EU consumer habits regarding fishery and aquaculture products : final report.
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Subjects: European Union, aquaculture, consumer, consumer behaviour, consumer demand, consumer information, consumer motivation, consumer survey, eating habits, fishery product, food consumption, market access, report, retail trade, supply and demand

EU CONSUMER HABITS  
REGARDING  
FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS 

FINAL REPORT 

Maritime 

Affairs  and 
Fisheries 

LAST UPDATE JANUARY 2017 

WWW.EUMOFA.EU 

Maritime 
Affairs and 
Fisheries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Contents 

1 

Context and purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 1 

2  Methodological steps of the Study .................................................................................................. 1 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 

Overall methodology ......................................................................................................................... 1 
Problems encountered and limits ..................................................................................................... 2 
Identification of European sub-regions ............................................................................................. 3 

3 

Review of literature on consumer habits and of national campaigns ................................................ 4 

3.1 
3.2 

Literature review and data availability .............................................................................................. 4 
Review of national campaigns and main findings ............................................................................. 6 

4 

Per capita consumption and expenditure trends .............................................................................. 7 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 

Per capita consumption trends ......................................................................................................... 7 
Consumption trends and national promotional campaigns .............................................................. 8 
Per-capita expenditure trend and comparison with the per-capita consumption trend ............... 12 
Per capita expenditure and Annual Average Growth Rate ............................................................. 16 

5 

Knowing consumers’ habits........................................................................................................... 17 

5.1 
5.2 
5.3 

Regular consumers Vs non-consumers ........................................................................................... 17 
Relationship between consumption frequency and per-capita consumption ................................ 21 
Consumers’ preferences about FAPs ............................................................................................... 22 

6  Main reasons for purchasing/not purchasing or consuming/not consuming FAPs, and factors affecting 
their consumption/purchase ................................................................................................................ 38 

6.1  Main reasons for purchasing or consuming FAPs ........................................................................... 38 
6.2  Main non-consumption factors ....................................................................................................... 46 
6.3  Main factors influencing consumer demand and purchasing behaviour ........................................ 48 

7 

Information on fisheries and aquaculture products (FAPs) ............................................................. 51 

7.1 
7.2 
7.3 
7.4 

National campaigns during 2004-2015............................................................................................ 51 
Sources of information for consumers ............................................................................................ 53 
Consumers’ attitude towards information on products’ labels ...................................................... 54 
Consumers expectations about information available on FAPs’ labels .......................................... 57 

8 

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 61 

Annexes (attached as separate documents) 

Annex 1 - MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING STUDIES ON CONSUMER HABITS 

Annex 2 - STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 

Annex 3 - MAPPING OF NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS 

Annex 4 – COUNTRY FICHES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

1  Context and purpose of the Study 

Under  the  new  common  organisation  of  the  markets  (CMO)  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  (FAPs), 
consumers  play  a  pivotal  role:  not  only  they  should  be  enabled  to  make  informed  choices,  but  a  more 
“sustainable consumption” is also to be pursued. In the same vein, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF)  also  envisages  among  its  priorities  to  foster  marketing  and  processing,  supporting  and  funding 
initiatives aimed at improving the conditions for the placing of fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs) on 
the market and at promoting the overall quality of the products marketed.  

On the other hand, targeted policies need a preliminary understanding of the sector in which they are called 
to operate, and specifically as regards the preferences and purchasing behaviour of consumers in the EU.  
Information available across different countries is scattered and fragmented, and not all EU Member States 
have a tradition of monitoring the market for FAPs.    

Based on these needs, and in order to support the appropriate implementation of the Common Fisheries 
Policy (CFP) and the CMO, the European Commission – DG MARE launched a study aimed at surveying and 
analysing EU consumer attitudes and habits regarding FAPs. This Study was launched within the European 
Market  Observatory  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  products  (EUMOFA,  www.eumofa.eu),  and  has  been 
integrated with findings of the Eurobarometer survey on EU consumer habits regarding FAPs run in June 2016 
in all EU Member States. More details on methodology adopted are reported below.  

2  Methodological steps of the Study 

2.1  Overall methodology 

The main purpose of this study was to survey and analyse the two components of the FAP market, namely 
the supply, represented in this specific instance by retailers, and the demand, represented by consumers, 
and corroborate the analysis with further qualitative and quantitative data on consumption trends in all EU 
Member States.  

Bearing in mind this overarching purpose, the study has been structured into four Tasks: 

  Task 1 - “Mapping and analysis of existing studies on consumer habits”, that has been based upon 

the following activities: 
-  Review of studies compiled in the 2008 survey to check whether authors/institutions listed at 

that time have continued to produce analyses and studies on the same topics. 

-  Collection of market data (type and presentation of products purchased, distribution channels, 
seasonality,  …)  through  desk  research  (including  EUMOFA  library  already,  which  already  has 
market data on major consumer countries). 

Findings of this Task are reported in Annex 1. Furthermore, all data have been reported in dedicated 
fact sheets for all EU Member states.  

  Task  2  -  Retailer  survey,  aimed  at  evaluating  the  evolution  of  the  offer  and  its  adaptation  to 
consumer needs and expectations by surveying information through a set of interviews to retailers 
(i.e. Large scale retailers) and fishmongers. Out of a total of 67 interviews planned, 62 interviews 
have  been  carried  out,  53  with  large-scale  retailers  (LSR)  and  9  with  national  fishmongers’ 
associations. Five LSR refused to be interviewed in different countries.  

Findings  of  this  Task  have  been  reported  in  a  specific  report  (Annex  2)  analysing  all  feedbacks 
received from interviews.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

  Task 3 - Consumer survey - Mapping of national campaigns, which included: 

o  an inventory of all national campaigns aimed at promoting FAPs, carried out at Member State 

or EU level; 

o  an analysis of the results of the Eurobarometer survey for all EU countries.  

Specifically as regards the second point, it should be recalled here that the European Commission 
entrusted Eurobarometer to carry out an opinion poll on a sample of consumers in all EU countries, 
in  order  to  survey  (i)  consumer  habits  regarding  fishery  and  aquaculture,  (ii)  what  influences 
consumption, (iii) reasons for buying or eating FAPs, or not, (iv) consumer preference from different 
aspects (wild vs farmed, marine vs freshwater, etc.), and (v) consumers’ opinion on information (i.e. 
labels) accompanying FAPs. The Eurobarometer survey was carried out on 27.818 EU citizens from 
different social and demographic categories and results of the analysis have been reported in the 
“Special Eurobarometer 450 – Fishery and aquaculture products”, June 2016.  

  Task 4 - Analysis of results – recommendations, whose purpose is to gather and further elaborate 
information, analysis and conclusions obtained in the previous tasks. More specifically, this report 
examines  in  depth  the  information  originating  from  the  Eurobarometer  survey,  comparing  and 
combining  these  findings  with  those  originated  from  the  previous  Tasks  1,  2  and  3.  The  report 
consists of two parts: the first part analyses a general framework, at EU and at sub-regional levels 
and  mainly  focuses  on  the  findings  of  the  previous  tasks,  the  second  part  summarises  the  main 
information and findings at Member State level, through fact sheets, attached to this document. 

The final output of this task is to provide overall conclusions on FAPs consumers in the EU and define 
to what extent consumer attitudes are reflected in their purchasing choices and to what degree the 
EU market is responsive to consumer expectations. On this basis, this study should contribute to a 
thorough understanding of the EU consumer profile(s) and of the market adaptation to his/her (their) 
needs.  

2.2  Problems encountered and limits 

In carrying out the activities envisaged for each task, several limits and problems emerged. In general, it is 
worth recalling that not all Member States analyse or monitor their fishery and aquaculture sector in the 
same manner, and especially consumption. Indeed information across EU countries is not homogeneously 
available and obviously the sector is better monitored where the supply chain has a greater value or where 
consumption is more relevant.  

On the other hand, the EUMOFA is contributing to overcome this limit, creating a wide basis of data and 
information on the fishery and aquaculture sector, and also on consumption, providing therefore a useful 
basis for analysing and comparing consumption patterns across countries.  

Other limits emerged in the implementation of Task 2 (i.e. interviews to retailers). One of the most significant 
limits was the difficulty to schedule meetings with retailers, due to availability of staff in charge of purchases 
or willingness to share information. Furthermore, some retailers did not answer all questions because of the 
company’s confidentiality policy. For this reason, the level of representativeness is not the same for all issues 
and for all countries.  

Another  limit  encountered  in  Task  2  was  the  coverage  of  the  full  product  scope  (fresh,  frozen,  smoked, 
canned,  prepared…)  as  LSR  usually  have  different  purchase  departments  for  these  different  product 
categories. We thus targeted the persons in charge of fresh product purchases, who seemed most likely to 
have a specific understanding of fish, while frozen fish and canned fish often depend on wider departments 
including all kinds of products (e.g. meat, fruit and vegetables). 

2 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

2.3  Identification of European sub-regions 

Based on previous studies and especially on the 2008 study “Image survey on the perception of fishery and 
aquaculture products”,  five  sub-regions have  been  identified  at  EU  level based on common consumption 
features. These sub-regions are presented in the following table. This division has been used for the purpose 
of carrying out the individual tasks under the study.  

Table 1 – EU Member States’ breakdown by sub-regions 

Western EU 
Ireland (IE) 
United Kingdom (UK) 
Netherlands (NL) 
Belgium (BE) 
Luxemburg (LU) 
Germany (DE) 

Northern EU 
Denmark (DK) 
Sweden (SE) 
Finland (FI) 

Central EU 
Austria (AT) 
Czech Republic (CZ) 
Slovakia (SK) 
Slovenia (SI) 
Hungary (HU) 

Eastern EU 
Lithuania (LT) 
Latvia (LV) 
Estonia (EE) 
Romania (RO) 
Bulgaria (BG) 
Poland (PL) 

Southern EU 
Portugal (PT) 
Spain (ES) 
France (FR) 
Italy (IT) 
Croatia (HR) 
Greece (EL) 
Cyprus (CY) 
Malta (MT) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

3  Review of literature on consumer habits and of national campaigns 

3.1  Literature review and data availability 

The analysis of existing information revealed that in 25 EU Member States there are analyses of consumer 
habits. Only in Cyprus, Malta and Slovakia no study of relevance has been found. In general, however, there 
is a wide difference across countries when it comes to research of consumer habits. These differences include 
the  extent  to  which  studies  on  consumer  habits  are  carried  out  at  all,  the  scope  of  the  studies,  the 
methodology used and the timing of the studies.  

In general, the regularity of studies is low, while market data and statistics, when available, are provided on 
a more regular basis.  

As  the  consumption  of  FAPs  differs  significantly  between  Member  States,  the  focus  on  consumer  habits 
regarding  FAPs  also  varies:  for  some  Member  States,  production  (fisheries  and/or  aquaculture)  and 
consumption issues are important, while for others both are not or little important. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  some  important  markets  for  FAPs, which  also  have  an  important  internal 
production (both from fisheries and aquaculture),  a higher availability of studies  on consumer habits  has 
been found, e.g. in the UK, compared to other markets where internal production and consumption is low, 
e.g.  as  in  Hungary.  Furthermore,  in  several  Member  States  analyses  are  made,  but  they  are  not  publicly 
available, e.g. reports from Seafish (UK) which are available only to UK fish levy payers. 

In  the  mapping  of  existing  studies  of  consumer  habits,  approximately  175  existing  studies  have  been 
analysed. Among these, 10 studies covered more than 1 Member State, and 1 covered the whole EU.  

In general, the studies of consumer habits covered the following topics and findings: 

- 

Effect of health risk vs. benefit perception of seafood consumption, and information related to 
this: in general, studies found that consumption is less affected by risk-benefit perceptions than 
by traditions and habits. 

-  Consumer use of information (mandatory or other) and interest in potential information placed 
on  labels:  studies  found  that  there  is  a  high  use  of  on-label  information  and  consumers  are 
interested in information. Consumers are most familiar with expiry date, price, species name and 
weight and they feel able to derive clear quality expectations from the information  the labels 
convey.  Consumers  display  the  strongest  interest  in  additional  information,  such  as  safety 
guarantee and quality marks for seafood. Cross-country differences in both use and interest in 
information are observed. 
Image and perceptions related to farmed vs wild fish and effect on consumption: studies found 
that consumers have in general a very positive image of fish products, especially with respect to 
health benefits. Fish origin seems to be of limited importance; however, wild fish  is preferred 
when compared with farmed fish.  

- 

-  Reasons and barriers to eating fish: the main reasons for eating fish are health and taste, while 
the main barriers are price perception, smell when cooking fish and the fact that fish does not 
deliver the same level of satiety as meat. Significant differences across Member States are found 
with respect to preparation skills and the use of quality cues1. 

1 Cues are pieces of information such as colour, smell, brand or price used to  build quality expectations, and may be divided into 
intrinsic and extrinsic cues. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The  analysis  on  literature  has  been  structured  by  sub-region.  The  main  results  are  reported  in  the  table 
below. Detailed results are presented in the following chapters, matching results of all tasks and providing a 
holistic analysis of consumer habits in the EU.  

Eastern EU countries 

Central EU countries 

• 

• 

• 

influences/affects 
important  and 
Internal  supply 
consumer habits due to traditional local/regional fisheries 
and FAPs’ availability. 

is 

Consumption of FAPs is low, largely related to local species 
as  carp.  The  interest  in  local  and  traditional  products  is 
diminishing – especially among the younger consumers. 

Price is an important factor for purchase, many consumers 
consider FAPs as not affordable. However, consumption of 
fresh products and convenience products is increasing. 

•  Growing 

imports  from  other  regions 

increases  the 
availability  of  FAPs,  which  in  turn  seems  to  increase 
consumption of FAPs. 

• 

• 

• 

Central EU countries form a landlocked region with quite 
low  consumption  of  FAPs,  albeit 
increasing.  Locally 
produced  carp  is  an  important  species,  especially  in 
Hungary  and  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  consumption  is 
influenced by tradition. 

Availability  of  saltwater  fish  depends  on  imports  from 
other regions. Growing import increases the availability of 
FAPs  and  changes  consumer  habits,  although  traditional 
habits are strong. 

Consumption  and  purchase 
sensitive). 

is  value-oriented  (price 

•  Urbanization increases demand for convenience products. 

• 

There  is  an  increasing  focus  on  health  benefits  resulting 
from fish consumption. 

Western EU countries 

Northern EU countries 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Fish consumption is highly dependent on imports. 

Consumption is relatively low, well below EU average. 

FAPs are generally considered expensive products. 

Consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues. 

There  is  an  increasing  interest  in  FAPs  due  to  higher 
availability, 
fish  consumption  specifically  has 
increased in parallel to FAPs’ availability. 

fresh 

• 

• 

• 

• 

These countries have a significant own supply both from 
fisheries and from aquaculture, and consumption of FAPs 
is an important part of their culinary traditions. 

Fish  consumption  is  relatively  high  and  consumption  of 
products from aquaculture is trending upwards. 

Consumption is value-oriented (price sensitive). 

Purchase  in  traditional  fish  markets  or  specialized  fish 
shops are down, while buying at super- and hypermarkets 
is increasingly common. 

•  Higher availability of fresh fish, convenience products and 
sushi changes consumption  habits from more traditional 
meals, especially among the younger consumers 

• 

• 

• 

Expenses per capita are increasing, but consumption per 
capita is down in UK. 

