Attitudes and preferences of people aged 55 and above for seafood

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Attitudes and preferences of people aged 55 and above for seafood
Series Title:
FAMRC Industry Report 09-2
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
House, Lisa
Wysocki, Al
Messina, Bill
Olson, Kathryn
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
System ID:
AA00000199:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text




UF UNIVERSITY of
FLORIDA
IFAS




Attitudes and Preferences of People Aged 55 and Above for Seafood




By

Lisa House, Al Wysocki, Bill Messina, Kathryn Olson


FAMRC Industry Report 09-2



February 26, 2009



Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611











Table of Contents


Page

In tro d u c tio n ..................................................................................................................................... 1

D ata and Procedures .................................................................. 2

D em graphic Profile of R respondents ............................................................ ........................ 3

Psychographic Profile of R respondents ................................................ ............................... 6

Seafood Consumption ..................................................................... .7

Location of Consumption/Purchase ................................. .....................................8

Preparation T l \ \lethe,, / .................. .... ...................... .... ............ 10

R seasons for C onsum p tion ........................................................................... ......................12

Im portance of Seafood O rigin ...................................................................... ....................13

N o n -C o n su m ers ...............................................................................16

Seafood Safety Issues .......................................... .............. .............. .. ................. .. 17

Information Source .................. .......... .. ...... ... ..................21

Sustainable Seafood ............................... .... ...... ... ................ ... 24

M marketing M message Recomm endations .............................................................................24

W o rk s C ited .......................................................... ....................................2 6









List of Tables


Page

Table 1. County of Residence of Survey Respondents .....................................................3

Table 2. Race and Ethnicity of Respondent ................................................ .................4

Table 3. Highest Level of Education ................................. .....................................5

Table 4. Incom e of R respondents ........................................ ................................. 5

Table 5. Healthy Nutrition Behavior of Respondents ............................................... ..6

Table 6. Fam iliarity w ith Seafood ............................................................................. 7

Table 7. Frequency of Consumption of Seafood at Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner
for Seafood C onsum ers ........................................................................... 7

Table 8. Percent of Times Seafood is Purchased at Various Locations ..................8

Table 9. Why Respondents do not Prepare Seafood at Home ...................................10

Table 10. Shellfish Species Consum ption ............................................. ............... 10

Table 11. Reasons for the Consumption of Seafood ............................................... 12

Table 12. Most Important Factor and Other Factors Considered in Selecting Seafood ........12
Table 13. Reasons Consumers Don't Eat Raw Oysters ..............................................19

Table 14. People Who Respondents Trust for Information About Seafood ...............23









List of Figures


Page

Figure 1. A ge of R respondents .............................................................. ......................... 3

Figure 2. Number of Years Lived in Florida ......................................................... .6

Figure 3. Reasons for Purchasing from Specialty Stores or Fish Markets over
G ro c ery S to re s .................................................... ................ .. 9

Figure 4. Preparation of Seafood .............................................................. ............... 11

Figure 5. Importance of Knowing Where Seafood was Raised or Caught, in

G en eral an d in F lorida ............................................ .................. .... ........... 14

Figure 6. Confidence in Safety of Seafood ........................................ ............... 15

Figure 7. Actions that Could Increase Seafood Consumption .....................................16

Figure 8. Reasons Non-Consumers Do Not Consume Seafood ....................................17

Figure 9. Perceptions of Safest and Least Safe Seafood ............................................18

Figure 10. Oyster Consumption by Product Form ....................................................19

Figure 11. H health C concerns A bout Seafood ........................................... .....................20

Figure 12. Perceived Health Benefits from Eating Seafood ........................................21

Figure 13. Sources of Inform ation on Seafood ...................................... ............... 22

Figure 14. People Who Influence Decisions on Seafood Consumption .....................23











Attitudes and Preferences of People Aged 55 and Above for Seafood
Lisa House, Al Wysocki, Bill Messina, Kathryn Olson


Introduction
In 2007, Americans consumed 16.3 pounds of fish and shellfish per person, a 1 percent
decrease from 2006; (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). U.S. per capital
seafood consumption grew by over 12% between 2001 and 2004, increasing from 14.8 pounds
per person to 16.6 pounds per person. Since 2004, however, per capital seafood consumption in
the United States has remained stagnant, fluctuating between 16.2 to 16.6 pounds per person
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, 2007 and 2005). In the United States,
total seafood consumption was at 4.9 billion pounds in 2007 (National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, 2008b). The only other countries that consume a larger quantity of seafood are
Japan and China (Damassa, 2007). With the decrease in per capital seafood consumption in
2007, U.S. consumers spent less for fisheries products as well, with expenditures dropping to
$68.4 billion in 2007 from $69.5 billion in 2006 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2008). The commercial marine fishing industry contributed $34.2 billion to the
U.S. Gross National Product in 2007, down from $35.1 billion in 2006. (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration 2008).
Seafood contains nutritionally valuable nutrients, the most notable of which is Omega-3
fatty acids. The benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids have been thoroughly studied, with research
showing seafood can help lower blood pressure, reduce the chance of heart disease and reduce
the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's. The case for these benefits is strong enough that
many of the United States premiere health organizations recommend the consumption of seafood
as a preventative measure for disease. The American Heart Association recommends the
consumption of seafood at least twice a week to prevent heart disease and as a benefit for those
who have heart disease. In addition, the Alzheimer's Association recommends the consumption
of cold water fish species to help prevent Alzheimer's disease.
Although the health benefits of seafood are well documented, the manner in which these
messages reach consumers 55 and older and how they influence their consumption decisions is
less well known. While significant research has been conducted on seafood consumption, there
has been little on the 55 and above age group; an age group with much potential to gain from the









consumption of seafood. The seafood industry will benefit from developing a deeper
understanding of the nutritional preferences and buying habits of this age group. Information
about frequency of consumption, how and where the seafood is consumed, information and
beliefs about the health benefits and risks of seafood consumption, and how these variables
influence consumption could shed light on a potentially profitable economic market segment for
the seafood industry. For consumers, it could mean industry changes that lead to improved
consumer awareness, seafood that is more consumer-friendly, and improved consumer health.
The goals of this research were: 1) to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of
consumers 55 and older for fish, shellfish, and aquaculture products; 2) to develop marketing
messages that best use this information; and 3) to identify information channels in which to most
effectively deliver these messages. In 2008, the University of Florida, with support from the
Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Bureau of Seafood and Aquaculture
Marketing, administered a survey to Florida residents over the age of 55 on the topic of seafood
consumption. Information on consumer perceptions of seafood obtained from this survey is
contained in this report.

Data and Procedures
The data for this study were collected through a telephone survey. Prior to preparation of
the script for the survey, focus groups were conducted in Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Palm
Beach counties to gain insight into consumption patterns and to facilitate construction of the
telephone survey. Results of the focus groups showed terminology such as aquaculture, finfish
and sustainability are not widely understood by consumers over the age of 55. This group also
had an overall negative view of processed seafood products, though their definition of processed
seemed to vary. Only a few of the focus group respondents indicated a willingness to try
unfamiliar seafood products. A majority of the respondents consumed seafood both at and away
from home but said the choice of product might depend on the location of consumption.
Respondents categorized as serious fish consumers often opted to buy their seafood at fish
markets.
Top concerns related to fish and shellfish consumption were identified by respondents to
be: odor, appearance, health, food safety, and flavor. Interestingly, price was always mentioned
last on the list of concerns with seafood. Focus group respondents recommended that the
industry work on better packaging, promotion of beneficial health effects, more advertising, and










the availability of recipes and preparation materials. The telephone survey was initiated in early

April 2008 and collection was finalized in May 2008. In total, 8,962 households were contacted

in the three counties that are the focus of this study: Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Palm

Beach. Of the 8,962 contacted, 1,796 were invalid numbers (i.e. disconnected, no resident under

the age of 55 available, incorrect county, etc.), leaving 7,166 true attempts. Of these 597 surveys

were successfully completed, creating a response rate of 8%. The original goal was to complete

200 responses per county, however, response rates in Miami-Dade County were lower than in the

other counties, so targets were readjusted, leading to more responses from the other two counties

(Table 1).

Table 1. County of Residence of Surve Respondents.


Hillsborough 250 42%
Miami-Dade 115 19%
Palm Beach 232 39%

Demographic Profile of Respondents
Respondents, by design, were age 55 and above. Figure 1 shows the distribution of age

of respondents. In general, as age increased, the number of respondents in the category

decreased. The majority of respondents reported they were the only resident of their household

age 55 and above (56%), while another 41% indicated there were 2 people in the household in

this age group.



20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
o
0. 10%

6%
4%
2%
0%
55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90 and
above

Age of respondents


Figure 1. Age of Respondents.









Respondents were asked to identify their racial background. This information was
compared to the 2005 Census data for these counties to compare (Table 2). Results from the
telephone survey closely reflect the census data. The major exception is in the case of Asian
respondents. In this case, only two respondents, or less than 1%, of our survey indicated being of
Asian descent, compared to 4% of the population according to the 2005 Census. Due to the use
of both Spanish and English versions of the telephone survey, response rates from Hispanic
respondents were slightly higher than indicated in the 2005 Census.


Table 2. Race and Ethnicit of Respondent.


Black/African American 12% 13%
White 76% 80%
Asian <1% 4%
American Indian/ Aleut 1% 1%
Other 10% 2%
Refused 3% N/A

Hispanic 16% 14%


Gender of respondents was more frequently female (69%), due in part to the request that
the respondent be the primary shopper, and to the fact that in older age groups, females
outnumber males. Data was also collected on education and income levels (Tables 3 and 4).
Education levels varied widely, and household income was spread among the categories, with
fewer people in the higher income categories. It is worth noting that 30% of the respondents did
not answer the question on income. This is not unexpected as a person who is retired may not
know how to answer the question of household income in the same manner as a person who is
receiving a salary on the job.











Table 3. Highest Level of Education.

8th grade or less 5%
Some high school 5%
High school graduate or GED 27%
Technical or Vocational School (some or certificate) 4%
Some college, but no degree 19%
Associate's degree 7%
Bachelor's degree 18%
Some Graduate or Professional school 2%
Graduate or Professional degree 12%
Refused/Don't Know 2%


Table 4. Income of Respondents.

less than $10,000 8%
$10,000 to $19,999 12%
$20,000 to $29,000 10%
$30,000 to $39,000 9%
$40,000 to $49,000 8%
$50,000 to $59,000 5%
$60,000 to $79,000 6%
$80,000 to $99,999 5%
$100,000 to $150,000 3%
Over $150,000 3%
Refused/Don't Know 30%


One reason for conducting the survey in Florida was the belief that many respondents
would be from different regions of the U.S., having moved to Florida for retirement. This did
prove true, as less than 7% indicated they had lived in Florida their entire life. However, 25%
have lived in Florida since they were children and 20% moved to Florida after turning 55 years
of age (Figure 2).
























Figure 2. Number of Years Lived in Florida.

Psychographic Profile of Respondents
Respondents were initially asked to answer general questions about their opinions on
health, nutrition information, and food knowledge. This allows us to see a picture of the
perceptions of the respondents with respect to these topics. Results are presented in Tables 5 and
6.


U


Reduce my sodium intake

Watch amount of fat consumed

Moderate sugar intake
Moderate red meat
consumption


22% 10% 17% 10% 11% 8% 15%

22% 12% 18% 12% 12% 8% 11%

21% 13% 19% 11% 10% 7% 15%

16% 12% 19% 12% 12% 12% 16%


20% 12% 18% 12% 12% 10% 14%
Cut back on snacks and treats
Avoid foods with additives and 17% 12% 19% 11% 11% 11% 14%
preservatives


20
18
w 16
-"
C 14


o 8
c 6
S4
o. 2
0
Othru 11thru 21thru 31thru 41thru 51thru 61thru 71thru Over80
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Years Lived in Florida








with Seafood.


EHg
S Don't


I am knowledgeable
I amknowledgeable 39% 15% 13% 13% 5% 4% 8% 3%
about the nutritional
aspects of seafood
In general, I know a lot 27% 15% 20% 19% 6% 4% 8% 3%
about seafood
I am very interested in
the seafotdproduct 31% 13% 15% 13% 6% 6% 13% 4%
the seafood product
category

Seafood Consumption
Data was collected both from seafood consumers non-consumers. As with prior studies,
approximately 87% of respondents (n=521) indicated they consumed some type of seafood,
while approximately 13% of respondents (n=76) indicated that they did not consume seafood.
Seafood consumers were then asked a series of questions about their frequency of consumption,
type of seafood consumed, as well as issues that were important to them in choosing seafood.
To determine how often consumers are eating seafood, respondents were asked to
identify how often they ate seafood products for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (Table 7). As
expected, people were more likely to consume seafood more frequently for lunch and dinner than
for breakfast, however, a substantial number of consumers did indicate they ate seafood for
breakfast. A total of 19% of consumers indicated they ate seafood for breakfast at least
occasionally, 77% indicated they ate seafood for lunch, and 98% indicated they ate seafood for
dinner.

Table 7. Frequency of Consumption of Seafood at Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner for
Seafood Consumers


Breakfast 1% 1% 2% 5% 3% 5% 2% 80% 1%
Lunch 1% 6% 26% 24% 9% 9% 2% 21% 2%
Dinner 1% 9% 47% 23% 11% 6% 2% 2% 1%









Location of Consumption/Purchase
In addition to asking how often consumers ate seafood, they were asked where they
typically purchased/consumed seafood. This was achieved by asking respondents to indicate
how many times of the last ten times they purchased/consumed seafood, they did so from
restaurants, specialty stores or fish markets, grocery stores, shipping companies, or caught on
their own (Table 8). The majority of people purchased seafood from more than one location,
however, 39% purchased at only one location. Results indicate that 9% made each of their last 10
purchases at restaurants, 8% at fish markets, 20% at grocery stores, one person made each of
their last ten purchases of seafood through shipping companies, and 2% caught seafood on their
own. Additionally, 29%, 51%, and 22% did not make any of their last ten purchases at a
restaurant, fish market, or grocery store, respectively. Only 3% of all the respondents indicated
purchasing seafood from a shipping company, while 15% ate seafood they had caught.

Table 8. Percent of Times Seafood is Purchased at Various Locations.






Morethanhalfofpurchasesfrom F2is 5Gr ocer Sel
Onlt purchased from io 0 80o 200 000 20 0

More than half of purchases from 12% 5% 11% 0% 3%

Half of purchases from L)o b o 1000 000 30o

Less than half of purchases from 36% 27% 35% 2% 7%

No purchases from 20 o 1o 220o 060 o 830o

Don't know/refused 5% 3% 3% 1% 2%



Probing further into the reasons for the location of consumption or purchase, respondents
who purchased fish from fish markets or specialty stores were asked why they made purchases at
these locations over grocery stores. The most frequent answer given was freshness, followed by
selection and quality (Figure 3). Consumers who purchased at grocery stores were asked what
form of seafood they purchased. The most common answer was fresh (73% purchase fresh
seafood at the grocery store), followed by frozen (57%), prepared seafood (20%), and canned
(9%).










35%
4 30%
25%
0
20% -
0 15% -
10%
5% -
0%
Wider Freshness Price Can get size/shape Convenience
selection/variety wanted


Figure 3. Reasons for Purchasing from Specialty Stores or Fish Markets over Grocery
Stores.

Additional analysis on this data gives us insight as to who is purchasing at various

locations. There were significant statistical differences (x2 = 9.2, significant at the 90%

confidence level) between Black respondents and respondents of other races. Black respondents

were significantly less likely to purchase 100% of their seafood from grocery stores than people

of other races and were more likely to purchase seafood from specialty stores or fish markets (x2

= 14.4, significant at the 99% confidence level). Additionally, people of races other than Black

or White were significantly less likely to only purchase seafood at restaurants (2 = 14.4,

significant at the 99% confidence level).

Education levels also significantly impacted the ten most recent purchases. The higher

their education level, the more likely respondents were to purchase seafood at the grocery store

(x2 = 14.4 significant at the 95% confidence level). Respondents with some college were more
likely than those without to purchase seafood from restaurants, and those with college degrees

were most likely to only purchase seafood from restaurants ( 2 = 30.0, significant at the 99%

confidence level). This may correspond to differences in income. However, the lack of

willingness to answer the question on income prevents testing this hypothesis further.

Finally, frequency of purchases at the grocery stores varied depending on the age of the

respondent. Those in the age group of 85 and above were significantly less likely to purchase

seafood from a grocery store (2 = 11.5, significant at the 90% confidence level). Other locations









of purchase did not vary significantly, perhaps implying the oldest group is less likely to shop at
the grocery store.

Preparation Types/Methods
In addition to asking about location of purchase, consumers were asked if they ever
prepared seafood in the home. Over 86% indicated they did prepare seafood at home. Those
who did not were asked why they did not prepare seafood at home (Table 9).

Table 9. Why Respondents do not Prepare Seafood at Home.
Wh No Prear Sefo at -om


Don't like the smell 210
Don't know how 12%
Takes too much time 600
Tradition, habit, I grew up not eating seafood at home 2%
Eat out. hard to prepare for one person, don't cook 360o
Other 71%
Refused 40 o


Whether at a restaurant or at-home, respondents were asked how they ate the seafood and
what type of seafood they most commonly ate. Consumers ate a variety of shellfish and finfish
(Table 10). The most commonly consumed shellfish was shrimp, with 70% of respondents
indicating they ate shrimp, followed by lobster and crab with 39% and 32%, respectively. For
finfish, there were many types of fish identified by the respondents, however, the most common
were salmon (44%), Tilapia (38%), Grouper (24%), Catfish (22%), Snapper (21%), and Tuna
(21%). Preparation methods also varied, with fried, baked, and broiled the most popular (this
includes both at-home and away-from-home consumption) (Figure 4).

Table 10. Shellfish Species Consumption.


Shrimp 700o Salmon 40o
Lobster 39% Tilapia 38%
Crab 320o Other 250o
Clams 19% Grouper 24%
Oysters 100 Catfi sh 220
Scallops 15% Snapper 21%
None 13o0 Tuna 2100
Mussels 7% Flounder/sole 18%


Shellfish Perce n


7Finfish Per












Other 50
Don't Know/Refused 4%
CIraitfish 400
Everything 2%


Cod
Mahi Mahi
Bass
Trout
Halibut
None
Sea bass
Swordfish
Nlullet
Kingfish
Squid calanmar
Everything
Don't Kno\\
Sardines
Haddock
Pollock


To gain more insight on the type of seafood consumed, respondents were asked if they

would be willing to try new types of seafood they had not previously consumed. A majority

(62%) did indicate they would be willing to try new types of seafood, 33% indicated they would

not try new types, and 5% were unsure.

50
45
40
S35 -
0
S30 -

0 20 -
S15
10
5
0


44 04;


Figure 4. Preparation of Seafood.


120o
11%
60o
5%
500

4%
400
3%
3o
2%
2no
20
2%
0
- 0
2%
100
1%


Finfih I Prcen









Reasons for Consumption
Next, consumers were asked to identify why they ate seafood, as well as what criteria are
important in the selection of that seafood. There were many reasons consumers ate seafood
(Table 11), with health or nutrition reasons topping the list with over 50% of respondents,
followed by 37% who indicated they ate seafood because of the flavor or taste, and another 21%
because they "liked" or "loved" it. It is possible these two categories are representative of the
same sentiment, though neither flavor nor taste were mentioned in the other responses as the
reason for liking seafood.

Table 11. Reasons for the Consumption of Seafood.

Health/nutrition 58%
Flavor or Taste 37%
"like" or "love" it 21%
Other 7%
Add variety to diet 6%
Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it 5%
Better than beef/chicken 3%
Price 1%
Don't know 1%
Religious beliefs 1%
Refused 1%


Respondents were then asked to identify both the most important factor they consider
when selecting seafood and all things they consider when selecting seafood (Table 12). The
single-most important reason for selecting seafood was freshness, with over 54% of the
respondents indicating this was the deciding factor. Other factors varied in importance, most
with 5-10% of the responses (price, flavor/taste, color/appearance, smell, health reasons). When
asked to list all the factors that influence purchasing, price was cited most often as one of those
factors.


Table 12. Most Im ortant Factor and Other Factors Considered in Selecting Seafood


Freshness 55% 19%
Price or Cost 10% 26%
Other 8% 8%











Flavor or Taste 7% 16%
Color or Appearance 6% 18%
Smell 5% 12%
Health Reasons 5% 11%
Don't Know/Refused 2% 12%
Location of Origin 1% 6%
Wild-caught 1% 3%
Convenience 1% 5%
Know how to Prepare 1% 6%
Availability <1% 4%
Tradition, habit I grew up eating it <1% 3%
Safety 0% 3%
Seasonality, time of the year 0% 3%
Refused 0% 3%
Farm-raised 0% 2%
Religion 0% 1%


Importance of Seafood Origin
An important piece of information for the Florida Seafood and Aquaculture Industry is
whether or not consumers in Florida perceive Florida seafood as high quality. Seafood
consumers in the survey were asked if they would purchase seafood if they did not know where
it was raised or caught. Almost 50 percent said that they would buy seafood regardless of
whether or not they knew where it was raised or caught, while 45% said they would not.
Consumers were then asked two follow up questions rating the importance on knowing where
the seafood was raised or caught, and the importance of knowing it was raised or caught in
Florida (Figure 5). While 70% indicated it was at least slightly important to know where their
seafood came from, only 51% stated that knowing whether the seafood was raised or caught in
Florida was slightly or very important. On the opposite end, only 7% indicated where their
seafood came from was very unimportant, while nearly double that amount, 13% indicated it was
very unimportant to know the seafood was from Florida.


































Figure 5. Importance of Knowing Where Seafood was Raised or Caught, in General and
in Florida.

When examining who felt it was important to know where seafood was raised or caught,

there were some differences by race. White respondents were less likely to indicate that

knowledge of where seafood was caught or raised in general was slightly or very important (2

14.7, significant at the 90% confidence level). This was even clearer with regard to Florida

produced seafood, with approximately 51% of White respondents indicating this was slightly or

very important, compared to 77% of Black respondents and 70% of respondents of other races

(2 = 26.2, significant at the 99% confidence level). There were no statistically significant
differences by education or age level of the respondents.

Consumers were then asked about the difference between wild-caught and farm-raised

fish. A majority, 56%, said that there was a difference in taste between wild-caught and farm-

raised seafood. However, the remainder was split between those who felt there was no

difference (23%) and those who didn't know (20%). Interestingly, nearly half (48%) said that

they did not have a preference between wild-caught and farm-raised seafood. Of those that did

have a preference, 37% preferred wild-caught while 11% preferred farm-raised.


45
w 40
S35
o 30
o 25
S20
0
C 15
U 10
- 5 U General
0 E Florida










An additional difference that might be found between general seafood and Florida

seafood is related to safety. Consumers were asked how confident they are in the safety of

seafood they purchase in general, and how confident they are in the safety of seafood raised in

Florida. Results are shown in Figure 6. Though results appear similar, with 75% confident

(defined as very or slightly confident) in the seafood they purchase, and 69% confident in Florida

seafood, the difference is statistically significant, with respondents more confident in seafood

they purchase in general than Florida seafood. Of concern for the Florida industry should be the

8% and 5% of respondents who indicated a slight and high lack in confidence in the safety of

Florida seafood respectively (compared to 10% and 3% for general seafood purchases). Again,

this was tested comparing responses for those of different race, education, and age backgrounds.

However in this case, no significant differences were found, indicating the confidence level a

person has is hard to predict based on demographics.


Figure 6. Confidence in Safety of Seafood

Finally, consumers were asked what would increase their consumption of seafood (Figure

7). They were given choices of recipes, information about preparing seafood, TV commercials,

talking with specialists at your local store, packaging, promotion of health advantages, and other.


45
40
- 35
S30
0
o
, 25
0 20
S15
S10
General
5-
0 Florida
0


r~oC; cCi~` -" _. <.\A _. ,
,C OC










On their own, many respondents added price and freshness to the list. Results indicate the items

likely to impact the most people are promotion of health advantages of seafood (36%) and

recipes (35%). Talking with knowledgeable specialists would help 33% of the respondents and

31% indicated more preparation information would be helpful. As was mentioned in the focus

groups, packaging was significant, with 22% indicating packaging could lead to more purchases.

Only 14% indicated nothing would increase consumption.


40

35

30
S 25 -

20

15

10

5 -


4-S klz,

15d el
0), oof


Figure 7. Actions that Could Increase Seafood Consumption



Non-Consumers
In addition to asking questions of seafood consumers, the 17% of respondents who

indicated they did not eat seafood were asked a series of questions to develop an understanding

of whether or not they can be converted to seafood consumers. The initial question was the

reason they don't consume seafood (Figure 8). Non-consumers polled said that the primary

reason they did not consume seafood was that they (or their spouse) didn't like it (20%), plus

another 9% did not like the flavor or taste, which is likely a similar answer. Approximately 18%

16










indicated they didn't consume seafood because of health reasons, with an additional 13% not

eating seafood due to safety concerns. Of the non-consumers, 66% could never be enticed to eat

seafood. Of the 34% (n=27) who could be enticed to eat seafood, 26% indicated it would take

changes in safety standards to change their behavior, 22% indicated it would take a lower price,

22% indicated recipes would help, and 52% had other reasons (such as if they could get over an

allergy or if there could be no bones).

18
C 16
14
c 12
0
10
6I- 6
4
2


A- &\ A03

~$`\~3'9~.rc?


Figure 8. Reasons Non-Consumers Do Not Consume Seafood.



Seafood Safety Issues
Seafood consumers were asked to rate their confidence level in the seafood they purchase

(reported earlier in Figure 6). Of the consumers, nearly 13% had less than neutral confidence

levels in safety. Non-consumers were asked reasons they do not consume seafood, and of those

who may be enticed to eat seafood, 67% indicated they were concerned about the safety of

seafood. All respondents were asked to identify the fish or shellfish they believe to be the most

safe and the least safe. Responses are shown in Figure 9. A large proportion of respondents

indicated they did not know which fish was the safest (21%) or least safe (31%). Shrimp and

salmon were considered the safest seafood, with 15% and 14% indicating these choices

respectively. Oysters were seen as the least safe most frequently (24%), followed by clams

(6%). Few respondents indicated all seafood was considered safe (<4%) or unsafe (2%),

indicating people do perceive the species differently in regards to safety.












