SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yüksek İhtisas Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Food Neophobia and Approach to Alternative Food Sources

Besin Neofobisi ve Alternatif Besinlere Yaklaşım

İrem Olcay Eminsoy(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, BESLENME VE DİYETETİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-3621-0662
Gökhan Eminsoy0000-0002-6070-7329
Emel Aydan Oral0000-0002-4462-2050
Meriç Yavuz Çolak(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0294-6874
Pages
20–27
Publication Date
2026-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Total FNS scores in the SG showed only a slight, nonsignificant reduction, and no significant post-intervention differences in overall neophobia were identified between groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Sustainable protein sources such as plant-based alternatives, edible insects, algae, and cultured meat have gained global attention; however, food neophobia remains a major psychological barrier to their acceptance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: This quasi-experimental study included female university students allocated to a control group (CG, n = 44) and a study group (SG, n = 26).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Total FNS scores in the SG showed only a slight, nonsignificant reduction, and no significant post-intervention differences in overall neophobia were identified between groups.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Alternatif proteinler · beslenme eğitimi · besin neofobisi

Abstract

Introduction: Sustainable protein sources such as plant-based alternatives, edible insects, algae, and cultured meat have gained global attention; however, food neophobia remains a major psychological barrier to their acceptance. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of an educational intervention on sustainability and alternative food sources on food neophobia and the desire to consume different alternative food groups in nutrition and dietetics students. Material and Methods: This quasi-experimental study included female university students allocated to a control group (CG, n = 44) and a study group (SG, n = 26). The SG received a seven-week structured education program (30 min/week) covering sustainability, planetary health, and alternative protein sources. The Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) and a researcher-developed alternative food consumption questionnaire were administered before and after the intervention. Appropriate statistical tests and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were used. Results: After the intervention, the SG demonstrated significant increases in consumption scores for plant-based, familiar animal-based, and alternative animal–plant-based foods compared with both the baseline and the CG (p < 0,05). Total FNS scores in the SG showed only a slight, nonsignificant reduction, and no significant post-intervention differences in overall neophobia were identified between groups. Conclusion: Short-term, information-based education can enhance willingness to try sustainable alternative foods but appears insufficient to meaningfully reduce deeply rooted food neophobia. Long-term exposurebased or sensory-focused interventions may be necessary

Özet

Giriş: Bitki temelli ürünler, yenilebilir böcekler, algler ve kültürlenmiş et gibi sürdürülebilir protein kaynaklarına ilgi artmaktadır; ancak besin neofobisi bu yeni besinlerin kabulünde önemli bir psikolojik engel oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma ile beslenme ve diyetetik öğrencilerinde sürdürülebilirlik ve alternatif besin kaynaklarına yönelik bir eğitim müdahalesinin, besin neofobisi ve farklı alternatif besin gruplarını tüketme isteği üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Materyal ve Metodlar: Bu yarı deneysel çalışmada, kontrol grubu (KG, n = 44) ve çalışma grubu (SG, n = 26) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılan kadın üniversite öğrencileri yer almıştır. Çalışma grubu, sürdürülebilirlik, gezegen sağlığı ve alternatif protein kaynaklarını kapsayan yedi haftalık yapılandırılmış bir eğitim programına (haftada 30 dakika) katılmıştır. Eğitim öncesinde ve sonrasında Gıda Neofobisi Ölçeği (FNS) ve araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen alternatif gıda tüketimi anketi uygulanmıştır. Uygun istatistiksel testler ve etki büyüklükleri (Cohen’in d’si) kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Eğitim sonrasında, SG grubu, hem başlangıç durumuna hem de CG grubuna kıyasla bitkisel bazlı, tanıdık hayvansal bazlı ve alternatif hayvansal-bitkisel bazlı gıdaların tüketim puanlarında anlamlı artışlar göstermiştir (p<0,05). SG grubunda toplam FNS puanlarında yalnızca hafif, anlamlı olmayan bir azalma görülmüş ve gruplar arasında genel neofobi açısından eğitim sonrasında anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır. Sonuç: Kısa vadeli, bilgiye dayalı eğitim, sürdürülebilir alternatif gıdaları deneme isteğini artırabilir; ancak köklü gıda fobisini anlamlı düzeyde azaltmak için yeterli değildir. Uzun vadeli, maruz kalmaya dayalı veya duyusal odaklı eğitimler gerekli olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eminsoy, İ. O., Eminsoy, G., Oral, E. A., Çolak, M. Y. (2026). Food Neophobia and Approach to Alternative Food Sources. Yüksek İhtisas Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 20–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/1647679

