Chapter 5
The Perception of Consumers Vis-à-Vis Tracked Fish Measured via Electronic Instrument
Erika da Silva Maciel*
Juliana A. Galvão**
Luciana K. Savay-da-Silva†
Hellen A. Kato‡
Jaqueline G. Sonati††
Marília Oetterer**
* Federal University of Tocantins, Miracema do Tocantins, Tocantins, Brazil
** University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
† Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil
‡ Embrapa Fishing and Aquaculture, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
§ Federal University of Tocantins, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
¶ Lutheran University Center of Palmas, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
†† University of Taubaté, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
* Federal University of Tocantins, Miracema do Tocantins, Tocantins, Brazil
** University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
† Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil
‡ Embrapa Fishing and Aquaculture, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
§ Federal University of Tocantins, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
¶ Lutheran University Center of Palmas, Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil
†† University of Taubaté, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
Food traceability has been used to monitor production processes, and provide identification and information about sources and processes through computer technology. Technology also allows the recall of suspecting products identifying potential failures during their production. In this chapter, we discuss the impact of implementing the tracking technology into the Brazilian and Portuguese fish production chain and its impact on consumers’ attitudes using data collection through the Internet. The data collected allowed evaluating the initiative to track fish. The results showed that for 73.23% of participants, fish tracking was good and very good, and of this total, 82.19% are willing to pay more for a product with origin guarantee, which may indicate a market trend in search of a product with origin guarantee. The results also provided subsidies for the adoption of policies to implement a traceability system for fish to boost consumption.
Keywords
fish consumption
fish productive chain
fish traceability
perception on consumer
internet data collection
1. Introduction
The technological development in the fields of food production and marketing has ensured better conditions for the conservation and distribution of foods, which reflects quality standards and sensory aspects.
On the other hand, consumers are increasingly demanding quality, practicality, and healthfulness of foods. Consumers are looking for products that provide pleasure and well-being, besides satiety, and meet their health and nutritional needs.
Technology has helped to produce foods on a large scale; however, the food industry must meet the expectations of customers, offering quality, diversity, and healthiness in products.
Therefore, reducing the distance between the extremes of the food production chain, using consumer-focused production technology, is an alternative to be considered because it ensures food quality and promotes food consumption.
Consumption of fish and fish-derived products is primarily related to health aspects because fish has nutritional qualities that are not found in other sources of animal protein and/or vegetables.
However, as it has high activity in water and components of high biological value, fish is very perishable. Fish can also suffer contamination by environmental conditions where it is produced (rivers, seas, and lakes), in addition to the constant and recurrent improper procedures in supply management and marketing.
Technological tools can be used to trace and document important information regarding production and other processes relevant to the product.
Traceability per se does not improve product quality; however, it allows monitoring and recording pertinent information on raw material and processes. It enables it to follow the steps in the production chain and commercialization of food, promoting the recall of the product when needed, which facilitates correction of methods and techniques throughout the process.
Traceability must be linked to compulsory procedures that assist in the rejection or removal of products with safety problems.
Similarly, not only does traceability strengthen consumption, but it also acts as a supporting role in this process, once the main barriers to consumption are linked to product quality. Therefore, showing to the consumer the concern to ensure quality enhances the trust relation with the brand and, consequently, encourages consumption.
In this sense, traceability is understood as part of a process, when used in synergy with other quality tools that ensure food quality and safety, boosting consumption.
Over the past few years, some studies have been published on barriers of fish consumption in Brazil and in Portugal and traceability acceptance (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1
| Publications | Samples | Those Who Do Not Consume (%) | Reasons Not to Consume | Traceability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Similarities and distinctions of fish consumption in Brazil and Portugal measured through an electronic survey (Maciel et al., 2016) | Brazilians: 1295 Portuguese: 174 |
Brazilians: 1.8 Portuguese: 1.1 |
Taste/lack of habit/price/spines | Willing to pay more for a product with guarantee of origin: Brazil = 32.2% Portugal = 40.2% Of which, 23.4 and 29.9%, Brazil and Portugal, respectively, would pay up to 10% more |
| Fish quality attributes related to consumption in Corumbá, MS (Maciel et al., 2015) | 105 Brazilians, Mato Grosso | 1.9 | Price/taste | — |
| Comparison of fish consumption among students and its relation to indexes of health and life quality (Guimarães et al., 2015) | 31 Students; 14- to 17-year-old Brazilians, Tocantins | 12.9 | Price | — |
| Label designing for minimally processed tilapia aiming the traceability of the productive chain (Maciel et al., 2014b) | 162 Potential consumers | — | — | Acceptance by fish packaging with traceability code and acceptance of 97% of respondents |
| Relationship between the price of fish and its quality attributes: a study within a community at the University of São Paulo, Brazil (Maciel et al., 2013) | 1966 Brazilians of the university community | — | — | Significant association between prices paid for the fish and attributes related to product quality |
| Profile of respondents of a Brazilian university regarding fish consumption (Maciel et al., 2012b) | 1966 Brazilians of the university community | 5.13 | Habit/preparation/availability | — |
| Survey on fish consumption during commemorative festival Fish Week in a city in São Paulo state (Maciel et al., 2009) | 232 People | 7 | — | — |
Based on the information presented in Table 5.1, fish consumption in Brazil is clearly hampered by the lack of habit and fish price, but the former may be a consequence of the latter.
