Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Food Security

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gfs

Unlocking the potential of aquatic foods in global food security and

nutrition: A missing piece under the lens of seafood liking index
Junning Cai a, *, PingSun Leung b
a
Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy
b
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fish and seafood (seafoods in short) are nutritious and environment-friendly aquatic foods that receive
Fish increasing attention for their existing and potential contribution to global food security and nutrition. With a
Seafood general perception or premise that growing and wealthier world population would demand much more seafoods
Aquatic food
to satisfy their needs for more foods and better nutrition, contemporary policy discourses in global communities
Food security
Nutrition
focus on how to sustainably increase seafood production to satisfy the needs of world population with minimal
Preference detrimental impacts on the planet. A closer look at global seafood consumption, however, reveals large dis­
Seafood liking index crepancies across countries. Beneath growing world seafood consumption lies low or declined per capita seafood
consumption in many countries. Based on the experiences of nearly 200 countries (accounting for over 99
percent of world population) during the 2010s, we found that income and price explained only a small portion of
variations in countries’ seafood consumption, and differences in countries’ per capita seafood consumption
mostly reflect large variations in their seafood preferences. We estimated a seafood liking index (SLI) to compare
countries’ preferences for a specific seafood and an associated seafood substitution index (SSI) to compare a
country’s preferences for different seafoods. Key findings and their implications are discussed in main text; more
comprehensive results are documented in supplementary materials. Our study is a first attempt to measure
seafood preferences at global scope by disaggregate seafood groups. Its comprehensive results can provide
guidance to policy and planning at the national, regional and global levels. The methodology of SLI and SSI is a
novel approach that can be applied to examine seafood preferences within a country, which tend to have large
variations across sub-national districts.

1. Introduction
Fish and seafood (seafoods in short) provide high quality proteins
that contribute nearly one fifth of world animal protein intake (FAO,
2020a). Seafoods are also vital sources of essential, bioavailable
micronutrients (Golden et al., 2016, 2021; Hicks et al., 2019). Many
seafoods are rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (EPA and DHA) that are
important to normal neurodevelopment and visual functions in infants,
and they can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Coletta et al.,
2010; FAO/WHO, 2011; Hibbeln et al., 2007; Willett et al., 2019).
Other less well-known health benefits of seafood consumption
include, among others, (i) reducing the risks or prevalence of dementia
(Kalmijn et al., 1997; Barberger-Gateau et al., 2002; Uauy and Dangour,
2006), arthritis (Cleland et al., 2003), prostate cancer (Terry et al.,
2001) and major depression (Hibbeln, 1998; Yang et al., 2018); (ii)
reducing mortality from ischemic heart disease, stroke, cancer and
all-cause mortality (Zhang et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2011; Wallin et al.,
2018); (iii) mitigating overweight or obesity (Ramel et al., 2009;
Buckley and Howe, 2010); and (iv) improving gastrointestinal health
(Lund and Kampman, 2008).
Seafood production generally has a low environmental footprint
compared with terrestrial meats (Hall et al., 2011; Gephart et al., 2021;
Koehn et al., 2022). The nutritional value and environmental benefits of
seafoods draw increasing attention to sustainable seafood production
and consumption as a way to improve global food security and nutrition
(Merino et al., 2012; World Bank, 2013; HLPE, 2014; Béné et al., 2015;
Bennett et al., 2018; Tlusty et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019; Bennett
et al., 2021; Golden et al., 2021). Many countries have established di­
etary guidelines to promote seafood consumption (Thurstan and Rob­
erts, 2014; Ahern et al., 2021).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: junning.cai@fao.org (J. Cai), psleung@hawaii.edu (P. Leung).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100641
Received 27 January 2022; Received in revised form 11 May 2022; Accepted 11 May 2022
Available online 31 May 2022
2211-9124/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Cai and P. Leung Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641

World per capita seafood consumption doubled in half a century
from 10 kg (live weight equivalent) in 1967 to 20 kg in 2017. The up­
ward trend is expected to continue with economic growth, urbanization
and increasing interest in healthy diets (Merino et al., 2012; Cai and
Leung, 2017; OECD/FAO, 2021; Naylor et al., 2021). Productivity gain
in seafood production may reduce seafood prices, which can further
boost seafood consumption (Costello et al., 2020; Golden et al., 2021).
With a general perception or premise that growing and wealthier world
population would demand much more seafoods to satisfy their needs for
more foods and better nutrition, contemporary policy discourses in
global communities focus on how to sustainably increase seafood pro­
duction to satisfy the needs of world population with minimal detri­
mental impacts on the planet (Merino et al., 2012; Costello et al., 2020;
Belton et al., 2020).
A closer look at global seafood consumption, however, reveals large
discrepancies across countries (Cai and Leung, 2017; Naylor et al.,
2021). The doubling of world average per capita seafood consumption
between 1967 and 2017 was primarily thanks to more than tripling of
consumption in Eastern and South-eastern Asia (from 12 kg to 39 kg),
whereas the growth in the rest of the world was much more modest
(from 9 kg to 12 kg). Seafood consumption has even declined during the
period in nearly 40 countries (including non-sovereign territories) as
well as some regions with relatively low per capita seafood consump­
tion, such as Southern Africa (from 8.3 kg to 6.4 kg) and the Caribbean
(from 12.1 kg to 9.4 kg). In 2017, there were more than 80 countries
whose per capita seafood consumption was less than 10 kg (i.e. half of
world average), and more than 40 countries less than 5 kg (Fig. 1). The
imbalance was more significant for five of six basic seafood groups with
available global consumption data (Table 1), namely freshwater &
diadromous (F&D) fishes, crustaceans, shell molluscs (i.e. molluscs
excluding cephalopods), cephalopods and miscellaneous aquatic ani­
mals, with marine fishes being the only exception (Fig. 1).
Seafood consumption in a country is influenced not only by its eco­
nomic development but also by its ecological conditions, such as
resource availability and climate (York and Gossard, 2004), and by its
cultural traditions, such as consumer attitudes and preferences,

Fig. 1. Comparison of per capita seafood consumption across countries, 2017. Notes: Per capita consumption is calculated from dividing total consumption (from
FAO. 2020. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Food balance sheets of fish and fishery products 1961–2017) by population (from United Nations World Population
Prospects, 2019 revision). Green bars (1st quantile); orange bars (2nd quantile); blue bars (3rd quantile); yellow bars (4th quantile). Bars with a brick pattern represent
countries with above-average consumption; bars with plain colours represent countries with below-average consumption. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

2
J. Cai and P. Leung Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641

Table 1
World seafood production and consumption by major seafood groups.
Seafood group1 Food and non-food production Food consumption (live weight)3 Composition
(live weight)2

2017 1967 2017

Million Aquaculture Kg/ Share of Kg/ Share of

tonnes share (%) capita total (%) capita total (%)

Fish and seafood 172.7 46.0 10.32 100.0 20.26 100.00 Finfish þ shellfish þ miscellaneous aquatic
animals
Finfish 132.3 39.8 8.89 86.1 15.03 74.2 Marine fishes + freshwater & diadromous fishes
1. Marine fishes4 70.1 4.1 7.22 70.0 6.94 34.2 Sardine; cods; tunas; mackerels; flatfishes; sharks;
seabass/seabream; groupers; etc.
2. Freshwater & diadromous 62.3 79.9 1.67 16.2 8.09 40.0 Freshwater fishes + diadromous fishes
(F&D) fishes5
Freshwater fishes5 55.3 80.8 1.29 12.5 7.18 35.5 Carps; tilapias; catfishes; snakeheads; characins; etc.
Diadromous fishes5 7.0 72.6 0.37 3.6 0.91 4.5 Salmon; trout; milkfish; sturgeons; eels; etc.
Shellfish 38.8 66.8 1.40 13.6 5.07 25.0 Crustaceans + molluscs
3. Crustaceans 15.2 56.9 0.53 5.1 2.02 10.0 Shrimps/prawns; crabs; lobsters; crayfishes; etc.
Molluscs 23.6 73.2 0.88 8.5 3.05 15.0 Shell molluscs + cephalopods
4. Shell molluscs6 19.9 87.1 0.59 5.8 2.59 12.8 Oysters; clams; mussels; scallops; abalones; etc.
5. Cephalopods 3.8 0.0 0.28 2.7 0.46 2.3 Squids; cuttlefishes; octopuses
6. Miscellaneous aquatic 1.5 61.3 0.03 0.3 0.16 0.8 Invertebrates (e.g. sea cucumbers; sea urchins; jellyfishes);
animals7 amphibians (e.g. frogs); reptiles (e.g. turtles); etc.