There  is  an  increasing  focus  on  health  benefits  and 
sustainability. 

Communication with consumers through social networks 
is increasing. 

Southern EU countries 

• 

• 

• 

There is a large diversity within these countries regarding 
fish consumption, e.g. Croatia has a fish consumption level 
well below EU average, while Portugal is well above. 

All countries have an important self-supply of FAPs. 

Price seems to be an important consumption driver. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

3.2  Review of national campaigns and main findings 

Whether  carried  out  by  public  authority  or  by  private  operators  or  organisations,  campaigns  are  a  well-
developed and widespread instrument to promote fishery and aquaculture products.  

The survey and the analysis of promotional campaigns of fishery and aquaculture products carried out in 
different Member States revealed differences in the scope, number, and nature of the campaigns. In general, 
however,  their  objective  is  to  increase  the  consumption  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  by  raising 
consumer awareness of the products’ health/nutritional benefits in the human diet.  

The main findings regarding the national campaigns include the following:  

-  A  total  of  685  promotional  campaigns  and  projects2  to  promote  consumption  of  fishery  and 
aquaculture products and to improve the image of these products were carried out between 2007 
and 2015 in 26 EU Member States. No relevant campaigns were carried out in 2 EU Member States 
(Austria and Luxembourg).  

- 

- 

- 

- 

Southern  European  countries  organised  the  largest  number  of  promotional  campaigns,  and  the 
broadest ones. Spain had by far the most campaigns as well as the largest scope of activities. Spain 
was responsible for the majority of the campaigns run both in the Southern EU sub-region and across 
the EU. Its EFF operational programme in 2007-2013 focused on improving the competitiveness and 
productivity of the fishing industry, promoting fishery and aquaculture products and securing their 
positive image.  

France, Portugal, and Italy’s many campaigns focused on strengthening the image of local fishery 
products,  highlighting  underutilised  regional  species  as  a  potential  driver  of  their  regional  and 
national economic development.   

Eastern and Central EU countries with large aquaculture industries carried out many promotional 
campaigns with broad scopes. Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria focused their campaigns on improving 
the image of fishery and aquaculture products, highlighting farmed domestic species.    

The overall objective for all Member States was to increase consumption of fishery products and 
raise public awareness of the benefits of fishery and aquaculture products in the human diet. In 
several countries across the EU, the primary goal of the campaigns was to increase the demand and 
consumption of fishery and aquaculture products caught/farmed in a sustainable way taking into 
consideration  environmental  aspects.  Training  and  educational  programmes  were  developed  to 
raise consumer awareness of quality, sustainability and safety aspects of fishery and aquaculture 
products. 

Detailed results are reported within the report, matching results of all Tasks and providing a holistic analysis 
of consumer habits in the EU. An in-depth analysis of promotional campaigns and market trend has been also 
developed in the box in § 4.1.  

2 The total number of promotional campaigns also includes promotional projects due to the specific campaign encoding system in Spain and France.   

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

4  Per capita consumption and expenditure trends  

In this chapter the development of per capita consumption (in  live weight equivalent) and the per capita 
purchase  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  are  analysed  for  the  2005-2014  period.  The  chapter  also 
examines the consumption / expenditure ratio.  

4.1  Per capita consumption trends 

The evolution of per capita consumption of fishery products (in kg live weight equivalent) has been analysed 
based on data extrapolated from Eurostat and, for aquaculture, FAO, elaborated by the EUMOFA.   

The results show that the average per capita consumption in the EU is around 25,8 kg (on average between 
2005 and 2014), with a negative trend registered between 2007 and 2012 and a recovery recorded in 2013 
and 2014.  

Table 2 - Consumption of fish, seafood per capita, EU-28 and sub-regions (live weight equivalent) 

Kg/per capita 

Index 2005=100 

(*) NB: for BG and RO 2005 and 2006 data are missing. In order to complete the aggregate Eastern EU, for these 
two years, 2007 data have been used.  

7 

0,005,0010,0015,0020,0025,0030,0035,0040,002005200620072008200920102011201220132014EU 28Eastern (*)WesternNorthernSouthernCentral80,0085,0090,0095,00100,00105,00110,00115,002005200620072008200920102011201220132014EU 28Eastern (*)WesternNorthernSouthernCentral 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The EU average is summing up very divergent contexts and consumption behaviours surveyed at Member 
State and at sub-regional levels. The sub-regions even present remarkable differences with the EU average, 
in a range between +37% (Southern EU) and -66% (Central EU) for the entire period analysed.  

Table 3 - Differences in % between Sub-regions’ per capita consumption and the EU average 

Eastern (*) 
Western 
Northern 
Southern 
Central 

2005 

2014 

Average  
2005-2014 

-56,0% 
-24,8% 
4,1% 
38,0% 
-66,6% 

-52,3% 
-24,0% 
8,7% 
38,0% 
-67,4% 

-52,6% 
-23,4% 
7,0% 
37,4% 
-65,9% 

(*)NB: for  BG and RO 2005 and 2006 data are missing. In order to complete the aggregate Eastern EU, for these two years, 2007 data have been used. 

Looking  at  historical  series,  it  is  possible  to  note  that  divergences  from  the  EU  average  have  been 
progressively reduced, with an overall tendency to come closer to the EU average, except for Northern EU 
countries. This could be due to different values of the “Annual Average Growth Rate”3, which shows positive 
results for Northern and Eastern EU countries and negative results for the others, including for the EU as a 
whole. 

Annual Average Growth Rate of per capita consumption for the period 2005-2014 

AAGR % 

-1,0% 

-0,5% 

0,14% 

EU  

South 

North 

Western 

-0,5% 

Eastern 

0,8% 

Central 

-0,5% 

4.2  Consumption trends and national promotional campaigns 

Comparing per capita consumption in each EU Member State with national campaigns as surveyed in Task 3, 
some  considerations  are  worth  mentioning.  The  table  below  summarises  the  average  per-capita 
consumption at the beginning (2005) and at the end (2014) of the period analysed, together with the Annual 
Average Growth Rate (%). 

Furthermore, the table shows the Member States where promotional campaigns had among their objectives 
the increase in consumption of: 

- 
- 

FAPs in general; 
FAPs with local origin.  

3 The annual average growth rate, abbreviated as AAGR, shows an average value for the annual rate of change over a period of time 
(typically several years) allowing for the compound effect of growth. The average growth rate is calculated by determining the ‘least 
squares’ regression line of best fit using the natural log (LN) of the time series data. The growth rate is the slope in % of that line.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Per- capita consumption in 2005 and 2014 (kg, live weight equivalent) and AAGR between 2014 and 2005, matched 
with objectives of the national campaigns aimed at increasing consumption, by Member State 

as regards Bulgaria and Romania, 2005 and 2006 data are missing. For these two years, 2007 consumption data have been 
used.  

As regards the average per-capita consumption, besides absolute values registered by each Member State, a 
very limited growth can be observed in all EU countries, excepted in a couple of cases: 

•  Greece  (-4,5%),  whose  decrease  is  linked  to  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  the  country  has 

undergone; 

•  Croatia (+9,2%), whose positive trend is probably linked to the economic development of the latest 

years following the breakdown of Yugoslavia and its EU accession. 

An average growth of 0,8% was observed in Eastern EU. Among Baltic countries, Poland was the only one 
reporting a marked increasing per capita consumption (almost +2%) while stable consumption was observed 
in Estonia and Lithuania, and Latvia reported a 0,4% decline. With the exception of Lithuania, all countries of 
this  area  implemented  campaigns  aimed  at  increasing  FAPs  consumption.  While  Poland  encouraged  the 
specific consumption of local FAPs, the other countries opted to promote consumption of FAPs in general. 

As regards Central EU, per capita consumption decreased on average by 0,5%. This was mainly due to the 
decrease  observed  in  Czech  Republic  (-2,3%)  while  the  other  four  countries  of  this  area  reported  slight 
variations.  In  the  three  countries  where  national  campaigns  on  FAPs  consumption  were  implemented 
(namely  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary  and  Slovakia),  these  had  the  specific  objective  to  promote  local 
products. 

9 

Increasing FAPs consumption (in general)Increasing consumption (local products)Estonia17,418,1-0,01YLatvia27,225,5-0,40YLithuania43,944,7-0,01Bulgaria (*)4,86,01,91YRomania (*)5,36,30,57YPoland11,313,01,96YAustria13,213,40,06Czech Republic9,57,5-2,30YHungary4,54,6-0,10YSlovenia9,910,80,00Slovakia7,77,80,78YUnited Kingdom25,224,9-0,80YIreland23,223,0-0,40YNetherlands21,922,60,71YGermany14,313,31,10Belgium24,224,9-0,10YLuxembourg28,633,10,41Sweden31,233,20,12YDenmark24,322,10,20YFinland23,123,90,50YFrance35,234,4-0,20YGreece22,517,3-4,50Portugal57,855,3-0,40YSpain46,446,2-0,60YCroatia8,018,49,42YItaly29,928,9-0,70Cyprus23,625,00,23YMalta30,632,00,19YSouthern EUObjectives of Campaigns20052014%  AAGREastern EUCentral EUWestern EUNorthern EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

In  Western EU  countries, per  capita consumption  declined on average  by 0,5%. The United Kingdom and 
Germany,  two  of  the  top-5  Member  States  in  terms  of  consumption,  are  part  of  this  group.  These  two 
countries reported opposite variations, with consumption declining by 0,8% in the UK and rising by 1,1% in 
Germany. National campaigns aimed at promoting FAPs consumption in general were implemented in the 
Netherlands, while in the UK and Ireland the focus was specifically on increasing consumption of local FAPs. 

The  three  countries  of  the  Northern  EU  sub-region  reported  an  average  growth  of  0,14%  in  per  capita 
consumption.  The  most  significant  increase  (+0,5%)  was  observed  in  Finland.  In  all  countries,  national 
campaigns promoting consumption of FAPs in general were implemented. 

Per capita consumption in Southern EU declined on average by 0,5%. As explained above, the two major 
variations were recorded in Greece (-4,5%) and Croatia (+9,2%). This sub region includes France, Italy and 
Spain, three of the top-5 Member States in terms of consumption. In these countries, a decline in their per 
capita consumption was observed, notably by 0,7% in Italy, by 0,6% in Spain and by 0,2% in France. National 
campaigns on FAPs consumption implemented in this area covered FAPs in general in Cyprus and Malta they 
regarded  FAPs  in  general,  ,  while  they  specifically  encouraged  consumption  of  local  products  in  France, 
Portugal, Spain and Croatia. 

Consumption trends from the Large Scale Retailers’ perspective 

The results of the survey carried out at the Points of sale (POS) seem to be in contrast with the findings 
of the statistical analysis. In fact, while consumption trends in all EU countries are declining or marginally 
increasing, large-scale Retailers (LSR) declared a positive market development for FAPs during the 2010-
2015 period: compared with total food sales, the market share of FAPs increased or remained stable for 
all LSR. 

→  Stable market share: this concerns one third of LSR, notably in Central, Eastern and Southern 

Europe. 

→  Moderate  increase  (less  than  20%  over  the  2010-2014  period,  or  less  than  5%  a  year  on 

average) for 45% of the LSR, this concerns all Northern LSR. 

→  Strong  increase  (more  than  20%  over  the  2010-2014  period,  or  more  than  5%  a  year  on 
average) for 22% of LSR, mainly in Western Europe. This situation does not concern any of the 
LSR in Northern and Central Europe. 

These findings lead to state that sales of FAPs in absolute terms have increased in the majority of cases, 
either strongly or slightly, in particular pre-packed fish.  

However, information regarding the POS survey refers to LSR’s sales, and not to the entire market. The 
combination  of  the  statistical  information  and  the  survey  puts  into  evidence  the  increase  in  the  LSRs’ 
market share over traditional retailers. Interviews with independent fishmongers confirm the favourable 
trend for LSRs, and this for two main reasons: on the one hand, the reduction of independent retailers’ 
sales and, on the other hand, the reduction of independent retailer number (due to closure).  

Consumption trends from national studies 

National studies that analysed this issue also confirmed this phenomenon, as emerged in Task 1. More in 
detail:  

Austria: fish purchasing frequency in supermarkets has increased over the last years (2002-2010), while 
purchasing frequency in specialised retail shops remained stable. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Netherlands: the main distribution channel is represented by supermarkets, with a growing trend in terms 
of coverage. In 2013, the supermarket segment covered 85% of the market, while in 2006 it was less than 
70%.   

Germany: between 2011 and 2013, discounters’ share of fish products sales slightly increased, from 39% 
to 40% (value). Market share of other large-scale retailers remained stable at 37%, while fishmongers saw 
their share slightly reduced (from 11% to 10%). 

Belgium: FAPs are mainly sold by large retailers with 43,2% of the sales. This share reaches 77,4% if one 
takes  into  account  hard  discount  and  small  supermarkets.  These  retail  channels  are  also  showing  an 
increasing trend: they accounted for 75,6% of the sales in 2008. Fishmongers account for 12% of the sale 
in 2014 (15,4% in 2008).  

Finland: almost all fishery products, including processed, are sold through supermarkets, hypermarkets 
and other stores belonging to one of the few retail groups that operate in the country.  

France: large-scale retailers are dominant, including for fresh fish. They have a smaller market share for 
frozen fish (50% in value) due to the strong position of retailers specialized in frozen products (31%) and 
also account for a small segment in home delivery (14%). 

Portugal: in 2012, large scale retail became the most dominant sale channel (with 45,6% in value), mainly 
due to the 2010 legislation that allowed such stores to have more flexible opening hours. 

Spain: Large scale retailers cover more than two thirds of the markets (67,3% in volume); the market share 
of  specialised  shops  has  decreased  between  2010  and  2014  while  the  market  share  of  supermarkets 
increased. 

Italy:  the  increasing  importance  of  selling  fish  and  seafood  processed  products  through  LSR  has  been 
registered as well as a parallel decrease of the fishmongers’ market share. 

The results in general confirm that LSRs’ sales position improved in all EU countries despite the economic 
crisis. It could be argued that a wider availability of farmed and cheaper products4 in LSRs compared to 
fishmongers,  who  prefer  to  sell  wild  and  more  expensive  products,  has  also  contributed  to  the 
improvement of the market shares of LSR in all EU countries, on top of the increasing presence of fresh 
stands at POs. 

4 Source: Stakeholders’ survey, Task 2 of the present Study.  

11 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

4.3  Per-capita  expenditure  trend  and  comparison  with  the  per-capita 

consumption trend 

For the 2005-2014 period, the real expenditure per inhabitant, expressed in PPPs5 has also been analysed. 
The methodology for calculating the indicator is summarised in the following box.  

The methodology used for calculating the Real expenditure per inhabitant in PPPs includes the following three points: 

1-  “Per capita real expenditure” - it has been calculated for each year from 2005 to 2014 by multiplying the 
value  of  the  EU  expenditure  in  real  terms  for  the  “volume  indices  of  real  expenditure  per  capita  in  PPP 
(EU28=100)”, source Eurostat; 

2-  Value of expenditure in real terms in EUR - it has been calculated by deflating “Nominal expenditure per 
inhabitant” (in EUR, source Eurostat) of year t for the difference (100-price annual variation t/t-1) of index 
of fish and seafood prices (source Eurostat). Real expenditure t = Nominal expenditure t*(100-%price var 
t/t-1)/100 ; 
 “Real expenditure per inhabitant in PPPs“ - it has been calculated by multiplying the EU28 expenditure in 
real terms in EUR with the “volume indices of real expenditure per capita (for fish) in PPP”  

3- 

The trend of the real expenditure per inhabitant in PPPs (as well as the per-capita consumption trends in kg) 
has been calculated for all Member States. The results are presented in the country sheets attached to this 
report. While it is possible to determine this indicator for the whole EU, it is not possible to calculate it based 
on sub-regional aggregates. 

