Updating the NOAA Fisheries Per Capita Consumption Model

Jeffrey R. Pulver, Alan Lowther, and Melissa A. Yencho

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-210

November 2020

Updating the NOAA Fisheries Per Capita Consumption Model

Jeffrey R. Pulver, Alan Lowther, and Melissa A. Yencho

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-210

November 2020

U.S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Neil A. Jacobs, Ph.D., Acting NOAA Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Recommended citation:

Pulver, Jeffrey R., Alan Lowther, and Melissa A. Yencho. 2020. Updating the NOAA Fisheries 

Per Capita Consumption Model. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-210, 24 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Fisheries Statistics Division

Office of Science and Technology

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway

SSMC 3, Room 12441

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos
iii

Contents 

Tables and Figures ....................................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... v

Background ...................................................................................................................................................1

Model Updates..............................................................................................................................................6

Historical Comparison.................................................................................................................................13

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................17

References ..................................................................................................................................................17

Supplemental Information..........................................................................................................................19
iv

Tables and Figures 

Table 1. The annual per capita consumption of seafood products per person (lb) and percent of 

domestically consumed seafood from imports from 2000 through 2018 (NMFS, 2020).............................2

Table 2. Major U.S. domestic species groups landed in 2018 ranked by volume (NMFS, 2020).................7

Figure 1. Data sources used in the PCC model.............................................................................................3

Figure 2. A Sankey diagram mapping the flows in the 2018 historic PCC model. Note: the height of the 

bar is proportional to the contribution to the model...................................................................................6

Figure 3. Domestic landings of pollock beginning in 1986 compared to edible pollock produced annually.

......................................................................................................................................................................8

Figure 4. The amount of edible domestic pollock products included in the historical PCC model based on 

Annual Survey of Seafood Processors data. .................................................................................................9

Figure 5. The annual weighted mean of fillet, steak, and block conversions removed from the updated 

PCC model...................................................................................................................................................11

Figure 6. The annual weighted mean of all domestic fresh and frozen product conversions...................12

Figure 7. A comparison of edible domestic supply between the historical and updated model. .............13

Figure 8. A comparison of per capita consumption of edible seafood between the historical and updated 

model. .........................................................................................................................................................14

Figure 9. A comparison of percent of consumption of imported edible seafood between the historical 

and updated model.....................................................................................................................................14

Figure 10. A Sankey diagram mapping the flows in the 2018 updated PCC model. Note: the height of 

the bar is proportional to the contribution to the model. .........................................................................15
v

Abstract 

As part of the annual process of reporting fisheries data for Fisheries of the United States, the NOAA 

Fisheries Office of Science and Technology calculates Per Capita Consumption (PCC) of seafood products. 

The PCC model, and assumptions therein, have remained relatively unchanged for the last 30 years, thus 

historical values are comparable over time. However, a recent review of the PCC model determined 

that revisions were necessary to better estimate current seafood consumption. The PCC model was 

revised to account for improved processing efficiency of edible seafood produced domestically in the 

Alaska pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) fishery, update conversions of edible seafood products into 

round weight (i.e. live weight) equivalents, and correct small errors discovered during the review 

process. The changes to the historic PCC model result in higher estimates of edible domestic seafood 

available for consumption and a resulting increase in the estimate of overall seafood consumption per 

person. The model changes also result in a reduction in the calculated percent of consumption 

attributable to imported seafood. The updates to the PCC model allow for a more accurate assessment 

of the seafood industry and the United States dependence on imports.
vi
1

Background 

Each year the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology calculates Per Capita Consumption (PCC)

of seafood products as part of the process of reporting fisheries data for Fisheries of the United States 

(FUS) (NMFS, 2020; Table 1). The FUS report includes an estimate of the total apparent consumption of 

fish and shellfish. Here, apparent consumption, defined as production plus imports minus exports, 

serves as a proxy for actual consumption (FAO, 2020). In addition to the overall PCC value, FUS reports 

consumption rates of seafood broken down by product form (i.e., canned, cured, fresh, or frozen). Some 

product forms and species also allow for estimates that are more detailed. Estimates of canned seafood 

consumption are reported for certain species groups (tuna, salmon, sardines, shellfish) and consumption 

is also broken down by fillets and steaks, sticks, portions, and all preparations of shrimp.

The PCC calculation uses many types of fisheries-dependent data including information on commercial

landings, aquaculture production, seafood processing, and international trade. The value generated by 

the PCC calculation serves as an indicator of seafood industry health and has many uses both internal 

and external to NOAA Fisheries. The PCC results are used by NOAA scientists, seafood industry 

professionals, academics, economists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the general public, and 

other government agencies. These groups use the PCC results for many purposes, including performing 

additional analysis or producing their own annual products. Due to the scope of PCC uses, the results of 

the PCC modeling effort generate a tremendous amount of interest from the seafood industry, the 

media, and seafood consumers, as well as within NOAA.

