Increasing environmental and ethical concerns are driving the transition toward more sustainable livestock production systems. However, consumer acceptance remains a critical and underexplored bottleneck, particularly for beef from animals fed agro-industrial by-products. In this context, we investigated Italian consumer attitudes and acceptance of beef derived from cattle fed hazelnut skins (HSs), a by-product of the hazelnut processing industry classified as waste under EU regulation, representing a novel circular economy application. An online survey (CAWI) was administered to 900 Italian beef consumers in 2023. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified five attitudinal patterns: Conscious and Confident, Food Neophilic, Environmentally Concerned, Animal Nutrition Concerned, and Food Neophobic. K-means cluster analysis on PCA scores yielded five consumer segments, characterized by socio-demographic variables and attitudes toward novel foods. Age and sensitivity to sustainability significantly predicted acceptance of HS-fed beef. The Informed, Curious, and Concerned segment (24%) reported the highest acceptability (mean = 5.58/7) and environmental sustainability scores (mean = 5.83/7). The Informed Meat-Eaters segment (14.2%) showed the strongest health benefit perceptions (mean = 5.13/7). Older consumers, concentrated on the Sustainable and Selective cluster, showed more moderate acceptance, moderated by food neophobia. We are some of the first to examine consumer segmentation in the context of beef from farms fed with by-products in Italy. Our findings provide actionable guidance for differentiated communication strategies across consumer segments and inform policymakers on promoting circular food systems.
Citation: Elena Diaz Vicuna, Valentina Maria Merlino, Stefano Massaglia, Jatziri Mota-Gutierrez, Claudio Forte, Simone Blanc. Reimagining beef: Consumer attitudes and acceptance of upcycled animal feed[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2026, 11(1): 205-227. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026011
Increasing environmental and ethical concerns are driving the transition toward more sustainable livestock production systems. However, consumer acceptance remains a critical and underexplored bottleneck, particularly for beef from animals fed agro-industrial by-products. In this context, we investigated Italian consumer attitudes and acceptance of beef derived from cattle fed hazelnut skins (HSs), a by-product of the hazelnut processing industry classified as waste under EU regulation, representing a novel circular economy application. An online survey (CAWI) was administered to 900 Italian beef consumers in 2023. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified five attitudinal patterns: Conscious and Confident, Food Neophilic, Environmentally Concerned, Animal Nutrition Concerned, and Food Neophobic. K-means cluster analysis on PCA scores yielded five consumer segments, characterized by socio-demographic variables and attitudes toward novel foods. Age and sensitivity to sustainability significantly predicted acceptance of HS-fed beef. The Informed, Curious, and Concerned segment (24%) reported the highest acceptability (mean = 5.58/7) and environmental sustainability scores (mean = 5.83/7). The Informed Meat-Eaters segment (14.2%) showed the strongest health benefit perceptions (mean = 5.13/7). Older consumers, concentrated on the Sustainable and Selective cluster, showed more moderate acceptance, moderated by food neophobia. We are some of the first to examine consumer segmentation in the context of beef from farms fed with by-products in Italy. Our findings provide actionable guidance for differentiated communication strategies across consumer segments and inform policymakers on promoting circular food systems.
