In the Brazilian context, many plants have been marketed under the name of unconventional food plants (UFPs). However, it is not known whether this label causes some bias in product acceptance. Thus, two case studies were conducted to fill this gap. The research also sought to determine if the type of fair (agroecological vs. common) where the UFP is sold, the familiarity with the term, and the identification of a UFP when used as an ingredient act as moderating variables of this relationship. This paper presents data from two case studies. The first was conducted with jenipapo juice through sensory evaluations at a conventional fair and an agroecological fair in the metropolitan region of Maceió (Northeast Brazil). The product was offered to some attendees without giving them any information, while for other attendees, the presence of a UFP and the underlying concept were mentioned. In this context, the UFP label did not affect the sensory evaluation. In the second case study, taioba cakes were offered to students from a public university in the same city. In this context, the UFP-labelled product was less accepted than the product without the label only for students who had not heard of UFPs. The differences between the two case studies reinforce the need to expand research on this topic to identify in which contexts the UFP label influences sensory evaluations.

在巴西，许多植物都以非常规食用植物（UFPs）的名义销售。但是，尚不清楚此标签是否会引起产品接受度的偏差。因此，进行了两个案例研究来填补这一空白。该研究还试图确定在哪里出售UFP的公平类型（农业生态与普通），对术语的熟悉程度以及UFP用作成分时的标识是否可以作为这种关系的调节变量。本文提供了来自两个案例研究的数据。第一次是与jenipapo一起进行的通过在大都会地区Maceió（巴西东北部）举行的常规博览会和农业生态博览会上进行的感官评估获得果汁。该产品是在没有提供任何信息的情况下提供给某些与会者的，而对于其他与会者，则提到了UFP的存在和基本概念。在这种情况下，UFP标签不会影响感官评估。在第二个案例研究中，向同一个城市的一所公立大学的学生提供了taioba蛋糕。在这种情况下，只有未听说过UFP的学生才将带有UFP标签的产品比没有标签的产品接受度低。两种案例研究之间的差异强化了对这一主题进行扩展研究的必要性，以识别UFP标签在哪些背景下影响感官评估。