The calculation uses a “disappearance model” based on the concept of seafood supply, where seafood 

“losses” are subtracted from seafood “gains”. In the case of the PCC model, imported seafood and 

fishery landings increase the available seafood supply (i.e. “gains”) while exports and industrial uses (e.g. 

fish reduced to meal) decrease the supply (i.e. “losses”). All components of the total U.S. seafood 

supply, including trade products, are converted from round or product weight to a common standard of 

edible seafood meat weight for the purposes of the calculation. For example, the edible weight of 

salmon fillets is derived by converting the round, or live, weight of domestically harvested salmon to 

edible fillet weight based on the recovery rate of standard salmon filleting techniques. For another 

example, products in trade, such as breaded shrimp imported from Asia, are converted to an estimated 

edible weight that does not include the breading. The general methodology is described in FUS, but the 

detailed data used in the calculation are not released to the public due to issues of data confidentiality.

The basic PCC equation using the common weight standard of edible meat weight is:

Equation 1: PPPPPP CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC = DDDDDDDDDDDDiiii PPPP PPPP PP ff CC CC +II −EEEE

UU.SS.CC CC CC CC PP PP PP

where the domestic production for consumption is the remaining total edible portion of domestic catch 

after industrial uses, such as reduction to meal and oil and pet food use, are subtracted.
2

Table 1. The annual per capita consumption of seafood products per person (lb) and percent of 

domestically consumed seafood from imports from 2000 through 2018 (NMFS, 2020).

Year Per Capita Consumption Percent Consumed from 

Imported Seafood

2000 15.0 68%

2001 14.6 76%

2002 15.1 79%

2003 16.3 80%

2004 16.0 81%

2005 15.9 83%

2006 16.6 84%

2007 16.5 83%

2008 16.0 83%

2009 16.0 82%

2010 15.8 86%

2011 15.0 91%

2012 14.3 94%

2013 14.4 94%

2014 14.5 94%

2015 15.5 90%

2016 14.9 95%

2017 16.0 91%

2018 16.1 94%

The PCC model, and the assumptions behind it, have remained relatively unchanged for the last 30 

years, so historical values can be considered comparable over time. However, the PCC calculations are 

highly dependent on the underlying factors used to convert different species and product forms to the 

edible weight standard. Generally, the conversion factors used have not been updated, even as fisheries 

and seafood processors have updated their techniques, improved technology, and operated under new 

management regulations. 
3

Figure 1. Data sources used in the PCC model. 

Data for the PCC calculations come from several sources (Figure 1). Domestic landings data and 

disposition information come from regional NOAA Fisheries offices and state and regional Fisheries 

Information Network (FIN) partners. Foreign trade data (i.e., imports, exports, and re-exports) and 

population estimates come from the United States Census Bureau. Data regarding the quantity and 

type of processed seafood products originate mainly from the NOAA Fisheries Annual Survey of Seafood 

Processors. The survey covers domestic processing operations in the continental United States, Hawaiʻi, 

and U.S. territories and collects data on monthly employment, species utilized, product type (i.e. fresh, 

frozen, canned, cured, industrial), final product form, and volume and value of each reported product. 

One limitation of the PCC model is that the Survey of Seafood Processors is voluntary in most regions of 

the U.S. Therefore, the survey data used in the PCC model may not be a comprehensive reflection of 

the entire industry. Another potential issue with using processing data from the Survey of Seafood 

Processors is that data may include processing production using imported seafood, as some facilities 

process imported products, and that some products undergo multiple steps of processing at multiple 

plants (i.e. secondary processing). For example, one processing plant may fillet a fish and another 

processor could then smoke the fillet, which could lead to double counting of that product. 

It is important to note that Alaska seafood processing data and salmon canning data are provided by the 

state of Alaska government and are compiled from the mandatory Commercial Operators Annual 

Reports (COAR), which is a census of primary processors and their production. The COAR data does not 

have many of the issues discussed in the previous paragraph. The availability of the more 
4

comprehensive COAR data is especially important due to the primacy of Alaska landings and, in 

particular, Alaska pollock landings in the PCC model, as will be discussed extensively further in this 

document.

Finally, some aquaculture data are provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

other data sources, including states and associations of producers. Over time, there have been updates 

to the aquaculture data incorporated into the PCC calculation. Beginning in 1980, only farmed catfish, 

as reported by the USDA, were included in the PCC model. In 1991, farmed trout, again as reported by 

USDA, were added to the model. Farmed salmon, tilapia, and hybrid striped bass were included starting 

in 1996. Additional data were added in the 2000s, including domestically cultured shrimp and crawfish

in 2007 and other cultured shellfish (mussels, oysters, and clams) in 2011. Another historical data 

change of note relates to the incorporation of starting seafood inventories. In 2003, beginning and end 

of year seafood inventories were no longer included in the model because NOAA Fisheries ended the 

collection of cold storage data. These minor changes to the model had only negligible impacts on the 

results of the PCC calculation.

