# Off-flavors in Aguacultured Fish: Origins and Implications for Consumers
## 6 Effects of Off-Flavors and Consequences for Producer and Consumer  
Several studies have analyzed consumer behavior and the acceptability of food based on sensory (taste, flavor, texture, color, appearance), safety, and nutritional properties [91; 92; 93; 94].  
In recent decades, healthy eating habits have received greater attention, and it is widely recognized that the regular consumption of fish is a possible practice that improves health [95; 96]. Due to its nutritional properties and an awareness of healthy eating, fish consumption has increased worldwide [1; 97]. Therefore, it is necessary to produce high-quality food that is more attractive to consumers [97].  
The 2020 edition of the State of The World Fisheries and Aquaculture of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO/UN) showed that world aquaculture production grew approximately 5.3% per year in the period from 2001 to 2018 [1]. In addition, aquaculture for human consumption, totaling 57 million tons, surpassed aquaculture for non-food purposes, which was responsible for 30.5% of the total production in 2018 [98].  
Furthermore, flavor changes in fish flesh are characterized as low product quality and are generally not appreciated by consumers. Consequently, this results in a large reduction in fish consumption and negatively affects the marketing of aquaculture products [8], representing one of the most significant economic problems in aquaculture [8; 69]. According to [PERSON] et al. [67], sales of channel catfish in the United States decreased by about 30% due to off-flavors in fish. Similarly, in Europe, there was also an incidence of off-flavors in fish, which resulted in losses of up to 20% for UK trout farmers. In France, one in four rainbow trout had severe concentrations of TOCs, which also resulted in losses for farmers.  
Due to the high cost of fish production, producers have been looking for alternatives to improve fish quality and reduce production costs. Nevertheless, in these attempts, some producers can raise the cost and reduce the quality. In Thailand, for example, fertilizers are added to tilapia culture water to induce the natural growth of algae, which are used as natural food for fish, thus reducing capital investment, however, the deprivation process is expensive [43; 99]. In addition, a loss of fish weight during deprivation and the death of some fish due to moving to new tanks can generate additional costs. Some evaluations point out that the removal of off-flavors raises the annual costs of 10-60 million US dollars for catfish producers, while others have assessed an increase of 0.25 US dollars per kg of fish [100; 101].  
Studies have compared the production and economic performance of fish in different management systems. According to [PERSON] et al. [43] significantly higher amounts of chlorophyll-a and off-flavor were found in terrestrial lagoons compared to the cage culture, suggesting that cultivation in lakes may be more expensive due to the cost of the purification process. As previously mentioned, unfortunately, deprivation is a laborious process that requires a large volume of water and can generally take days to weeks. Thus, the removal of off-flavors can inflict a significant economic loss, due to delays in harvesting and the high cost of drinking clean water [17; 25; 69; 101].