an analysis of consumer perceptions of fresh fish and seafood in

An Analysis of Consumer Perceptions of Fresh Fish and

Seafood in the Delmarva Region*

by

Craig R. KreiderFormer Undergraduate Research AssistantDelaware Agricultural Experiment Station

Dept. of Food and Resource Economics, College of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 19717-1303

Conrado M. Gempesaw IIProfessor

Delaware Agricultural Experiment StationDept. of Food and Resource Economics, College of Agricultural Sciences

University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 19717-1303

J. Richard BaconResearch Associate III



Ulrich C. ToensmeyerProfessor



Andrew J. GroffFormer Undergraduate Research AssistantDelaware Agricultural Experiment Station

Dept. of Food and Resource Economics, College of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 19717-1303

*The researchwas fundedin part by the AgriculturalMarketingService, USDA, and the DelawareStateDepartmentof Agriculture.

Journal of Food Distribution Research September93ipage 37

Abstract

The results of a consumer study concerningfresh fish and seafood consumption and attitudesin the Delmarva region are presented and dis-cussed. Chi-square testing for independence isused to determine significance of selecteddemographic variables. Currently, 96.1 percentof consumers studied consume fresh fish andseafood, and per capita consumption of fresh fishand seafood has increased over the past five years.Freshness, a good appearance, flavor, and safetyare factors consumers desire in fresh fish andseafood. Taste, odor, and price were the majordeterrents to seafood purchases. Consumersdesire greater government control and regulationof the seafood industry in the form of seafoodinspection and mandatory nutritional labeling.

Key Words

Fresh fish and seafood, Inspection, Nutritionallabeling, Consumer attitudes.

Introduction

By 1991, the domestic per capita consump-tion of seafood products increased nearly 30 per-cent over 1971 totals (The Food Institute). Thisgrowth in the demand for seafood productsresulted mostly from increases in population andpartially from increases in consumption by theoccasional consumer of seafood (The NationalFish and Seafood Promotional Council, 1991),Also, increased health awareness has led manyconsumers to turn to seafood because of the highlypublicized health benefits.

Increases in per capita consumption of freshfish and seafood is second only to the increase inper capita consumption of poultry (+33.5%), andmuch better than the changes in per capita con-sumption of beef (-13.6%) and pork (-2.3%) forthe same period. The per capita increases inconsumption of fresh fish and seafood as well aspoultry vis-a-vis the decrease in per capita con-sumption of beef and pork indicates that manyhouseholds have altered their consumption habitsto reduce fat intake, cholesterol, and weight.These consumers have generally substituted redmeat with chicken or fresh fish and seafood.

Experts within the seafood industry are predictingthe consumption of seafood to almost doublewithin the next 30 years, resulting in shortages offish and seafood products (Quick Frozen FoodsInternational, 1991; Rogness and Weddig, 1991;and Dowdell, 1990). Shortages may already bebecoming a reality. The erratic supply of seafood(Harvey, 1991) leads to times when demand isgreater than supply, providing incentive to harvestbeyond maximum sustainable yields. Evidenceexists to support this scenario, Harvests in theNorth Atlantic have been declining, and in theEuropean Community, up to 75 percent of wildstocks are being harvested beyond sustainablerates (Rogness and Weddig, 1991).

Future growth in the supply of seafood ona worldwide basis is expected to come from com-mercial production of fish products (National’Marine Fisheries Service, 1990; National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, 1990). Aqui-culture is a rapidly growing industry in the UnitedStates with major success stories being the catfishindustry, based in the Mississippi Delta, and thetrout industry, based in Idaho, North Carolina,California, and Pennsylvania. By the year 2000,the U.S. aquiculture industry is expected to pro-duce 1.26 billion pounds annually (Institute ofMedicine, 1991).

Commercial aquiculture provides potentiidfor farmers to diversify, increase farm income,and use idle resources. Public support stems fromthe realization that this fast growing segment ofthe agricultural sector might spark needed eco-nomic development in rural areas as well as add-ing the indirect benefit of increased availability ofaquacukure products (Mellor, 1980).

