consumer perceptions about seafood – an internet survey

Consumer perceptions about seafood – an Internet survey

Doris Hicks,* Lori Pivarnik† and Ryan McDermott‡

*University of Delaware, Delaware Sea Grant Program, Lewes, DE 19958, USA;†Nutrition and Food Sciences Department, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02892, USA;‡College of Marine and Earth Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Correspondence:Doris Hicks, Universityof Delaware, DelawareSea Grant Program, 700Pilottown Road, Lewes,DE 19958, USA. Tel:+302 645 4297; Fax:+302 645 4213; E-mail:[email protected]

Keywords:consumer, Internetsurvey, seafood

Abstract

Consumer knowledge of and attitude toward seafood and seafood consump-tion was assessed using a nationwide Internet survey. The survey was evalu-ated for content validity and was pilot tested by consumers. There were 1062respondents representing the US population for age, gender, income, ethnicityand geographic location. Respondents were asked questions regardingseafood consumption frequency, sources of information about seafood andpreferred formats, knowledge of key seafood issues, and barriers to seafoodconsumption. Consumers were asked if they had heard positive or negativeinformation about seafood and where they heard this information. Respon-dents were categorized as current seafood eaters (CSE), 88%; former seafoodeaters (FSE), 9%; and nonseafood eaters (NSE), 3%. While only 22% ofAmericans met the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recom-mendation of two servings of seafood each week, overall, 45% ate seafood atleast once a week. Only 19% of women of childbearing age ate seafood twoor more times per week. The top-ranking reason for not eating seafood orchanging seafood consumption habits was taste preference (46%) for FSEand NSE respondents, and affordability (45%) for CSE. Based on the resultsof this survey, a better understanding of consumers’ seafood habits can beused for the development of balanced messages for consumers over a varietyof demographics. Respondents chose the media (30%) and the Internet(14%) as their preferred seafood information resource.

Introduction

Consumers have been one of the most difficultaudiences to reach when it comes to ensuring thatthey have the proper knowledge to purchase,handle and prepare seafood products at home.Many surveys have been carried out over the last20 years regarding consumer perceptions, atti-tudes and knowledge of seafood handling for USconsumers (Hu 1985; Anonymous 1987; NationalFish and Seafood Promotional Council 1991;Wessells et al. 1994; Myers 1999; Robertson et al.

1999). The results of many of these surveysappeared in popular magazines and trade journals,and they provided the foundation for the under-standing about the concerns and barriers toincreased seafood utilization by consumers. Manyof the recent surveys conducted on US consumerattitudes and consumption of seafood werecompleted in 1987 and 1999 when the majorissues studied were seafood acceptability, variety,convenience, home preparation, taste (sensory),purchase site and product forms (fresh vs.frozen). While these factors are still important to

Research article

© 2008, The Authors

Journal compilation © 2008, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 19, pp. 213–226

DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x

213

mailto:[email protected]

consumer buying habits, other issues, such as sus-tainability, environmental impact, organic, healthand nutrition, contaminants and the variety ofnew seafood safety concerns, associated with thenumerous ready-to-eat seafood products thathave emerged, may now be influencing con-sumers’ purchasing habits. Understanding thebasis of consumer decisions about seafoodchoices is important in developing the mostappropriate educational messages regarding thebalance of benefits and risks associated withseafood consumption (Nesheim & Yaktine 2007).The use of consumer surveys and their results canhelp to develop effective tools of communication.Understanding the population is imperative toachieving a more informed consumer.

In 1997, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI)sponsored an NPD Custom Research Survey(NPD Group 1997) in an effort to ascertain therelationship between attitudes and seafood utili-zation. The results attempted to relate the role ofseafood in consumers’ diets and the underlyingattitudes associated with the use as well as per-ceptions of the fishing industry, but there wereonly nine questions asked on the survey. While thescope of the survey was limited, some good indi-cators reflecting consumer opinions were deter-mined. The researchers found that for frequentseafood consumers, quality and healthiness werepositive influences, and price was a negativeinfluence on rates of seafood consumption. Inaddition, environmental issues were a concern,especially among people who ate seafood less fre-quently. While this information could help directconsumer outreach programming, it does notprovide adequate depth to develop a comprehen-sive educational initiative. In 2001, the NFIconducted a survey that focused on consumerconcerns about environmental issues related tothe seafood industry and how these concernsaffected purchases (Blackstone 2001). While thissurvey provided some important informationconcerning consumer knowledge of environmen-tal issues, such as overfishing, by-catch reduction,farm raised vs. wild and ecolabeling in regardto its impact on seafood purchases, it did notaddress the complex nature of what the overrid-ing factors are that have kept consumers frombuying seafood and preparing it at home. Thiswould require a multifaceted survey that would

assess many factors that may influence consumerchoices – old and new – to truly ‘rank’ the factorsin order of importance. Therefore, educationalintervention developed from conclusions of pastconsumer surveys should be augmented with newinformation garnered from more recent surveys.