Consumers also highlight few options available in the market and difficulties in finding fresh quality product. However, despite these difficulties, interest in fish consumption is on the rise (Maciel et al., 2012a).
Importantly, these studies were carried out mostly in the southeastern region of Brazil, which has increased population demographics, but lower fish consumption, considering the average of the country (Maciel et al., 2014a).
In addition, there is a consensus that more than 95% of the participants in the studies recognize fish is a food source that promotes health.
Thus, in Brazil, there is a market niche that could be explored with measurements to improve product quality and, consequently, increase consumption.
A report carried out in 60 countries indicated that 25% of respondents plan to consume more fish (Nielsen, 2015).
The challenge then is to integrate traceability as an alternative to boost consumption. Thus, in this chapter, the benefits of fish consumption are discussed. Moreover, we list the main obstacles in the production chain, report the traceability concept and its application in the production chain, and present the research results on consumers’ perception on tracked fish.
2. Fish Consumption: Health Benefits
Chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are an issue worldwide and a threat to human health. Their major modifiable risk factors involve physical inactivity, smoking, alcoholism, and inadequate diet (Schmidt et al., 1961).
According to the World Health Organization, NCDs accounted for 63% of global deaths mainly due to cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory diseases. The low intake of fruit and vegetables, along with high consumption of foods rich in saturated and trans-fats, salt, and sugar, has been reported as the primary cause of a considerable death rates associated with NCDs (WHO, 2014).
Therefore, a healthy diet not only provides the necessary nutrients to meet the body demands, but it can also offer compounds capable of modulating the organic functions and preventing diseases.
For this reason, the interest in fish in recent years has been highlighted, as its nutritional value and its association with health benefits have been emphasized in populations that adopt a fish-based diet.
Fish consumption has been associated with the protective effect against cardiovascular diseases, mainly due to its composition in polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as omega 3 bonds, and nutrients, such as vitamin D. Fish has high-quality protein, vitamin B12, selenium, and iodine, nutrients that may contribute to health to promote positive implications on the metabolic syndrome (Tørris et al., 2016).
Studies conducted in Croatia, Finland, France, Iceland, Iran, South Korea, and the United States have shown associations between fish consumption and metabolic syndrome, which suggests that fish consumption can prevent or improve metabolism, playing a protective role in preventing metabolic syndrome (Tørris et al., 2014). These evidences support the current dietary recommendations for regular fish consumption to prevent cardiovascular disease (Tørris et al., 2014; Zaribaf et al., 2014).
Regular fish consumption was associated with lower risk of metabolic syndrome in a study involving 12,981 adults in Norway, especially lean fish (Tørris et al., 2016).
Frequent fish consumption was inversely related to the risk of strokes, mainly ischemic stroke, in metaanalysis conducted in a cohort study (He et al., 2004a).
High fish consumption has also been associated with a lower probability of developing depressive symptoms among adult Chinese (>55 years in age) in Singapore (Wu et al., 2016).
There is a hypothesis, not yet clarified, that fish consumption could be associated to protection against the development of type II diabetes; however, in a recent metaanalysis study, this relationship was not demonstrated; although the cardioprotective effect has been clarified (Xun and He, 2012).
As shown in a study on metaanalysis, including 13 cohorts where fish consumption, once a week or more, was inversely related to the risk of coronary heart disease (He et al., 2004b).
There is evidence that consumption of fish rich in fatty acids with omega 3–type bonds protects against cancer development, mainly breast cancer, according to a systematic review in 1985–2009 publications about eating habits (Tyrovolas and Panagiotakos, 2010).
Another study on metaanalysis with 27 prospective cohort studies assessed fish consumption and its relation to gastrointestinal cancer. It was observed that fish consumption may reduce the total incidence of gastrointestinal cancer (Yu et al., 2014).