Obstacles which may stand in the way ofthis growth are the concern over seafood safetyand rising retail seafood prices due to the erraticsupply. In fact, despite the overall growth inseafood consumption over the past two decades,the per capita consumption of seafood in theUnited States has fallen by 2 percent annuallysince 1987 @utnam and Allshouse, 1992). Safetyconcerns and rising prices are held accountable forthis downturn (Harvey, 1991).

September93/page 38 Journal of Food Distribution Research

Aquiculture could help to overcome theseobstacles. Increased supplies of aquacuhure-pro-duced fish and seafood would serve to stabilizeprices. Furthermore, the aquiculture environmentis far more controlled than open-access waters,thus reducing the chances of poisoning or contam-ination. However, the latter point may not berecognized by consumers,

This study evaluates consumer purchasinghabits and purchasing determinants for fresh fishand seafood, and determines consumer attitudesand opinions about selected issues concerningfresh fish and seafood. Also, demographic vari-ables are studied to determine what effects theymight have on purchasing habits, purchasingdeterminants, and consumer attitudes and opinionsabout fresh fish and seafood.

Procedure and Demographic Overview

The data were collected from a consumerstudy conducted in 1991 concerning fresh fish andseafood consumption and attitudes in theDelmarva region (a region comprising the state ofDelaware, the three counties on the eastern shoreof Maryland, and two counties of Virginia). Arandom mailing sample of 10,000 telephone sub-scribers, based on zip code population and includ-ing unlisted households, was obtained from Tar-geting Market Service, a division of TRW. Therewere 1463 usable questionnaires returned for aresponse rate of 14.6 percent.

Consumers were asked a series of referen-dum, contingent valuation, and free responsequestions regarding their attitudes about fresh fishand seafood. The contingent valuation questionsrequired respondents to rate various issues on ascale of 1-7, where 1 and 7 represent oppositeends of a spectrum of possible responses.

The largest portion of respondents, 35.9percent, were in the 35-49 years age group, whileslightly more than one-half (52 .6%) of the respon-dents were men (Table 1). Approximately three-quarters of the respondents graduated from highschool, and one-half of high school graduateswent on to obtain a bachelor degree, Just over 13percent of all respondents have done some gradu-ate study, while just under 9 percent did not com-

Joumal of Food Distribution Research

plete high school. Nearly 60 percent of allrespondents earned between $20,000 and $60,000annually, with the largest concentration, 18.4percent, in the $30,000-$39,999 income range.

Table 1Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

To Seafood Consumption Survey,Delmarva 1991

Characte ristic N Percent

AGE18-34 years of age 31035-49 52950-64 31965 or older 272Did not answer aTOTAL 1463

SEXMale 752Female 677Did not answer &TOTAL 1463

EDUC ATIONLess than high school 127High school graduate 547Some college 241Bachelor degree 353Some graduate work or deg&?jTOTAL 1463

ANNUAL HOUS EHOLD INCOMEC$10,OOO 63$10,000-19,999 112$20,000-29,999 190$30,000-39,999 247$40,000-49,999 183$50,000-59,999 178$60,000-69,999 114$70,000-79,999 72$80,000 or higher 180Did not answer ~TOTAL 1463

21.637.122.319,0N\A

100.0

52.647.4N\A

100.0

8.737.416.524.1

m100.0

4.78.4

14,218.413.713.38.55.4

13.4

m100.0

Source: Delmarva Consumer Seafood Survey andCalculations

September931page39

Basic descriptive survey results presentedinclude topics such as consumer’s at-home andrestaurant seafood consumption, product type andsize, familiarity with selected seafood products,reasons for eating more or fewer seafood prod-ucts, and consumer preferences and attitudes,Chi-square testing for independence is also used todetermine significant differences among demo-graphic groups’ responses to selected variables.

overall most popular products, chosen by 20.9,15.8 and 12.3 percent of consumers, respectively.

Table 3Consumer Reasons for Not Eating Fresh Fish

And/or Seafood, Delmarva, 1991

Reason N PercentResults

Over 96 percent of respondents reportedthat they eat fresh fish or seafood (Table 2). Forrespondents who do not consume fish or seafood,the reason most frequently given was taste(42.3%), followed by odor and price, at 28.8 and26.9 percent, respectively (Table 3). Previousresearch indicates that consumers prefer fish andseafood that is bland, meaning that it does nothave a “fishy” taste or odor (Stutzman, 1992).