Notes: Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. 1. Six basic seafood groups with available consumption data in FAO statistics are indexed and italicized. 2.
Data on production are from FAO statistics on global fisheries and aquaculture production 1950–2019. 3. Per capita consumption is calculated from dividing total
consumption data (from the FAO food balance sheets of fish and fishery products 1961–2017) by population data (from the United Nations World Population Prospects
2019 revision); see note 5 for an exception. 4. Equal to the sum of pelagic fish, demersal fish and marine fish nei. Around a quarter of world production of marine fishes
in 2017 were for non-food use (primarily as feed ingredients). 5. In FAO statistics, disaggregate data that distinguish between freshwater fishes and diadromous fishes
are available for production but not for consumption. We separated world consumption of the two groups based on the ratio between their productions. The method is
only applicable at the global level but not valid for individual countries. 6. Short name of “molluscs excluding cephalopods”. 7. Excluding species measured in number
(instead of weight) in FAO production statistics (e.g. marine mammals, crocodiles and alligators).

nutrition knowledge, dietary habits and culinary skills (Nayga and
Capps, 1995; Yen and Huang, 1996; Leek et al., 2000; Myrland et al.,
2000; Manrique and Jensen, 2001; Verbeke and Vackier, 2005). Eco­
nomic development tends to affect seafood consumption differently
across geographic regions (York and Gossard, 2004; Naylor et al., 2021).
Achieving healthy diets, including pescatarian diets (Kim et al., 2021),
for sustainable food systems for everyone on the planet entails more
knowledge and careful consideration of local and regional realities
(Troell et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019).
Based on the experiences of nearly 200 countries (accounting for
over 99 percent of world population) during the 2010s (2010–2017 per
data availability), we estimated a seafood liking (or loving) index (SLI)
to compare countries’ preferences for a specific seafood and an associ­
ated seafood substitution index (SSI) to compare a country’s preferences
for different seafoods. The results indicate that (i) seafood preferences in
many countries are below world average, including nearly 70 least
seafood liking countries with preferences below half of world average;
(ii) similar discrepancies are even greater for disaggregate seafood
groups; (iii) such discrepancies, when unaccounted for, could result in
overestimation of world seafood demand by ~20 million tonnes in 2050;
and (iv) raising the seafood preferences of less seafood liking countries
to world average could increase world annual seafood demand by over
40 million tonnes (or 28 percent). The results also reveal that while there
are high hopes over freshwater fishes and bivalve molluscs as relatively
low-cost hence accessible aquatic foods for global food security and
nutrition, the realization of the supply-side potentials of these “star”
aquatic foods faces the challenge of their lack of global acceptability and
substitutability for other seafoods.
Seafood preference is often a missing piece that receives little or
inadequate attention in policy discourses aimed at unlocking the full
potential of aquatic foods in global food security and nutrition. Except
for some ad hoc exercises, such as modeling the impacts of shifts in
seafood preferences in China (World Bank, 2013), Naylor et al. (2021)
appear to be the only contemporary foresight study that emphasized
consumer preferences as a major factor affecting seafood consumption,
and they called for further analysis of seafood preferences at regional to
subnational scales. Our study here is a first attempt to measure seafood
preferences at national, regional and global scales by disaggregate sea­
food groups; and our findings indicate that demand-side measures (e.g.
market development) should become an integral part of policy and
planning for the development of fisheries and aquaculture, especially for
least seafood liking countries.
2. Method
Direct comparison of seafood consumption across countries may not
accurately reflect differences in their seafood preferences – a seafood
liking country may nevertheless have low seafood consumption because
of low income or high seafood price. Given the same income and price,
countries with higher seafood preferences tend to consume more sea­
foods. Defined as such, a country’s preferences for seafoods reflect not
only consumers’ attitudes and sensory appeal to seafood consumption
but also capture the impacts of a variety of technical, cultural or insti­
tutional factors on seafood consumption, such as food quality and safety,
supply chain logistics, dietary habits, culinary skills, religions and food
taboos, among others. We use a statistical model to filter the impacts of
income and price to derive a measure of seafood preferences.
2.1. The statistical model
In the panel model described in equation (1),
( ) ( ) ( )
ln Cijt = βln(Yit ) + γln Pijt + αij + εijt (1)
country i’s per capita consumption of seafood j at time t (denoted as
Cijt ) is determined by its income (Yit ), the corresponding seafood price
(Pijt ) and the last two unspecified factors. One is the intercept αij that
captures the impact of unspecified structural factors on the consump­
tion, and the other is the error term εijt , which is an independent and
identically distributed random variable that captures the impact of
transitory shocks on the consumption. The model here is similar to the
one used by Cai and Leung (2017) to estimate the income elasticities of