Per capita consumption of fresh and frozen seafood products and of canned seafood products are 

calculated separately in the PCC model, due to differences in how the domestic production data are 

organized. Each calculation is based on the disappearance model described previously (i.e. the sum of 

domestic production and imports minus the exports, and divided by the population). The calculation for 

domestic fresh and frozen product consumption is the most complicated aspect of the PCC model. The 

estimation process starts with an estimate for the round weight equivalent of domestic landings of fish 

and shellfish. This estimate is produced as part of the annual Fisheries of the United States reporting. 

Then data from the Survey of Seafood Processors on the domestic product of fillets, blocks, steaks, and 

shellfish products is converted from product weight to an estimated round weight equivalent. This 

amount is then subtracted from the round weight equivalent of domestic landings. Next, fish and 

shellfish product that went into canned, cured, and surimi production are subtracted from the available 

total. Finally, a general conversion to edible seafood weight is applied to the remainder of the domestic 

landings. 

EEEE 2: RR RR oo DD DD LL LL ( ww h )

= DD DD LL LL ( ww h ) − FF FFFF , SS SS & BB ( ww h )

− SS ( ww h ) − PPPP PP PP SSh h ( ww h )

The model was set up this way because the Survey of Seafood Processors is optional in most of the 

country and it was necessary to estimate the portion of domestic production not accounted for in the 

survey. But, because the Alaska processing data is based on a complete census, those data provide the

actual volume of pollock processed products, so that pollock can be considered separately. This is the 

key fact that drives the improvements to be discussed later in this paper.

Canned item calculations are more straightforward due to the availability of data and known conversion 

factors. Canned product data are already converted to edible weight when received or known 
5

conversions exist that make conversion straightforward. Cured consumption is the most difficult to 

calculate, primarily due to a lack of data. The Survey of Seafood Processors provides some data on 

cured production but there are still gaps and limitations. 

The purpose of this research was to review the PCC model, examine the parameters that have the 

greatest impact, and use the results to improve the PCC model and generate more accurate estimates of 

U.S. per capita consumption of seafood. The data and estimates that we aim to improve are important 

indicators of the state of the seafood industry and our dependence on imported seafood. 

Improvements in these estimates will allow NOAA Fisheries to better target their strategies and policies 

in areas related to seafood trade and availability. 
6

Model Updates 

The first step taken in reviewing the historical PCC model was to create a Sankey diagram (Kennedy and 

Sankey, 1898) mapping the flows and amounts of edible seafood from the different inputs in the model. 

The Sankey diagram can also show the relative impact of each flow, and therefore, can be used to 

identify areas of particular importance and influence over the model. The resultant Sankey diagram 

from the 2018 historical model revealed only a very small portion of domestic consumption originating 

from the domestic fresh and frozen seafood supply, with the vast majority of domestic production being 

exported (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. A Sankey diagram mapping the flows in the 2018 historic PCC model. Note: the height of the bar is

proportional to the contribution to the model. 

Although it is known that the U.S. imports and exports a large amount of seafood (NMFS, 2020), the very 

small percentage of the domestic fresh and frozen supply that is domestically consumed according to 

the model was thought to be an unrealistic underestimate. Thus, the initial focus was placed on 

exploring the domestic fresh and frozen section of the PCC model. In particular, the main area of 

interest in the domestic fresh and frozen section of the model was Alaska pollock (Gadus 

chalcogrammus) [note that this species is also often referred to as “walleye pollock.” For the purposes 

of this paper, “pollock” will be used to refer to this species.], as this species constitutes the largest 

percentage of domestic landings. For example, in 2018, pollock landings were 3.4 billion pounds and 

represented 35.8% of total U.S. seafood landings (Table 2). After excluding menhaden, which are not 

typically consumed but are used for industrial products and bait, the percentage of domestic catch 

made up of pollock increases to 43.1%. This large percentage makes it clear that the correct treatment 

of pollock in the model is critical.
7

Table 2. Major U.S. domestic species groups landed in 2018 ranked by volume (NMFS, 2020).