TasteOdorPricePreparationDietFreshnessHealthfulnessNever EatenAppearanceQualityAllergyOther

221514998765428

42.328.826.917.317.315.413.511.59.67.73.5

15.4

Table 2Consumption of Fresh Fish or Seafood,

Delmarva, 1991

Source: Delmama Consumer Seafood Survey andCalculations

Response N PercentYes 1390 96.1No 57 3.9No Response X ~

TOTALS 1463 100.0


Flounder was the first choice of21. 1 per-cent of consumers for at-home seafood consump-tion, while crab and shrimp followed as the firstchoice of 19.9 and 14,8 percent of consumers,respectively (Table 4). Shrimp was most oftenranked as one of the top three choices for at-homeseafood consumption, as chosen by 51.3 percentof consumers. Flounder and crab followedclosely, ranked by 47.8 and 47.7 percent of con-sumers; trout, salmon, and tuna followed as the

Table 4Consumer Product Choice Rankings

Of Selected Fresh l%h and Seafood ItemsFor At Home Consumption, Delmarva, 1991

Product ----Product Choice Rankings----Tvr)e First Second Third

----------- percent -----------

Flounder 22.1Crab 19.9Shrimp 14.8Trout 9.3Salmon 4.5Tuna 3.8Catfish 2.9Orange Roughy 2.5Perch 2.0Cod 2.0Other 16.2

14.913.619,75.95.54.72.72.22.22.0

26.6

10.814.216.85.75.83.82.22.51.72.0

33.9


September93/page 40 Journal of Food Distribution Research

The one pound product size was most oftenindicated as the product size consumers preferredfor all top five at-home consumption seafoodproducts (Table 5). Over 93 percent of consum-ers preferred Illeted flounder for at-home con-sumption, while three-quarters of at-home con-sumers preferred their trout flleted. Almost 20percent preferred to buy whole trout. Approxi-mately 40 percent of consumers favored steamed/boiled crabs and shrimp, but whole/in-shell alsowas chosen by 11.8 and 17.4 percent, respec-tively. Ten percent of respondents preferred crabmeat in cake form, and 15 percent favored fresh/live shrimp. Salmon was desired in both filet andsteak forms. In general, fish is preferred in filetform, while crustaceans are preferred in thesteamedboiled form.

Table 5Consumer Desired At-Home

Seafood Product Size and Form,Delmarva, 1991

----S ize----- --------Form -------Product Ibs Dercent form r)ercent

Flounder 1.0 53.9 filet 93.22.0 12.5 whole 1.80,5 8,9 fresh/live 1.1

Crabs 1.0 31.4 steamed/boiled 40.41 doz 15.3 whole/in shell 11.81 bu 11.5 cake 10,0

Shrimp 1.0 39.7 steamed/boiled 40.42,0 14.8 whole/in shell 17.45.0 7.5 fresh/live 15.0

Trout 1.0 38.9 filet 74.62.0 18.5 whole 19.21.5 9.7 fresh/live 1,3

Salmon 1.0 50.3 filet 51.71.5 13.5 steak 42.50.5 11.0 canned 1.7


Using a 1-7 rating scale where 1 is“increased” and 7 is “decreased,” consumersindicated that their consumption of fresh fish andseafood, poultry, and fresh fruits and vegetableshas increased during the last five years, withmeans of 2.6, 2,23, and 2.3, respectively (Table6). Consumption of dairy products, beef, andpork has been about the same to slightly leas withmeans of 4,12, 4.72 and 4.79, respectively, whileconsumption of eggs, with a mean of 5.17, hasdecreased.

Table 6Consumer Change in Consumption

Of Selected ProductsOver the Last Five Years, Delmarva, 1991

StandardProduct Mean’ DeviationFresh Fish/Seafood 2.60 1.50Poultry 2.23 1.27Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 2.30 1.31Dairy Products 4.17 1.53Beef 4.72 1.54Pork 4.79 1.54Eggs 5.17 1.58

‘1 = More 7 = Less


Consumers revealed they believe seafood tobe more expensive than poultry with a mean of2.7, as well as beef and pork, with means of 3.01and 3.10, respectively (Table 7). Consumersindicated they perceive seafood to be more health-ful than beef and pork with means of 2.12 and2.26, but only sightly more healthful then poultry,with a mean of 3.38. Consumers rated the qualityof seafood compared to other food products as thesame to slightly better than beef, pork and poul-try, with means 3.73, 3.65 and 3.77, respectively.In terms of price, healthfulness, and quality, theseresults point out that poultry will be more com-petitive with fish and seafood than beef or pork.

