Does information about circular aquafeed sustainability make consumers willing to pay more for fish?

The uptake of circular ingredients in aquafeeds also depends on how consumers perceive the fish produced using them. Research presented by Emanuele Dolfi, from the University of Bologna, during the Consumer Studies session at Aquaculture Europe 2026 shows that providing sustainability information can increase the proportion of consumers willing to pay a premium.

The findings concern Italian consumers and stated intentions, rather than observed purchasing behaviour, and should not be assumed to apply across other markets.

The study forms part of Acquainnova 2.0, a project co-funded by Italy’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forests (MASAF) to promote sustainable, circular feeds for trout and gilthead seabream. The Italian Fish Farmers Association (API) contributes to communicating the findings and engaging industry stakeholders.

The project addresses a wider aquaculture challenge: developing formulations that combine production performance, economic viability and a lower environmental footprint with consumer acceptance.

The research surveyed 1,502 consumers living in Italy, using sampling stratified by gender, age and region. It assessed their responses to fish fed processed animal proteins derived from insects, poultry and pigs, measuring willingness to pay before and after participants read a short text about the sustainability of these ingredients. The information increased the proportion willing to pay more and reduced the proportion seeking a discount, with a statistically significant effect.

Consumer barriers differed by ingredient. For insect proteins, disgust was the strongest predictor of reluctance to consume the fish. For poultry and porcine proteins, perceived product safety and the perceived naturalness of the raw material were more influential. These findings describe consumer concerns, rather than demonstrating feed safety risks. Insect proteins received a more favourable response overall than the other two sources.

For feed manufacturers and fish producers serving European markets, the findings suggest that explaining the sustainability benefits of circular ingredients can support acceptance, without guaranteeing a price premium. Even after receiving information, only a minority expressed willingness to pay more. Testing these responses in other countries—and establishing whether stated intentions translate into purchases—would help determine how nutritional and environmental innovation can gain traction in the market.