Rank Species Thousand 

Pounds

1 Alaska pollock 3,363,901

2 Menhaden 1,581,578

3 Hakes (mostly Pacific whiting) 703,508

4 Salmon 575,972

5 Flatfish 546,999

6 Cods (mostly Pacific cod) 515,554

7 Shrimp 289,178

8 Crabs 289,021

9 Rockfishes 202,419

10 Squid 161,628

Total All Species 9,385,368

The Pollock Fishery

A key assumption in the PCC model is that surimi from Alaska pollock is a primary product with no other 

edible portions associated with it. In reality, some of the surimi produced is a secondary, or ancillary,

product, making use of scraps remaining after fillets and other products have been processed. For 

example, in 2018, 20% of the total surimi produced was from secondary production according to the 

Alaska COAR data. In this paper, the term surimi refers to raw frozen blocks and not to surimi seafood 

or surimi analog. 

In the pollock fishery, the same fish can be processed into multiple edible products such as surimi, fillets, 

blocks, and roe (Strong and Criddle, 2013). The historic PCC model revealed that, when edible 

processed pollock products were converted to their whole or round weight equivalents, the sum of the 

round weights from those products was substantially greater than the volume actually landed in the 

fishery. For example, in 2018, the round weight equivalent when converting edible products from the 

processed products survey was calculated to be almost five billion pounds while the fishery only landed 

3.3 billion pounds. The inflated round weight equivalent of pollock results in too much pollock being 

subtracted from domestic landings because the PCC model calculates consumption based on the 

disappearance of domestic landings from converted edible product. The overestimation causes the 

model to underestimate consumption of domestic edible seafood because an inaccurately high volume 

of pollock is being subtracted from the domestic landings. As was noted earlier, historically this indirect 

method was employed due to the voluntary nature of the national Survey of Seafood Processors. But 

the availability of a different data source, the Commercial Operators Annual Reports (COAR) from the 

state of Alaska allows for directly calculating edible products coming from the pollock processing 

industry.

Further investigation revealed policy and technological changes that affect some of the base 

assumptions of the PCC model. In 1979, foreign fishing fleets landed 99% of the pollock in the U.S., but 

a number of policies shifted nearly the entire catch to the domestic fleet by the end of the 1980s (Strong 
8

and Criddle, 2013). Domestic pollock landings have been fairly consistent since the early 1990s, with the 

exception of a reduction in quotas in 2009 and 2010 due to reduced biomasses (Figure 3). However, an 

increase in processing efficiency has occurred as evidenced by a substantial increase in fillet, steak, and 

block production in the early 2000s, while maintaining relatively consistent surimi and other edible 

seafood production (Figure 4). In the historic model, the effect of increases in processing efficiency are 

not accounted for, causing the model to assume more fish are required to produce a certain amount of 

edible meat weight. The result is a decrease in the consumption estimate as less product is available per 

person. The impact from pollock is most pronounced due to the huge volume of this catch and the 

industry changes detailed, but all conversion factors used also have the ability to affect the model.

Figure 3. Domestic landings of pollock beginning in 1986 compared to edible pollock produced annually. 
9

Figure 4. The amount of edible domestic pollock products included in the historical PCC model based on Annual 

Survey of Seafood Processors data. 

Consultations with industry and NOAA Fisheries experts revealed three main factors that explain how 

the pollock fishery became more efficient at producing edible seafood. First, the American Fisheries Act 

(AFA, 1998) provided the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock fleet the opportunity to conduct their 

fishery in a more rational manner while protecting non-AFA participants in other fisheries. The AFA 

established sector allocations in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock fishery, determined eligible 

vessels and processors, allowed the formation of cooperatives, set limits on the participation of AFA 

vessels in other fisheries, and imposed special catch weighing and monitoring requirements on AFA 

vessels. The AFA allowed for more efficient processing of pollock because the race to fish had been 

substantially diminished. 

Second, technological improvements in the mechanical cutting of pollock have substantially increased 

yield (Park, 2014). Vessels and processors could now target larger pollock to produce fillets, which have 

a higher ex-vessel price compared to surimi. The third change was the development of decanter 

technology that allowed substantially more surimi to be produced from secondary products (Park, 

2014). The historical PCC model treated surimi as a primary product, even though a significant portion 

of surimi can be a secondary product. The assumption of the historical PCC model was that pollock 

primarily processed for surimi or fillets had no other edible portion associated with it, leading to an 

overestimation of the round weight equivalent of pollock in the model. In reality, pollock byproducts 

were going into surimi production after primary processing. Preliminary calculations by NOAA Fisheries 

indicated that the value for surimi, and the associated conversion factor, have a significant effect on the 

PCC model due to the large scale of surimi production.
10

The combination of these factors led to a substantial increase in the efficiency of edible products being 

produced from the pollock fishery beginning in the late 1990s. Pollock processors have increased their 

overall recovery rates and also increased the portion of the fish devoted to high value flesh products.