Journal of Food Distribution Research September93/page 41

Table 7Consumer Opinion about Various Traits

of Seafood Products VersusTraits of Other Selected Food Products,

Delmarva, 1991

—-------Product ----------Trait Beef Pork Poultry

-----------Means’ ------------Price 3.01 3.10 2.70Healthfulness 2.12 2.26 3.38Quality 3.73 3,65 3.77

‘1= Seafood Higher 7 = Seafood Lower


Government’sRole

Over 90 percent of consumers felt fresh fishand seafood should be inspected (Table 8). Ofthose who wanted seafood inspection, the majorityof respondents favored inspection by a govern-ment agency. This percentage decreased, how-ever, as age increased. Approximately 70 percentof consumers in the 18-34 group wanted govern-ment inspection, compared to 52.7 percent in theover 65 group (Table 9). Conversely, 18,4 per-cent in the 18-34 group desired inspection byindustry officials, compared to 36 percent in theover 65 age group. Government inspection isfavored by more males, over 67 percent, thanfemales, 58 percent, while a higher percentage offemales than males wanted inspection by theseafood industry. Desire for governmentinspection increased with higher education andhigher income, while the desire for industryinspection decreased with higher education andincome.

In general, people felt the governmentshould inspect seafood, with the most supportshown by younger respondents, males, and indi-viduals with higher education and income. Indus-try inspection had the strongest support fromolder, female, less educated, and lower incomerespondents. The government agency most

favored to carry out seafood inspection is theUSDA, as indicated by nearly 50 percent of allrespondents.

Table 8Consumer Opinion of

Whether Fresh Ftsh and SeafoodShould be Inspected, Delmarva, 1991

ResDonse N PercentYes 1264 90.9No 43 3.1No Opinion 6.0No Response : NIA

TOTAL 1463 100.0


In addition to inspection, the federalgovernment should also require nutritional label-ing on fresh fish and seafood in the opinion of58.8 percent of respondents (Table 10). Theharvest date of fresh fish and seafood was selectedas necessary information on nutritional labels by85 percent of respondents, and 77.1 percentbelieved that additives should also be reported(Table 11). Cholesterol and fat were selected by72.2 and 70.7 percent of consumers, respectively,as components they wished to see on nutritionlabels. Harvest location was also cited by 67percent of consumers. Other factors such assodium content and calories were selected by 62,5and 60.1 percent of consumers, respectively.

Consumer desire for knowledge aboutcholesterol, fat, sodium, and calories is not sur-prising since concern over these factors are com-mon to many studies about food safety, However,several additional labeling components for seafoodsafety were indicated by consumers: additives,harvest date, and harvest location.

September 931page 42 Journal of Food Distribution Re.search

Table 9Consumer Opinion of

Who Should Be ResponsibleFor Inspecting Fresh Fkh and Seafood,

Delmarva, 1991

--------–------––—-— MO Should Inspect --—Seafood No

Characteristic Government Industrv er ResDonse Total..--. -... --.--— —------ percenf ——---

ME

18-3435-4950-6465 and over

w

MaleFemale

EDUCATION

Less than H.S.H.S. GraduateSome CollegeBachelor DegreeSome Grad. work

or degree

IKQME

<$10,000$10,000-19,999$20,000-29,999$30,000-39,999$40,000-49,999$50,000-59,999$60,000-69,999$70,000-79,999$80,000 or higher

