This year my Pūhoro internship continued on from my previous internship, where I researched alongside Summer Wright and assisted with her research for her PhD. This time our study focused on unwrapping consumer perceptions of Māori messaging in both NZ and Singapore.
Before I started, Summer had interviewed 30 New Zealanders and 30 Singaporeans. Summer interviewed them using a psychological technique called laddering. This asks participants a series of ‘why’ questions to understand their opinions on something.
Summer wanted to know how people felt about different types of messages used by Māori businesses on their food products. She conducted 1-hour long interviews where she showed participants a set of jars with different messages, and they picked their favourite and least favourite and explained their choice. She also showed participants real products to see what they liked about them. She asked participants about their choices, to understand what they thought the consequences of such a message was and how it related to their personal values.
At the beginning of my internship, I listened to recordings of the interviews. I analysed them and compared my interpretation with Summer’s analysis to make a final evaluation.
The interviews showed both positive and negative attitudes towards Māori messages. See (Fig.1).
Figure 1 Positive and negative laddering example
We compared results from Aotearoa NZ and Singapore to explore how cultural context influences such attitudes.
In the New Zealand interviews, there was a diverse range of opinions, It really surprised me how strongly so many New Zealanders felt about attributes such as ‘Made on ancestral lands’ and ‘Carbon neutral’ so much so that this would stop them from even purchasing a product with this on the packaging. A small number of the consumers interviewed felt angry and ‘left out’ by these sayings and explained how it came across to them as unfair and left them frustrated. Te Tiriti O Waitangi was bought up several times. During some interviews I struggled to listen as I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and felt so uncomfortable. I understand these discussions add to Summers’ PHD as this is something no one has researched before. Overall, I found it very interesting that some people do still feel resentment about the use of te reo Māori on products.
The Singapore consumers shared values relating to caring for the future, and they recognise these values in Māori messaging associated with products. However, Singaporeans tend to place a higher value on the preservation of culture and tradition which they also identify with in Māori messaging, more so than some New Zealanders.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time back again working with Summer and at Feast. It was easy to transition as I picked up where I left off from last year. The internship showed me what it would be like to work on a PhD if I was to complete my master’s which I found beneficial as previously I wouldn’t have known what type of work is involved in writing a thesis. I also get to experience the 9am – 5pm office experience which shows me what a career like this would be like after university. I am heading into the third and final year studying human nutrition now and by June (hopefully) will also have my Level 5 Certificate in Personal Training.
In October 2023 Research Officer Amanda Lim took part in a laboratory exchange to the Feast Lab in Aotearoa-New Zealand as part of the Future Foods Catalyst Programme.
It was Amanda’s first-time visiting Aotearoa-New Zealand and she enjoyed herself during the two weeks she was there!
Welcome to Feast!
Learning about Māori through the lens of participants
During the lab exchange, Amanda worked with Summer on her final PhD project on understanding consumer perception towards Māori environmental wellbeing and provenance messaging on food and beverage products. As someone coming from outside of Aotearoa-New Zealand, it was interesting to hear views from participants with different demographics and backgrounds e.g. someone with Māori ancestry vs someone without. As Summer’s project used a qualitative interview approach, she could get more in-depth responses to understand human experience and opinions which cannot be achieved using quantitative methods such as using a questionnaire. After sitting in the interviews in both Aotearoa-New Zealand and then later in Singapore, differences in responses between participants from both countries were largely due to the cultural knowledge of Māori ancestry, as well as personal experiences and beliefs.
Figure 1 Summer conducting the 1-1 laddering interview with participants
Some hands on!
Amanda also had the opportunity to carry out an internal pilot session with Caroline for our cross-cultural project investigating consumer acceptance of chef-developed seaweed products. Conducted differently from Singapore, pilot participants evaluated the samples individually before an open discussion was held. In Singapore, we conducted 2-3 pilot sessions as we had fewer booths and held a debrief at the end of each session. While different methods were used, the same outcome of understanding consumer response to chef-developed seaweed products was achieved.
Figure 2 Set-up for each pilot participantOpen discussion after sample evaluation
Data collection for this cross-cultural project has been completed in New Zealand and is currently in progress in Singapore. Watch this space for our findings later in 2024.
Digital Immersive Space
A week later, Siew Bee and Apple joined Amanda and toured the Feast facilities. They were in awe of the digital immersive room in Feast. This innovative facility provides an experience and environment that allows participants to feel physically present and engaged as if in a real-life setting. Experiences include a concert hall, restaurants, aquarium, and a home setting.
The traditional way of conducting consumer tests is in sensory booths. The controlled settings do not reflect how we eat or drink in real life. Hence, this digital immersive space helps to bridge the gap between the laboratory setting and reality, allowing participants to relate better when evaluating food samples “at home” or “in restaurants.”
Figure 3 Immersing in the digital experience
First-ever physical workshop!
The highlight of Amanda’s trip was the workshop held at Feast. It was the first time all members of the Future Foods Catalyst programme were present in the same physical space! We had a fruitful discussion on the progress of the programme and built onto each other’s ideas to determine how the road ahead looks to extend our Future Foods collaboration. Overall, we are pleased with the progress and research we have conducted on understanding motivations and barriers to consumer engagement with future foods.
Figure 4 First FFC Physical Workshop
Figure 5Delicious FEAST Cookies baked by Robyn
Figure 6 The Future Foods Catalyst Team
A huge thank you to the Feast team for hosting us and a shout out to Dianne for suggesting & organising activities in the evening so that we could explore what Palmerston North has to offer. It was also lovely meeting two Singaporeans students, Reuben and Christine, who were on their final year internships. I look forward to more collaborations in this new year!