For example, the seafood product recovery rates of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock have 

increased from 25% of retained catch in 1998 to over 40% of retained catch in 2010 (Strong and Criddle, 

2013). The majority of processors have the ability to process everything except eyes. Previously, any 

part of the fish not used for fillets or surimi was turned into fishmeal and oil, or ground up and 

discharged as effluent. Strong and Criddle (2013) also report that pollock processors increased flesh 

(fillet and surimi) recovery rates from 17% of retained catch in 1998 to over 26% of retained catch by 

2010, an increase of 56%. In 2018, based on COAR data, the flesh (fillet and surimi) recovery rate had 

increased to over 28% of the landings volume. 

Prior to the utilization of flow scales in the pollock fishery in the 1990s, catch from pollock was 

estimated using product recovery rates and the production of surimi from the at-sea processing vessels. 

A consistent conversion factor was applied to expand the surimi production into an estimate of the 

actual catch. Advances in processing efficiency meant that this constant conversion factor was 

becoming less and less accurate. The use of flow scales allowed for the catch to be measured directly,

reducing this inefficiency and inaccuracy in the measurement of the pollock catch. However, the 

historical PCC model continued to overestimate the amount of raw pollock catch contributing to the 

surimi production and thus, resulting in less pollock available for domestic consumption. Here, the 

historical PCC model was updated to account for the improvements in pollock processing efficiency by 

separating pollock from the rest of the domestic fresh and frozen edible supply. The updated model 

directly takes edible pollock products as edible seafood from the data provided by the Alaska COAR

census. Because all edible pollock products are assumed to be accounted for, pollock landings are 

removed from the disappearance portion of the domestic supply calculation and no conversions to 

round weight are needed for edible pollock products. The update in how domestic pollock is input 

allows the model to automatically account for any future changes in processing efficiency that could 

occur in the fishery. Note that because pollock is primarily landed in Alaska and we have good data on 

product forms from the state, we can treat pollock separately. For most species the available data are 

not robust enough for similar treatment.

Conversion Factors

In addition to the treatment of pollock, other aspects of the calculation of edible domestic fresh and 

frozen seafood consumption were examined. As detailed previously, edible seafood products obtained 

from the Survey of Seafood Processors is a component of the model. However, most of the edible 

products need to be converted into a round weight equivalent using conversion factors (Table S.3). The 

round weight equivalents are then subtracted from domestic landings. Because the Survey of Seafood 

Processors is not a census, a general value is applied to convert the remainder of domestic landings into

edible weight. The large number (76) of conversion factors for fillets, steaks, and blocks to round weight

were first examined. Analyses determined that when the three largest edible product categories of 

Pacific cod, Pacific hake, and salmon fillets were removed, one value could be applied to the remaining

edible fillets, steaks, and blocks. This reduces model complexity and results in a more parsimonious 
11

model less prone to annual shifts in potential biases resulting from non-reporting by companies. The 

annual weighted mean (product weight) of the conversions was retrospectively examined and based on 

the best fit, a value of 0.345 was estimated for use in the updated model, resulting in a more 

parsimonious model (Figure 5). The updated value of 0.345 is not capturing changes in production 

efficiency over time as much as it is capturing shifts towards or away from products with higher or lower 

product recovery rate.

Figure 5. The annual weighted mean of fillet, steak, and block conversions removed from the updated PCC model.

In addition, the conversion to edible weight applied to the remainder of domestic landings was also 

examined. The remainder of domestic landings is calculated as

DD DD LL LL (RR RR WW . ) − FF FFFF , SS SS ,& BB (CCCCCCCC CC RR RR WW . ) −

SS (CCCCCCCC CC RR RR WW . ) − PPPP PP PP SSh h (CCCCCCCC CC RR RR WW . )

A value of 0.45 is used in the historical model for converting the remainder of domestic landings into 

edible meat weight. The previously described methodology was used, retrospectively examining the 

annual weighted mean (product weight) of all conversions for domestic fresh and frozen products in the 

model. The same conversion currently used (0.45) was determined to be accurate, assuming products in 

the Survey of Seafood Processors are representative of domestic landings not included in the survey 

(Figure 6).

Other small changes and updates

Some small changes were made in the canning section for a more parsimonious model. Some canned 

items entered twice in the model as both an addition and removal were simplified into one entry by

altering certain conversion factors. A small error was also corrected by changing an input from round 

weight to edible weight when calculating the edible value of products labeled as “canned other.”

Because beginning- and end-of-year inventories were removed from the PCC model in 2004, the 
12

updated PCC model excluded those inputs due to the continued lack of data. Small differences when 

comparing the models prior to 2004 may be due to the removal of the beginning and end of year 

inventories in the calculations. Also, some small differences were present from the PCC values currently 

published in FUS 2018 (NMFS, 2020) and those in the updated model that could not be explained, due to 

the lack of historic model documentation.