30%

25%

S20%

15%
15% Safe
a 10%
10% I Unsafe



Io% aL, h ,. a ., ,

V) V ) ojo = _
% __-
-- tw -- w -" -u av c v -u
0 -0
c< V



Figure 9. Perceptions of Safest and Least Safe Seafood.



Due to concerns about oyster safety perceptions, as verified by this survey, consumers

were asked direct questions about their perception of safety in oysters. In total, 7% of

respondents only ate raw oysters, 19% only ate cooked oysters, and 13% ate both cooked and

raw oysters. Approximately 60% of seafood consumers indicated they don't eat oysters (Figure

10). Consumers who indicated they did not eat raw oysters were asked why, with 21% indicating

safety as the reason and 42% indicating that they did not have an "appetite" for oysters (Table

13). To explore the safety issue further, consumers were asked if they would consume raw

oysters if health and safety concerns were reduced or eliminated. Only 17% indicated this would

change their behavior. Finally, when asked if they were aware of any new processes to reduce

risk in eating raw oysters, less than 5% said they were.






























Figure 10. Oyster Consumption by Product Form.


Table 13. Reasons Consumers Don't Eat Raw Oysters.

No appetite for oysters 42%
Personal safety concern 20%
Don't eat raw foods 7%
Don't like the look 5%
Bad experience 2%
Medical advice by doctor 1%
Allergic 1%
Not readily available <1%
Other 18%
Don't know 2%
Refused <1%


Moving from oyster safety to other seafood, all respondents were asked if they had safety
concerns for seafood other than oysters. Nearly one-third (31%) indicated they did, while 68%
indicated they had no other concerns. As people move into the older age groups, they are
significantly less likely to indicate they had safety concerns for seafood other than oysters.
Education was also significant, with those who have at least attended some college more likely to









have concerns about seafood safety (2 = 11.9, significant at the 99% confidence level). There
were no differences in safety perception with regards to race of the respondent.
For those with concerns, they were asked to identify the concern. This answer was hard
to interpret as most people's answers were different, and included answers like they just don't
like seafood, religion, or other factors not related to safety (Figure 11).


25

S20

N 15

o 10
4-,








/C






Figure 11. Health Concerns About Seafood.

Next, respondents were asked whether they felt there were health benefits from eating
seafood. Due to a survey administration problem, only 185 respondents answered this question.
Of those, 86% perceived benefits. However, all respondents were asked what health benefits
they perceived (Figure 12). From this data, we were able to investigate whether or not different
demographic characteristics were related to perceptions of health benefits. Age was again
significantly related, with those under the age of 75 more likely to perceive benefits than those
75 and older (X2 = 9.6 significant at the 95% confidence level). Perceptions of benefits also
increased as education level increased, with 89% of those with a college degree perceiving
benefits, compared to 62% of those with less than a high school degree and 75% of those with a
high school degree (X2 = 23.4, significant at the 99% confidence level). There were no significant
differences with regard to race of the respondents.

20










Most respondents indicated there was a general health benefit, or that fish was nutritious

(21%), while others referred directly to Omega-3 or fish oil (17%) or lower fat content -
including "helps my diet" (19%). Some respondents were more focused on the direct benefit -

with 14% interested in cholesterol, 8% interested in heart health, and 8% interested in benefits

for the brain.

Following up, respondents were asked if their eating behaviors have changed as they

have gotten older. In total, 75% indicated their habits have changed, and interestingly, those

aged between 55 and 74 were significantly more likely to indicate their habits had changed (2 =

6.7, significant at the 99% confidence level). As education levels increased, their likelihood to

change behavior also increased, from 62% of those without a high school education likely to

change behavior to 79% of those with a college degree likely to change behavior (2 = 10.3,

significant at the 95% confidence level).



25
4(
C 20
C
0 20
15 -

0 10 -















Figure 12. Perceived Health Benefits from Eating Seafood.



Information Source

To target information effectively, respondents were asked where they received

information about seafood and who they would trust to give them that information. People most
60' 0' b f \' e$








Figure 12. Perceived Health Benefits from Eating Seafood.




Information Source
To target information effectively, respondents were asked where they received

information about seafood and who they would trust to give them that information. People most










commonly said they received information from the newspaper or news (27%), television or the

media (26%), and magazines (22%) (Figure 13). Other major sources of information included

reading and cookbooks (12%), word of mouth (12%) and asking for help at the store (8%).



30

25
U,
410







5-

0
a-*
W 10 _-----------




0


Figure 13. Sources of Information on Seafood.



When asked who influenced their decision to purchase seafood, nearly three-quarters

(74%) said nobody influenced their decision. Of those who did mention being influenced,

immediate family, doctors, media, friends and extended family were discussed (Figure 14).

Respondents were also asked who they trusted for information about seafood (Table 14).

Interestingly, the most mentioned person trusted was the person selling the seafood (18 % of the

time). This was closely followed by nobody influences me (16%), the media (14%), immediate

family (8%), themselves (6%), doctors (8%), and government (4%). When mentioning the

government, many respondents mentioned the USDA and FDA specifically (split evenly

between the two). In this question, respondents were only asked to identify people who









influenced them, they were not given a list of people and asked if they were influenced by them,
which would likely result in different answers.


I s0 I


t~I


vA

w 1 1


Figure 14. People Who Influence Decisions on Seafood Consumption.



Table 14. People Who Respondents Trust for Information About Seafood
Bf lffknf^Tffm nfm ^ m ^m^K5S58^^


(.V q~
d1' '#


06


Grocer or Fish Guy (Seller)
Nobody
Media
Don't know
Other
Immediate Family (including spouse)
Myself
Doctor
Government
Friends
Extended Family
Refused
Waiter/ waitress


--


18%
16%
14%
10%
8%
8%
6%
6%
4%
6%
2%
1%
<1%











Sustainable Seafood
Only 12% of respondents indicated they knew what the term sustainable seafood meant.
Of those, 58% indicated a willingness to pay more for sustainable seafood. Those who didn't
know the term were read the following statement:
"Sustainable Seafood is the practice of keeping fisheries and the fish they raise healthy
and productive through management and responsible harvesting. Knowing this would
you pay extra for it?"


Following this statement, 57% of the people who did not know what sustainable seafood was
indicated a willingness to pay extra for it and 48% felt there should be federal funding available
to support sustainable production.

Marketing Message Recommendations
As a result of the analysis of the telephone survey, the following five marketing
messages/actions are suggested:

1. Over 85% of the population indicated they eat seafood. This is similar to previous
studies, indicating there is not a 'prejudice' for or against seafood in people age 55 and
above. Additionally, the analysis of who is most likely to consume seafood did not
generate a strong model, indicating it would be hard to predict, therefore target, people
who don't consume seafood. With these two factors, our recommendation would be to
focus on market penetration (targeting existing consumers) over market development
(finding new consumers). The one exception could be Hispanic consumers. Though
they were less likely to consume seafood, if they did consume seafood, they consumed it
at higher levels than other ethnicities, indicating if you can convert non-consumers, those
with a Hispanic background would be among the best to convert.


2. Though few people knew what sustainable seafood was prior to the survey, there
appeared to be considerable interest in the product. Further information is needed about
the costs of producing sustainable, and the specific willingness to pay, but the ability to
market sustainable seafood appears to be an advantage.











3. The nutritional index was significant, indicating those who were generally more aware
than average about their health did consume slightly more seafood. Further emphasis on
the health benefits of seafood is likely to be effective as the age group becomes
increasingly more concerned about nutrition. Currently, 50% of respondents indicate
they eat seafood because of nutrition and health. In addition, 36% indicated that
promotion of health benefits would cause them to consume more seafood.


4. People who indicated a willingness to try new seafood products ate seafood considerably
more frequently than others. This indicates that efforts in product development,
bringing new products or forms ofproducts, to these people would be successful in
increasing consumption, not just in displacing other consumption. This correlates with
over 100 respondents indicating new packaging could increase consumption.


5. Many respondents in both the focus groups and in the survey indicated they would
consume more seafood if recipes (35% in survey) and preparation information (31% in
survey) were available to them. We therefore recommend that recipes and preparation
brochures be made available at the point of sale in grocery stores as well as
information that could be made available through other outlets such as the Internet.
Additionally, 33% of respondents said that they would consume more seafood if they had
knowledgeable seafood specialists to talk to. They also indicated a high level of trust in
the person selling the seafood. Therefore, continuing efforts to train seafood sellers to be
more knowledgeable (and/or having those sellers handle the recipes) is worth
investigating. However, it is recognized that this could not only be an expensive
proposition, it also indicates the need for cooperation from the grocery stores.









