Love · The American journal of clinical nutrition 2022 · Cross-sectional dietary survey and retail price analysis · n=17,559 (3,285 seafood consumers)

Affordability influences nutritional quality of seafood consumption among income and race/ethnicity groups in the United States.

Cited 57 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey data (NHANES) combined with retail sales analysis

PubMed 35691612 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqac099 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Dietary intake data from NHANES 2011–2018 were analyzed for 17,559 US adults aged 20 and older (including 3,285 seafood consumers) to evaluate seafood consumption across income and race/ethnicity groups. Multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity was used to assess the association between income and seafood intake. In addition, Nielsen 2017–2019 retail sales data were analyzed to evaluate associations between seafood nutrient density and retail price per unit volume.

What was found

Low-income adults consumed slightly less total seafood than high-income adults (mean 120.2 g/week, 95% CI: 103.5–137.2 vs. 141.8 g/week, 95% CI: 119.1–164.1), but substantially less seafood rich in long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (21.3 g/week, 95% CI: 17.3–25.5 vs. 46.8 g/week, 95% CI: 35.4–57.8). Fresh seafood high in omega-3 fatty acids cost significantly more than fresh seafood low in omega-3s (P < 0.002). Retail seafood overall was more expensive than meat, poultry, eggs, and beans, although some lower-cost seafood products provided high levels of omega-3s, calcium, iron, selenium, vitamin B-12, and vitamin D.

Why it matters

Broad dietary recommendations to eat more seafood fail to account for the substantial cost barrier of nutrient-dense species, which widens nutritional disparities in omega-3 intake between income groups. Public health strategies need to emphasize specific affordable, nutrient-dense seafood options rather than generic consumption targets.

Limits

The dietary assessment relies on cross-sectional self-reported 24-hour recalls from NHANES, which are prone to recall bias and may not fully capture long-term habitual intake. Retail pricing from Nielsen scanner data reflects national purchase averages and may not perfectly mirror local retail availability or individual purchasing behavior.

Cited by