a multi-faceted experience, involving different multitudes of smell, taste, sight, sound,
touch, temperature and irritation/pain (Delwiche, 2004). A clear differentiation between senses is
often found difficult. An everyday widespread confusion between senses of taste and smell, is
the fact that people commonly refer losing their ability to taste when having their nose blocked
(Auvray & Spence, 2008). Another example is that the odor of vanilla being consistently report-
ed (by western participants) as smelling sweet, even though sweetness is associated with stimula-
tion of the sense of taste (Stevenson & Boakes, 2004). As a consequence Stevenson & Boakes
(2004) suggest that a induced synesthetic experience of taste elicited by odor, is common to all.
Alternatively, the existence of an additional flavor sense reflecting the interaction between taste
and smell has also been argued (Abdi, 2002; Prescott, 1999). Reflections on such more or less
contradictory arguments provoked Gibson (1966) to question the taxonomy of our senses, as it
seemed possible to him that the multisensory human flavor perception, and its belonged taxo-
nomic relations, not necessarily corresponded to how ordinary people would categorize and de-
scribe senses of smell and taste.
Several attempts has been made in order to define the flavor perceptual system unified by the act
eating, e.g. Gibson (1966), whom argued that taste (contemporary referred as flavor perception)
should be considered not as a sensory modality but as a perceptual modality; taste in a broad
sense. This implies a distinction between the two main approaches of defining our perceptions:
the modal and the amodal (Auvray & Spence, 2008). The modal approach conceives a percep-
tion as a result of a sensation, by linking the specific sensory modality to the sense from which it
was generated (Locke, 1690; Berkeley, 1709; Tichener, 1909; Auvray & Spence, 2008). The
definition of the modal approach is inherited from Aristotle, who conceived senses as passive
containers of external data, making the classification of senses in terms of different types of sen-
sory receptors involved, the perhaps most widespread definition within science (Auvray &
Spence, 2008). In contrast, the amodal approach does not base perceptions on sensations, but
somewhat arise as results of information extraction processes (Auvray & Spence, 2008). The
extracted information is then abstract, and therefore not depended on the particular sensory mo-
12
dality by which it was generated (Auvray & Spence, 2008). As a consequently interpretation,
sensations are specific to each sensory modality, perceptions are not (Gibson, 1966; O'Regan &
Noë, 2001; Varela et al., 1991; Auvray & Spence, 2008). Defining senses by the distinction be-
tween sensory stimulation and perceptual information lead Gibson (1966) to develop an ecologi-
cal approach to perception. Based on the specific approach along recent cognitive neuroscien-
tific findings, Auvray & Spence (2008) propose that flavor perception, when eating, should al-
low different qualities of an object to be combined into a whole percept. The term in then used to
describe the combination of smell, taste, touch, the trigeminal system as well as visual and audi-
tory cues, making it a perceptual modality rather than a separate sensory modality (Auvray &
Spence, 2008).
Food choices belongs to some of the most frequent human behaviors, and even though it might
express itself as simple actions, food choice consists of very complicated behavioral engage-
ments, influenced by a great amount of interacting factors (Köster, 2007). The different factors
involved belong to a vast diversity of traditional scientific disciplines, all claiming a partial an-
swer to the central issues of food choice research: ‘Why does who eat what, when, and where?’
(Köster, 2007). The importance of research within sensory science and the study of multisensory
processes involving perception of flavor and other related concepts, is believed to be of great
importance and influential value to the food industry; to better understand how people evaluate
acceptability and flavor of new products (Auvray & Spence, 2008; Gilbert & Firestein, 2002;
Shepherd, 2006). Figure 1 illustrates the essential interfaces linking sensory science: first, prod-
uct-person interface as eating involves interaction between food (product) and consumer (per-
son); and second, person-person interface bridging sensory analytical science to behavior science
(Martens, 1999).
Natural
science and technology
Sensory science
Behavior
science and humanities
Product Person
!Figure 1. Sensory science as product-person relations in a continuum. From Martens (1999).
13
The process by which humans accepts or rejects food; the acceptance of food, is by nature a mul-
ti-dimensional structure, not only dynamic and variable among certain individuals within a cer-
tain group, but also within the same individual over time and in different contexts (Costell et al.,
2009). Basically, food acceptance is the outcome of the interaction between food and person at a
certain time (Shepherd, 1989). A superficial outline of factors influencing consumers decision to
either accept or reject food could be food characteristics (physical structure and properties,
chemical and nutritional composition), consumer characteristics (gender, age, group, psycholog-
ical and physiological state) and consumers environment (cultural habits, family, education,
price, convenience, religion and fashion) (Shepherd, 1989; Shepherd & Sparks, 1994). Figure 2
seeks to conceptualize such outline.
Central concepts of the multidimensional interactions between the underlying themes of product,
person and context will be examined in relation to food. This serves as a prerequisite in order to
assess methods, results and to discuss the outcome of consumer tests.
1.1 Person Conceptualizing feeding regulation and food intake in humans is most often proposed by two
parallel interacting systems (Hommel et al., 2006; Lutter & Nestler, 2009; Morton et al., 2006).
The (1) homeostatic system involving hormonal regulators of hunger and satiety such as insulin,
ghrelin and leptin, acting on hypothalamic and brainstem circuits in order to maintain appropri-
ate levels of energy by inhibiting feeding (Kenny, 2011); and the (2) brain reward system imply-
ing hedonic evaluation, most likely to influence food procurement as well as establishing prefer-
ences and aversions for food playing an important role in feeding behavior (Lutter & Nestler,
Figure 2. Conceptualization of product, person and context.
14
2009; Saper et al., 2002; Johnson, 2013). Hedonic responses are driven by palatability and re-
warding properties of food with no regards to its energetic content (Berthoud et al., 2011;
Kenny, 2011; Lutter & Nestler, 2009). In comparison, much is known about homeostatic mecha-
nisms, less is known on how exactly hedonic systems influence food intake (Kenny, 2011). Nev-
ertheless, when consumers responds towards to a given food, it is when simplified, defined by: a
(a) sensory component, reflecting the sensory perception by the individual; an (b) affective com-
ponent, summarizing the positive or negative response toward a given food; a (c) cognitive com-
ponent, stemming from knowledge and opinions about the food; and a (d) behavioral component,
involving actions or intentions defining how willing the individual is to do something in specific
situations (Costell et al., 2009).
A major determinant in food choices is the hedonic liking (Tuorila & Pangborn, 1988). Yet, even
though foods are normally chosen repetitively over time, personal and situational factors often
elicit best-liked alternatives not to be chosen (Lähteenmäki & van Trijp, 1995). Such behavior
may be caused by explicit external factors, but also by intrinsic factors within the individual and
ones need for variety, recognized as a normal part of food choice behavior (McAlister &
Pessemier, 1982). This gives rise to a central concept of interests within sensory science, denoted
as variety-seeking tendency, as one way to increase greater variety in food consumption, is by
choosing unfamiliar items (Lähteenmäki & van Trijp, 1995). In foods, Lähteenmäki & van Trijp
(1995) explains variety-seeking tendency as in a (1) short-term by sensory-specific satiety: as
satiation of certain sensory properties of a food enhances during consumption, and as in the (2)
long term, by believing variety-seeking tendency to relate to engaging individuals to strive for
optimal level of variation in food choices in order to gain optimal stimulation level. The French
food sociologist, Fischler (1988) revolves around the same topic, and introduces the omnivores
paradox. He explains the tension between the affinity for novelty (neophile) and the fear for
novelty (neophobia) as by biological and nutritional factors as well as psychological and contex-
tual matters. This is expressed through constant movements between the known and the less
known.
15
1.1.1 Food neophobia
The reluctance to eat novel food is assumed to serve as a protective function when entering a
potentially hostile food environment (Pliner et al., 1993). However, to capitalize on the ad-
vantages of being an omnivore, omnivores have to be willing to try novel food items. Rozin
(1978) express this as the omnivores dilemma; omnivores have to both avoid and approach novel
foods. Humans has nevertheless, along other omnivorous animals, been characterized as neo-
phobic with respect to food (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). As a derivative of the work by Rozin, food
neophobia is often described as the reluctance to eat or avoid new foods (Birch & Fisher, 1998).
In order to measure consumers attitudes towards new food and to conceptualize food neophobia
as a personality trait, Pliner & Hobden (1992) developed the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS); a
continuum of which consumers could be located according to their tendency to either approach
or avoid novel foods. In practice, a 10-item questionnaire including five positively worded and
five negatively worded statements, measured on a 7-point scale from disagree strongly to agree
strongly, was created, see Table 1. Positive items are reversed, making higher FNS-scores re-
flecting greater reluctance to try novel foods.
Table 1. Ten-item FNS-questionnaire
How well do you agree or disagree with this statement
1. 2.
I am constantly sampling new and different foods (R) I don’t’ trust new foods
3. If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it 4. 5.
I like foods from different countries (R) Ethnic foods look too weird to at
6. At dinner parties, I will try a new food (R) 7. I am afraid to try things I know I have never had before 8. 9.
I am particular about the foods I will eat I will eat almost anything (R)
10. I will new ethnic restaurants (R)
Original FNS-questionnaire (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) with some word exchanges (Henriques et al., 2009). Itali-cized items were included in six-item scale. Items followed by (R) indicate that they are reversed when scoring.
Although the development of the FNS has stimulated research into food neophobia, only little
research aiming at product development has been published (Henriques et al., 2009). However, a
validation and cross-national comparison of the FNS has been carried out by Ritchey et al.
(2003) based on data from United States, Sweden and Finland. They found a 6-item FNS appli-
cable for all three countries, including four positive and two negative worded statements, see
italicized items in Table 1. The range of possible scores is 6-42.
16
1.1.2 Expectations
In relation to consumer and marketing science, expectation has been described as ‘subjective
notions of things to come’ or ‘type of hypothesis formulated by the consumer’ (Anderson & Hair,
1972) and as ‘pre-trial beliefs about the product’ (Olson & Dover, 1979). In food acceptance and
sensory research the cognitive construction of ‘expectations’ is found used in both sensory and
hedonic experiences (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992): (a) sensory-based expectations, e.g. the belief
that a certain food item will contain specific sensory attributes and intensities, or (b) hedonic-
based expectations, e.g. the belief that a certain food item will cause a certain level of liking or
disliking. Any mismatch between the actual product attributes experienced and the expected,
creates disconfirmation and in the case of hedonic expectations, this can either turn out positive
(better than expected) or negative (worse than expected) (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992). To describe
how disconfirmation can influence the perception of quality, the literature presents four psycho-
logical theories: (1) assimilation, (2) contrast, (3) assimilation-contrast and (4) generalized neg-
ativity (Anderson, 1971; Deliza & MacFie, 1996).
Assimilation theory stems from the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance by Festinger
(1957) suggesting that consumers will minimize or assimilate the perception of a product to align
with expectations, as soon as any discrepancy between product attributes and expectations oc-
curs.
Contrast theory implies the reverse of assimilation, as it assumes a magnification of the incon-
gruence between experienced product and expected product. This means that if a consumer ex-
pected a product to be highly liked, but only slightly liked when experienced, they would rate it
even less liked compared to a situation with no prior expectations at all. Correspondingly, if a
consumer expected a product to be just slightly liked, but very liked when experienced, they
would rate the product with even higher liking than if they had no prior expectation at all (Deliza
& MacFie, 1996).
Assimilation-contrast presumes the existence of limits of both acceptance and rejection by con-
sumer perception. If the disconfirmation is found large enough it falls into a zone of rejection
initiating the contrast effect magnifying the incongruence between product and the expectation
of it. On the other hand, if the disconfirmation is found small enough, the rating of the product
will be based on the assimilation theory, trying to align product experience to expectations. The
development of either assimilation or contrast effect is founded by the degree of incongruence
between actual product experience and expectation (Deliza & MacFie, 1996).
17
Generalized negativity originated from work by Carlsmith & Aronson (1963) suggesting that any
disconfirmation will lead to a generalized hedonic state, making a product less liked than if it had
corresponded to the expectations. This theory can be considered as special case of what Berlyne
(1960) and McClelland et al. (1953) denote as the curiosity hypothesis, in which the subject
adapts to a specific type of stimuli. If the presented stimuli match the expectation, thereby not
being particularly interesting or even boring, it is unlikely to affect the hedonic state of the sub-
ject (Schifferstein et al., 1999). Deviation however, can induce arousal. Small deviations are
found interesting and novel, provoking curiosity whereas large deviations stimulates neophobia
within the subject (Schifferstein et al., 1999). Figure 3 by Schifferstein et al. (1999) schematical-
ly illustrates the source and predictions of the curiosity hypothesis:
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the curiosity hypothesis. Upper part shows the responses predicted by the generalized negativity and the curiosity hypothesis for a labeled product. Lower part provides the sections of a subjective continuum used in curiosity hypothesis to classify stimuli following a formed expectation.