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Serra-Majem L, Tomaino L, Dernini S, Berry EM, Lairon D, Ngo de la Cruz J, et al. Updating the mediterranean diet pyramid towards sustainability: focus on environmental concerns. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238758
  2. Burlingame B, Charrondiere U, Dernini S, Stadlmayr B, Mondovì S. Food biodiversity and sustainable diets: implications of applications for food production and processing. In: Boye JI, Arcand Y, editors. Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing, Food Engineering Series. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- 1587-9_24
  3. Bessada SMF, Barreira JCM, Oliveira MBPP. Pulses and food security: dietary protein, digestibility, bioactive and functional properties. Trends Food Sci Technol [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10]. 2019;93:53–68. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419303632
  4. Bach-Faig A, Berry EM, Lairon D, Reguant J, Trichopoulou A, Dernini S, et al. Mediterranean diet pyramid today. Science and cultural updates. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(12A):2274–2284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011002515
  5. Koliaki CC, Katsilambros NL, Dimosthenopoulos C. The mediterranean diet in the era of climate change: a reference diet for human and planetary health. [Internet. Cited 2025 Nov 28] Climate. 2024;12(9):136. Available from: https:// www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/12/9/136 https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090136
  6. Nelson ME, Hamm MW, Hu FB, Abrams SA, Grifn TS. Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: a systematic review. Adv Nutr. 2016;7(6):1005–1025. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012567
  7. Baudry J, Pointereau P, Seconda L, Vidal R, Taupier-Letage B, Langevin B, et al. Improvement of diet sustainability with increased level of organic food in the diet: fndings from the BioNutriNet cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Apr 1;109(4):1173–1188. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/30982857/. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy361
  8. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Nature. 2014;515:518–522. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13959. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature13959
  9. Mariutti LRB, Rebelo KS, Bisconsin-Junior A, de Morais JS, Magnani M, Maldonade IR, et al. The use of alternative food sources to improve health and guarantee access and food intake. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Food Res Int. 2021;149:110709. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0963996921006086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodres.2021.110709
  10. Hwang J, You J, Moon J, Jeong J. Factors affecting consumers’ alternative meats buying intentions: plant-based meat alternative and cultured meat. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071– 1050/12/14/5662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145662
  11. Sillman J, Nygren L, Kahiluoto H, Ruuskanen V, Tamminen A, Bajamundi C, et al. Bacterial protein for food and feed generated via renewable energy and direct air capture of CO2: can it reduce land and water use? [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Glob Food Sec. 2019;22:25–32. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241830141X. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.09.007
  12. Thavamani A, Sferra TJ, Sankararaman S. Meet the meat alternatives: the value of alternative protein sources [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33151486/
  13. Post MJ. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Meat Sci. 2012;92(3):297–301. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174012001210 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
  14. Specht EA, Welch DR, Rees Clayton EM, Lagally CD. Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Biochem Eng J. 2018;132:161–168. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1369703X1830024X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.01.015
  15. Pliner P, Hobden K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Appetite. 1992;19(2):105– 120. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/019566639290014W. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W
  16. Sogari G, Riccioli F, Moruzzo R, Menozzi D, Tzompa Sosa DA, Li J, et al. Engaging in entomophagy: the role of food neophobia and disgust between insect and non-insect eaters. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Food Qual Prefer. 2023;104:104764. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0950329322002397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2022.104764
  17. Duman E, Akçil Ok M, Kese A. Adaptation of the food neophobia scale into Turkish: validity and reliability study. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10]. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Derg. 2020;6(2):157–161. Available from: https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kusbed/issue/54752/643038. https://doi.org/10.30934/ kusbed.643038
  18. Pulluk E. Ön lisans öğrencilerinde yiyecek neofobisi üzerine nitel bir araştırma. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Turizm ve İşletme Bilimleri Derg. 2022;2(1): 39–51. issue/68380/1066270
  19. Bolat H, Ergün C. Yeni besin deneme korkusu: obezite gelişiminin hem nedeni hem sonucudur. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Derg. 2023;7(1):145–158. issue/75718/1152162. https://doi.org/10.46237/amusbfd.1152162
  20. White KP, Al-Shawaf L, Lewis DMG, Wehbe YS. Food neophobia and disgust, but not hunger, predict willingness to eat insect protein. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 11] Pers Individ Dif. 2023;202:111944. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886922004494. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111944
  21. Siegrist M, Hartmann C. Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 11] Appetite. 2020;155:104814. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666320301045. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814