Works Cited


Damassa, T. (2007, Febuary 12). Recent trends in U.S. Fisheries and Seafood Consumption.
Retrieved October 14, 2007, from World Resources Institute:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/157.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July 2008). Fisheries of the United States
2007. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology.
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stl/fus/fus07/fus_2007.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (July 2008b). Seafood Consumption Declines
M\hgil/' in 2007. NOAA News Release, July 17, 2008.
www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080717 seafood.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July 2007). Fisheries of the United States
2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
national Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology.
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stl/fus/fus06/fus 2006.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (November 2005). Seafood Consumption
Reaches Record Levels in 2004. NOAA Magazine, November 9, 2005.
www.noaanews.noaa. ov/stories2005/s2531 .htm.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Attitudes and Preferences of People Aged 55 and Above for Seafood B y Lisa House, Al Wysocki, Bill Messina, Kathryn Olson FAMRC Industry Report 09 2 February 26, 2009 Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents Page Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 D ata and Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2 Demographic Profile of Respondents ................................ ................................ ............................. 3 Psychographic Profile of Respondents ................................ ................................ ........................... 6 Seafood Consumption ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 Location of Consumption/Purchase ................................ ................................ .................... 8 Preparation Types/Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 Reasons for Consumption ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Importance of Seafood Origin ................................ ................................ ................................ 13 Non Consumers ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 16 Seafood Safety Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 Information Source ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 Sustainable Seafood ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 Marketing Message Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................... 24 Works Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26

PAGE 3

ii List of Tables Page Table 1. County of Residence of Survey Respondents ................................ ......................... 3 Table 2. Race and Ethnicity of Respondent ................................ ................................ .......... 4 Table 3. Highest Level of Education ................................ ................................ .................... 5 Table 4. Income of Respondents ................................ ................................ ........................... 5 Table 5. Healthy Nutrition Behavior of Respondents ................................ ........................... 6 Table 6. Familiarity with Seafood ................................ ................................ ......................... 7 Table 7. Frequency of Consumption of Seafood at Breakfas t, Lunch, and Dinner for Seafood Consumers ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 Table 8. Percent of Times Seafood is Purchased at Various Locations ...................... 8 Table 9. Why Respondents do not Prepare Seafood at Home ................................ ..... 10 Table 10. Shellfish Species Consumption ................................ ................................ ........ 10 Table 11 Reasons for the Consumpti on of Seafood ................................ ...................... 12 Table 1 2 Most Important Factor and Other Factors Considered in Selecting Seafood ........ 12 Table 13 ................................ ................. 19 Table 14 People Who Respondents Trust for Information About Seafood ............... 23

PAGE 4

iii List of Figures Page Figure 1. Age of Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 Figure 2. Number of Years Lived in Florida ................................ ................................ .......... 6 Figure 3. Reasons for Purchasing from Specialty Stores or Fish Markets over Grocery Stores ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 Figure 4. Preparation of Seafood ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 Figure 5. Importance of Knowing Where Seafood was Raised or Caught, in General and in Florida ................................ ................................ ....................... 14 Figure 6. Confidence in Safety of Seafood ................................ ................................ ..... 15 Figure 7. Actions that Could Increase Seafood Consumption ................................ ..... 16 Figure 8. Reasons Non Consumers Do Not Consume Seafood ................................ .... 17 Figure 9. Perceptions of Safest and Least Safe Seafood ................................ ............... 18 Figure 10. Oyster Consumption by Product Form ................................ ........................... 19 Figure 11. Health Concerns About Seafood ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Figure 12. Perceived Health Benefits from Eating Seafood ................................ ........... 21 Figure 13. Sources of Information on Sea food ................................ ................................ 22 Figure 14. People Who Influence Decisions on Seafood Consumption ....................... 23

PAGE 5

1 Attitudes and Preferences of People Aged 55 and Above for Seafood Lisa House, Al Wysocki, Bill Messina, Kathryn Olson Introduction In 2007, Americans consumed 16.3 pounds of fi sh and shellfish per person, a 1 percent decrease from 2006 ; ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008 ) U.S. per capita seafood consumption grew by over 12% between 2001 and 2004, increasing from 14.8 pounds per person to 16. 6 pounds per person. Since 2004, however, per capita seafood consumption in the United States has remained stagnant, fluctuating between 16.2 to 16.6 pounds per person (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, 2007 and 2005). In the United S tates, total seafood consumption was at 4.9 billion pounds in 2007 (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2008b). The only other countries that consume a larger quantity of seafood are Japan and China (Damassa, 2007) With the decrease in per ca pita seafood consumption in 2007, U.S. consumers spent less for fisheries products as well, with expenditures dropping to $68.4 billion in 2007 from $69.5 billion in 2006 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). The commercial marine fishi ng industry contributed $34.2 billion to the U.S. Gross National Product in 2007, down from $35.1 billion in 2006. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008). Seafood contains nutritionally valuable nutrients, the most notable of which is Omeg a 3 fatty acids. The benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids have been thoroughly studied with research showing seafood can help lower blood pressure, reduce the chance of heart disease and reduce nefits is strong enough that many of the United States premiere health organizations recommend the consumption of seafood as a preventative measure for disease. The American Heart Association recommends the consumption of seafood at least twice a week to prevent heart disease and as a benefit for those of col Although the health benefits of seafood are well documented, the manner in which these messages reach consumers 55 and older and how they influence their consumption decisions is less well known W hile significant research has been conducted on seafood consumption t here has been little on the 55 and above age group; an age group with much potential to gain from the

PAGE 6

2 consumption of seafood. The seafood industry will benefit from developing a deeper understanding of the nutritional preferences and buying habits of this age group. Information about frequency of consumption, how and where the seafood is consumed, information and beliefs about the health benefits and risks of seafood consumption and ho w these variables influence consumption could shed light on a p otentially profitable economic market segment for the seafood industry. For consumers, it could mean industry changes that lead to improved consumer awareness, seafood that is more consumer fr iendly and improved consumer health The goal s of this research were : 1) to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of consumers 55 and older for fish, shel lfish, and aquaculture products; 2) to develop marketing message s that best use this inform ation; and 3) to identify information channels in which to most effectively deliver these message s In 2008, the University of Florida, with support from the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Bureau of Seafood and Aquaculture Marketing administered a survey to Florida residents over the age of 55 on the topic of seafood consumption. Information on consumer perceptions of seafood obtained from this survey is contained in this report. Data and Procedures The data for this study were collected through a telephone survey. Prior to preparation of the script for the survey, fo cus groups were conducted in Hillsborough, Miami Dade, and Palm Beach counties to gain insight into consumption patterns and to facilitate construction of the telephone survey. R esults of the focus group s showed terminology such as aquaculture, finfish and sustainability are not widely understood by consumers over the age of 55 This group also had an overall negative view of processed seafood products thoug h their definition of processed seemed to vary Only a f ew of the focus group respondents indicated a willingness to try unfamiliar seafood products A majority of the respondents consumed seafood both at and away from home but said the choice of product might depend on the location of consumption. Respondents categorized as s erious fish consumers often opted to buy their se afood at fish markets. Top concerns related to fish and s hellfish consumption were identified by respondents to be: odor, appearance, health, food safety, and flavor. Interestingly, price was always mentioned last on the list of concerns with seafood. Focus group respondents recommended that the industry work on better packaging, promotion of beneficial health effects, more advertising, and

PAGE 7

3 the availability of recipes and preparation materials. The telephone survey was initiated in early April 2008 and collection was finalized in May 2008 In total, 8,962 hous eholds were contacted in the three counties that are the focus of this study: Hillsboro u gh, Miami Dade, and Palm Beach. Of the 8,962 contacted, 1,796 were invalid numbers (i.e. disconnected, no resident under the age of 55 available, incorrect county, etc .), leaving 7,166 true attempts. Of these 597 surveys were successfully completed, creating a response rate of 8 %. The original goal was to complete 200 responses per county, however, response rates in Miami Dade County were lower than in the other counti es so targets were readjusted, leading to more responses from the other two counties ( Table 1). Table 1. County of Residence of Survey Respondents. County of Residence Number Percent Hillsborou gh 250 42 % Miami Dade 115 19% Palm Beach 232 39% Demographic Profile of Respondents Respondents, by design, were age 55 and above. Figure 1 shows the distribution of age of respondent s In general, a s age increased, the number of respondents in the category decreased. The majority of respondents report ed they were the only resident of their household age 55 and above (56%), while another 41% indicated there were 2 people in the household in this age group. Figure 1. Age of Respondents. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 55 59 60 64 65 69 70 74 75 79 80 84 85 89 90 and above % of Respondents Age of resondents

PAGE 8

4 Respondents were asked to identify their racial background. This information was compared to the 2005 Census data for these counties to compare (Table 2). Results from the telephone survey closely reflect the census data. The major exception is in the ca se of Asian respondents. In this case, only two respondents, or less than 1%, of our survey indicated being of Asian descent, compared to 4% of the population according to the 2005 Census. Due to the use of both Spanish and English versions of the telepho ne survey, response rates from Hispanic respondents were slightly higher than indicated in the 2005 C ensus. Table 2. Race and Ethnicity of Respondent. Race Percent in Survey Census Percent Black/African American 12% 13% White 76% 80% Asian <1% 4% American Indian/ Aleut 1% 1% Other 10% 2% Refused 3% N/A Ethnicity Hispanic 16% 14% Gender of respondents was more frequently female (69%) due in part to the request that the respondent be the primary shopper and to the fact that in older age groups, females outnumber males Data was also collected on education and income levels (Tables 3 and 4). Education levels varied widely, and household income was spread among the categories, with fewer people in the higher income categories. It is worth noting that 30% of the respondents did not answer the question on income. This is not unexpected as a person who is retired may not know how to answer the question of household income in the same manner as a person who is receiving a salary on the job.

