[[{“value”:”
In Italy, foods featuring protein-related messages on their labels generated more than €2.1 billion in sales in 2025, with volumes up 5.1%. An Ipsos study for the Norwegian Seafood Council identifies price as the main obstacle between consumers’ interest in salmon and actual purchases.
In communications issued in Spain on 15 October 2026, the Norwegian Seafood Council presented salmon and cod as natural protein sources for an audience extending beyond sports and fitness enthusiasts. This reflects a commercial positioning strategy: promoting fish through an attribute that shoppers also encounter in other food categories.
For Italian businesses, the question is how to turn that interest into a product choice. A fish-based main course competes with other protein sources, everyday cooking habits and household budgets. This is where nutritional value intersects with the work of producers, processors and retailers.
A market viewed through food labels
According to the nineteenth edition of GS1 Italy’s Osservatorio Immagino, the 4,065 products carrying protein-related messaging generated more than €2.1 billion in sales across the Italian retail channels monitored in 2025: up 6.3% in value and 5.1% in volume compared with 2024.
That scope matters. The figure refers to products identified by information on their packaging. It does not cover every protein source bought by Italian consumers, nor does it measure growth in seafood sales. A food can provide protein without highlighting that attribute on its label.
The same GS1 summary reports a decline in products highlighting omega-3, alongside a contraction in demand and supply within that group. These are trends in different product baskets, not assessments of the nutrients themselves. For the seafood industry, the useful insight concerns how particular attributes are presented and recognised in the market.
What consumers prefer is not always what they buy
A further Italian perspective comes from Sources of Protein in Italy, an Ipsos survey commissioned by the Norwegian Seafood Council. The public summary published on 17 February 2026, covering 15 protein sources, identifies chicken as an especially habitual choice. Salmon, meanwhile, has strong associations with health and taste, but is consumed more often monthly than weekly.
According to the same summary, price is the main barrier between wanting to buy salmon and actually purchasing it. With stockfish and salt cod, consumers also perceive preparation as more difficult and versatility as lower than for other protein sources.
These examples illustrate different commercial challenges. Where price is the main barrier, suppliers need to understand what value consumers recognise in a product and for which occasions they are prepared to choose it. Where preparation is the obstacle, an easier-to-use format or genuinely useful cooking guidance may be more relevant. Protein messaging can support such responses; on its own, it does not resolve the reason a purchase is postponed or abandoned.
Making protein value comparable by portion
An effective positioning strategy starts with information shoppers can understand. Under EU Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the claim “source of protein” is permitted when at least 12% of a food’s energy comes from protein. For a “high protein” claim, the threshold is 20%. These percentages concern the share of total energy, not a fixed amount of protein per 100 grams.
Claims and the quantity served on a plate therefore have different purposes. According to CREA food composition tables, raw cod or hake contains an average of 17 grams of protein per 100 grams of edible portion. A 150-gram portion would provide 25.5 grams. This is an average reference value and must be distinguished from the nutritional information for an individual product.
Per-portion information connects the nutrient to the amount a consumer actually uses. For a meaningful comparison, the edible weight and whether the values refer to raw or cooked fish must be clear. Ingredients and processing also matter: a plain fillet, a canned product and breaded fish have different compositions.
Portion size also helps put the price into context. Price per kilogram remains a useful benchmark, but the cost of the quantity actually used provides a basis for assessing a meal. Comparisons between whole fish and processed products need to account for differences in edible yield, as well as the convenience already built into preparation.
For seafood buyers, the intended use comes first
For a buyer, a protein-focused proposition needs to specify which purchasing occasion it is designed to address. A fillet for a weekday main course competes with familiar alternatives and with the overall cost of the meal. A speciality product intended for a particular occasion can instead emphasise taste, origin and processing. Protein content should support a reason for choosing the product that is consistent with its characteristics.
This also changes the sales presentation. Alongside price and product specifications, suppliers can document the protein content of a specific product, its usable quantity and the convenience it offers. For prepared seafood, the proportion of fish and the overall composition are important. Buyers can then assess a concrete proposition for their assortment rather than a generic nutritional promise.
Performance needs to be assessed over time. Sales outside promotional periods and repeat purchases help show whether consumer interest is sustained. To attribute results to protein-related communication, comparisons must also take price, promotions and product availability into account.
The growth of protein-labelled products gives the seafood supply chain a reason to make its offer easier to recognise. In discussions with retailers, the next step is to present a product with documented nutritional values, a clearly defined use and a testable commercial proposition. Those are the elements on which buyers can decide whether to give it shelf space and maintain that space over time.
L’articolo Where Seafood Fits in the Protein Shopping Basket proviene da Pesceinrete.
“}]]