While results of past surveys may have beenused to develop ‘messages’ to encourage greaterseafood consumption, ‘seafood lovers’ will keepeating seafood. Even food safety issues do notstop ‘diehard’ seafood eaters. For example,despite stern food safety warnings concerningVibrio infection and its connection to the con-sumption of raw shellfish, shellfish loverscontinue to ignore the advisory. However,encouraging the occasional seafood eater toincrease their seafood consumption beyond therestaurant or attracting new consumers seems tobe a problem. Developing new seafood consumersis a constant goal that continues to be a challenge.In light of some of the key safety concerns thatboth regulatory and consumer groups have beenhighlighting (e.g. mercury, PCBs and other envi-ronmental contaminants, listeria and histamine),the difficulties in reaching the consumer may begetting more complex. For example, if a ‘message’about seafood, in particular a health message,is confusing or unclear, it can have a negativeimpact on overall seafood consumption. After theFood and Drug Administration (FDA) mercuryadvisory for seafood was issued in 2001, a studyconducted by the Harvard Medical School of2235 pregnant women found that the womenreported eating 1.4 fewer servings of all types ofseafood per month, not just the four species iden-tified in the advisory (Oken et al. 2003). Whilethe advisory may be considered effective in regardto pregnant women and their receptiveness tohealth advice, the outcome of the messageresulted in a condemnation of all fish, not just thetargeted species. Therefore, the benefits formother and baby, which are well established, areignored or overlooked. Consumer buying pat-terns may be dictated by fear, and improving con-sumer trust is mandatory (Coons 2003). This canonly be accomplished through better informa-tion campaigns and transparent policies (Coons2003). If not, the consumers may be relying on‘rules of thumb’ as suggested by Green et al.(2003). If not, what risk/benefit analysis/decisions

214 Consumer perceptions about seafood D. Hicks et al.



are consumers making about whether or notto purchase seafood? Given the complexity ofcurrent issues, educators require more informa-tion regarding what the barriers are to seafoodconsumption in order to provide clear and con-sistent messages to consumers. Updated evalua-tions that integrate many of the attitudinal andknowledge parameters are necessary to design themost effective outreach strategy.

In 2004 the FDA and the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) issued an updated jointadvisory regarding mercury in seafood. Inresponse, a national opinion telephone surveywas conducted in 2005 by the Opinion ResearchCorporation (Storey et al. 2006) regarding theattitudes and beliefs about eating seafood. Theprimary goal of this survey was to measure con-sumers’ responses to conflicting informationregarding the health benefits of seafood andmercury levels and their impact on fish consump-tion. In addition, the researchers wanted todetermine whether the messages (e.g. FDA/EPAadvisory) regarding mercury in fish were reachingvulnerable populations or were there gaps inawareness and understanding (Storey et al. 2006).While the survey obtained some key informationrelated to seafood consumption and health ben-efits, it had particular emphasis on the methlymer-cury problem and did not include many questionsthat would fully assess the variety of seafoodconsumption issues and/or concerns facingconsumers. Nor did the study rank the factorsthat contribute to purchasing decisions or queryrespondents on their preferences for informationsources regarding seafood. Furthermore, a tele-phone interview can be cumbersome and time-consuming, requiring trained personnel and manyhours to obtain complete survey responses. Thesurvey cited was commissioned and administeredby a research corporation. The use of an Internet-based survey could provide an easier alternativeto the labor-intensive telephone method to obtainan accurate reflection of consumers’ knowledgeand perceptions. Estimates indicate more than80% of US businesses and about 60% of UShouseholds have some form of online capacity.Broadband is approaching 70%, and 8% of theUS population has already cut their landline tele-phone. This trend has been increasing by approxi-mately 2% per year (Weidermann & Sinks 2006).

An online survey of consumers’ knowledge of andattitudes toward seafood consumption would bean easier and more rapid assessment method.

The goal of this research was to determine con-sumer knowledge, attitudes and perceptions ofseafood using an Internet-based survey tool. Ulti-mately, this information would be used to help theindustry, academia and possibly health careprofessionals develop better messages that willreflect many of the current concerns aboutseafood, and overcome some of the barriers toseafood consumption.

Methods

Questionnaire and sampling

An online survey tool was developed in whichrespondents were asked to answer questionsregarding their knowledge and perceptions relat-ing to seafood consumption, and to assess thepositive and negative, risk/benefit messages thatconsumers have heard regarding seafood. Theonline survey was modeled after the one describedby Pivarnik et al. (2007). The survey was admin-istered by using Zoomerang, an online surveyclearinghouse. The Zoomerang website is http://www.zoomerang.com. Zoomerang was createdby MarketTools® (San Francisco, CA) as anInternet service for businesses and individuals toconduct professional surveys and promptresponses to questions with data analyzed in realtime.

Demographics and areas of interest define thepanel e-mail address list for the survey. Panelistsare selected from a Zoomerang pool of more than2.5 million US households. If a 10% response rateis required, the targeted survey would be deliv-ered to a minimum of 20 000 panelists such that2000 responses would be received. The pool ofpotential respondents could be based on prespeci-fied demographics and interests obtained throughthe online service. The online Zoomerang surveyservice rewards all participants by entering theirnames into a sweepstakes or lottery as anincentive. This survey was directed to a nationalpool of potential panelists based on demographicinformation comparable to the US Census. Noconsideration was given to any particular foodconsumption habits.