Based on its consumption, it is observed that fish constitutes a crucial nutritional component in several regions worldwide, accounting for 16.7% of the animal protein intake for the world’s population and with a tendency of expansion, mainly in developing countries (FAO, 2014).
There are countries that depend on fish as a protein source to their populations, such as Bangladesh and Indonesia. Moreover, fishing and aquaculture activities represent an income source and improvement of life conditions in many regions (Khan et al., 2016).
3. Fish: Production Chain Quality
Monitoring parameters for water quality of fisheries or capture is the starting point in the search for quality of fish products because these parameters reflect the microbiological and physical–chemical quality of the environment, influencing fish quality as raw material.
Dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, temperature, ammonia salinity, and nitrite, among others, need to be monitored because they interfere in productivity of systems.
At the time of fish trawl or harvest, the methodology used exerts great influence on fish quality affecting its shelf life and quality of its products. If the fish debates trying to break free from fishing nets or dies in agony in fishing boats, there is depletion of their glycogen reserves, leading to rigor mortis more quickly and, consequently, to subsequent deterioration (Soares and Gonçalves, 2012).
Some issues, such as the choice for suitable instruments for trawling and their hygienic conditions, as well as the training of workers, who will carry out this function, can be critical to avoid contamination.
When the fish is obtained from trawls, the vessels must be sanitized frequently and must be equipped with coolers and iceboxes or mechanical cooling systems, where the fish must be cooled immediately after capture.
The slaughter methods are considered stress factors for animals and can induce an early resolution of rigor mortis, changing the sensory characteristics and decreasing the product shelf life. Therefore, the choice for the slaughter method is of utmost importance to ensure fish quality (Ashley, 2007; Scherer et al., 2005).
Sanitary hygienic conditions of the sites and the tools used are considered a bottleneck in slaughter. It is necessary to pay attention to the bleeding practice to avoid cross-contamination and proliferation of microorganisms. It is recommended to use the stunning methods prior to slaughter to ensure animal welfare and the immediate and permanent use of the cold chain shortly after the capture of the animals.
The degree of fish freshness starts to be changed soon after its slaughter, when chemical, biochemical, and enzymatic changes start, many of them caused by the action of endogenous and exogenous microorganisms that will culminate in physical changes.
Physical changes can be measured visually or through instrumentation, once decay advances, physical changes will aggravate. Examples of such changes can be observed in muscle rigidity or flaccidity, measured by the rigidity index (Oetterer et al., 2014).
Postmortem changes in fish follow a typical and characteristic pattern for each species and keep direct relation to the water quality of cultivation, nutritional, and sanitary quality of the feed supplied to animals, choice of system, and production density, as well as the cultivated species, technique, and time of harvest, methods of capture and slaughter, climatic conditions, hygienic conditions, conservation, transport, storage, and handling of the product at all stages of the production chain. All this information may be recorded in the traceability tool.
Microbiological tests are also used to assess the freshness degree of fish in the postmortem stage. The microbial assessment allows identifying possible contamination throughout the production chain, both caused by spoiling and pathogenic microorganisms.
The cold chain is another critical point of the fish production chain, mainly in tropical countries where, in some situations, fresh fish is offered inappropriately at supermarket shelves without enough ice to wrap the fish entirely.
Another inappropriate marketing point is the exhibition of minimally processed products (fillets and slices) along with the whole fish, without any barrier or protective packaging, allowing cross-contamination between products.
It is very common, especially in developing countries, to find the fish being sold at street markets, offered without protection, without refrigeration, or under poor refrigeration.
There is a cultural issue in terms of marketing because in many places consumers have the need to touch the product to check for its freshness, without any type of cleaning or protection for the hands.
Often, the fish available for marketing is already at the deterioration stage when there is a formation of compounds that can be identified and quantified through sensory, chemical, biochemical, and microbiological methods (Nunes et al., 2007).
The use of technologies at this stage is related to smart packaging, such as time temperature integrators, can provide qualitative information to the consumer about fish temperature from the moment of production to commercialization (Tsironi et al., 2011) and are a useful option for monitoring product quality regarding the cold chain.
In some countries, there are laws that indicate monitoring and prohibition of irregularities already addressed here; however, not always are there enough inspectors to monitor all these factors. Moreover, most of the time there is no concern of consumers with respect to the hygiene and quality requirements, being the price paid for the product often the major aspect considered at the time of the purchase decision (Maciel et al., 2016).
