Consumers are more accepting of alternative salmon feed ingredients than the industry assumes

The perception that consumers are one of the main barriers to introducing new ingredients into aquafeeds may be overstated. A study presented by Marco Custódio, from Earthworm Foundation, at Aquaculture Europe 2026 found that four of the six alternatives tested for farmed salmon feed were accepted by a majority of consumers in France, the UK and Germany, while the main resistance was concentrated around genetically modified plant oil and poultry meal, with substantial differences between countries.

The study stems from an issue identified within the value chain itself. The Aquafeed Initiative, coordinated by Earthworm Foundation since 2021, brings together retailers and industry stakeholders with the aim of reducing dependence on fishmeal and fish oil from forage fisheries and encouraging the adoption of alternative ingredients. However, alongside nutrition, availability and cost, buyer specifications and assumptions about what consumers will accept can determine whether new ingredients make their way into aquafeeds.

To test whether those assumptions reflect consumer attitudes, nationally representative surveys were conducted in France, the UK and Germany. The harmonised analysis covered 2,569 salmon consumers — 804 in France, 856 in the UK and 909 in Germany — and assessed six alternatives: microalgae oil, GM plant oil and farmed salmon oil as lipid sources, and soybean meal, insect meal and poultry meal as alternative protein ingredients.

The results show that there is no single European pattern of acceptance. Microalgae oil performs strongly across all three markets and was the preferred fish-oil alternative for 67% of French consumers, while consumers in Germany and the UK ranked farmed salmon oil first, at 55% and 44%, respectively. Among protein alternatives, French consumers showed a stronger relative preference for insect meal, while UK consumers favoured soybean meal. Clear resistance was ingredient- and market-specific: GM plant oil in France and Germany, and poultry meal in France.

The study also reveals an apparent paradox: consumers are willing to accept ingredients they know relatively little about. Only 40% of responses in France and 42% in both Germany and the UK correctly identified how commonly different ingredients are used in salmon feeds. Yet the analysis indicates that resistance is driven primarily by attitudes rather than knowledge. Views of farmed fish and, in the case of GM plant oil, pre-existing attitudes towards GMOs were particularly influential. This leads the researchers to suggest that building trust in aquaculture may be more important than simply explaining aquafeed composition to consumers.

The findings have implications for retailers, salmon producers and feed manufacturers. They challenge the use of assumed consumer rejection as a general argument for restricting ingredient diversification. Farmed salmon oil is particularly revealing: despite being restricted in some buyer specifications precisely because of consumer concerns, it achieved majority acceptance in all three countries. For Custódio, however, evidence alone will not change specifications; it needs to reach the places where retailers, producers, processors and feed manufacturers can assess it together and move collectively towards decisions on which ingredients can be incorporated into aquafeeds.