3
J. Cai and P. Leung
seafood consumption. Their model did not include the prices of substi­
tute goods (e.g. alternative seafoods or meats) because of statistically
insignificant coefficients for the prices of substitute goods, the lack of
evidence of seafoods and terrestrial meats being close substitutes (Asche
et al., 2007) and little market integration between main seafood groups
(Tveterås et al., 2012). Here we adopt a similar, parsimonious model
specification to filter the impacts of income and price to derive a mea­
sure of seafood preferences.
2.2. Measuring seafood preferences
According to equation (1), given expected income E(Yit ) = Y, ex­
pected price E(Pijt ) = P and random shock E(εijt ) = 0, country i’s ex­
pected per capita consumption of seafood j would be
( ⃒ ) 2.5. Data and estimations
E Cij ⃒Y, P = eαij C, (2)
where C = Y P represents the benchmark seafood consumption given
β γ
income Y and price P , and eαij is a measure of country i’s preference for
seafood j. eαij can be used to compare different countries’ preferences for
a specific seafood. For example, that eα1j = 2eα2j indicates that country
1’s preference for seafood j is twice as high as that of country 2 in the
sense that given the same income and price, country 1’s consumption of
seafood j would, according to equation (2), tend to be twice as much as
that of country 2.
Intuitively, the seafood preference of a country group (e.g. sub-
region, region or the entire world) can be measured by a weighted
average of seafood preference measures for individual countries (eαij ),
with the weight for each country being its share in the total population
of the country group. We confirm this conjecture in the following. Ac­
cording to equation (2), given the same income Y and fish price P for all
countries in country group K, the group’s expected average per capita
consumption of seafood j would be
( ⃒ ) ∑[ ( ⃒ ) ] ∑
E CKj ⃒Y, P = E Ckj ⃒Y, P × popk ÷ popk
k
∑ k (3)
= sk eαkj C,
k sources of data on population, per capita GDP and seafood prices are
∑ explained in Supplementary Table S1.
where popk denotes each country’s population; sk = popk ÷ popk rep­
k
resents each country’s share in the total population of country group K.
As opposed to eαij in equation (2) measuring country i’s preference for
seafood j, the weighted average
∑ α
sk e kj in equation (3) measures
k group to quantify countries’ SLIs for the seafood group based on equa­
country group K’s average preference for seafood j.
2.3. Constructing seafood liking index (SLI)
According to equations (2) and (3), eαij can be normalized into a
seafood liking Index (SLI) by dividing it against world average prefer­
ence, i.e.
eαij
SLIij = ∑ αwj
× 100 , (4)
w sw e
where the scope of w includes all countries in the world. SLIij is a car­
dinal, ratio-scale measure that gauges a country’s preference for a spe­
cific seafood. For example, an SLIij of 200 (or 50) indicates that country
i’s preference for seafood j is twice (or half) as high as world average in
the sense that given the same income and price for all countries, country
i’s per capita consumption of seafood j tend to be twice (or half) as much
as world average.
2.4. Constructing seafood substitution index (SSI)
When the model in equation (1) includes more than one seafood, the
resulting eαij can be used to compare a country’s preferences for different
4
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
seafoods. According to equation (2), given the same price for seafoods j1
and j2, a country’s consumption of the two seafoods would be, respec­
tively, eαij1 C and eαij2 C. Therefore, similar to SLI defined in equation (4),
a seafood substitution index (SSI) can be constructed as
eαij1
SSIi(j1 ,j2 ) = × 100 (5)
eαij2
An SSIi(j1 ,j2 ) of 200 indicates that country i’s preference for seafood j1
is twice as high as its preference for seafood j2 in the sense that given the
same price for the two seafoods, the country’s consumption of seafood j1
tends to be twice as much as its consumption of seafood j2. The SSI of a
country group can be similarly estimated by using the preference mea­
∑ ∑
sures for the country group (i.e. sk eαkj1 and sk eαkj2 ) in equation (5).
k k
Data availability allowed us to use the panel model in equation (1) to
examine seafood consumption in nearly 200 countries during
2010–2017. We obtained data on a country’s total (apparent) seafood
consumption from the FAO Food Balance Sheets for Fish and Fishery
Products 1960–2017 (FAO, 2020b). Reporting entities in the database
are denoted as countries, which include non-sovereign territories. We
adopted the scope of these reporting entities; e.g. China refers to
mainland China. The database records consumption data on eight spe­
cies groups. We aggregated the three marine finfish groups into “marine
fishes” and ended up with six basic seafood groups (Table 1) used in our
study. One of them is “freshwater & diadromous (F&D) fishes” that lump
together freshwater fishes and diadromous fishes. When applicable, we
used F&D fishes as a proxy of freshwater fishes and made inferences on
the latter based on analyses of the former. We used shell molluscs as a
proxy of bivalve molluscs in a similar way. The FAO database does not
cover seaweeds, which are other promising aquatic foods that receive
increasing attention lately (Cai et al., 2021). We calculated a country’s
per capita consumption from dividing its total consumption by its total
population; per capita consumption smaller than 0.1 percent of world
average were treated as outliers and excluded from the estimations. The
We used the generalized least squares (GLS) random-effects esti­
mator (Wooldridge, 2020) to estimate the model specified in equation
(1) and reported the results of nine regressions in Supplementary
Table S1. Each of the first seven regressions includes a single seafood
tion (4). Each of the last two regressions includes two seafood groups to
quantify countries’ SSIs between the two seafood groups based on
equation (5). In all the nine regressions, the resulting coefficients for
both explanatory variables (i.e. per capita GDP and seafood price) are
with expected signs and statistically significant with p-values = 0.000
(Supplementary Table S1, columns VI –IX). The R-squared varies from
0.05 for miscellaneous aquatic animals to nearly 0.4 for crustaceans
(Supplementary Table S1, column IV), which indicates that differences
in per capita GDP and price only explain a small portion of variations in
per capita consumption. The variations are primarily captured by the
last two terms in equation (1); of which the unspecified structural factor
(αij ) accounts for over 90 percent of the variations in nearly all the re­
gressions (Supplementary Table S1; column V).
Preference measures corresponding to per capita consumption equal
to zero or smaller than 0.1 percent of world average (excluded as out­
liers) cannot be estimated by equation (1). The preference measures
corresponding to such extraordinarily small consumption are set as zero.
Thus, their SLIs are also equal to zero.
J. Cai and P. Leung
3. Results
3.1. Declined seafood consumption in a large number of countries
World per capita seafood consumption increased from 18.4 kg to
20.3 kg between 2010 and 2017. The growth mostly reflected the situ­
ation in Asia (primarily Eastern and South-eastern Asia), whereas per
capita seafood consumption has declined in Developed Regions, Sub-
Saharan Africa, Western Africa, Western Asia, Europe together with
most European sub-regions, and Oceania together with most Oceania
sub-regions (Supplementary Table S2). At national level, per capita
seafood consumption has declined during 2010–2017 in 92 countries
that accounted for nearly a quarter of world population (Supplementary
Fig. S1 and Table S3), and the decline was over 10 percent in 43
countries (over 20 percent in 22 countries). These countries spread
across five continents: Africa and the Americas each containing 21
countries; Asia and Europe each containing 17 countries; and the rest 16
countries locating in Oceania. Per capita seafood consumption in most
(52) of them was below world average 20 kg in 2017 (Supplementary
Table S3). The pattern of declined per capita seafood consumption in a
large number of countries also occurred for the six basic seafood groups
to a varying extent: marine fishes (103 countries; 45.6 percent of world
population), F&D fishes (72 countries; 18.4 percent), crustaceans (106
countries 32.6 percent), shell molluscs (106 countries; 33.8 percent),
cephalopods (42 countries; 52.8 percent) and miscellaneous aquatic
animals (56 countries; 61.6 percent) (Supplementary Table S4).
3.2. Income and price only explaining a small portion of variations in
countries’ seafood consumption
The statistical analyses revealed a positive impact of (per capita)
income on seafood consumption and a negative impact of (seafood)
price (Supplementary Table S1). The relationships are consistent with
economic theory, and they are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05)
for seafood as a whole as well as the six basic seafood groups. However,
income and price together only explain a small portion (20 percent) of
variations in per capita seafood consumption across countries and over
time. For the six basic seafood groups, the explained portion is relatively
high for shellfish groups (40 percent for crustaceans, 37 percent for shell
molluscs and 27 percent for cephalopods), lower for marine fishes (21
percent), and the lowest for F&D fishes (8 percent) and miscellaneous
Fig. 2. Box-and-whisker plots of seafood liking indices (SLIs). Notes: In the first bar for seafood as a whole, the five numeric labels from bottom to top represent,
respectively, the minimum SLI, the first quartile (25 percent) SLI, the median (50 percent) SLI, the third quartile (75 percent) SLI and the “maximum” SLI excluding
“outliers” that are extraordinarily large SLIs with distance from the third quartile greater than 1.5 times of the height of the box (i.e. distance between the third
quartile and the first quartile). The outliers and some labels are not shown in the chart for clarity but presented in Supplementary Tables S5 and S6.
5
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
aquatic animals (5 percent) (Supplementary Table S1).
3.3. Differences in countries’ per capita seafood consumption mostly
reflecting large variations in their seafood preferences
Besides the small portion explained by income and price, differences
in countries’ per capita seafood consumption primarily reflect their
different preferences for seafoods (Supplementary Table S1). We used
equation (4) to quantify a set of seafood liking index (SLI) to compare
countries’ preferences for seafood as a whole and each of the six basic
seafood groups. The results reveal large variations of seafood prefer­
ences across countries. The SLI for seafood as a whole varies from 2 to
755, which indicates that given the same income and seafood price, per
capita seafood consumption in the least and the most seafood liking
countries tends to be, respectively, 2 percent and 755 percent of world
average.
The SLI for marine fishes has the greatest range, followed by crus­
taceans and cephalopods, with the smallest ranges for the other three
basic seafood groups, i.e. F&D fishes, shell molluscs and miscellaneous
aquatic animals (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S5). A total of 84 countries
have an extraordinarily high preference for seafood as a whole or at least
one of the six basic seafood groups (Supplementary Table S6), yet no
country has extraordinarily high preferences for all the six basic seafood
groups. Most of the countries with an extraordinarily high preference for
seafood as a whole also have an extraordinarily high preference for
marine fishes, yet no country has extraordinarily high preferences for
both marine fishes and F&D fishes (Supplementary Table S6).
3.4. Geographic clustering of countries with similar seafood preferences
A total of 71 countries have above-average preferences for seafood as
a whole (SLIseafood > 100). Nearly half (35 to be exact) of these “more
seafood liking” countries are island economies (Supplementary
Table S7), including 27 Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The rest
are primarily clustered in Eastern and South-eastern Asia, along the west
coast of Africa, in between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean
Sea, and in Scandinavia (Fig. 3, with medium and dark blue colours).
The preferences for seafood as a whole in 69 countries are below half of
world average (i.e. SLIseafood < 50). These “least seafood liking” coun­
tries are primarily clustered in South-Central Asia, the Middle East,
Central Europe, Horn of Africa, Central America and South America
J. Cai and P. Leung
Fig. 3. Global overview of seafood liking index (SLI) for seafood as a whole. Notes: The map depicts the average situation during 2010–2017; see Table S12 for
details. The map was created with Datawrapper; country/territory boundaries therein do not represent authors’ opinions. Countries/territories with a small land area
may not be discernible on the map.
(Fig. 3, with brown colours). More than one third (26 to be exact) of
these countries are landlocked countries, which have particularly low
preferences for the three shellfish groups (Supplementary Table S8).
Geo-clustering of seafood preferences also occurs for the six basic sea­
food groups (Supplementary Figs. S2–S7).
3.5. Positive correlations between SLI and seafood share in animal protein
intake
SLIseafood has a strong, positive correlation with seafood share in
animal protein intake (r = 0.808; p-value = 0.0000); such positive
correlations also occur for the six basic seafood groups (Supplementary
Table S9). This finding supports the validity of SLI as a measure of
countries’ preferences for seafoods. It also suggests that seafood share in
animal protein intake could be used as a proxy measure of seafood
preferences when SLI cannot be estimated due to lack of data.
3.6. Positive correlations between SLI and per capita seafood production
SLIseafood has a moderate, positive correlation with per capita seafood
production (r = 0.3845; p-value = 0.0000); such positive correlations
also occur for the six basic seafood groups (Supplementary Table S9).
This finding is consistent with evidence that local production tends to
stimulate seafood consumption (Dellenbarger et al., 1992; Toufique and
Belton, 2014). Besides providing suitable and affordable seafoods, local
production could increase a country’s preferences for seafoods via
various mechanisms, such as facilitating seafood market development,
improving seafood supply chain efficiencies, enhancing local con­
sumers’ exposure and knowledge of seafoods and fostering seafood di­
etary habits.
3.7. Positive correlations between SLI and natural resource endowments
SLIseafood has a moderate, positive correlation with coastline length
per capita (r = 0.3443; p-value = 0.0000). Similar positive correlations
6
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
are significant (p-value < 0.05) for marine fishes and crustaceans but not
for the other four basic seafood groups (Supplementary Table S9).
Similarly, SLIseafood has a moderate, positive correlation with per capita
renewable freshwater resources (r = 0.1964; p-value = 0.0086), but
crustaceans is the only one among the six basic seafood groups with a
similar, significant correlation. Our analyses have detected no signifi­
cant correlations between SLI and per capita inland water surface area
(Supplementary Table S9).
3.8. Lack of significant correlations between SLI and socio-economic
factors
Many studies found evidence that people with higher education tend
to consume more seafood (Myrland et al., 2000; Barberger-Gateau et al.,
2002; Batzios et al., 2004; Moya et al., 2008; Sayin et al., 2010; Can
et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2018), whereas some studies found no signifi­
cant correlation between education and seafood consumption (Verbeke
and Vackier, 2005; Trondsen et al., 2003) or a negative correlation
(Burger et al., 1999). Our macro analyses at national level found no
significant correlation between SLIseafood and education (measured by an
education index; see Supplementary Table S9).
There is a large body of literature that found a positive relation be­
tween age and seafood consumption based on micro data (Myrland
et al., 2000; Olsen, 2003; Batzios et al., 2004; Hicks et al., 2008; Sayin
et al., 2010; Erdogan et al., 2011; Perez-Cueto et al., 2011; Khan et al.,
2018). Our macro analyses here nevertheless found no significant cor­
relation between SLIseafood and the median age of total population. Our
analyses also found no significant correlations between SLIseafood and
another two demographic indicators (i.e. life expectancy at birth and
share of urban population in total population), despite evidence of
seafoods reducing mortality (Zhang et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2011;
Wallin et al., 2018) and high hopes over urbanization as a driver of
seafood consumption (Naylor et al., 2021).
We found a moderate, negative correlation between SLIseafood and
prevalence of overweight children (r = − 0.208; p-value = 0.0107),
J. Cai and P. Leung
which is consistent with evidence of seafoods reducing overweight or
obesity (Ramel et al., 2009; Buckley and Howe, 2010). Yet we found no
significant correlation between SLIseafood and prevalence of adult obesity
or another four food security and nutrition indicators of undernourish­
ment, severe food insecurity, anemic women and stunted children,
respectively (Supplementary Table S9).
We also found no significant correlation between SLIseafood and the