| [1] |
Mehrabi Z, Delzeit R, Ignaciuk A, et al. (2022) Research priorities for global food security under extreme events. One Earth 5: 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.008
|
| [2] |
Komarek AM, Dunston S, Enahoro D, et al. (2021) Income, consumer preferences, and the future of livestock-derived food demand. Glob Environ Change 70: 102343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102343 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102343
|
| [3] | Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) (2025) EU beef market update: Lower demand weighs on prices despite lower production. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Available from: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/eu-beef-market-update-lower-demand-weighs-on-prices-despite-lower-production. |
| [4] | EC (2025) EU agricultural outlook for markets, 2023–2035. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels. Available from: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/outlook/medium-term_en. |
| [5] |
Gerber PJ, Mottet A, Opio CI, et al. (2015) Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Sci 109: 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013
|
| [6] |
Hocquette JF, Ellies-Oury MP, Lherm M, et al. (2018) Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Europe—A review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 31: 1017–1035. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0196 doi: 10.5713/ajas.18.0196
|
| [7] |
Greenwood PL (2021) An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal 15: 100295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100295 doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100295
|
| [8] |
Parlasca MC, Qaim M (2022) Meat consumption and sustainability. Annu Rev Resour Econ 14: 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340 doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340
|
| [9] |
Hilborn R, Banobi J, Hall SJ, et al. (2018) The environmental cost of animal source foods. Front Ecol Environ 16: 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1822 doi: 10.1002/fee.1822
|
| [10] |
Pinotti L, Luciano A, Ottoboni M, et al. (2021) Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J Clean Prod 294: 126290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290
|
| [11] |
Pinotti L, Mazzoleni S, Moradei A, et al. (2023) Effects of alternative feed ingredients on red meat quality: A review of algae, insects, agro-industrial by-products and former food products. Ital J Anim Sci 22: 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2238784 doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2023.2238784
|
| [12] |
Khanal P (2024) Use of land-based and aquatic alternative feed resources to establish a circular economy within livestock production. J Agric Food Res 9: 101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101087 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101087
|
| [13] |
Rațu RN, Veleșcu ID, Stoica F, et al. (2023) Application of agri-food by-products in the food industry. Agriculture 13: 1559. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081559 doi: 10.3390/agriculture13081559
|
| [14] |
Davison N, Christodoulou C, Humphries D, et al. (2026) Environmental and economic impacts of using brewers spent grains for animal feed and anaerobic digestion. J Cleaner Prod 538: 147365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.147365 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.147365
|
| [15] | Giannico F, Petrontino A, Bozzo F, et al. (2025) Grape pomace in diets for Podolian and crossbred young bulls: effects on growth performance, meat quality, and economic analysis of meat production. Front Anim Sci 6: 1547585. |
| [16] |
Molina-Alcaide E, Yáñez-Ruiz DR (2008) Potential use of olive by-products in ruminant feeding: A review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 147: 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.021 doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.021
|
| [17] |
Arthington JD, Kunkle WE, Martin AM (2002) Citrus pulp for cattle. Vet Clin: Food Anim Pract 18: 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(02)00023-3 doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(02)00023-3
|
| [18] |
Mota-Gutierrez J, Merlino VM, Massaglia S, et al. (2025) Consumers' attitudes, perceptions and willingness to try hazelnut skins-fed beef. Meat Sci 219: 109687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109687 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109687
|
| [19] | Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1017 of 15 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1017/oj. |
| [20] |
Grossi S, Massa V, Giorgino A, et al. (2022) Feeding bakery former foodstuffs and wheat distiller's as partial replacement for corn and soybean enhances the environmental sustainability and circularity of beef cattle farming. Sustainability 14: 4908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094908 doi: 10.3390/su14094908
|
| [21] | Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj. |
| [22] |