Aotearoa New Zealand visits Singapore
In December 2023 PhD students Summer and Rebekah took part in a laboratory exchange to A*Star in Singapore.
Empty jars but a full stomach: Summer’s consumer interview study
Summer visited Singapore to conduct the final phase of a cross-cultural consumer study. Her research interviewed critical consumers – people who think conscientiously when buying food – to compare consumer attitudes in Singapore and Aotearoa. The study used different forms of environment and provenance messages on Māori food packaging, inviting people to share their opinions and values in relation to the messages.
First-look findings show some similarities and differences between Singapore and Aotearoa. Cultural preservation and retaining identity were common themes in Singapore, while social harmony was widely reported in Aotearoa. Looking after future generations was a common theme for both countries.
The results of this study will be useful for Māori business branding, while also providing insights into the minds of consumers and their worlds in Singapore and Aotearoa. A special acknowledgement to Amanda and Xanthe in the Singapore team who put in a huge amount of work to make the study happen!
Figure 7Some messages presented to study participants
Rebekah’s laboratory exchange
Rebekah visited Singapore for a laboratory exchange to gain experience working with the A*Star Sensory and Ingestive Behaviour (SIB) team. During her exchange, Rebekah assisted with the data collection for a cross-cultural consumer study between Aotearoa and Singapore, examining consumer responses to two chef-developed seaweed products. It was interesting to observe the similarities and differences between how the Feast lab and the SIB team conduct consumer testing and to bring back ideas that can be implemented at Feast.
Figure 8 Chef-developed seaweed products: a seaweed dumpling and seaweed pasta pesto
Seminar
As part of the exchange, Rebekah and Summer presented a seminar to A*Star staff on their individual research within the Consumer Dimension of Future Foods project.
Summer’s presentation discussed the unique cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand, and how this influences Māori enterprise. Her presentation highlighted the unique opportunities and challenges for Māori in the plant-based foods sector, explaining its relevance and implications for wider trends in Aotearoa New Zealand’s food industry.
Rebekah’s presentation discussed recent trends in consumer research including measuring emotional response, digital eating environments, and consideration of meal context. She explained how she applied these trends to her PhD research with plant-based foods.
Figure 9 Presentations to the team from Rebekah and Summer
Singapore, the culinary kaleidoscope
Half a world away from Aotearoa are Singapore’s Hawker centres, wet markets, and expansive canteens. Being an ancient maritime island, Singapore has a diverse heritage from across Asia. Many backgrounds coalesce to form one of the most varied and colourful culinary scenes in the world. Peranakan/Nyonya, Malay, Hainanese, Thai, Vietnamese, and North/South Indian are just a few cuisines widely available, each with their own traditions and histories. There are numerous plant-based foods and proteins across these food cultures.
National favourites, such as chicken rice, did include meat, though it wasn’t hard to find a plant-based option. Foods that are considered ‘alternative’ proteins in Aotearoa, like tofu and soy milk, are normal in Singapore. Monkey head (lions’ mane) mushrooms also provided a surprisingly dense steak-like texture, and coloured sago makes for great imitation caviar.
Figure 10 A sample from the culinary kaleidoscope
This foundation has contributed to Singapore’s more recent reputation for food innovation and alternative proteins. New generation alternative proteins like Impossible meat and fish-free fingers were widely available in supermarkets and commonly offered as a meat-free alternative on restaurant menus (like this Impossible Burrito!). Despite the widespread availability of plant-based meat alternatives, traditional meat was still the most popular choice.
Figure 11 Impossible meat available in a supermarket and a hawker centre
Summer’s plant-based food highlights
Summer’s love for ‘Mr Bean’, a soymilk outlet, became a running joke in the Singapore team. Bean curd is very simple: it is coagulated soy milk (syrup and rice balls optional) and became her new favourite food. It’s high in protein and very filling while being comforting and convenient.
Figure 12 Summer intends to open a Mr Bean outlet in Aotearoa someday
Other highlights included longan from Xanthe, a birthday cake from the team, Mala (Sichuan) chips from Ai Ting, marmite tofu ribs, hot sour Thai chicken, thunder tea rice, and varieties of yong tau foo.
Rebekah’s plant-based food highlights
Rebekah particularly enjoyed the blue pea yuan yang which is a combination of coffee, tea, and blue pea flower. Other highlights included iced tea, vegetarian laksa, bagels, and the endless lunch options from the NUS canteen.
Figure 13: Some of Rebekah’s food highlights
Rebekah also tried durian but wasn’t a fan of its distinctive smell, flavour, and texture…
Plant-based dinner
The SIB team organized a farewell dinner at Elemen 元素, an entirely vegetarian restaurant. It was here that we got to try peach gum, a unique ingredient often used in Chinese cuisine for it textural and nutritional properties.
Figure 14 Plant-based dinner with the SIB team & 15 peach gum used in both savoury and sweet Chinese dishes
Exploring Singapore
During the visit Summer and Rebekah also had an opportunity to explore Singapore and experience its diverse culture, architecture, and unique attractions including Garden’s by the Bay, Marina Bay Sands, and Sentosa Island, just to name a few. They particularly enjoyed the green spaces, mix of modern and traditional buildings, and the efficient public transport.
Figure 15 The city looks lovely at night…and during the day!
We had a great time in Singapore and would like to thank Amanda, Xanthe and the rest of the SIB team for their hospitality. We appreciate your support in showing us how to enjoy Singapore and how to work in your lab!
