In recent years, edible insects, lab-grown meat, and vertically farmed produce have been praised as potential sustainable food alternatives to the increasingly unsustainable Western diet. Although these sustainable food alternatives offer considerable benefits, consumers typically reject them without much consideration. When prompted to explain their rejection, consumers often report specific concerns regarding these foods. Edible insects, for instance, are argued to carry “diseases,” lab-grown meat is seen as “unhealthy,” and vertically farmed produce is perceived to be “less natural.” Addressing these self-reported concerns has, however, proven insufficient in fully overcoming consumers’ rejection.
The results of the three empirical studies presented in this manuscript offer a new explanation as to why. Specifically, we argue that consumers’ self-reported concerns regarding sustainable food alternatives may not per se convey the root cause of their rejection. Instead, we argue that people may also report such concerns as the result of an underlying problem: sustainable food alternatives may elicit disgust because they typically deviate from what consumers have internalized to be normal food, causing consumers to intuitively reject them. Importantly, in an attempt to appear rational, disgusted consumers may consequently rationalize their intuitive rejection with seemingly reasonable concerns, such as “insects carry diseases.”
Rather than exclusively addressing consumers' self-reported concerns, our results suggest that marketers seeking to promote sustainable food alternatives should consider a subtle, less mentioned cause of consumers' rejection: the perception that these foods deviate from people's internalized norms.
