Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:58:23.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Wim Verbeke ,
Isabelle Sioen ,
Zuzanna Pieniak ,
John Van Camp  and
Stefaan De Henauw
Wim Verbeke*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 , Ghent, Belgium
Isabelle Sioen
Affiliation:
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Zuzanna Pieniak
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 , Ghent, Belgium
John Van Camp
Affiliation:
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Stefaan De Henauw
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

To investigate the gap between consumer perception and scientific evidence related to health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption.

Design

Consumer perceptions from a cross-sectional survey in March 2003 in Belgium were compared with scientific evidence based on a literature review.

Method

A quota sampling procedure was used with age as quota control variable. Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire including health benefit beliefs from fish, fish content and effect beliefs for nutrients and harmful substances.

Subjects

Adults (n=429), who were the main person responsible for food purchasing in the household (284 women; 145 men), aged 18–83 years, from different regional, education, family size and income groups.

Results

Fish is predominantly perceived as a healthy food that reduces risk for coronary heart disease, which corroborates scientific evidence. This perception is stronger among women than among men. In contrast with scientific evidence, 46% of the consumers believe that fish contains dietary fibre, whereas less than one-third is aware that fish contains omega-3 fatty acids and that this nutrient has a positive impact on human health. The gap between perception and evidence is larger among consumers with lower education. In general, consumers are better aware of the content and effect of harmful substances than of nutrients in fish.

Conclusions

Despite conclusive evidence about the content and positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids in fish, related consumer awareness and beliefs are poor and often wrong. This study exemplifies the need for nutrition education and more effective communication about the health benefits of fish consumption.

Keywords

ConsumerCommunicationFishHealth benefitn-3 polyunsaturated fatty acidsSafety
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , June 2005 , pp. 422 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2005