PAGE 9

5 Table 3. Highest Level of Education. Highest Level of Education Percent 8th grade or less 5% Some high school 5% High school graduate or GED 27% Technical or Vocational School (some or certificate) 4% Some college, but no degree 19% Associate's degree 7% Bachelor's degree 18% Some Graduate or Professional school 2% Graduate or Professional degree 12% 2% Table 4. Income of R espondents. Income Percent less than $10,000 8% $10,000 to $19,999 12% $20,000 to $29,000 10% $30,000 to $39,000 9% $40,000 to $49,000 8% $50,000 to $59,000 5% $60,000 to $79,000 6% $80,000 to $99,999 5% $100,000 to $150,000 3% Over $150,000 3% 30% One reason for conducting the survey in Florida was the belief that many respondents would be from different regions of the U.S., having moved to Florida for retirement. This did prove true, as less than 7% indicated they had lived in Florida their entire li fe. However, 25% have lived in Florida since they were children and 20% moved to Florida after turning 55 years of age (Figure 2).

PAGE 10

6 Figure 2. Number of Years Lived in Florida. Psychographic Profile of Respondents Respondents were initially asked to answer general questions about their opinions on health, nutrition information, and food knowledge. This allows us to see a picture of the perceptions of the respondents with respect to these topics Results are presen ted in Tables 5 and 6 Table 5. Healthy N utrition B ehavior of R espondents. 7 all the time 6 5 4 3 2 1 none of the time know/ Refused Reduce my sodium intake 22% 10% 17% 10% 11% 8% 15% 7% Watch amount of fat consumed 22% 12% 18% 12% 12% 8% 11% 4% Moderate sugar intake 21% 13% 19% 11% 10% 7% 15% 3% Moderate red meat consumption 16% 12% 19% 12% 12% 12% 16% 3% Cut back on snacks and treats 20% 12% 18% 12% 12% 10% 14% 2% Avoid foods with additives and preservatives 17% 12% 19% 11% 11% 11% 14% 1% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 thru 10 11 thru 20 21 thru 30 31 thru 40 41 thru 50 51 thru 60 61 thru 70 71 thru 80 Over 80 Percent of Respondents Number of Years Lived in Florida

PAGE 11

7 Table 6. Familiarity with Seafood. 7 strongest agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 strongly disagree know/ Refused I am knowledgeable about the nutritional aspects of seafood 39% 15% 13% 13% 5% 4% 8% 3% In general, I know a lot about seafood 27% 15% 20% 19% 6% 4% 8% 3% I am very interested in the seafood product category 31% 13% 15% 13% 6% 6% 13% 4% S eafood Consumption Data was collected both from seafood consumers non consumers. As with prior studies, approximately 87 % of respondents (n=5 21 ) indicated they consumed some type of seafood while approximately 13% of respondents (n=76) indicated that they did not consume seafood Seafood consumers were then asked a series of questions about their frequency of consumption, type of seafood consumed, as well as is sues that were important to them in choosing seafood. To determine how often consumers are eating seafood, respondents were asked to identify how often they ate seafood products for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (Table 7 ). As expected, people were more lik ely to consume seafood more frequently for lunch and dinner than for breakfast, however, a substantial number of consumers did indicate they ate seafood for breakfast. A total of 19% of consumers indicated they ate seafood for breakfast at least occasiona lly, 77% indicated they ate seafood for lunch, and 98% indicated they ate seafood for dinner. Table 7 Frequency of C onsumption of Seafood at B reakfast, L unch, and D inner for S eafood C onsumers Daily 4 6/ week 2 3/ week 1/ week 2 3/ month 1/ month < 1/ month Never Refused Breakfast 1 % 1 % 2 % 5 % 3 % 5 % 2 % 80 % 1 % Lunch 1 % 6 % 2 6 % 2 4 % 9 % 9 % 2 % 2 1 % 2 % Dinner 1 % 9 % 4 7 % 2 3 % 11 % 6 % 2 % 2 % 1 %

PAGE 12

8 Location of Consumption/Purchase In addition to asking how often consumers ate seafood, they were asked where they typically purchased/consumed seafood. This was achieved by asking respondents to indicate how many times of the last ten times they purchased/consumed seafood they did so from restaurants, specialty stores or fish markets, grocery stores, shipping compan ies or caught on their own (Table 8 ). The majority of people purchased seafood from more than one location, however, 39 % purchased at only one location. Results indicate that 9% made each of their last 10 purchases at restaurants, 8% at fish markets, 20% at grocery stores, one person made each of their last ten purchases of seafood through shipping companies and 2% caught seafood on their own. Additionally, 29%, 51%, and 22% did not make any of their last ten purchases at a restaurant, fish market, or gr ocery store, respectively. Only 3% of all the respondents indicated purchasing seafood from a shipping company, while 15% ate seafood they had caught. Table 8 Percent of Times Seafood is Purchased at Various Locations Frequency of purchase Restaurant Fish Market (specialty store) Grocery Store Shipping Self Caught Only purchased from 9% 8% 20% 0% 2% More than half of purchases from 12% 5% 11% 0% 3% Half of purchases from 9% 6% 10% 0% 3% Less than half of purchases from 36% 27% 3 5 % 2% 7% No purchases from 29% 51% 22% 9 6 % 83% 5% 3% 3% 1% 2% Probing further into the reasons for the location of consumption or purchase, respondents who purchased fish from fish markets or specialty stores were asked why they made purchases at these locations over grocery stores. The most frequent answer given was freshness, followed by selection and quality (Figure 3 ). Consumers who purchased at grocery stores were asked what form of seafood they purchased. The most co mmon answer was fresh (73 % purchase fresh seafood at the grocery store ), followed by frozen (57%) prepared seafood (20%) and canned (9%)

PAGE 13

9 Figure 3. Reasons for Purchasing from Specialty Stores or Fish Markets over Grocery Stores. Additional analysis on this data give s us insight as to who is purchasing at various locations. 2 = 9.2, significant at the 90% confidence level) between Black respondents and respondents of other races. Black respondents were significantly less likely to purchase 100% of their seafood from grocery stores than people of other races and were more likel y to purchase seafood from specialty stores or fish markets 2 = 14.4, significant at the 99% confidence level) Additionally, people of races other than Black or White were significantly less likely to only purchase seafood at restaurants 2 = 14.4, si gnificant at the 99% confidence level). Education levels also significantly impacted the ten most recent purchases. The higher their education level, the more likely respondents were to purchase seafood at the grocery store 2 = 14.4 significant at the 9 5% confidence level) Respondents with some college were more likely than those without to purchase seafood from restaurants and those with college degrees were most likely to only purchase seafood from restaurants 2 = 30.0, significant at the 99% confi dence level) This may correspond to differences in income. However, the lack of willingness to answer the question on income prevents testing this hypothesis further. Finally, frequency of purchases at the grocery stores varied depending on the age of the respondent. Those in the age group of 85 and above were significantly less likely to purchase seafood from a grocery store 2 = 11.5, significant at the 90% confidence level) Other locations 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Wider selection/variety Freshness Price Can get size/shape wanted Convenience Number of Respondents