Renna M, Lussiana C, Malfatto V, et al. (2020) Evaluating the suitability of hazelnut skin as a feed ingredient in the diet of dairy cows. Animals 10: 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091653 doi: 10.3390/ani10091653
|
| [23] |
Campione A, Natalello A, Valenti B, et al. (2020) Effect of feeding hazelnut skin on animal performance, milk quality, and rumen fatty acids in lactating ewes. Animals 10: 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040588 doi: 10.3390/ani10040588
|
| [24] |
Bolletta V, Menci R, Valenti B, et al. (2024) Feeding pigs with hazelnut skin and addition of a concentrated phenolic extract from olive-milling wastewaters during pork processing: Effects on salami quality traits and acceptance by the consumers. Meat Sci 213: 109479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109479 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109479
|
| [25] |
Musati M, Frutos P, Bertino A, et al. (2024) Dietary combination of linseed and hazelnut skin as a sustainable strategy to enrich lamb with health promoting fatty acids. Sci Rep 14: 10133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60303-3 doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60303-3
|
| [26] |
Angón E, Requena F, Caballero-Villalobos J, et al. (2021) Beef from calves finished with a diet based on concentrate rich in agro-industrial by-products: Acceptability and quality label preferences in Spanish meat consumers. Animals 12: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010006 doi: 10.3390/ani12010006
|
| [27] |
Aguado-González L, Sierra-Pérez J, Forte C, et al. (2025) Cascade valorization of hazelnut industry by-products for industrial use through co-creative processes. J Clean Prod 494: 144989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144989 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144989
|
| [28] |
Siegrist M, Hartmann C (2020) Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat Food 1: 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x
|
| [29] |
Krystallis A, Grunert KG, de Barcellos, et al. (2012) Consumer attitudes towards sustainability aspects of food production: Insights from three continents. J Mark Manage 28: 334–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658836 doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2012.658836
|
| [30] |
De Koning W, Dean D, Vriesekoop F, et al. (2020) Drivers and inhibitors in the acceptance of meat alternatives: The case of plant and insect-based proteins. Foods 9: 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292 doi: 10.3390/foods9091292
|
| [31] |
van Huis A, Rumpold B (2023) Strategies to convince consumers to eat insects? A review. Food Qual Prefer 110: 104927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104927 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104927
|
| [32] |
Rehman N, Ogrinc N (2024) Consumer perceptions and acceptance of edible insects in Slovenia. Foods 13: 2629 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162629 doi: 10.3390/foods13162629
|
| [33] |
Gohara-Beirigo AK, Matsudo MC, Cezare-Gomes EA, et al. (2022) Microalgae trends toward functional staple food incorporation: Sustainable alternative for human health improvement. Trends Food Sci Technol 125: 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.030 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.030
|
| [34] |
Hosseinkhani N, McCauley JI, Ralph PJ (2022) Key challenges for the commercial expansion of ingredients from algae into human food products. Algal Res 64: 102696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102696 doi: 10.1016/j.algal.2022.102696
|
| [35] |
Tan HSG, Fischer AR, Tinchan P, et al. (2015) Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual Prefer 42: 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.013 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.013
|
| [36] |
Grahl S, Strack M, Mensching A, et al. (2020) Alternative protein sources in Western diets: Food product development and consumer acceptance of spirulina-filled pasta. Food Qual Prefer 84: 103933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103933 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103933
|
| [37] |
Nanda PK, Das AK, Dandapat P, et al. (2021) Nutritional aspects, flavour profile and health benefits of crab meat-based novel food products and valorisation of processing waste to wealth: A review. Trends Food Sci Technol 112: 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.059 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.059
|
| [38] |
Matos ÂP, Novelli E, Tribuzi G (2022) Use of algae as food ingredient: Sensory acceptance and commercial products. Front Food Sci Technol 2: 989801. https://doi.org/10.3389/frfst.2022.989801 doi: 10.3389/frfst.2022.989801
|
| [39] |
Weinrich R, Busch G (2021) Consumer knowledge about protein sources and consumers' openness to feeding micro-algae and insects to pigs and poultry. Future Foods 4: 100100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100100 doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100100
|
| [40] |
Diaz Vicuna E, Srikanthithasan K, Odore R, et al. (2024) Influence of age, gender, and willingness to adopt former foodstuffs on the perception of Italian farm animal veterinarians. Front Vet Sci 11: 1396807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1396807 doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1396807
|
| [41] |
Beghin JC, Gustafson CR (2021) Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with new plant engineering techniques: A review. Sustainability 13: 11348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011348 doi: 10.3390/su132011348
|
| [42] |
Ma CC, Chang HP (2022) The effect of novel and environmentally friendly foods on consumer attitude and behavior: A value-attitude-behavioral model. Foods 11: 2423. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162423 doi: 10.3390/foods11162423
|
| [43] |
Van Nerom S, Van Immerseel F, Robbens J, et al. (2025) Consumer perception and willingness to purchase chicken meat from algae-fed broilers: A survey in Flanders (Belgium). Phycology 5: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology5030033 doi: 10.3390/phycology5030033
|
| [44] |
Dagevos H (2021) A literature review of consumer research on edible insects: Recent evidence and new vistas from 2019 studies. J Insects Food Feed 7: 249–259. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0052 doi: 10.3920/JIFF2020.0052
|
| [45] |
Siddiqui SA, Zannou O, Karim I, et al. (2022) Avoiding food neophobia and increasing consumer acceptance of new food trends—A decade of research. Sustainability 14: 10391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610391 doi: 10.3390/su141610391
|
| [46] |
Laureati M, De Boni A, Saba A, et al. (2024) 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 13: 1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13101534 doi: 10.3390/foods13101534
|
| [47] | Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj |
| [48] | ISTAT (2023) Available from: https://demo.istat.it/app/?i=POS&l=it. |
| [49] |
Olaussen C, Jelsness‐Jørgensen LP, Tvedt CR, et al. (2021) Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the clinical learning environment comparison survey. Nurs Open 8: 1254–1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.742 doi: 10.1002/nop2.742
|
| [50] |
Sprague-Jones J, Bash K, Singh P, et al. (2023) The Spanish protective factors survey: Initial translation and preliminary validation. Child Youth Serv Rev 155: 107204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107204 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107204
|
| [51] |
Mehta A, Serventi L, Kumar L, et al. (2024) Packaging, perception, and acceptability: A comprehensive exploration of extrinsic attributes and consumer behaviours in novel food product systems. Int J Food Sci Technol 59: 6725–6745. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.16694 doi: 10.1111/ijfs.16694
|
| [52] |
Xu Z, Wu N, Chan SW (2024) How do socio-demographic factors, health status, and knowledge influence the acceptability of probiotics products in Hong Kong? Foods 13: 2971. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13182971 doi: 10.3390/foods13182971
|
| [53] |
Pliner P, Hobden K (1992) Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 19: 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W doi: 10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W
|
| [54] |
Rabadán A, Bernabéu R (2021) A systematic review of studies using the Food Neophobia Scale: Conclusions from thirty years of studies. Food Qual Prefer 93: 104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104241 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104241
|
| [55] |
Altintzoglou T, Honkanen P, Whitaker RD (2021) Influence of the involvement in food waste reduction on attitudes towards sustainable products containing seafood by-products. J Clean Prod 285: 125487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125487 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125487
|
| [56] |
Escobedo del Bosque CI, Spiller A, Risius A (2021) Who wants chicken? Uncovering consumer preferences for produce of alternative chicken product methods. Sustainability 13: 2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052440 doi: 10.3390/su13052440
|
| [57] |
Merlino VM, Baima L, Costamagna C, et al. (2025) Evaluating consumer acceptance of technological advancements in sustainable agriculture. Appl Food Res 5: 101362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2025.101362 doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2025.101362
|
| [58] |
Martins OM, Bucea-Manea-Țoniș R, Coelho AS, et al. (2022) Sensory perception nudge: Insect-based food consumer behavior. Sustainability 14: 11541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811541 doi: 10.3390/su141811541
|
| [59] |
Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L, Tuorila H (1999) Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite 33: 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0232 doi: 10.1006/appe.1999.0232
|
| [60] |
Verbeke W, Sioen I, Pieniak Z, et al. (2005) Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption. Public Health Nutr 8: 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2004697 doi: 10.1079/PHN2004697
|
| [61] |
Lin-Schilstra L, Fischer AR (2022) Paradoxical consumers in four European countries: Meat-eating justification and willingness to pay for meat from animals treated by alternatives to surgical castration. Meat Sci 188: 108777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108777 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108777