Similar to other stages, at the stage of fish processing, there are numerous problems and opportunities for contamination of raw materials, which could be minimized with the use of the cold chain. Its cost and the lack of supervision, however, may end up discouraging entrepreneurs from investing in systems that are more efficient, even if there is a return in terms of the increased shelf life of the product.
Furthermore, many fish processors resent the lack of skilled workers, as well as the lack of enterprises, that provide equipment of relative efficiency and affordability to automate the processes of fish industrialization.
Thus, in some countries, industrialized fish products do not offer practicality and convenience and end up being offered in short cuts of cold and frozen products (fillets and slices), without using any kind of advanced technology in packaging nor do they offer differentiated and elaborated products.
The lack of modernization in the fish industrialization process ends up becoming another difficulty in the sector because the products feature minimum quality, little convenience, and reduced shelf life.
Although fish offers excellent nutritional quality, it is often not the consumer’s first purchase option in many countries. This is mainly because of the high price, compared with other proteins of animal origin, along with deficiency in quality control and product standardization (Maciel et al., 2013, 2016).
To produce quality fish, many factors are involved, especially the intrinsic features of this raw material. Its pH is close to neutrality and its proper nutritional composition make fish a perishable food, requiring care to obtain good production, proper handling practices, and the application of the cold chain from the time of capture/harvest until the arrival to consumers.
The quality of the product is directly connected to the quality provided to fish throughout its production and marketing chains, involving several physical, sensory, chemical, and microbiological attributes. However, the concept of quality is closely linked to the freshness condition of the raw material or product shelf life, involving also attributes related to food safety and issues associated with the nutritional and sensory aspects, as well as price and product availability (Oetterer et al., 2014).
Another obstacle already appointed to fish consumption is the price. Fish quality has a direct impact on market prices and quality assessments play a very important role in defining fish prices (García et al., 2015).
It is clear that quality and consumer satisfaction, considering fish products available in the market, vary according to the development level of countries (Maciel et al., 2015, 2016).
Consumers still need greater awareness about the importance to demand quality standards from both regulating entities and enterprises to produce and process fish. In this context, traceability is the path to be followed to achieve this aim (Thompson et al., 2005). Only then will it be possible to organize the fish production chain to ensure quality of products because care must start at cultivation farms, rivers, and seas and continue until the product reaches the consumer’s table.
4. Traceability: Concept/Definition
The word traceability comes from the junction of the verb “track” with the noun “skill.”
According to international agencies, traceability is the ability to trace or track a history, application, or location of an entity by means of recorded information, ISO 8402:1994 (FSA, 2002). It is the ability to detect the origin and to follow the track of a food type (CEN, 2002).
This system has been used for some time on a large scale in the automotive industry and more recently by a few food-processing enterprises.
The implementation of a traceability system does not guarantee quality to the product; however, its database allows identifying a problem, and if necessary, removing a product or batch of products from the market through a recall.
In the pursuit of excellence for processes, food safety, and total quality in production systems, traceability is a tool that allows knowing the chain and external agents. It works as a database, providing reliable data regarding the origin of the raw materials and the processes to which the material has been submitted, ensuring greater quality control for the product.
5. Quality and Traceability Systems in the Fish Production Chain
The implementation of simple routine activities related to good management practices, such as aeration systems and water renewal of cultivation, periodic cleaning of tanks, regular monitoring of water quality parameters, and mainly training of the personnel responsible for production, would be attitudes to be identified and implemented to prevent problems along the fish production chain.
Tools for quality control necessary for the proper functioning of a fish processor, such as good manufacturing practices (GMP), hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP), programs of auto control, traceability, total quality control, and, more recently, the certification of management systems of Food Safety System Certification 22000 (FSSC) or in addition to the ISO series standards—ISO 22000 mainly—have their application facilitated when traceability tools are used throughout the production chain (Oetterer et al., 2014).
These programs bring recommendations and guidelines related to the cleaning of equipment, furniture and fixtures, hygiene and health of handlers, conditions of facilities and buildings, integrated control of pests and vectors, waste management, production flowcharts, as well as characterization of possible physical, chemical, and/or biological contaminants, strategies for the implementation of preventive, control, and corrective measures, in case of failures (ANVISA, 2002).
Increased fish consumption leads to greater concern with fish safety as food, the sustainability of aquaculture activity, maintenance of fish inventories, and the possibility of catching fish in contaminated waters. In addition, consumers demand transparency and accreditation of the purchased product, which makes traceability a mandatory path (Sterling et al., 2015).