Do you know what tempeh, cheese, kimchi, and wine have in common? They are all produced through fermentation! This method of food processing dates back to early 6000 BC, where fermentation was largely used as a cost-effective method to preserve food.
So, what is fermentation? Fermentation makes uses of microorganisms like yeast and fungi to break down complex components in food to various by-products, such as alcohol and protein. The change in composition of the food products after fermentation also changes the sensory properties of the food. That is why wine has its characteristic alcoholic taste, instead of tasting like ordinary grape juice!
Fermentation and plant-based foods
In a world where food scarcity and food security are rising issues, alternative proteins are being developed as a more sustainable food source compared to animal meats. Plant-based proteins, mycoprotein, insects, algae and cultured meat are the current major alternative protein sources in the formulation of meat substitutes. With a significant amount of research in this area, these sources, especially plant-based proteins, are advocated as healthier, more ethical, and more sustainable compared to animal meat.
However, a critical issue with plant-based proteins is their inability to wholly mimic the taste and texture of animal meat, largely due to differences in the protein composition and structure. Fermentation may provide a potential solution to transform the components in plant-based protein to improve its taste and texture, as well as boost its nutritional value. The concept of applying fermentation in plant-based products has been practiced for centuries, examples including natto and tempeh production. Furthermore, fermentation is gaining popularity as a method to process novel plant-based protein. According to industry report from the Good Food Institute, there were >130 companies focused on fermentation for alternative proteins in 2022, with an increase of 12% compared to 2021.
3 Types of Fermentation
There are 3 types of fermentation: a) Traditional Fermentation, b) Biomass Fermentation and c) Precision Fermentation. Precision fermentation is currently the most relevant for the PBMA space.
Mass produced protein through quick and efficiently growing microbes
Specific microbes are identified and designed to provide the desired end-products efficiently and effectively
Benefits
Improves nutritional content, flavour, texture, and shelf-life of products
Can increase digestibility and protein content
Opportunity to create high-end value products
Examples
Tempeh, Cheese and Yoghurt
Marmite – first biomass product
Impossible Foods’ heme protein
Figure 2 Synergy between the different types of fermentation methods (Source: The Good Food Institute State of Industry Report 2022)
Benefits of fermentation for plant-based proteins
How is fermentation beneficial in the context of plant-based proteins? Fermentation has showed potential in improving sensory quality, bioavailability and digestibility of the nutrients and protein compounds in these proteins.
1. Fermented PBMAs: More Nutritious, Better Protein Digestion and Safe!
It is important for food to taste good for it to be a successful product. While there is constant advancement in plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) processing technologies, there has not been any success in creating a PBMA product that fully tastes like animal meat. It is challenging to create the fatty, meaty taste and fibrous texture characteristics of animal meat due to the differences in the protein structures.
However, fermentation could possibly be the key to overcome these challenges! A study using microorganism B. subtilis produced a PBMA with improved sensory qualities, such as better chewiness and firmness, compared to the unfermented product. Another study showed that yeast fermentation could mask off-flavours, such as the beany flavour in okara (soybean residue).
3. Fermented PBMAs: Are consumers ready to accept them?
How does the public view fermentation? An online study showed that 2 in 5 US adults are open to purchasing products made via precision fermentation. Moreover, 4 in 5 consumers are keen to purchase these products when they are given more information regarding the fermentation technology. Interestingly, companies have surveyed the ground and found that consumers prefer terms like “whey protein from fermentation” over “whey protein” or “non-animal whey protein”. The majority of consumers are not worried about the safety of these products if the government food agencies have certified them as safe for consumption. As time progresses, consumers are gradually becoming more accepting of technology-driven methods.
Potential of Fermentation in Food Industry
Fermentation can be a promising solution to many of the existing problems plaguing the plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) industry: it improves the nutritiousness and digestibility of plant-based proteins, while reducing its allergenicity. More importantly, it could substantially improve its sensory quality, making it a closer replica to animal meat. Such improvements would make PBMA tastier and appealing to consumers.
As fermented plant-based alternatives are still very novel, there may be some hesitation from consumers to try them. However, with transparency and knowledge provided to consumers, this could help increase acceptability amongst consumers. A group – The Precision Fermentation Alliance is formed to work towards this goal. With active advocacy on its safety, nutritiousness, sustainability, and tastiness, fermentation may become a mainstay in the production of plant-based meat analogues in near future.
The setting in which we eat has a significant impact on what foods we choose to eat and how much we enjoy them. For example, you may enjoy eating an ice cream on the beach during summer, but if you were to eat the same ice cream on a cold winter’s day it might not taste as good or bring the same level of enjoyment. How well a food fits with its setting is called ‘situational appropriateness’.
Factors including the location, specific place within a location, occasion, and who you eat with, can all influence our food choices and satisfaction.
You would probably enjoy eating an ice cream at the beach more than in the cold.
PBMAs are affected by situational appropriateness
Based on previous research, consumers generally find it appropriate to consume plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) when they are alone or with friends, in a café or restaurant, or during a family meal on a weeknight. However, they consider PBMAs less suitable for a Sunday meal, special occasions, at a barbecue party, in a pub, or when dining with an acquaintance.
It is not well understood why PBMAs are considered more appropriate in certain situations but there are several possible explanations. For example, at a BBQ or when dining with acquaintances could be considered less appropriate if you didn’t want to attract attention or feared being judged for your food choices. For those who are unfamiliar with cooking PBMAs, a café or restaurant where the food is prepared by a chef could be considered a more appropriate setting. People may also be less sensitive to the price of PBMAs when eating in a restaurant. PBMAs are processed products therefore could be considered less appropriate for special occasions where a high-quality meal is desired e.g., a steak.