|
| [62] |
Melios S, Gkatzionis K, Liu J, et al. (2025) Potential cultured meat consumers in Greece: Attitudes, motives, and attributes shaping perceptions. Future Foods 11: 100538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100538 doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100538
|
| [63] |
Possidónio C, Prada M, Graça J, et al. (2021) Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite 156: 104860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860
|
| [64] |
Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31: 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
|
| [65] |
Merlino VM, Renna M, Tarantola M, et al. (2025) "Home is where the cheese is": Consumption, preferences and future perspectives of cheese marketing strategies in Portugal. AIMS Agric Food 10: 719–743. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2025037 doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025037
|
| [66] |
Merlino VM, Renna M, Nery J, et al. (2022) Are local dairy products better? Using principal component analysis to investigate consumers' perception towards quality, sustainability, and market availability. Animals 12: 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111421 doi: 10.3390/ani12111421
|
| [67] |
Jürkenbeck K, Spiller A, Meyerding SG (2020) Tomato attributes and consumer preferences—A consumer segmentation approach. Br Food J 122: 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2018-0628 doi: 10.1108/BFJ-09-2018-0628
|
| [68] |
Alam MW, Kumar JV, Awad M, et al. (2025) Emerging trends in food process engineering: integrating sensing technologies for health, sustainability, and consumer preferences. J Food Process Eng 48: 70035. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.70035 doi: 10.1111/jfpe.70035
|
| [69] |
Sheth J (2021) New areas of research in marketing strategy, consumer behavior, and marketing analytics: The future is bright. J Mark Theory Pract 29: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1860679 doi: 10.1080/10696679.2020.1860679
|
| [70] |
Musova Z, Musa H, Drugdova J, et al. (2021) Consumer attitudes towards new circular models in the fashion industry. J Compet 13: 111–128. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.03.07 doi: 10.7441/joc.2021.03.07
|
| [71] |
Bryant C, Sanctorum H (2021) Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite 161: 105161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
|
| [72] |
Nica E, Sabie OM, Mascu S, Luţan AG (2022) Artificial intelligence decision-making in shopping patterns: Consumer values, cognition, and attitudes. Econ Manag Financ Mark 17: 31–43. https://doi.org/10.22381/emfm17120222 doi: 10.22381/emfm17120222
|
| [73] |
Cembalo L, Caracciolo F, Lombardi A, et al. (2016) Determinants of individual attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly food products. J Agric Environ Ethics 29: 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z doi: 10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z
|
| [74] |
Sánchez-Bravo P, Chambers E, Noguera-Artiaga L, et al. (2020) Consumers' attitude towards the sustainability of different food categories. Foods 9: 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111608 doi: 10.3390/foods9111608
|
| [75] |
de Queiroz FLN, Raposo A, Han H, et al. (2022) Eating competence, food consumption and health outcomes: An overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19: 4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084484 doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084484
|
| [76] | Dell'Orto V, Baldi G (2014) Overview of beef cattle production in Italy. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop Animal Nutrition, Natural Feeding Sources and Environmental Sustainability, Arzachena, Sardinia, Italy, 24–30. |
| [77] |
Wakefield A, Axon S (2020) "I'm a bit of a waster": Identifying the enablers of, and barriers to, sustainable food waste practices. J Clean Prod 275: 122803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122803 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122803
|
| [78] |
Cattaneo C, Lavelli V, Proserpio C, et al. (2019) Consumers' attitude towards food by-products: The influence of food technology neophobia, education and information. Int J Food Sci Technol 54: 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13978 doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13978
|
| [79] |
Chen YC, Lee CS, Kuan SH (2021) Tasty but nasty? The moderating effect of message appeals on food neophilia/neophobia as a personality trait: A case study of pig blood cake and meatballs. Foods 10: 1093. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10051093 doi: 10.3390/foods10051093
|
| [80] |
Jezewska-Zychowicz M, Plichta M, Drywień ME, et al. (2021) Food neophobia among adults: Differences in dietary patterns, food choice motives, and food labels reading in Poles. Nutrients 13: 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13051590 doi: 10.3390/nu13051590
|
| [81] |