The use of traceability systems in the fish production chain is a very useful tool, as it records the information of the productive process, encompassing all the links of this chain, bringing information about possible problems in the process related to the site of capture or cultivation. The use of processes monitored from the vessels to tanks, as well as cross-information avoids capture in problem areas.
Fish production or capture should not be held in polluted sites. It is recommended the implementation of efficient and sustainable management systems on farms, as well as traceability systems, to use them also to monitor the levels and types of microorganisms present in water in addition to measuring physical and chemical parameters of importance.
Traceability allows identifying batches specifically assigned to fishing boats or cultivation tanks, acting in the prevention of illegal fishing (Borit and Olsen, 2012) or identifying conditions of good management practices.
This tool can identify areas of fishing or farming and provide information about the batch origin to identify whether it comes from unsuitable capture areas, inappropriate tanks for cultivation, or even economic fraud.
The adoption of traceability tools provides conditions for the capture and processing chain of fish to organize its processes. It also provides information that can help the sector to guide decisions. The identification of production bottlenecks and their effects on product quality not only provides answers to consumers, but it also offers a feedback to the production chain about its links, moving toward more efficient steps.
Traceability systems have been used by the fishing industry to give practical answers to the industry, relating data stored in the system with various quality parameters of the raw material, such as identifying correlation between numbers of parasites in fillets, and occurrence of gaping and yield in fillets according to the fishing sites (Galvão et al., 2010).
Another factor to be highlighted is the effect of tools, such as traceability, on the marketing of fish products available, both at wholesale and retail. Worldwide, identification with the product and meeting the consumer needs under the most varied perspectives are increasingly desired (Maciel et al., 2012a). Notably, consumers have been developing new consumption habits over the last decade. Issues that were not taken into account then, related to concepts of healthiness and ethics, are gaining more and more relevance (FAO, 2014).
New technologies have been linked to traceability systems. Besides RFID, which has already been used in these systems, the electronic product code information services (EPCIS) technology has been tested on a pilot scale in internal traceability systems with excellent results (Gunnlaugsson et al., 2011; Thakur et al., 2011).
In Sweden, a pilot study using the EPCIS technology increased sales of codfish from the Baltic Sea due to improvements in the information available to consumers (Thakur et al., 2011).
The growing need to connect the product to its production chain, as well as the provision of information about the product being purchased, and how, where, and when the fish was captured/produced have imposed new demands for the fish production chain and its regulating entities. Traceability in the fish production chain benefits consumers, as it is fundamental in the process to comply with food safety regulations and fishery control, fighting economic fraud, and meeting current and future expectations of consumers and authorities (Bailey et al., 2016; Leal et al., 2015).
Companies operating along the supply chain can benefit from the safety provided by traceability and invest in ecolabels to enhance their brands. Some of the benefits that can be assigned and ensured through traceability tools are reduction of environment destruction, elimination of forced or child labor, improvement of living conditions of the population, reduction of catches with great impact on the environment, socioeconomic development and diversification, and reduction of carbon emissions (McClenachan et al., 2016).
Although traceability per se does not guarantee product quality, if it is applied carefully (Dabbene et al., 2014; Senneset et al., 2007) with suitable registrations and reports of data for each batch from production/capture, transport, and processing up to distribution, it can be a tool of great value, and, along with other quality tools, it can bring numerous advantages and practical responses to the fish industry (Galvão et al., 2010).
6. Assessment of Fish Consumption Regarding Tracked Fish
Pioneer research was held in Brazil via the Internet to evaluate the characteristics of fish consumption in members of the university community, including questions about tracked fish with a questionnaire (Maciel et al., 2014b), using as a basis the fictional image of tracked fish (Maciel et al., 2013).