215Consumer perceptions about seafood D. Hicks et al.



http://www.zoomerang.com

http://www.zoomerang.com

The survey was launched on 27 July 2006, andwas closed on 7 August 2006 when the predeter-mined 1000 respondents were attained. Subjectshad to be 18 years or older to participate, and therewere 1062 surveys completed before the question-naire was closed. Respondents were given a defi-nition of seafood as delineated by the FDA in theSeafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point(HACCP) regulation (Title 21 part 123, Section123.3) that was modified to also include wild andfarmed seafood, processed (i.e. canned, frozen,smoked, pickled, breaded), self-caught or freshfrom a market or restaurant. The survey questionscan be divided into five categories: (i) demograph-ics, (ii) frequency of consumption, (iii) risks andbenefit assessment, (iv) knowledge, and (v) atti-tudes. Respondents were asked to check all thatapplied for specific questions that had, potentially,more than one answer. The demographic sectioncontained questions regarding age, gender, house-hold income, education, state of residence, ethnic-ity and household size. Ten knowledge-basedquestions were graded as right or wrong. Theresponse for these questions was ‘disagree’, ‘agree’or ‘don’t know’. For purposes of statistical assess-ment, ‘don’t know’ was considered a wronganswer. Subject mastery, at 80% correct, was usedas previously determined by food safety experts(Pivarnik et al. 2006).

Consumers were also queried as to where theycurrently obtain their seafood information (checkall that applied) and were asked to identify the bestplace where they would prefer to obtain informa-tion related to seafood issues. These answers, aswell as frequency of consumption responses, wererelated to key demographic elements.

Thirteen attitude statements describing thefood safety aspects of seafood utilizationwere rated using a 5-point Likert scale with1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Gen-erally, the questions fell into three categories: pur-chasing, trust and health issues or concerns. Theattitude questions were included in the survey tohelp describe consumers’ thoughts regarding theimportance of seafood in the diet, and perceptionsof the safety of seafood. Finally, respondents wereasked to rate their knowledge and the impact ofthese factors on product purchase on a variety ofseafood-related issues (i.e. organic, quality, prepa-ration, contaminants) on a 4-point Likert scale

with 1 = not knowledgeable and 4 = very knowl-edgeable, and 1 = not important and 4 = veryimportant respectively.

The protocol and questionnaire were approvedby the University of Delaware Institutional Sub-jects Review Board. The surveys were reviewedfor content validity and clarity by the 12 foodsafety experts from the Land Grant/Sea GrantUniversities, industry/trade organizations andgovernment. The survey was piloted by 36 con-sumers to assess readability and assist in theexamination of content reliability. All suggestedchanges were considered, and the questionnairewas revised based on these recommendations.Descriptive statistical analysis (frequencies, per-centages) and cross tabulations were carried outusing the Zoomerang online statistical service.Reliability of the pilot survey results was exam-ined for knowledge and attitude scores by the useof Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consis-tency using the Siegle’s Cronbach’s alpha reliabil-ity calculator (Siegle 2007).

Results and discussion

Survey respondents totaled 1062. Table 1 showsthe demographic characteristics of the respon-dents compared to the 2005 and 2006 US Censusreport. Overall, the demographics of thoseanswering the online survey compared favorablywith the US Census information obtained at thetime of the survey. Age, gender and regionalpopulation distributions mirrored those found inthe census. While there was some diversity inresponses from ethnic populations, the African-American and Hispanic populations were slightlyunderrepresented in the survey pool. In addition,it was found that the education level of therespondents had a trend of being slightly moreeducated than would be expected. This demo-graphic may have influenced other key surveyresults such as frequency of seafood consumptionand willingness to pay for organic products – datapresented later in this paper. More than 70% ofthose responding to the online survey were eitherthe primary shopper (62%) or had shared respon-sibility (11%). Finally, women of childbearingage constituted 30% of the respondent pool –an important subgroup of the respondent poolbecause of the confusion regarding seafood




Table 1 Demographic characteris-tics of survey respondents(n = 1062)

Demographic categories Frequency Percent US Census*

Age18–24 160 15 1225–34 198 19 1835–44 235 22 2045–54 192 18 2055–64 131 12 1465+ 146 13 16

GenderMale 556 52 49Female 506 48 51WCBA† (18–44) 318 30 25

Education completedLess than high school 17 2 16High school or GED 215 20 30Associate/technical 91 9 7Some college 339 32 20College 267 25 17Postgraduate 126 12 10Prefer not to answer 7 1

Combined household incomeLess than $29 999 240 23 33Between $30 000–49 999 272 26 21Between $50 000–69 999 208 19 15Between $70 000–89 999 119 11 11Between $90 000–110 000 86 8 7Greater than $110 000 87 8 14Prefer not to answer 50 5

EthnicityWhite/Caucasian 886 83 75Black/African American 72 7 12Spanish/Hispanic/Latino 29 3 13Asian 34 3 4Pacific Islander 2 0 0Native American 6 1 1Prefer not to answer 18 2Other 15 1 5

Number of people in householdOne 181 17 27Two 374 35 33Three 191 18 16Four 183 17 24Five 70 7 N/ASix or more 63 6 N/A

Primary shopperYes 647 61 N/ANo 112 11 N/AShared 303 29 N/A

Decision where to dine outYes 438 41 N/ANo 38 4 N/AShared 586 55 N/A

Regional population distributionNortheast 177 17 18South 363 34 36Midwest 279 26 22West 243 23 23

*Percent of population 2005/2006 census; †WCBA, women of childbearing age; CDCconsiders WCBA to be 16–44, but the University of Delaware, Human SubjectsReview will only allow a survey of 18 or older.N/A, not available; GED, General Education Development Tests; CDC, Centers forDisease Control and Prevention.




consumption as it relates to the FDA/EPA jointhealth advisory about seafood.

