Unless you meant you expected the consumption to be higher.
It has skin, muscles, vains... so it is meat (and eyes and brains and a nerve system, so it is an animal)
I do agree that it is usefull to add it here, since we are used to distinguish them and not lump them together. But fish arent made of fairy dust...
(and the list is longer than I realised here are some listed capybara, alligator, armadillo, the thick-nosed tapir, and the manatee, beaver, puffin, skunk-headed-coot. All considered fish..)
They have all the same qualifications as meat from mammals have, veins, muscles etc. But even besides composition. It is meat because it is what the animal s made of and YES fish are animals.
I agree the meats differ. But there is no reason whatsoever to thinking it isnt meat. In culinary, and therefore in every day speech, distinctions are made, because it has different nutritional values and is cooked differently. But that does not suddenly make it not meat.
I really can not see how someone can say it is not meat. There is a distinction between the two yes. But saying it is not meat makes as much sense as saying a bird is not an animal. It can fly while other animals cant, it has a beak, wings etc.
Unexpected that all the countries in the northsea area besides the uk are on this.(norway, sweden, finland, denmark, germany, netherlands, belgium, ireland. And throw in iceland and luxembourgh)