70.465.359.052.7

67.258,1

63.260.064.16!3.0

70.5

51,053.356.065.964.762.869.572.663.7—

18.425.329.5

3.1

24.129.5

36.829.026.220.1

18,0

38.839.132.728.422,727.020.017.723.4

Source: Delmarva Consumer Seafood Survey and Calculations

9.06.78.47.7

6.49,1

0.08.79.77.5

7.7

8.27,69.35.29.36.16.76.57.1

2.22.73.13.5

2,33.3

0.O2.30.04.4

3.8

2.00.02.00.53,34.13.83.25.8

100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

100,0100.0100.0100.0

100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

Journal of Food Distribution Research September 93/page 43

Table 10Consumer Preference for

Federal Government RequiredNutrition Labeling of Fresh Seafood,

Delmarva, 1991

should be included, while more than 75 percent ofindividuals with income greater than $20,000indicated additives should be a part of nutritionallabeling on fresh fish and seafood.

Resr)onse N Percen~

Yes 804 58.8No 360 26.3No Opinion 203 14.9No Response A N/A

TOTAL 1463 100.0


Table 11Consumer Preference for

Nutrition Label Components,Delmarva, 1991.

co mt)onent N PercentHarvest Date 682 85.0Additives 618 77.1Cholesterol 579 72.2Fat 567 70.7Harvest Location 537 67.0Sodium 501 62.5Calories 482 60.1Protein 372 46.4Vitamins 306 38.2Minerals 285 35.5Carbohydrates 251 31,3Other 43 12.3


Higher income individuals were more likelyto indicate that food additives should be includedin nutritional labeling on fresh fish and seafood(Table 12). Of individuals with income under$20,000, 67 percent indicated that additives

Table 12Consumer Preference for Additives to be

A Part of Nutritional Labeling ofFresh Seafood, Delmarva, 1991

Income —---Rating-——Categorv Yes No

----percent--

Under $10,000$10,000-$19,999$20,000-$29,999$30,000-$39,999$40,000-$49,999$50,000 “ $59,999$60,000-$69,999$70,000-$79,999$80,000 and above

63.966.181.575.485.280.285.780.974.7

36.133.918.524.614.819.814.319.125.3

Chi-~UW = 16.993pmb = .030

= .109

~%ce: Delmarva Consumer Seafood Survey andCalculations

Nearly sixty percent of respondents agreedthat the degree of government regulations in thefresh fish and seafood industry should beincreased, while 19.0 percent indicated regulationsshould not be increased (Table 13). This is inagreement to the sentiment that the governmentshould inspect seafood, as well as require nutri-tional labeling on seafood.

September 931page 44 Journal of Food Distribution Research

Table 13Consumer Agreement that

The Degree of Government RegulationsConcerning Fkh and Seafood Production,

Harvesting and ProcessingShould be Increased, Delmarva, 1991

ResDonse Number Percent1 Strong] y Disagree 104 7.42 75 5.43 87 6.24 No Difference 301 21.65 237 17.06 240 17.27 Strongly Agree 352 25.2No Response m ~

TOTALS 1463 100.0

Source: Delmarva Consumer Seafood Survey and.,Calculations

Purchasing Determinants

Freshness/appearance, with a mean of 1.51on a 1-7 scale, was the most important factoraffecting consumer purchasing decisions for sea-food as compared with the purchase of other meatproducts (Table 14). This emphasis on freshnessand appearance imp]ies that strict attention toproduct display and quality control within theseafood department could make a difference insales. Following freshness/appearance in impor-tance were flavor, food poisoning/contamination,and availability, with means of 1.64, 2.03 and2.07, respectively. Nutrition and healthfulnesshad a mean of 2.21, while price was the sixthmost important factor with a mean of 2.35.Again, government inspection and nutritionallabeling were important to consumers, with meansof 2.9 and 3.85, respective y.

Whether the seafood was farm raised or notmade little difference to consumers, with a meanof 4.44. Considering the press coverage of pol-luted streams, rivers, and other waterways whereseafood is harvested, this was an unexpectedresponse. One would assume that raising fish andseafood under controlled conditions would result

Journal of Fmd Distribution Research

in at least the perception of a safer product.Advertising, with a mean of 5.26, was rated asthe least important factor in consumer purchasingdecisions for seafood versus other meat products.

