How circular will you eat? The sustainability challenge in food and consumer reaction to either waste-to-value or yet underused novel ingredients in food
Abstract
In the light of the sustainability challenge ahead, the food sector has to become more resource efficient. This includes moving towards a circularity approach in which by-products from production side-streams are re-inserted into the food chain. However, it is unclear how consumers react to food products based on ingredients previously wasted in the supply chain, or innovative food ingredients from yet underused production streams. The current study uses an experimental survey design to assess consumer attitude towards a plant-based cocoa drink among 491 Danish consumers of cocoa-flavoured drinks. In a between-subjects design, the product is first, either from the market leader in plant-based drinks or from an unfamiliar, non-Danish brand, second, contains either potato or grass protein, and third, is presented with or without communication on the sustainability benefit. The benefit consists of potato protein being from by-products previously wasted, and grass protein an innovative ingredient yet underused for food purpose. Attitude towards the new product is assessed relative to a soy based cocoa drink of the same brand. ANOVA results show a main effect of gender and brand and an interaction of ingredient with both brand and communication, respectively. For both grass and potato proteins, the unknown brand is relatively preferred – more pronounced for potato – and better liked by males. Communication improves attitude towards potato drink. Findings imply that brand- and product design-related differences play a role in determining attitude to products with such new ingredients. Consumers’ relatively lower attitude towards the potato ingredient can be alleviated by communication.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Product brand does not appear to act in favour of upcycled foods.
“In terms of product brand, although consumers consider brand as one of the food quality indicators [77], this factor does not appear to act in favour of upcycled foods [25,60].”
From Challenges for Upcycled Foods: Definition, Inclusion in the Food Waste Management Hierarchy and Public Acceptability (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Communication and education can improve the acceptability of upcycled foods.
“The public knowledge of upcycled foods is limited [19], therefore, communication and education can improve the acceptability of these foods [25].”
From Challenges for Upcycled Foods: Definition, Inclusion in the Food Waste Management Hierarchy and Public Acceptability (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Unfamiliarity with upcycled ingredients can affect food acceptability.
“Likewise, unfamiliarity with upcycled ingredients can affect food acceptability.”
From Challenges for Upcycled Foods: Definition, Inclusion in the Food Waste Management Hierarchy and Public Acceptability (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Women may not be in favour of upcycled foods because they are more health-conscious and risk-averse and may perceive these foods as unhealthy.
“For example, women are more health-conscious and risk-averse than men [62,63,64] and thus may not be in favour of upcycled foods [22,25,59] as they probably perceive these foods as unhealthy options.”
From Challenges for Upcycled Foods: Definition, Inclusion in the Food Waste Management Hierarchy and Public Acceptability (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1259855 · Cited by 12,527 · see citing works
Solutions for a cultivated planet
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10452 · Cited by 8,476 · see citing works
Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216 · Cited by 6,085 · see citing works
Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.171.3977.1212 · Cited by 3,628 · see citing works
Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand
Grunert, K. G. (2005) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbi011 · Cited by 1,741 · see citing works
Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society
Verbeke, W. (2015) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008 · Cited by 849 · see citing works
Attitudes behind consumers' willingness to use functional foods
Urala, N., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2004) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.008 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Perceived quality: A market driven and consumer oriented approach
Ophuis, P. A. M. O., & van Trijp, J. C. M. (1995) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/0950-3293(94)00028-t · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Verneau, F., Barbera, F. L., Kolle, S., Amato, M., Giudice, T. D., & Grunert, K. G. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.006 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Aschemann‐Witzel, J., Varela, P., & Peschel, A. O. (2018) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.003 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Self-citationGrunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Scholderer, J. (2003) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/s1466-8564(03)00035-3 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers
Reipurth, M. F. S., Hørby, L., Gregersen, C. G., Bonke, A., & Perez Cueto, F. J. A. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.012 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Bhatt, S., Lee, J., Deutsch, J., Ayaz, H., Fulton, B., & Suri, R. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1689 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Banović, M., Arvola, A., Pennanen, K., Duță, D. E., Brückner‐Gühmann, M., Lähteenmäki, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2018) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.034 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Fine-Tuning the Fight Against Food Waste
Aschemann‐Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Almli, V. L., & Oostindjer, M. (2018) · Journal of Macromarketing · doi:10.1177/0276146718763251 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumers’ associative networks of plant-based food product communications
Peschel, A. O., Kazemi, S., Liebichová, M., Sarraf, S. C. M., & Aschemann‐Witzel, J. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.015 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationDamborg, V. K., Stødkilde, L., Jensen, S. K., & Weisbjerg, M. R. (2018) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.08.004 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Reclaimed water and food production: Cautionary tales from consumer research
Savchenko, O. M., Kecinski, M., Li, T., & Messer, K. D. (2018) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.051 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Petrescu, D. C., Vermeir, I., & Petrescu-Mag, R. M. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17010169 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Coderoni, S., & Perito, M. A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119870 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Stangherlin, I. D. C. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120749 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationDefining upcycled food: The dual role of upcycling in reducing food loss and waste
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Asioli, D., Banovic, M., Perito, M. A., Peschel, A. O., & Stancu, V. (2023) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2023.01.001 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citationMoshtaghian, H., Bolton, K., & Rousta, K. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10112874 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
“For example, the consumer’s low acceptability of protein drinks made from potato by-products or grass as a protein source [25] can be due to the inclusion of unfamiliar ingredients.”
BackgroundInfluentialConsumer preferences for upcycled ingredients: A case study with biscuits
Grasso, S., & Asioli, D. (2020) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103951 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Peschel, A. O., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122884 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumers’ willingness to pay for upcycled foods
Bhatt, S., Ye, H., Deutsch, J., Ayaz, H., & Suri, R. (2020) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104035 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Addressing food waste: How to position upcycled foods to different generations
Zhang, J., Ye, H., Bhatt, S., Jeong, H., Deutsch, J., Ayaz, H., & Suri, R. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1844 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
The high-value and sustainable utilization of grape pomace: A review
Wang, C., You, Y., Huang, W., & Zhan, J. (2024) · Food Chemistry: X · doi:10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101845 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Altintzoglou, T., Honkanen, P., & Whitaker, R. D. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125487 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Retail Potential for Upcycled Foods: Evidence from New Zealand
Goodman-Smith, F., Bhatt, S., Moore, R., Mirosa, M., Ye, H., Deutsch, J., & Suri, R. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13052624 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Ali, S., Akter, S., & Fogarassy, C. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13105390 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Trade-offs in food systems; How does upcycling edible resources fit in the big picture?
Altintzoglou, T., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2024) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104246 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Peschel, A. O.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- ORCID
- Peschel, Anne Odile
- Venue
- Food Quality and Preference
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 77
- Pages
- 15-20
- ISSN
- 0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2943972674
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 11.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Innovationsfonden
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
- Keywords
- food waste valorization, consumer attitudes, novel food ingredients, potato protein, grass protein, sustainability communication, brand familiarity, gender differences, food by-products
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