In the graph below, the evolution of the indexes “per capita consumption (Kg, live weight)” and “per capita 
real expenditure (PPPs)” (2005=100) for the EU are compared. 

Figure 1 - Per capita consumption (Kg live weight) and per capita real expenditure (PPPs) trends (Index 2005 =100) 

5 Purchasing Power Parities 

12 

y = 104,27e-0,01xy = 101,41e-8E-04x80,0085,0090,0095,00100,00105,00110,002005200620072008200920102011201220132014p.c. consumptionp.c. expenditureEspo. (p.c. consumption)Espo. (p.c. expenditure) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

We can observe that the per capita consumption trend in kg is slightly negative (AAGR = -0,1%), while the per 
capita real expenditure in PPPs trend is basically flat (AAGR = -0,004%). These trends highlight a progressive 
widening of the gap between the two indicators.  

In general, this behaviour supposes an increase of the average unit value of consumption, through a change 
in consumption towards products with higher prices and presumably of higher quality (in a nutshell: less 
quantity of products with low quality/price ratio, more quantity of products with higher quality/price ratio).  

However, in this context as well, the EU average hides different situations: for some Member States, this 
increase  in  value  was  actually  witnessed,  while  other  countries  repositioned  towards  less  qualitative 
products. In some other cases, there was no significant repositioning at all. The table below summarises the 
results of the analysis per Member State grouped in sub-regions. 

Table 4 - Change of the average unit value of consumption for Member States in the period 2005-2014 

Increase 

Reduction 

No change 

Eastern EU countries 

Central EU countries 

Western EU countries 

Northern EU countries 

Estonia 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Bulgaria 
Romania 
Austria 
Hungary 
Slovakia 
Ireland 
Germany 
Luxembourg 
Sweden 
Denmark 
Finland 

Southern EU countries 

Italy 

Poland 

Czech Republic 

Slovenia 

United Kingdom 
Netherlands 
Belgium 

Portugal 

France 
Greece 
Spain 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Malta 

Beyond  the  trends  observed  during  the  2005-2014  period  regarding  the  repositioning  of  consumption 
towards products with higher or lower quality, it is useful to carry out the comparison in a static situation.  

With reference to 2013, the following  chart highlights the positioning of Member States and sub-regions, 
considering the indices values per capita consumption (Kg live weight equivalent) and per capita household 
expenditure in PPPs. The indices have been calculated correlating Member States’ and sub-regions’ values 
with the EU28=100.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 2 - Per capita consumption (Kg live weight) and per capita household expenditure (PPP) index:   
Member states and sub-regions (2013, EU28 =100) 

On the basis of the graph above, it is possible to formulate the following observations:  

a-  Southern EU countries and Northern EU countries rank above the EU average for the two variables 

(more expenditures and more quantity). However: 

•  The first sub-region (Southern EU) is above the bisector of the chart. Therefore, the index 
of  expenditure  is  higher  than  the  index  of  quality.  This  leads  to  believe  that  in  these 
countries there is a consumption of products with higher average unit value (a higher level 
of price and quality) compared with the EU average. Nonetheless, the positioning of the 
sub-region hides considerable differences among the Member States that compose it. In 
fact, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal share the average positioning, while France, Malta, 
Cyprus and Croatia are below the bisector (lower average unit values)6. In addition, Croatia 
has a level of expenditure and consumption lower than the EU average.  

•  The second sub-region (Northern EU) is almost positioned over the bisector of the chart 
(the expenditure index is equal to the quantity index). This leads to believe that, on average, 
consumed products have the same price/quality levels as the EU average. The positioning 
of the three countries composing the sub-region is rather homogeneous: they are more or 
less aligned along the bisector. 

6 However, Greece and Malta register a positioning a bit abnormal: Greece for expenditure and consumption respectively higher and 
lower than the EU average; Malta is exactly the opposite.  

14 

EELVLTBGROPLATCZHUSISKUKIRNLDEBELUSEDKFIFRELPTESHRITCYMAEEUWEUNEUSEUCEUEU280,050,0100,0150,0200,0250,0300,00,050,0100,0150,0200,0250,0300,0Household expenditure  p.c. (100=107 PPIs)Consumption p.c (100=24.7 kg).  
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

b-  Western EU countries, Eastern EU countries and Central EU countries are below the EU average for 

both variables. However:  

•  The  Western  EU  and  Eastern  EU  sub-regions  are  below  the  bisector.  Therefore,  the 
expenditure  index  is  lower  than  the  quantity  index. This  leads to  believe  that  there  is  a 
consumption of products with lower average unit value (lower levels of price and quality) 
compared to the EU average.  

As  regards  the  Eastern  EU  region,  the  Member  States  that  compose  it  show  different 
positioning: Romania and Estonia are above the bisector while the others are below it, more 
or less strongly. All Member States are within the same quarter, with the exception of Latvia 
and Lithuania, which show an abnormal positioning.  

Also for the Western EU sub-region, the positioning of Member States is defined as follows: 
the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are all positioned below the EU 
average and below the bisector (with the exception of Germany). Belgium and Luxembourg 
are  significantly  above  the  bisector,  registering  higher  values  (Luxembourg)  than  the EU 
average or close to it (Belgium).  

•  The Central-EU sub-region is almost on the bisector of the chart (the expenditure index is 
equal to the quantity index). Therefore, this means that in these countries the consumption 
of products with price/quality levels is aligned with the EU average. The Member States 
that compose  it are all within the same  quarter and slightly  above  (Austria, Slovakia) or 
below (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary) the bisector. 

Results of the analysis above substantially confirm the analysis carried out in each Member State under 
Task 1 (review of studies on FAPs’ consumption and market data). These results could be summarised as 
follows:  

•  Most  Member  States  positioned  below  the  bisector  mainly  consume  freshwater  and 
farmed  fish  (salmon,  carp,  pangasius)  or  wild  marine  fish  with  lower  average  unit  value 
(mackerel, cod, hake, Alaska pollock); 

•  Most Member States above the bisector consume mainly marine fish, often wild (seabass, 

seabream, shrimp, squid, octopus), but also cod, hake and salmon. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

4.4  Per capita expenditure and Annual Average Growth Rate 

The following chart shows the distribution of Member States according to two variables: 

- 

- 

“per capita household real expenditure” in 2005 (start of the reference period) expressed in EUR, 
and  
the “Average Annual Growth Rate” (AARG) of expenditure between 2005 -2014.  

The  purpose  is  to  analyse  the  differences  in  the  evolution  of  expenditure  for  purchasing  fishery  and 
aquaculture products. 

Figure 3 - Per capita household real expenditure (€ 2005) an AAGR (%): Member States and sub-regions 

The chart highlights an inverse ratio between the above variables. Therefore, two opposed groups are clearly 
recognisable: 

- 

- 

the first group consist of countries of Eastern and Central EU that accessed the EU more recently. In 
this group, the lowest per capita expenditure in 2005 recorded a more rapid development (i.e. higher 
AAGR).7  
the second group includes most of the Southern EU countries and Belgium. This group, which shows 
the highest per capita expenditure in 2005, recorded very weak or negative growth rates. 

There is actually a third group, which includes most of the other countries, regardless of their geographical 
location, presenting a per capita expenditure in 2005 slightly below the EU average and a limited evolution 
in consumption.  

7 However, the per capita expenditure trend in Romania suggested a problem of reliability for 2005 and 2008-2009.  

16 

EELVLTBGROPLATCZHUSISKUKIENLDEBELUSEDKFIFRELPTESHRITCYMTEU 28-10,0-5,00,05,010,015,020,025,030,035,040,00255075100125150175200225250275AAGR 2005/2014 of real expenditure (%)Expenditure per inhab 2005 (€) 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

5  Knowing consumers’ habits  

This chapter investigates consumers’ habits regarding FAPs, both in terms of consumption frequency and 
preferences  for  the  different  aspects  of  products,  namely  type  of  products,  characteristics  of  products 
according to the origin (marine or freshwater) and the type of production (wild or farmed).  

In addition, the chapter examines the preferences in terms of presentation (loose or pre-packed) and the 
habits in terms of where purchases of fishery and aquaculture products mainly occur.  

The numerical information (percentages) originates from data elaborated from the Eurobarometer survey. 
Findings are compared with information from the other Tasks, and in particular from Task 2 (Stakeholders’ 
survey). 

5.1  Regular consumers Vs non-consumers 

The first issue regards the consumption frequency of the entire population (over the age of 15), regardless 
of their level of consumption.  

Below, two charts have been elaborated, which analyse the following aspects: 

→  The Member State positioning and the grouping in sub-regions; 
→  The positioning of members of different age groups and different socio-professional conditions8 

The two parameters of the chart represent:  

→  The regular consumers of FAPs: namely the percentage of the entire sample consuming FAPs at least 

once a month. Therefore, occasional consumers who consume FAP rarely are excluded; 
→  The non-consumers: namely the percentage of the entire sample not consuming FAPs at all. 

In  the  positioning  charts  below,  four  quarters  have  been  identified,  and  they  are  defined  through  the 
intersection of respective percentages of regular consumers and  non-consumers for the entire EU sample 
(72% and 13% respectively).  

8  These  two  parameters  have  been  analysed  because  they  resulted  to  be  the  most  significant  compared  to  the  others  of  the 
Eurobarometer survey. In particular, the division of sample for gender does not show (at EU average) substantial differences. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 4 - Regular consumers versus non consumers 

By Member State 

By age classes and socio-professional category (*) 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

18 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU0%10%20%30%40%50%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NeverAt least once a month15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSEU288%11%13%16%18%21%60%65%70%75%80%NeverAt least once a monthAgeSP-cat 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

As regards the positioning of Member States and sub-regions, the chart highlights that some Member States 
of the Northern and Southern sub-regions show the highest percentage of regular consumers (it is maximum 
in Spain). In this group there are also Member States showing a per capita consumption lower than the EU 
average (for example: Estonia, Denmark, Finland and Greece). On the other side, there is a group of Member 
States,  together  with  the  Central  EU  sub-region,  with  the  highest  percentage  of  non-consumers  and  the 
lowest  of  regular  consumers  (it  is  maximum  in  Hungary).  This  group  consists  also  of  Member  States 
expressing a higher per capita consumption compared to the EU average (e.g. Italy). 

Based on the results of the positioning, Member States have been divided into four groups. Grouping criteria 
are not based on the geographical location but on combinations of different ranges (defined hypothetically) 
of percentages of regular consumers and non-consumers. 

Regardless of the consumption level and/or the per capita expenditure, these groups could represent specific 
targets, to which it could be possible to address policy actions.   

Table 5 – Member States positioning according to the two parameters: “% Regular consumers” (RC) and “% Non-consumers” (N) 

RC >80%  
N < 10% 

60% < RC < 80%  
N <10% 

60% < RC < 80% 

N >10% 

RC < 60% 

N > 10% 

Spain 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Netherland 

Cyprus 

Lithuania 

France 

Greece 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Belgium 

United Kingdom 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Slovakia 

Austria 

Hungary 

Portugal 

Malta 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Croatia 

Germany 

Italy 

Romania 

Ireland 

In some Member States of the Eastern, Western, Central and Northern sub-regions, some promotional 
campaigns (analysed in depth in Task 39) were carried out that aimed at improving the image of fishery 
and  aquaculture  products  and  also  at  improving  the  FAP  penetration  rate  (i.e.  increase  of  regular 
consumers’ percentage).  

Only  some  countries  in  the  Southern  EU  sub-region  (Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  France)  did  not  have 
campaigns directed at improving the image of fisheries and aquaculture products, presumably because 
consumers in those countries already have a positive image of fish products. 

As regards the positioning of the two socio-demography parameters, the chart (EU average data) shows that: 

9 Campaigns carried out in Bulgaria, Estonia, Denmark, and Germany directly targeted the improvement of the products’ image by 
informing consumers about the health benefits and high value of fishery and aquaculture products and reducing prejudices against 
the products (such as negative perceptions related to aquaculture products). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

→  The consumption frequency is positively correlated with age (i.e. the older, the higher frequency): 
all  age  groups  above  44  years  are  located  in  the  second  quarter  (higher  frequency  of  regular 
consumers and lower percentage of non-consumers). On the contrary, all age groups up to 45 years 
are located in the fourth quarter (with higher percentage of non-consumers and lower frequency of 
regular consumers). Young people (15-24 years) are the age group with the highest percentage of 
non-consumers.  

→  Young people (15-24 years) are mainly composed of students, while managers and retired people 
show the highest frequency and lowest percentage of non-consumers. Therefore, it is evident the 
correlation between age, social position and higher consumption; 

→  In  general,  the  upper  classes  (Managers,  self-employed)  consume  FAPs  more  often  than  other 

classes with lower economic availabilities (students, unemployment, manual workers).  

Therefore,  the  adulthood and  higher  economic  availabilities,  connected with the  professional condition, 
represent the two variables that mostly maximize the consumption frequency. On the contrary, the young 
age  and  lower  economic  availabilities,  connected  with  the  professional  condition,  represent  the  two 
variables that mostly maximized the non-consumption.  

It has to be highlighted that the difference surveyed at EU level between youngest and eldest in terms of 
consumption frequency has also been identified at Member State level. In fact, the Eurobarometer analysis 
carried out for each Member State on classes 15-24 years old for young people and over 55 years old for 
elder shows that: 

• 

• 

In all Member States, the percentage of regular consumers > 55 years is higher than the national 
average of regular consumers, excluding Hungary, Slovenia, Germany and Italy; 
In all Member States, the percentage of regular consumers in the class 15-24 is lower than the 
national average of regular consumers, except in Hungary, Slovakia and Germany.  

The analysis of literature carried out in Task 1 shows that consumption across socio-demographic groups 
has been analysed only in 13 Member states.  

These studies broadly confirm the Eurobarometer’s results, with only few exceptions. In fact, it emerges 
that consumption (and/or consumption frequency): 

1. 

is highest in groups of people with higher education and higher income (and standard of living)  
(Latvia, Poland, Czech republic, Sweden, Spain) 

An exception is Croatia, for which there is no relationship between social status, educational level 
and frequency of fish consumption. Partly, also Greece should be considered as an exception, for 
which the cluster with lower income purchases fish at a higher frequency (1-2 times per week, vs 
1-2 times per month for the group with higher income. 

Furthermore, in some countries consumption frequencies and the penetration rate are changing. 
For instance, in the Czech Republic, “consumers are expected to change consumption habits due 
to  factors  such  as  increasing  focus  on  health  and  healthy  diets  encouraged  by  government 
initiatives, in particular households with children as these consumers seems to have a significant 
level of disposable income” 

2. 

is  highest  for  elder  people  and  lowest  for  younger  people  (Poland,  Slovenia,  Netherlands, 
Belgium, Finland, France) 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The critical positioning of young people (students) is to be stressed, due to the large distance with the EU 
average. 