Human Development Index developed by the United Nations Develop­
ment Programme. Yet we found that SLIF&D fish and SLIshell molluscs have
significant correlations with nearly all the 11 socioeconomic factors
examined here (Supplementary Table S9), which will be discussed
below when we highlight the two seafood groups as prominent aquatic
foods with large supply-side potentials.
3.9. Below-average seafood preferences in a majority of countries
Among 191 countries with estimated SLIseafood, 120 countries have
below-average preferences for seafoods (i.e. SLIseafood < 100), and these
“less seafood liking” countries accounted for nearly 60 percent of world
population during 2010–2017 (Fig. 3). The pattern of below-average
seafood preferences in a majority of countries that account for most of
world population occurs, with more significant imbalance, for five of the
six basic seafood groups, except for marine fishes (Fig. 2; Supplementary
Table S5 and Figs. S2–S7). While SLImarine fishes is above world average in
a majority of countries (107 out of 190), these “more marine fish liking”
countries nevertheless accounted for less than 30 percent of world
population (Supplementary Fig. S2).
3.10. Discrepancies in seafood preferences across countries resulting over-
prediction of seafood demands
World population is expected to increase by 1 billion between 2017
and 2030 (United Nations, 2019), with 72 percent of the growth
contributed by less seafood liking countries. The pattern of stronger
population growth in less seafood liking countries, which is expected to
reinforce towards 2050, applies to all six basic seafood groups with
stronger imbalances for the three shellfish groups and miscellaneous
aquatic animals than the two finfish groups (Supplementary Table S10).
Even with per capita seafood consumption remaining constant in every
country, such imbalanced population growth would reduce world per
capita seafood consumption from 20.3 kg to 19.4 kg between 2017 and
2030, and further down to 18 kg in 2050. Similar declines would occur
for all six basic seafood groups (Supplementary Table S10).
The downward pressure of imbalanced population growth (biased
towards less seafood liking countries) on world per capita seafood de­
mand, when unaccounted for, would tend to result in overestimation of
the impact of population growth on world seafood demand. For
instance, using world per capita seafood consumption at present (~20
kg) to estimate the seafood demand of expected ~10 billion world
population in 2050 would tend to result in ~20 million tonnes of
overestimation compared to the use of ~18 kg when the downward
pressure is properly accounted for.
Discrepancies in seafood preferences across countries, when not
adequately accounted for, could result in overestimation of the impacts
of income and price on world seafood demand, as it is a common
practice, to a varying extent, to use world or regional average income
and price elasticities to estimate the impacts of income and price on
world seafood demand (World Bank, 2013; Cai and Leung, 2017; Cost­
ello et al., 2020; OECD/FAO, 2021; Golden et al., 2021; Naylor et al.,
2021).
3.11. Marine fishes as the most preferred seafoods facing the challenge of
supply shortage
World production of marine fishes increased from ~15 million
tonnes in the early 1950s to over 70 million tonnes in the mid-1990s
7
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
then fluctuated around 70 million tonnes thereafter (FAO, 2021a);
around a quarter of the production in recent years was used as feed
ingredients (FAO, 2020b). With stagnant production and growing pop­
ulation, world per capita consumption of marine fishes has gradually
declined from 7.51 kg in 1995 to 7.12 kg in 2010 and further down to
6.94 kg in 2017, which was below the 7.18 kg world consumption of
freshwater fishes (Table 1). While per capita consumption of marine
fishes declined between 2010 and 2017 in 103 countries (Supplemen­
tary Table S4), they are still the most consumed seafoods in a majority of
countries. In 2017, marine fishes accounted for over half of seafood
consumption in 168 countries. We used equation (5) to quantify a set of
seafood substitution index (SSI) to compare a country’s preferences for
different seafood groups. The results indicate that marine fishes are
more preferable than F&D fishes in 165 countries, more preferable than
shellfish (i.e. crustacean, shell molluscs and cephalopods combined) in
186 countries, and more preferable than miscellaneous aquatic animals
in all countries.
Given 1 billion additional world population in 2030 (compared with
2017), 6.9 million tonnes of additional supply of marine fishes would be
needed in 2030 to keep world per capita consumption of marine fishes at
the baseline level (i.e. 6.94 kg in 2017). Based on the mid-term pro­
jection of OECD/FAO (2021), we estimated that world capture fisheries
could bring 1.6 million tonnes of additional supply of marine fishes for
human consumption in 2030 (Supplementary Table S11). World aqua­
culture of marine fishes has been increasing (from 1.9 million tonnes in
2010 to 2.9 million tonnes in 2017), yet it is still a minor source
contributing less than 5 percent of world supply of marine fishes
(Table 1). Notwithstanding vast areas in the ocean suitable for culturing
marine fishes (Costello et al., 2020; Kapetsky et al., 2013; Gentry et al.,
2017), a big leap forward of marine finfish aquaculture is constrained by
various factors (Belton et al., 2020), such as operational challenges, high
production costs and cumbersome licensing processes. We extrapolated
the linear trend of world aquaculture production of marine fishes during
2010–2017; the result indicates that the trend growth could generate 1.6
million tonnes of additional supply of marine fishes for human con­
sumption in 2030 (Supplementary Table S11). The combined 3.2 million
tonnes (1.6 million tonnes each from capture fisheries and aquaculture)
could cover less than half of the 6.9 million tonnes of population-driven
growth in world demand for marine fishes.
Redirecting small pelagic fishes (e.g. herrings, sardines and an­
chovies) from fodder to food has a great potential to increase the supply
of marine fishes. However, because of limited market capacity, inade­
quate facilities (e.g. landing infrastructure or processing plants) and
high logistic (e.g. labour) costs (Sánchez Durand and Gallo Seminario,
2009; Isaacs, 2016), economic forces are unlikely to drive such shifts at a
large enough magnitude in the near future to cover the shortage of the
supply of marine fishes. Therefore, the trends of declined per capita
marine fish consumption in many countries would likely continue in the
near future, which, if not adequately substituted by other seafoods, tend
to drag down overall per capita seafood consumption. Indeed, three
quarters of the 103 countries with a declined per capita consumption of
marine fishes during 2010–2017 also had a declined per capita con­
sumption of seafood as a whole (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).
3.12. Freshwater fishes as the largest seafood group with low global
acceptability and substitutability with other seafood groups
World production of freshwater fishes increased from 42 million
tonnes to 55 million tonnes between 2010 and 2017, thanks primarily to
freshwater aquaculture. The production expansion has made freshwater
fishes the largest seafood group that contributed 35 percent of world
seafood consumption in 2017 (Table 1). As opposed to high hopes over
seafoods from marine areas (Kapetsky et al., 2013; Gentry et al., 2017;
Costello et al., 2020), Belton et al. (2020) contended that freshwater
aquaculture of herbivorous or omnivorous freshwater fishes (e.g. carps,
catfishes and tilapias) would more likely be the main source of aquatic
J. Cai and P. Leung
foods for global food security and nutrition in the near future.
Our analyses found statistically significant correlations between
SLIF&D fishes and all the 11 socioeconomic indicators examined in Sup­
plementary Table S9, including negative correlations with seven in­
dicators (i.e. education, age, life expectancy, urban ratio, adult obesity,
overweight children and HDI) and positive correlations with the other
four (i.e. undernourishment, severe food insecurity, anemic women and
stunted children). These correlations indicate that less developed
countries tend to have relatively high preferences for freshwater fishes.
This finding is supported by above-average preferences for F&D fishes (i.
e. SLIF&D fishes > 100) in three developing country groups, i.e. Devel­
oping Regions, Least Developed Countries and Landlocked Developing
Countries (Supplementary Table S12). The estimated SSI indicates
higher average preferences for F&D fishes than marine fishes (i.e. SSIF&D
fishes vs. marine fishes > 100) in world, Developing Regions, Least Developed
Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, Eastern Africa, and Asia
together with most Asian subregions except for Western Asia (Supple­
mentary Table S12).
A closer look at seafood consumption at national level, however,
reveals a different picture: Freshwater fishes lack global acceptability
and substitutability with other seafoods. Despite the dominance of
freshwater fishes in world seafood consumption, which primarily re­
flects their prominence in a few populous countries, per capita con­
sumption of F&D fishes was below 2 kg in nearly 130 countries in 2017,
whereas the consumption of marine fishes exceeded 2 kg in over 190
countries (Fig. 1). Among the 103 countries with declined marine fish
consumption between 2010 and 2017, only 26 countries was able to use
F&D fishes to fully cover the decline in marine fish consumption,
whereas F&D fishes covered less than half of the decline in marine fish
consumption in 68 countries, including 34 countries with lower per
capita consumption in both marine fishes and F&D fishes.
The estimated SLI indicates that only 22 countries (accounting for
one third of world population) have above-average preferences for
freshwater fishes (Supplementary Fig. S3 and Table S12). The estimated
SSI indicates that F&D fishes are more preferable than marine fishes in
Fig. 4. Seafood substitution index (SSI) of freshwater & diadromous (F&D) fishes for marine fishes. Notes: The map depicts the average situation during 2010–2017;
see Table S12 for details. The map was created with Datawrapper; country/territory boundaries therein do not represent authors’ opinions. Countries/territories with
a small land area may not be discernible on the map.
8
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
35 countries (including China and India) that accounted for over half of
world population (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table S12). However, F&D
fishes are substitutable for less than half of marine fishes in 122 coun­
tries in the sense that given the same price for F&D fishes and marine
fishes, these countries’ consumption of F&D fishes would tend to be less
than half of their consumption of marine fishes. The substitutability of
F&D fishes for marine fishes is less than 25 percent in 95 countries; most
(78) of them are in developing regions, including 21 least developed
countries. The substitutability of F&D fishes for marine fishes is less than
10 percent in 51 countries, including 30 SIDSs. Island economies’ high
overall seafood preference is concentrated on marine fishes, whereas
they generally have low preferences for the other five basic seafood
groups, particularly F&D fishes (Supplementary Table S7).
We were unable to examine freshwater fishes as a distinct seafood
group due to data limitation. Yet the evidence of F&D fishes’ lack of
global acceptability and substitutability is valid or more robust for
freshwater fishes alone because diadromous fishes account for ~10
percent of F&D fishes (Table 1); and many of them (e.g. salmons, eels
and milkfish) are cultured or harvested in marine or brackish waters.
3.13. Low preferences for shell molluscs and low substitutability of shell
molluscs for finfish
World per capita consumption of shell molluscs increased from 0.59
kg in 1967 to 2.31 kg in 2010 and 2.59 kg in 2017 (Table 1). The share of
shell molluscs in world seafood consumption remained stable at ~13
percent (in terms of live weight) during 2010–2017. Shell molluscs
primarily comprise bivalves (e.g. clams, mussels, oysters and scallops)
that are recognized as aquatic foods with great supply-side potentials
(Willer and Aldridge, 2020; Willer et al., 2021). Costello et al. (2020)
estimated that bivalves could contribute over one third of world seafood
consumption (in terms of edible weight), provided that all seafoods are
perfect substitutes. However, bivalves or shell molluscs in general are far
from perfect substitutes for other seafoods.
Only 35 countries’ per capita consumption of shell molluscs in 2017
J. Cai and P. Leung
was above world average (2.59 kg), whereas shell molluscs consumption
was less than 0.13 kg in half of all countries and less than 0.002 kg in a
quarter of them (Fig. 1). The estimated SLI indicates that only 25
countries (26.9 percent of world population) have above-average pref­
erences for shell molluscs, whereas the shell molluscs preferences of 133
countries (60 percent of world population) are less than 25 percent of
world average (Supplementary Fig. S5). Similar to SLIF&D fishes, SLIshell
molluscs also has statistically significant correlations with nearly all the 11
socioeconomic indicators (except for adult obesity and overweight
children), yet the correlations are of opposite signs to those of SLIF&D
fishes (Supplementary Table S9). The findings indicate that less devel­
oped countries tend to have relatively low preferences for shell molluscs.
The estimated SSI of shell molluscs for finfish (Fig. 5; Supplementary
Table S12) indicates that (i) shell molluscs are substitutable to 14
percent of finfish in world seafood consumption; (ii) in no country shell
molluscs are more preferable than finfish – China, Hong Kong SAR’s SSI
of shell molluscs for finfish (62) is the highest among all countries; (iii)
the substitutability of shell molluscs for finfish is less than 5 percent in
144 countries (over 60 percent of world population); and (iv) the sub­
stitutability is less than 2 percent for all landlocked developing countries
(less than half a percent for Landlocked Developing Countries as a
whole).
3.14. High potential of increasing seafood demands through raising
seafood preferences
Suppose that each of less seafood liking countries could increase its
preference for seafood as a whole to world average while the preferences
of more seafood liking countries remain the same, then world per capita
seafood demand would increase from 20 kg (the baseline) to 26 kg,
leading to an increase in world total seafood demand by 43 million
tonnes (28 percent) compared with the baseline. Southern Asia, South
America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern America and Western Asia
would account for most of the increase, whereas the growth rate would
Fig. 5. Seafood substitution index (SSI) of shell molluscs for finfish. Notes: The map depicts the average situation during 2010–2017; see Table S12 for details. The
map was created with Datawrapper; country/territory boundaries therein do not represent authors’ opinions. Countries/territories with a small land area may not be
discernible on the map.
9
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
be over 100 percent in Landlocked Developing Countries, Eastern Africa,
Southern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, South America,
Central Asia, Southern Asia and Western Asia (Table 2). Countries with
the demand growth potential exceeding 1 million tonnes include India
(11.7 million tonnes), the United States of America (3.8 million tonnes),
Brazil (2.5 million tonnes), Pakistan (2.4 million tonnes), Turkey (1.6
million tonnes), Germany (1.6 million tonnes) and Mexico (1.1 million
tonnes); all of them belong to the top 20 most populous countries
(Supplementary Fig. S8 and Table S13).
Similarly, the demand growth potentials through raising below-
average preferences for the six basic seafood groups are 34 million
tonnes (56 percent) for F&D fishes, 15.7 million tonnes (29 percent) for
marine fishes, 6.4 million tonnes (32 percent) for shell molluscs, 5.6
million tonnes (36 percent) for crustaceans, 2.6 million tonnes (64
percent) for cephalopods and 0.8 million tonnes (68 percent) for
miscellaneous aquatic animals (Supplementary Table S14). The high
demand growth potential for F&D fishes (in terms of both magnitude
and growth rate) reflects that increase in demand through preferences is
a crucial way to unlock the substantial supply-side potential of F&D
fishes through aquaculture (Zhang et al., 2022). The relatively small
demand growth potential for shell molluscs indicates that bivalve mol­
luscs are still niche aquatic foods, and they need to be transformed into
staple seafoods in order to unlock their massive supply-side potentials
allowed by vast marine areas suitable for bivalve aquaculture (Costello
et al., 2020; Willer and Aldridge, 2020; Willer et al., 2021).
4. Discussion
Per capita seafood consumption varies considerably across countries,
which primarily reflects their different preferences for seafoods. Beneath
growing world per capita seafood consumption lies low or declined per
capita seafood consumption in many countries. While economic growth
and production expansion will continue to be key factors driving seafood
consumption, especially in countries with established seafood dietary
J. Cai and P. Leung Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641