Figure 6. The annual weighted mean of all domestic fresh and frozen product conversions.
13

Historical Comparison 

The updated PCC model results in an increase in edible domestic supply beginning in the mid-1990s,

primarily as a result of improved processing efficiency of pollock (Figure 7) and the separate treatment 

of pollock in the model. The difference in edible domestic supply between the models steadily 

increased until 2011 and has been fairly consistent since then, likely due to a stabilization in the

processing efficiency of pollock.

Figure 7. A comparison of edible domestic supply between the historical and updated model.

The updated PCC model results in a small increase in the per capita consumption of edible seafood 

compared to the historical model beginning in 1994, but the difference increases in 1999 coinciding with 

the introduction of the AFA (Figure 8; Table S.1). The updated model demonstrates a steady increase in 

the per capita consumption of edible seafood beginning in the late 1990s compared to the historic 

model, which has had a fairly flat trend on the same time series. In 2018, the updated PCC model 

predicts 18.9 lbs per person of edible seafood consumed in the United States. The 2018 updated PCC 

model consumption is 2.8 lbs per person increase compared to the historical model. The updated PCC 

model also estimates a lower percentage of seafood consumption that comes from imports, compared 

to the historical model (Figure 9; Table S.2). In 2018, the percent of seafood consumed that comes from 

imports declined from 94% in the historic model to 80% in the updated PCC model. 
14

Figure 8. A comparison of per capita consumption of edible seafood between the historical and updated model.

Figure 9. A comparison of percent of consumption of imported edible seafood between the historical and updated 

model.
15

Figure 10. A Sankey diagram mapping the flows in the 2018 updated PCC model. Note: the height of the bar is 

proportional to the contribution to the model.

The Sankey diagram for the updated model in 2018 revealed a larger portion of the domestic fresh and 

frozen seafood supply being consumed domestically (Figure 10; Table S.4). The updated model’s Sankey 

diagram for 2018 is thought to be a more accurate representation of the seafood supply compared to 

the historical model. A number of sensitivity analyses isolating the differences from the changes 

revealed that updating pollock in the model is responsible for over 80% of the increased consumption 

annually since 2000 and over 90% in recent years (Figures S.1-S.3).

Additional concerns were identified during the PCC model review process, including unreported and 

small-scale fisheries landings, recreational landings, imports of foreign products derived from domestic 

harvest, seafood waste, and potentially unreliable conversion factors for imported and exported 

products. These concerns could not be incorporated into this update of the model due to the lack of 

reliable or accurate data, but they could provide the starting point for developing further refinements 

and improvements. The updated model does not include estimates of unreported domestic landings 

and some small-scale fisheries, which would further increase the domestic supply and reduce the 

percent of imported seafood consumed. In addition, the model could incorporate those domestic 

recreational landings that would also contribute to the edible domestic supply. For example, 

approximately 0.3 lb per person of domestic consumption could be added to the consumption estimate 

by assuming a generic conversion value of 0.25 to edible weight for the 2018 recreational harvest, and 

assuming that all harvest was consumed (NMFS, 2020). Future work could explore treating other 

species similarly to the improvements made for pollock, such as Pacific cod, which is also reported 

through the COAR. A mandatory national seafood processing survey would greatly simplify the PCC 

model because all edible products could be directly accounted for.

The updated PCC model does not address consumption of imports that are of domestic origin. Seafood 

is one of the most highly traded commodities on the global market. From 1994 to 2012, the quantity of 

seafood traded globally increased by 58% and the value of those products increased by 85% (Gephart 

and Pace, 2015). Because of the lack of the necessary trade data, the updated PCC model cannot 

determine how much domestically harvested seafood is exported to be processed overseas and then is
16

imported back into the United States for consumption as part of the global seafood chain. In addition, 

inaccurate conversion factors can cause the model to result in exporting more seafood and importing 

more foreign fish than actually occurred. Recent analyses by Gephart et al. (2019) using a range of 

possible values for imported seafood of domestic origin and different weight conversion factors

indicated a substantially lower reliance on imported seafood than the historic PCC model predicted. 

Gephart et al. (2019) estimated as much as 38% of imported seafood consumed in the United States is 

of domestic origin. It is important to note that a calculation of the foreign-caught seafood contribution

to consumption is not the same as a calculation of the imported seafood contribution to consumption. 

That is, imports of domestically caught, but foreign-processed seafood are still considered imports. 

Unfortunately, the current foreign trade data do not allow for precise estimates of the domestic seafood 

processed overseas that returns to the United States as an imported product. 

The issue may be further compounded by imported illegal and unreported fish and seafood products.

