Consumers' health risk-benefit perception of seafood and attitude toward the marine environment: Insights from five European countries

Environmental Research

Volumn 143, Issue , 2015, Pages 11-19

  Jacobs, Silke ^a   Sioen, Isabelle ^a   Pieniak, Zuzanna ^a,b   De Henauw, Stefaan ^a   Maulvault, Ana Luisa ^c   Reuver, Marieke ^d   Fait, Gabriella ^e   Cano Sancho, German ^f   Verbeke, Wim ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b Consumer and Sensory Research Institute ^*  (Poland)

^c Unit of Upgrading of Fishery and Aquaculture Products (U VPPA)   (Portugal)

^d AquaTT   (Ireland)

^e Gariga di Podenzano (PC)   (Italy)

^f UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cluster analysis; Marine environment; Pro environmental behavior; Risk benefit perception; Seafood consumption

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; FOOD CONSUMPTION; HEALTH RISK; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SEAFOOD;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BELGIUM; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOOD SAFETY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; IRELAND; ITALY; MALE; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITIONAL VALUE; ORGANIZATION; PERCEPTION; PORTUGAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEA FOOD; SEA POLLUTION; SPAIN; YOUNG ADULT; ANALYSIS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EUROPE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; SOCIOECONOMICS; STANDARDS; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTION;

BELGIUM; IRELAND; ITALY; PORTUGAL; SPAIN;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD PREFERENCES; FOOD SAFETY; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEAFOOD; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WATER POLLUTION;

EID: 84947492369     PISSN: 00139351     EISSN: 10960953     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.02.029     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Altintzoglou T., et al. The image of fish from aquaculture among Europeans: impact of exposure to balanced information. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2010, 19:103-119.
2. Birch D., Lawley M. Buying seafood: understanding barriers to purchase across consumption segments. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26:12-21.
3. Burger J., Gochfeld M. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of fish consumption: individual choices to reduce risk and increase health benefits. Environ. Res. 2009, 109:343-349.
4. Cardoso C., et al. Seafood consumption health concerns: the assessment of methylmercury, selenium, and eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic fatty acids intake. Food Control 2013, 34:581-588.
5. Carlucci D., et al. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2014, 84C:212-227.
6. CLAMER, 2011. Report on European Public Awareness and Perception of Marine Climate Change Risks and Impacts. Climate Change Impacts on the Marine Environment: Research Results and Public Perception, Seventh Framework Programme, ENV.2009.1.1.6.3 FP7-2009-1-244132.
7. Cope S., et al. Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy. Food Policy 2010, 35:349-357.
8. Domingo J.L. Nutrients and chemical pollutants in fish and shellfish. Balancing health benefits and risks of regular fish consumption. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.742985.
9. Scientific Opinion on health benefits of seafood (fish and shellfish) consumption in relation to health risks associated with exposure to methylmercury. EFSA Journal 2014, 12(7):80. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2014, 3761. http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3761.
10. Eurobarometer SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 354 Food-related risks - TNS Opinion & Social 2010, European Food Safety Authority.
11. Fagerli R.A., Wandel M. Gender differences in opinions and practices with regard to a "healthy diet". Appetite 1999, 32:171-190.
12. Field A., et al. Discovering Statistics Using R 2012, SAGE, Los Angeles.
13. Frewer L.J., et al. Risk/benefit communication about food - a systematic review of the literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 10.1080/10408398.2013.801337.
14. Gelcich S., et al. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111:15042-15047.
15. Gifford R., Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49:141-157.
16. Grunert K.G., et al. Socio-demographic and attitudinal determinants of nutrition knowledge of food shoppers in six European countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26:166-177.
17. Hair J.F., et al. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective 2010, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
18. Hellberg R.S., et al. Risk-benefit analysis of seafood consumption: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2012, 11:490-517.
19. Hughner R.S., et al. Review of food policy and consumer issues of mercury in fish. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2008, 27:185-194.
20. Keselman H.J., et al. A generally robust approach for testing hypotheses and setting confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychol. Methods 2008, 13:110-129.
21. Luh W.M., Guo J.H. Using Johnson's transformation and robust estimators with heteroscedastic test statistics: an examination of the effects of non-normality and heterogeneity in the non-orthogonal two-way ANOVA design. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2001, 54:79-94.
22. Mainieri T., et al. Green buying: the influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. J. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 137:189-204.
23. Moore M.N., et al. Oceans and human health (OHH): a European perspective from the Marine Board of the European Science Foundation (Marine Board-ESF). Microb. Ecol. 2013, 65:889-900.
24. Mozaffarian D., Rimm E.B. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006, 296:1885-1899.
25. Olsen S.O. Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway: an application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite 2001, 36:173-186.
26. Olsen S.O. Understanding the relationship between age and seafood consumption: the mediating role of attitude, health involvement and convenience. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14:199-209.
27. Oreg S., Katz-Gerro T. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally - values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38:462-483.
28. Perez-Cueto F.J.A., et al. Attitudinal determinants of fish consumption in Spain and Poland. Nutr. Hosp. 2011, 26:1412-1419.
29. Pieniak Z., et al. Health-related attitudes as a basis for segmenting European fish consumers. Food Policy 2010, 35:448-455.
30. Pieniak Z., et al. Health-related beliefs and consumer knowledge as determinants of fish consumption. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2010, 23:480-488.
31. Pieniak Z., et al. European consumers' use of and trust in information sources about fish. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18:1050-1063.
32. Pieniak Z., et al. Impact of consumers' health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption. A study in five European countries. Br. Food J. 2008, 110:898-915.
33. Schultz P.W. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21:327-339.
34. Sioen I., et al. Fish consumption is a safe solution to increase the intake of long-chain n-3 fatty acids. Public Health Nutr. 2008, 11:1107-1116.
35. Sioen I., et al. Probabilistic intake assessment of multiple compounds as a tool to quantify the nutritional-toxicological conflict related to seafood consumption. Chemosphere 2008, 71:1056-1066.
36. Smith K.M., Sahyoun N.R. Fish consumption: recommendations versus advisories, can they be reconciled?. Nutr. Rev. 2005, 63:39-46.
37. Snelgar R.S. Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: measurement and structure. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26:87-99.
38. Sparks P., Guthrie C.A. Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: a useful addition or an unhelpful artifice?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28:1393-1410.
39. Sumner J., Ross T. A semi-quantitative seafood safety risk assessment. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 77:55-59.
40. Trondsen T., et al. Consumption of seafood - the influence of overweight and health beliefs. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15:361-374.
41. Ueland O., et al. State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: consumer perception. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50:67-76.
42. van Dijk H., et al. Perceptions of health risks and benefits associated with fish consumption among Russian consumers. Appetite 2011, 56:227-234.
43. Verbeke W. Impact of communication on consumers' food choices. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2008, 67:281-288.
44. Verbeke W., et al. Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2005, 8:422-429.
45. Verbeke W., Vackier I. Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Sci. 2004, 67:159-168.
46. Verbeke W., Vackier I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 2005, 44:67-82.
47. Verbeke W., et al. Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: Impact on Belgian consumers' perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Anal. 2008, 28:951-967.
48. Wardle J., et al. Gender differences in food choice: the contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Ann. Behav. Med. 2004, 27:107-116.
49. Wilcox R.R. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing 2012, Academic, London.