References

1Dias, MG, Sanchez, MV, Bartolot, H, Oliviera, L. Vitamin content of fish and fish product consumed in Portugal. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2003; 2(4).Google Scholar
2Bender, DA, The vitamins. In: Gibney, MJ, Vorster, HH, Kok, FJ, eds. Introduction to Human Nutrition. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd, 2002; 125–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Sidhu, KS, Health benefits and potential risks related to consumption of fish or fish oil. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2003; 38: 336–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hoge Gezondheidsraad, Vis en gezondheid bij volwassenen [Fish and Health among Adults]. Report D/2004/7795/3. Brussels: FOD Volksgezondheid, 2004.Google Scholar
5Brunsø, K. Consumer research on fish in Europe. In: Luten, JB, Oehlenschlager, J, Olafsdottir, G, eds. Quality of Fish from Catch to Consumer: Labelling, Monitoring and Traceability. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2003; 335–44.Google Scholar
6Gross, T. Consumer attitudes towards health and food safety. In: Luten, JB, Oehlenschlager, J, Olafsdottir, G. Quality of Fish from Catch to Consumer: Labelling, Monitoring and Traceability. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2003; 401–11.Google Scholar
7Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. Advice on Fish Consumption: Benefits and Risks. London: The Stationery Office, 2004.Google Scholar
8Welch, AA, Zavitsanos, X, Tumino, R, Galasso, R, Bueno-de-Mesquita, HB, Ocké, MC, et al. Variability of fish consumption within the 10 European countries participating in the European investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutrition 2002; 5: 1273–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Leek, S, Maddock, S, Foxall, G, Lund, E, Amiano, P, Dorronsoro, M. Determinants of fish consumption. British Food Journal 2000; 102: 18–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Trondsen, T, Scholderer, J, Lund, E, Eggen, AE, Perceived barriers to consumption of fish among Norwegian women Appetite 2003; 41(3): 301–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Verbeke, W, Vackier, I, Individual determinants of fish consumption in Belgium: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 2005; 44(1): 67–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Kris-Etherton, PM, Harris, WS, Appel, LJ. Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2002; 106: 2747–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Kris-Etherton, PM, Harris, WS, Appel, LJ. Omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease – new recommendations from the American Heart Association. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2003; 23: 151–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Vrijens, B, De Henauw, S, Dewettinck, K, Talloen, W, Goeyens, L, De Backer, G, et al. Probabilistic intake assessment and body burden estimation of dioxin-like substances in background conditions and during a short food contamination episode. Food Additives and Contaminants 2002; 19: 687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Frewer, LJ, Howard, C, Hedderley, D, Shepherd, R. The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis 1997; 17: 759–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Burger, J, McDermott, MH, Chess, C, Bochenek, E, Perez-Lugo, M, Pflugh, KK. Evaluating risk communication about fish consumption advisories: efficacy of a brochure versus a classroom lesson in Spanish and English. Risk Analysis 2003; 23: 791–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Alhakami, A, Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 1994; 14: 1085–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Siegrist, M, Cvetkovich, G. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis 2001; 21: 199–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Carson, C, Hassel, C. Educating high risk Minnesotans about dietary fats, blood cholesterol and heart diseases. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1994; 94: 659–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Robenstein, R, Thurman, W. Health risk and the demand for red meat: evidence from futures markets. Review of Agricultural Economics 1996; 18: 629–41.Google Scholar
21Kinnucan, H, Xiao, H, Hsia, CH, Jackson, J. Effect of health information and generic advertising on US meat demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997; 79: 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Mizerski, RW. An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research 1982; 9: 301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Verbeke, W, Ward, RW. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural Economics 2001; 25: 359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24National Institute, of Statistics, (NIS). Population Census Data January 1, 2003. Brussels: NIS, 2002.Google Scholar
25Wetenschappelijk Instituut, voor Volksgezondheid, (WIV). Health Interview Survey. Brussels: WIV, 2001.Google Scholar
26Inra Marketing, Research. Fish Campaign Evaluation ‘Fish or fish’ Results after One Year of Campaigning. Brussels: Inra Marketing Research, 2003.Google Scholar
27de Deckere, EAM, Korver, O, Verschuren, PM, Katan, MB. Health aspects of fish and n–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from plant and marine origin. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1998; 52: 749–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Whelton, SP, He, J, Whelton, PK, Munter, P, Meta-analysis of observational studies on fish intake and coronary heart disease. American Journal of Cardiology 2004; 93: 1119–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Terry, PD, Rohan, TE, Wolk, L. Intakes of fish and marine fatty acids and the risks of cancers of the breast and prostate and of other hormone-related cancers: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2003; 77: 532–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Larsson, SC, Kumlin, M, Ingelman-Sundberg, M, Wolk, A. Dietary long-chain n –3 fatty acids for the prevention of cancer: a review of potential mechanisms. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2004; 79: 935–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Caygill, CPJ, Charlett, A, Hill, MJ. Fat, fish, fish oil and cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1996; 74: 159–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Sasaki, S, Horacsek, M, Kesteloot, H. An ecological study of the relationship between dietary-fat intake and breast-cancer mortality. Preventive Medicine 1993; 22: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Salem, NJ, Pawlosky, RJ. Docosahexaenoic acid is an essential nutrient in the nervous system. Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology 1992; 38: 153–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Tanaka, Y, Funada, T, Hirano, J, Hashizume, R. Triacylglycerol specificity of Candida cylindracea lipase: effect of docosahexaenoic acid on resistance of triacylglycerol to lipase. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 1993; 70: 1031–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Karl, H, Ruoff, U, Bluthgen, A. Levels of dioxins in fish and fishery products on the German market. Chemosphere 2002; 49: 765–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36European Commission. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the Use of Canthaxanthin in Feedingstuffs for Salmon and Trout, Laying Hens, and Other Poultry. Brussels: European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, 2002; 1–29.Google Scholar
37Alderman, DJ, Hastings, TS. Antibiotic use in aquaculture: development of antibiotic resistance – potential for consumers' health risks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 1998; 33: 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Leonards, PE, Lohman, M, de Wit, MM, Booy, G, Brandsma, SH, de Boer, J. Actuele situatie van gechloreerde dioxines, furanen en polychloorbifenylen in visserij-producten: Quick- en Full-Scan. Report C034/00. IJmuiden: RIVO, 2002.Google Scholar
39European Commission. Assessment of Dietary Intake of Dioxins and Related PCBs by the Population of EU Members States. Scoop Report. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection, 2000.Google Scholar
40Karl, H, Kuhlmann, H, Ruoff, U, Transfer of PCDDs and PCDFs into the edible parts of farmed rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), via feed. Aquaculture Research 2003; 34: 1009–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar