Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption

Open access
Verbeke, Wim, Sioen, Isabelle, Pieniak, Zuzanna, Van Camp, John, De Henauw, Stefaan·2005·Public Health Nutrition
DOI 10.1079/phn2004697
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the gap between consumer perception and scientific evidence related to health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption. Design: Consumer perceptions from a cross-sectional survey in March 2003 in Belgium were compared with scientific evidence based on a literature review. Method: A quota sampling procedure was used with age as quota control variable. Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire including health benefit beliefs from fish, fish content and effect beliefs for nutrients and harmful substances. Subjects: Adults (n=429), who were the main person responsible for food purchasing in the household (284 women; 145 men), aged 18–83 years, from different regional, education, family size and income groups. Results: Fish is predominantly perceived as a healthy food that reduces risk for coronary heart disease, which corroborates scientific evidence. This perception is stronger among women than among men. In contrast with scientific evidence, 46% of the consumers believe that fish contains dietary fibre, whereas less than one-third is aware that fish contains omega-3 fatty acids and that this nutrient has a positive impact on human health. The gap between perception and evidence is larger among consumers with lower education. In general, consumers are better aware of the content and effect of harmful substances than of nutrients in fish. Conclusions: Despite conclusive evidence about the content and positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids in fish, related consumer awareness and beliefs are poor and often wrong. This study exemplifies the need for nutrition education and more effective communication about the health benefits of fish consumption.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/phn2004697

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S.
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-06
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
422-429
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
DOI
10.1079/phn2004697
OpenAlex
W1965894474
Cited by
271
References
24
FWCI
10.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.