Where do consumers eat plant-based meat alternatives to meatballs?
To understand where consumers from our Feast consumer database find it appropriate to eat a typical PBMA, we ran a short survey with 180 respondents. We asked where they would likely eat:
a) a dish of spaghetti and meatballs
b) a dish of spaghetti and plant-based alternatives to meatballs.
Consumers are most likely to eat meatballs and plant-based alternatives at home
Both meatballs and plant-based alternatives to meatballs are most likely to be eaten at home or at a restaurant, and least likely to be eaten in a pub. Possibly spaghetti and meatballs are not considered typical pub food making this an inappropriate setting for the dish in general, not just plant-based alternatives to meatballs.
Interestingly, respondents are more likely to consume plant-based alternatives to meatballs in a café/canteen. In contrast, when at home consumers are more likely to eat meatballs than plant-based alternatives.
In which settings are you likely to consume meatballs/plant-based alternatives to meatballs? (Respondents could choose more than one option)
1 in 3 consumers would eat plant-based meat alternatives in a restaurant
When respondents were asked what their single most likely place was to consume meatballs and plant-based alternatives, the difference was maintained. For meatballs, 8 in 10 consumers say this would be their home, and only 1 in 10 say it would be in a restaurant. But for plant-based alternatives to meatballs, the response was more divided. Half of the consumers rates the home, 1 in 3 rates a restaurant, and 1 in 10 rates a café/canteen as their most likely consumption locations. People likely feel more comfortable cooking spaghetti and meatballs themselves and so are less likely to pay to eat this meal out whereas preparing a plant-based version may be daunting for some in which case they would prefer the meal to be prepared by someone else.
So, both meatball and PB alternatives are most likely eaten at home, but consumers are also willing to eat PB alternatives when eating a meal out.
Testing PB meatballs in a digitally recreated home
This information was used to inform a Feast consumer study where we compared liking and emotional response to PB-meatballs in a traditional central location test (CLT) to a digitally recreated home environment. We also compared the PB-meatballs when tasted on their own versus when tasted in a tomato sauce. The home environment and the sauce were used to better reflect how consumers would eat in real life.
A. Traditional CLT; B. Digitally recreated home environment
Plant-based meatballs with and without tomato sauce
We found when the products were tasted in the digital home environment expected liking, appearance liking and texture liking scores for PB-meatball_1 were higher compared to the traditional CLT. Liking scores for PB-meatball_2 did not change between the environments.
Mean appearance liking when products were tasted in the traditional CLT versus the digital home environment. ab different lowercase letters across product indicate significant differences in liking between the two environments.
We also found that regardless of product, participants felt more loving, nostalgic, calm, pleasant, hungry, hopeful, and happy in the digital home environment compared to the traditional CLT.
Mean emotion ratings when products were tasted in the traditional CLT versus the digital home environment. Mean intensity ratings are averaged over all the products. ab Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in rating for a particular emotion between the two environments.
Adding sauce increases liking and positive emotions
When the PB-meatballs were tasted with tomato sauce, ratings for expected, overall,appearance, texture and flavour liking increased.
Mean appearance liking when sauce was absent versus present. Values are averaged over products. ab different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in liking when sauce was absent versus present.
Tasting the samples with tomato sauce also increased feelings of several positive emotions including adventurous, amazed, energetic, happy, hungry, hopeful, loving, nostalgic and pleasant but also increased the feeling of anxiousness. Despite the sauce increasing liking scores it did not decrease feelings of negative emotions.
Mean emotion ratings when products were tasted with sauce absent and with sauce present. Mean intensity ratings are averaged over the products. abDifferent lowercase letters indicate significant differences in rating for a particular emotion when sauce was absent versus present.
In this situation, the eating environment, and the way the product was consumed i.e., with or without sauce had an impact on liking and emotional response. This highlights the importance of considering how a product will be consumed in real life when conducing consumer research.
Learn more about situational appropriateness of plant-based meat alternatives
Elzerman, J. E., Keulemans, L., Sap, R., & Luning, P. A. (2021). Situational appropriateness of meat products, meat substitutes and meat alternatives as perceived by Dutch consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 104108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104108
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Motoki, K., Park, J., Spence, C., & Velasco, C. (2021). Contextual acceptance of novel and unfamiliar foods: Insects, cultured meat, plant-based meat alternatives, and 3D printed foods. Food Quality and Preference, 104368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104368
The growing popularity of meat alternatives goes hand in hand with the spread of misconceptions. In this blog post, we explore four different myths that are commonly believed about plant-based meat alternatives.
Myth 1: Plant-based meat alternatives taste bad
Consumers are commonly skeptical when it comes to the taste of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) – often referred to as ‘fake meat’. In our recent study, 140 consumers tasted 21 different plant-based meat alternatives. Products included plant-based burgers, sausages, ‘meat’-balls, chicken, beef, and bacon alternatives. We found a wide range in consumer acceptance across these products – although some were commonly disliked, many were commonly liked as well. The most liked products scoring 8/10) were also the products that reminded the consumers most of meat.
Myth 2: Plant-based meat alternatives are for vegans
Flexitarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets are increasing in popularity. Whereas less than 10% of Aotearoa’s population don’t consume meat, a third claims to consume a flexitarian diet and therefore they’re the true drivers of the PBMA market. In general, consumers who eat meat in their diet seem less keen on tofu or legumes to replace their meat and would rather replace their meat with a meat-like product such as Impossible Meat or the Beyond burger. In contrast, vegans may find a product that resembles meat ‘too real’ and find a vegetable-based product more appealing.
Myth 3: Plant-based meat alternatives and meat are similar in nutrition
Despite the use of product names for meat alternatives that may remind a consumer of a meat product (for example, plant-based meatballs), there are nutritional differences between meat and their alternatives. For example, the more vegetable-like products often do not contain much protein. Meat-like products contain more protein, but also often contain more sodium and/or saturated fat than conventional meat.
Although PBMAs generally contain more sodium and the same amount of calories as meat products, our studies showed that consumers believe that PBMAs contain less sodium and calories than conventional meat. This indicates that consumers are not aware of the potential nutritional differences between meat and their plant-based alternatives.
Myth 4: Plant-based meat alternatives are consumed for reasons of environmental sustainability
PBMAs can be healthier for the environment. For example, the Beyond burger claims to use 99% less water, 93% less land, and produce 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a traditional beef patty. Interestingly, consumers do not necessarily believe that PBMAs contribute to environmental sustainability.
Our research shows that only a third of consumers believe that reducing meat intake and/or consuming plant-based alternatives instead of meat contributes to environmental sustainability. Other studies have shown that consumers believe that other initiatives, such as driving less and recycling materials, contribute more towards the environment than reducing their meat intake.
Rather than environmental sustainability, we found that health is the most important driver for consumption of PBMAs.
With exploration of these myths, we aim to provide insights for you to make informed decisions about choosing plant-based meat alternatives that meet your values and needs. With a widely varied range of plant-based meat alternatives available, there surely is a product for everyone!
Figure 1 (From top left, in clockwise) Beondegi (Silkworm pupae insects) from South Korea, Malang tod (variety of fried insects e.g. worms, crickets) from Thailand, Nsenene (Grasshoppers) from Uganda, and Inago no tsukadani (Rice grasshoppers or locusts) from Japan.
Entomophagy is a terminology that has evolved over the years. It was first used in the 1900s to describe the consumption of insects by other insects. Now, it is typically used to describe the consumption of insects by humans.
This tradition goes way back in Asian, African and some Latin America cultures. Consumption of insects in China started about 3,200 years ago, and as early as 100,000 BCE for South Africans. To date, at least 2,000 species of insects are known to be edible, with beetles dominating the chart.
A misconception about insect consumption is that they are only eaten due to poverty or by primeval people. Recently, edible insects have been gaining attention as a potential source of alternative protein (most have higher protein levels than beef) and are also reported to be more environmentally sustainable (see more on this below). Some species are also high in fibre and minerals.
Insect Farming: A Sustainable Food Source
Other than their nutrition value, insects may be a solution to more sustainable food production and consumption. Firstly, insects have a high feed-to-meat conversion rate, meaning that almost all parts of the insect can be eaten! Additionally, food waste or even manure, which is usually discarded, can be used as a feed source for insects.
Figure 2 Infographic of the environmental footprint of insect farming compared to traditional livestock. Up to 80% of a cricket is edible, which is double the proportion of cattle, where generally only 40% of the animal is consumed (infographic taken from Statista)
For example, a circular ecosystem platform is utilised by Singapore-based start-up Protenga, in which food waste is given to black soldier flies, and is transformed into protein, oil and fertiliser products. These materials are then made into products like pet food, aquafeed and fertiliser.
Especially in space-constrained Singapore, insect farming is suitable as insects generally require low amounts of space, food, and water to grow. Therefore, insects are more climate-friendly than traditional meat sources like cattle and poultry with reports of lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Is it Safe to Eat Insects?
Insects are generally seen as dirty and gross, but to make sure we can safely benefit from this nutritious food source, implementation and regulation of thorough food safety practices is key. It is known that insects, like silkworm and grasshopper, contain various allergens and protein components that could trigger allergic reactions (such as rashes and anaphylactic shock, which could be fatal). Furthermore, insects may also contain toxic substances, or could be contaminated from manure or rotten food.
However, do not let that scare you from trying insects! The prevalence of allergic reactions is low, with 13 cases reported per 100 people. Additionally, with the likely future increase of insect consumption, rigorous research and regulations have been set up to ensure safe consumption by the masses. For example, with the approved sale of insects in Singapore in the latter half of 2023, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has come up with a stringent regulatory framework to ensure their safe consumption:
Consumers on Insect Consumption: ‘Yay’ or ‘Nay’?
Although insects are generally nutritious with high protein content, consumers may find them repulsive and dangerous. Due to unfamiliarity, consumers in some parts of the world perceive insect burgers as disgusting, primitive and of lower nutritional value compared to burgers made with animal meat.
As insects have been part of the diet in many Asian cultures, Asians are more likely than Western cultures to accept insects as food. Below shows a list of factors affecting Westerners’ acceptance of insect consumption, where all except one are non-product related factors.
Non-Product Related Factors
Product-Related Factor
Psychological Factors (e.g. Food Neophobia)
Product Characteristics (e.g. Sensory, Degree of Visibility of Insects etc)
Familiarity & Past Experiences
Peer & Social Influences
Dietary Preferences
However, while insect consumption is relatively less frowned upon in Asia, there is still a substantial population that is not accepting of this novel food source. For instance, previous research showed that the feel of disgust, insect phobia and insufficient knowledge level of health benefits of edible insects also influence consumption and purchasing decisions in recruited Chinese consumers.
Consuming whole, unflavoured insects may not be appealing to consumers. To keep up with food trends, Thailand has spiced up the industry by selling insect snacks in enticing flavours such as Tom Yum. In western cuisine, organisations like The Nordic Food Lab also added a twist by incorporating insects into traditional Mexican and Ancient Greek dishes like tacos incorporated with bee larvae.
In the sunny island of Singapore, while uncommon, a few restaurants in Singapore have sold insect dishes. The insect species primarily used are silkworm and silkworm pupae, usually being sold by Chinese and Korean restaurants as silkworm has been a common staple dish in both cultures.
Several Singaporean companies have also shown interest in importing and farming insects for consumption. However, the concept of insects as food is still off-putting to many Singaporeans.
Joining the Entomophagy Bandwagon: Guide to Increasing Acceptance
Educating consumers on the benefits of insects as a dietary source and increasing exposure of insects as food can be one of the possible ways to gradually change the perception one has towards insects. Repeated exposure to insects can also lead to an increase in acceptance.
Furthermore, disguising insects in familiar food product formats helps to mask the physical appearance of insects, which could increase the acceptance of their consumption. For example, ground edible insects are used as a protein supplement or added into protein bars and ice cream. This form of entomophagy has been recently coined as ‘entomophagy by stealth’, and may be the solution to increase both familiarity and acceptance of insect consumption.
Are YOU Ready?
Although the worth of insects as a food source has been substantiated, and more societies, including Singapore, are ready to allow the import and sale of insects, it will require some time and courage for most people to accept the notion of trying insects, and even longer to incorporate it into their diets.
Perhaps targeting the Gen Zs and the younger millennials (20-30 years old), who have shown more interest in the novel application of insects, such as incorporation into protein bars, is a good start.
Our Pūhoro internship was in partnership with Future Foods Catalyst, FEAST, the Riddet Institute, and Wakatū Incorporation and we were based at Massey University in Palmerston North. We worked together in collaboration with a PHD student – Summer Wright. Dr Meika Foster and Professor Joanne Hort were our supervisors, and we were very lucky to have these exceptionally qualified women to guide us along the way. We analysed Māori value propositions on food packaging and created an excel spreadsheet to document our results. A Māori value proposition is how the business communicates its Māori culture in their food products through marketing. We used content analysis to categorise the messages, which is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data. We completed the analysis of 18 Māori food and beverage products and found that provenance, wellbeing, and third-party labeling were the key messages on packaging (in text or graphics). Provenance is the origin of food and in the context of Māori culture, it comes back to their long-standing traditions of whakapapa and relates to Māori values and ideologies.
Figure 1. Māori provenance usage on packaging.
As shown in this figure, Māori provenance is commonly used on packaging. Examples of this are ‘Made in Aotearoa’ and ‘Kaitiakitanga’, which demonstrate to consumers that the business has a connection to Māori culture and may result in consumers who value making ethical purchasing decisions being more inclined to purchase.
Wellbeing is multidimensional and the messages that were displayed on the packaging involved spiritual, environmental, social, psychological and physiological aspects of wellbeing. Māori culture has a clear focus on wellbeing with their philosophy of health – hauora and the four pillar (Te Whare Tapa Whā) approach. Incorporating wellbeing/hauora as a value proposition into their packaging draws attention to the connection between consuming a product and wellbeing that aligns with and reflects the consumer’s values. Third party labeling was an interesting finding that showed to be a very popular component on food and beverage packaging; the use of awards and certifications were placed on the products to show the authenticity and quality of the food and beverages.
Below is an itemised example of how we would analyse a food product. On first impression, we thought this tea was a Māori-owned product. But once we analysed both front and back packaging, along with looking at the product website, we saw that this is actually produced by an overseas company.
This example below shows how confusing it can be for a consumer trying to buy ethically or from a Maori-owned business. The product name is in Te Reo Māori and means ‘tea of wellbeing’ in English. They use Kūmarahou, which is a native taonga plant and they have the native kiwi bird as a part of their logo.
Where to from here?
We can see how non-Māori companies may use Māori culture in their branding for profit. An idea for the future would be to create a third-party label / certification for all officially recognised Māori businesses. This would take time and money but could be an important tool to stop Māori culture from being exploited for financial gain and to uphold Māori traditions respectfully.
Working in the māra kai (community garden)
Looking at the sunflowers
We were also lucky enough to go to Nelson for a 2-day site visit hosted by one of our partner organisations, Wakatū. We presented our findings from our summer internship to Wakatū and received really encouraging feedback. We visited their māra kai (community garden) and learned about how whānau are connecting back to their whenua through this initiative.
We also visited SPATNZ which is a mussel hatchery located in Nelson and learned first-hand the inner workings of this incredible business. Overall, the internship gave us insight into different career options in both research, food technology, and business. We also met so many knowledgeable people who excel in their careers, which was really inspiring and gave us an opportunity of a lifetime. We are grateful to Pūhoro for giving us this opportunity and Riddet Institute and FEAST for taking us on, as a part of their team.
This opportunity has been amazing for both of us as it has given us exposure to the possible careers we can pursue after the completion of our degrees. Working alongside PHD students, professors and colleagues of consumer food scientists has benefited us both in understanding what the industry is like and has aided us to acquire the skills needed for jobs in this field. Efficiency, organisation, and a will to learn are key attributes we learned through this internship. Working with excel is a learning that we can bring into our degrees and has proved to be a very beneficial skill! Having the opportunity with this internship has made us very enthusiastic about our degrees as we now have a deeper understanding of our course because of the work we completed over the summer with the Riddet Institute, FEAST and the Future Foods Catalyst.
Plant-based meat alternatives have been a hot topic for the last few years and are still associated with novelty. But did you know that the first record of a plant-based meat alternative was over 2000 years ago? Plant-based meat has a long and rich history in Asia and has been ingrained in various Eastern cultures since it was first consumed in ancient China.
One of the reasons plant-based meat alternatives were widely consumed in China was due to Buddhism. Buddhism prohibits the killing of any person or animal, leading Buddhists to adopt vegetarian diets. As part of their tradition, Buddhists incorporated “First-generation” plant-based meat alternatives – tofu, tempeh, and seitan – into their vegetarian diet.
Figure 1: A brief history of traditional plant-based meat products in Asia. Graphic belongs to Sensory & Ingestive Behaviour Team, Clinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation, A*STAR Singapore. Photos of the plant-based meat alternatives from (in order of map timeline) Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons, Sensory Ingestive Behaviour Team (A*STAR), City Foodsters, Wikimedia Commons & Yuuji
Tofu – the first reported plant-based product
While it is difficult to pinpoint when the first plant-based product was made, tofu (coagulated soy milk) was the first reported product and was created in China during the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) over 20 centuries ago. Tofu was extensively consumed throughout various ancient Chinese Dynasties (Tang, Song etc.). Tempeh (fermented soybean), a traditional Indonesian staple, has been consumed in Southeast Asia for the past four to five centuries or longer!
Emergence of “Second-Generation” Plant-based Meat Products
In the 1300s, innovation in plant-based meat alternatives that were not merely traditional tofu or tempeh began to appear. Products like mock eel meat and mock sausage were developed in China. These are coined “Second-generation” plant-based meat alternatives. By the 1800s, such products were widespread in various Asian countries like Japan, Indonesia, and China.
Figure 2: “2nd-generation” traditional plant-based meat alternatives commonly eaten in Asian (From Top to Bottom, Left to Right: Mock Char Siew, Mock Bakkwa, Mock Duck, Mock Tempura Prawn, Mock Fish Slices and Mock Mutton). Pictures belong to Sensory & Ingestive Behaviour Team, Clinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation, A*STAR Singapore.
In the early 20th century, food technology and food processing methods continuously improved. Fried textured vegetable protein (TVP) (a mixture of soy protein and wheat gluten) further enhanced the taste and texture of plant-based meat products. More westernised food products were also being developed in Asia, such as Ganmodoki, a deep-fried tofu patty burger originating from Japan. Although “Second-generation” plant-based meat alternatives originated from Buddhist temples, they were not eaten on a day-to-day basis as they were considered too extravagant.
Musings From the Temple: Quotes by Monks on Plant-based Meat
Fast Forward to 2023: What’s Trending in Asia Now?
Plant-based meat alternatives have come a long way since their creation thousands of years ago. In Asia, constant innovation, and advancement of technology in the plant-based industry has birthed a new era of plant-based meat products.
Spoilt for Choice: The Rise of Asian Plant-based Meat Manufacturers
Figure 4 Showcase of some established Asian plant-based meat brands and their notable Asian-inspired products (Brands featured (from top to bottom):OmniMeat (Hong Kong), First Pride (Malaysia), Next Meats (Japan), Unlimeat (Korea), Let’s Plant Meat (Thailand)
A rising number of plant-based meat manufacturers and start-ups have been established in Asia. The Asian plant-based food market has been estimated to be worth 17,473 million USD and is expected to grow by about 10% in the next few years. Several brands do not only make the usual plant-based burger patties and nuggets but have products that specifically cater to the Asian palate. For example, OmniMeat offers various Asian-inspired plant-based products such as luncheon meat, gyoza and shrimp dumplings. On the other hand, Unlimeat has released plant-based mandu (Korean meat dumpling), and vegetarian Korean-marinated barbeque meat alternatives.
Looking Into the Future: Importance of the Asian Plant-based Market
Perhaps we need to look at what drives the continual consumption of traditional plant-based meat products; what has kept them a constant component in the Eastern diet for so many centuries? These findings could be helpful to aid plant-based meat alternative manufacturers to develop novel plant-based meat products that have the desirable taste and texture of their traditional counterparts, so that consumers can discover some familiarity in these novel products.
Last month, I took part in the 2023 SEACAPE Tertiary Market Immersion Program. SEACAPE, the Southeast Asia Centre of Asia-Pacific Excellence, provides research and resources to New Zealanders to better understand and engage in Southeast Asia. The Tertiary Market Immersion Program takes students to countries in Southeast Asia to understand business in the region. The recent week-long program took us to Singapore to learn about their food system and how Aotearoa food businesses can engage in market. In this blog I will share some things that I learned about food and business in Singapore, and some things Aotearoa should consider.
Singapore has a unique food situation
We saw some of the key differences in food between Singapore and Aotearoa:
Singapore imports 91% of its food, compared to 20% in Aotearoa
The entire Singapore population of 5.4 million live in an area roughly the size of Lake Taupō, meaning there is little room for agriculture
Singapore has a long culture of street food
Wet markets are a unique hub for fresh food and community shopping experiences
Extreme urban density leaves little room for farming. (Author’s picture)
Similarities between food in Aotearoa and Singapore
Despite being far apart, both Singapore and Aotearoa are island nations in the Pacific and do share some similarities when it comes to food:
Ongoing need to import some foods (grains in Aotearoa, meat, produce, seafood in Singapore)
High rates of chronic disease like diabetes due to unhealthy food environments
Understanding these similarities and differences is important for food businesses wanting to engage with Singapore.