18
Whilst already addressed, several cues influence the expectation and the subsequent sensory
evaluation of perceiving a food. Perceptions of food quality not only depends on the intrinsic
factors such as the specific sensory characteristics, but also rely deeply on the extrinsic factors
including cognitive, cultural, contextual and social variables (Cardello, 2003). Worth notably in
this framework is the visual appearance of prepared food, how it is garnished and how it is pre-
sented as it is too thought to serve as cues able to modify expectations towards a food (Wansink,
2005). As most rejection of food does not occur during tasting the food, thereby taking the risk
of poisoning, it takes place within the visual domain (Dovey et al., 2008). Even though many
different features exists to the visual appearance of a food item, most studies within this field of
sensory science has only paid attention to the influence of color (Delwiche, 2004). In the case of
children Harris (1993) reports that foods that do not look right, will be rejected initially based on
vision alone. The food will be tasted if it is accepted and recognized within the visual domain
followed by an assessment of the subjective value (positively or negatively), which in turn is
associated with the visual image (Dovey et al., 2008). Discolored food, food in odd shapes or
otherwise not typical with an unappetizing look, is often not eaten or met with suspicion
(Delwiche, 2012). This gives rise to the well-known saying of ‘You eat with your eyes first’.
What might not seem obvious is the fact that visual cues modify acceptability of foods, but also
alter the perception of taste, odor and flavor (Delwiche, 2004).
1.1.3 Disgust and willingness
The distinction between what is edible and what is not is perhaps the most significant categoriza-
tions that any animal makes. Although food and eating in many cultures is a key arena for social
relationships and discussions of moral issues, eating is an extraordinarily personal activity as it
involves the incorporation of substances from the outside world into the self. This and other as-
sociated activities within food selection engage far more cognition, acquisition of knowledge and
attitudes than any other of the biological needs (Rozin, 1990).
When accepting or rejecting potential foods, Fallon & Rozin (1983); Rozin & Fallon (1980) be-
lieves in three basic reasons, each in one form motivating acceptance or opposite motivating re-
jection: (1) sensory-affective factors are foods either accepted or rejecting due to liking or dislik-
ing based on their experienced sensory attributes such as smell, taste and appearance, (2) antici-
19
pated consequences are foods accepted or rejected because of the consequences believed to fol-
low after ingesting and (3) ideational factors are foods accepted or rejected primarily due to
knowledge about what they are, the symbolic meanings or its origin. Two distinct categories are
found within ideational rejection: (a) inappropriate and (b) disgusting (Rozin, 1990). An over-
view with examples of attitudes in American adults given by Fallon & Rozin (1983) is found in
Table 2.
Table 2. Psychological categories of acceptance and rejection.
Rejections Acceptance
Dimension Distaste Danger Inappro-priate
Dis-gust
Good taste
Beneficial Appro-priate
Transvalued
Sensory-affective
- - + +
Anticipated consequences
- +
Ideational factors
? - - ? + +
Examples Beer, chili,
spinach
Allergy foods, carcin-ogens
Grass, sand
Feces, insects
Saccha-rine
Medicines Ritual foods
Leaving of heroes or
deities
‘+’ = a dimension characterizing the indicated type of acceptance. ‘-’ = a dimension characterizing the indicated type of rejection. From (Fallon & Rozin, 1983).
Even though the taxonomy is a simplification, disgusting foods, e.g. insects, is unlike any other
category found rejected by both sensory-affective reasons and ideational factors. Animals or an-
imal products comprises almost all disgusting items (Angyal, 1941; Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Dis-
gust has by Rozin & Fallon (1987) been defined as ‘revulsion at the prospect of (oral) incorpo-
ration of an offensive object’ and is not only a example of value acquisition, it is also the strong-
est negative emotional response to food (Rozin, 1990). A study by Fallon et al. (1984) had chil-
dren indicating willingness to drink a beverage on different stages of decontamination by objects
denoted as disgusting. They found the children to usually dislike the beverage when containing
the disgusting item, however not disliked when the item had been removed (Rozin, 1990). This
suggests some sort of link between considering a food item disgusting, based on sensory-
affective reason or ideational factors such as knowing the origin of the item, and the subsequent
willingness to try it.
Still, only little is known about what factors influencing willingness to try novel or unfamiliar
20
foods as well as the effect of often used informational approaches, such as ‘It’s good for you’ or
‘It tastes like chicken’ (Pelchat & Pliner, 1995). Nevertheless, studies has shown that information
can modify willingness to try unfamiliar foods, thus serving as a technique for reducing food
neophobia to large groups of people (McFarlane & Pliner, 1997). Work by Martins et al. (1997)
has demonstrated effects on non-animal foods by cognitive informational manipulations but no
effects on willingness regarding novel animal foods. Rejection of novel animal foods seems fa-
cilitated by the emotional dimension of disgust (Martins et al., 1997). Additionally, work by
King & Meiselman (2010) found 36 emotions needed to completely characterize the emotional
response towards a food. They subsequently argues that measuring emotions serves as a tool in
order to support product development, and how it might improve the link between sensory sci-
ence and marketing (King & Meiselman, 2010).
1.1.4 Satisfaction and loyalty
A significant relationship between positive emotions (interested, proud, enthusiastic, excited,
inspired, alert and strong) and loyalty was found by Bloemer & De Ruyter (1999) in high-
involvement settings like restaurants and holiday camps. Even though the hedonic response is a
major determinant in food choices (Tuorila & Pangborn, 1988), understanding how these differ-
ent positive emotions tribute to the complex idea of satisfaction, might improve the representa-
tion of it (Pullman & Gross, 2004). As the return of customers are pointed out as key to success
within services provided in those of hospitality, insurance and financial sectors, loyal consumers
is known to express behavioral attitudes like promoting a company to others through word of
mouth (Godin, 2001; Pullman & Gross, 2004). This makes loyalty a fundamental strategic com-
ponent and has been suggested in the general marketing literature (Bigné et al., 2001). Loyalty as
behavioral variable has been operationalized and measured in relation to hospitality experiences
by Pullman & Gross (2004), with regards to tourism management by Bigné et al. (2001) asking
respondents ‘Would you recommend it to someone?’ and concerning food by Delgado & Guinard
(2012) asking expert participants to provide their willingness to recommend certain extra virgin
olive oil products.
21
1.2 Context According to The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language (Mifflin, 2000) context is
defined as ‘the circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting’. Contextual conditions can in
relation to food and beverages occur in the past, e.g. previously consumed; concurrently, e.g. the
actual physical location in which the food in consumed or; in the future, e.g. forthcoming social
obligations (King et al., 2004). Most research within contextual affairs is done on concurrent
variables, and suggests that at least four major context effects can modify the perception of food
during consumption (King et al., 2004). These are identified by Meiselman (2002) as: (1) its
function as a meal component; as (2) social interaction while consuming; as (3) the environment
in which the food is selected and consumed and; as (4) freedom in food choice. Further, factors
of contextual matters, such as meal situation and social interaction (King et al., 2007; King et al.,
2004) and environment (Edwards et al., 2003) has been found to influence the perception of food
and meals. However, even though results from a restaurant study by King et al. (2004) suggest
some contextual factors to influence food acceptance, the connection between consumer ac-
ceptance and context is not necessarily consistent across and within components of a meal
(Mielby & Frøst, 2010). Also, instead of defining a meal as time for eating, Mäkelä (2000) de-
fines a meal as the eating sphere. To achieve maximum satisfaction in meal situations, one must
pay attention to all possible factors engaged within the specific eating sphere (Mielby & Frøst,
2010). As factors are controlled in traditionally laboratory-based research, products are the only
variables (Meilgaard et al., 2007). This gives rise to two problems: first, completely controlling
all contextual variables is extremely difficult (Cardello, 1994) and second, excluding variables
from research might simplify consumer experience too much, providing incomplete results (Bell
et al., 1995; Meiselman, 1993).
The concept of variety-seeking tendency has previously been introduced but also plays a role
within the discourse of context, as consumers do not seek same variety across all products (van
Trijp, 1994). Study by van Trijp (1994) indicates that variety-seeking behavior most likely will
take place for products for which both sensory variation and alternatives is large and consumer
knowledge pronounced (van Trijp, 1994). Further, this kind of behavior is more likely to occur
for food products with a relatively great number of well-liked alternatives available (van Trijp,
1994). This knowledge is crucial in product development.
22
1.3 Product In the hierarchy of foods, meat is according to the anthropologist Twigg (1983), the food with
the highest status in Western countries. It primarily accounts for red meat and is followed by
meat from chicken and fish with animal products such as eggs, milk, cheese and vegetable prod-
ucts in the bottom of the hierarchy (Twigg, 1983). Meats dominant position is often proven by
the fact that its mere presence gives rise to the name of a particular dish, also when its used as an
ingredient among others, e.g. in a salad, and even finds itself in the vegetarian kitchen as vege-
tarian steak or vegetarian burger (Gvion-Rosenberg, 1990). Often, anthropologist suggest that
things that are considered valuable and sacred is also considered potentially dangerous (Lassen
& Holm, 2012; Twigg, 1983). To Twigg (1983) the position of meat brings it close to what is
taboo. Compared to vegetables, meat has the ability to induce strong discomfort and disgust, and
what is edible or not depends on various factors, some explained in previous chapters. As meat is
on the top of the food hierarchy, eating meat has been and is associated with social status and
prestige, it is a symbol of certain relations (Lassen & Holm, 2012). The economist Veblen
(1899) introduced the term conspicuous consumption explaining how meat purchasing and con-
sumption could be used as a mean to public display social status, or to attain the wealthy class.
Almost 100 years later, ethnologist Vialles (1994) writes about how meat today has transformed
by what she calls de-animalisation: how meat as a food item appears have been disconnected to
the fact that it derives from what has once been a living animal. Danish philosopher Coff (2005)
believes that to many modern people, eating meat is the area where the will not to know, proves
itself most obvious. In Danish supermarkets most meat is found in anonymous cuts wrapped in
tight foil (Lassen & Holm, 2012).
1.3.1 Novel foods and new product development
During the last couple of decades, new foods has increased dramatically in numbers and novel
foods are persistently being developed, expected to grow progressively worldwide (Sloan, 2002).
Even though foods from other countries are crossing boarders as part of the globalization, there-
by making new foods common in everyday life, relating to novelties could be meet ambiguously
(Grunert et al., 2001; Jonas & Beckmann, 1998). New foods have been categorized as ethnic,
organic, genetically modified and nutritionally modified (Bäckström et al., 2004; Tuorila et al.,
2001). Even though new product development (NPD) has been extensively researched for years
23
it still faces a high failure rate (van Trijp & van Kleef, 2008). Within foods, failure rates is an
estimated 72-88% (Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003). Throughout qualitative interviews in a wide
spectrum of Danish food processing companies, the concept of a new product was perceived
with substantial differences, however, the concept was in general accepted as varying from ‘a
brand new product’ to an ‘adaption of an existing product’ (Kristensen et al., 1998). By as-
sessing a new product as an adaption of an existing product rather than a brand new product,
gaining success is more likely, but, the challenge of developing products similar to what the
home marked already supplies, is a possible confront with excessive competition, making it more
difficult to achieve high success rate for the new product (Kristensen et al., 1998).
Discussions related to product newness as a determinant of new product success, has still not
found consent (van Trijp & van Kleef, 2008). From a consumer science point of view, under-
standing the disagreements on newness-to-marked-performance is crucial in order to progress.
Research and developing departments in the food industry seems caught by the challenge of, on
one side, to be highly innovative with risk of facing resistance with consumers due to neophobia
(Pliner & Pelchat, 1991), and on the other side, facing high failure rates by introducing products
too similar to what is already on the market.
To a large extend, the success of food product depends on consumer liking: more successful the
product, the higher the liking (Punter & Worch, 2009). But, in product development in general,
developers not only need to know the overall liking, but also what product attributes might need-
ed to be changed or adjusted in order to increase acceptability (Popper et al., 2004). In addition
to overall liking, studies therefore regularly include questions concerning product attributes pos-
sible to influence liking. These are often questions directly linked to the sensory properties of the
food (Meilgaard et al., 2007).
1.3.1.1 Check-all-that-apply
A classical sensory approach would first obtain sensory profiles from trained assessors and then
gain liking ratings from consumers to find out what sensory properties are the drivers by carrying
out regression modeling (Lawless, 1999; Stone & Sidel, 2004; Meilgaard et al., 2007). But, as
market research does not have any access to trained assessors, information has to derive directly
from consumers (Epler et al., 1998; Popper & Kroll, 2005). Market research introduces different
approaches to this problem and particular researchers even encourage the use of consumer senso-
24
ry profiling (Punter, 2008; Worch et al., 2008). Some of the most used techniques in order to
extract information is the Just-about-right (JAR) scale and attribute liking questions (Popper et
al., 2004). Also, in the pursue of optimizing food products and to understand consumer prefer-
ences by determining sensory attributes and characteristics of a specific product, Check-all-that-
apply (CATA) has not until recently been introduced as a sensory evaluation method (Adams et
al., 2007; Ares et al., 2010).