Table 2
Potentials of increasing seafood consumption through higher preferences for seafood as a whole.
Country group1 Baseline scenario (based on the situations in 2017) Scenario of higher seafood preferences: below-average
preferences increased to world average; above-average
preferences remaining the same.

SLIseafood Share of world Per capita seafood Total seafood demand3 Per capita seafood Total seafood demand higher
population (%) demand2 (kg) (million tonnes) demand4 (kg) than the baseline by:

million Percentage
tonnes (%)

World 100.0 100.0 20.2 152.2 25.9 43.0 28.2

Developed Regions 84.3 16.7 25.4 32.1 33.3 10.0 31.2
Developing Regions 103.3 83.3 19.1 120.1 24.4 32.9 27.4
Least Developed 104.3 13.1 12.5 12.3 16.0 3.5 28.5
Countries
Landlocked Developing 38.3 6.6 4.3 2.2 12.3 4.0 184.3
Countries
Small Island Developing 93.1 0.9 14.7 1.0 19.3 0.3 31.8
States
Africa 75.7 16.5 10.3 12.8 14.6 5.4 42.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 72.6 13.9 9.0 9.5 13.4 4.7 49.3
Eastern Africa 52.0 5.5 5.3 2.2 10.7 2.2 100.7
Middle Africa 99.2 2.2 11.7 1.9 13.2 0.2 12.8
Southern Africa 32.3 0.9 6.5 0.4 20.0 0.9 207.8
Western Africa 98.2 4.9 13.2 4.9 15.6 0.9 18.2
Northern Africa 77.9 3.1 14.3 3.3 19.4 1.2 35.0
Americas 55.6 13.2 14.6 14.6 25.6 10.9 74.5
Latin America and the 49.2 8.4 10.1 6.4 20.8 6.8 104.9
Caribbean
Caribbean 56.4 0.6 6.8 0.3 13.1 0.3 92.5
Central America 53.6 2.3 11.8 2.0 21.1 1.6 79.8
South America 46.8 5.6 9.8 4.1 21.4 4.9 118.2
Northern America 66.5 4.8 22.6 8.2 34.0 4.1 50.5
Asia 119.7 59.9 23.7 107.2 28.3 20.8 19.4
South-central Asia 51.5 25.8 7.8 15.1 16.4 16.8 111.2
Central Asia 11.9 0.9 2.3 0.2 18.2 1.1 685.9
Southern Asia 52.9 24.8 8.0 14.9 16.3 15.7 104.9
Eastern Asia 177.9 22.0 39.7 65.8 39.7 0.1 0.1
South-eastern Asia 208.1 8.6 37.5 24.3 37.5 0.0 0.0
Western Asia 31.3 3.5 7.7 2.1 22.7 4.0 194.6
Europe 78.9 9.9 22.2 16.6 29.8 5.7 34.4
Eastern Europe 68.1 3.9 16.3 4.8 24.1 2.3 48.0
Northern Europe 77.2 1.4 24.7 2.6 33.0 0.9 34.0
Southern Europe 110.2 2.0 31.3 4.8 34.0 0.4 8.5
Western Europe 71.3 2.6 22.7 4.4 33.6 2.1 47.9
Oceania 105.8 0.5 25.2 1.0 29.0 0.2 15.0
Australia and New 83.7 0.4 27.1 0.8 32.4 0.2 19.6
Zealand
Pacific islands 166.4 0.2 20.5 0.2 20.5 - -

Notes: Based on country results in Supplementary Table S13; numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. 1. Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing
Countries and Small Island Developing States follow the groupings adopted by the UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked
Development countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS); other country groupings follow the United Nations geoscheme (M49 standard). According to
the original 1996 categorization, developed regions include Europe, Northern America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, while other countries are in developing
regions. 2. The baseline per capita demand of each country is its expected consumption [defined in equation (2)] in 2017. In case a country’s expected consumption in
2017 cannot be estimated due to the lack of data on income or price, its actual consumption in 2017 is treated as the baseline. 3. Baseline total seafood demand is equal
to baseline per capita seafood demand multiplied by baseline population. 4. Higher seafood demand through raising seafood preference is primarily calculated from
dividing the baseline seafood consumption by SLI, with a few exceptions – see technical details in notes of Supplementary Table S13.

habits, they may have limited impacts on boosting seafood consumption
in countries with low seafood preferences. Most countries have below-
average seafood preferences, and these countries are expected to
contribute over 70 percent of world population growth in the mid and
long term. Such imbalanced population growth puts a downward pres­
sure on world per capita seafood consumption. Under this situation,
discrepancies in seafood preferences across countries, when inade­
quately accounted for, tend to inflate the estimated impacts of key
driving forces (e.g. population, income and price) on seafood demands.
The lack of substitutability among different seafoods poses another
challenge to seafood consumption, even for countries with relatively
high seafood preferences, such as Pacific island countries (PICs) whose
high overall seafood preference is concentrated on marine fishes. The
lack of substitutability of other seafoods for marine fishes in PICs’ diets
may hinder them from using other seafoods to compensate for declined
marine fish consumption due to supply shortage, and they may instead
shift their diets towards less nutritious animal products, such as frozen
chicken or canned meat (Charlton et al., 2016).
Besides income and population growth, reducing seafood prices
through more productive or efficient production is deemed another key
mechanism driving seafood consumption (Costello et al., 2020; Golden
et al., 2021). In places with low seafood preferences, however, seafood
producers may lack incentives to increase productivity or efficiency
because of limited market capacity or unclear market prospects. In
contrast, raising seafood preferences would directly increase seafood
demands and consequently enlarge market capacity, which would in
turn drive production expansion. This mechanism tends to be a more
conducive way to increase consumers’ demands for aquatic foods that
often need to charge premium prices to capture their health benefits or
ecosystem services. Therefore, supply-side efforts in sustainable seafood