The seafood consumption characteristics of thesurvey panelists are shown in Table 2. Of thosewho responded, 88% (n = 932) considered them-selves to be current seafood eaters (CSE), whileonly 9 and 3% classified themselves as being

former seafood eaters (FSE) and nonseafoodeaters (NSE) respectively. However, of those CSE,only 46% could really be classified as regularor frequent seafood eaters (one or more timesper week), 29% as moderate seafood eaters (fewtimes per month), and 25% as infrequent seafoodconsumers (once per month or less). While the

Table 2 Seafood consumptionclassification of panelistsFrequency Percent

Respondent Classification (n = 1062)Current seafood eater (CSE) 932 88Former seafood eater (FSE) 100 9Nonseafood eater (NSE) 30 3

Women childbearing age (n = 318)CSE 271 85FSE 38 12NSE 9 3

WCBA as CSEs (n = 271)Eat seafood two or more times/week 50 19Eat seafood at least once/week 62 23A few times per month 76 28Once per month 42 16Once every 2–3 months 30 11Less than once every 3 months 11 4

All CSEs (n = 932)Eat seafood two or more times/week 204 22Eat seafood at least once/week 224 24A few times per month 274 29Once per month 112 12Once every 2–3 months 83 9Less than once every 3 months 35 4

Eat seafood two or more times/week and education (n = 204)Less than high school 3 1High school or GED 23 11Associate/technical degree 17 8Some college 59 29College degree 59 29Postgraduate degree 41 20

Eat seafood two or more times/week and income (n = 204)Less than $29 000 30 15$30 000–$49 999 38 19$50 000–$69 999 35 17$70 000–$89 999 34 17$90 000–$110 000 22 11Greater than $110 000 30 15Prefer not to answer 15 7

Eat seafood two or more times/week and age (n = 204)18–24 25 1225–34 24 1235–44 44 2245–54 41 2055–64 34 1765+ 36 18

GED, General Education Development Tests.




results of this survey indicated a slightly higherseafood consumption among consumers, thiscompares favorably with the results reported byStorey et al. (2006) utilizing a telephone inter-view methodology in 2005, where 89% of adultAmericans reported eating fish, but only 35%stated that they ate fish/shellfish once per week ormore, 24% ate fish a couple of times per month,and 29% consumed seafood only once per monthor less. Therefore, less than 50% of the respon-dents to this survey could be classified as regularseafood eaters, and only 22% were meetingthe dietary recommendations and guidelines (2,8-ounce servings/week) for seafood consumptionas recommended by the United States Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) Dietary Guidelines forAmericans (DGAC 2005), the American DieteticAssociation (ADA Reports 2007) and theAmerican Heart Association (AHA 2007). Theseresearch results also reflect another, yet unscien-tifically designed, online survey conducted byUSA Today on October 5, 2006, which found22% of Americans reported that they ate seafoodtwo to three times per week, and 25% ate seafoodonce per month (n > 2300). Table 2 also shows asimilar but slightly lower trend for seafood con-sumption among women of childbearing age.Only 19% of the women that were in this cat-egory ate the recommended servings of fish, and42% could be categorized as regular seafoodeaters, eating seafood at least once per week.There was a trend for respondents with highereducation levels to consume seafood two or moretimes per week. This agrees with the trendreported by Storey & Forshee (2007). While thehousehold income of the respondents earninggreater than $50 000/year only constituted 46%

of the respondent pool, it made up 60% of thosefrequently eating seafood two or more times perweek. In addition, while respondents less than orgreater than 45 years of age made up equal por-tions of the survey respondents, consumers 45years or older made up 55% of the frequentseafood eaters. Storey & Forshee (2007) found asignificant increase in seafood consumption fre-quencies of those 45 years and older. Therefore,both income and education, and to a lesser extent,age, may have an impact on those who frequentlychoose to eat seafood. Table 3 illustrates that ofthose CSE that can be classified as frequentseafood consumers, preparation of fish is morelikely at home (58–80%) rather than at a restau-rant, perhaps reflecting more knowledge andcomfort with handling, preparing and storingseafood.

All respondents were asked to indicate whythey stopped or if they decreased seafood con-sumption (data not shown). When FSE (n = 100)and NSE (n = 30) were asked why they were noteating seafood, both groups indicated that theprimary reason was taste preference (46%). NSEfollowed this with allergies and vegetarianism(16% each), and FSE respondents ranked lessaffordability (13%) after taste. All other choices,such as seafood safety, environmental and over-fishing concerns, quality concerns, seafood prepa-ration and prior bad experience, were rankedas 10% or less (respondents could check all thatapplied). However, when CSE were queried aboutdecreasing seafood consumption patterns, theycited less affordability (45%), less availability(21%) and change in taste preferences of a house-hold member (16%) as the top reasons. Theseresults are not surprising as CSE consumers obvi-

Table 3 Frequency of seafood eaten at home or in a restaurant (CSE = n = 932)

Where doyou eatseafoodmost often? Total

More thantwice perweek

Twiceperweek

Onceperweek

A fewtimes permonth

Once permonth

Onceevery2–3months

Less thanonce every3 months

932 73 131 224 274 112 83 35Home prepared (%) 51 80 62 58 45 39 29 34Restaurant (%) 42 16 31 35 46 56 59 57Fast food or takeout (%) 7 4 7 7 9 5 12 9

CSE, current seafood eater.




ously like seafood, and it would be expected thatthere would be other barriers to consumptionhabits. However, all three groups cited either theirtaste preferences or those of other members intheir households as important reasons for termi-nating or decreasing seafood consumption. Thiscould be related to seafood selection and prepa-ration skills, two areas that could be addressedwith outreach efforts and consistent messages.

