## 7 Discussion  
It is clear from the studies analyzed here that the relationship between neophobia and technological innovation in the agri-food industry is much more complex and nuanced than it might seem. Using the concept of neophobia outside of its original clinical context to explain the motivation for consumer choices has many limitations. Consumer choices stem from systems of values that are rich in moral implications, often linked to sociopolitical and ecological-environmental considerations. Such judgments go far beyond what is thought to be the original adaptive value of neophobia. They cannot be reduced to the \"picky eating\" typical of children, given that food is also closely linked to identity and has a profound social and cultural meaning. The items in the Food Neophobia Scale [63; 81; 82] investigate the consumption or avoidance of certain foods, referring in particular to new, ethnic or unusual foods. They do not attempt to tap aspects relating to attitude or emotional reaction. This makes it impossible to gain even a superficial grasp of the rationale behind the choice of avoidance, which could hinge on a wide range of reasons. Unconventional diets, such as the vegan diet, could result in high neophobia scores but are not situations to which the term neophobia applies, since they are choices based on ethical values and not simply on disgust toward specific foods. Moreover, what constitutes \"novel foods\" is poorly specified, as the term novel is used indiscriminately in the literature to denote food that is new compared to traditional cuisine and thus exotic or ethnic; new compared to what the individual habitually eats; or new in the sense of being offered by a different brand, similar in basic ingredients, but produced by other suppliers. We then examined some recent data on potential \"novel foods\", presenting several points that may be of interest in scrutinizing the meanings and motivations behind certain food choices. Insects, which could provide an alternative source of nutritious proteins with a lower environmental cost than traditional animal protein sources, are a novelty to the European food scene. They are also particularly likely to elicit neophobic feelings, as they are considered exotic, \"disgusting\" and foreign to European food culture. In studies of the attitudes towards insect consumption of people with different eating styles (omnivores, vegans and non-vegan vegetarians), vegans were found to have the highest neophobia scores, not because they express disgust with insects, but out of consistency with their ethical objections to eating animals or animal derivatives. Much more favorable attitudes were held by non-vegan vegetarians, who are more concerned with environmental sustainability than with animal rights, and seem to feel that insects are not \"proper\" animals and can thus be eaten. Lastly, consumers are divided between acceptance and rejection of synthetic meat. Though still utopian, synthetic meat is a solution that would address some of the most pressing problems associated with meat eating by eliminating animal exploitation and reducing the amount of energy and land needed to produce meat. Though cultivated meat's environmental benefits could be the key to swaying potential consumers' attitudes in its favor, this clashes with a general distrust of its \"unnaturalness\" and the potential consequences of the new technologies on health. It seems that the consumers with the greatest interest in buying are young, well-educated and knowledgeable about cultivated meat. In an apparent paradox, it has been found that vegetarians who were not interested in sampling cultivated meat had higher expectations about its taste than meat eaters who were in fact interested in buying. Future research could profitably address the motivations behind food choices, which prevent a positive perception from being transformed into an intention to buy, complicating the scene surrounding this novel food.