Developing countries get more nutrition per dollar spent on imported seafood than richer nations, finds study

Developing countries pay less for the nutrition in seafood imports than developed countries, which pay a premium for non-nutritional attributes like convenience, a new economic analysis finds. 

The findings indicate that disruptions in the global seafood trade can impact food and nutritional needs in countries that depend on seafood imports to fulfill dietary requirements.

“Every way we sliced the data, the outcome was the same: developing countries get more nutrition for every dollar they spend on imports compared to wealthier nations,” says Marine (Yaqin) Liu, first author on the study and environmental economist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

“They’re getting more protein, fatty acids, iron, and vitamin B12. That’s because they aren’t paying a premium for the non-nutritional traits that developed countries tend to value more.”

The research notes that seafood is the most-traded food commodity globally and is crucial for food security. More than a third of the world’s population depends on seafood for at least 20% of their animal protein consumption.

Fish and shellfish provide key nutrients such as fatty acids needed for health, essential vitamins and minerals, and micronutrients like B12 and calcium.

“We mostly take micronutrients for granted in high-income, developed countries, partly because we fortify foods and partly because we just have a lot of them in our diets already from eating a lot of animal products. But micronutrient deficiencies are a real problem for many developing countries,” says Martin Smith, George M. Woodwell distinguished professor of Environmental Economics in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, US, who designed the study.

The methodology

The team combined two databases from 2015 to 2021. The first was global trade data in wild-caught and farmed fish. The second covered detailed nutritional information across seafood species and product types, such as frozen or fresh fish, and whole or fillet.

The analysis included 266 unique seafood products, accounting for 90% of the global seafood trade. Six different methods classified each importing country as developed or developing based on socioeconomic indicators. Overall, the team studied 267,505 records on bilateral trade.

“By linking these two databases, we could match nutrient content with the specific seafood products exchanging hands,” Liu notes. “We’re the first team to do this analysis in the seafood trade sector.”

For each record, the team then measured the nutrient content per dollar for nine nutrients, including protein, fatty acids, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc, potassium, and magnesium. The results showed that low-and middle-income countries consistently pay lower prices for nutrition in imported seafood than developed countries.

For example, a pound of fresh salmon and a pound of frozen salmon contain the same quantity of protein, but because developing countries can buy frozen fish for cheaper, they get more protein per dollar.

The research is published in the journal Nature Communications.

“Seafood consumers in the US, Japan, the EU, and other high-income countries are paying a high premium for getting more fresh fish into their markets, even though it’s not more nutritious,” Smith explains.

“When wealthier countries pay extra for freshness, that creates an opportunity for lower-income countries to import frozen fish for a lower price and still get that nutrition.”

The authors were initially worried that lower seafood costs might mean reduced nutritional value. “But our research shows that’s not the case. Our findings indicate that any disruption to global seafood trade could negatively impact nutrition in developing countries,” Liu concludes.