The CATA approach stems from work by Coombs (1964) and was first used as a marketing tool
in order to study consumers’ perception of different brands. Within sensory science, it allows
consumers to select all the different attributes found appropriate given in a list to describe a giv-
en product (Valentin et al., 2012). Ultimately, this provides researchers information on which
attributes are notable by consumers and how it might relate to their overall acceptance and liking
(Dooley et al., 2010). Within new product development processes, understanding the sensory
characteristics is of great importance, since failure to obtain the right sensory attributes might
lead to product failure and withdrawal of the marked (Stone et al., 2007). The CATA attributes
themselves are not only constrained to sensory aspects, but could also include aspects of emo-
tional and hedonic character, conceptual fittings or possible ways of usage (Dooley et al., 2010).
Assessors are allowed to check as many attributes as they wish and face no time limits (Valentin
et al., 2012). As a method, CATA requires a minimal of instructions, it is fast and relatively easy
to perform (Lancaster & Foley, 2007)
To specify how different elements of creativity, scientific tools and experience should be com-
bined in order to develop new or modify existing products, can for many practical reasons be
difficult to set up in advance (Næs & Nyvold, 2004). Additionally, such kind of development can
turn out expensive, intensive in labor and stretch out for a long time (Cooper, 1990; Næs &
Nyvold, 2004). To cope with these interrelated obstacles, Næs & Nyvold (2004) proposes and
advocate a method called creative design.
1.4 Creative design methodology The creative design methodology represents a common language of thinking, ensuring the dif-
ferent elements of competences to be combined usefully. It does not itself introduce any new
25
design methodology as such. Key feature of creative design is to experiment systematically
based on certain attributes instead of production process and ingredient variables. This allows
creativity and systematic methodology to be combined, hence the name of the technique. It fol-
lows three main steps:
Step 1 Concept and characteristics of product are defined; prioritized and an experimental
design is set up. Any preliminary test samples are evaluated. Developments of reci-
pes are initiated.
Step 2 According to chosen recipes, prototypes are developed and described by sensory
evaluation. This is to secure that the prototypes are in fact described by the chosen or
highly prioritized attributes, and to discover possible attributes or side effect not no-
ticed earlier on. The analysis can be used as basis for choosing the best and most ap-
propriate prototype for consumer test.
Step 3 Selection of which samples to be used for consumer test and conduction of consumer
test with samples as representative for the chosen attributes as possible, followed by
consumer data analysis.
A final evaluation of the three steps decides, which of the samples further work should pay focus
on (Næs & Nyvold, 2004).
Creative design method will be used as frameset towards providing answers to the purpose of
this thesis.
26
2 Gastronomic exploration and development
Within the purpose of this thesis lays the utilization of bee larvae as ingredient, to explore its
gastronomic potential and to produce a suitable product applicable for testing consumer ac-
ceptance taking presented theory in consideration. All gastronomic exploration and development
has taken place at the Nordic Food Lab (NFL).
2.1 Nordic Food Lab To thoroughly grasp the dogma and culinary principles framing the gastronomic exploration and
development on NFL, one has to be aware of its founding ideas and its current global position as
organization within culinary research and developing kitchens. NFL was established in 2008 as a
non-profit, self-governing organization by head chef and co-founder of Restaurant Noma, René
Redzepi and gastronomic entrepreneur, Claus Meyer. The primary purpose of NFL is to explore
and pursue the concept of deliciousness within the Nordic region and its supply of inherent in-
gredients and produce.
2.1.1 Discerning Taste: Deliciousness as an Argument for Entomophagy
In May 2013, NFL was granted 3.6 million Danish Kroner by The Velux Foundation’s program
for environment and sustainability, in order to support development of edible Western insect
gastronomy. The project has been entitled ‘Discerning Taste: Deliciousness as an Argument for
Entomophagy’ and will take place over the next three years. It will differ from other research
projects primarily aiming on nutritional benefits of entomophagy and its environmental foot-
prints, by focusing on how to make insects delicious to the Western palate and induce them into
its culinary habitat (NFL, 2013).
An international advisory board has been formed for the project, including: Paul Rozin (PhD,
Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania), Mark Bomford (MSc, Director of
Yale Sustainable Food Project at Yale University), Alex Atala (Head Chef and owner of Restau-
rant D.O.M., São Paulo, Brazil), Arnold van Huis (PhD, Professor of Tropical Entomology at the
University of Wageningen), Jørgen Ellenberg (PhD, Professor of Entomology at the University
27
of Copenhagen), Annette Bruun Jensen (PhD, Associate Professor of Entomology at the Univer-
sity of Copenhagen), Michael Bom Frøst (PhD, Associate Professor of Sensory Science at the
University of Copenhagen and Director of Nordic Food Lab), Ben Reade (BSc, Head of Culinary
Research and Development at Nordic Food Lab) and Josh Evans (BA, Researcher at Nordic
Food Lab). The project team includes stagiaires, interns and students from around the world.
2.1.2 Utilization of bee larvae as ingredient
Some of the earliest work on insects done by NFL has been with bee larvae of the European
honeybee, Apis mellifera L. as focal point. In Europe, only little data can be found on contempo-
rary enthomophagy, and only very few insects or their products has been reported consumed
until about 30 years ago in the Southern Alps of North-East Italy (Dreon & Paoletti, 2009). No
literature found suggests bee larvae for food consumption in the Nordic region, but it is known
and used as a traditionally food source in various countries comprising Mexico, Ecuador, China
and Thailand (Onore, 1997; Ramos-Elorduy et al., 1997; Yhoung‐Aree et al., 1997; Zhi‐Yi,
1997). Furthermore, eating insects is compared to Europe and the Nordic region otherwise exer-
cised traditionally throughout many parts of the globe, covering 113 countries as reported by
(MacEvilly, 2000), and the number of insects considered edible exceeds 2.000 insect species
(Jongema, 2012). Just like crustaceans, e.g. shrimp, lobster and crab, insects belongs to the ar-
thropods including more than a million species in total (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013). Data col-
lected by Rumpold & Schlüter (2013) of species eaten per country makes it clear how the
knowledge of entomophagy seems lost in the industrialized countries.
At NFL, bee larvae have been provided by an urban beekeeping initiative, Københavns Bybi
Forening, making the produce particular local and in alliance with the founding ideas of NFL
exploration premises. Besides being very important as pollinators of a great number of our do-
mestic food plants, honey bees also delivers a number of products for humans such as honey,
pollen and beeswax (Finke, 2005). During the entire bee season, removing brood is part of the
regular maintenance by the beekeeper (Boecking & Genersch, 2008), making bee larvae, not
only a by-product of apiculture in Denmark, but also the most abundant source of farmed insects
within in the country. This is due to various pests and diseases as they serves as threats to honey
bee populations, especially triggering Varroosis caused by the varroa mite, Varroa destructor,
28
known as the most harmful disease to honey bees worldwide (Boecking & Genersch, 2008). As
Varroa populations can evolve in both drone and worker brood throughout the year, beekeepers
has to control mite population growth if colonies are not to collapse (Boecking & Genersch,
2008).
Several articles on the nutritious value on various edible insects has been published, and in gen-
eral found as good sources of proteins, fat, vitamins and minerals (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013).
Analyses by Hocking & Matsumura (1960) on bee brood in specific, draws similar conclusion
and Finke (2005) found bee broods as an excellent source of energy, essential minerals, B-
vitamins and amino acids. Populations with pronounced undernourishments could benefit from
bee brood as a valuable source of nutrients (Finke, 2005). By weight, numerous insects has been
reported as better protein sources compared to beef, pork, lamb and chicken (Srivastava et al.,
2009). This gives rise to the idea of edible insects as a substitute to meat products derived from
conventional livestock or applied as a constituent of feed. The environmental impacts of global
meat production, global water footprints of farm animals and products of animal origin are
amongst others described by Mekonnen & Hoekstra (2010) but only limited data exists on the
environmental impacts caused by mass production of insects in comparison and needs to be fur-
ther assessed (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013).
29
Picture 1. Bee larvae in brood comb.
Picture 2. Bee larvae separated from brood comb.
30
2.2 Creative design step 1: prioritizing, selection and set up Prior to the set up, selection and prioritizing of product attributes and experimental design, it was
decided that the presence and visibility of bee larvae in a product should be investigated and
serve as systematic prerequisite for development. Previous work and experience at NFL on bee
larvae and honeybee related produce has been revisited, included: bee larvae granola, ceviche,
beeswax ice cream, a honey Kombucha sauce and honey crisps. Some elements have been com-
bined and incorporated into dishes. However, due to the not yet developed exoskeleton of the bee
larvae, preserving them whole and visible in any foods had proven extremely difficult. When
simply letting the bee larvae to defrost they appeared mashed and with no defined structure. Pre-
vious experiences on roasting and dehydration resulted in bee larvae poorly recognizable to its
initial physical shape. Yet, the shape is kept well in a frozen condition as well as in liquids, as
done partly in the ceviche. This therefore suggested research within well-known foods such as
ice creams. Subsequent preliminary tests showed nevertheless, that when turning in the bee lar-
vae in milk ice cream, they where only partly visible in the non-transparent medium, which de-
pended, by chance, how the ball of ice cream was served. As a consequence, the idea of an ice
cream was discarded.
2.2.1 Bee larvae soup
Inspired by the countless classic jokes of ‘Waiter! There’s a fly in my soup!’ an idea emerged
and a very simple soup recipe was carried out; initially sautéing the bee larvae with chopped
onions and garlic, adding water, salt, honey and finally a touch of cream. The bee larvae some-
how kept its shape, browned and coated by the oil used when sautéing, making them totally visi-
ble floating on the top of the soup. This tryout was so successfully evaluated internally on NFL,
immediately proposing further development of such a dish.
Soup as gastronomic concept is dated back several thousands years as one the first prepared
dishes, and throughout time, methods used in order to prepare soups has evolved (Rumble,
2009). The result is a vast variety of soups, some with strong historical, religious and origin re-
lated characteristics (Rumble, 2009). This suggests soup as an appropriate gastronomic context
as the idea of adaption of an existing product in new product development for more likely suc-
cess, is kept in mind. It also allows the idea of using locally and seasonally farmed ingredients
31
possible, which is a NFL keystone and pursue. As a consequence, following main features of the
bee larvae products to be developed are gathered in Frame 1.
Frame 1. Description of the main features of the concept behind the bee larvae products. The overall idea is to develop a delicious dish/product applicable for investigating consumer acceptance with respect to bee larvae as highly novel ingredient in a Danish context.
• The product should be delicious, contain vegetable aromatic flavors and easy to eat • The product should be able to contain either visible or non-visible bee larvae including various vegeta-
bles
Intern reviews and discussions on the possibilities within a soup lead to prioritizing and selecting
three attributes, given in Frame 2. These attributes align with the main features laid down as
concept in Frame 1.
Frame 2. Attributes prioritized for experimentation.
o Visible or non-visible bee larvae in the soup (flavor and appearance) o Vegetable aromatics o Initial sautéing of bee larvae
Note that non-visible bee larvae in A will require blending them on beforehand.
The selection of attributes makes it possible to set up an experimental design. It should be noted
that the design is not in terms of ingredients only, but is also given in terms of their properties.
This allow the developing process within the experimental design to act with great flexibility
(Næs & Nyvold, 2004). Table 3 essentially shows the experimental design by combining the
information on concept in Frame 1 with prioritized attributes in Frame 2.
Table 3. Design setup: the concept in Frame 1 and prioritized attributes in Frame 2 made into nine ‘recipes’.
Recipe Description according to variables in design
1 Visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae 2 No visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae 3 No visible bee larvae, little vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae 4 No visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and no initial sautéing of bee larvae 5 Much vegetable aromatic flavor and no bee larvae at all 6 Visible bee larvae, little vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae 7 Visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and no initial sautéing of bee larvae 8 Visible bee larvae, little vegetable aromatic flavor and no initial sautéing of bee larvae 9 No visible bee larvae, little vegetable aromatic flavor and no initial sautéing of bee larvae
Nine experimental recipes including a vegetable soup with no bee larvae.
32
Based on the design of gastronomic exploration and development, actual recipe elaboration was
carried out in order to satisfy the descriptions in Table 3. An example of recipe 1 is found in
Frame 3.
Frame 3. Recipe 1. Visible bee larvae, much vegetables aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae Ingredients 15 g of frozen bee larvae 20 g of onion 5 g of garlic 100 g of vegetables (30 g of leeks, 30 g of carrots and 40 g of celeriac) 4 stems of coarsely picked parsley 300 g of water 50 g of cream apple cider vinegar, frying oil, butter and salt
Approach Sauté bee larvae in oil and butter for 4-5 min in a sauté pan, until browned. Add chopped onion, garlic, leeks, carrots and celeriac. Keep on heat for another 3-4 min. Add water to cover the ingredients and put it to simmer for 15 minutes including parsley.
Add cream and mix it in thoroughly. Flavor with salt and vinegar.
33
2.3 Creative design step 2: sensory evaluation To ensure that prototypes have been produced properly according to the design setup and to un-
derstand what they taste like, an analysis of samples by sensory profiling is conducted. This is
done as a quality control of what has been done so far in the development process (Næs &
Nyvold, 2004) and to assist choice of final products for consumer test. The sensory evaluation
was done by Napping® in combination with Ultra Flash Profile.