Some authors (Pramod, 2014) estimate as much as 20% and 32% of wild-caught imports are illegal or 

unreported seafood, primarily due to the murky supply chains and lack of reliable traceability controls. 

NOAA Fisheries Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) has established reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for imports of certain seafood products to combat illegal, unreported and 

unregulated (IUU) catch and mis-identified seafood from entering U.S. commerce. SIMP is a risk-based 

traceability program requiring the importer of record to provide and report key data, from the point of 

harvest to the point of entry into U.S. commerce, on imported fish and fish products identified as 

vulnerable to IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud. If the ability to accurately track domestic products in 

the global seafood market develops, future research can develop better models to quantify the amount 

of imported seafood that is of domestic origin.

Overall, improved data collection systems should allow for more precise values to track the 

sustainability of our domestic food supply and guide effective policy changes. The United States 

continues to be a global leader in fishery management resulting in sustainable harvest (Melnychuk et al., 

2017). The updates to the PCC model allow for a more accurate assessment of the state of the seafood

industry and our dependence on imported seafood.
17

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank Ben Fissel, Jessica Gephart, Steve Koplin, Mike Larkin, Britni LaVine, John 

McGovern, Jae Park, Ron Rogness, Jessica Stephen, and Mike Travis for reviewing the manuscript. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or 

material mentioned in this publication. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or 

opinions expressed therein, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA 

or the Department of Commerce.

References 

American Fisheries Act of 1998. U.S. Code, volume 46, sections 201–213. 

Crapo, C., B. Paust, and J. Babbitt. 2004. Recoveries and yields from Pacific Fish and Shellfish. Alaska Sea 

Grant College Program Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 37, 32 p. https://doi.org/10.4027/rypfs.2004

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2020. Food balance sheets on apparent consumption. Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at: 

http://www.fao.org/cwp-on-fishery-statistics/handbook/socio-economic-data/food-balancesheets/en/. 

Gephart, J. A., and M. L. Pace. 2015. Structure and evolution of the global seafood trade network. 

Environmental Research Letters Vol. 10, No. 12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125014

Gephart, J. A, Froehlich, H. E., and T. A. Branch. 2019. Opinion: To create sustainable seafood 

industries, the United States needs a better accounting of imports and exports. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 

U.S.A 116(19):9142–9146. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905650116

Kennedy, A. B. W., and H. R. Sankey. 1898. The thermal efficiency of steam engines. Minutes of the 

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 134:278–312. 

https://doi.org/10.1680/imotp.1898.19100

Melnychuk, C. M., E. Peterson, M. Elliott, and R. Hilborn. 2017. Fisheries management impacts on 

target species status. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114(1):178 –183.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609915114

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2020. Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Dep.

Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018. Available at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/fisheries-united-states-2018

Park, J. W. 2014. Surimi and Surimi Seafood, third edition. 666 p. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
18

Pramod, G., K. Nakamura, T. J. Pitcher, and L. Delagran. 2014. Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in 

seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy 48:102–113.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.019

Strong, J., and K. R. Criddle. 2013. Fishing for Pollock in a Sea of Change: A Historical Analysis of the 

Bering Sea Fishery. 188 p. Alaska Sea Grant, Univ. Alaska Fairbanks.

https://doi.org/10.4027/fpschabspf.2013
19

Supplemental Information 

Table S.1. A comparison of per capita consumption (lb per person) of edible seafood between the 

historical and updated model.

Year Historic Per Capita 

Consumption

Updated Per Capita 

Consumption Change

1980 12.1 12.4 +0.3

1981 12.4 13.0 +0.6

1982 12.4 12.6 +0.2

1983 13.4 13.7 +0.3

1984 13.8 14.5 +0.7

1985 14.9 15.1 +0.2

1986 15.3 15.5 +0.2

1987 16.6 16.6 —

1988 14.7 15.0 +0.3

1989 15.6 15.9 +0.3

1990 14.6 15.1 +0.5

1991 14.8 15.2 +0.4

1992 14.4 14.5 +0.1

1993 15.1 15.3 +0.2

1994 14.9 15.9 +1.0

1995 14.9 16.0 +1.1

1996 14.8 16.0 +1.2

1997 14.5 15.6 +1.1

1998 14.7 15.8 +1.1

1999 15.2 17.2 +2.0

2000 15.0 16.8 +1.8

2001 14.6 16.5 +1.9

2002 15.1 17.5 +2.4

2003 16.3 18.3 +2.0

2004 16.0 17.6 +1.6

2005 15.9 18.2 +2.3

2006 16.6 18.4 +1.8

2007 16.5 18.4 +1.9

2008 16.0 17.6 +1.6

2009 16.0 17.4 +1.4

2010 15.8 17.7 +1.9

2011 15.0 17.8 +2.8

2012 14.3 16.8 +2.5

2013 14.4 17.9 +3.5

2014 14.5 17.3 +2.8

2015 15.5 18.8 +3.3

2016 14.9 18.3 +3.4

2017 16.0 19.1 +3.1

2018 16.1 18.9 +2.8
20

Table S.2. A comparison of percent of consumption of imported edible seafood between the historical 

and updated model.