The  criticality  of  the  young  segment  is  confirmed  in  the  results  of  the  survey  on  stakeholders,  which 
highlights that, for some retailers, the development of the consumption for youngest population is a key 
challenge in the long term. 

The  perception  of  this  criticality  induced  the  majority  of  Member  States  to  undertake  campaigns  and 
promotional activities aimed at educating young people and increasing the awareness of fishery products 
among younger and children.  

These campaigns, which often saw the involvement of kindergartens, schools, universities, were carried 
out in Poland, Romania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, France, Greece, Portugal, 
Spain,  Italy,  Cyprus  and  Malta.  In  some  instances,  campaigns  underlined  the  linkages  between 
consumption of fish and health (Task 3)10. 

5.2  Relationship  between  consumption 

frequency  and  per-capita 

consumption  

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  verify  the  possible  existence  of  a  relationship  between  consumption 
frequency (percentage of regular consumers, who consume FAPs at least once a month) and the quantity of 
FAPs consumed (kg per capita, in live weight equivalent).  

The following chart shows that:  

- 

- 

This  relationship  exists  and  is  positive:  in  general,  when  the  percentage  of  regular  consumers 
increases, also the average per-capita consumption increases; 
The relationship is not “linear”: in general, when the percentage of regular consumers increases, the 
average per-capita consumption increases more than proportionally.  

10 The objectives were to teach young people about the nutritional value of fish products, how to recognise different fish species, 
and  the  differences  between  marine  and  farmed  fish.  Various  specialised  projects  were  presented  in  kindergartens,  schools, 
universities, which included presentations by nutritional experts, tasting events, competitions, excursions to fisheries companies, 
and other activities.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 5 - Relationship between consumption frequency and per-capita consumption 

5.3  Consumers’ preferences about FAPs 

The second issue investigated relates to consumers’ preferences regarding FAPs. We analysed purchasers of 
FAPs11. 

Preferences are analysed under different perspectives:  

1.  Preferences about the product. In particular, preferences about the preservation states (i.e. fresh 
fish, frozen products, etc.); preferences about the production method (wild vs farmed products) and 
preferences about marine vs freshwater origin.  

2.  Preferences about the products’ main presentations (loose vs pre-packed). 
3.  Habits about the FAPs’ places of sale (POS). 

5.3.1  Preferences about the product 

The present analysis is based on the combination of the percentages of purchasers reporting to buy FAPs 
often / never12.  

It is worth highlighting that the analysis has some limits, notably: 

→  The never concept has a well-defined “dimension” (never means zero), while the often concept is 

non-dimensional and can vary depending on the person interviewed.  

→  The number of “often” answers depends on the types of products in terms of preservation state: 

fresh products are purchased with more frequency than others, as their shelf life is shorter. 

Bearing in mind these limits, the following chart shows the different positioning of seafood products at EU 
level: 

11 Clearly the number of buyers is lower than the number of consumers.  
12 Only FAPs’ purchasers are analysed, so the alternatives “often / never” just refer to the purchase of those specific FAPs under 

analysis. 

22 

EELVLTBGROPLATCZHUSISKUKIENLDEBELUSEDKFIFRELPTESHRITCYMTEEUWEUNEUSEUCEUEU 28 y = 1,553e3,5481xR² = 0,58740,010,020,030,040,050,060,020%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Consumption Kg p.c.Frequency:  % A least a month   
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 6 - “Regular purchasers” vs “Non-purchasers”, by product type (% on total purchasers, EU averages) 

The resulting data allows making the following conclusions: 

→  Tinned, frozen and fresh products have a higher percentage among regular purchasers compared 
with non-purchasers. This is particularly true for fresh products, which have a very low percentage 
(less than 15%) among non-purchasers. In any case, the percentage of purchasers buying often the 
different types of FAPs is quite low, as its peak value is only 35% (for fresh products). 

→  On the other hand, for smoked and breaded products, the percentage on non-purchasers is higher 
than that of regular purchasers. For breaded products, the percentage of non-purchasers is around 
30%,  while  it  is  10%  for  regular  purchasers.  As  a  consequence,  the  purchase  (and  household 
consumption)  of  smoked  and  breaded  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  is occasional,  as  it  is  not 
within the “food-habits” of EU citizens. 

Based on averages at EU level, for each type of product we elaborated the following charts showing:  

✓  The  positioning  of  Member  States  (Member  States)  and  sub-regions,  in  terms  of  difference  with 

respect to the EU28 averages (EU28 average = 0 for both variables) 

✓  The positioning of people interviewed based on their class of age and socio-professional category in 

terms of difference with respect to the EU28 averages (EU28 average = 0 for both variables) 

While examining the charts below, it should be considered that: 

- 

- 

each Member State has a different percentage of regular purchasers (the highest being in Spain, the 
lowest in Hungary) 

each  Member  State  has  a  different  structure  in  terms  of  class  of  age  and  socio-professional 
categories.

23 

FreshFrozenSmokedTinnedBreaded0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%NeverOften 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 7 - Regular purchasers vs non-purchasers, by product type (differences with the EU average) 

By Member State 

By age class and socio-professional category 

24 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%Never (EU=14%)Often (EU=35%)Fresh productsEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%-15%-13%-10%-8%-5%-3%0%3%5%8%Never (EU=14%)Often (EU=34% )Fresh productsAgeS-P cat.EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%Never (EU=9%)Often (EU=25%)Frozen productsEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+​SEMOWCMWHPURS-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%Never (EU=9 %)Often (EU=25% )Frozen productsAgeS-P cat. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

25 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%50%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%Never (EU=20%)Often (EU=12%)Smoked, salted, dried or in brinen productsEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+​SEMOWCMWHPURS-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%10%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%Never (EU=20 %)Often (EU=12% )Smoked, salted, dried or in brine productsAgeS-P catEU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%Never (EU=12%)Often (EU=20%)Tinned productsEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+​SEMOWCMWHPURS-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%Never (EU=12 %)Often (EU=20% )Tinned productsAgeS-P cat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= Retired; S = Student 

26 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%Never (EU=30%)Often (EU=10%)Breaded productsEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+​SEMOWCMWHPURS-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%Never (EU=30 %)Often (EU=10% )Breaded productsAgeS-P cat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

At Member State and sub-regional levels, the resulting data leads to the following conclusions: 

→  In general, the  divergence  of each Member  State  from  the EU average  is significant, sometimes 
higher than 30% or 40% (e.g. fresh products regularly purchased in Spain; smoked products never 
purchased in Hungary, etc.).  

→  With few exceptions, the positioning of each Member State belonging to the same sub-region can be 
very different, as the regular purchases and/or the absence of purchases of the different product 
types are based on the consumer habits of a single Member State (e.g. sardine or canned tuna are 
purchased  very  often  in  Spain,  while  their  purchases  in  Greece  is  very  rare).  Therefore,  the 
aggregation  in  terms  of  geographical  areas  is  not  the  best  way  to  explain  the  phenomena  under 
analysis.   

As regards the single product types: 

→  For fresh products, some of the Southern EU countries are positioned in the 2nd quarter (“often” is 
above the EU average and “never” is below it). This is particularly true for Spain, Greece, Cyprus and 
Portugal, where the “often” category is more than 20% higher than the EU average and the “never” 
category is 10% lower than the EU average. On the other hand, Germany and Austria are the Member 
States showing the highest differences compared to the EU average, as “often” purchasers are more 
than 20% lower and “never” purchasers are more than 15% higher than the EU average. 

→  For frozen products, Sweden has the highest frequency of regular purchasers (more than 20%) and 
the lowest of non-purchasers (less than 6%). The opposite is reported for some Eastern EU countries 
(Estonia, Latvia) and Central EU countries (Slovenia and Hungary). 

→  For smoked/dried products, the United Kingdom and most of all Denmark are the Member States 
with the highest frequency of regular purchasers and the lowest of non-purchasers (for DK, more 
than 25% and less than 10%, respectively). On the other hand, in some Central EU countries (Hungary 
and  Slovenia),  the  “never”  category  is  more  than  30%  higher  than  the  EU  average,  while  regular 
purchasers are about 10% lower. 

→  For  tinned  products,  Member  States  belonging  to  the  same  sub-region  show  very  different 
positioning. For example, Malta and Spain show the highest percentage of the “often” category and 
the  lowest  of  “never”  with  respect  to  the  EU  average  (for  Malta,  more  than  30%  and  10%, 
respectively); Greece has a positioning below 15% within the “often” category and above 15% for the 
“never” category compared to the EU average. 

→  For breaded products, the UK has an abnormal positioning compared to other Member States, with 
a percentage of “often” which is more than 15% above the EU average and a percentage of “never” 
below 15%. This could be partly explained by the popularity of fish and chips in the country. Greece, 
Slovenia, Lithuania and Spain have opposite positioning. 

If we look at socio-demographic categories, the differences between each class and the EU average are quite 
limited (± 6%), with the exception of fresh and breaded products. 

Nevertheless, the combined analysis of preferences for the different product types shows that young people 
(and students) purchase few fresh products, as they prefer frozen and processed products (smoked/ dried 
and breaded products). On the other hand, adults and old people prefer fresh fish and limit the purchase of 
processed products. 

As regards socio-professional categories, besides the combinations young/student and old/retired, managers 
and  self-employed  are  positioned  in  the 2nd  quarters  of  the  charts  (“often”  is  above  the  EU  average  and 

27 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

“never” is below it). This is true for almost all types of products, with the only exception of tinned products, 
which show a position of managers above the EU average for both “often” and “never”. 

Unemployed people prefer frozen and tinned products as they are cheaper, while they limit their purchases 
(or do not purchase at all) fresh and smoked products, which are generally more expensive. 

Based on the results above, there are specific “targets” of combinations Often/Never which can be identified 
for each product type. This is linked to age classes and socio-professional categories, which are in turn related 
to socio-economic and cultural classes (e.g. young student vs old retired; manual workers and unemployed 
vs managers and self -employed). 

Only few national studies (Task 1) tackled the issue of consumers’ preferences for the different products 
categories, and only in absolute terms and not in terms of purchase frequency.   

Most  of  these  confirmed  the  indications  provided  by  Eurobarometer  about  an  overall  preference  of 
consumers towards fresh fish, even if some changes are ongoing. More in detail: 

- 

- 

Estonia: people still prefer fresh fish. The consumption of smoked and salted fish has increased. 
The popularity of frozen fish has not increased. 
Ireland:  Studies  of  consumer  habits  show  increasing  interest  for  fresh  consumption,  while 
available market data figures show an opposite trend: increase for frozen products, decrease for 
fresh ones (2015 vs 2014), with ready-to-cook frozen products being the main driver behind this 
trend. 

-  Belgium: Fresh fish is preferred. Almost all segments increased, at the exception of frozen fish. 
- 

Sweden: consumers are positive towards fresh fish, although they perceive that category to be 
less available than other fish presentations. 
France: Fresh products dominate the market.  

- 
-  Croatia: 91% of consumers prefer fresh to frozen fish. 

In other countries the situation is more controversial. More in detail:  

-  Poland: Over 45% of consumers prefer to buy fresh and frozen fish (frozen fish has been slightly 

- 

decreasing) while the rest gives preference to processed products. 
Slovenia:  Frozen  fish  took  has  become  more  common  than  fresh  mainly  due  to  the  modern 
lifestyle and the relatively easy accessibility of frozen fish, as these products are available in almost 
every store. 
Finland: Preserved (canned) FAPs increased. 

- 
-  Portugal:  consumption  of  frozen  products  and  ready-to-cook  meals  has  increased,  not  only 
because of the economic crisis (fresh/chilled fish are generally more expensive), but also because 
lifestyles have changed. 

As regards preferences under a socio-demographic point of view, only a study in Latvia tackled the issue, 
from  which  it  is  possible  to  deduce  (in  line  with  Eurobarometer  findings)  that  households  with  higher 
income prefer fresh and smoked fish; households with lower income tend to buy cured fish. Fish sticks are 
also popular among Latvian youngsters.  

The  survey  carried  out  with  retailers  highlighted  that  fresh,  frozen  and  processed  products  are  an 
important factor for the purchase of fishery and aquaculture products, as each of the presentations or 
retail methods constitutes a specific segment with specific market trends.  

Fresh and convenient products show positive market trends while frozen seafood faces more difficulties. 
Loose and pre-packed fresh products both register increases (particularly pre-packed products).  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The fresh fish counter is an asset for the points of sale (POS) to attract consumers. However, this implies 
important costs (space, logistics, staff) that not all POS can bear. 

5.3.2  Preferences about wild vs farmed FAPs and marine vs freshwater FAPs 

In this paragraph, we analysed the preferences of purchasers about two features of the products:  

✓  the production method (wild vs farmed products); 

✓  marine vs freshwater origin. 

The results of the analysis carried out with specific focus to the production method are shown in the charts 
below,  where  Member  States  are  positioned  in  comparison  with  the  EU  average.  The  percentages  of 
purchasers expressing no preferences are also shown. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

By Member State and Sub-region 

By age class and socio-professional category 

Figure 8 - Preferences about production method 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= Retired; S = Student 

30 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Farmed productsWild productsEU 2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS5%6%7%8%9%10%11%20%23%25%28%30%33%35%38%40%43%Farmed productsWild productsAgeS-P cat.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEUPercentage expressing preference0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSPercentage expressing preference 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The  first  aspect  emerging  from  the  analysis  is  that  few  purchasers  expressed  a  preference:  only  for  5 
Member States (all belonging to the South-EU area) and in one sub-region (South) the 50% threshold was 
exceeded. On the other hand, for the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria the peak was at 30%. Similarly, if 
we look at socio-demographic categories, no category exceeds the 50% threshold, and young (student) are 
few points above 30%. 

Among purchasers expressing a preference, wild fish is significantly preferred (around 34% at EU level, while 
farmed products are at 8%). If we look at this from a geographical perspective, most of Southern EU countries 
prefer  wild  fish,  along  with  all  Northern  EU  countries.  On  the  other  hand,  most  of  Central  EU  countries 
(landlocked) and some Eastern EU countries (Poland and Romania) express high percentages of preference 
for farmed products, although they still prefer wild products. 

The  preferences  show  very  different  values  for  different  age  classes.  Indeed,  young  people  tend  have  a 
preference for farmed products that is higher than the EU average, while older people prefer wild fish. In 
terms of socio-professional categories, students (young) and other categories show a preference for farmed 
products similar to the EU average, while preference for wild fish varies between 32% and 39% with respect 
to the EU average. 

Only in eight Member States national studies (Task 1) compared the consumption of wild vs farmed fish, 
albeit  not  in  a  homogeneous  way.  For  5  Member  States,  the  preference  towards  wild  fish  is  clear 
(Lithuania,  Portugal,  Spain,  Croatia  and  Greece).  On  the  other  hand,  studies  confirmed  a  higher  habit 
towards farmed fish in the Netherlands (as a possible result of the replacement of wild catches with fish 
from aquaculture) and in Finland (farmed salmonids dominate consumption).  

In Romania, 72% of consumers do not know if the fish they buy has been farmed or caught.  

A study carried out in Portugal highlights that, despite the increasing importance of frozen fish products 
in the Portuguese diet, fresh/chilled fish products represent the main culinary choice, underlining a low 
interest for processed products. This preference is suggested by the perception of loss of the original and 
natural characteristics of the fish product: the longer distance between the fisherman and the consumer 
and the higher uncertainty in terms of safety, quality and nutritional features.  

Furthermore, a study in Greece identified two consumers groups, the first one with lower educational level 
and  income  (low  potential  aquaculture  consumers),  the  second  one  with  higher  educational  level  and 
higher incomes (high potential aquaculture consumer), in contrast with general findings at EU level of the  
Eurobarometer survey.  

Consumers  preferences,  more  orientated  towards  wild  fish,  are  not  the  same  of  LSR.  Indeed,  the 
retailers’ survey shows that the majority of LSR (54%) purchase more farmed than wild FAPs, in particular 
in Central, Eastern and Northern EU13. On the other hand, there is a balanced supply between fishery and 
aquaculture products for 21% of the Western LSR. Fishery products are dominant for 25% of LSR only, in 
particular in Southern EU LSR, where they dominate in 44% of LSR. 

The importance of aquaculture products is linked to retailers’ requirement of availability in the supply. 
Indeed, aquaculture production allows regular supplies year-long with stable prices, while the availability 
of wild seafood depends on stock evolutions, seasonal phenomena and climatic events. 

13 The largest share for aquaculture product is 85% (for Northern LSR), in relation with the importance of salmon in this area. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Therefore,  the share of farmed products increased between 2010 and 2015 for most retailers (56%), 
while the ratio wild / farmed products remained stable for 44% of them. 

Furthermore,  it  should  be  considered  that  the  actual  consumers’  behaviour,  beyond  their  individual 
preferences, is piloted by LSR choices (consumers buy what is offered)14. In addition, supplies’ continuity 
and stability are crucial for LSR (but not for consumers). Therefore supplies’ continuity and stability have 
no impact on the total consumption of FAPs. 

As regards the short-term evolution expected, the ratio fishery/aquaculture should be stable for 50% of 
the LSR between 2015 and 2020. An increase of farmed products is expected in 67% of the LSR in Western, 
Central and Southern regions, and in 30% of the LSR in Northern and Eastern regions. On the other hand, 
the ratio is expected to remain stable for 44% of the LSR compared with the last five years. None of the 
retailers expects an increase of the share of wild products. 

As regards the marine vs freshwater origin, the percentage of purchasers expressing a preference is more 
limited  compared  to  aquaculture  vs  wild.  In  this  case,  more  than  50%  of  purchasers  interviewed  have 
expressed a preference in 10 Member States, but only in one area (the South area) and only by two classes 
of age (the elder ones).  

14 Nonetheless, while supply and selling policies that favour farmed products are declared by LSR, they are not necessarily envisaged 
by  traditional  retailers  (fishmongers,  specialist  shops).  Indeed,  for  them  it  could  be  more  convenient  to  choose  the  wild  fish 
segment, in order to reduce the competition with LSR. 

32 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

By Member State and Sub-region 

By age class and socio-professional category 

Figure 9 - Preferences about product origin 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= Retired; S = Student 

33 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Freshwater productsSea productsEU 2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS4%5%6%7%8%9%25%28%30%33%35%38%40%43%45%48%Freshwater productsSea productsAgeS-P cat.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEUPercentage expressing preference0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSPercentage expressing preference 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

From the above it emerges that, for interviewees expressing preferences: 

→  all Southern EU countries prefer marine fish (preferences  for freshwater products  are  lower than 
5%), while also in this case the majority of Central and Eastern EU countries prefer freshwater fish 
more  than  the  EU  average.  In  Romania,  Slovakia,  Czech  Republic,  Austria  and  mainly  in  Hungary 
freshwater fish are the favourite (in Hungary, at 37% against 13% for wild fish).  The geographical 
aspect is  also  important  in this case,  as these  countries  are landlocked. Furthermore,  established 
food habits may determine these preferences. 

→  If we look at socio-demographic classes, the differences with respect to the EU average are more 
limited and scattered. Again, young people (students) have different preferences, with a lower level 
of preference for marine fish, while they are at the average for freshwater products.  

The combined analysis of preferences results about production method (wild vs aquaculture) and marine vs 
freshwater origin shows that: 

→  Those not expressing preferences about production method do not express preferences about wild 
vs  freshwater  origin  either.  Basically,  for  this  type  of  buyers,  these  aspects  do  not  drive  their 
purchases of FAPs. Other factors (e.g. price) play a more important role. 

→  Those  preferring  marine  fish  also  prefer  wild  fish:  this  suggests  that  there  is  a  “mental”  liaison 

between these 2 categories for the subjects interviewed. 

Only in three Member States national studies in Task 1 compared marine vs freshwater fish consumption, 
even if not in a homogeneous way.  

Preferences for marine fish are strong in Slovenia, but more than what surveyed by Eurobarometer (77,9% 
of adults preferred marine fish while the 22,1% preferred freshwater fish). 

On the other hand, freshwater fish are preferred in Austria (the consumption of freshwater species has 
increased  more  than  the  average)  and  in  Finland  (salmonids  dominate  consumption).  In  both  cases, 
Eurobarometer data are confirmed.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

5.3.3  Preferences about products’ main presentations 

This paragraph mainly concerns the purchasers’ preferences between loose and pre-packed FAPs. 

Figure 10 - Preferences about products’ main presentations 

By Member State and Sub-region 

By age class and socio-professional category 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

The resulting data allows making the following conclusions: 

→  The preference for pre-packed products prevails in landlocked (or with short coastlines) Central EU 

countries, as well as in the UK and Belgium. 

35 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PrepackedLooseEU2815-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%PrepackedLoose 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

→  The preference for loose products prevails in Southern countries, as well as in other countries with 

long coastlines (Ireland, Poland, Finland, Romania and some Eastern EU countries).  

→  The preference for pre-packed vs loose products is linked to the proximity of the sea. Indeed, as 
highlighted in the  next  chapter, in countries with a long coastline  there  are more fishmongers or 
specialist shop (selling mostly loose products). 

The preferences show very different values for different socio-demographic classes: 

→  Young people (and students) prefer pre-packed products. This is linked to the inclination towards 

innovation and their preference for frozen products; 

→  Aged people (with a low education level), retired and house persons prefer loose products. These 

categories are generally more conservative and less open to innovations. 

Again, the preferences derive from the different lifestyles and cultural aspects.  

Preferences between pre-packed and loose products is analysed by national studies only in four Member 
States (Task 1). 

In three out of four countries (Austria, Ireland and Germany), the preference for pre-packed products is 
clear  and  presents  a  growing  trend.  For  Austria  and  Germany,  this  is  consistent  with  Eurobarometer 
results, while it is less consistent for Ireland.  

In Poland, the situation is more complex, especially for frozen fish (Though most of the frozen fish comes 
packed, a lot of consumers still prefer to buy “loose” fish by weight). This seems to be consistent with 
Eurobarometer’s results.  

The survey of retailers confirms the Eurobarometer findings: most LSR sell fresh fish, mostly pre-packed. 
Therefore, purchasers’ habits depend on such supply type, especially in those Member States with a large 
number of supermarkets and hypermarkets. On the other hand, the loose fresh fish counters are more 
common in Southern countries, also within LSR (please see the chart on main places of sale in the next 
chapter). 

Results of LSR interviews show  a  stronger growth of the pre-packed products market with respect to 
loose products (albeit also increasing) during 2010-2015. 

It is expected that both segments will see increases in the future, especially pre-packed as it can still meet 
consumers’ expectations about freshness and convenience. 

These  conclusions  should  however  be  treated  carefully,  since  they  derive  from  the  experience  and 
expectations of LSR, and not of retail operators in general (LSR + traditional shops) and thus fail to take 
into account the point of view of traditional shops.  

5.3.4  Preferences about FAPs places of sales (POS) 

This paragraph concludes the research into consumer preferences regarding FAPs and analyses the habits 
concerning the place where purchasers actually buy their FAPs.   

The chart below shows the results of the Eurobarometer survey, at EU and sub-regions levels.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 11 - Frequency of purchases by FAPSs place of sale 

These data highlight two important aspects, which are strictly linked: 

1.  Structure of the distribution channels in the different sub-regions. Supermarkets and hypermarkets 
are typical places in Northern countries for purchasing FAPs while markets are not common. On the 
opposite side, in Southern countries, the lower resort to supermarkets and hypermarkets for buying 
FAPs is compensated by higher purchases at fishmongers and specialist shops. 

2. 

Importance  of  the  presence  of  the  sea.  The  availability  and  the  length  of  countries’  coastlines 
determines the presence / absence of fishmongers or specialist shops and, as described in the box 
above, the strategies of LSR.  

Reasons  driving  preferences  about  POS  where  purchases  take  place  can  be  derived  from  studies 
carried  out  in  six  Member  States  (Task  1).  All  studies  show  that  the  preference  depends  on  the 
products one would like to purchase: type of product (fresh / frozen / processed); their presentation 
(fillets / whole), production method (wild / farmed), etc. 

More in detail in the six Member States, it has been reported that: 

- 

Estonia: consumers prefer to buy processed fish and frozen fish products in shops, while they 
turn to alternative channels for fresh fish (e.g. directly from fishermen or fishmongers); 

-  Romania: The most frequent buying location for fresh fish is specialised fish shops and traditional 
markets,  while  super-  and  hypermarkets  are  the  most  frequent  buying  locations  for  frozen 
products.  These choices are related to freshness when it comes to buying fresh fish at specialized 
fish shops, while price is the reason for choosing traditional markets and super-/hypermarkets 
when buying both fresh and frozen products. 

-  Poland: fish fillets are mostly sold through supermarkets while over 50% of whole gutted fish is 

sold through traditional retail.  

-  Denmark: Fresh fish sales in supermarkets are increasing, while sales of canned, frozen and fish 

ready meals are decreasing. 

- 

Italy: With 40% of the total, the most used distribution channel is the large-scale retail, where 
processed products register significant level of purchases (above all, frozen products, prepared 

37 

0%20%40%60%80%100%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEUMarketFishmonger or specialistshopGrocery store, super,hyperFish farm, fishermanInternet 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

and preserved products and salted and smoked products). Fishmongers are chosen for purchases 
of molluscs and wild products; Large-scale retailers are preferred for farmed products. 

- 

Spain: There are large differences for the retail channels depending on the type of products sold:  
Sales in specialised shops are notably important for fresh hake, whiting and anchovy, fresh and 
frozen sole, frozen mussels and fresh crustaceans. Sales in supermarkets are notably important 
for frozen hake and anchovy, fresh salmon, cooked crustaceans, canned and smoked products. 

6  Main  reasons  for  purchasing/not  purchasing  or  consuming/not 
consuming FAPs, and factors affecting their consumption/purchase 

This chapter analyses the reasons driving or affecting the purchase and consumption of FAPs, along with the 
reasons driving the “non-purchase” and “non-consumption” of those persons who never eat or buy FAPs. 

6.1  Main reasons for purchasing or consuming FAPs  

The main factors for purchasing or consuming FAPs can be grouped as follows: 

1.  Personal factors: purchasers’/consumers’ reasons, and 
2.  External factors: factors not  linked to individual aspects but impacting (in a positive or negative 

way) the inclination to purchase. 

6.1.1  Main personal factors  

These factors derive from the grouping of those items surveyed in the Eurobarometer survey that can be 
associated due to their connection with the same underlying motivation15. Based on this: 

→  The factor “Wellness and health” combines the items: “They are healthy”; “They contain little fat”; 

“They are easy to digest” 

→  The  factor  ”Hedonism”  combines  the  items:  “They  taste  good”;  “They  are  products  for  special 

occasions”; “They look good on the table” 

→  The factor “Convenience and ease of preparation” combines the items: “They are easy to prepare”; 

“They are quick to prepare” 

15  The  Eurobarometer  question  was:  “In  your  opinion,  what  are  the  main  reasons  for  buying  or  eating  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products? (MAX. 3 ANSWERS)”. The eight items listed in the question have been grouped in the factors.  For each factor, the total 
percentage is the sum of percentages of each item, therefore, as in the case “wellness and health”, the percentage could be more 
than 100%.  

38 

Factors% factorsaThey are healthybThey contain little fatcThey are easy to digestdThey taste goodeThey look good on the tablefThey are products for special occasionsgThey are quick to preparehThey are easy to prepareItemsWellness and healthHedonism Convenience and ease=Σ(%a+%b+%c)=Σ(%d+%e+%f)=Σ(%g+%h) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The chart below shows the positioning of Member States and sub-regions with respect to these 3 factors. 
The bubbles’ dimension represents the percentage of consumers mentioning the items of “Convenience and 
ease”16. The three factors are also displayed by socio-demographic class level. 

Figure 12 - Main personal factors driving purchase and consumption of FAPs 

EU 28 and Sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

At EU level, Wellness and health results to be the main factor (123%): therefore, the main motivation for 
purchasing FAPs is the positive link between consuming fish and health. The factor Hedonism ranks second 
(68%), while Convenience and ease is the least important, as it is mentioned by 32% of consumers only. 

16 Since the factors are the sum of percentages referring to more items, the factors’ dimension can be >100%. 

39 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU40%50%60%70%80%90%100%110%95%105%115%125%135%145%HedonismWellness and health0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSWellness and healthHedonismConvenience and ease 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Member States and sub-regions have a highly differentiated positioning with respect to these average results. 
In particular, the purchase and consumption motivations for Central EU countries rely in the factor Wellness 
and  health,  while  the  factor  Hedonism  is  more  important  for  Eastern  EU  countries  and  Northern  EU 
countries.  Among  them,  Sweden  is  the  most  sensitive  to  this  factor;  Denmark  and  Finland  give  more 
importance to both factors (wellness and health and hedonism) with respect to the EU average. Finland is 
also the Member State giving more relevance to the third factor (Convenience and ease). 

The other sub-regions report results closer to the EU average. However, some Member States have more 
marked  positioning.  They  are,  among  Southern  EU  countries,  Spain,  Cyprus  and  Malta  (where  the  factor 
Wellness and health is more relevant) and Greece (where both Wellness and health and Hedonism are more 
important than the EU average). 

Romania, Ireland, Estonia and, above all, Finland give more importance to the third factor (Convenience and 
ease), while it is marginal in all Southern EU countries, especially in Cyprus and Spain. 

Finally, if we compare these results with the chart showing the preferences about FAPs production methods 
(wild/farmed), it emerges than those who give more importance  to the  factors  Wellness and health  and 
Hedonism prefer wild fish. 

At socio-demographic category level, we can observe that: 

→  old  and  retired  people  give  more  relevance  to  the  factor  Wellness  and  health;  less  importance  is 

given by young people and students; 

→  adults  in  the  age  group  25-44,  managers  and  self-employed  give  more  relevance  to  the  factor 

Hedonism; less importance is given by old people and unemployed; 

→  old people in the age group 55-64, retired and unemployed tend to give more relevance to the factor 
Convenience and ease; slightly minor importance is given by managers, self-employed and students.  

As a conclusion, with respect to the EU average:  

→  Elderly people are more sensitive to health aspects and therefore for them  consumption of FAPs is 

linked to the positive effects on their personal well-being;   

→  The highest socio-professional classes are more sensitive to elements satisfying hedonism, especially 

during special occasions.  

Some  studies  carried  out  in  a  few  Member  States  (Task  1)  are  perfectly  in  line  with  Eurobarometer’s 
findings: the most important reasons for fish consumption are linked to the health and nutritional issues 
(Romania, Czech Republic, Ireland, Portugal, France, Spain, Croatia). 