The constructs and indicators related to the questionnaire to evaluate fish consumption used in this analysis are described in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
| Constructs | Indicators |
|---|---|
| Consumption | How important is fish taste for you? |
| How important is fish smell for you? | |
| How important is fish color for you? | |
| How important is fish texture/consistency for you? | |
| Quality | When you purchase fish, how important is the packaging for you? |
| When you purchase fish, how important is the product brand for you? | |
| When you purchase fish, how important is the product origin for you? | |
| How important is it for fish to have the stamp of federal inspection for you? | |
| How important is it to have availability of fish at the usual sites of purchase for you? | |
| How important is it that the fish is tracked for you? | |
| Are you satisfied with the quality of fish available in the national market? | |
| Where do you usually purchase fish? | |
| General characteristics | When you purchase fish, what is your preference for packages? |
| Do you know what a tracked product is? | |
| Are you willing to pay more for a product a with guarantee of origin? |
Among the results for frequency of fish consumption (Table 5.3), greater frequency of consumption occurs once a week (27.11%), followed by 2 or 3 times a month (25.94%) (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3
| Campuses | Cities in São Paulo State | Frequencies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twice or More a Week | Once a Week | Twice or Thrice a Month | Once a Month | Rarely | Never | Total | ||
| 1 | Piracicaba | 37 (7.67) | 161 (33.40) | 139 (28.83) | 77 (15.97) | 53 (10.99) | 15 (3.11) | 482 [24.51] |
| 2 | São Paulo | 114 (11.40) | 241 (24.10) | 253 (25.30) | 171 (17.10) | 160 (16.00) | 61 (6.10) | 1000 [50.86] |
| 3 | São Carlos | 4 (6.77) | 12 (20.33) | 16 (27.11) | 16 (27.11) | 8 (13.55) | 3 (5.08) | 59 [3.00] |
| 4 | Ribeirão Preto | 19 (7.91) | 69 (28.75) | 56 (23.33) | 48 (20.00) | 38 (15.83) | 10 (4.16) | 240 [12.20] |
| 5 | Pirassununga | 7 (8.33) | 29 (34.52) | 23 (27.38) | 14 (16.66) | 9 (10.71) | 2 (2.38) | 84 [4.27] |
| 6 | Bauru | 4 (17.39) | 6 (26.08) | 8 (34.78) | 2 (8.69) | 2 (8.69) | 1 (4.34) | 23 [1.16] |
| 7 | Lorena | 1 (1.61) | 10 (16.12) | 14 (22.58) | 12 (19.35) | 19 (30.64) | 6 (9.67) | 62 [3.15] |
| 8 | Outros a | 1 (6.25) | 5 (31.25) | 1 (6.25) | 4 (25.00) | 2 (12.5) | 3 (18.75) | 16 [0.81] |
| Total | 187 [9.51] | 533 [27.11] | 510 [25.94] | 344 [17.49] | 291 [14.80] | 101 [5.13] | 1966 [100] | |
Values in parentheses represent the percentages in relation to the value of each campus. Values in brackets represent percentages in relation to total value of respondents (n = 1966).
a Other research centers located outside the campuses of the university studied.
Among the participants who consume fish twice or more a week (9.5%), most present nutritional status within the range of normality (60.9%) and indicated to be physically active (74.3%), which is the group composed of women (59.3%) and undergraduate female students (42.7%) from the campuses of São Paulo University (60.9%).
Regarding the others, the most inadequately active and/or sedentary (39.2%) consume fish just once a month.
The results indicated that consumers that meet recommendations for fish consumption are those who tend to have behaviors that are more appropriate because they present nutritional status within the range of normality and were classified with higher levels of physical activity. The opposite was also found for those who consume fish less frequently because they are less active and, consequently, with higher overweight rates.
This behavior can be justified, in part, by the relationship between healthiness and fish consumption recommended worldwide (Jacobs et al., 2015).
However, the statistical relationship between these variables was not proven, showing that there are other factors involved in this relationship that should also be taken into account.
The respondents that consume fish can be considered different and show concerns with topics related to health and quality of life, although represented by less than 10% of the participants in this survey.
The results showed that the distribution of respondents followed a national trend in which women are the majority in universities and that they show greater concern with health-related issues.
Comparative tests were conducted using the grouping technique of issues according to constructs for consumption and quality. For comparison purposes, the results (Table 5.4) refer to the comparisons between the constructs for consumption and quality level, and the category groups with a link to the institution. The same premise was considered for the institution and the sex of the participants (Table 5.5).
Table 5.4
| Constructs | Categories | Means (AIQ) | Wilcoxon Groups (a = 0.05) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumption | Undergraduates | 16 (4) | B |
| KW: 52.5913 | Graduates | 17 (4) | A |
| P < 0.0001 | Employees | 17 (3) | A |
| Faculty | 17 (4) | A | |
| Others | 17 (4) | A | |
| Quality | Undergraduates | 8 (18) | C |
| KW: 177.0706 | Graduates | 8 (20) | B |
| P < 0.0001 | Employees | 27 (23) | A |
| Faculty | 26 (23) | A | |
| Others | 8 (21) | B |
Table 5.5
| Constructs | Sexes | Means (AIQ) | Wilcoxon Groups (a = 0.05) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumption | Male | 16(4) | B |
| KW: 43.4621 | Female | 17(4) | A |
| P < 0.0001 | |||
| General quality | Male | 8(20) | B |
| KW: 6.6162 | Female | 8(21) | A |
| P < 0.0101 |
These results indicate that, in both groups, there are differences between the constructs consumption and quality.