  22. Siddiqu SA, Zannou O, Karim I, Kasmiati NMHA, Gołaszewski J, et al. Avoiding food neophobia and increasing consumer acceptance of new food trends—a decade of research. Sustainability. 2022;14(16):10391. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10391. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141610391
  23. Rumpold BA, van Huis A. Education as a key to promoting insects as food. [Cited 2025 Apr 10] J Insects Food Feed. 2021;7(6):949–953. Available from: https://brill.com/view/journals/jiff/7/6/article-p949_1.xml. https://doi. org/10.3920/JIFF2021.007x
  24. Tolve R, Zanoni M, Sportiello L, Musollini S, Tchuenbou-Magaia FL, Favati F. From fear to fork—exploring food neophobia and the inclination towards entomophagy in Italy. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 11] Int J Food Sci Technol. 2025;60(1):vvae047. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijfood/vvae047
  25. Laureati M, De Boni A, Saba A, Lamy E, Minervini F, Delgado AM, et al. Determinants of consumers’ acceptance and adoption of novel food in view of more resilient and sustainable food systems in the EU. A systematic literature review. Foods. 2024;13(10):1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13101534
  26. Mosikyan S, Dolan R, Corsi AM, Bastian S. A systematic literature review and future research agenda to study consumer acceptance of novel foods and beverages. [Internet. Cited 2025 Dec 2] Appetite. 2024;203:107655. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324004586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107655
  27. Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. [Internet. Cited 2025 Dec 2] Trends Food Sci Technol. 2017;61:11–25. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224416302904. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006
  28. Cunha LM, Ribeiro JC. Consumer studies of the use of insects as food. In: Meiselman HL, editor. Handbook of Eating and Drinking [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 2] Cham: Springer; 2025. p. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-75388-1_209-1
  29. Alhujaili A, Nocella G, Macready A. Insects as food: consumers’ acceptance and marketing. Foods. 2023;12(4):886. Available from: https://www.mdpi. com/2304–8158/12/4/886. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040886
  30. Sogari G, Menozzi D, Mora C. The food neophobia scale and young adults’ intention to eat insect products. [Internet. Cited 2025 Dec 2] Int J Consum Stud. 2019;43(1):68–76. Available from: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/ providers/122535/records/65dfcc730f3e94b9e5dc5300?utm_source=chatgpt. com. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12485
  31. Bae Y, Choi J. Consumer acceptance of edible insect foods: an application of the extended theory of planned behavior. [Internet. Cited 2025 Dec 2] Nutr Res Pract. 2020;15(1):122–135. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ articles/PMC7838479/. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2021.15.1.122
  32. Pakseresht A, Kaliji SA, Canavari M. Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite. 2022;170:105829. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829
  33. Bryant C, Barnett J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an updated review (2018–2020). Appl Sci. 2020;10(15):5201. Available from: https://www.mdpi. com/2076-3417/10/15/5201. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155201
  34. Simsa R, Yuen J, Stout A, Rubio N, Fogelstrand P, Kaplan DL. Extracellular heme proteins ınfluence bovine myosatellite cell proliferation and the color of cell-based meat. Foods. 2019;8(10):521. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100521
  35. Hocquette J-F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 2016;120:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.036
  36. Chriki S, Hocquette JF. The myth of cultured meat: a review. Front Nutr. 2020;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007
  37. Michel F, Siegrist M. How should importance of naturalness be measured? A comparison of different scales. Appetite. 2019;140:298–304. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.019
  38. Motoki K, Park J, Spence C, Velasco C. Contextual acceptance of novel and unfamiliar foods: insects, cultured meat, plant-based meat alternatives, and 3D printed foods. Food Qual Prefer. 2022;96:104368. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329321002500. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104368
  39. Tan HSG, Fischer ARH, Tinchan P, Stieger M, Steenbekkers LPA, van Trijp HCM. Insects as food: exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual Prefer. 2015;42:78–89. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329315000221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.013
  40. La Barbera F, Verneau F, Amato M, Grunert K. Understanding westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: the role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual Prefer. 2018;64:120–125. Available from: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032931730229X. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002
  41. Payne CL, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Nonaka K. Are edible insects more or less ‘healthy’ than commonly consumed meats? A comparison using two nutrient profling models developed to combat over- and undernutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70(3):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2015.149
  42. van Huis A, Oonincx DGAB. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2017;37(43). https://doi. org/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8
  43. Pulluk E. Ön lisans öğrencilerinde yiyecek neofobisi üzerine nitel bir araştırma. [Internet. Cited 2025 Apr 10] Turizm ve İşletme Bilimleri Derg. 2022;2(1): 39–51. issue/68380/1066270
  44. Bolat H, Ergün C. Yeni besin deneme korkusu: obezite gelişiminin hem nedeni hem sonucudur. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Derg. 2023;7(1):145–158. issue/75718/1152162. https://doi.org/10.46237/amusbfd.1152162