Farmers markets (FMs) are known for fresh fruits and vegetables, but many also feature shelf-stable, value-added products (VAPs) like sauces, jams, and fermented produce. Despite the potential impor­tance of locally sourced VAPs to FMs, farmers, and food-insecure communities, few if any studies have examined consumer preferences related to small-batch VAPs of the kind often prepared for sale at FMs. To address this gap in knowledge, this study presents the results of a collaboration between farmers, researchers, and a not-for-profit community kitchen in New Jersey. First, using the Food Choice Process Model as a framework, we conducted focus groups (four focus groups: 6-10 participants per group; 33 participants total) to gain insight into what would make locally sourced VAPs appealing to residents of food-insecure areas. Major themes that emerged were cost, quality, and health; less common themes included culture, food safety, and ethical values. Second, drawing on focus group data, we developed new VAPs—including tomato sauce, applesauce, hot pepper relish and pickled jalapeños—using ingredients from local farms. Third, we conducted controlled sensory evaluations to assess FM customer satis­faction with project-specific VAPs. Urban consum­ers (N=49) ranked a store-bought tomato sauce significantly higher on taste, sweetness, saltiness, and thickness, compared to the VAP version. However, VAP and store-bought applesauces were comparable across most attributes, and reactions to the hot pepper relish and pickled jalapeños were broadly positive. Overall, findings suggest that locally sourced VAPs tailored to the preferences of particular markets may constitute a valuable addi­tion to the local food landscape in food-insecure areas.

No abstract

perceived questionnaire items and to explore their personal experiences with FI. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers used inductive open coding procedures to analyze interviews. Qualitative responses were compared to FI classifications derived from the questionnaire. Results: Participants, on average, were 19.5 years old (±1.2), predominantly female (70%), and 67% were classified as food insecure with the AFSSM. College students' interpretations of questionnaire items reflected their diverse personal experiences (familiarity with FI, familial economic hardships, etc). Confidence in response choices were complicated for students given the range of both formal and informal food and financial resources they had access to (university meal plans, support from social circles, savings, etc.). Among those reporting FI, consequences of and coping responses to perceived shortcomings in food were widely heterogeneous. Conclusions and Implications:The results of this qualitative study provide indications that university students' perceptions of traditional FI assessment questions are influenced by their personal experiences and resources. Results indicate that future work should investigate modified FI classifications and assessment methods among university students to account for the nuanced perspectives in this sample. Funding: USDA.

Objectives Americans consistently fail to meet dietary guidelines for seafood intake. Efforts are needed to increase consumption, especially of sustainable seafood that can be supplied by domestic aquaculture. However, consumer receptivity to aquaculture products is mixed. The objective of this study was to elicit industry perspectives regarding influences on consumer purchases of aquaculture products. Methods Key informant interviews (n = 12) were conducted in late 2020 with U.S. salmon, shrimp, and oyster producers, marketers, and industry interest groups. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. Virtual interviews were conducted by a trained moderator and assistant moderator/notetaker using a semi-structured interview guide. Qualitative data analysis included a thematic review of interview recordings and notes, with key concepts coded according to a priori themes derived from the literature. Results Interviews yielded important insights into consumer receptivity to aquaculture products. Participants believe that outdated misperceptions of aquaculture persist, noting that despite advances in domestic aquaculture production practices to comply with U.S. standards, some consumers perceive aquaculture as environmentally detrimental and unsustainable. Further, participants believe negative attitudes toward genetically modified organisms, corn and soy-based feeds, antibiotics, and chemicals are misplaced, yet contribute to hesitancy among some consumers. Industry opinions on what is important to consumers reflect strong valuation of seafood quality, freshness, local harvest, and sustainability. Participants suggest product labeling efforts be developed accordingly, and that innovative marketing strategies be undertaken, such as aquaculture product promotion through “know your farmer” campaigns, chef education initiatives, and home delivery programs. Conclusions For domestic aquaculture products to have a meaningful impact on U.S. seafood intake, positive consumer receptivity is key. Industry perspectives will inform marketing and educational efforts toward addressing consumer hesitancy to purchase aquaculture products by resolving misguided concerns, with important implications for consumer health and sustainability of the domestic seafood supply. Funding Sources United States Department of Agriculture.