PAGE 14

10 of purchase did not vary significantly, perhaps imp lying the oldest group is less likely to shop at the grocery store. Preparation Types/Methods In addition to asking about location of purchase, consumers were asked if they ever prepare d seafood in the home. Over 86% indicated they did prepare seafood at h ome. Those who did not were asked why they did not prepare seafood at home (Table 9 ) Table 9 Why R espondents d o not P repare S eafood at H ome. Why Not Prepare Seafood at Home Percent Don't like the smell 21% Don't know how 12% Takes too much time 6% Tradition, habit, I grew up not eating seafood at home 2% 36% Other 71% Refused 40% Whether at a restaurant or at home, respondents were asked how they ate the seafood and what type of seafood they most commonly ate. Consumers ate a variety of shellfish and finfish (Table 1 0 ). The most commonly consumed shellfish was shrimp, with 70% of respondents indicating they ate shrimp, followed by lobster and crab with 39% and 32%, respectively. For finfish, there were many types of fish identified by the respondents, however, the most common were salmon (44%), Tilapia (38%), Grouper (24%), Catfish (22%), Snapper (21%), and Tuna (21%). Preparation methods also varied, with fried, baked, and broiled the most po pular (this includes both at home and away from home consumption) (Figure 4 ). Table 1 0 Shellfish Species Consumption. Shellfish Percent Finfish Percent Shrimp 70% Salmon 4% Lobster 39% Tilapia 38% Crab 32% Other 25% Clams 19% Grouper 24% Oysters 19% Catfish 22% Scallops 15% Snapper 21% None 13% Tuna 21% Mussels 7% Flounder/sole 18%

PAGE 15

11 Shellfish Percent Finfish Percent Other 5% Cod 12% Don't Know/Refused 4% Mahi Mahi 11% Crawfish 4% Bass 6% Everything 2% Trout 5% Halibut 5% None 4% Sea bass 4% Swordfish 3% Mullet 3% Kingfish 2% Squid/calamari 2% Everything 2% Don't Know 2% Sardines 2% Haddock 1% Pollock 1% To gain more insight on the type of seafood consumed, respondents were asked if they would be willing to try new types of seafood they had not previously c onsumed. A majority (62 %) di d indicate they would be willing to try new types of seafood, 33% indicated they would not try new types, and 5 % were unsure. Figure 4 Preparation of Seafood. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Respondents

PAGE 16

12 Rea sons for C onsumption Next, consumers were asked to identify why they ate seafood, as well as what criteria are important in the selection of that seafood. There were many reasons consumers ate seafood (Table 11 ), with health or nutrition reasons topping the list with over 50% of respondents followed by 37% who indicated they ate seafood because of the flavor or taste, and another 2 1 % same sentim ent, though neither flavor n or taste were mentioned in the other responses as the reason for liking seafood. Table 11 Reasons for the Consumption of Seafood. Reason for Consumption of Seafood Percent Health/nutrition 58% Flavor or Taste 37% "like" or "love" it 21% Other 7% Add variety to diet 6% Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it 5% Better than beef/chicken 3% Price 1% Don't know 1% Religious beliefs 1% Refused 1% Respondents were then asked to identify both the most important factor they consider when selecting seafood and all things they consider when selecting seafood (Table 1 2 ). The single most important reason for selecting seafood was freshness, with over 54% of the respondents indicating this was the deciding factor. Other fa ctors varied in importance, most with 5 10% of the responses (price, flavor/taste, color/appearance, smell, health reasons). When asked to list all the factors that influence purchasing, price was cited most often as one of those factors. Table 12 Most Important Factor and Other Factors Considered in Selecting Seafood Most Important Factor Factor Considered Freshness 55% 19% Price or Cost 10% 26% Other 8% 8%

PAGE 17

13 Most Important Factor Factor Considered Flavor or Taste 7% 16% Color or Appearance 6% 18% Smell 5% 12% Health Reasons 5% 11% Don't Know/Refused 2% 12% Location of Origin 1% 6% Wild caught 1% 3% Convenience 1% 5% Know how to Prepare 1% 6% Availability <1% 4% Tradition, habit I grew up eating it <1% 3% Safety 0% 3 % Seasonality, time of the year 0% 3 % Refused 0% 3% Farm raised 0% 2% Religion 0% 1 % Importance of S eafood O rigin An important piece of information for the Florida Seafood and Aquaculture Industry is whether or not consumers in Florida perceive Florida seafood as high quality. Seafood consumers in the survey were asked if they would purchase seafood if they did not know where it was raised or caught. Almost 50 percent said that they would buy seafood regardless of whether or not they knew where it was raised or caught, while 45% said they would not. Consumers were then asked two follow up questions rating the importance on knowing where the seafood was raised or caught, and the importance of knowing it was raised or caught in Florida (Figure 5 ). While 70% indicated it was at least slightly important to know where their seafood came from, only 51% stated that knowing whether the seafood was raised or caught in Florida was slightly or very important. On the opposite end, only 7% indicated where their seafood came from was very unimportant, while nearly double that amount, 1 3 % indicated it was very unimportant to know the seafood was from Florida.

PAGE 18

14 Figure 5 Importance of Knowing Where Seafood was Raised or Caught in General and in Florida. When examining who felt it was important to know where seafood was raised or caught, there were some differences by race. White respondents were less likely to indicate that knowledge of where seafood was caught or raised in general was slightly or very important 2 = 14.7, significant at the 90% confidence level) This was even clearer with regard to Florida produced seafood, with approximately 51% of W hite respondents indicating this was slightly or very important, compared to 77% of Black respondents and 70% of respondents of other races 2 = 26.2, significant at the 99% confidence level) There were no statistically significant differences by education or age level of the respondents. Consumers were then asked about the difference between wild cau ght and farm raised fish. A majority, 56%, said that there was a difference in taste between wild caught and farm raised seafood. However, the remainder was split between those who felt there was no 20 %). Inte restingly nearly half ( 4 8 % ) said that they did not have a preference between wild caught and farm raised seafood. Of those that did have a preference, 37% preferred wild caught while 11% preferred farm raised. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percdent of Respondents General Florida

PAGE 19

15 An additional difference that might be found between general seafood and Florida seafood is related to safety. Consumers were asked how confident they are in the safety of seafood they purchase in general, and how confident they are in the safety of seafo od raised in Florida. Results are shown in Figure 6 Though results appear similar, with 75% confident (defined as very or slightly confident) in the seafood they purchase, and 6 9 % confident in Florida seafood, the difference is statistically significant, with respondents more confident in seafood they purchase in general than Florida seafood. Of concern for the Florida industry should be the 8 % and 5 % of respondents who indicated a slight and high lack in confidence in the safety of Florida seafood respect ively (compared to 10% and 3 % for general seafood purchases). Again, this was tested comparing responses for those of different race, education, and age backgrounds. However in this case, no significant differences were foun d, indicating the confidence lev el a person has is hard to predict based on demographics. Figure 6 Confidence in Safety of Seafood Finally, consumers were asked what would increase their consumption of seafood (Figure 7 ) They were given choices of recipes, information about preparing seafood, TV commercials, talking with specialists at your local store, packaging, promotion of health advantages, and other. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percnet of Resondents General Florida

PAGE 20

16 On their own, many respondents added price and freshness to the list. Results indicate the items likely to impact the most people are promotion of health advantages of seafood (36%) and recipes (35%). Talking with knowledgeable specialists would help 33% of the respondents and 31% indicated more preparation information would be helpful. As was mentioned in the focus grou ps, packaging was significant, with 22% indicating packaging could lead to more purchases. Only 14 % indicated nothing would increase consumption. Figure 7 Actions that Could Increase Seafood Consumption Non Consumers In a ddition to asking questions of seafood consumers, the 17% of respondents who indicated they did not eat seafood were asked a series of questions to develop an understanding of whether or not they can be converted to seafood consumers. The initial question was the ume seafood (Figure 8 ) Non consumers polled said that the primary reason they did not consume seafood was another 9% did not like the flavor or taste, which is likely a similar answer. Approximately 18% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percent of Respondents

PAGE 21

17 13 % not eating seaf ood due to safety concerns. Of the non consumers 66 % could never be entic ed to eat seafood. Of the 34 % (n=27) who could be enticed to eat seafood 26% indicated it would take changes in safety standards to change their behavior, 22% indicated it would ta ke a lower price, 22% indicated recipes would help, and 52% had other reasons (such as if they could get over an allergy or if there could be no bones). Figure 8 Reasons Non Consumers Do Not Consume Seafood. Seafood Safety Issues Seafood consumers were asked to rate their confidence level in the seafood they purchase (reported earlier in Figure 6 ). Of the consumers, nearly 1 3 % had less than neutral confidence levels in safety. Non consumers were asked reasons they do not consume seafood, and of those who ma y be enticed to eat seafood, 6 7% indicated they were concerned about the safety of seafood. All respondents were asked to identify the fish or shellfish they believe to be the most safe and the least safe. Responses are shown in Figure 9 A large proportion of respondents indicated they did not know which fish was the safest (21%) or least safe (31%). Shrimp and salmon were considered the safest seafood, with 15% and 14% indicating these choices respectively. Oysters were s een as the least safe most frequently (24%), followed by clams (6%). Few respondents indicated all seafood was considered safe ( <4 %) or unsafe ( 2 %), indicating people do perceive the species differently in regards to safety. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Percent of Respondents

