ArticleScientific reports2026
Acceptance of entomophagy among Canadians at an insectarium.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As global food systems face mounting sustainability pressures, insects are gaining attention as a promising alternative protein source. Yet, entomophagy remains culturally unfamiliar or stigmatized in many Western countries, including Canada. This study investigates attitudes toward insect consumption among 252 adult visitors to the Montreal Insectarium, a public institution promoting insect education and biodiversity awareness. Participants completed a structured questionnaire evaluating willingness to consume various insect-based foods, motivations and barriers, and demographic predictors of acceptance. Overall, 44% of participants reported openness to eating insects (18% had previously consumed them and 26% were willing to try), though fewer were willing to include them in their regular diet (27%) or prepare them at home (17%). Acceptance was highest for products where insect content was less visible, such as baked goods made with insect flour. Key motivators included curiosity, perceived health benefits, and environmental concern, while major deterrents were disgust, food safety concerns, and insect-related fears. Ordinal logistic regression analyses revealed consistent gender effects, with men significantly more willing than women to consume a variety of insect-based foods. Men also showed greater prior experience with insect consumption and were more likely to include insects in their diets or try them in restaurants. Age alone was not a consistent predictor, but significant interactions with gender revealed a complex interplay between these predictors. Moreover, participants with graduate degrees showed greater openness to experimenting with insect-based ingredients when cooking, and prior insect consumption increased with education among women. Overall, our results show that demographic differences (especially gender and education) shape openness to entomophagy more strongly than age alone, suggesting that targeted outreach could be a better strategy than generalized promotion in encouraging insect-based food adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.