10
J. Cai and P. Leung
production are not sufficient, and demand-side measures are needed to
raise seafood preferences in many countries in order to unlock the full
potential of aquatic foods’ contribution to global food security and
nutrition. Our estimations show that raising the seafood preferences of
less seafood liking countries to world average could generate over 40
million tonnes of additional seafood demand. However, experiences in a
number of countries (see the literature compiled in Supplementary
Table S15) indicate that raising seafood preferences faces various con­
straints and challenges.
As one of the most important motives for food choice (Steptoe et al.,
1995; Januszewska et al., 2011), sensory appeal is a paramount factor
affecting seafood consumption (Olsen, 2003; Olsen, 2004; Redkar and
Bose, 2004; Verbeke and Vackier, 2005; Hicks et al., 2008; Pieniak et al.,
2011; EUFOMA, 2017; Supartini et al., 2018; Chokenukul et al., 2019).
Dislike of certain characteristics of seafoods (e.g. taste, smell, appear­
ance, texture or bones) represents a major hindrance to seafood con­
sumption (Olsen et al., 2007; Erdogan et al., 2011; Birch et al., 2012),
especially for certain consumer groups, such as pregnant women (Kar­
iuki et al., 2016) and children (Myrland et al., 2000; Maulana et al.,
2019) who tend to benefit the most from seafood consumption. Other
potential driving forces (e.g. income, price or health benefits) may have
little impact on the seafood consumption of people with low sensory
appeal to seafoods. Such consumers tend to be more sensitive to coun­
teracting evidence, such as contaminant hazards or environmental
degradation (Juhl and Poulsen, 2000; Hicks et al., 2008), even though
there is ample evidence that the health benefits of seafoods tend to
outweigh their potential hazards (Hibbeln et al., 2007; FAO/WHO,
2011; Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006); and seafoods tend to be the most
eco-friendly sources of animal proteins (Hall et al., 2011; Gephart et al.,
2021; Koehn et al., 2022). In contrast, many seafood lovers keep eating
certain seafoods (e.g. raw fish or shellfish) in spite of food safety con­
cerns and advisories (Hicks et al., 2008). The preference of a family
member tends to affect the consumption of the entire household
(Trondsen et al., 2003; Hicks et al., 2008; Rahmawaty et al., 2013).
While moral obligation may motivate more seafood consumption in
families with children for health benefits (Olsen, 2004; Sayin et al.,
2010; Zhou et al., 2015; Alemu and Adesina, 2016), children’s aversion
against fish dishes could lower household seafood consumption (Myr­
land et al., 2000; Trondsen et al., 2003; Olsen, 2004; Verbeke and
Vackier, 2005; Maulana et al., 2019).
No seafoods are intrinsically inferior. Cultivated carps were expen­
sive delicacies in Europe during the Late Middle Ages (Fagan, 2006),
whereas lobsters used to be poor people’s food in New England (North
America) during the colonial era (Mariani, 1999). The numerous inter­
muscular bones of milkfish (Chaos chanos) have not prevented it from
becoming one of the most popular seafood commodities in South-eastern
Asia (FAO, 2009) and a major species in global aquaculture (FAO,
2019). Once a trash fish in swamps or a pest in paddy fields, crayfishes
have become one of the most valuable species groups in world aqua­
culture (FAO, 2020c), supporting a billion-dollar “little lobster” econ­
omy in China (Ge, 2017). Taste can be acquired or altered, and
undesirable traits of seafoods, such as off-flavour (e.g. muddy taste),
unpleasant texture, unappealing appearance, intramuscular bones and
inconvenience in cleaning and cooking (Badr et al., 2015), can be
overcome by innovative farming, processing, cooking or marketing
techniques (Redkar and Bose, 2004; Saguin, 2014; Alemu and Adesina,
2016; Maulana et al., 2019). However, a key lesson learnt is that
removing one hindrance without addressing other constraints would
offer little help to increase seafood consumption, and a holistic approach
is needed (Maulana et al., 2019).
Fostering or altering seafood dietary habits tends to be a compli­
cated, long-term process, even in countries with relatively high seafood
preferences, such as Indonesia (Maulana et al., 2019) and the
Philippines (Saguin, 2014). Raising seafood preferences entails joint
efforts of business, policy and scientific communities (Olsen, 2004) to (i)
consistently provide affordable, convenient and safe seafoods (Olsen,
11
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
2004; Hicks et al., 2008; Claret et al., 2012; Alemu and Adesina, 2016;
Bostic et al., 2017), (ii) effectively raise consumers’ awareness, confi­
dence and knowledge towards seafoods (Olsen, 2004; Hicks et al., 2008;
Maulana et al., 2019), including disabusing misperceptions of farmed
seafoods (Bacher, 2015; Froehlich et al., 2017; Belton et al., 2018), and
(iii) enhance consumers’ skills in selecting and handling seafoods (Birch
et al., 2012; Alemu and Adesina, 2016).
Public interventions, such as integrating seafoods in dietary guide­
lines (Thurstan and Roberts, 2014; Ahern et al., 2021) and school
feeding programmes (FAO & WFP, 2018; FAO, 2021b), can help
enhance seafood preferences. For countries with low seafood prefer­
ences, such as the nearly 70 least seafood liking countries whose seafood
preferences are less than half of world average (Supplementary
Table S12), market development should become an integral part of
policy and planning for the development of fisheries and aquaculture,
which usually center on production expansion and treat market devel­
opment as a domain of the private sector. The clustering of countries
with similar seafood preferences warrants regional interventions in
promoting seafood consumption (e.g. in landlocked developing coun­
tries). Case studies of outliers in a cluster (e.g. Egypt being the only
country in the Middle East with an above-average seafood preference)
can shed light on factors that drive seafood consumption, including
policy and other external interventions. For aquatic foods with high
supply-side potential yet low global acceptability and substitutability
with other seafoods, such as freshwater fishes, bivalve molluscs and
seaweeds, global programmes could be established to improve con­
sumers’ sensory appeal, perceptions and attitudes towards them and
foster dietary habits and cuisine cultures in global arena.
The comprehensive results of our study here (Supplementary
Tables S12–S14) can provide guidance to policy and planning at na­
tional, regional and global levels. The methodology of SLI and SSI is a
novel approach that can be applied to examine seafood preferences
within a country, which tend to have large variations across sub-
national districts (Naylor et al., 2021). However, the usefulness of the
methodology relies on the quality of the underlying data. Similar to
many other global studies (World Bank, 2013; Cai and Leung, 2017;
Costello et al., 2020; OECD/FAO, 2021; Golden et al., 2021; Naylor
et al., 2021), our study here used food balance sheets (FBS) data on
apparent seafood consumption, which are the best available data on
global seafood consumption. While potential imperfections of FBS data
(Desiere et al., 2018) do not invalidate our analyses and results pre­
sented in the main text, practitioners should check data accuracies to
verify specific results for individual countries prior to using them for
policy and planning. We echo other researchers’ calls for strengthening
data and information on seafood consumption at global, regional, na­
tional and sub-national levels, including harmonizing micro (e.g.
household survey) and macro (e.g. food balance sheets) data on seafood
consumption (Desiere et al., 2018; Naylor et al., 2021). Another crucial
data gap that should be filled urgently is the missing of global data on
seaweed consumption; with which the “seafood liking index” introduced
here could be upgraded into a more comprehensive “aquafood liking
index”.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was undertaken to provide technical support to the
development of information and knowledge products (factsheets, policy
briefs, country/case studies, project reports, etc.) under the World
Aquaculture Performance Indicators (WAPI), which is an initiative of
the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division (NFI) to facilitate evidence-
J. Cai and P. Leung Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641

