Neat, I guess, but I really expected this study to actually offer people insects to eat.
A "yes" on a questionnaire feels about as relevant and actionable as a "maybe" on an event invite.
Based on the findings here:
> These emotional reactions were particularly prominent for unprocessed or visually apparent insect formats, reinforcing the view that entomophagy challenges deeply anchored cultural expectations about what constitutes acceptable food. Given this barrier, product formats that conceal or process insects can reduce sensory aversion and facilitate initial acceptance.
Any kind of "insect food" is likely to go the same way resulting in heavily processed products with added sugar, salt, and fat to make them palatable. Even then it's a really tough sell given all the "live in the pod, eat the bug" memes out there.
Finally, I struggle to see how insects would be a more economical source of protein than beans or processed foods derived from beans like Beyond Meat and various soy products.
how can we know, for example, that the higher acceptance from those with more postgraduate education is simply that they're just migrants from nonwestern societies
flawed study