2.3.1 Napping® with Ultra Flash Profile
Napping® is a so-called holistic method since judges evaluate and place samples conferring to
their own idiosyncratic criteria, not necessarily making sense to others (Perrin et al., 2008). This
should be seen as a restricted version of Projective Mapping introduced by Risvik et al. (1994) to
perform food sensory evaluation (Dehlholm et al., 2012). The method is rapid and performed in
one session by untrained judges, hence less time consuming and less expensive than conducting
a conventional sensory profiling including hours of panel training (Dehlholm et al., 2012;
Valentin et al., 2012). Judges perform Napping® on a 60 cm × 40 cm sheet of paper (approxi-
mately size A2). They place samples on the sheet according to perceived differences and similar-
ities: dissimilar away from each other and similar close together. It can be performed as a global
Napping® in a non-restricted form as described by Perrin et al. (2008), or as explained by
Dehlholm et al. (2012) as a partial Napping® on modalities (Louw et al., 2013).
In order to collect subjects semantic responses, Napping® is normally coupled with Ultra-Flash
Profile (UFP) (Pagès, 2003; Dehlholm et al., 2012). It allows Napping®, which not itself charac-
terizes the product, to be combined with instrumental data. The UFP is an enhancement of the
Free Profiling (FP) method deriving by the Free-Choice-Profiling (FCP) (Dehlholm et al., 2012;
Perrin et al., 2008; Valentin et al., 2012; Moussaoui & Varela, 2010). This may advantageously
uncover and show which characteristics are most important to the judges in differentiating the
samples, not revealed by traditional scaling (Kennedy & Heymann, 2009; Nestrud & Lawless,
2008). Further, UFP has been showed by Perrin et al. (2008) to constitute as a good descriptive
supplement to Napping® (Dehlholm et al., 2012).
34
Within the present study, five judges consisting of NFL research interns, were instructed to per-
form global Napping® positioning with UFP, arranging the samples according to similarity
based on their overall sensory perceptual experience. Nine servings representing the design setup
were served simultaneously and randomly displayed in a different order for each judge. After
arranging the samples, the judges had to write down descriptors directly on their sheet for each
soup. For every judge and every sample the experimenter assigned a ‘1’ if a descriptor was cited
for the sample and a ‘0’ if not. Data obtained was constituted by the coordinates (X and Y) of the
samples of each judge. In addition, supplementary variable descriptors from UFP were added.
Figure 4 shows the data structure.
J1 J2 J5 Descriptors from UFP
Nin
e sa
mpl
es
X Y X Y
X Y
Individual citations
Cited (=1) or not (=0)
Figure 4. Napping® data structure. Data arranged in blocks and active groups corresponding to the Napping® coordinates (values X and Y in cm) and one illustrating group corresponding to the descriptors from UFP.
2.3.2 Evaluation of Napping® with Ultra Flash Profile
The Napping® data was analyzed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA), performed in Pan-
elCheck v. 1.4.0. Sensory data is usually analyzed by PCA, which allows useful learning about
the prototypes, they relation to each other and the attributes assigned to them (Næs & Nyvold,
2004; Jackson, 1991; Mardia et al., 1979). Also, using sensory profiling supplemented by PCA
helps providing data usable in order to determine which samples appropriate for subsequent con-
sumer test (Næs & Nyvold, 2004).
The judges elicited 146 citations in total, covering 62 individual sensory attributes. As demon-
strated by Santos et al. (2013), using 40 judges, only terms used by at least 20% of the judges
would be used for analysis. In this case 20% of the judges equals 1 and as a consequence, terms
used by at least 40% are kept for the analysis, thereby reducing the number sensory attributes to
22 terms. A PCA plot of the two first components is given in the Bi-Plot in Figure 5.
35
Figure 5. Bi-Plot for the nine prototype recipes.
PC1 and PC2 explain in total 53,1% of the variance in the dataset. By comparing the Bi-Plot
with the design table, Table 2, indications on how the product development has captured the
main aspects of the design is given. PC1 accounts for 37,1% of the explained variance, and ex-
plains whether or not recipes contain initial sautéing of bee larvae, as prioritized as attribute for
experimentation, Frame 2. In this case, recipes with initial sautéing are all found in the left side
of the plot, including recipe 4 (no initial sautéing of bee larvae). However, recipe 4 is placed
close to the middle, indicating that the lack of initial sautéing of bee larvae is not as distinct as in
the other samples located to the left. PC2 accounts for 16% of the explained variance, and ex-
plains the content of vegetable aromatics, as prioritized as attribute for experimentation, Frame
2. Compared to the description of variables found in Table 2, all recipes containing much vege-
table aromatic flavor are found in the top of the plot. Recipes with only little vegetable aromatic
flavor are all found in the bottom half of the plot. No more PCs were included, since these did
not seem to show any clear tendencies. Therefore, no clear explanation on visible or non-visible
bee larvae in the soup, as a prioritized attribute for experimentation, Frame 2, was found. How-
36
ever, ‘Bee larvae flavor’ complies right next to the attribute of ‘Visible bee larvae’ and is located
in the bottom left square with ‘Visual unappealing’. This could indicate that even though interns
at NFL is usually tasting and cooking with novel ingredients, the aesthetics of visual bee larvae
in the prototypes dishes is still considered as a confront.
2.4 Creative design step 3: consumer test Based on the evaluation of Napping® with UFP and the guidelines of creative design methodol-
ogy, chosen samples should be as representative for the attributes prioritized for experimentation
as possible. In compliance with the purpose of the thesis, three recipes have been chosen for sub-
sequent consumer test, see Frame 4.
Even though Recipe 1 and 2 are comparable by both containing ‘much vegetable aromatic fla-
vor’ and ‘initial sautéing of bee larvae’, they differ in containing either visible or no visible bee
larvae. This variation aligns with the main feature of the concept behind the bee larvae products.
In addition, they are not considered as ‘Visual unappealing’ as Recipe 6. Recipe 5 is found much
different from Recipe 1 and 2. It is characterized by not containing any bee larvae at all, making
it suitable as a reference point. Recipes 1, 2 and 5 are found in Appendix I: Recipes. The recipes
will subsequently be denoted as ‘Visible’, ‘Non-visible’ and ‘Vegetable’.
Frame 4. Recipes for consumer test (1) Visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae (‘Visible’) (2) No visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae (‘Non-visible’) (5) Much vegetable aromatic flavor and no bee larvae at all (‘Vegetable’)
37
3 Materials and methods
3.1 Consumers Consumers of various ages were recruited; either confronted with the opportunity to participate
or would reach out to the experimenter themselves. All consumers were clear and concise in-
formed about the premises of tasting, and all fully accepted to taste three vegetables based soups
with or without bee larvae used as ingredient including answering a questionnaire.
According to Meilgaard et al. (2007) any test must balance the order of presentation, making
each sample appearing in a given position an equal number of times. As three soups were to be
served for each consumer, using notations from Frame 4 sets up six possible combinations of
soup serving orders. These different orders will subsequently be referred to as Group A-F. Con-
sumers randomly choose a questionnaire with one of six possible serving orders. This is done to
minimize effects caused by the order of presentation, known as: Contrast effect, Group effect,
Error of tendency, Pattern effect and Time error/positional bias, all described by Meilgaard et al.
(2007).
3.2 Locations It is well accepted, that the choice of test location has numerous effect on the results (Meilgaard
et al., 2007; Resurreccion, 1998). This is due to not only its actual geographical location, but also
to several other aspects defined by the place in which the test is carried out (Meilgaard et al.,
2007). In this study, three different shopping locations within Copenhagen were chosen for cen-
tral location tests. This type of test is often used when primary goals of research is to assess ac-
ceptability of a product or group of products (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Several advantages of
choosing central location tests is listed by Meilgaard et al. (2007), and includes favorable condi-
tions for high percentage return of respondents due to large sample population, products tested
by end users providing validity of the results and conditions controlled by experimenter able to
clear misunderstandings and hereby gain truer response. However, some disadvantages might
also occur as the samples being tested is done so under conditions differentiating from normal
use at home or in restaurants and in terms of preparation and amount consumed. Additionally,
the number of questions suitable is limited versus testing at home.
38
The three test locations were chosen as they each serve with a distinct profile and focus, yet has
grocery and food related shops in common:
" Spinderiet (Bomuldsgade 3, 2500 Valby)
" Fields (Arne Jacobsens Allé 12, 2300 Copenhagen S)
" Torvehallerne KBH (Frederiksborggade 21, 1260 Copenhagen K)
Spinderiet is a 19.000 m2 shopping and square area with approximately 50 shops, including of-
fices and apartments. The central square is located outside on a partially covered shopping street,
at which the consumer test took place.
Fields is the largest shopping center in Scandinavia covering 148.000 m2 with more than 140
shops, cafés and restaurants. It is divided into three floors, one covering grocery shopping and
specialty shops. The consumer test took place centrally located on the floor close to food related
shopping options.
Torvehallerne KBH, covering 7.000 m2, is sited at the historically marked square of Israels Plads
dating back to the end of 19th century, at that time known as Grønttorvet, a place for grocery
shopping and trading. Today, Torvehallerne KBH is the largest food market in Copenhagen aim-
ing at quality. The test took place just outside the entrance of Hal 2 close to the Metro entry, ac-
cording to contact at Torvehallerne KBH, the busiest passage.
As the central location tests of samples are artificial in comparison to normal use, a table was set
up including four chairs at both Spinderiet and Fields, in order to imitate an eating experience
and not solely a test situation. At Torvehallerne KBH, permanent outdoor tables in bar height
were used. The tests were conducted in the period of the 16th to 27th of January 2014 and all took
place during lunchtime and early afternoon, approximately 1:00-4:30 PM. All soups were served
in roughly 100 ml portions in white ceramic bowls (207 ml in volume) in an attempt to make the
test a matter of gastronomy and to emphasize and further mimic a meal situation. Spoons in
stainless steel were used.
39
3.3 Samples Prior to consumer tests, chosen recipes, Frame 4, was prepared and cooked at NFL. Fresh sea-
sonal vegetables were used only. Bee larvae had previously been removed from the wax and
been kept in frozen conditions; see Picture 1 and Picture 2, until need of use. Immediately after
cooking, soups and equipment was transported towards locations and soups was kept warm on an
electrical stove. Soups was served hot at 80-85 °C. As the soups are under a constant influence
from a heat source during the tests, and therefore most likely to change in flavor over time, the
experimenter regularly tasted and approved its sensory quality during the tests.
3.4 Questionnaire Aware of the disadvantage within central location tests in relation to the necessity of a limited
questionnaire, segmentation of consumers based on e.g. socioeconomic status, cultural habitat
and educational acquisitions is not carried out in this present research, also due to its scope of
study.
Before getting any soup served, consumers were asked to fulfill a six-item FNS-questionnaire
adapted from Ritchey et al. (2003); Henriques et al. (2009), see Table 4, and answer an addition-
al question.
Table 4. Six-item FNS-questionnaire.
How well do you agree or disagree with this statement
1. I am constantly sampling new and different foods (R) 2. If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it 3. I like foods from different countries (R) 4. At dinner parties, I will try a new food (R) 5. I am afraid to try things I know I have never had before 6. I will new ethnic restaurants (R)
Items followed by (R) indicate that they are reversed when scoring.
In compliance with presented theory, an FNS-questionnaire is included to be able to locate con-
sumers according to their tendency of either approach or avoid novel foods. The traditionally
used 7-point scale is used, making the range of possible scores in a six-item FNS-questionnaire
6-42. Individual scores are obtained by summing up the six-item scores. As Arvola et al. (1999),
using the 33rd and 66th percentile points as cutoff points, divides the consumers into three groups;
40
thus consumers scoring 6 to 17 is classified as ‘neophilics’, from 18 to 29 as ‘average’ and 30 to
42 as ‘neophobics’.
Lawless & Heymann (2010) reports a lately tendency of moving away from the use of labels or
integers, as these might bias subjects, caused by people seeming to have tendencies to use certain
numbers more than others or have favorite numbers. This suggest the use of a unlabeled check-
box scale, making the questions subsequently asked to the FNS-questionnaire, carried out by
using a bipolar 9-point check-box scale, common within both hedonic and affective testing, in-
cluding a neutral or zero as center (Peryam & Girardot, 1952; Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
In order to measure the attitude towards eating bee larvae in specific, following was asked:
• ‘Please indicate by placing a mark in the box your willingness to try and eat bee larvae’
(‘Willingness’)
After tasting each soup consumers were asked to rate overall liking:
• ‘Please indicate by placing a mark in the box your overall like or dislike of the sample’
(‘Liking’)
For each sample, consumers had to answer CATA questions, found in Table 5.
Table 5. List of check-all-that-apply (CATA) attributes.
