Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36140936›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Perceptions and Liking Distortion from Information about the Nutritional Upgrades in Biofortified Seafood Products.

Greta Castellini, Fosca Vezzulli, Milena Lambri, Gabriele Sacchettini, Guendalina Graffigna, António Marques, Ettore Capri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Greta CastelliniEngageMinds Hub, Consumer, Food & Health Engagement Research Center, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2119-1101
Fosca VezzulliDepartment for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.
Milena LambriDepartment for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4330-2888
Gabriele SacchettiniAeiforia s.r.l., Loc. Faggiola 16, 29027 Gariga di Podenzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6582-7875
Guendalina GraffignaEngageMinds Hub, Consumer, Food & Health Engagement Research Center, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4378-7467
António MarquesDivision of Aquaculture and Upgrading (DivAV), Portuguese Institute for the Sea and Atmosphere (IPMA), 1749-077 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6745-745X
Ettore CapriDepartment for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAeiforia (Italy) · ITPortuguese Sea and Atmosphere Institute · PT

Funding

European Union 773400 (SEAFOODTOMORROW)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: As biofortified fish meat is becoming increasingly available, the use of supplements within fish feed may impact consumers' perceptions and their willingness to pay (WTP) for the product. This study focused on evaluating the sensory liking of, and WTP for, fish produced with fortified feed while understanding the role played by the acquired information on fish fortification. (2) Methods: Hedonic ratings and WTP were measured in an experimental bid. The participants (n = 91) were asked to rate pleasantness and WTP during two different rounds: (i) appearance-information-tasting and (ii) appearance-tasting-information. A total of three fish species (carp, seabream, and trout) were presented to the consumers as being either fortified (with iodine, selenium, and omega-3 fatty acids) or conventional products. (3) Results: For pleasantness, no significant differences were found between the fortified and conventional fish. In contrast, substantial differences emerged when information regarding the products was provided. Providing the relevant information before tasting affected how much the consumers liked the conventional fish, resulting in a preference for it over the fortified fish. Additionally, consumers are willing to pay more for fortified fish, especially when information with respect to fortification is available. Nevertheless, when information about fortification was provided before tasting, the consumer's expectations were not fulfilled. (4) Conclusions: The outcomes of this study clearly indicate that the presence of relevant information impacts how much people like fortified versus conventional fish, as well as their WTP.

Indexed as

consumer engagementfish farmingfood fortificationsensorywillingness to pay

Identifiers

PMID36140936
PMCPMC9497835
OpenAlexW4295886791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.