Other factors (linked to hedonism, good taste, pleasure, togetherness) are less mentioned (France and 
Croatia).  

In line with Eurobarometer results, the “Wellness and health” factor has been one of the objectives of 
national promotional campaigns in Latvia, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Croatia, Spain, Italy and 
Malta (Task 3). In these Member States, promotional initiatives aimed at strengthening the perception of 
nutritional  aspects  and  awareness  of  benefits  of  products  across  the  population  (encompassing  both 
regular consumer and non-consumers). In some cases, this issue has been (also) focused on the target 
“young people”.    

According  to  the  survey  carried  with  retailers,  the  increase  of  convenience/ready-to-eat  products  for 
consumers is a key driver for FAP consumption in all European areas. This seems partly in contrast with 
the very marginal interest of consumers towards this factor, as emerged from the Eurobarometer survey. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

6.1.1.1  Willingness to experience new products 

One of the personal factors that can impact diversification in FAPs’ consumption is people’s willingness to 
experience new products, which is shown by 60% of consumers (buyers) in the EU. 

The survey’s results show that this is more significant in Northern and Southern EU countries, and lower in 
Central EU countries.  

Figure 13 - Inclination to experience new products 

EU 28 and Sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

Looking at socio-demographic categories, old people (retired) and those with the lowest levels of education 
show a lower inclination to experience new products. On the other hand, young people (students) and the 
highest  professional  classes  (wealthiest  people  dining  out)  show  a  higher  inclination  to  experience  new 
products. 

41 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEU0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Therefore, cultural aspects motivate curiosity and the inclination to experience new things in general, also 
due to external solicits, especially from the media. Indeed, the results of the survey are coherent with those 
of marketing specialist literature regarding consumption clusters (lifestyles)17. 

6.1.2  Main external factors  

In general, the main external factors group includes those deriving from third parties (mainly distributors of 
FAPs) namely18: 

→  Price levels;  
→  Products assortment (=diversification of the supply) of the POS;  
→  Promotional strategies adopted by the POS. 

At  EU  level,  68%  of  consumers  would  increase  their  FAPs  consumption  if  their  price  level  was  lower. 
Therefore,  price  represents  a  factor  slowing  the  FAPs  consumption  growth  and,  as  a  consequence, 
promotional strategies adopted by POS could encourage FAPs purchase (and consumption).  

Moreover, 51% of consumers would increase their FAPs consumption if they could choose within a wider 
products assortment. Therefore, the diversification of the supply, independently from the price level and in 
connection  with  promotional  strategies,  would  encourage  FAPs  purchase  (and  consumption).  In  fact,  as 
illustrated  in  the  previous  chapter,  the  inclination  to  experience  new  products  is  relevant  for  60%  of 
purchasers. This inclination can be negatively affected by a low assortment of products adopted by the POS. 

Overall, 56% of purchasers indicate that they are willing to try new products when there are promotional 
events. This openness can be exploited through promotional strategies that aim either at introducing new 
products or at making products already known by consumers more affordable. 

With respect to the EU averages, the charts below show the Member States’ (and sub-regions) and socio-
demographic categories’ positioning: 

17 In literature about strategic marketing, potential consumers can be clustered on the basis of a series of factors more or less wide 
(socio-demographic,  cultural,  behavioural,  consumption  and  fruition  of  communication  means),  which  define  the  “lifestyle”.  For 
instance, elder people, with a minor educational degree and more hostile to innovation belong to a cluster that express a lifestyle 
that can be defined as “traditional consumers”. On the other hand, wealthiest people with higher educational degree are clustered 
in a group where consumption criteria are “emotional”: the orientation is towards distinction (in the sense of sophistication), the 
purchase is based on instinct, and there is a great attention towards new products. The behavioural orientation as regards food is 
moderate and attentive, but also innovating. (see  Sinottica Eurisko, 2004) 
18 The factors are recalled by some Eurobarometer questions, asking the following question to consumers: “Do you agree or disagree 
with the following statements regarding fishery and aquaculture products? : a) You try new products when there is a promotional 
event, for example at the supermarket; b) You would buy or eat more fishery and aquaculture products if the choice and the points 
of sale were more diversified; c) You would buy or eat more fishery and aquaculture products if the price was not so high.  

42 

 
 
 
   
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 14 - Main external factors encouraging the increase of FAPs purchase and consumption 

EU 28 and Sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

Member  States’  and  sub-regions’  positioning  is  quite  marked,  as  a  group  of  countries  is  below  the  EU 
averages for all three factors and another group is positioned above them. More in detail: 

→  The  first  group  (third  quarter  in  the  chart)  includes  Western  and  Northern  sub-regions,  with  the 
Netherlands and Germany being more reluctant with respect to the EU average (along with Sweden, 
Luxembourg and Austria) to consume more FAPs. This means that in these countries/regions, FAP 
consumers’  habits  are  quite  consolidated  and  are  likely  to  only  be  slightly  impacted  by  external 
factors. 

43 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%20%30%40%50%60%70%Prices not so highPOS more diversified0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSPOS more diversifiedprice not so highpromotional event 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

→  The second group (first quarter in the chart) includes  the Eastern and Southern sub-regions, with 
Bulgaria, Latvia and all Southern countries, except France, being more sensitive to the three factors. 
This means that, in these countries/regions, external factors could have a strong impact on the level 
of purchase/consumption19.  

Finally, it can be observed that a few countries (United Kingdom, Slovenia, France) are positioned in the 2° 
and 4° quarters of the chart. Nonetheless, they report values close to the EU average. 

If we look the survey’s results by socio-demographic categories, it emerges that: 

→  Elder people (over 65), as well as retired and students, are the less sensitive to external factors. For 

these categories, these factors would have a marginal impact on their consumption of FAPs. 

→  On the other hand, people of the age group 35-44 are the most likely to increase consumption as a 
result of changes in external factors. Also unemployed are subject to consumption changes when 
price levels and promotional strategies change.   

When it comes to the diversification of supply, the survey conducted with retailers highlighted that the 
range of fresh fish varies between 15 (in some retailers of landlocked countries) to 300 references (and 
sometimes even more) in hypermarkets of Southern Member States.  

In landlocked countries (Central-Eastern), the range of fresh fish can include as many freshwater species 
as marine species.  

Within the same LSR, the number of species also varies according to the surface of the stores: the bigger 
the surface, the wider the range.  

The range of products may also be significantly wider in stores with fresh fish counters than in stores where 
fresh fish is only sold pre-packed. 

Several elements can justify a range differentiation linked to location: 

•  distance to the sea: coastal stores vs hinterland stores (this is mostly the case of Southern Member 

States).  

•  socio-economic characteristics, in particular consumers’ wealth. 

•  density of population: densely populated or urban areas vs rural areas. 

•  experience and expertise of the staff: in the chains where the retailer’s policy is to have a minimal range 
common to all stores and an additional range left to the discretion of the local fish counter manager, 
the range of products is wider in those supermarkets where the fish counter is managed by skilled staff. 

•  regional consumption specificities: supermarket chains present in different regions of a country may 
have  different  fish  sale  patterns  and  therefore  different  ranges  of  products  adapted  to  local 
specificities. 

From  the  interviewed  retailers’  point  of  view,  the  width  and  the  diversification  of  supply  can  impact 
consumption, depending on both the area and the strategy of the POS. However, it is more important to 
have a products assortment adapted to consumers’ needs rather than a high diversification. 

19 However, the diversification of the supply by the POS would surprisingly encourage the consumption growth in all those countries 
(Southern) where this diversification is already high. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

As  regards  price  policies  adopted  by  the  POS,  there  is  no  “fixed  rule”.  Nevertheless,  in  some  Western 
countries, retailers may have three different price ranges (possibly with different corresponding brands, 
when it comes to prepacked fish): entry level (lowest prices), core level (core prices) and the top range 
(high-priced/premium).  

However,  the  number  of  items  in  each  category  is  not  fixed  and  can  change  depending  on  needs  and 
conditions. Price is not key to the retail strategy, which instead mainly concerns the adjustment of the 
number of items rather. For example, in some Southern Member States we can observe a reduction of the 
number  of  fresh  products  during  the  week  and  an  increase  during  the  weekend,  since  it  can  be  an 
economic  disadvantage  to  sell  too  many  fresh  fish  products  with  a  low  turnover.  On  the  other  hand, 
changes  may  occur  in  the  definition  of  price,  from  “free  price”  (which  can  be  defined  by  each  single 
supermarket manager, according to the product and the rivalry) to “stable price” (the same price for the 
same product applied in all stores of the retailer). This “stable price” concept is mainly used for farmed 
products, such as seabream, seabass and salmon. The price range for wild fish is less manageable, due to 
fluctuating availability. 

In those countries where discount retailers play a pivotal role, supermarket chains keep an eye on price 
and operate as price matchers to the discount shops. 

In a nutshell, we can state that there is usually no specific rule regarding the number of items and price 
categories, in particular in Southern EU countries. The main factor influencing the number of products 
supplied and their price is their availability on the market, which can fluctuate a lot from one year to 
another and according to seasons. 

The issue of diversification of products in the POS as a factor aimed at increasing the consumption of FAPs 
has  been  also  tackled  by  national  studies  (Task  1).  However,  beyond  diversification  of  products,  the 
majority of studies makes references to the diversification of the service offered to clients. In this regard, 
the following points should be kept in mind: 

•  Estonia: in order to increase consumption, fish should be made more affordable and available. 
•  Romania: consumers would like to have an additional service like gutting offered by the sellers. 
•  Germany: hard discounters started to sell fresh fish. 
•  Denmark: supermarkets offers door-to-door service for fresh fish, in addition to fresh fish counters. 
Fresh fish has become more easily accessible thanks to the development of home-delivery activity by 
online fish retailers and delivery of fish boxes to households. 

•  France: In front of a large range of products, consumers focus on species they know and which reassure 
them. Secondly, the organisation of the shop may encourage the purchase in self-service compared to 
loose fish. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

6.2  Main non-consumption factors  

Up to now, this report has analysed consumers of FAPs. In this chapter, the reasons behind the decision not 
to eat/ buy FAPs20 are investigated, trying also to identify possible ways to enlarge the number of consumers. 

The charts below show the main reasons driving the decision of 13% of EU population not to consume FAPs. 
Results are reported by sub-region and by socio-demographic group.  

Figure 15 - Main non consumption/ non purchasing factors 
EU 28 and Sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

At EU and sub-regions’ levels, it emerges that:  

→  14%  of  non-consumers  of  FAPs  are  not  eating  any  animal  product  for  ideological  issues 
(veganism/vegetarianism).  Most  of  them  (20%)  are  from  Northern  countries,  and  their  minimum 

20  The  analysis  is  based  on  non-consumers  /  non-purchasers  as  surveyed  by  Eurobarometer.  Non-consumers  represent  13%  of 
respondents. 

46 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEUTaste, smell orappearanceToo expensiveHealth concernsNot used to productsEnvironmental concernsVegetarian or vegan0%5%10%15%20%25%30% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSToo expensiveNot used to productsVegetarian or vegan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

number is in Eastern countries (5%). 12% of non-consumers are driven by medical factors (allergies, 
etc.). Most of them (36%) are from Northern countries, and their minimum number is in Eastern and 
Central countries (9%). Non-consumers for veganism/vegetarianism and non-consumers for medical 
factors cannot be influenced by any external solicitations to consume fish.  

→  The majority of non-consumers of FAPs (55%) do not appreciate the organoleptic characteristics of 
seafood itself (taste, smell, appearance). The highest values are reported in the Central region (62%) 
while the lowest in the Northern region (42%). For such type of non-consumers, external solicitations 
have a very slight impact on their consumption choices. However, offer of new products could be a 
way to get this part of the population to eat FAPs.  

→  The  lack  of  “habit”  (factor  deriving  from  their  food  traditions  and  therefore  a  lack  of  or  limited 
knowledge  of  “fish”)  cover  16%  of  non-consumers.  Most  of  them  (25%)  are  from  Central  EU 
countries, and their minimum number is in Western countries (10%). Potentially, identifying specific 
initiatives  aimed  at  enlarging  fish  consumption  can  have  effect  on  this  type  of  non-consumers 
(increase of the penetration of non-traditional food habits). This is particularly true in the case of 
Central  EU  countries  as  they  have  the  lowest  amount  of  per-capita  consumption,  the  lowest 
purchase  frequency  and  the  highest  percentage  of  non-consumers  (see  chapter  on  regular 
purchasers vs non-purchasers). 

→  The “price” factor has a lower (13%) impact on non-consumers. The highest values are reported in 

the Central region (22%) while the lowest in the Western and Northern regions (8%). 

The reasons for low fish consumption have been identified by some national studies (Task 1).  

A study carried out in Slovenia confirmed that a high price of fish products and a poor offer of fish products 
in the vicinity of purchasing stores, as well as the presence of bones (an obstacle to higher consumption 
among children) and the difficulty of preparation (cleaning fish and a disturbing smell) represent the main 
reasons of the low consumption of these products. 

Another study carried out in France stated that FAPs are also linked to pollution risks, high prices, cooking 
difficulties and product fragility. 

At socio-demographic categories’ level, it emerges that 

→  Vegans/vegetarians  are  mainly  non-consumers  of  the  age  ranging  35-44,  managers  and  self-
employed. The lowest number of vegans/vegetarians are in the age group over 75 and retired. 

→  Healthy factors mostly impact on non-consumers of the age range 45-54 and self-employed. 

→  The  organoleptic  characteristics  of  fish  are  more  relevant  for  the  youngest  non-consumers, 
unemployed and students. They are less important for non-consumers of the age group 45-54 and 
house persons. 

→  The absence of a habit to consume FAPs mainly concerns non-consumers of the age group 55-74 and 

self-employed. It is marginal for non-consumers of the age group 35-44 and house persons. 

→  The price factor’s impact on eldest non-consumers is higher than on the EU average. This is also true 
for  retired  and  manual  workers.  Young  non-consumers,  managers  and  self-employed  are  not  so 
sensitive to price changes. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

6.3  Main factors influencing consumer demand and purchasing behaviour  

Finally, this chapter concerns the analysis of those factors directly referred to one specific product and how 
they impact purchasers / non-purchasers choices. The most relevant factors under analysis are21: 

→  cost (price)  

→  appearance 

→  geographical origin  

The combination cost/appearance can be considered as a proxy for the concept “price/quality ratio”. 

The chart below shows the positioning of Member States and Sub regions with respect to these 3 factors. 
The  bubbles’  dimension  represents  the  percentage  of  consumers  mentioning  the  factor  “geographical 
origin”. The three factors are also expressed by socio-demographic class. 

Figure 16 - Main factors influencing consumer demand and purchasing behaviour 
EU 28 and sub-regions 

21 The Eurobarometer survey investigated this topic asking interviewees to express an opinion about the relevance of a list of items 
suggested by the interviewer. In general, this approach allows deepening those aspects that could not be investigated  by simply 
collecting spontaneous answers. However, the approach adopted has a limit to take into account: indeed, it causes an overestimation 
of the items suggested by the interviewer which would not be mentioned by the interviewees spontaneously. 

48 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU30%40%50%60%70%80%90%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%CostAppearence 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

At EU level, appearance is the factor with the highest impact on purchasing decisions (58%); the cost and 
geographical origin factors follow, at 55% and 42% respectively22.  