Check all the attributes you believe describes the sample
� Easy to eat
� Meaty � Visual unappealing
� Rich in vegetable aromatics � Visual appealing � Chicken-like
� Delicious � Like a vegetable soup � Bee larvae flavor
� Poor seasoned � Nutty � Visible bee larvae
� Bland
13 sensory attributes were selected based on results from Napping® with UFP. The list of CATA
attributes includes descriptors laid down as main features in the development of the bee larvae
products (‘Easy to eat’, ‘Delicious’, ‘Rich in vegetable aromatics’ and ‘Visible bee larvae) as
41
well as descriptors found appropriate to describe the soups, based on in-house discussions, con-
siderations and evaluation amongst the Napping® participants from NFL. This adds a descriptive
dimension to present study.
As a great incongruence between expected and what is actual experienced is known to lower the
hedonic response (Carlsmith & Aronson, 1963), consumers were asked to answer following:
• ‘Please indicate by placing a mark in the box how similar or different you per-
ceived the flavor of the sample according to what you expected’ (‘Expect’)
In order to understand if satisfaction has been provoked within the consumers, following
question are asked:
• ‘Please indicate by placing a mark in the box how likely or unlikely it is that you
would recommend trying bee larvae to others’ (‘Recommend’)
An example of a questionnaire is found in Appendix III: Questionnaire.
3.5 Data analysis Proportional odds models were carried out using R software (version 3.0.2). Package ‘Modern
Applied Statistics with S’ (MASS), 4th edition (version 7.3-29) by Venables and Ripley (2002)
was installed prior to analyzes. Such model is an example of a model for polytomous response:
the description of a categorical variable with more than two categories. In this case, response is
‘Liking’ as variable with values in between one and nine. ‘Location’ and ‘Neophobia’ serves as
predictors.
R software was also used to perform an array of different statistical analysis and graphic presen-
tations, including ANOVA, Boxplot and Tukey test.
The descriptive profiles obtained from CATA were analyzed for product differences by ANO-
VA-Partial Least Square (A-PLS) using Unscrambler X software (version 10.3, CAMO, Oslo,
Norway). The matrices consisted of the samples times the number of respondents. For the A-PLS
42
analysis, the X-matrix consisted of the three samples (X = ‘Visible”, ‘Non-visible’ or ‘Vegeta-
ble’ design variables) while the Y-matrix consisted of descriptors for CATA (Y = 1/0). External
preference mapping were performed using CATA counts (X = 1/0 design variables) and ‘Liking’
(Y = 1:9).
Correlation loading on CATA and total FNS-score were performed using CATA counts (X =
1/0) and FNS-score (Y = FNS-total).
43
Picture 3. Consumer evaluating.
Picture 4. Soups in pots.
44
4 Results
Overview of data collected (n = 92) and calculated mean values for each group differed by the
order of sample serving as well as for each location and total are found in Table 6.
Table 6. Mean values overview. Values for ‘FNS’, ‘Willingness’ for each group and ‘Liking’, ‘Expect’ and ‘Recommend’ for each recipe within each group. Total mean values also included.
Visible Non-visible Vegetable
Group
Group A FNS Willingness Liking 6.2 6.6 6.8 n = 18 11.3 5.7 Expect 4.2 4.6 -
Recommend 5.9 6.3 -
Group B FNS Willingness Liking 6.0 6.4 7.4 n = 20 14.4 5.8 Expect 4.8 5.6 -
Recommend 6.4 6.8 -
Group C FNS Willingness Liking 6.2 7.1 6.4 n = 17 11.9 6.4 Expect 5.2 5.4 -
Recommend 4.6 5.6 -
Group D FNS Willingness Liking 5.7 6.9 6.8 n = 13 13.0 5.3 Expect 3.7 4.5 -
Recommend 4.9 4.8 -
Group E FNS Willingness Liking 5.3 6.7 7.2 n = 12 14.3 7.3 Expect 4.1 5.0 -
Recommend 5.5 6.5 -
Group F FNS Willingness Liking 5.0 4.5 7.1 n = 12 15.2 5.8 Expect 3.9 3.8 -
Recommend 4.3 4.4 -
Location
Spinderiet FNS Willingness Liking 5.6 6.6 6.7 n = 34 13.9 6.0 Expect 3.9 4.2 -
Recommend 4.8 5.0 -
Fields FNS Willingness Liking 5.9 6.0 6.9 n = 31 13.4 5.9 Expect 4.5 4.8 -
Recommend 6.0 6.0 -
Torvehallerne FNS Willingness Liking 6.0 6.7 7.2 n = 27 12.2 6.6 Expect 5.0 5.9 -
Recommend 5.7 6.7 -
Total
Respondents FNS Willingness Liking 5.8 6.4 6.9 n = 92 13.2 6.0 Expect 4.4 4.9 -
Recommend 5.4 5.8 -
45
4.1 Effect of food neophobia Total scores on the basis of the FNS-questionnaire covered the range of 6 to 29, obtaining 73
consumers as ‘neophilics’, 19 as ‘average’ and 0 as ‘neophobics’.
Proportional odds models for recipe ‘Visible’, Figure 6, and ‘Non-visible’, Figure 7, were carried
out with ‘Liking’ serving as variable response, ‘Location’ and ‘Neophobia’ as predictors.
Changes in levels for the probability of a liking-score of 5 (‘Neither like nor dislike’) or higher
as function of neophobia, are found most pronounced for ‘Visible’. The graphs representing the
different locations, appears within ‘Visible’ and within ‘Non-visible’ to express similar degree of
slope. However, the degrees of the slopes vary noticeable for the different recipes; ‘Visible’
showing much steeper slopes compared to ‘Non-visible’. The impact of a greater neophobic ten-
dency meaning a lower probability of a liking-score of 5 or higher seems expressed most power-
ful in the recipe ‘Visible’.
10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Visible
Neophobia
Pro
babi
lity
of L
ikin
g =
5 or
hig
her
TorvehallerneFieldsSpinderiet
10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Non-visible
Neophobia
Pro
babi
lity
of L
ikin
g =
5 or
hig
her
TorvehallerneFieldsSpinderiet
Figure 7. Proportional Odds Model: ’Visible’. Figure 6. Proportional Odds Model: ’Non-visible’.
46
4.2 Willingness Total mean value for ‘Willingness’ is found to be 6.0. Mean values for ‘Willingness’ based on
group dichotomizing by ‘Liking’ are found for ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’ in Table 7.
Table 7. ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’ mean values for ’Willingness’. Group dichotomizing: Liking ≤ 4, Liking ≥ 6, (Excluded: Liking = 5 ‘Neither like nor dislike’).
Spinderiet Fields Torvehallerne
Visible Willingness (Liking ≤ 4) 4.0 4.0 6.1 Willingness (Liking ≥ 6) 6.2 6.6 7.1 Total mean
5.6 6.0 6.8
Non-visible Willingness (Liking ≤ 4)
4.3 4.3 5.8 Willingness (Liking ≥ 6)
5.8 6.4 6.9 Total mean
5.5 5.8 6.7
Values for both ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’ are found the highest for ‘Torvehallerne’ then
‘Fields’ and ‘Spinderiet’. Two-way multiple ANOVA is performed with ‘Willingness’ as re-
sponse, dichotomized groups by ‘Liking’ and ‘Location’, found in Table 8.
Table 8. ANOVA: ‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’. Response: ‘Willingness’. Group dichotomized: Liking ≤ 4, Liking ≥ 6. (Excluded: Liking = 5 ‘Neither like nor dislike’). Location: ‘Spinder-iet’, ‘Fields’, ‘Torvehallerne’. Significant code: ‘*’ 0.05 and ’***’ 0.001.
df SS MS F Pr(>F)
Visible
Group
1 96.61 96.611 18.4197 5.102e-05*** Location
2 14.03 7.017 1.3379 0.2684 Group:Location
2 13.06 6.528 1.2446 0.2938 Residuals
77
403.86
5.245
Non-visible
Group
1 37.47 37.467 5.9830 0.01692* Location
2 18.82 9.409 1.5026 0.22964 Group:Location
2 2.09 1.045 0.1669 0.84660 Residuals
71
444.61
6.262
‘Willingness’ is for the dichotomized groups only found significant different for both ‘Visible’
and ‘Non-visible’ by p-value < 0.001 and 0.05 respectively.
47
4.3 Liking Mean values for total liking is found highest for ‘Vegetable’ then ‘Non-visual’ and ‘Visual’ with
6.9 (SD ± 1.7), 6.4 (SD ± 2.2 and 5.8 (SD ± 2.3) respectively. A boxplot of total liking for loca-
tions and samples is seen in Figure 8 and Figure 9:
‘Visible’ and ‘Non-visible’ is both represented on the entire liking scale ‘Vegetable’ is not. ‘Vis-
ible’ is characterized by the broadest quartile, ‘Vegetable’ the narrowest, and ‘Non-visual’ in
between.
‘Spinderiet’, ‘Fields’ and ‘Torvehallerne’ is all represented on the entire liking scale. ‘Torve-
hallerne’ is characterized by narrowest quartile. ‘Spinderiet’ and ‘Fields’ express same quartile
but differ in median of liking.
Two-way multiple ANOVA assessment of main effects and interactions present in the dataset is
carried out with ‘Liking’ as response amongst samples and groups, Table 9, and amongst sam-
ples and locations, Table 10:
Spinderiet Fields Torvehallerne
24
68
Liki
ng (9
-poi
nt s
cale
)
Visible Non-visible Vegetable
24
68
Liki
ng (9
-poi
nt s
cale
)
Figure 8. Boxplot of total liking for ’Spinderiet’, ’Fields’ and ’Torvehallerne’. The box explains the quartiles, the dotted line the range of liking and the thick black line the median of liking.
Figure 9. Boxplot of total liking for ’Visible’, ‘Non-visible’ and ’Vegetable’. The box explains the quartiles, the dotted line the range of liking and the thick black line the median of liking.
48
Table 9. Two-way multiple ANOVA. Sample and Group. Response: ‘Liking’. Sample: ‘Visible’, ‘Non-visible’ and ‘Vegetable’. Group: A-F. Significant code: ’**’ 0.01.
df SS MS F Pr(>F)
Sample
2 60.02 30.0036 7.0177 0.001077** Group
5 31.56 6,3125 1.4765 0.197858 Sample:Group
10 52.89 5.2889 1.2371 0.267454 Residuals
258 1103.06 4.2754 Significance is found for Sample only (p < 0.01), thus ’Liking’ is different between samples and
not between groups. Serving order does not influence the liking output.
Table 10. Two-way multiple ANOVA. Sample and Location. Response: ‘Liking’. Sample: ‘Visible’, ‘Non-visible’ and ‘Vegetable’. Location: ‘Spinderiet’, ‘Fields’ and ‘Torvehallerne’. Significant code: ’**’ 0.01
df SS MS F Pr(>F)
Sample
2 58.85 29.4239 6.7261 0.001413** Location
2 6.54 3.2703 0.7476 0.474505 Sample:Location
4 6.33 1.5839 0.3619 0.835647 Residuals
267 1168.02 4.3746
Significance is found for Sample only (p < 0.01), thus ’Liking’ is different between samples and
not between locations.
A pairwise comparison, Tukey test, of ‘Liking’ between groups found significance (p-value <
0.05) in two group comparisons: Group F – Group C and Group F – Group D. Values can be
found in Table 12 in Appendix II: Tukey test.
4.4 Expectation and recommendation Total mean values on the question of how similar or different the respondents perceived the fla-
vor of the sample according to what was expected, is found to be 4.4 for ‘Visible’ and 4.9 for
‘Non-visible’.
Based on how likely or unlikely respondents would recommend others to try and eat bee larvae,
total mean values is found above average: 5.4 for ‘Visible’ and 5.8 for ‘Non-visible’. This sug-
gests that satisfaction has been provoked amongst the consumers.
49
4.5 Descriptive dimension Total counts of CATA attributes for each recipe are found in Table 11:
Table 11. Total counts of check-all-that-apply attributes for each recipe
Visible Non-visible Vegetable
Easy to eat 56 64 73 Rich in vegetable aromatics 60 65 70 Delicious 31 36 44 Poor seasoned 22 20 23 Bland 14 20 18 Meaty 9 8 5 Visual appealing 16 26 33 Like a vegetable soup 57 59 73 Nutty 28 35 10 Visual unappealing 13 6 3 Chicken-like 11 7 11 Bee larvae flavor 19 14 6 Visible bee larvae 51 4 4
Total 387 364 373
Eight counts in total were noted for ‘Visible bee larvae’ in recipes ‘Non-visible’ and ‘Vegetable’.
Overall, no attribute was left without any count.
Data from CATA were analyzed including the 13 descriptors adapted from the results of internal
Napping® with UFP during the prototype production and sensory evaluation at NFL. Correlation
loading plot of CATA-Liking and CATA-Neophobia is found in Figure 10 and Figure 11. All
questions in FNS questionnaire are included on Figure 11 and marked by green. These are only
included to allow observations of relation to FNS-total, not withed in the analysis. Figure 12 il-
lustrates data from CATA analyzed by A-PLS.
50
Figure 10. Correlation loading plot of CATA-Liking. Circled descriptor has a significant effect on the sample variation (p < 0.05). The inner and outer ellipses represents R2 = 50% and R2 = 100% respectively.
