Health and seafood consumption patterns among women aged45–69 years. A Norwegian seafood consumption study

Knowledge and barriers relating to fish consumption in older Australians

“…Compared to 'no consumption' of fresh finfish, canned fish or seafood, these results suggest that, consumers of P1 serving per week of fresh fish, and consumers of any amount of canned fish or seafood, are more knowledgeable, have a higher education level, and have less negative attitudes towards fish. This supports some previous studies in which a higher education level (Pieniak, et al, 2010;Trondsen, et al, 2004;Verbeke & Vackier, 2005) and the belief that eating fish is healthy (Pieniak, et al, 2010) were significant predictors towards fish consumption. Some studies have identified that the motivation towards food choice (Grunert, 2005;Honkanen & Frewer, 2009) and fish intake (Verbeke & Vackier, 2005), is health.…”

“…In another cross-sectional survey in 45-69 year old women from Norway, total seafood consumption increased with larger household size, increasing age, higher education (Myrland, Trondsen, Johnston, & Lund, 2000), and consumption increased when women reported that diet was important for health (Trondsen, Braaten, Lund, & Eggen, 2004). A higher percentage of women also tended to consume fish on a weekly basis compared to men, and more of the older (>40 years) vs. younger (<25 years) respondents appeared to consume fish more frequently .…”

Relationship between the price of fish and its quality attributes: a study within a community at the University of São Paulo, Brazil

“…However, eating habits encompass a variety of determinants including socio-economic factors, beliefs, knowledge, and local availability (TRONDSEN et al, 2003(TRONDSEN et al, , 2004.…”

“…It is important to consider that in studies on perception of fish consumption in regions where fish has a high price, this attribute becomes a limiting factor for consumption (MYRLAND et al, 2000;TRONDSEN et al, 2004). Kubitza (2002) emphasizes that other parameters are also considered by the consumer in the perception of fish quality, namely the general appearance of the product (color, perception of cleanliness, and hygiene), packaging, information supplied by the manufacturer (nutritional value, product origin, ingredients, and other details that characterize the product and elucidate the main questions of the potential buyer), and records of official inspection services among other things.…”

Determination of households fish consumption structure and purchase behaviors in urban areas of Van

“…Denize kıyısı olan bölgelerde tüketim dünya ortalamasından yüksek iken, (Giresun ve Trabzon 28.08 kg/yıl (Aydın ve Karadurmuş, 2012), İzmir ili ve kıyaları 26.3 kg/yıl (Elbek vd., 1997), Mersin 25.8 kg/yıl (Şen, 2011), Hatay 21.5 kg/yıl (Demirtaş vd., 2014), iç, doğu ve güneydoğu bölgelerinde tüketim dünya ortalamasının altındadır (Tokat 13 kg/yıl (Erdal ve Esengün, 2008), Isparta 12.4 kg/yıl (Hatırlı vd., 2004), Erzurum 6.5 kg/yıl (Uzundumlu vd., 2013), Kahramanmaraş 6 kg/yıl (Beyazbayrak, 2014), Amasya 5.06 kg/yıl (Nalinci, 2013), Ankara 3.4 kg/yıldır (Gül Yavuz vd., 2015). Yaşanılan bölgenin deniz kıyısında olması, su ürünleri tüketimini arttıran en önemli faktörlerden biridir (Myrland et al, 2000;Trondsen et al, 2004;Verbeke ve Vackier, 2005). Elde edilen sonuçlar literatürü desteklemektedir.…”