based policymaking and sector management in aquaculture. The authors obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Qual. Prefer. 26,
259–266.
would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, Vera Agostini, Manuel
Cleland, L.G., James, M.J., Proudman, S.M., 2003. The role of fish oils in the treatment of
Barange, Arnljotur Bergsson, Ian Cowx, Nicolas Gutierrez, Nathanael rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 63, 845–853.
Hishamunda, Audun Lem, Felix Marttin, Stefania Vannuccini, and many Coletta, J.M., Bell, S.J., Roman, A.S., 2010. Omega-3 fatty acids and pregnancy. Rev.
other participants of the NFI seminar (2 February, 2022) where this Obstet. Gynecol. 3, 163–171. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046737.
Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S., et al., 2020. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588,
work was presented, for their useful comments, suggestions and support. 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. Dellenbarger, L.E., Dillard, J., Schupp, A.R., Zapata, H.O., Young, B.T., 1992.
Socioeconomic factors associated with at-home and away-from home catfish
consumption in the United States. Agribusiness 8, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Appendix A. Supplementary data 1520-6297(199201)8:1<35::AID-AGR2720080104>3.0.CO;2-V.
Desiere, D., Hung, Y., Verbeke, W., D’Haese, M., 2018. Assessing current and future meat
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. and fish consumption in Sub-Sahara Africa: learnings from FAO Food Balance Sheets
and LSMS household survey data. Global Food Secur. 16, 116–126.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100641. Erdogan, B., Mol, S., Coşansu, S., 2011. Factors influencing the consumption of seafood
in Istanbul, Turkey. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11, 631–639.
References EUFOMA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products, 2017.
EU Consumer Habits Regarding Fishery and Aquaculture Products. Annex 1:
Mapping and Analysis of Existing Studies on Consumer Habits. EUFOMA. January
Ahern, M., Thilsted, S.H., Oenema, S., 2021. The Role of Aquatic Foods in Sustainable
2017.
Healthy Diets, p. 64. Discussion paper. UN Nutrition. www.unnutrition.org/wp-con
Fagan, B., 2006. Fish on Friday: Feasting, Fasting, and Discovery of the New World. Basic
tent/uploads/FINAL-UN-Nutrition-Aquatic-foods-Paper_EN_.pdf.
Books, New York.
Alemu, A.E., Adesina, J., 2016. Exploring demand determinants and consumption
FAO & WFP, 2018. Home-grown School Feeding. Resource Framework. Technical
behavior in Ethiopia’s fish value chain. Afr. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 11, 83–101.
Document. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Asche, F., Bjørndal, T., Gordon, D.V., 2007. Studies in the demand structure for fish and
FAO, 2009. Chanos chanos. Text by Nelson, A.L. & Marygrace, C.Q. In: Crespi, V.,
seafood products. In: Weintraub, A., Romero, C., Bjørndal, T., Epstein, R. (Eds.),
New, M. (Eds.), Cultured aquatic species fact sheets. CD-ROM (multilingual). FAO,
Handbook of Operations Research in Natural Resources. Springer, Berlin,
Rome, Italy.
pp. 295–314.
FAO, 2019. Top 10 Species Groups in Global Aquaculture 2017. World Aquaculture
Bacher, K., 2015. Perceptions and Misconceptions of Aquaculture: A Global Overview.
Performance Indicators (WAPI) Factsheet. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2020a. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in
Badr, L.M., Salwa, O., Ahmed, Y., 2015. Perceived barriers to consumption of freshwater
Action. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en.
fish in Morocco. Br. Food J. 117, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2013-
FAO, 2020b. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Food Balance Sheets of Fish and Fishery
0312.
Products 1961-2017 (FishStatJ). FAO, Rome, Italy.
Barberger-Gateau, P., Letenneur, L., Deschamps, V., Pérès, K., Dartigues, J.F., Renaud, S.,
FAO, 2020c. Top 10 Species Groups in Global Aquaculture 2018. World Aquaculture
2002. Fish, meat, and risk of dementia: cohort study. BMJ 325, 932–933. https://
Performance Indicators (WAPI) Factsheet. FAO, Rome, Italy.
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.932.
FAO, 2021a. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global Production by Production Source
Batzios, C., Angelidis, P., Papapanagiotou, E., et al., 2004. Greek consumer’s image of the
1950-2019 (FishstatJ). FAO, Rome, Italy.
cultured mussel market. Aquacult. Int. 12, 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
FAO, 2021b. Fish in Home-Grown School Feeding: Angola, Honduras and Peru. FAO,
AQUI.0000036185.15659.68.
Rome.
Belton, B., Bush, S.R., Little, D.C., 2018. Not just for the wealthy: rethinking farmed fish
FAO/WHO, 2011. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and
consumption in the Global South. Global Food Secur. 16, 85–92.
Benefits of Fish Consumption. FAO, Rome, Italy. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Belton, B., Little, D.C., Zhang, W., et al., 2020. Farming fish in the sea will not nourish
Froehlich, H.E., Gentry, R.R., Rust, M.B., Grimm, D., Halpern, B.S., 2017. Public
the world. Nat. Commun. 11, 5804. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9.
perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., et al., 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – putting
the world. PLoS One 12, e0169281, 2017.
fish back on the menu. Food Secur. 7, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-
Ge, C., 2017. China’s Craving for Crayfish Creates US$2 Billion Business. South China
015-0427-z.
Morning Post, vol. 26. June, 2017.
Bennett, A., Basurto, X., Virdin, J., et al., 2021. Recognize fish as food in policy discourse
Gentry, R.R., Froehlich, H.E., Grimm, D., et al., 2017. Mapping the global potential for
and development funding. Ambio 50, 981–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
marine aquaculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.1038/
020-01451-4.
s41559-017-0257-9.
Bennett, A., Patil, P., Kleisner, K., Rader, D., Virdin, J., Basurto, X., 2018. Contribution of
Gephart, J.A., Henriksson, P.J.G., Parker, R.W.R., et al., 2021. Environmental
Fisheries to Food and Nutrition Security: Current Knowledge, Policy, and Research.
performance of blue foods. Nature 597, 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-
NI Report 18-02. Duke University, Durham, NC.
021-03889-2.
Birch, D., Lawley, M., Hamblin, D., 2012. Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption in
Golden, C.D., Allison, E.H., Cheung, W.W.L., Dey, M.M., Halpern, B.S., McCauley, D.J.,
Australia. J. Consum. Market. 29, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Smith, M., Vaitla, B., Zeller, D., Myers, S.S., 2016. Nutrition: fall in fish catch
07363761211193055.
threatens human health. Nature 534, 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/534317a.
Bostic, S.M., Sobal, J., Bisogni, C.A., Monclova, J.M., 2017. Types and characteristics of
Golden, C.D., Koehn, J.Z., Shepon, A., et al., 2021. Aquatic foods to nourish nations.
fish and seafood provisioning scripts used by rural midlife adults. J. Nutr. Educ.
Nature 598, 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1.
Behav. 49, 535–544.
Hall, S.J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M.J., Beveridge, M., O’Keefe, M., 2011. Blue Frontiers:
Buckley, J.D., Howe, P.R.C., 2010. Long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may
Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang,
be beneficial for reducing obesity – a review. Nutrients 2, 1212–1230. https://doi.
Malaysia.
org/10.3390/nu2121212.
Hibbeln, J.R., 1998. Fish consumption and major depression. Lancet 351, 1213. https://
Burger, J., Stephens Jr., W.L., Boring, C.S., Kuklinski, M., Gibbons, J.W., Gochfeld, M.,
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)79168-6. PMID: 9643729.
1999. Factors in exposure assessment: ethnic and socioeconomic differences in
Hibbeln, J.R., Davis, J.M., Steer, C., Emmett, P., Rogers, I., Williams, C., Golding, J.,
fishing and consumption of fish caught along the Savannah River. Risk Anal. 19,
2007. Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental
427–438. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007048628467. PMID: 10765415.
outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study. Lancet 369,
Cai, J., Leung, P.S., 2017. Short-term Projection of Global Fish Demand and Supply Gaps.
578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60277-3. PMID: 17307104.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 607. FAO, Rome.
Hicks, C.C., Cohen, P.J., Graham, N.A.J., et al., 2019. Harnessing global fisheries to
Cai, J., Lovatelli, A., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Cornish, L., Dabbadie, L., Desrochers, A.,
tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574, 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Diffey, S., Garrido Gamarro, E., Geehan, J., Hurtado, A., Lucente, D., Mair, G.,
s41586-019-1592-6.
Miao, W., Potin, P., Przybyla, C., Reantaso, M., Roubach, R., Tauati, M., Yuan, X.,
Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., McDermott, R., 2008. Consumer perceptions about seafood – an
2021. Seaweeds and Microalgae: an Overview for Unlocking Their Potential in
internet survey. J. Foodserv. 19, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
Global Aquaculture Development. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1229.
0159.2008.00107.x.
FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5670en.
HLPE, 2014. Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition. A
Can, M.F., Günlü, A., Can, H.Y., 2015. Fish consumption preferences and factors
Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
influencing it. Food Sci. Technol. 35, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-
Committee on World Food Security. FAO, Rome, Italy.
457X.6624.
Isaacs, M., 2016. The humble sardine (small pelagics): fish as food or fodder. Agric. Food
Charlton, K.E., Russell, J., Gorman, E., et al., 2016. Fish, food security and health in
Secur. 5, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0073-5.
Pacific Island countries and territories: a systematic literature review. BMC Publ.
Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., 2011. Food choice questionnaire revisited in
Health 16, 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2953-9.
four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite 57, 94–98. https://doi.org/
Chokenukul, P., Sukhabot, S., Rinthaisong, I., 2019. A causal relationship model of
10.1016/j.appet.2011.03.014.
purchasing behavior of consumers in Thailand regarding processed fish products.
Juhl, H.J., Poulsen, C.S., 2000. Antecedents and effects of consumer involvement in fish
Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 40, 366–372.
as a product group. Appetite 34, 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1006/
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincón, L., Hernández, M.D., Martínez, I.,
appe.2000.0318. PMID: 10888289.
Peleteiro, J., Grau, A., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C., 2012. Consumer preferences for sea
fish using conjoint analysis: exploratory study of the importance of country of origin,

12
J. Cai and P. Leung
Kalmijn, S., Launer, L.J., Ott, A., Witteman, J.C.M., Hofman, A., Breteler, M.M.B., 1997.
Dietary fat intake and the risk of incident dementia in the Rotterdam study. Ann.
Neurol. 42, 776–782.
Kapetsky, J.M., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Jenness, J., 2013. A Global Assessment of
Potential for Offshore Mariculture Development from a Spatial Perspective. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 549. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Kariuki, L., Lambert, C., Purwestri, R., Biesalski, H.K., 2016. Trends and consequences of
consumption of food and non-food items (pica) by pregnant women in Western
Kenya. NFS J. 5, 1–4.
Khan, A.Q., Aldosari, F., Hussain, S.M., 2018. Fish consumption behavior and fish
farming attitude in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 17,
195–199.
Kim, H., Rebholz, C.M., Hegde, S., et al., 2021. Plant-based diets, pescatarian diets and
COVID-19 severity: a population-based case–control study in six countries. BMJ
Nutr. Prev. Health 4, e000272. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000272.
Koehn, J.Z., Allison, E.H., Golden, C.D., Hilborn, R., 2022. The role of seafood in
sustainable diets. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 035003.
Leek, S., Maddock, S., Foxall, G., 2000. Situational determinants of fish consumption. Br.
Food J. 102, 18–39.
Lund, E., Kampman, E., 2008. Protective effects of fish consumption in relation to
gastrointestinal health. In: Improving Seafood Products for the Consumer.
Woodhead Publishing Limited, pp. 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1533/
9781845694586.2.116.
Manrique, J., Jensen, H.H., 2001. Spanish household demand for seafood. J. Agric. Econ.
52, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00936.x.
Mariani, J.F., 1999. The Encyclopedia of American Food & Drink. Lebhar-Friedman, New
York.
Maulana, A.E., Diniah, Setiawan, D.P., 2019. ‘It’s complicated’: tier-based adoption
barriers to in-home fish consumption of Indonesian urban consumers. AACL Bioflux
12, 1300–1315.
Merino, G., Barangé, M., Blanchard, J., Harle, J., Holmes, R., Allen, I., Allison, E.,
Badjeck, M., Dulvy, N., Holt, J., Jennings, S., Mullon, C., Rodwell, L., 2012. Can
marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human
population in a changing climate? Global Environ. Change 22, 795–806.
Moya, J., Itkin, C., Selevan, S.G., Rogers, J.W., Clickner, R.P., 2008. Estimates of fish
consumption rates for consumers of bought and self-caught fish in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, and North Dakota. Sci. Total Environ. 403, 89–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.023. PMID: 18579180.
Mozaffarian, D., Rimm, E.B., 2006. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health:
evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA 296, 1885–1899. https://doi.org/
10.1001/jama.296.15.1885. PMID: 17047219.
Myrland, Ø., Trondsen, T., Johnston, R.S., Lund, E., 2000. Determinants of seafood
consumption in Norway: lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to
consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293
(99)00034-8.
Nayga, R., Capps, O., 1995. Factors affecting the probability of consuming fish and
shellfish in the away from home and at home markets. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 27,
161–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800019702.
Naylor, R.L., Kishore, A., Sumaila, U.R., et al., 2021. Blue food demand across geographic
and temporal scales. Nat. Commun. 12, 5413. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-
25516-4.
OECD/FAO, 2021. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030. OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/19428846-en.
Olsen, S.O., 2003. Understanding the relationship between age and seafood
consumption: the mediating role of attitude, health involvement and convenience.
Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 199–209.
Olsen, S.O., 2004. Antecedents of seafood consumption behavior. J. Aquat. Food Prod.
Technol. 13, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J030v13n03_08.
Olsen, S.O., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., 2007. Exploring the relationship
between convenience and fish consumption: a cross-cultural study. Appetite 49,
84–91.
Perez-Cueto, F.J.A., Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., 2011. Attitudinal determinants of fish
consumption in Spain and Poland. Nutr. Hosp. 26, 1412–1419.
Pieniak, Z., Kołodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B., Verbeke, W., 2011. Consumption patterns
and labelling of fish and fishery products in Poland after the EU accession. Food
Control 22, 843–850.
Rahmawaty, S., Charlton, K., Lyons-Wall, P., Meyer, B.J., 2013. Factors that influence
consumption of fish and omega-3 enriched foods: a survey of Australian families
with young children. Nutr. Diet. 70, 286–293.
Ramel, A., Parra, D., Martinéz, J.A., Kiely, M., Thorsdottir, I., 2009. Effects of seafood
consumption and weight loss on fasting leptin and ghrelin concentrations in
overweight and obese European young adults. Eur. J. Nutr. 48, 107–114. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00394-008-0769-9.
Redkar, S.B., Bose, S., 2004. Modelling purchasing decisions of seafood products: a case
study of Mumbai, India. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1470-6431.2004.00337.x.
Saguin, K., 2014. Biographies of fish for the city: urban metabolism of Laguna Lake
aquaculture. Geoforum 54, 28–38.
Sánchez Durand, N., Gallo Seminario, M., 2009. Status of and trends in the use of small
pelagic fish species for reduction fisheries and for human consumption in Peru. In:
Hasan, M.R., Halwart, M. (Eds.), Fish as Feed Inputs for Aquaculture: Practices,
Sustainability and Implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper,
pp. 325–369. No. 518. Rome, FAO.
13
Global Food Security 33 (2022) 100641
Sayin, C., Emre, Y., Mencet, M.N., Karaman, S., Tascioglu, Y., 2010. Analysis of factors
affecting fish purchasing decisions of the household: antalya district case. J. Anim.
Vet. Adv. 9, 1689–1695.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., Wardle, J., 1995. Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25,
267–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
Supartini, A., Oishi, T., Yagi, N., 2018. Changes in fish consumption desire and its
factors: a comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore. Foods 7, 97.
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7070097.
Terry, P., Lichtenstein, P., Feychting, M., Ahlbom, A., Wolk, A., 2001. Fatty fish
consumption and risk of prostate cancer. Lancet 357, 1764–1766. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04889-3. PMID: 11403817.
Thurstan, R.H., Roberts, C.M., 2014. The past and future of fish consumption: can
supplies meet healthy eating recommendations? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 5–11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.09.016. Epub 2014 Sep 26. PMID: 25261177.
Tlusty, M.F., Tyedmers, P., Bailey, M., Ziegler, F., Henriksson, P.J., Béné, C., Bush, S.,
Newton, R., et al., 2019. Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative. Global
Environ. Change 59, 101991.
Toufique, K.A., Belton, B., 2014. Is Aquaculture Pro-poor? Empirical Evidence of Impacts
on Fish Consumption in Bangladesh, vol. 64. World Development, pp. 609–620.
Troell, M., Jonell, M., Crona, B., 2019. The Role of Seafood in Sustainable and Healthy
Diets. The EAT-Lancet Commission Report through a Blue Lens. The Beijer Institute,
Stockholm.
Trondsen, T., Scholderer, J., Lund, E., Eggen, A.E., 2003. Perceived barriers to
consumption of fish among Norwegian women. Appetite 41, 301–314. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00108-9. PMID: 14637329.
Tveterås, S., Asche, F., Bellemare, M.F., Smith, M.D., Guttormsen, A.G., Lem, A., Lien, K.,
Vannuccini, S., 2012. Fish is food – the FAO’s fish price index. PLoS One 7, e36731.
Uauy, R., Dangour, A.D., 2006. Nutrition in brain development and aging: role of
essential fatty acids. Nutr. Rev. 64, S24–S33. https://doi.org/10.1301/nr.2006.may.
s24-s33. PMID: 16770950.
United Nations, 2019. United Nations world population Prospects (2019 revision). http
s://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population.
Verbeke, W., Vackier, I., 2005. Individual determinants of fish consumption: application
of the theory of planned behavior. Appetite 44, 67–82.
Wallin, A., Orsini, N., Forouhi, N.G., Wolk, A., 2018. Fish consumption in relation to
myocardial infarction, stroke and mortality among women and men with type 2
diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Clin. Nutr. 37, 590–596. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clnu.2017.01.012. Epub 2017 Jan 28. PMID: 28185684; PMCID:
PMC5851676.
Wang, M.P., Thomas, G.N., Ho, S.Y., Lai, H.K., Mak, K.H., Lam, T.H., 2011. Fish
consumption and mortality in Hong Kong Chinese–the LIMOR study. Ann.
Epidemiol. 21, 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.010. Epub
2010 Dec 15. PMID: 21109449.
Willer, D.F., Aldridge, D.C., 2020. Sustainable bivalve farming can deliver food security
in the tropics. Nat. Food 1, 384–388. https://doi-org.fao.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/s430
16-020-0116-8.
Willer, D.F., Nicholls, R.J., Aldridge, D.C., 2021. Opportunities and challenges for
upscaled global bivalve seafood production. Nat. Food 2, 935–943. https://doi-org.
fao.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00423-5.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S.,
Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L.J.,
Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J.A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L.,
Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S.,
Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S.E., Srinath
Reddy, K., Narain, S., Nishtar, S., Murray, C.J.L., 2019. Food in the Anthropocene:
the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet
393, 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Epub 2019 Jan
16. Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):530. Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Jun
29;393(10191):2590. Erratum in: Lancet. 2020 Feb 1;395(10221):338. Erratum in:
Lancet. 2020 Oct 3;396(10256):e56. PMID: 30660336.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2020. Introductory Econometrics: a Modern Approach, seventh ed.
Cengage, Boston.
World Bank, 2013. Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture. World Bank
Group, Washington, DC. Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper
No. 3. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/458631468152376668/Fishto-
2030-prospects-for-fisheries-and-aquaculture.
Yang, Y., Kim, Y., Je, Y., 2018. Fish consumption and risk of depression: epidemiological
evidence from prospective studies. Asia Pac. Psychiatr. 10, e12335 https://doi.org/
10.1111/appy.12335. Epub 2018 Sep 20. PMID: 30238628.
Yen, S.T., Huang, C.L., 1996. Household demand for finfish: a generalized double-hurdle
model. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 21, 220–234.
York, R., Gossard, R.H., 2004. Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploring the
effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecol. Econ. 48, 293–302.
Zhang, J., Sasaki, S., Amano, K., Kesteloot, H., 1999. Fish consumption and mortality
from all causes, ischemic heart disease, and stroke: an ecological study. Prev. Med.
28, 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0472. PMID: 10329343.
Zhang, W., Belton, B., Edwards, P., et al., 2022. Aquaculture will continue to depend
more on land than sea. Nature 603, E2–E4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-
04331-3.
Zhou, L., Jin, S., Zhang, B., Cheng, G., Zeng, Q., Wang, D., 2015. Determinants of fish
consumption by household type in China. Br. Food J. 117, 1273–1288. https://doi.
org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2014-0182.