Figure 11. Correlation loading plot of CATA-Neophobia including descriptors for CATA. Circled descriptor has a significant effect on the sample variation (p < 0.05). The inner and outer ellipses represents R2 = 50% and R2 = 100% respectively.
51
Figure 12. A-PLS CATA. Circled descriptor has a significant effect on the sample variation (p < 0.05). The inner and outer ellip-ses represents R2 = 50% and R2 = 100% respectively.
CATA-Liking is explains 6% of the variance. It shows ‘Liking’ in a centered position, thus not
well explained. Whether this is due large deviation in liking or within the respondents is uncer-
tain, and not possible to conclude. ‘Visible bee larvae’ and ‘Bee larvae flavor’ both found in left
side of the plot and ‘Like a vegetable soup’ in right side of the plot, seems to be of biggest influ-
ence among the relations of variables.
CATA-Neophobia explains 11% of the variance; shows that ‘Easy to eat’ are the only descriptor
with significant effect on the sample variation. A low FNS-total appears related to this specific
descriptor.
A-PLS CATA explains 5% of the total variance. ‘Visual’ and ‘Vegetable’ are found significantly
different, ‘Non-visual’ are not. ‘Visible bee larvae’ are the only design factor and descriptor ap-
pearing to have an effect, however, this is not found significant. Moreover, ‘Vegetable’ is found
above average, ‘Visible’ under average and ‘Non-visible’ in between.
52
5 Discussion
In the present study, a gastronomic exploration and utilization of the delicious potential of bee
larvae as ingredient was set up based on the creative design methodology by Næs & Nyvold
(2004). It leaded to the investigation of consumer acceptance of bee larvae soups.
5.1 The role of neophobia Studies by Tuorila et al. (1994), Pliner et al. (1998), Arvola et al. (1999) and Henriques et al.
(2009) demonstrates that food neophobia influences the degree of which a product is liked or
disliked by consumers. This study confirms this. As graphically presented by the proportional
odds models, Figure 6 and Figure 7: the greater the FNS-score the lower the probability of lik-
ing-scores of 5 or higher. The probability of which consumers might like the soup with visible
bee larvae seems especially influenced by food neophobia. Compared to the soup with no visible
bee larvae, this is expressed by an extensive steeper slope.
In product development tests, previous studies of Tuorila et al. (1994) and Arvola et al. (1999)
finds that extreme neophobics do not normally volunteer. The current study supports this, as no
neophobics, scoring 30 to 42 on the FNS, were found. As a consequence, neophobics are likely
not to be well represented in the group of respondents in the consumer test, if not specifically
recruited. Such recruiting and segmentation of consumers has not been within the scope of this
study, but for further research, this suggests the importance of understanding the psychographic
composition of the participating respondents of a consumer test, as it might influence subsequent
product development. This is especially important to companies developing novel food products,
and products to encounter certain hurdles in acceptability, as also addressed by Henriques et al.
(2009).
5.2 Impact of willingness Total mean values for the willingness to try and eat bee larvae were found above neutral. As al-
ready commented above, no neophobic participants was identified, and as consumers were all
informed about the possible use of bee larvae as ingredient, very low scores of willingness to try
53
and eat bee larvae would have come out surprisingly. Simply, as the likelihood of volunteering in
something not rewarded afterwards implying what could provoke affections as strong as disgust,
seems highly unlikely.
A significant difference in willingness to try and eat bee larvae was found for both soups with
visible and no visible bee larvae when dichotomizing groups by liking (≤ 4 and ≥ 6). This could
indicate a positive correlation between willingness to try and eat bee larvae and liking. Although
test locations did not show any significant difference in willingness to try and eat bee larvae for
both soups with and without visible bee larvae, differences in scores are still observed by one or
more points in mean value.
The theory and idea of presenting something novel in a well-known context, denoted as an
‘adaption of an existing product’ by Kristensen et al. (1998), was one of the founding thoughts
behind the bee larvae soups. When inclining consumers to participate, a verbal description of the
type of food was given. The vegetable soup served as the well-known medium, and even though
it was not directly addressed in the questionnaire, mean values of willingness to try and eat bee
larvae above neutral could indicate a certain attitude of willingness to participate because the
soup as gastronomic context for bee larvae was found appropriate and sufficiently appealing.
5.3 Liking and satisfaction Despite that only one of 92 respondents expressed to have tasted insects before, hereby making
91 respondents’ first timers into entomophagy, both soups containing bee larvae were found
liked by mean values higher than neutral. This is considered as a success.
Mean values for liking were found highest for the vegetable soup, then the soup with no visible
bee larvae and soup with visible bee larvae. Liking was by Two-way multiple ANOVA assess-
ment only found significant different between samples and not between groups or test locations.
This was supported by results derived from Tukey-test, not indicating any ladder effect occurring
on liking, a possible effect caused by the order of presentation, as described by Meilgaard et al.
(2007).
To measure the satisfaction of the samples in this study, asking the consumers to rate the likeli-
hood of recommending others to try bee larvae was chosen as approach. Total mean values of the
54
likelihood of recommending bee larvae to others were for both soups containing bee larvae ex-
pressed above neutral. This indicates that some sort of satisfaction was provoked within the con-
sumers. Isolated, this result in considered as a success. It is not possible however, to determine
whether or not actual loyalty towards the product has been created. For commercial products,
including potential future products containing insects or bee larvae, this is crucial and must be
examined thoroughly as part of the product development process.
5.4 The descriptive dimension A CATA-Liking correlation loading was carried out in effort to approach what exactly causes
the different values for liking. Although no significance was found, a lower liking might associ-
ate to the soup with visible bee larvae and bee larvae flavor, and a higher liking when soups were
found to be like a vegetable soup. This could indicate that bee larvae as ingredient triggers some
sort of neophobic behavior in certain consumers, however it must be kept in mind, that all soups
were found liked above neutral, thereby also supporting the idea of bee larvae as ingredient and
inherent of a gastronomic potential. Additionally, it suggests that keeping bee larvae visible in
the soup could serve as potential hurdle, intriguing further gastronomic exploration.
‘Easy to eat’ was the only descriptor found to have a significant effect in the CATA-Neophobia
analysis. The degree of food neophobia affects the probability of evaluating a soup as easy to eat.
Also, as laid down in the development process as one of the main features of the concept behind
the bee larvae products was, to create a product being easy to eat. This task in considered ful-
filled based on this analysis.
A low explained variance in the A-PLS analysis (5%) was expected. It is a result of what
Giacalone et al. (2013) denotes as a large (276 × 13) and sparse data matrix (approximately 69%
0’s), leading to a low level of explanation. Although not significantly different, ‘Visible bee lar-
vae’ is indicated to be the only design factor and CATA attribute to have an effect on sample
variation, in which the vegetable soup and the soup with visible bee larvae were found signifi-
cantly different. It could indicate that the mere appearance of bee larvae were more than just no-
ticed, and in the case of eating the soup with visible bee larvae, the experimenter observed sever-
al consumers slightly hesitating and often verbally claim that they would see bee larvae prior to
55
eating it. Even though consumers had accepted to taste vegetables soups with or without bee
larvae, hence maybe feeling obligated to taste everything, not one consumer rejected (in terms of
not tasting at all) the soup with visible bee larvae. In presented theory, meat has been described
by various scientific disciplines as something sacred and potent, and insects as potential food has
been categorized as an example of something disgusting, thereby rejected as food, this was not
found as case in present study regarding the visual attribute initially prioritized for experimenta-
tion. Attributes like ‘Chicken-like’, ‘Meaty’ and ‘Nutty’ derived from the Napping® with UFP
during the developing process, and later adopted, is not found significant in consumer tests. This
could indicate a difference in how professionals and consumers perceive flavors. It underlies the
importance of consumer tests as a crucial tool in new product development. Also laid down as
main features of the concept was the idea of products as delicious as well as containing vegetable
aromatics. Although CATA analysis did not suggest ‘Delicious’ or ‘Rich in aromatic vegetables’
as significant descriptors for either of the soups, total CATA counts found the descriptors regis-
tered in approximately every third and every second case respectively for all samples. One could
choose to interpret this as being on the right track in terms of gastronomic development, however
not yet fully successful.
5.5 Expectancy As presented in theory, expectation has in relation to consumer science been formulated in sev-
eral ways, and to food acceptance and sensory research in specific, as a cognitive construction
used in both sensory and hedonic matters. It includes the dimension of sensory component
(Costell et al., 2009) and could arguably be compared to what Fallon & Rozin (1983) and Rozin
& Fallon (1980) denote as sensory-affective factors. When answering the question on how simi-
lar or different the perceived flavor of the samples was according to the expected, these aspects
could be considered as dominant. If that is the case, the output could indicate the perceived nov-
elty of bee larvae as ingredient, as both agreement or disagreement is likely to involve a predis-
posed attitude from a previous eating experience. As the expressed mean value of how similar or
different the perceived flavor was according to the expected was found slightly under or close to
a neutral, bee larvae, as ingredient is believed to have served as a very novel food substance to
the consumers. This is emphasized by the fact that several respondents verbally expressed that
they simply did not know what to expect, being first timers into entomophagy.
56
In terms of hedonic expectations, different psychological theories dealing with the situation of
disconfirmation has been presented (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992). Although a hedonic expectation
was not explicit questioned, finding it challenging to relate to the sensory components of some-
thing novel, could arguably be just as challenging in hedonic terms. Also, consumers might not
even pay attention or be aware of the exact difference in concepts. As both soups with visible
and no visible bee larvae was evaluated with what could be considered as small disconfirma-
tions, the curiosity hypothesis would suggest that consumers has experienced a modest degree of
arousal as the samples would be categorized as interesting, and thereby perceived the samples as
pleasant. This fits well with liking above neutral. The deviation between the expected and per-
ceived hedonic stimuli seemed adequate amongst the consumers, as no overall negative liking is
observed. In a commercial setting, this underlies the importance of finding the right well-known
gastronomic context to match and support the novel substance. From this point of view, the gas-
tronomic exploration and development appears to have succeeded.
5.6 Considerations and future perspectives The sacred and dominant position of meat in the food hierarchy, giving rise to the name of par-
ticular dishes (Gvion-Rosenberg, 1990) proved itself almost reflexively, as the name of the soups
with no deliberate intention at all became denoted as bee larvae soups.
Though no data was collected on issues concerning the atmosphere and interaction amongst the
consumers at the different locations, the experimenter noticed, that communication amongst con-
sumers and even consumers with no previous relation, took place in what is believed expressed a
joyful ambiance. It somewhat reflected the idea of an interactive meal situation. Several civilian
couples participated and it was repeatedly observed how the males to some extend had to prove
their courage in front of their female counterparts. Also noticed, was the experience of consum-
ers in Torvehallerne behaving more curious and inclined to reach out to the experimenter, com-
pared to consumers in Spinderiet and Fields. Not surprisingly as Torvehallerne primarily serves
as food market attracting consumers exactly because of that.
No questions related to gender, age, education, economic status, cultural commissioning, reli-
gious beliefs useful to segment consumers were used. This is primarily due the scope and frame-
57
set in which this study could unfold, but also not to scare consumers with long and time consum-
ing questionnaires, it had to be manageable and alluring. Including e.g. segmental questions
would allow further factors in the case of eating bee larvae to be highlighted, and should be con-
sidered for further studies. The extent and time needed to answer the created questionnaire was
found appropriate in this study, and is believed to have served well in the strive towards gaining
a more thoroughly knowledge regarding the questions raised and purpose of the research.
This research points out that the visibility of bee larvae (in a soup) in a Danish context could
serve as a hurdle element and challenge in the effort of achieving even higher liking rates. Creat-
ing insect products with no visible insect attributes at all might prove advantageously. But, to
gain an even more profound understanding on how to achieve acceptance by Danish and West-
ern societies in general, the question of visibility of insects, still needs to be further endeavored.
Topics not covered in this research, however constituting important issues needed to be ad-
dressed, also specified by Rumpold & Schlüter (2013), is the establishment of industrially mass-
produced insects for food, distribution channels and a public recognized attitude in terms of con-
sumer acceptance. This does not only require creative chefs but also appropriate technology,
sanitary standards and food safety programs, as well as international food regulations.
As introduced, the rapid growth of human population increases the demand for food, including
livestock and meat products. This will automatically stress not only populations, but also politi-
cians and the food industry to find and create sustainable solutions, in which insects can prove as
partial answer. However, much work combining various scientific disciplines and food crafts-
manship lies ahead, and this study serves a step in that direction as it not only shows that there is
a gastronomic potential in bee larvae as ingredient, it also underlines the importance of what
collaborative work between university institutions and creative development kitchens can pro-
duce. The author strongly advocates this to continue, as he in his young, and maybe naive heart,
believes that profound social transitions can occur catalyzed by deliciousness.
58
6 Conclusion
Creative design method was used to indulge and combine gastronomic creativity with systematic
methodology in order to utilize bee larvae as ingredient, and investigate the consumer acceptance
of the resulting food, bee larvae soups.
Liking was found highest for vegetable soup then soup with no visible bee larvae and soup with
visible bee larvae with mean values all above neutral. Liking was found to be significant differ-
ent between samples, not between groups or test locations.
