Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 627–633 | Cite as

Algal eating habits of phycologists attending the ISAP Halifax Conference and members of the general public

  • Maeve D. Edwards
  • Susan Løvstad Holdt
  • Stephen Hynes


A short questionnaire was devised during the 4th ISAP Conference in Halifax (2011) to gather some information on the algal eating habits of the participants. Responses were also collected from random members of the general public in Galway and Copenhagen. Most phycologists had eaten algae before (93%), but few conference participants ate it more regularly than per month. Responses of the general public were similar. A probability model tested the likelihood of a participant eating algae. Neither age nor nationality significantly influenced this probability, although gender increased the probability of eating algae regularly by 9% if the participant was male (at the 90% confidence limit). As hypothesised, being a conference attendee highly significantly increased the probability of eating algae by 22%, in comparison with non-conference attendees (i.e. the general public). The type of phycological research studied also had a significant effect. Researchers working with macroalgae were 22% more likely to eat algae, whereas microalgal researchers were 15% less likely to eat algae on a monthly or more regular basis. The main reasons for eating algae by both groups were ‘taste’, followed by ‘other’ (undefined) reasons, whereas the main reason for not eating algae in both groups was a ‘lack of availability’. Phycologists also ate algae for the perceived ‘health benefits’ (36%), whereas few members of the general public chose this option (13%). Consumption of red seaweeds was most popular (60% of phycologists and 71% of the general public), with Porphyra spp. most commonly preferred. In total, 27 genera of macroalgae and microalgae were recorded as eaten by questionnaire participants.


Algae Macroalgae Microalgae Questionnaire Porphyra ISAP Diet 



The authors would like to thank all who participated in the questionnaire and to acknowledge the organisers of the Halifax Conference, Alan Critchley, Stephen O’Leary and their team for their support. Additional thanks to Jessica Ratcliff for moral support and braving the Galway public and for the helpful suggestions from the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript.


  1. Arasaki S, Arasaki T (1983) Low calorie, high nutrition vegetables from the sea to help you look and feel better. Japan Publications, Tokyo, 196 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Chacon-Lee TL, Gonzalex-Marino GE (2010) Microalgae for “healthy” foods—possibilities and challenges. Compr Rev Food Sci F 9:655–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. FAO (2010) State of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome, 197 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Greene WH (2008) Econometric analysis, 6th edn, Chapter 21. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1178 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Hehemann J-H, Correc G, Barbeyron T, Helbert W, Czjzek M, Michel G (2010) Transfer of carbohydrate-active enzymes from marine bacteria to Japanese gut microbiota. Nature 464:908–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holdt SL, Kraan S (2011) Bioactive compounds in seaweed: functional food applications and legislation. J Appl Phycol 23:543–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hotchkiss S (2010) Investigation of flavouring and taste components of Irish seaweeds. Marine research sub-programme (NDP 2007-’13) series. Project no. ILA/07/004. ISSN: 2009-3195. Accessed 31 July 2011
  8. McHugh DJ (2003) A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 441. FAO, Rome, 105 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Mouritsen OG (2009) Tang—Grøntsager fra havet. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck A/S, Denmark, p 304 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  10. Mouritsen OG, Styrbæk K (2011) Umami. Gourmetaben & den femte smag. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck A/S, Denmark, p 256 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  11. Mouritsen OG, Vildgaard T, Westh S, Williams L (2011) Smagsdommere på Nordic Food Lab. Accessed July 2011 (in Danish)
  12. Murata M, Nakazoe J (2001) Production and use of marine algae in Japan. Jpn Agr Res Q 35:281–290Google Scholar
  13. Plaza M, Herrero M, Cifuentes A, Ibanez E (2009) Innovative natural functional ingredients from microalgae. J Agric Food Chem 57:7159–7170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stengel DB, Connan S, Popper ZA (2011) Algal chemodiversity and bioactivity: sources of natural variability and implications for commercial application. Biotechnol Adv 29:483–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Teas J, Irhimeh M (2011) Dietary algae and HIV/AIDS: Proof of concept clinical data. J Appl Phycol (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Teas J, Hurley TG, Hebert JR, Franke AA, Sepkovic DW, Kurzer MS (2009) Dietary seaweed modifies estrogen and phytoestrogen metabolism in healthy postmenopausal women. J Nutr 139:939–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Teas J, Irhimeh M, Druker S, Hurley T, Hebert J, Savarese T, Kurzer M (2011) Serum IGF-1 concentrations change with soy and seaweed supplements in healthy postmenopausal American women. Nutr Canc 63:743–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yoshiike N, Hayashi F, Takemi Y, Mizoguchi K, Sein F (2007) A new food guide in Japan: The Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top. Nutr Rev 65:149–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maeve D. Edwards
    • 1
  • Susan Løvstad Holdt
    • 2
  • Stephen Hynes
    • 3
  1. 1.Carna Research Station and the Irish Seaweed Research GroupThe Ryan InstituteGalwayIreland
  2. 2.The Seaweed Network of DenmarkHvidovreDenmark
  3. 3.SEMRU, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and EconomicsGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations