Insects have long been consumed as part of the diets of many Asian, African, and South American cultures. However, despite international agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations advocating the nutritional, environmental, and economic benefits of entomophagy, attitudinal barriers persist in Western societies. In Australia, the indigenous ‘bush tucker’ diet comprising witchetty grubs, honey ants, and Bogong moths is quite well known; however, in most Australian locales, the consumption of insects tends to occur only as a novelty. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the awareness and acceptance of insects as food. An online survey of 820 consumers found that 68% of participants had heard of entomophagy, but only 21% had previously eaten insects; witchetty grubs, ants, grasshoppers, and crickets were the most commonly tasted insects. Taste, appearance, safety, and quality were identified as the factors that were most likely to influence consumer willingness to try eating insects, but consumer attitudes towards entomophagy were underpinned by both food neophobia (i.e., reluctance to eat new or novel foods) and prior consumption of insects. Neophobic consumers were far less accepting of entomophagy than neophilic consumers, while consumers who had previously eaten insects were most accepting of insects as food. Incorporating insects into familiar products (e.g., biscuits) or cooked meals also improved their appeal. Collectively, these findings can be used by the food industry to devise production and/or marketing strategies that overcome barriers to insect consumption in Australia.

Recent public interest in so-called “ethical” food production, and in particular the welfare of intensively housed farm animals, has been linked to an increase in sales of free-range eggs in several countries including Australia. Animal activist groups around the world have campaigned for the abolition of caged-egg production, retailers and large food companies are now sourcing less of these products, and governments in various locales have placed restrictions on caged-egg production. In addition, the recent focus on food production and preparation in popular culture including books, films, and television has made these practices, including those associated with eggs, more transparent to mainstream audiences. Previous studies have examined consumers’ willingness-to-pay for free-range eggs, and community attitudes to animal welfare, but there has been little qualitative work that unpacks a key assumption which underlies much discussion of these issues: that free-range egg purchases are primarily or solely linked to consumers’ desires to have egg production systems changed from intensive to free-range. This paper analyses qualitative research undertaken in Australia that explores consumers’ motivations for buying free-range (or cage-free) eggs, which was part of a larger study examining ethical foods. Qualitative analysis of focus groups and interviews involving 73 participants revealed that free-range and cage-free eggs are perceived as being better quality, more nutritious, and safer, and having better sensory characteristics, than caged eggs. In response to open-ended questions, free-range and cage-free eggs were mentioned much more frequently than free-range meats, and were described as easy to identify and affordable, compared with other products with humane production claims. Several participants even had begun keeping their own hens in order to have an alternative to purchasing caged (or expensive free-range) eggs. Although caged-egg production was described by many participants as cruel, the desire to purchase free-range eggs was more often described in connection to efforts to avoid “industrialized” food than in relation to taking a stance on the issue of caged-hen welfare.

Concern for livestock welfare is significantly increasing in many parts of the world. One area of concern is the transportation of livestock. Using qualitative research methods, this research explores the concerns of Australian meat consumers related to livestock transportation practices, both on land by truck and on sea by ship. Participants were predominantly concerned about animals being “crammed” into trucks and ships, and the long distances over which livestock were transported. Likely contributors to these reactions are the high visibility of truck transport in urban areas, and recent media and political attention to the live-export issue in Australia. We argue that participants’ concerns about transport are arising for a variety of reasons, including anthropomorphic tendencies, genuine concern for the welfare of farm animals, and emotional responses related to the discomfort experienced by meat consumers when they are reminded of the meat-animal connection. Given the importance of transport to the red-meat production industry, these results suggest that the sector may need to reconsider some of their practices and increase transparency and communication about the practices, which they utilise to ensure good animal welfare.