Table 14Factor Importance in Seafood versus

Other Meat Purchasing Decisions,Delmarva, 1991

Std.Factor Mean” Deviation

Freshness/Appearance 1.51Flavor 1.64Food Poisoning/Contamination 2.05Availability 2.07Nutrition/Healthfidness 2.21Price 2.35Texture/Tenderness 2.39Fish Odor 2.58Presence of Bones 2.78Government Inspected 2.90Ease of Preparation 2.95Environmental Effect 3.25Nutritional Labeling 3.85Packaging 3.91Farm Raised 4.44Brand Name 4.69Advertising 5.26Other 1.81

1.191.151.831.591.601.601.651.971.912.011,762.012.172.032.011.961.971.74

al = Very Important 7 = Very Unimportant


CbnsumerAttitudes and OpinionsConcerningSelected Seafood Issues

Forty-three percent of respondents wereindifferent when asked if they believed eatingfarm raised fish and seafood is safer than eatingfresh wild caught fish and seafood (Table 15).Additionally, approximately 55 percent of con-sumers disagreed to strongly disagreed to pre-ferring imported over domestically produced fish

September 93/page 45

and seafood, while 36.6 percent indicated nopreference (Table 16).

Table 15Consumer Agreement to Feeling SaferEating Farm Raised Fish and Seafood

Than Fresh Wild Caught Fish and Seafood,Delmarva, 1991

ResDonse Number Percent

1 Strongly Disagree 1302 1013 1454 No Difference 5945 1346 1097 Strongly Agree 168No Response &

9.47.3

10.543.0

9.77.9

12.2~’

TOTALS 1463 100.0


Table 16Consumer Agreement to Preferring Imported

To Domestically Produced Fresh FishAnd Seafood, Delmarva, 1991

ResI)onse Number Percent

1 Strongly Disagree234 No Difference567 Strongly AgreeNo ResponseTotals

481178109510

322458

~1463

34.612.87.8

36,62.31,74.2

~100.0


The risks associated with eating raw freshfish and seafood have not been exaggerated in theopinion of 41 percent of respondents, while justunder 30 percent indicated the risks of eating rawfresh fish and seafood have been exaggerated(1’able 17). Less than twenty percent of respon-dents indicated they disagreed that producing fishand seafood products on farms is more environ-mental y appropriate than harvesting the wildpopulation (Table 18). Respondents who slightlyagreed to strongly agreed included 42.7 percent,while 37.5 percent indicated that they held noopinion on the subject. Approximate y 48 percentof consumers indicated that the quality of health-fulness of fresh fish and seafood today is higherthan it was five years ago, while 12.2 percent ofrespondents rated today’s seafood healthfulness aslower (Table 19).

Table 17Consumer Agreement that the RisksAssociated with Eating Raw Seafood

Have been Exaggerated, Delmarva, 1991

ResI)onse Number Percent

1 Strongly Disagree234 No Difference567 Strongly AgreeNo Response

258155159405155100162Q

18.511.111.429.111.17.2

11.6~

TOTALS 1463 100,0



Table 18Consumer Agreement that Producing Fish

And Seafood Products on Farms isMore Environmentally Appropriate than

Harvesting Wild Population, Delmarva, 1991

Resuonse Number Percent

1 Strongly Disagree 882 693 1164 No Difference 5215 1936 2067 Strongly Agree 195No Response xTotals 1463

6.35.08.4

37.513.914.814.0~

100.0

Source: Delmarva Consumer Seafood Survey and.,Calculations

Table 19Consumer Rating of the Overall Quality

Of Healthfulness of Fresh Fish and SeafoodAvailable Today versus Fhe Years Ago,

Delmarva, 1991

Rest)onse Number Percent

1 Higher 1642 2113 2794 No Difference 5475 806 487 Lower 40No Response Q

12.015.420.440.0

5.83.52.9

~

TOTALS 1463 100.0


Summary and Conclusions .

Currently, 96.1 percent of consumers inDelmarva consume fresh seafood. The predictedgrowth, therefore, will come mainly from currentconsumers increasing their consumption, and onlya small amount of overall growth will come fromconsumers who currently do not consume freshseafood.