In general, the following observations can be made: 

→  one sub-region (Southern) and 3 Member States (Greece, France and Finland) report values above 

the EU average for all 3 factors. 

→  one  sub-region  (Western)  and  3  Member  States  (Ireland,  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom) 

report values below the EU average for all 3 factors.  

→  The  geographical  origin  of  FAPs  is  a  relevant  factor  (above  the  EU  average)  also  in  the  Northern 
(especially in Sweden and Finland) and Central (especially in Hungary, Austria and Slovenia) regions, 
as well as in Germany, Croatia, Italy and Luxembourg.   

As regards the combination cost / appearance, the chart shows a significant dispersion of Member States 
and sub-regions’ positioning around the EU averages, as all quarters are full. 

The interpretation of the chart allows the following observations: 

→  For  those  Member  States  and  sub-regions  positioned  in  the  right  part  of  the  chart  (1°  and  2° 
quarters), appearance is a relevant factor (more relevant than at EU average level). Nonetheless, for 
some Member States, mainly included in the Eastern and Southern regions, this factor is combined 
with that of cost (1° quarter). Therefore, in these Member States /sub-regions, the price/quality ratio 
is a key driver of purchasing choices. For another group of Member States (Luxembourg, Malta, Italy 
and Denmark), positioned in the 2° quarter, the cost is less relevant. Therefore, in these Member 

22 We are not analysing here other suggested factors for which a very low percentage of answers were collected (brand or quality 
labels; environmental, social or ethical impact; how easy and quick it is to prepare) 

49 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 15-24 25-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSOriginApparenceCost 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

States, the key factor determining purchasing behaviour is appearance rather than the price/quality 
ratio. 

→  For those Member States and sub-regions positioned in the left part of the chart (3° and 4° quarters), 
appearance is not so relevant (below the EU average level). In addition, for a group of Member States 
mainly  included  in  the  Central  region  (Hungary,  Slovakia,  Slovenia),  as  well  as  for  Croatia,  this  is 
combined with a strong relevance of the  cost  factor. Therefore, in these Member  States, the key 
factor determining purchasing behaviour is FAPs’ price. 

Looking at socio-demographic classes, we can observe that: 

→  Appearance and geographical origin are considered more relevant for interviewees within the age 
groups 45-74, while they are less relevant for the youngest. In addition, the  geographical origin is 
considered more relevant for wealthiest socio-professional categories and for those with the highest 
levels of education (managers, self-employed, other white collar) 

→  On the other hand, the cost factor is the most relevant for the youngest (within the age groups 15-
44),  as  well  as  for  students,  manual  workers,  unemployed  and  house  persons  (i.e.  all  socio-
professional  categories  with  scarce  financial  resources  or  more  focused  on  home-economics). 
Clearly, the cost factor is not so relevant for the wealthiest socio-professional categories. 

Finally, comparing these results with those of the survey about the production method (wild/farmed), the 
marine/freshwater origin and the preservation state (fresh, frozen, etc.), it emerges that: 

→  For  those  expressing  a  preference 

in  terms  of  production  method  (wild/farmed)  and 

marine/freshwater origin , the factor geographical origin is more relevant; 

→  For  those  expressing  a  preference  for  wild  and  marine  seafood,  the  factor  appearance  is  more 

relevant; 

→  For those expressing a preference for fresh fish, the factor appearance is more relevant; 

→  Where preferences about production method (wild/farmed) and marine/freshwater origin are less 
relevant,  the  cost  factor  is  a  key  driver  of  purchasing  choices  (consumers  purchase  cheaper 
products). 

What factors affect the demand and the behaviours of purchasers has been investigated (more or less in 
depth) by national studies in 13 Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, 
United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Spain, France, Greece, Portugal, Croatia).  

The findings of the national studies present some differences compared to Eurobarometer data, but in 
general both sources agree upon the identification of price and appearance as the key factors influencing 
purchasing behaviours. More in detail:  

• 

In all countries, the price (or the ratio price/quality) resulted as the most mentioned factor. It 
represents the most important aspect in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, UK, Croatia, or the 
second most important one in Estonia, France, Spain, Greece. 

•  The appearance (and freshness in particular) has been explicitly mentioned in fewer Member States 
(Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, United Kingdom, France Greece, Spain) and it resulted as the 
most important factor only in France, Greece and Spain.  

On the other hand, as surveyed in national studies, the  product origin  appeared to be more  marginal 
compared to what resulted from the Eurobarometer. It has been mentioned only in Spain, Estonia (but 
only for fresh and smoked products, and not for frozen) and in Slovenia (only for persons aged 56-65, with 
high incomes and high educational degree).  

50 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Finally, a study covering Spain provides information also with reference to consumers typologies according 
to  specific  behaviour  and  socio-demographic  parameters:  consumers  who  are  mainly  interested  in 
freshness  are  frequent  consumers  (between  1  and  3  times  a  week)  and  this  attention  to  freshness 
increases with the age (35% of the 18-30 years old and about 55% of consumers who are more than 45 
years old). Consumers for whom the first criterion is the price are young people (less than 30 years old) 
and not frequent consumers.  

The Stakeholders surveys confirm that the product’s price and its price-quality ratio are important factors 
for consumption. 

According to the interviews’ results, FAPs have an image of expensive products for many consumers, even 
if affordable fish products are available in most assortments. Thus, promotion on price plays a pivotal role 
to attract new consumers. 

Price-quality ratio is an important factor since many consumers are willing to pay for fish if the quality is 
high (in terms of freshness and convenience). 

As regards the  geographical  origin,  for LSRs in Southern and Western EU countries it is an important 
factor, while it is less relevant in other areas. However, for the same LSRs, this factor is not a key driver 
of purchasing choices. More specifically, details on local/national origin provided by LSRs are considered 
more relevant, as the basic information about EU/non-EU origin does not impact on FAPs purchase. 

The issue of FAPs’  origin was also  the  subject of different national promotional campaigns  (in Estonia, 
Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary,  Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, France, Greece, 
Portugal, Croatia, Spain, Italy). The choice to insist on the issue of origin seems “excessive” compared to 
findings resulting from Eurobarometer, and in contrast with what has been reported by national studies 
and (partly) with comments from LSR. Therefore, the focusing of campaigns on this topic seems to be 
driven by the needs of the local industry rather than the effective sensibility of consumer on this factor.   

7 

Information on fisheries and aquaculture products (FAPs) 

This chapter concerns the topic on information related to FAPs under two perspectives: 

1. 

In terms of availability of information deriving from: 

o  Member States’ national promotional campaigns carried out during 2004-2015; 
o  Other sources (both private and institutional). 

2. 

Information provided, specifically in terms of details provided in products’ labels: 

o  Mandatory 
o  Voluntary 
o  Expected by consumers 

7.1  National campaigns during 2004-2015 

The  collection  of  national  campaigns  on  information  and  promotion  about  FAPs  allowed  to  identify  635 
campaigns  for  the  2004-2015  period  within  the  EU.  The  content  and  objectives  of  these  campaigns  are 
summarised under Annex 3. 

As shown in the synoptic table below, some key elements emerge: 

→  Southern EU countries ran the great majority of campaigns. They covered the highest number (and 

the highest level of diversification) of both focus areas and FAPs species. 

→  Other countries included in the remaining sub-regions ran a limited number of campaigns, mainly 

aimed at increasing the consumption of local (and therefore few) species.  

51 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Table 6 - Synoptic table summarizing information campaigns between 2004 and 2015- by Member State and sub-region 23 

23 The higher number of promotional campaigns in Spain and France is explained by the way in which campaigns are calculated (in 
Spain, the number also includes promotional projects, according to extractions from the EFF monitoring system) 

52 

N.campMain objectivesTypes of productsEstonia2Increasing consumption;  Improving the image; Promoting domestic fish species Fisheries and aquaculture productsLatvia6Increasing consumption;  Promotion of the sector; Promotion the nutritional aspects Salmon, lamprey, sturgeon, carp, trout, eel, crayfish, herring , cod, perch Lithuania5Promotion of the sector; Promoting  products from small-scale enterprises African catfish, trout, salmon, carp, tench, pike, sturgeon  Bulgaria18Increasing consumption;  Improving the imageFisheries and aquaculture productsRomania8Increasing consumption; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of productsCarp, European catfish, sander, trout, mackerel, salmon  Polonia13Increasing consumption of domestic species; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of productsTrout, carp, herring, pike, cod, pike-perch, halibut, sprat, flounder Austria0Czech Rep.3Increasing consumption of local species;CarpHungary2Increasing consumption of local species;Carp Slovenia0Slovakia1Increasing consumption of local species; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of productsCarp, trout, sander, pike United K.3Increasing consumption for sustainable species; Development of new value-added products from local species; Training of chain operatorsHerring, salmon, haddock, sea trout, cod, scampi prawn, brown crab, velvet crab, lobster, scallopIreland3Increasing consumption for sustainable products; Raising consumer awareness of the origin of the species;   Promoting of local species focusing on sustainability Mussels, hakeNetherlands1Increasing consumption;  Diversifying activities in the fisheries industry; Training of industry operatorsPlaice, hake Germany3Improving the image of industry; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of products; Training of industry operators; Developing educational programmes for schools Fisheries and aquaculture productsBelgium1Increasing consumer awareness and demand for products offered by local companiesFisheries and aquaculture productsLuxembourg0Sweden7Increasing consumption; Strengthening market opportunities for local species Northern pike, burbot, vendace, walley, European perch, flounder, halibut, herring, lobster, oyster  Denmark3Increasing consumption (in general,  by children and in national food-service sector);  Improving the image; Increasing consumer awareness Fisheries and aquaculture products  Finland5Increasing consumption; Increasing consumer interest and knowledgeHerring, pike, crayfish, ide, roach France49Increasing and promotion consumption for domestic species from French fleet; Increasing consumer interest and knowledge; Increasing the awareness among young All fisheries and aquaculture products with a focus on domestic speciesGreece9Promoting the significance of the local aquaculture industry; Increasing the awareness among young ; Promoting market opportunities for local small-scale fishermen Sprat, herring, mackerel, cod, salmon, redfish, mullet, anchovy, Mediterranean seabass, seabream, perch, mussels, octopus, squid, shrimp, cuttlefish  Portugal18Increasing consumption of local products; Increasing market value and recognition of local fish; Educational and training programmes for younger consumersAll fisheries and aquaculture products with an emphasis on species of low commercial value - Atlantic chub mackerel, octopus, cuttlefish Croatia3Increasing consumption of local species; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of productsSeabass, seabream, turbot, oysters, mussels, Albacore tuna,  Bluefin tuna, anchovy, sardine, hake, mackerel, horse mackerel, rainbow trout, octopus, squid  Spain455Increasing consumption of local species; Improving the image; Raising consumer awareness of benefits of products; Promotion of sustainable catching methods; Increasing the awareness among young Sardines, anchovy, rainbow trout, carp, seabass, seabreamItaly15Increasing responsible consumption; Increasing value of local  species of low commercial value; Identifying new domestic markets; Improving the quality, safety and sustainability of products; Educating and training programmes (for chain operators and younger consumersAnchovy, sardinella, sardine, Chub mackerel, Atlantic horse mackerel,  Albacore tuna, Atlantic bonito, sprat, Cow bream, East Atlantic peacock wrasse, comber, barracuda, common pandora, Silver scabbard fish,  Flathead grey mullet, bottarga, hake,  carp,  octopus, seabass, seabream,  trout, salmon, turbot, mussels,  lobster, oyster, clam and other fish and seafood species  Cyprus1Increasing consumption; Increasing consumer interest and knowledge Fisheries and aquaculture products Malta1Increasing consumption; Education, strengthening consumer awareness and adding diversification in the national consumption patterns.European hake, chub mackerel, Atlantic horse mackerel,  amberjack, ray, European seabass, Gilthead seabream, Saddled seabream Southern EU countriesEastern EU countriesCentral EU countriesWestern EU CountriesNorthern EU Countries 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

7.2  Sources of information for consumers 

The  Eurobarometer  survey  enabled  to  analyse  which  sources  consumers  resort  to  in  order  to  collect 
information about FAPs. 

At EU level, store employees or fishmongers are by far the main source of information for consumers (52%). 
Friends  and  family,  television  and  the  internet  follow,  reporting  percentages  within  the  range  24%-29%. 
Public institutions and non-governmental organisations only play a marginal role (4%-5%). 

At sub-regional and socio-economic category levels, some differences emerge: 

Figure 17 - Sources of information for consumers 

EU 28 and Sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

53 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEUFriends and familyTelevision, booksInternetStore employee0%10%20%30%40%50%60%15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURSFriends and familyTelevision, booksInternetStore employee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

At sub-regional level, we can observe that: 

→  The  Northern  region  reports  values  higher  than  the  EU  average  for  all  sources  of  information, 

especially for television and the internet. 

→  The Central region reports values higher than the EU average for friends and family, the internet and 

public institutions. 

→  The Eastern region reports values higher than the EU average only for friends and family. 

→  The Southern region reports values higher than the EU average for friends and family and for store 

employees or fishmongers. 

→  The Western region reports values higher than the EU average for all sources of information except 

store employees or fishmongers. 

Therefore, in general, while the Northern and Western regions prefer impersonal sources of information that 
entail no interaction (such as media), the Southern and Eastern regions prefer sources entailing a higher level 
of interaction. 

Looking at socio-demographic classes, we can observe that: 

→  The  store  employee  or  the  fishmonger  are  more  important  than  the  EU  average  for  adults/old 
people, as well as for house persons and retired (i.e. those classes with more time available to spend 
shopping for groceries). 

→  The source friends and family is more important than the EU average for the youngest (age range 15-

34), as well as for students and unemployed. 

→  The source television is more important than the EU average for adults within the age group 45-74, 

as well as for retired and manual workers. 

→  On the other hand, the Internet is preferred by young people and it is less and less used as age 

increases. Furthermore, while it is preferred by student, it is less important than the EU average for 
all active professional categories (managers, self-employed, other white collar, manual workers). 

As a consequence, the sources of information used by FAPs consumers appear to be linked to their socio-
demographic profiles. Indeed: 

→  More innovative sources (such as the internet) are used by young people and active people that 

probably use them also out of home; 

→  More traditional sources entailing less interaction (such as television, magazines, etc.) are used by 

less active and eldest people, presumably at home; 

→  Sources entailing a higher level of human interaction (such as store employees or fishmongers) are 
used by people with more time available to spend shopping, who consider going to POS as a “social 
moment”. 

7.3  Consumers’ attitude towards information on products’ labels  

This chapter concerns the analysis of two aspects emerging from the Eurobarometer survey: 

1.  Consumers’  trust  in  mandatory  information  (by  law  or  regulation)  vs  voluntary  information 

(provided by the brand or the seller); 

2.  Clarity and simplicity of information reported on FAPs. 

54 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

7.3.1  Trust in information 

At  EU  level,  81%  of  FAPs’  consumers  express  trust  in  mandatory  information,  while  71%  affirm  to  trust 
voluntary  information  (provided  by  the  brand  or  the  seller).  In  absolute  terms,  the  percentage  of  FAPs’ 
consumers expressing trust in mandatory information is higher than the percentage of consumer expressing 
trust in voluntary information in all Member states, excepted for Portugal, Finland and Hungary.  

In relative terms, the chart below shows the positioning of Member States and sub-regions with respect to 
the two types of information (mandatory vs voluntary), expressed as differences from the EU average (EU=0). 