The results of the 10 knowledge questions and13 attitude questions are shown in Tables 4 and 5respectively. The pilot study resulted in an alphareliability of 0.81 and 0.83 respectively. Theoverall knowledge score was 43.4% � 25, farbelow the 80% considered subject mastery. Theknowledge questions related to nutrition, such asdeep-fat frying, omega-3 fatty acids, protein infish and eating seafood twice a week, scored the

Table 4 Consumer knowledge about seafood (n = 1062)

Knowledge statementsDisagree(%)

Not sure(%)

Agree(%)

Deep-fat frying is a healthy way to prepare seafood. 70 24 6The price of a farm-raised fish is lower than a wild-caught fish of the same

species.19 63 18

Oily fish, like tuna and salmon, are a good source of omega-3 fatty acids. 4 29 66Seafood is an excellent source of high-quality protein. 3 24 74Aquaculture and farm-raised seafood are the same. 20 68 11Proper trimming of recreationally caught fish can reduce the level of potential

contaminants.12 64 24

Allergens and disease-causing bacteria are the biggest food safety issuesassociated with seafood.

13 57 30

Nutrition professionals recommend eating seafood twice a week. 3 33 64Americans eat more seafood than beef or poultry. 58 38 4Every state posts fish consumption advisories about locally caught fish. 9 72 19

Values in bold indicate the correct answer.

Table 5 Consumer attitudes about seafood issues (n = 1062)

Disagree*(%)

Not sure*(%)

Agree*(%)

Trust statementsI trust the media to present the facts about seafood. 25 41 34I think consumer groups provide accurate information about seafood. 13 52 34People should follow government advice about which seafood to eat. 9 43 47I trust store personnel to be knowledgeable about the seafood I buy. 27 37 35Seafood imported to the USA is as safe as locally harvested products. 29 55 16The government ensures that the seafood I buy is safe. 29 45 26

Environmental statementI believe overfishing is a problem. 14 38 48

Purchasing statementsSeafood is too expensive. 18 38 45I feel comfortable buying and preparing seafood at home. 13 26 61It is easy to judge the freshness of seafood. 37 36 27

Health statementsI think seafood is good for your health. 3 19 78I think that pregnant women should eat seafood. 38 41 21There is no need to be concerned about which seafood to eat. 9 43 47

*Disagree, disagree + strongly disagree; not sure, neither agree nor disagree; agree, strongly agree + agree.




highest – from 64 to 70% correct – but still belowthe subject mastery. However, only 30% of thosesurveyed knew pathogens and allergens were thebiggest food safety issues associated with seafoodconsumption, and 81% were not aware of state-posted fish consumption advisories concerninglocally caught seafood.

Consumer attitudes could be separated intofour categories: trust, health, environment andpurchasing statements. Overall, the respondentsdid not have trust in any one group to provideaccurate information regarding seafood or tofully ensure the safety of seafood purchased.While they did identify the government as thesource of advice that they trusted the most regard-ing which seafood to eat (47%), they were notentirely convinced of its ability to ensure thesafety of seafood (26% agree, 45% not sure). Theresponses, while not completely negative, didreflect a great deal of uncertainty. These results donot appear to completely agree with the telephonesurvey results reported by the Michigan StateUniversity Food Safety Policy Center in October2005–February 2006 (Harris et al. 2006). Theresearchers found a much higher and positivebelief that food system participants (government,processors, farmers, respondents) did a good jobof making sure that the foods consumers ate weresafe. While the Michigan survey did not ask aboutother ‘outreach’ groups, like the media and con-sumer groups, the respondents did rate govern-ment agencies (78%) as doing a good job andbeing committed to food safety. However, theMichigan survey was also not specific aboutseafood but general safety for all food commodi-ties. Issues relating to seafood safety reportedin newspapers have been increasing, from anaverage of 300 per year between the years 2000and 2002, to over 600 per year between the years2003 and 2005 (Robinson 2007). The increase inmedia attention on seafood-related issues mayaccount for a more negative attitude. Althoughthere appeared to be higher trust for government,the Harris et al. (2006) survey did concludethat consumers were confused or uncertain aboutwhom to trust for food safety.

Consumers felt fairly positive about the healthimplications of seafood, but the majority (79%)did ‘not agree’ or were ‘not sure’ about whetherpregnant women should be eating seafood. This

result agrees with the information acquired byOken et al. (2003) and Storey et al. (2006) thatmost Americans do not fully understand thegovernment’s advice on eating seafood and itsimplications for pregnant women. As expected,consumers felt that it was difficult to judge thefreshness of seafood, and 45% believed thatseafood was too expensive. While 61% reportedthat they felt comfortable buying and preparingseafood at home, surprisingly a closer examina-tion of this figure found that 81% (860 respon-dents) considered themselves CSE, and 82% ofthese respondents were moderate or frequentseafood eaters. Therefore, this would be in agree-ment with the results illustrated in Table 3. Agree-ment with the survey conducted by Harris et al.(2006) was also indicated by the respondents whosaid they do not believe that imported productsare as safe as locally harvested products. Only16% of those surveyed felt that imported seafoodwas as safe as domestic, and 55% were unsure.This survey was completed a year ago, and withthe recent issues with imported products reportedby the media, it would be very likely that manymore respondents would disagree with this state-ment if answered today.

