Pre- and post-pandemic seafood purchasing behavior in the U.S.

The global COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unprecedented economic shock in current times. Previous literature on consumer shopping behaviors during economic downturns is limited, and studies specific to seafood focused primarily on supply-side shocks. A national survey was conducted using an online platform from February 22 to April 6, 2021 that targeted 100 seafood consumers in each of 20 market areas across the U.S. Following data cleaning, 1908 usable responses were obtained. Results documented significant changes in consumer shopping behaviors. Significantly greater percentages of meals (generally and of seafood) were consumed at home and fewer away from home, as expected. Demographic differences were found in shopping behaviors by age, education, income, and gender, but not by ethnic group. Frequency of shopping decreased in 2020, but the expenditure per shopping trip did not, resulting in less overall spending for groceries as compared to 2019. Respondents were less likely to purchase seafood for takeout or for home delivery of prepared meals as compared to general meals because of concerns over quality, freshness, and safety of seafood. Half of respondents consumed approximately the same amount of seafood as before the pandemic; with 31% reporting decreased seafood consumption, and only 19% increased seafood consumption. Thus, study results provide evidence of a pandemic-imposed shift to consuming greater proportions of seafood meals at-home than away-from-home, and not an overall increase in seafood consumption. The choice of species eaten most often did not differ pre- and post-pandemic. Those respondents who reported decreased seafood consumption in 2020 did so primarily because of: 1) its expense, given reduced incomes from working fewer hours or being laid off; 2) unwillingness to prepare fish at home for the smell and "mess", or being uncomfortable preparing it; or 3) simply not preferring or liking seafood well enough to eat it more frequently. Those who reported increasing seafood consumption did so primarily because it was considered to be a healthy food choice. Additional work is needed to further examine consumption and shopping behaviors throughout the recovery in 2021 and 2022.

Farm-Level Cost Drivers of Salmonid Fish Health Inspections.

Regulatory costs on aquaculture farms have been shown to be of a magnitude that warrants additional analysis. The drivers of farm-level costs of fish health inspections were identified in this study from national survey data on U.S. salmonid farms. The greatest costs identified were related primarily to state fish health requirements for inspection and testing to certify that fish are free of specific pathogens prior to approval of necessary permits to sell and/or transport animals. Fish health inspection costs included laboratory testing, farm personnel time, veterinary fees, and shipping samples to laboratories, with laboratory testing and the value of farm personnel time being the most expensive components. Principal cost drivers were the number of tests and whether required sampling was farmwide or for each lot as identified by the collector. Farmers who primarily sold into recreational markets had greater fish health costs than farmers who primarily sold food fish because of the greater numbers of species and size-/age-classes of salmonids on their farms. Regulatory requirements to test all species and size-/age-classes on farms increased inspection costs by increasing the total number of tests, the total value of fish sacrificed, and shipping costs. Consequently, for farms with more than one species or more than one size-/age-class, annual farm-level testing was less costly than annual lot-based testing. Increased numbers of tests in a given year, although reported by only a few respondents, can increase costs dramatically and turn profitable farms unprofitable, even food fish farms. Smaller salmonid farms experienced disproportionately greater inspection cost burdens than did larger farms. The fish health inspection scenario of only one annual inspection of only the most susceptible species and size-/age-class showed a cost burden that did not generate economic distress, even on smaller salmonid farms. Other scenarios modeled (based on survey data) that included lot-based surveys of multiple species and size-/age-classes resulted in substantially greater fish health inspection costs that led to unprofitability for various farm sizes and business types. Study results suggest that implementing Comprehensive Aquaculture Health Program Standards might allow for risk- and pathogen-based reductions in the total number of inspections and fish sampled while maintaining equivalent or greater health status compared to current methods. American Fisheries Society-Fish Health Section Blue Book inspection methods are interpreted and applied inconsistently across states and generally yield lot- rather than farm-level health attestations because the history of testing results, risk assessment, and biosecurity practices are not typically taken into account. The cost effects of alternative fish health sampling and testing requirements should be considered in decisions and policy on fish health regulation.

Is there an economic incentive for farmer participation in a uniform health standard for aquaculture farms? An empirical case study.

The growth of aquaculture, both in terms of the volume of production and the diversity of species and production systems, has created challenges for effective animal health policies. This paper presents results of a case study of the costs to a sector of U.S. aquaculture in which producers raising fish that are sold and shipped live contend with widely differing requirements for testing and certification of aquatic animal health. These are compared to related costs under a proposed uniform standard. The uniform standard scenario assumes adoption by the majority of the industry of a non-regulatory surveillance and biosecurity program with veterinary oversight, as an alternative to the current complex regulatory environment based on administrative political districts rather than on risk of disease transmission. Farm-level cost data were obtained through a survey that captured 74% of the national volume of baitfish and sportfish production in the U.S. Reflecting recent joint industry/federal efforts to develop a non-regulatory national U.S. program to set and verify a uniform standard for aquatic animal health, seven scenarios were modelled to determine the potential benefits and costs of such a program. Results showed that the net benefit of a uniform standard, if adopted nationally, could result in an estimated annual savings of $6.6 million to the U.S. baitfish and sportfish industry, and an average savings of $81,175/farm (with a range of $17,851/farm to $265,968/farm). Such cost savings provide an incentive for producers to support the program. Moreover, development of a uniform standard has potential to move aquatic animal health policies from the current framework of political administrative units to one based on epidemiological approaches and sound science.