Family habits and reference groups are determining factors in food consumption. The results of this study showed that this influence is statistically significant when comparing the consumption within the groups at the university.
These results can be justified, in part, by the fact that the construct quality consists of items related to purchase. Although many students live far from their families and, consequently, should often go grocery shopping, it seems that the fish has not become part of the usual diet; therefore, both undergraduates and graduates do not present the profile of fish buyers, despite being potential consumers.
Thus, it is important to note that there is no habit of fish consumption among young people. This result is interpreted as a problem given that these young people will constitute the families in the next generations and that it is in this family nucleus that the main living habits will be consolidated, mainly in terms of food consumption (Jacobs et al., 2015; Verbeke et al., 2005).
These results reinforce the idea that the habit is a primary factor for the consumption to be consolidated in adulthood and that variables, such as culture and reference groups, fundamentally determine the behavior to purchase and consume fish (Verbeke et al., 2015).
In relation to the differences between the sexes, for both constructs consumer and quality, women present statistically significant differences compared to men, with better results. This indicates and supports our initial premises in which women show greater concern with health issues and, consequently, with fish consumption and quality.
The consumer-related attributes that stood out for the group studied (Table 5.6) were the sensory attributes, such as smell, flavor, texture/consistency, color, the stamp of approval from the federal inspection on the package, and the nutritional value and origin of fish, are linked to the characteristics of product quality.
Table 5.6
| How Important Are These Attributes for You? | Scale and Responses (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nothing | Very Little | More or Less | Very Much | Extremely | |
| Taste | 0.48 | 1.39 | 9.81 | 55.92 | 32.38 |
| Size | 6.64 | 27.82 | 47.77 | 16.19 | 1.55 |
| Smell | 0.80 | 4.12 | 15.17 | 36.30 | 43.59 |
| Color | 2.09 | 6.43 | 18.23 | 41.82 | 31.42 |
| Texture/consistency | 0.80 | 1.71 | 10.93 | 49.32 | 37.21 |
| Price | 0.23 | 3.90 | 35.10 | 46.57 | 14.18 |
| Nutritional value | 1.18 | 8.62 | 22.57 | 46.21 | 21.39 |
| Brand | 8.98 | 25.53 | 38.65 | 23.16 | 3.66 |
| Availability at the usual sites of purchase | 0.11 | 3.54 | 20.56 | 57.56 | 18.20 |
| Stamp of federal inspection | 5.08 | 8.98 | 16.31 | 30.14 | 39.47 |
| Packaging | 0.94 | 8.15 | 21.74 | 47.28 | 21.86 |
| Origin | 3.07 | 8.86 | 29.31 | 38.77 | 19.97 |
| How do you rate your level of knowledge of fish nutritional value? | 5.04 | 26.32 | 42.14 | 20.69 | 5.79 |
| Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Neither satisfied/nor dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very satisfied | |
| Are you satisfied with the quality of fish available in the national market? | 2.09 | 18.92 | 46.16 | 31.95 | 0.85 |
| Very bad | Bad | Neither bad nor good | Good | Very good | |
| What is your opinion about the initiative to have tracked fish? | 0.21 | 0.53 | 26.00 | 31.63 | 41.6 |
In relation to price, 46.57% considered the amount paid as very important. Regarding the place of consumption, the results indicate that most respondents consume fish in their own residence (56.03%); the others, at restaurants (38.98%); and a smaller share in the home of relatives and friends (4.98%).
The results for the characterization of consumption also follows the national trend where consumption is limited by price or marketing (Maciel et al., 2013). Likewise, price has also been a major limiting factor in other studies for fish consumption in some Brazilian regions (Maciel et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2012).
As for fish conservation, 56.94% of respondents prefer the cold fish and 43.05%, frozen. In relation to fish acquisition, most respondents (54.63%) did not have the habit of buying fish. The others (45.36%) purchase the product at supermarkets (61.34%), fish market (11.58%), specialized stores (9.33%), street markets (9.10%), municipal markets (6.73%), and straight from the producer/fisherman (1.89%).
Supermarkets may be preferred because of the choice options, environment, and trust in quality inspection. In addition, supermarkets tend to provide more information about the origin, hygiene, and sanitation, offering safety to the consumer (Harris et al., 2006). This would make the choice for products easier because it is a fact that there are consumers aware of their own inability to distinguish the quality of fresh fish and prefer to rely on processed products that have the quality associated with a brand already enshrined in the market.