Year

Historic Percent 

Consumed from 

Imported Seafood

Updated Percent 

Consumed from 

Imported Seafood

Change

1980 45% 44% -1%

1981 47% 45% -2%

1982 49% 48% -1%

1983 52% 50% -2%

1984 51% 49% -2%

1985 54% 54% —

1986 56% 55% -1%

1987 56% 56% —

1988 57% 55% -2%

1989 56% 55% -1%

1990 56% 54% -2%

1991 57% 56% -1%

1992 56% 55% -1%

1993 52% 52% —

1994 55% 51% -4%

1995 54% 50% -4%

1996 56% 52% -4%

1997 60% 56% -4%

1998 63% 59% -4%

1999 66% 58% -8%

2000 68% 61% -7%

2001 76% 68% -8%

2002 79% 68% -11%

2003 80% 71% -9%

2004 81% 74% -7%

2005 83% 73% -10%

2006 84% 76% -8%

2007 83% 74% -9%

2008 83% 76% -7%

2009 82% 76% -6%

2010 86% 77% -9%

2011 91% 77% -14%

2012 94% 80% -14%

2013 94% 76% -18%

2014 94% 79% -15%

2015 90% 74% -16%

2016 95% 77% -18%

2017 91% 76% -15%

2018 94% 80% -14%
21

Table S.3. The domestic fresh and frozen conversion factors from whole or round weight to edible 

weight used in the updated PCC model with source information if available. 

Product Type Species Group Conversion 

Factor Source

Fillets, Steaks, & 

Blocks

Pacific Cod 0.32 Crapo et al. (2004)

Pacific Hake 0.33 From Original Model

Salmon (Fillet) 0.60 From Original Model

Unclassified 0.345

30-year weighted 

mean for all 

unclassified species

Surimi Other Surimi (not Alaska pollock) 0.17 Park1

Aquaculture

Catfish 0.50 From Original Model

Trout 0.72 From Original Model

Salmon 0.60 From Original Model

Tilapia 0.38 From Original Model

Striped Bass 0.65 From Original Model

Shrimp 0.49 From Original Model

Crawfish 0.49 From Original Model

Shellfish

Blue Crab, Hard 0.14 From Original Model

Dungeness Crab 0.24 From Original Model

King Crab 0.19 From Original Model

Snow Crab (Opilio & Bairdi) 0.24 From Original Model

Crab, Other (All other including blue soft and 

peeler, Jonah) 0.18 From Original Model

Crawfish (Wild catch not aquaculture) 0.49 From Original Model

American Lobster 0.22 From Original Model

Spiny Lobster 0.23 From Original Model

Shrimp: Northeast, Pacific, & Other 0.28 From Original Model

Shrimp: South Atlantic & Gulf 0.49 From Original Model

Squid 0.60 From Original Model

 1 Park, Jae. Personal commun. Oregon State University, jae.park@oregonstate.edu.
22

Table S.4. The values used to create the Sankey diagram mapping the flows in the 2018 updated PCC 

model. 

Data Source Data Target Lb/Person

Domestic_Canned Canned_Total 1.28

Domestic_Canned Exported_Domestic_Supply 0.25

Imports_Canned Canned_Total 2.37

Fresh_Frozen_Net_Fish Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 2.57

Fresh_Aquaculture Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 0.99

Fresh_Shellfish Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 1.29

Edible_Pollock Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 3.43

Fillets_Blocks_Steaks Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 0.94

Other_Surimi Domestic_Fresh_Frozen 0.25

Domestic_Fresh_Frozen Exported_Domestic_Supply 7.02

Domestic_Fresh_Frozen Fresh_Frozen 2.46

Imports_Fresh_Frozen Fresh_Frozen 12.49

Imports_Fresh_Frozen Exported_Domestic_Supply 0.21

Fresh_Frozen Per_Capita_Consumption 14.95

Canned_Total Per_Capita_Consumption 3.65

Cured Per_Capita_Consumption 0.30
23

Figure S.1. A sensitivity analysis comparing the per capita consumption of edible seafood between the 

historical model, updated model, and the model updating only pollock.

Figure S.2. A sensitivity analysis comparing the per capita consumption of edible seafood between 

historical model, updated model, and the model updating only the canning section.
24

Figure S.3. A sensitivity analysis comparing the per capita consumption of edible seafood between the 

historical model, updated model, and the model updating only the conversion factors.