Figure 18 - Total trust information accompanying fish or aquaculture products 

Combining the two types of information it emerges that some  countries  (Finland, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, 
United Kingdom, etc.), as well as the Northern sub-region, are positioned in the first quarter of the chart. 
This  means  that  for  these  countries,  the  trust  level  is  higher  than  the  EU  average  for  both  types  of 
information (especially in Finland). The graph also shows that the countries above the bi-sector tend to trust 
voluntary information (i.e. the market) even more than the EU average, and vice versa. 

On the other hand, a large number of countries positioned in the third quarter have a lower trust (compared 
with the EU average) in both types of sources. Among them, Baltic countries, Croatia, Slovenia, as well as the 
Eastern region, stand out. Also in this case, the lowest trust in each type of information varies according to 
the positioning above/below the bisector. 

7.3.2  Clarity of the information 

At EU level, 69% of purchasers consider the information on FAPs clear. 

At sub-region level, significant differences emerge. The highest level of clarity is recorded in the Northern 
region (82%) while the lowest in the Southern and Eastern regions (66%). 

55 

EU28BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKWEUNEUCEUEEUSEU-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%By the brand or the seller (EU=71%)By law or regulation (EU=81%) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Figure 19 - Clarity of the information 

EU 28 and sub-regions 

Age classes and socio-professional categories 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

Looking  at  socio-demographic  categories,  clarity  is  rather  linked  to  age  classes  (higher  levels  for  young 
people: 75%; lower levels for over 75: 60%) and socio-professional classes, as they also express the cultural 
level and interaction skills – such as reading skills and ability to understand (higher levels for managers and 
other white collar: 75% and 74%, respectively; lower  levels for house persons and retired: 62% and 65%, 
respectively). 

56 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEU0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+SEMOWCMWHPURS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

7.4  Consumers expectations about information available on FAPs’ labels   

This chapter summarises the results of previous tasks concerning consumers/purchasers attitude towards 
information available on FAPs’ labels. 

The level of consumers’/purchasers’ interest is analysed both with respect to mandatory information and 
voluntary information that could be added on labels. 

7.4.1  Consumers’/Purchasers’ attitude towards mandatory information  

The Eurobarometer survey includes fresh, frozen, smoked and dried products.  

Interviewees were asked to express an opinion about the relevance of a suggested list of information. 

The  chart  below  show  the  survey’s  results  summarised  at  EU  and  sub-region  levels.  They  report  the 
percentages of consumers/purchasers considering the suggested information as important. 

Figure 20 - Importance of mandatory information on FAPs labels (%) 

Fresh, frozen, smoked, dried products 

(*) SE = Self-employed; M = Manager; OWC = Other white collar; MW = Manual worker; HP = House person; U = Unemployed; R= 
Retired; S = Student 

The following conclusions can be made: 

→  All suggested information is considered very important (>70%), except that regarding the fish gear 

used, which is important for only 44% of consumers; 

→  The  product's  expiry  date 

information,  mentioned  by  94%  of 
consumers/purchasers  at  EU  level.  At  sub-regional  level,  no  significant  difference  emerges  with 
respect to the EU average; 

is  the  most 

important 

→  “Product  and  species  names”  ranks  second  (88%  at EU-28  level),  with  limited  differences  at  sub-

regional level; 

57 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEUName product and  species Wild or farmedArea of catchfishing gear usedWhether previously frozen“use by” or “best before” date 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

→  “Whether  previously  frozen”  is  the  third  most  important  information  (85%  at  EU-28  level),  with 

significant differences at sub-regional level (Southern region: 93%; Central region: 80%); 

→  The  Southern  region  is  the  one  expressing  a  level  of  interest  higher  than  the  EU  average  for  all 

suggested information. 

7.4.2 

Information expected by FAPs purchasers (voluntary) 

The last part of the analysis concerns the consumers’ attitude towards some voluntary information that could 
be provided about FAPs. 

However, it is worth highlighting that all this information was suggested to the interviewees on the basis of 
examples  spelled  out  in  legislation.  Therefore,  it  is  likely  that  some  entries  would  not  be  mentioned  if 
spontaneous  answers  were  requested.  In  fact,  only  one  information  (“Date  of  catch  or  production”)  is 
considered important by more than 50% of consumers. All other categories are largely below 50%, therefore 
not statically relevant.  

Almost all other pieces of information suggested were basically considered as not important (i.e. they may 
be ‘nice to have’, but consumers do not particularly expect to have this information and are not particularly 
looking  for  it),  namely:  port  in  which  the  product  was  landed,  nationality  of  the  vessel  that  caught  the 
product, ethical information, social information, information on the fisherman / fish farmer. 

As shown in the chart below, besides the “Date of catch or production” which is important for all sub-regions 
(especially for the Northern region), the percentage of importance is >50% for “Environmental information” 
only in the Northern Region. 

Looking  at  socio-demographic  categories,  the  interest  about  environmental  information  is  higher  for 
youngest  people  and  for  socio-professional  categories  with  the  highest  levels  of  education  and  wealth. 
Therefore, these categories could be the target of specific campaigns about environmental issues. 

Figure 21 - Voluntary information for all FAPs 

The results of this part of the survey is quite discouraging in terms of consumers’ interest about the voluntary 
information suggested. This is not the case for the information on the “Date of catch or production” and for 
other items in the Northern region. 

58 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%EU28WEUNEUCEUEEUSEUDate of catch or productionCountry of the ship that caughtthe productEthical infoEnvironmental infoInfo on the fisherman/fishfarmer 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

Finally,  a  certain  correlation  emerges  between  the  level  of  interest  about  information  “Date  of  catch  or 
production” and the percentages of consumers preferring wild fish. This correlation does not exist for farmed 
products, i.e. consumers eating farmed products pay less attention to the “Date of catch or production”.  

Figure 22 - Info on the date of catch or production / consumers preferring wild fish 

Figure 23 - Info on the date of catch or production / consumers preferring farmed fish 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

The retailers’ survey confirmed that information provided to consumers should be clear and targeted, as 
well as useful, and that this plays a pivotal role in the increase in consumption registered in the Northern, 
Southern  and  Western  regions.  However,  this  information  does  not  necessarily  influence  consumers’ 
choices.   

According to the retailers surveyed, the most relevant elements to inform consumers about are: how to 
use fish (preparation, cooking), production method (wild/farmed) and origin (local, specific scheme related 
to origin). On the other hand, interviewees reported that the information about the fishery method, the 
tools used and the fishing zone do not impact sales, as consumers do not understand them. 

Labelling and branding are mentioned by only 26% of LSRs as a factor that may drive sales. This factor is 
more important in the Northern and Southern regions (for respectively 50% and 40% of LSRs). 

Eco-labelling has showed an important increase in the last decade. It is an expectation for some consumers 
but LSRs indicate that it has a low impact on sales. However, sustainability is likely to remain a major issue 
for FAPs. 

Branding remains limited in the sector and it is not a key driver. In some areas, quality schemes (PGI, Label 
Rouge) play an important role by providing segmentation and advertisement in the shelves. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

8  Conclusions and recommendations  

This final chapter focuses on some of the aspects highlighted in the previous ones, which can be object of 
some recommendations. 

A.  The first aspect concerns the development of the market and future perspectives. Exception made 
for a few instances, the statistical analysis showed, on a ten-year basis, a limited growth of per-capita 
consumption  volumes.  Nonetheless,  the  evolution  of  consumption  affected  market  players  (i.e. 
distribution) in a different way, registering an increase of LSR market shares and a decrease of other 
sales channels. According to LSR expectations, this evolution should continue also in the future.  

If this happens, it is likely that the composition of consumption could further change in the future. In 
fact, making reference to “fresh market”, the analysis highlighted that LSR have in general a higher 
interest in selling farmed fish compared to wild fish, given that: 

- 

- 

The “industrial” approach of producing fish allows to better adapt supply flows to demand 
changes, and grants a higher prices stability compared to wild fish; 
Supply  contracts  are  often  directly  signed  with  aquaculture  companies,  with  a  further 
reduction of intermediate costs.  

In this scenario, and given that consumers purchase what is offered them by distributors (and not 
always this reflects the expectations and preferences of consumers), it can be argued that market 
shares of farmed products will keep on growing in the future, while wild fish will decrease. This should 
take place regardless of the preferences expressed by consumers about wild fish.  

This process could be further strengthened in case the economic stagnation will persist in the near 
future, considering that within this economic context, consumers’ purchases are significantly driven 
by price (in general lower in LSR compared to other POS, and lower for farmed products compared 
to wild)24. 

The growth in market share of farmed fish might also be supported (and / or accelerated) by the objective 
of some national promotional campaigns aimed at:  

•  Reducing negative perceptions related to farmed products, and having as a main objective 

the relocation of consumers’ preferences from wild to farmed fish.  

•  Promoting  the  local origin  of  products  (in  countries in  which  aquaculture  is  developed), 
although the analysis has shown that this focus overestimates the importance of this factor 
(i.e. the local origin) for consumers.25.  

B.  The second aspect concerns the relationship between the consumption level and the percentage of 
regular  consumers  of  FAPs  (penetration  rate).  The  study  shows  the  existence  of  a  relationship 

24  Eurobarometer  data,  confirmed  by  national  studies,  put  into  evidence  that  caught  species  are  preferred  by  a  large  part  of 
consumers, more than farmed species in almost all EU Member States. Furthermore, the study highlighted a preference towards wild 
fish for those consumers which have “Wellness and Health” as the main factor driving the purchase of FAP, and having “Appearance" 
as the main factor affecting purchases. However, most consumers of almost all Member States did not express any preferences, since 
purchases are significantly driven by price (or price/quality ratio) and not by specific preferences on production methods, which play 
a much less important role.  
25 Therefore, more than simply meeting expectations/preferences of consumers, these campaigns seem to be functional to combined 
interests of aquaculture producers and LSR.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

between the level of per-capita consumption and the penetration rate. This means that, especially 
in countries with low per-capita consumption, the consumption growth is (also) linked to the growth 
of the product penetration rate, and the initiatives that affects the second echoed also on the first.  

In this sense, beyond price decreases, some initiatives seem to play a positive role, and therefore 
should be supported and continued. More in detail, favourable initiatives could be: 

•  Promotional  initiatives  and  a  wider  assortment  of  products  in  the  POS,  which  could 
stimulate the interest of non-regular consumers and (partly) non-consumers, in particular 
those inclined to try new products; 
Initiatives aimed at diversifying the service offered to clients (gutting service, door-to-door 
service, etc.), which could contribute to overcome some reasons for non-consuming fish; 
•  National  campaigns,  which  tend  to  involve  non-regular  consumers  and  (partly)  non-

• 

consumers in “sensitive issues” (e.g. health). 

C.  The third aspect concerns consumers’ attitude towards FAPs according to their socio-demographic 
category.  The analysis highlighted a significantly diverse behaviour in consumers/purchasers with 
different  ages  or  socio-professional  backgrounds,  including  different  levels  of  education  and 
economic status (young students, old retired, managers and self-employed, etc.). 

According to the main elements that emerged in the study, three consumers’ targets are summarised 
in the tables below, as they show diverse behaviours with respect to FAPs. 

Keeping in mind different contexts in each Member State, the table below may represent a tool for 
the modulation of policies and communication strategies for the development of the sector, with 
relation to the different target-groups.  

Indeed, depending on the objectives that one wants to achieve, different uses of this table can lead 
to a number of strategic approaches. For instance, if the objective is to increase the consumption of 
aquaculture  products,  it  could  result  more  appropriate  to  modulate  the  national  campaigns 
communication according to the different orientations of “old people” and “high socio-professional 
classes”,  and  by  young  people/students  on  the  other  side,  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the 
penetration rate within the target potentially “more available” (young people/students in this case).  

YOUNG PEOPLE / 
STUDENTS 

OLD PEOPLE / 
RETIRED 

  HIGH SOCIO-PROF. 

CLASSES 

TARGET PARAMETERS 

Consumption frequency 

Preference wild or farmed 

Type of product preferred 

Type of presentation preferred 

Propensity for experimentation 

Personal key-factor 

Product factor 

  Low 
  Farmed 
  Processed products 
  Pre-packed  
  High 
  None 
  Cost 

Sources of info on FAPs 

Internet, Friends &family 

  High 
  Wild 
  Fresh products 
  Loose 
  Low 
  Wellness and health 
  Appearance, origin 
  Store employees, television 

  High 
  Wild 
  Fresh products 
  Both 
  High 
  Hedonism 
  Origin 

Internet 

The  analyses  also  highlighted  that  the  target  “young/student”  is  the  weakest  link  of  the  FAPs 
purchase/consumption system. All communication initiatives and educational campaigns developed 
by public authorities and that could be launched for involving young consumers could prove crucial 
for the sector’s future. We therefore recommend the continuation of such initiatives. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS -  

EU CONSUMER HABITS REGARDING FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS   - FINAL REPORT 

D.  The  fourth  aspect  concerns  the  information  provided  to  consumers.  The  study  highlighted  that, 
among the items listed in legislation that can be provided as voluntary  information on FAPs, only 
“Date of catch or production” was considered relevant by consumers, who thought it should appear 
on labels.  

Therefore,  extending  information  on  FAPs’  labels  beyond  what  is  mandatory  by  legislation  and 
beyond the addition of the catch / production date may not necessarily interest consumers at large. 
Specific consumer groups may be interested in one or the other voluntary information. However, the 
decision to provide this additional information should be  carefully evaluated against  the targeted 
consumer group, in order to avoid any risk of information fatigue. 

E.  The last one is a methodological aspect, concerning the criteria based on which Member States and 

sub-regions are grouped. 

For  all  topics  (from  per-capita  consumption  and  expenditure  and  consumption  habits  to  factors 
impacting FAPs purchasers choices), the analysis highlighted that the positioning of each Member 
State  belonging  to  the  same  sub-region  can  be  very  different,  as  it  depends  on  food  habits  and 
patterns  with  a  high  level  of  peculiarity  for  each  country.  On  the  other  hand,  Member  States  of 
different  sub-regions  could  also  show  similar  positioning.  Therefore,  grouping  geographical  areas 
according to countries’ homogeneous characteristics is not so effective for targeting policies (such as 
institutional communication). It is rather recommended to identify different clustering solutions that 
could be based on criteria other than geographical location, such as: 

1.  Socio-economic  classes  deriving  from  the  combination  of  per  capita  expenditure  and 

Annual Average growth Rate (see chap. 0)  

2.  Combination  of  parameters  referring  to  consumers’  habits  (e.g.  different  buying 

frequency of regular purchasers and non-purchasers) (see Table 5 in chap. 5.1).   

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
“The EU Consumer Habits – Final Report” is published by the Directorate-General for Maritime 
Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission. 

Editor: European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Director-
General. Disclaimer: Although the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Directorate General is 
responsible for the overall production of this publication, the views and conclusions presented in 
this report reflect the opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the 
Commission or its officers. 

© European Union, 2021 

KL-02-21-129-EN-N 
ISBN: 978-92-76-29651-5 
DOI: 10.2771/179643

Reproduction is authorized, provided the source is acknowledged.
Cover photo: EUROFISH

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND COMMENTS: 
Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs 
and Fisheries B-1049 Brussels 
Tel: +32 229-50101 
E-mail: contact-us@eumofa.eu

www.eumofa.eu