Table 6 shows the consumers’ self-ranking ofseafood knowledge and which factors contributeto their purchase decisions. Issues relating toseafood quality (75%), handling (69%), prepara-tion (67%) and storage (65%) all ranked as thetop factors that contributed to purchase, whileconcerns such as seafood sources, consumptionadvisories, wild-caught vs. farm-raised andorganic or ecolabeling all ranked below 50%response rates. Consumers’ rankings of theirknowledge reflecting the purchasing factorsshowed very low knowledge confidence, only29–39% of the respondents considered them-selves knowledgeable or very knowledgeable onthe issues that they considered important to theirpurchasing decisions. Therefore, while consumersfeel seafood quality and handling are importantfactors in making their seafood purchasing deci-sions, they do not have the knowledge/confidenceto buy and prepare seafood products. Outreacheducation, targeting these key seafood topics,could help consumer confidence in purchasingand preparing seafood at home for the moderateand more infrequent seafood consumers.




When consumers were queried about whatmessages they had heard concerning seafood,85% reported hearing a positive message, and61% had responded that they had heard a nega-tive message. These results were slightly higherthan reported by Storey et al. (2006) with 66 and43% of their respondents indicating that they hadheard positive and negative news respectively.Stories pertaining to seafood have increased dra-matically over the last 5 years (Robinson 2007),and the differences in reported informationawareness may be a reflection of media reportingduring the gap between the two surveys. Of thosethat heard positive information, 47% mentionedomega-3 fatty acids, fish oils and healthy fats,while 53% mentioned a variety of other positiveattributes not related to beneficial fats or they didnot specifically remember what they had heard.Of the consumers who indicated that theyhad heard negative messages, 57% mentionedmercury. Women of childbearing age who consid-ered themselves as CSE reported positive informa-tion such as low fat and calories, high in iron,healthy, omega-3 fatty acids good for hearthealth, healthier then beef or poultry, helps withweight control and is a good source of nutrition.However, negative statements related to too muchmercury in fish (the majority of those mentioned),fish being bad for pregnant women, artificial col-oring in salmon, pollutants and the fear of incor-rect handling and resulting illness. These are all

areas that should be targeted by educators withconsistent correct messages and information.

Tables 7 and 8 illustrate the sources of seafoodinformation identified by consumers, and sourcesof positive and negative seafood information.Media were, by far, the information sourceidentified as being currently utilized (63%), thebest way to obtain information (30%) and theprimary source of both positive and negative infor-mation. Consumers appear to be ‘hearing’ mostlynegative messages of environmental or consumeradvocacy groups, and are not selecting thesegroups as their top choices for information aboutseafood. Internet sources were also an importantway for consumers to get information. There aremany Internet sites with seafood-related informa-tion, many with minimal or no reviews fromexperts and of potentially questionable advice.Family and friends, while ranking high as a currentsource of positive and negative information, werenot the desired alternative for seafood informa-tion. However, health professionals did not rank ashigh as expected in both current informationsources or as the preferred information source.What was interesting was that both environmentaland advocacy groups, when mentioned, were onlycited as sources of negative seafood information.Finally, purchase or other in-store information, anoften popular way for outreach educators to tryand get educational materials to consumers, werenot a very popular way that respondents either

Table 6 Consumers’ self rankingof seafood knowledge and factorsthat contribute to purchase deci-sions (n = 1062)

Seafood topics and decision factorsKnowledge(%)*

Purchase(%)†

Seafood quality 29 75Safe seafood handling practices 36 69Seafood preparation 39 67Seafood storage 36 65Health benefits of eating seafood 41 63Seafood contaminants 14 62Seafood selection at a market 30 59Where seafood comes from 35 49Fish consumption advisories 15 48Wild-caught seafood 22 40Farm-raised seafood 15 34Organic or Ecolabeled seafood products 8 27

*Percent of consumers who felt they were knowledgeable or very knowl-edgeable; †percent of consumers who felt these factors were important orvery important.




currently received information or would choose toreceive it if they had a choice.

Finally, with the sale of organic food in the USAconstituting more then 2% of all food sales andgrowing by 20% per year, and the organic foodmarket estimated in billions of dollars, the aquac-ulture industry has been interested in the develop-ment of organic standards in the USA (AWG 2006;O’Dierno et al. 2006; Winter & Davis 2006). Cur-rently, there are no US standards for the produc-tion of organic seafood. An imported product canbe sold in the USA (except in California andGeorgia) as organic if it bears the seal of theEuropean foreign certifying agency. The USDANational Organic Program established a workinggroup to study the potential for organic certifica-tion for wild-caught and farm-raised fish. Whilethe group could not recommend consideration ofwild-caught fish for this program, it did encourage

and drafted guidelines for the use of organicstandards for aquaculture animals (AWG 2006).Therefore, survey respondents were asked somequestions regarding their awareness of and will-ingness to pay for organically labeled seafood(Table 9). The majority of respondents have notseen organic labels on seafood (90%), but 49%indicated that if the seafood had a USDA organiccertification, they would be encouraged to buy theproduct. However, when those who respondedaffirmatively to their willingness to purchase wereasked if they would be willing to pay more, only58% (293) or 28% of the pool of respondentssurveyed for this question (n = 1032) were inclinedto do so. As previously identified, trends indicatethat education level may have an impact on aconsumer’s decision to pay more for organicallylabeled seafood, with 75% having some college orhigher education. While it would appear that

