## 4 Results  
### Evaluation of the Suitability of AI-Generated Images  
The preliminary study we conducted to determine the appropriateness of images, generated with Adobe Firefly 3, is shown in Figure 5. The selected products included burger, Wiener schnitzel, hot dog, Carniolan sausage, mortdella, chicken skewers, prosciutto, steak, dry salami, and steak tartare [25]. Twenty-six people participated in the professional evaluation; however, based on predefined criteria, we included responses from only twenty-two participants. Qualified participants were food industry professionals with good vision or who used corrective lenses or other visual aids. Four participants who did not meet these criteria were excluded. Demographic data revealed a predominance of female participation (21 women, 1 man),  
Figure 4: Appearance of the survey when selecting the more appealing image of beef tartare (**a**) and prosciutto (**b**). with an average age of approximately 54 years. Most participants (64%) were aged between 55 and 65, followed by 27% aged 40-54 and 9% aged 25-39. Regarding vision, 16 participants reported adequate vision without corrective aids, and 6 used corrective aids, ensuring reliable and visually objective evaluations [25]. Participants assessed AI-generated images based on product color, texture, presentation, and overall visual appeal. If an image was deemed unsuitable, participants provided comments explaining their reasoning. Overall, experts rated GenAI as 43.7% successful in producing professionally suitable images. Table 1 shows detailed expert evaluations [25]. Experts highlighted GenAI's current limitations in replicating complex meat structures, especially in color accuracy, texture realism, and composition. In Figure 5, expert approval varied: the burger (5a) was rated as adequate by 82%, while 18% noted color issues, and cited an issue with visibility of the meat inside it. Prosciutto (5b) was accepted by 67%, while 33% criticized its color and presentation. Chicken skewers (5c) received only 41% approval, with complaints regarding their artificial appearance. Additional comments \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Meat Product** & **Professionally Accurate** & **Professionally Inaccurate** \\  & **Image** & **Image** \\ \hline Burger & 82\% & 18\% \\ Prosciutto & 67\% & 33\% \\ Chicken skewers & 59\% & 41\% \\ Wiener schnitzel & 57\% & 43\% \\ Steak & 50\% & 50\% \\ Carniolan sausage & 36\% & 64\% \\ Dry salami & 29\% & 71\% \\ Hot dog & 29\% & 71\% \\ Steak tartare & 19\% & 81\% \\ Mortadella & 9\% & 91\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Professional accuracy of AI-generated meat product images (\(n=22\)). Figure 5: AI-generated images of burger (**a**), prosciutto (**b**), chicken skewers (**c**), Wiener schnitzel (**d**), steak (**e**), Carniolan sausage (**f**), dry salami (**g**), hot dog (**h**), steak tartare (**i**), and mortadella (**j**). mentioned that the meat appeared to be of lower quality. The Wiener schnitzel (5d) was rated adequate by 57%, with 43% citing issues with color and plating. Carniolan sausage (5e) was found to be inadequate by 64%, lacking its distinctive tapered tip. It was also noted that the appearance made it seem more like a grilled sausage. Both dry salami (5f) and hot dog (5g) were rejected by 71% for unrealistic proportions and color, with suggestions to use natural casing in the hot dog image. Beef tartare (5h) was deemed inadequate by 81% for its unnatural appearance, specifically color. Mortadella (5i) received the harshest critique, with 91% of experts rejecting it due to its inaccurate cross-section and color [25]. These findings from this experimental phase of the study underscore the current limitations of Adobe Firefly 3 in accurately depicting meat products for professional use. In 9 out of 10 cases, color was the most inappropriate factor, followed by the texture of the meat and the plate appearance in some cases.