PAGE 22

18 Figure 9 Perceptions of Safest and Least Safe Seafood. Due to concerns about oyster safety perceptions, as verified by this survey, consumers were asked direct questions about their perception of safety in oysters. In total, 7% of respondents only ate raw oysters, 19% only ate cooked oysters, and 13% ate both cooked and raw oysters. Approximately 60% of seafood consumers 1 0 ). Consumers who indicated they did not eat raw oysters were asked why, with 21 % indicating safety as the reason and 42 % indicating that they did not h 1 3 ). To explore the safety issue further, consumers were asked if they would consume raw oysters if health and safety concerns were reduced or eliminated. Only 17% indicated this would change their behavior. Finally, when asked if they were aware of any new processes to reduce risk in eating raw oysters, less than 5% said they were. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Don't Know Shrimp Salmon Other Tilapia Lobster Snapper All are safe Grouper All are unsafe Crab Catfish Cod Tuna Refused Scallops Clams Mullet Shark Swordfish Oysters Raw Shellfish Percent of Resondent Safe Unsafe

PAGE 23

19 Figure 10 Oyster C onsumption by Product Form Table 13 Reasons C onsumers D E at R aw O ysters. Why do you not eat raw oysters Percent No appetite for oysters 4 2% Personal safety concern 2 0 % 7% 5% Bad experience 2% Medical advice by doctor 1% Allergic 1% Not readily available <1% Other 18% 2% Refused <1% Moving from oyster safety to other seafood, all respondents were asked if they had safety concerns for seafood other than oysters. Nearly one third (31%) indicated they did, while 68% indicated they had no other concerns. As people move into the older age groups, they are significantly less likely to indicate they had safety concerns for seafood other than oysters. Education was also significant, with those who have at least attended some college more likely to Raw 7% Cooked 19% Raw and Cooked 13% None 61%

PAGE 24

20 have concern s about seafood safety 2 = 11.9, significant at the 99% confidence level) There were no differences in safety perception with regards to race of the respondent. For those with concerns, they were asked to identify the concern. This answer was hard answers like seafood, religion, or other factors not related to safety (Figure 1 1 ). Figure 1 1 Health C oncerns A bout S eafood. Next, respondents were asked whether they felt there were health benefits from eating seafood. Due to a survey administration problem, only 185 respondents answered this question. Of those, 86% perceived benefits. However, all respondents were asked wha t health benefits they perceived (Figure 12 ) From this data, we were able to investigate whether or not different demographic characteristics were related to perceptions of health benefits. Age was again significantly related, with those under the age of 75 more likely to perceive benefits than those 75 and older 2 = 9.6 significant at the 95% confidence level) Perceptions of benefits also increased as education level increased, with 89% of those with a college degree perceiving benefits, compared to 6 2% of those with less than a high school degree and 75% of those with a high school degree 2 = 23.4, significant at the 99% confidence level) There were no significant differences with regard to race of the respondents. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent of Resondents

PAGE 25

21 Most respondents indicated there was a general health benefit, or that fish was nutritious (21 %), while others referred direc tly to Omega 3 or fish oil (17 %) or lower fat content %). Some respondents were more focused on the direct benefit with 14% intere sted in cholesterol, 8% interested in heart health, and 8 % interested in benefits for the brain. Following up, respondents were asked if their eating behaviors have changed as they have gotten older. In total, 75% indicated their habits have changed, and interestingly, those aged between 55 and 74 were significantly more likely to indicate their habits had changed 2 = 6.7, significant at the 99% confidence level) As education levels increased, their likelihood to change behavior also increased, from 62 % of those without a high school education likely to change behavior to 79% of those with a college degree likely to change behavior 2 = 10.3, significant at the 95% confidence level) Figure 12 Perceived Health Benefits from Eating Seafood. Information Source To target information effectively, respondents were asked where they received information about seafood and who they would trust to give them that information. People most 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent of Resondents

PAGE 26

22 commonly said they received information from the newspaper or ne ws (27 %), t elevision or the media (2 6 %), and magazines (22 %) ( Figure 1 3 ). Other major sources of information incl uded reading and cookbooks (12 %) word of mouth (12 %) and asking for help at the store (8 %). Figure 13 Sources of I nformation on S eafood. When asked who influenced their decision to purchase seafood, nearly three quarters ( 74 %) said nobody influenced their decision. Of those who did mention being influenced, immediate family, doctors, media, friends and extended family were discussed (Figu re 1 4 ). Respondents were also asked who they trusted for information about seafood (Table 1 4 ). Interestingly, the most mentioned person trusted was the person selling the seafood (18 % of the time). This was c losely follow ed by nobody influences me (16 %), the media (14 %), immediate family (8 %), themselves (6%), doctors (8%), and government (4 %) When mentioning the government, many respondents mentioned the USDA and FDA specifically (split evenly between the two). In this question, respondents were only asked to identify people who 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percent of Respondents

PAGE 27

23 influenced them, they were not given a list of people and asked if they were influenced by them, which would likely result in different answers. Figure 14 People Who Influence Decisions on Seafood Consumption. Table 14 People Who Respondents Trust for Information About Seafood Trust for Reliable Information Percentage Grocer or Fish Guy (Seller) 18% Nobody 16% Media 14% 10% Other 8% Immediate Family (including spouse) 8% Myself 6% Doctor 6% Government 4% Friends 6% Extended Family 2% Refused 1% Waiter/ waitress <1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent of Respondents

PAGE 28

24 Sustainable Seafood Only 12 % of respondents indicated they knew what the term sustainable seafood meant. Of those, 58 % indicated a willingness to pay more for sustainable seafood. T know the term w ere read the following statement : and productive through management and responsible harvesting. Knowing this would you pay extra for it Following this statement, 57 % of the people who did not know what sustainable seafood was indicated a willingness to pay extra for it and 48% felt there should be federal funding available to support sustainable production. Marketing Message Recommendations As a result of the analysis of the telephone survey the following five marketing messages/actions are suggested: 1. O ver 85% of the population indicated they eat seafood This is similar to previous studies, indicating there is not a people age 55 and above Additionally, the analysis of who is most likely to consume seafood did not generate a strong model, indicating it would be hard to predict, therefore target, people With these two factors, our recommendation would be to focus on market penetration (targeting existing consumers) over market development (finding new consumers). The one exception could be Hispanic consumers. Though they were less likely to consume seafood, if they did consume seafood, they consumed it at higher levels than other ethnicities, indicating if you can convert non consumers, those with a Hispanic backg round would be among the best to convert. 2. Though few people knew what sustainable seafood was prior to the survey, there appeared to be considerable interest in the product. Further information is needed about the costs of producing sustainabl e and the specific willingness to pay, but the ability to market sustainable seafood appears to be an advantage.

PAGE 29

25 3. The nutritional index was significant, indicating those who were generally more aware than average about their health did consume slightly more seafood Further emphasis on the health benefits of seafood is likely to be effective as the age group becomes increasingly more concerned about nutrition. Currently, 50% of respondents indicate they eat seafood because of nutrition and health. In addition, 36% i ndicated that promotion of health benefits would cause them to consume more seafood. 4. People who indicated a willingness to try new seafood products ate seafood considerably more frequently than others. This indicates that efforts in product development, bringing new products or forms of products, to these people would be successful in increasing consumption, not just in displacing other consumption. This correlates with over 100 respondents indicating new packaging could increase consumption. 5. Many respon dents in both the focus groups and in the survey indicated they would consume more seafood if recipes (35% in survey) and preparation information (31% in survey) were available to them. We therefore recommend that recipes and preparation brochures be made available at the point of sale in grocery stores as well as information that could be made available through other outlets such as the Internet. Additionally, 33% of respondents said that they would consume more seafood if they had knowledgeable seafood specialists to talk to. They also indicated a high level of trust in the person selling the seafood. Therefore, continuing efforts to train seafood sellers to be more knowledgeable (and/or having those sellers handle the recipes) is worth investigating. However, it is recognized that this could not only be an expensive proposition, it also indicates the need for cooperation from the grocery stores.

PAGE 30

26 Works Cited Damassa, T. (2007, Febuary 12). Recent trends in U.S. Fisheries and Seafood Consumption. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from World Resources Institute: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/157 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July 2008). Fisheries of the United Stat es 2007 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology. www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/ fus07/fus_2007.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (July 2008b). Seafood Consumption Declines Slightly in 2007 NOAA News Release, July 17, 2008. www.noaanews. noaa.gov/stories2008/20080717_seafood.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July 2007). Fisheries of the United States 2006 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, national Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology. www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus06/f us_2006.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (November 2005). Seafood Consumption Reaches Record Levels in 2004 NOAA Magazine, November 9, 2005. www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s tories2005/s2531.htm