In relation to packaging on the choice of fish purchase, 36.4% of respondents prefer to purchase in bulk, 32.03% in plastic containers, and 31.56% on trays. Regarding the preference for the cut, most respondents (69.32%) prefer steaks without spines, a small portion gives preference to gutted fish (15.01%), sliced fish (11.31%), or whole fish (4.34%).
Research conducted in China with 286 men and women indicated that most preferred to buy products in bulk (65%) and fresh (75.2%) rather than packaged or frozen. Most consumers (67.5%) believe that the products on the market meet their basic demands. Approximately 58.6% of the respondents buy fish at supermarkets (Wang et al., 2009).
In relation to the results for customer satisfaction, concerning the fish marketed in Brazil, 21.01% of the respondents are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
The results show that 96.67% of the respondents consider that fish is a food that promotes health and 39.08% do not know what a tracked product is.
Among the participants, 41.6% consider the initiative to offer tracked fish extremely important and 31.3%, very important.
Most respondents (82.19%) would be willing to pay more for a product with a guarantee of origin. Among these, 45.98% would pay up to 10% more than the value of the conventional product, 37.57% would be willing to pay up to 20% more, and 10.17% would pay up to 30% more for tracked fish.
Similar research conducted in Brazil and in Portugal has shown that consumers of both countries consider that traceability of national fish is very important, as well as information about the product. In Brazil, 32.2% of the participants indicated that they would be willing to pay more for a product with guarantee of origin and in Portugal, 40.2%. Of these, 23.4 and 29.9%, Brazil and Portugal, respectively, would pay up to 10% more (Maciel et al., 2016).
Although food traceability is an option for the control of the production chain, this study showed that most respondents indicated having no knowledge of what a tracked product is. Nevertheless, they would be willing to pay more for a product with a guarantee of origin. It is a controversial result; however, it demonstrates the concern and availability of consumers in purchasing a better quality product. It also reinforces the need to disseminate information on food in Brazil, with special focus on consumer education so that the information supports the choice for the most suitable products and, inevitably, with the strong appeal for healthfulness because most have knowledge that fish is a food type that promotes health.
A highlighted factor in relation to fish consumption is the current interest of people for health, longevity and food safety (Souki et al., 2003). This behavior has increased the demand for products with special features and fish is a favorable food for this market niche.
In Canada, between 10% and 33% of consumers would be willing to pay more for tracked product of animal food (Hobbs, 2003).
In China, where fish is the main food in the diet, consumers are concerned with lack of food safety (Wang, 2003; Zhou, 2004) and 85.7% of the Chinese recognize that the price of fish products has been rising due to the increase in production costs within the traceability system. However, 21% of consumers are not willing to pay more for this program, but 60.1% are willing to pay up to 10% more on tracked fish products, aiming to increase safety of those products (Wang et al., 2009).
Due to its perishability, investing in fish safety is a potential market niche due to the demand for high-quality products and issues concerning food risks, often expressed in recent years (Wei and Zeng, 2011).
Thus, consumer education should be the focus to deal with all the updates in the field of food safety and, at the same time, act in the role of external oversight of food enterprises. In addition, public health agencies should include information on food safety through multiple channels (Raspor, 2006).
Initiatives like these should be stimulated, as fish consumption is related to health issues, the main attributes that awaken consumer interest (Birgisdottir et al., 2008).
7. Conclusions
The consumer perception regarding fish shows interest in products with guarantees of quality, origin certified, and that were obtained from the production chain; however, there is a lack of further information for the large consumer market about how to purchase products with these characteristics.
The consumer accepts the possibility of purchasing and paying more for tracked fish; however, little is known about these products.
Reducing the knowledge asymmetry about quality and origin of the fish consumed in the country will bring potential positive impacts arising from increased consumption, better health for the population, and the development of the production chain.
In addition, living an active life and adopting proper dietary practices can improve people’s health. In this sense, fish is an excellent food. The promising participation of fish in human diets for the coming decades is attributed to increased aquaculture production, as well as the awareness of the population regarding fish quality as food.
Increased consumption also depends on improvements in the production chain, aimed at ensuring fish quality to reach the consumer, and on incentives in disseminating the importance of the benefits of fish consumption to promote human health.
Therefore, there is need for further development in the fish production chain to ensure product quality and, consequently, increase consumption. Thus, fish traceability, in addition to assisting quality control, may influence consumers, stimulating them favorably to consume fish, as the fish origin and quality are provided.