Hussain K, Abbasi AZ, Rasoolimanesh SM, et al. (2023) Local food consumption values and attitude formation: The moderating effect of food neophilia and neophobia. J Hosp Tour Insights 6: 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2021-0214 doi: 10.1108/JHTI-08-2021-0214
|
| [82] |
Kamleh M, Khosa DK, Verbrugghe A, et al. (2020) A cross-sectional study of pet owners' attitudes and intentions towards nutritional guidance received from veterinarians. Vet Rec 187: 105604. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.105604 doi: 10.1136/vr.105604
|
| [83] |
Carnovale F, Jin X, Arney D, Descovich K, et al. (2021) Chinese public attitudes towards, and knowledge of, animal welfare. Animals 11: 855. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030855 doi: 10.3390/ani11030855
|
| [84] |
Chang MY, Chen HS (2022) Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to animal welfare-friendly products: Evidence from Taiwan. Nutrients 14: 4571. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214571 doi: 10.3390/nu14214571
|
| [85] |
Sanchez-Sabate R, Sabaté J (2019) Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071220 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071220
|
| [86] |
Civero G, Rusciano V, Scarpato D, et al. (2021) Food: Not only safety, but also sustainability. The emerging trend of new social consumers. Sustainability 13: 12967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312967 doi: 10.3390/su132312967
|
| [87] |
Ernst J, Burcak F (2019) Young children's contributions to sustainability: The influence of nature play on curiosity, executive function skills, creative thinking, and resilience. Sustainability 11: 4212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154212 doi: 10.3390/su11154212
|
| [88] | Burke A, Sohrabi T (2022) Curiosity and literacy: Connecting children's curiosity to ocean sustainability–A lesson in stimulating creativity and engagement. In: Crushing ICE: Short-on-Theory, Long-on-Practical Approaches to Imagination Creativity Education, 37. |
| [89] |
Próchniak P, Ossowski A (2023) Development and validation of the curiosity of climate changes scale. Psychol Res Behav Manag 16: 4829–4838. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S425867 doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S425867
|
| [90] |
Predieri S, Sinesio F, Monteleone E, et al. (2020) Gender, age, geographical area, food neophobia and their relationships with the adherence to the Mediterranean diet: New insights from a large population cross-sectional study. Nutrients 12: 1778. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061778 doi: 10.3390/nu12061778
|
| [91] |
Ran Y, Lewis AN, Dawkins E, et al. (2022) Information as an enabler of sustainable food choices: A behavioural approach to understanding consumer decision-making. Sustain Prod Consum 31: 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.026 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.026
|
| [92] |
Liu J, Chriki S, Kombolo M, et al. (2023) Consumer perception of the challenges facing livestock production and meat consumption. Meat Sci 200: 109144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109144 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109144
|
| [93] |
Musova Z, Musa H, Matiova V (2021) Environmentally responsible behaviour of consumers: Evidence from Slovakia. Econ Sociol 14: 178–198. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-1/12 doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-1/12
|
| [94] |
Liang H, Wu Z, Du S (2024) Study on the impact of environmental awareness, health consciousness, and individual basic conditions on the consumption intention of green furniture. Sustain Futures 8: 100245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100245 doi: 10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100245
|
| [95] |
De Bakker E, Dagevos H (2011) Reducing meat consumption in today's consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 25: 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z
|
| [96] |
Mosca O, Merlino VM, Fornara F, et al. (2025) Forging a sustainable agricultural future: Tradition and innovation in shaping acceptance of insect-based foods. Future Foods 11: 100516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100516 doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100516
|
| [97] |
Mota-Gutierrez J, Sparacino A, Merlino VM, et al. (2024) Socio-demographic and cross-country differences in attention to sustainable certifications and changes in food consumption. npj Sci Food 8: 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00274-x doi: 10.1038/s41538-024-00274-x
|
| [98] |
Timpanaro G, Cascone G (2025) Consumer behavior and sustainability: Exploring Italy's green cosmetics market with prickly pear seed oil. Heliyon 11: e42233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42233 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42233
|
 agrfood-11-01-011-Supplementary.pdf |
 |
Figures(1) / Tables(4)
Elena Diaz Vicuna, Valentina Maria Merlino, Stefano Massaglia, Jatziri Mota-Gutierrez, Claudio Forte, Simone Blanc. Reimagining beef: Consumer attitudes and acceptance of upcycled animal feed[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2026, 11(1): 205-227. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026011
DownLoad: