Two Protein Stories: Seafood Wins the Moment, Meat Owns the Routine

by Greg Madison

Protein has usually been one of the steadiest, most reliable traffic drivers in the supermarket. That hasn’t changed, but consumers’ relationships with protein has. Protein has evolved more over the past few years than ever before.  

Research from FMI suggests we’re seeing a “protein paradox” emerge. Protein is no longer one story but two. On one side, seafood is showing serious momentum – meaningful gains in dollars, trips and basket size. 

On the other, meat continues to do what meat has always done: anchor the American dinner plate with remarkable consistency. Both categories are showing real strength, which might seem counterintuitive in this economy, but the trends are real. 

Capitalizing on those trends requires a little flexibility… 

Why Both Categories Are Strong at a Time Like This

Start with seafood. February’s results were strong across the board; fresh, frozen and shelf-stable all posted solid gains. Some of that is calendar-driven. Easter is coming early this year, and Lent always gives seafood a lift. 

But that explanation feels incomplete in 2026. The more interesting signal is how consumers are using the category.

The FMI Power of Seafood report suggests it’s increasingly tied to intent. It’s the trade-up protein, the “something different tonight” protein. It’s tied to health cues, lighter eating, or just a slightly more elevated meal occasion. Retailers are also seeing larger baskets when seafood is in the cart. That’s a sign that it’s often part of a more considered trip, as opposed to a fill-in.

In other words, seafood isn’t replacing, it’s expanding.

Now look at meat.

If seafood is the growth story… meat is the reality check. The FMI Power of Meat data reinforces what most operators already know from their own stores: meat remains, if not universal, extremely widespread in household penetration. It continues to generate massive dollar volume. Categories “in retreat” don’t usually post annual sales north of $100 billion.

What has changed is how consumers navigate it. Many, many column inches have been used to illustrate how this economy is hitting consumers differently across income levels and household preferences. No need to rehash that here, suffice to say that it’s true. 

Shoppers are adjusting. They’re trading between and among different cuts, leaning into ground, watching price points more carefully – they’re doing everything but walking away. 

Meat still owns the core “dinner mission.” It’s familiar, versatile, and relatively easy to plan around. In a period where consumers are under pressure and decision fatigue rides tall in the saddle, those attributes matter.

So while seafood is gaining momentum, meat can be said to be absorbing pressure – and holding its ground. That brings us to the more important point…

The Big Story Here Is Trip Mission Split

Think about how shoppers are actually approaching the store today. There’s the everyday trip – the one built around value, predictability and getting through the week. That trip still belongs to meat. It checks the boxes: flexible, filling, broadly accepted across households.

Then there’s the second mission – less frequent, more intentional. That’s where seafood shows up. It’s tied to occasions, to perceived health, to variety. It answers a different question: not “what’s for dinner?” but “what do I feel like making tonight?”

I think that distinction matters more than any percentage gain because it reframes how retailers should think about the category.

Seafood’s growth is real, but it comes with constraints: 

Price perception – “kind of expensive, isn’t it?” – remains a barrier. 

Preparation confidence – “what can I serve this with?” –  is still uneven. 

Supply chains – “the South China Sea?” – are more complex. 

Left alone, those factors will tend to cap how far and how fast the category can expand.

Meat, by contrast, faces a different set of challenges. Margin pressure, cost volatility, and ongoing, omnipresent price sensitivity are all in play. But meat has one advantage seafood does not: it is deeply, profoundly embedded in routine. 

That kind of behavioral entrenchment is tough to displace. So the tension becomes clear. Seafood wins the headline while meat wins the week.

The Takeaway: Manage the Two Categories Differently

On the meat side, the playbook is about clarity and control. Good-better-best assortment. Strong in-stock positions. Clear value signals. It’s already easy for shoppers to “solve” dinner with meat. Smart operators will make it even easier.

Seafood requires a different approach. The opportunity is there, but it must be unlocked. That means reducing friction – better signage, more education, more value-added options. It also means merchandising seafood as part of a broader solution: cross-promotions with produce, sauces, even wine (well, unless you happen to be in Maryland). If seafood is tied to occasion, the store ought to help build that occasion.

The bigger mistake would be to treat protein as a single category with a single strategy. That’s no longer how the shopper sees it.

What’s emerging is a more layered protein landscape, with meat as the dependable base and seafood as the growth lever layered on top. Each serving a distinct role in how consumers plan, shop, and eat.

And in a grocery environment defined by tighter budgets and more deliberate spending, that kind of role clarity is a must.

At the end of the day, it would be a big mistake to chase whichever category is growing that much faster this quarter. The smarter move is to understand why shoppers are loading up on each category in the first place and execute on merchandising, pricing, and messaging accordingly.