Table 7 Sources of seafood information used by consumers (n = 1062)

Where do you currently get your informationabout seafood? (check all that apply)

What would be the best way for you toget information about seafood? (select one)

Media 63% Media 30%Family/friends 39% Internet 14%Internet 36% Health newsletter 9%Health newsletter 23% Nutritionists/dietitians 9%Nutritionists/dietitians 16% Physicians 7%Point of purchase 15% Family/friends 5%Books 15% Point of purchase 3%Physicians 15% In-store signs 2%Government publications 14% Books 2%Brochures/handouts 13% Fish clerk 2%Environmental groups 10% Environmental groups 2%Consumer advocacy groups 8% Brochure/handouts 2%

Table 8 Sources of positive andnegative seafood informationheard by consumers (check all thatapply) n = CSE + FSE = 1032

Positive Negative

Media 51% Media 46%Family/friends 34% Family/friends 20%Health newsletter 29% Internet 16%Dietitians 29% Health newsletter 13%Internet 27% Environmental groups 11%Books 26% Books 9%Physicians 24% Government publications 9%Brochures 11% Advocacy groups 8%In-store signs 7% Dietitians 7%Point of purchase 7% Physicians 7%

CSE, current seafood eater; FSE, former seafood eater.




income and age did not have the same bearing onpurchase, when weighted against the actualnumbers of survey respondents for each demo-graphic category (Table 10), other trends emerged.Those less than 45 years of age and with incomesgreater than $50 000 appear to be more willing topay a premium for organically labeled seafood.Younger consumers accounted for 50% of thesurvey respondents, but 57% of those were will-ing to pay more. Higher-income respondentsaccounted for 46% of the respondent pool, but55% indicated willingness to pay a premium fororganic seafood. These results regarding purchaseand willingness to pay for organically labeled

seafood were lower than those reported byO’Dierno et al. (2006). These researchers reportedthat an average of 70% of telephone respondentswere willing to purchase organic seafood and paya price premium. However, the respondent poolwas highly urban – Boston, Chicago, New Jerseyand Colorado Springs – and may not truly reflectregional population distributions. More researchwould help to clarify this issue.

Conclusions and implications

The benefits of a nationwide Internet surveybecame evident when telephone surveys on

Table 9 Consumer interest andwillingness to pay (WTP) fororganic labeling

Question Frequency Percent

Have you seen organic labels on seafood? (n = 1032*)Yes 100 10No 678 66Not sure 254 24

If seafood had an ‘organic certification’ for seafood label, which met theUSDA national organic standards, would this encourage you to buy it?(n = 1032)

Yes 506 49No 526 51

Yes, and I would be willing to pay more. (n = 506)Yes 293 58No 213 42

WTP and education (n = 293)Less than high school 2 1High school or GED 44 15Associate/technical 27 9Some college 79 27College 94 32Postgraduate 47 16

WTP and income (n = 293)Less than $29 999 56 19Between $30 000–49 999 65 22Between $50 000–69 999 56 19Between $70 000–89 999 38 13Between $90 000–110 000 32 11Greater than $110 000 34 12

WTP and age (n = 293)18–24 43 1525–34 49 1735–44 74 2545–54 49 1755–64 39 1365+ 39 13

*Nonseafood eaters (n = 30) were not asked these questions.USDA, United States Department of Agriculture; GED, General EducationDevelopment Tests.




similar subjects and the data of this survey werecompared. This comparison revealed similarresults in key target areas. The availability of theInternet allowed respondents to participate attheir leisure; 92% who started this survey com-pleted it. Using a subscription service like Zoo-merang provided quality control and motivationfor the panelists. Furthermore, researchers canachieve the desired quota of respondents fairlyquickly without it being labor-intensive. Bothknowledge about and attitudes toward seafoodand seafood consumption were low. These areascould be targeted by educators with consistentcorrect messages and information, thus generat-ing more confidence and trust in the seafoodsupply, and better awareness of product qualityattributes and safety issues. The majority of theUS population is consuming some seafood, butfor most, not as much as is recommended bycurrent health advisories. Most of the public rec-ognizes the health advantages of seafood, butmore than half have also heard something nega-tive. Consumers prefer to use the media and theInternet to get their information about seafood.While consumers felt seafood quality and han-dling were important factors in making theirseafood purchasing decisions, the majority feltthey did not have the knowledge/confidence tobuy and prepare seafood products. Outreach edu-cation, targeting these key seafood topics, usingthe information resources identified in this survey,

could help consumer confidence in purchasingand preparing seafood at home for the moderateand more infrequent seafood consumers.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Fisheries Schol-arship Foundation of the National Fisheries Insti-tute, and was supported by the University ofDelaware Sea Grant Program and the Universityof Rhode Island Cooperative Extension Programand Rhode Island Sea Grant.

References

ADA Reports (2007). Position paper of the AmericanDietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada:dietary fatty acids. Journal of the American DieteticAssociation 107:1599–611.

American Heart Association (AHA) (2007). TheBenefits of Eating Fish. Available at: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3040358 (accessed 4 March 2008).