Per capita consumption of fresh fish andseafood in Delmarva has grown over the past fiveyears, while per capita consumption of dairyproducts, beef, pork, and eggs have declined. Infact, consumers in Delmarva stated that theirconsumption of fresh seafood has increased nearlyas much as their consumption of poultry has in thepast five years. A factor related to these trendsmay be the fact that consumers view the heahh-fulness of fresh seafood to be higher than thehealthfulness of beef, pork, and poultry,

The study reveals that consumers wantfreshness and a good appearance, flavor, safety(free from poisoning or contamination), and nutri-tion made easily available to them. These factorswere all rated ahead of price in importance, whichhelps explain why fresh seafood consumption hasrisen even though consumers view its price to behigher than beef, pork, and poultry prices.

While seafood price was rated less impor-tant than freshness, appearance, flavor, safety,and nutritional content, its importance can not beoverlooked. The top three reasons given for noteating fresh seafood were taste, odor, and price.It could be hypothesized that consumers are will-ing to pay more for fresh fish and seafood, but ifthe price is too much higher in comparison topoultry, beef, and pork, consumers will decreasetheir seafood purchases. While seafood priceeffects are not known in any certainty, the studyof price and consumer willingness-to-pay is anarea in which further study would be usefhl.

The majority of consumers surveyed wanttheir seafood to be inspected. The government isthe first choice of consumers to inspect seafood.Younger, male, more highly educated, and higherincome respondents favor government moststrongly, while some older, female, lower edu-

Joumal of Food Distribution Research September 93/page 47

cated, and lower income individuals favor inspec-tion by the seafood industry.

A majority of consumers also favor manda-tory nutrition labels put on fresh fish and seafood.In addition to cholesterol, fat, sodium, and calo-ries, strong desire exists to include informationabout additives, harvest date, and harvest location.Generally, younger, more educated, and higherincome respondents indicated that they wanted thisinformation reported on a label,

Overall, the majority felt that governmentregulations in the fresh fish and seafood industryshould be increased. Inspection and mandatorylabeling are certainly consumer response to theirdesire for safe seafood products. Interestingly,consumers do not view farm-raised fish and sea-food to be any safer than wild-caught products.

References

Byrne, Patrick J., Conrado M. Gempesaw H, andUlrich C. Toensmeyer. “An Evaluation ofConsumer Pesticide Residue Concerns andRisk Information Sources. ” SouthernJournal of Agricultural Economics23,2(1991):167-174.

Dowdell, Stephen. “Fish, Seafood ShortagesProjected. ” SupermarketNews, September24, 1990, p. 46.

Harvey, David. “Aquiculture: A DiverseIndustry Poised For Growth, ” NationalFood Review. USDA/ERS Washington,DC. 14,4(1991):18-23.

Institute of Medicine. Seafood Safefy. Farid E.Ahmed, Editor. National Academy Press,Washington, DC. 1991.

Mellor, John W. “Food Aid and Nutrition. ”American Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics. 62,(1980):979-983.

National Marine Fisheries Service. FisheriesStatistics of the United States-1989.Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8900.1990.Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. Meeting the C7tallenge:New Directions in Seafood Inspection.1990. Pascagouls, Miss.

Putnam, Judith Jones and Jane E. Allshouse.Food Consumption, Prices, and Expendi-tures, 1970-!W, CED/ERS/USDA. Statis-tical Bulletin Number 840. August 1992.

Quick Frozen Foods International. “It’s FarmedFish or Too Few Fish To Meet the 21stCentury’s Demands. ” 32(April 1991):132.

Rogness, Ronald V. and Lee J. Weddig. “AWord to the Wise Fisherman: Imports toPlay a Bigger Role for U.S. Consumer. ”National FishermanAnnual. 1991, p. 74-96.

Stutzman, Curtis, March 1992. Tilapia StatusReport, American Tilapian Association.Amana, Iowa.

Targeting Market Service, a division of TRW,Richardson, Texas.

The Food Institute. Frozen Fish and Shellj?sh.Fair Lawn, NJ. July 1992.

The National Fish and Seafood PromotionalCouncil. Analysis of Consumer Perspec-tives on Fish and Seafood. Roseleen L,Moore, Chairman. Washington, DC.October 1991.

U. S, Department of Agriculture. AquicultureSituation and Outlook Report. EconomicResearch Service, Various issues.


an analysis of consumer perceptions of fresh fish and seafood in

Documents