The effect of food neophobia on acceptance of bee larvae soups was explored. The hedonic re-
sponse liking was found depending on the degree of food neophobia. Food neophobia particular-
ly appears to affect liking regarding soup with visible bee larvae. ‘Easy to eat’ was the only de-
scriptor found significant in relation to FNS. The probability of evaluating a soup easy to eat
depends on the degree of food neophobia.
Based on CATA analysis, ‘Visible bee larvae’, although not found significantly different, could
indicate to be the only design factor and attribute to have an effect on sample variation, in which
the vegetable soup and soup with visible bee larvae were found significantly different. In this
study, this suggests the visibility of bee larvae to be the single most influential attribute affecting
liking, a visual cue serving as hurdle for even higher liking and acceptance.
No significance was found for test locations, but significant difference in willingness to try and
eat bee larvae was found for both soups containing bee larvae when dichotomizing groups by
liking, proposing a positive correlation between willingness to try and eat bee larvae and liking.
Mean values of willingness to try and eat bee larvae above neutral could insinuate appropriate
chosen and developed gastronomic context by adaption of an existing product.
Effects of sensory and hedonic expectations have been addressed by values of how similar or
different the perceived flavor of the samples was according to the expected, suggesting bee lar-
vae as novel and appropriate ingredient and that the chosen gastronomic context of a soup was
found appropriate too.
Eating bee larvae soups, both with and without visible bee larvae, provoked satisfaction as mean
values of the likelihood of recommending bee larvae to others was found above neutral.
59
References
[1] ABDI, H. 2002. What can cognitive psychology and sensory evaluation learn from each other? Food Quality and Preference, 13, 445-451.
[2] ADAMS, J., WILLIAMS, A., LANCASTER, B. & FOLEY, M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 2007. 16.
[3] ANDERSON, R. E. 1971. Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. University of Florida.
[4] ANDERSON, R. E. & HAIR, J. F. Consumerism, consumer expectations, and perceived product performance. Third annual conference of the association for consumer research, 1972. 67-79.
[5] ANGYAL, A. 1941. Disgust and related aversions. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 393.
[6] ARES, G., BARREIRO, C., DELIZA, R., GIMÉNEZ, A. N. A. & GÁMBARO, A. 2010. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 67-86.
[7] ARVOLA, A., LÄHTEENMÄKI, L. & TUORILA, H. 1999. Predicting the Intent to Purchase Unfamiliar and Familiar Cheeses: The Effects of Attitudes, Expected Liking and Food Neophobia. Appetite, 32, 113-126.
[8] AUVRAY, M. & SPENCE, C. 2008. The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1016-1031.
[9] BELL, R., MEISELMAN, H. & MARSHALL, D. 1995. The role of eating environments in determining food choice. Food choice and the consumer., 292-310.
[10] BERKELEY, G. 1709. An essay towards a new theory of vision, Aaron Rhames. [11] BERLYNE, D. E. 1960. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity, New York, NY, US, McGraw-Hill
Book Company. [12] BERTHOUD, H.-R., LENARD, N. R. & SHIN, A. C. 2011. Food reward, hyperphagia, and
obesity. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 300, R1266-R1277.
[13] BIGNÉ, J. E., SÁNCHEZ, M. I. & SÁNCHEZ, J. 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-616.
[14] BIRCH, L. L. & FISHER, J. O. 1998. Development of eating behaviors among children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 101, 539-549.
[15] BLOEMER, J. & DE RUYTER, K. 1999. Customer loyalty in high and low involvement service settings: the moderating impact of positive emotions. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 315-330.
[16] BOECKING, O. & GENERSCH, E. 2008. Varroosis – the Ongoing Crisis in Bee Keeping. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 3, 221-228.
[17] BÄCKSTRÖM, A., PIRTTILÄ-BACKMAN, A. M. & TUORILA, H. 2004. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales. Appetite, 43, 75-83.
[18] CARDELLO, A. V. 1994. Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. Measurement of food preferences. Springer.
60
[19] CARDELLO, A. V. 2003. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking[small star, filled]. Appetite, 40, 217-233.
[20] CARDELLO, A. V. & SAWYER, F. M. 1992. Effect of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 253-277.
[21] CARLSMITH, J. M. & ARONSON, E. 1963. Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectances. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 151-156.
[22] COFF, C. 2005. Smag for etik: på sporet efter fødevareetikken, Kbh., Museum Tusculanum. [23] COOMBS, C. H. 1964. A theory of data. [24] COOPER, R. G. 1990. Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products.
Business Horizons, 33, 44-54. [25] COSTELL, E., TÁRREGA, A. & BAYARRI, S. 2009. Food Acceptance: The Role of
Consumer Perception and Attitudes. Chemosensory Perception, 3, 42-50. [26] DEHLHOLM, C., BROCKHOFF, P. B., MEINERT, L., AASLYNG, M. D. & BREDIE, W.
L. P. 2012. Rapid descriptive sensory methods - Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 267-277.
[27] DELGADO, C. & GUINARD, J.-X. 2012. Internal and External Quality Mapping as a New Approach to the Evaluation of Sensory Quality – a Case Study with Olive Oil. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 332-343.
[28] DELIZA, R. & MACFIE, H. J. H. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103-128.
[29] DELWICHE, J. 2004. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 137-146.
[30] DELWICHE, J. F. 2012. You eat with your eyes first. Physiology & Behavior, 107, 502-504.
[31] DOOLEY, L., LEE, Y.-S. & MEULLENET, J.-F. S. 2010. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 394-401.
[32] DOUGLAS, M. 1972. Deciphering a meal. Daedalus, 101, 61-81. [33] DOUGLAS, M. & NICOD, M. 1974. Taking the biscuit: the structure of British meals. New
Society, 30, 744-747. [34] DOVEY, T. M., STAPLES, P. A., GIBSON, E. L. & HALFORD, J. C. G. 2008. Food
neophobia and ‘picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review. Appetite, 50, 181-193. [35] DREON, A. & PAOLETTI, M. 2009. The wild food (plants and insects) in Western Friuli
local knowledge (Friuli-Venezia Giulia, North Eastern Italy). Contributions to Natural History, 12, 461-488.
[36] EDWARDS, J. S. A., MEISELMAN, H. L., EDWARDS, A. & LESHER, L. 2003. The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 647-652.
[37] EPLER, S., IV, E. C. & KEMP, K. E. 1998. Hedonic scales are a better predictor than just-about-right scales of optimal sweetneww in lemoade. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 191-197.
[38] FALLON, A. E. & ROZIN, P. 1983. The psychological bases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 13, 15-26.
61
[39] FALLON, A. E., ROZIN, P. & PLINER, P. 1984. The child's conception of food: The development of food rejections with special reference to disgust and contamination sensitivity. Child development, 566-575.
[40] FESTINGER, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance, Row Peterson. [41] FINKE, M. D. 2005. Nutrient Composition of Bee Brood and its Potential as Human Food.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 44, 257-270. [42] FISCHLER, C. 1988. Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27, 275-292. [43] GIACALONE, D., BREDIE, W. L. P. & FRØST, M. B. 2013. “All-In-One Test” (AI1): A
rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 108-119.
[44] GIBSON, J. J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. [45] GILBERT, A. N. & FIRESTEIN, S. 2002. Dollars and scents: commercial opportunities in
olfaction and taste. Nature neuroscience, 5, 1043-1045. [46] GODIN, S. 2001. Unleashing the Ideavirus: Stop Marketing AT People! Turn Your Ideas
Into Epidemics by Helping Your Customers Do the Marketing Thing for You, Hyperion. [47] GRUNERT, K. G., LÄHTEENMÄKI, L., ASGER NIELSEN, N., POULSEN, J. B.,
UELAND, O. & ÅSTRÖM, A. 2001. Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification—results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 527-542.
[48] GVION-ROSENBERG, L. 1990. Why do vegetarian restaurants serve hamburgers? Toward an understanding of a cuisine. Semiotica, 80, 61-80.
[49] HARRIS, G. 1993. Introducing the infant’s first solid food. British Food Journal, 95, 7-10. [50] HENRIQUES, A. S., KING, S. C. & MEISELMAN, H. L. 2009. Consumer segmentation
based on food neophobia and its application to product development. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 83-91.
[51] HOCKING, B. & MATSUMURA, F. 1960. Bee brood as food. Bee World, 41, 113-120. [52] HOLM, L. & MØHL, M. 2000. The role of meat in everyday food culture: an analysis of an
interview study in Copenhagen. Appetite, 34, 277-283. [53] HOMMEL, J. D., TRINKO, R., SEARS, R. M., GEORGESCU, D., LIU, Z.-W., GAO, X.-
B., THURMON, J. J., MARINELLI, M. & DILEONE, R. J. 2006. Leptin Receptor Signaling in Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Regulates Feeding. Neuron, 51, 801-810.
[54] HUIS, A. V., ITTERBEECK, J. V., KLUNDER, H., MERTENS, E., HALLORAN, A., MUIR, G. & VANTOMME, P. 2013. Edible insects. Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry paper. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.
[55] JACKSON, J. E. 1991. A user's guide to principal components, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
[56] JOHNSON, A. W. 2013. Eating beyond metabolic need: how environmental cues influence feeding behavior. Trends in Neurosciences, 36, 101-109.
[57] JONAS, M. S. & BECKMANN, S. C. 1998. Functional foods: Consumer perceptions in Denmark and England.
[58] JONGEMA, Y. 2012. List of edible insects of the world (April 4, 2012) [Online]. http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Chair-groups/Plant-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Entomology/Edible-insects/Worldwide-species-list.htm. [Accessed 02/03/20014 2014].
[59] KENNEDY, J. & HEYMANN, H. 2009. Projective mapping and descriptive analysis of milk and dark chocolates. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 220-233.
62
[60] KENNY, P. J. 2011. Reward mechanisms in obesity: new insights and future directions. Neuron, 69, 664-679.
[61] KING, S. C. & MEISELMAN, H. L. 2010. Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 168-177.
[62] KING, S. C., MEISELMAN, H. L., HOTTENSTEIN, A. W., WORK, T. M. & CRONK, V. 2007. The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 58-65.
[63] KING, S. C., WEBER, A. J., MEISELMAN, H. L. & LV, N. 2004. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 645-653.
[64] KRISTENSEN, K., OSTERGAARD, P. & JUHL, H. J. 1998. Success and failure of product development in the Danish food sector. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 333-342.
[65] KÖSTER, E. P. 2007. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 70-82.
[66] LANCASTER, B. & FOLEY, M. Determining statistical significance for choose-all that-apply question responses. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 2007.
[67] LASSEN, J. & HOLM, L. 2012. Kan det spises? Sociale og kulturelle aspekter af det kødelige. In: GJERRIS, M., KLINGENBERG, R., MEYER, G. & TVEIT, G. (eds.) Kød. En antologi.: Tiderne Skifter.
[68] LAWLESS, H. T. & HEYMANN, H. 2010. Sensory evaluation of food : principles and practices, New York, Springer.
[69] LAWLESS, H. T., KLEIN, BARBARA P., HEYMANN, H. 1999. Sensory evaluation of food, principles and practices, New York, N.Y, Chapman & Hall.
[70] LEITZMANN, C. 2003. Nutrition ecology: the contribution of vegetarian diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78, 657S-659S.
[71] LOCKE, J. 1690. An essay concerning human understanding, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[72] LOUW, L., MALHERBE, S., NAES, T., LAMBRECHTS, M., VAN RENSBURG, P. & NIEUWOUDT, H. 2013. Validation of two Napping® techniques as rapid sensory screening tools for high alcohol products. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 192-201.
[73] LUTTER, M. & NESTLER, E. J. 2009. Homeostatic and Hedonic Signals Interact in the Regulation of Food Intake. The Journal of Nutrition, 139, 629-632.
[74] LÄHTEENMÄKI, L. & VAN TRIJP, H. C. M. 1995. Hedonic responses, variety-seeking tendency and expressed variety in sandwich choices. Appetite, 24, 139-151.
[75] MACEVILLY, C. 2000. Bugs in the system. Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 267-268. [76] MARDIA, K., KENT, J. & BIBBY, J. 1979. Multivariate analysis. Academic Press,
London. [77] MARTENS, M. 1999. A philosophy for sensory science. Food Quality and Preference, 10,
233-244. [78] MARTINS, Y., PELCHAT, M. L. & PLINER, P. 1997. "Try it; it's good and it's good for
you ": Effects of Taste and Nutrition Information on Willingness to Try Novel Foods. Appetite, 28, 89-102.
[79] MCALISTER, L. & PESSEMIER, E. 1982. Variety seeking behavior: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer research, 311-322.
[80] MCCLELLAND, D. C., ATKINSON, J. W., CLARK, R. A. & LOWELL, E. L. 1953. The achievement motive, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[81] MCFARLANE, T. & PLINER, P. 1997. Increasing willingness to taste novel foods: Effects of nutrition and taste information. Appetite, 28, 227-238.
63
[82] MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G. V. & CARR, B. T. 2007. Sensory evaluation techniques, Boca Raton, Fla, CRC Press.