Anonymous (1987). BH & G Consumer Panel B –Seafood. Better Homes and Gardens, April.

AWG (2006). Interim Final Report of the AquacultureWorking Group. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Taskforces/AATFInterimFinalReport.pdf(accessed 7 March 2008).

Blackstone L (2001). Environmental ConsumerResearch. National Fisheries Institute: Arlington,VA.

Coons K (2003). Datamonitor Reports Fear DrivingChanges in Consumer Behavior. Available at: http://www.seafood.com/ (accessed 7 March 2008).

Table 10 Seafood consumptionand willingness to pay (WTP) fororganic labeling related to totalnumber of survey respondents

Demographic

% of eatingseafood two ormore times/week(n = 204)

% of WTPfor organiclabel(n = 293)

% of totalrespondentsto the survey

Age<45 years old 46 57 50�45 years old 55 43 50

Education completedAssociate/technicaldegree or less

20 25 31

Some college or more 78 75 69

Combined household income*<$50 000 34 41 49�$50 000 60 55 46

*$50 000 was chosen because it is very close to the 2005–2006 US median-household income (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html).




http://www

http://www.ams.usda

http://www.seafood.com

http://www.seafood.com

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html

DGAC (2005). Dietary Guidelines for Americans2005. Department of Health and Human Services:Washington DC. Available at: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter6.htm (accessed 4 March 2008).

Green JM, Draper AK, Dowler EA (2003). Short cutsto safety: risk and ‘rules of thumb’ in accounts offood choice. Health, Risk & Society 5:33–52.

Harris C, Knight A, Worosz MR (2006). Shopping forfood safety and the public trust. Food Safety Maga-zine 12:52–9.

Hu T (1985). Analysis of Seafood Consumption in theUS: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1981. US Dept. of Com-merce, NTIS: Springfield, VA. NTIS Control no.605956238 F.

Myers JJ (1999). Missouri Fish and Seafood ConsumerSurvey. Available at: http://www.moaa.pond.org/publications/consumer_survey.pdf (accessed 7March 2008).

National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council (US)(1991). Analysis of Consumer Perspectives on Fishand Seafood: Report on a Series of Focus Groups. USDept of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, National Fish and SeafoodPromotional Council: Washington DC.

Nesheim MC, Yaktine AL (eds) (2007). SeafoodChoices: Balancing Benefits and Risks. The NationalAcademies Press: Washington DC.

NPD Group (1997). Report on Eating Patterns inAmerica, The NPD Group’s 11th Annual Report onEating Patterns in America. Summary of Findings onthe Relationship between Attitudes and Usage in theFish Market Category. Survey prepared by the NPDGroup for NFI.

O’Dierno LJ, Islam S, Govindasamy R, Myers JJ,Puduri V (2006). The United States Market forOrganic Seafood. Available at: http://www.jerseyseafood.nj.gov/USMarketOrgSeafd.pdf(accessed 4 March 2008).

Oken E et al. (2003). Decline in fish consumptionamong pregnant women after a national mercuryadvisory. Obstetrics & Gynecology 102:346–61.

Pivarnik LF, Patnoad MS, Leydon NL, Gable RK(2006). New England home gardeners’ food safetyknowledge of fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Pro-tection Trends 26:298–309.

Pivarnik LF, Hicks D, Jahncke M, Gall K (2007).Needs assessment survey of sanitation, good manu-facturing and hygienic training practices for foodprocessors, wholesalers and warehouse operators.Food Protection Trends 27:400–8.

Robertson RA, Carlson EL, Lindsay BE (1999). TasteTest: Summary Report. University of New Hamp-shire Sea Grant College Program, pub. no. NHU-S-99-001 C2.

Robinson F (2007). Getting it straight: a food editor’stake on the benefits and risks of seafood con-sumption. Presented at the 52nd Annual AtlanticFisheries Technology Conference, Portland, ME, 4–7November.

Siegle D (2007). Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Calcu-lator. Available at: www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Instrument%20Reliability%20and%20Validity/reliabilitycalculator2.xls (accessed 7March 2008).

Storey ML, Forshee RA (2007). Go Fish! An Analysisof Consumers’ Understanding of the Health Risk ofConsuming and Not Consuming Fish and Shellfish.Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy,University of Maryland: College Park, MD.

Storey ML, Forshee RA, Anderson PA, Miller SA(2006). Attitudes and Beliefs about Eating Seafood:A National Opinion Survey Conducted for theCenter for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy.Executive Summary. Center for Food, Nutrition andAgriculture Policy. Available at: http://agresearch.umd.edu/CFNAP/realmercuryfacts/survey_findings/index.htm (accessed 8 January 2008).

Weidermann R, Sinks C (2006). When do you turn tothe web? Quirks Marketing Research Review July/August. Available at: http://www.answersresearch.com/pdf/When_to_Turn_to_the_Web.pdf (accessed7 March 2008).

Wessells CR, Morse SF, Manalo A, Gempesaw CM(1994). Consumer Preferences for NortheasternAquaculture Products: Report on the Results from aSurvey of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Consum-ers. Rhode Island Experiment Station Pub. No. 3100,Kingston, RI.

Winter CK, Davis SF (2006). Organic foods: IFTscientific status report. Journal of Food Science71:R117–R23.




http://www.health

http://www.moaa.pond.org

http://www

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle

http://agresearch

http://www.answersresearch

consumer perceptions about seafood – an internet survey

Documents