Opportunities for Aotearoa food business in Singapore
Singapore has a transformative goal in mind; it aims to produce 30% of its food needs by 2030. However, there will still be a need to import food. Singapore imports food from many countries, including Aotearoa. Aotearoa is advantaged by a reputation for food safety, and a recent NZ-SG partnership program for food innovation. However, it can be expensive and difficult to break into the Singaporean food market because it is so competitive (and quite far away).
Singapore at night. (Photo – Author’s)
Aotearoa still focuses on exporting raw products
Aotearoa already does export food to Singapore, with about 40% of this being milk powder. However, this isn’t a very valuable exchange for Aotearoa because any chance to turn milk powder into a more premium product here is lost. Intensive dairying and milk powder processing are also resource-intensive and contribute to local ecosystem damage. There is a need for Aotearoa to diversify the types of food it makes and exports. Plant-based foods may be one option for Aotearoa food export. This would tick the high-value box for and diversify our exports to Singapore.
Some plant-based foods found in a high-end supermarket.
Uncertainties for plant-based foods in Singapore
How much local Singaporean consumers would be interested in plant-based foods from Aotearoa is a significant, yet unanswered question. Despite Singapore’s heavy investment in alternative proteins, this doesn’t necessarily match local desire for plant-based foods. That being said, 7% of the country is already vegetarian, and Western-style plant-based alternatives could become more popular as time goes on. Food producers would have to grapple with the complexity of the Singapore consumer base, which is very diverse.
Whilst in Singapore, I did spot a jar of Raglan coconut yoghurt on the shelves! Other plant-based yoghurts were available too. However, they were always in “cold storage” retailers that tend to serve people with high incomes, and Western immigrants. Clearly, there is some opportunity for plant-based alternatives to be found but businesses need to know who their consumer is and how to reach them in Singapore.
Balancing export with local food needs
There are some concerns about how Aotearoa can ensure local food security and environmental health while focusing on maximising export returns. Food as a national profit generator doesn’t reflect the necessity of healthy food for wellbeing. 30% of people in Aotearoa already experience food insecurity, and this number is rising. Aotearoa could learn from Singapore’s goal for increased food security and implement its own plan for ensuring healthy and affordable diets for our country.
A lucky meeting in Singapore
Singapore amazed me in several ways – its urban makeup, tasty food, and great public transport were all highly enjoyable. I’m grateful to SEACAPE for inviting me on the trip and supporting us to learn more about food in a global context.
One highlight of the trip stood out though – for the first time since COVID, team members of our Aotearoa and Singapore FFC research groups got to meet in person! We visited the Clinical Nutrition Research Centre unit at A*STAR, where our Singaporean colleagues are based.
Pictured left to right: Pey Sze, Summer, Siew Bee, Amanda
In conclusion, I learnt that collaboration with Singapore in both business and research is very valuable for us here in Aotearoa. Singapore and Aotearoa have a warm diplomatic relationship that gives rise to all sorts of collaborations, such as our program. We hope to host some of our Singapore colleagues in Manawatū soon.
Have you ever eaten a bar of chocolate or a nice meal in a restaurant and had a strong feeling about the food? Maybe the food made you feel happy, excited, or maybe even a little bit disappointed or sad? Well, when people try foods, they often experience feelings!
People who make and experiment with food want to know how consumers feel about particular foods. Usually, consumers are asked to choose words from a list to describe how the food made them feel. This is called an ‘explicit’ approach because consumers are consciously choosing words to describe their feelings.
But sometimes, consumers don’t even actively realise how they feel about a food! This is called an ‘implicit’ approach because their feelings are more subconscious or hidden.
At the Consumer Dimensions of Future Foods project, researchers wanted to know if there is a difference between the way consumers tell us how they feel about food when using explicit versus implicit approaches.
Here is the story…
How do we make decisions or choices?
Sometimes people make decisions after thinking carefully and make a choice based on what they already know and believe – this is called an explicit decision.
Other times, when we make decisions, it’s like our brain decides for us without us actively thinking too much, almost like it’s automatic – this is called an implicit decision. Like reaching for a yummy snack without thinking.
Beyond explicit, exploring hidden answers
So, even though consumers might think they feel one way about a food, their true feelings might be different.
Then the question is, do consumers reveal say what they truly feel after tasting foods? Even when they do, is it their implicit feeling? Or have they thought about it explicitly and answer with what they think they feel or even with what they think the researcher may want to hear having thought about explicitly?
Consumer experience through an implicit eye
At the Consumer Dimensions of Future Foods project, first we used an explicit method, where people chose words from list to describe their feelings having tasted milk and different plant-based milk alternatives under no time limit so they could think about their response (Figure 1). We also used an implicit method, where people had to respond as quickly as they could by pressing a keyboard space bar if a feeling that flashed up on screen (Figure 2). This was time pressured and we measure how long it took them to react to a word as a measure of their ‘hidden’ feelings. We then compared the two.
Figure 1: Explicit – Selecting emotion words from a list, no time limit to answer.
Figure 2: Implicit – Time taken to select relevant words (or not) recorded.
What we found?
Guess what we found… sometimes consumers change their minds between the explicit versus the implicit approach That is for some consumers, the emotion words selected explicitly from a list were different to their implicitly selected emotion words. So, explicit, and implicit approaches tell us somewhat different stories about how the same product set made consumers feel.
This finding leads to our next set of questions…
Which approach better predicts which products consumers will buy in the real world? Or do we need a combination of both? Are our findings relevant to other product categories as well?
To answer these questions, we need more research to find optimum ways of measuring how food products make consumers feel (consumer emotional experience) to improve our understanding of consumer food preferences and choice behaviours.