[83] MEISELMAN, H. 2002. The effect of context environment on choice and acceptance: is context more important than product. Appetite, 39, 249.
[84] MEISELMAN, H. L. 1993. Critical evaluation of sensory techniques. Food quality and preference, 4, 33-40.
[85] MEKONNEN, M. & HOEKSTRA, A. 2010. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products.
[86] MIELBY, L. H. & FRØST, M. B. 2010. Expectations and surprise in a molecular gastronomic meal. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 213-224.
[87] MIFFLIN, H. 2000. The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Houghton Mifflin. Fourth ed.
[88] MORTON, G., CUMMINGS, D., BASKIN, D., BARSH, G. & SCHWARTZ, M. 2006. Central nervous system control of food intake and body weight. Nature, 443, 289-295.
[89] MOUSSAOUI, K. A. & VARELA, P. 2010. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1088-1099.
[90] MÄKELÄ, J. 2000. Cultural definitions of the meal. Dimensions of the meal. The science, culture, business, and art of eating. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 7Á.
[91] NESTRUD, M. A. & LAWLESS, H. T. 2008. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 431-438.
[92] NFL. 2013. Official press release: Major funding awarded for edible insect research in Denmark [Online]. Copenhagen: Nordic Food Lab. Available: http://nordicfoodlab.org/blog/2013/5/big-news [Accessed 02/10 2013].
[93] NÆS, T. & NYVOLD, T. E. 2004. Creative design - an efficient tool for product development. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 97-104.
[94] O'REGAN, J. K. & NOË, A. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939-973.
[95] OLSON, J. C. & DOVER, P. A. 1979. Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179.
[96] ONORE, G. 1997. A brief note on edible insects in Ecuador. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 36, 277-285.
[97] PAGÈS, J. 2003. Direct collection of sensory distances: application to the evaluation of ten white wines of the Loire Valley. Sciences des Aliments, 23, 679-688.
[98] PELCHAT, M. L. & PLINER, P. 1995. "Try it. You'll like it". Effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24, 153-165.
[99] PERRIN, L., SYMONEAUX, R., MAITRE, I., ASSELIN, C., JOURJON, F. & PAGES, J. 2008. Comparison of three sensory Napping® procedure: Case of methods for use with the ten wines from Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 1-11.
[100] PERYAM, D. R. & GIRARDOT, N. F. 1952. Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering, 24, 58-61.
[101] PIMENTEL, D., DRITSCHILO, W., KRUMMEL, J. & KUTZMAN, J. 1975. Energy and Land Constraints in Food Protein Production. Science, 190, 754-761.
[102] PIMENTEL, D. & PIMENTEL, M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78, 660S-663S.
[103] PIMENTEL, D. & PIMENTEL, M. H. 2007. Food, energy, and society, Crc Press.
64
[104] PLINER, P. & HOBDEN, K. 1992. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105-120.
[105] PLINER, P., LAHTEENMAKI, L. & TUORILA, H. 1998. Correlates of human food neophobia. Appetite, 30, 93.
[106] PLINER, P., PELCHAT, M. & GRABSKI, M. 1993. Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Appetite, 20, 111-123.
[107] PLINER, P. & PELCHAT, M. L. 1991. Neophobia in humans and the special status of foods of animal origin. Appetite, 16, 205-218.
[108] POPPER, R. & KROLL, D. 2005. Just-about-right scales in consumer research. Chemo Sense, 7, 3-5.
[109] POPPER, R., ROSENSTOCK, W., SCHRAIDT, M. & KROLL, B. J. 2004. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 853-858.
[110] PRESCOTT, J. 1999. Flavour as a psychological construct: implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 349-356.
[111] PULLMAN, M. E. & GROSS, M. A. 2004. Ability of Experience Design Elements to Elicit Emotions and Loyalty Behaviors. Decision Sciences, 35, 551-578.
[112] PUNTER, P. Bridging the gap between R&D and marketing: The ideal profile method. Third European confernce on sensory and consumer research, 2008 Hamburg, Germany.
[113] PUNTER, P. & WORCH, T. 2009. The ideal profile method: Combining classical profiling with JAR methodology. SPISE 2009 proceeding: Food consumer insights in Asia.
[114] RAMOS-ELORDUY, J., MORENO, J. M. P., PRADO, E. E., PEREZ, M. A., OTERO, J. L. & DE GUEVARA, O. L. 1997. Nutritional value of edible insects from the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of food composition and analysis, 10, 142-157.
[115] REIJNDERS, L. & SORET, S. 2003. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78, 664S-668S.
[116] RESURRECCION, A. V. 1998. Consumer sensory testing for product development, Gaithersburg, Aspen Publishers.
[117] RISVIK, E., MCEWAN, J. A., COLWILL, J. S., ROGERS, R. & LYON, D. H. 1994. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food quality and preference, 5, 263-269.
[118] RITCHEY, P. N., FRANK, R. A., HURSTI, U.-K. & TUORILA, H. 2003. Validation and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor analysis. Appetite, 40, 163-173.
[119] ROZIN, P. The use of characteristic flavorings in human culinary practice. Arthur D. Little, inc., Flavor Symposium. Cambridge, Mass.(USA). 1977., 1978.
[120] ROZIN, P. 1990. Development in the food domain. Developmental psychology, 26, 555. [121] ROZIN, P. & FALLON, A. 1980. The psychological categorization of foods and non-
foods: A preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1, 193-201. [122] ROZIN, P. & FALLON, A. E. 1987. A perspective on disgust. Psychological review, 94,
23. [123] RUMBLE, V. R. 2009. Soup Through the Ages: A Culinary History with Period Recipes,
McFarland, Incorporated Publishers. [124] RUMPOLD, B. A. & SCHLÜTER, O. K. 2013. Potential and challenges of insects as an
innovative source for food and feed production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 17, 1-11.
65
[125] SANTOS, B. A., POLLONIO, M. A. R., CRUZ, A. G., MESSIAS, V. C., MONTEIRO, R. A., OLIVEIRA, T. L. C., FARIA, J. A. F., FREITAS, M. Q. & BOLINI, H. M. A. 2013. Ultra-flash profile and projective mapping for describing sensory attributes of prebiotic mortadellas. Food Research International, 54, 1705-1711.
[126] SAPER, C. B., CHOU, T. C. & ELMQUIST, J. K. 2002. The Need to Feed: Homeostatic and Hedonic Control of Eating. Neuron, 36, 199-211.
[127] SCHIFFERSTEIN, H. N. J., KOLE, A. P. W. & MOJET, J. 1999. Asymmetry in the Disconfirmation of Expectations for Natural Yogurt. Appetite, 32, 307-329.
[128] SCHÖSLER, H., BOER, J. D. & BOERSEMA, J. J. 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58, 39-47.
[129] SHEPHERD, G. M. 2006. Smell images and the flavour system in the human brain. Nature, 444, 316-321.
[130] SHEPHERD, R. 1989. Factors influencing food preferences and choice. Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating, 3-24.
[131] SHEPHERD, R. & SPARKS, P. 1994. Modelling food choice. Measurement of food preferences. Springer.
[132] SLOAN, A. E. 2002. The top 10 functional food trends: The next generation. Food Technology, 56, 32-+.
[133] SRIVASTAVA, S., BABU, N. & PANDEY, H. 2009. Traditional insect bioprospecting-As human food and medicine. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 8, 485-494.
[134] STEVENSON, R. J. & BOAKES, R. A. 2004. Sweet and sour smells: learned synesthesia between the senses of taste and smell. The handbook of multisensory processes, 69-83.
[135] STEWART-KNOX, B. & MITCHELL, P. 2003. What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14, 58-64.
[136] STONE, H., SIDEL, J. & MACFIE, H. 2007. Sensory research and consumer-led food product development. Consumer-led food product development, 307-320.
[137] STONE, H. & SIDEL, J. L. 2004. Sensory evaluation practices, Academic press. [138] TICHENER, E. B. 1909. A text-book of psychology, Macmillan. [139] TUORILA, H., LÄHTEENMÄKI, L., POHJALAINEN, L. & LOTTI, L. 2001. Food
neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 29-37.
[140] TUORILA, H., MEISELMAN, H. L., BELL, R., CARDELLO, A. V. & JOHNSON, W. 1994. Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite, 23, 231-246.
[141] TUORILA, H. & PANGBORN, R. M. 1988. Prediction of reported consumption of selected fat-containing foods. Appetite, 11, 81-95.
[142] TWIGG, J. (ed.) 1983. Vegetarianism and the Meanings of Meat: Gower Publishing Co. Ltd.
[143] VALENTIN, D., CHOLLET, S., LELIEVRE, M. & ABDI, H. 2012. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 47, 1563-1578.
[144] VAN TRIJP, H. C. M. 1994. Product related determinants of variety seeking behavior for foods. Appetite, 22, 1-10.
[145] VAN TRIJP, H. C. M. & VAN KLEEF, E. 2008. Newness, value and new product performance. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 562-573.
66
[146] VARELA, F. J., THOMPSON, E. T. & ROSCH, E. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience, The MIT Press.
[147] VEBLEN, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class: An economic study in the evolution of institutions, Macmillan & Company, Limited.
[148] VIALLES, N. 1994. Animal to edible, Cambridge University Press. [149] WANSINK, B. 2005. Marketing nutrition: soy, functional foods, biotechnology, and
obesity, University of Illinois Press. [150] WORCH, T., LÊ, S. & PUNTER, P. How reliable are consumers? Comparison of sensory
profiles from consumers and experts. Ninth sensometrics meeting, 2008 St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada.
[151] YEN, A. L. 2009. Edible insects: Traditional knowledge or western phobia? Entomological Research, 39, 289-298.
[152] YEOMANS, M. R., CHAMBERS, L., BLUMENTHAL, H. & BLAKE, A. 2008. The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream. Elsevier, 19, 565-573.
[153] YHOUNG‐AREE, J., PUWASTIEN, P. & ATTIG, G. A. 1997. Edible insects in Thailand: An unconventional protein source? Ecology of food and nutrition, 36, 133-149.
[154] ZHI‐YI, L. 1997. Insects as food in China. Ecology of food and nutrition, 36, 201-207.
67
Appendix
Appendix I: Recipes
Recipe 1 Visible bee larvae, much vegetables aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae Ingredients 15 g of frozen bee larvae 20 g of onion 5 g of garlic 100 g of vegetable (30 g of leeks, 30 g of carrots and 40 g of celeri-ac) 4 stems of coarsely picked parsley 300 g of water 50 g of cream apple cider vinegar, frying oil, butter and salt
Approach Sauté bee larvae in oil and butter for 4-5 min in a sauté pan, until browned. Add chopped onion, garlic, leeks, carrots and celeriac. Keep on heat for another 3-4 min. Add water to cover the ingredients and put it to simmer for 15 minutes including pars-ley.
Add cream and mix it in thoroughly. Fla-vor with salt and vinegar.
Recipe 2 No visible bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor and initial sautéing of bee larvae Ingredients 15 g of frozen bee larvae 20 g of onion 5 g of garlic 100 g of vegetable (30 g of leeks, 30 g of carrots and 40 g of celeri-ac) 4 stems of coarsely picked parsley 300 g of water 50 g of cream apple cider vinegar, frying oil, butter and salt
Approach Sauté bee larvae in oil and butter for 4-5 min in a sauté pan, until browned. Add chopped onion, garlic, leeks, carrots and celeriac. Keep on heat for another 3-4 min. Add water to cover the ingredients and put it to simmer for 15 minutes including pars-ley.
Add cream and mix it in thoroughly. Fla-vor with salt and vinegar.
Recipe 5 No bee larvae, much vegetable aromatic flavor, no initial sautéing of bee larvae Ingredients 20 g of onion 5 g of garlic 100 g of vegetable (30 g of leeks, 30 g of carrots and 40 g of celeri-ac) 4 stems of coarsely picked parsley 300 g of water 50 g of cream apple cider vinegar, frying oil, butter and salt
Approach Sauté chopped onion, garlic, leeks, carrots and celeriac. Add water to cover the ingre-dients and put it to simmer for 15 minutes including parsley.
Add cream and mix it in thoroughly. Fla-vor with salt and vinegar.
68
Appendix II: Tukey test Table 12. p-values from Tukey test: group comparison of liking. Significant code: ’*’ 0.05.
Visible Non-visible Vegetable
Group B – Group A
0.998 1.000 0.878
Group C – Group A
1.000 0.966 0.989
Group D – Group A
0.989 0.997 1.000
Group E – Group A
0.912 1.000 0.991
Group F – Group A
0.730 0.094 0.997
Group C – Group B
0.998 0.871 0.517
Group D – Group B
1.000 0.971 0.946
Group E – Group B
0.986 0.998 0.999
Group F – Group B
0.900 0.153 0.996
Group D – Group C
0.989 1.000 0.984
Group E – Group C
0.911 0.992 0.857
Group F – Group C
0.731 0.015* 0.907
Group E – Group D
0.999 1.000 0.997
Group F – Group D
0.977 0.049* 0.999
Group F – Group E
0.999 0.118 1.000
69
Appendix III: Questionnaire
70
