To investigate how online discourse surrounding alternative proteins reinforces or negotiates global food taboos, thereby revealing the socio-historical biases that shape Western consumers' acceptance – or rejection – of exotic meats.
A qualitative content-analysis was performed on 1,049 Reddit comments posted between 2021 and 2024 that debated the consumption of “exotic” animal proteins. Each comment was systematically coded to capture user framings of ethnocentrism, disgust and accessibility. The coded dataset was subsequently interrogated with semantic network analysis to visualize co-occurring ideas and reveal dominant rhetorical clusters. A taxonomic classification of the referenced species, grouped by biological class, supported the identification of recurring discursive patterns across the corpus.
Analysis shows Reddit users normalize unfamiliar meats by likening their flavor to well-known proteins such as chicken or beef, suggesting a familiarity-based route to acceptance. Texture, rather than moral disgust, is the dominant trigger of rejection; fibrous or “slimy” cuts elicit the strongest aversion. While comments reveal clear ethnocentric bias, participants also invoke cultural relativism – treating horse or dog as acceptable in some cuisines yet taboo elsewhere. Finally, exotic meats are framed as niche, leisure-oriented commodities, a portrayal that perpetuates limited availability and impedes broader dietary adoption.
This study is the first to fuse qualitative coding with semantic-network visualization of Reddit discourse to map how Western consumers negotiate the acceptability of exotic animal proteins. By uncovering the specific sensory and cultural frames that either normalize or stigmatize unfamiliar meats, the paper extends food-taboo theory beyond small-scale interviews and surveys. Its insights equip marketers, policymakers and sustainability advocates with empirically grounded levers for broadening protein portfolios.
