5E . i
taint. fin.
it...
iam‘
H “I‘ve
... 5.5.“:
.
”any”: I: 19v. :03.
II . I it... 8.8.1..
’94 . {ii-.-
3......
.mm
in.
1!
.1: R.
fin”... $9.4:
‘4 I-ln‘uu
1:1!!i3

 

la! . 61" u
. ii... .i
151:5!1125‘ .
5:91:11. 3.;
last!!!

 

 

 

 

 

LIB? ‘ T '
Michiga.. State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF HOW CITIZENS, AGENCY
MANAGERS AND THE MEDIA FRAME HUMAN
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN FISH:
WHOSE (WHAT) INTERESTS ARE (NOT) SERVED AND
WHY IT MATTERS

presented by

Melanie Lynn Hiltunen Barbier

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Fisheries and VWIdlife

 

 

 

 

 

1/ K+£JI it

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

Il/IGI/oq

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/06 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

*—

 

A DIE

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF HOW CITIZENS, AGENCY MANAGERS AND THE
MEDIA FRAME HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN FISH:
WHOSE (WHAT) INTERESTS ARE (NOT) SERVED AND WHY IT MATTERS
By

Melanie Lynn Hiltunen Barbier

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT
A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF HOW CITIZENS, AGENCY MANAGERS AND THE
MEDIA FRAME HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN FISH:
WHOSE (WHAT) INTERESTS ARE (NOT) SERVED AND WHY IT MATTERS
By
Melanie Lynn Hiltunen Barbier

The purpose of this study is to understand 1) how different actors (the public, the
media, and agency managers) frame mercury and fish consumption, 2) how those frames
affect these who are at risk, and 3) how to recognize implications of gender and equality
in order to improve agency risk assessment, management and communication. In order
tO do this, residents fiom Michigan’s Upper Peninsula participated in focus groups,
community dinners, informal angler interviews and a public meeting during 2004-2005
(N=244). Interviews with state and federal public health, natural resource, food safety
and environmental agencies were held from 2006-2007 (N=16). Articles from the New
York Times, Washington Post and the Associated Press (1988-J an 2008: N=3 7), in
addition to transcripts from network television (CBS, ABC, NBC) and news programs
(2001-J an 2008: N= 25) represent how the media frames the issue. Results show that all
three sample populations frame mercury in fish in terms of a human health issue. A few
interviewees fiom federal agencies and many news articles and transcripts also talk about
ecological health in terms reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The public frames mercury as a non-issue and focuses on their uncertainty over
the risks and benefits of consuming fish. People form their own (often incorrect) ideas

about the risks and benefits of consuming fish based on mental-models, trust, and past

experience. Government managers and scientists are aware that the current fish

 

a)”; lmnt

MTG, 0‘1

r
#5

“bind...

X‘- - -~“1
II'...“......
I

I
, ”I'D.“-
d..-u1. II

1‘” 5M. .-
I'mu. .4...

l

"“ mun”
a I
A: IIII...

EIIC ‘4") .

‘
In.“

IV.
'23.}

\uMALTX‘C:

consumption information is inadequate, but feel they lack the resources, political will, or
control over information dissemination to develop better risk characterization and
communication. The media use three main flames to discuss mercury and fish
consumption: (1) mercury does not pose a threat to human health, (2) mercury does pose
a threat to human health, and (3) information about mercury and fish consumption is
uncertain. These risk flaming processes leave those at-risk unable maximize the benefits
and minimize the risks Of consuming fish. It also leads to overly risk averse or overly
risk accepting behavior. In addition, the fish consumption advisory program does not help
people understand why there are contaminants in fish.

Government process Of risk identification, management and communication are
supposed to serve those at risk, but in reality serve technocratic agency goals, Objectives,
and funding priorities. The lack of targeted fish communication is unjust to women of
childbearing age and others who consume large amounts Of fish because it subjects them
to increased risks without giving them the proper information to choose, or benefit from
fish consumption, nor does it allow for a discussion of limiting or mitigating the chemical
content of fish. In order to improve fish consumption benefit and risk information,
government agency managers need to develop more reflexive and rigorous processes for
public participation, and implement adaptive governance to develop risk communication
and risk policy. In addition, there is a need for holistic multidisciplinary management of
contaminants in fish. The process should incorporate working with stakeholder groups to
develop risk assessment and management and create appropriate risk communication

messages that are conscious Of gendered science practices and positionality.

For Guillaume

iv

 

luvs“ '1‘
3*...1‘- .
, _
1-H;

—Ab-o

BIKE.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion Of this dissertation would not be possible with out the help and
support of my major professor Geoffley Habron; my committee: Tracy DObson, Craig
Harris, Mike Jones, and Linda Kalof; project partners: Michigan State University
extension in Gogebic, Chippewa, Marquette and Alger counties (especially J oan Vinette)
and Michigan Sea Grant (Ron Kinnunen); collaborating individuals and organizations:
Bailey Scholars Program (MSU), Upper Peninsula Children’s Museum, VanLanschoots
Fish House, Thills Fish House, Wilcox Fisheries, Life of Lake Superior Program, Falling
Rock Cafe, Jennifer Binkley-Power, John Hesse and Heather Patt; and last, but certainly
not least, my family: Guillaume and Amélie, Bob and Pam (Dad and Mom) and J ean-
Claude and Marie-Jo. Thank you all.

This dissertation was made possible by funding flom the Gender Justice and
Environmental Change Program’s Dissertation Completion Scholarship and as part of a
larger fish consumption advisory project funded by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry in the US. Department of Health and Human Services (Grant

#H75/ATH573196).

So long, and thanks for all the fish...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. X
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... XI
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ XIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: MERCURY: HUMAN EXPOSURE, REGULATION, & ADVISORIES. 4

I. MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 4
II. THE STUDY OF HUMAN EXPOSURE TO MERCURY THROUGH FOOD ............................. 5
A. High-Dose Exposures: Minamata and Iraq ............................................................ 5
B. Small-Dose Contamination: F aroe Islands, New Zealand and Seychelles Islands 6
C. Human Health, Mercury, and Fish Consumption ................................................ 10
III. REGULATING METHYLMERCURY IN FISH ................................................................ 1 1
A. FEDERAL AGENCIES: FOOD AND DRUG ..................................................................... 13
A. Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency .............. 13
B. Michigan Advisories ............................................................................................ 16
IV. ADVISORY COLLABORATION AND CONSISTENCY .................................................... 19
A. Federal Agencies .................................................................................................. 19
B. Michigan ............................................................................................................... 19
V. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 23

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND LITERATURE REVIEW:

RISK, FEMINIST CRITIQUES OF SCIENCE AND FRAMING .................................. 24
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 24
11. WHAT IS RISK? .......................................................................................................... 26

A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 26
B. Post-Normal Risk ............................................................................................... 28
III. RISK CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 30
A. Epistemological Bricolage ................................................................................... 30
B. Risk Perception .................................................................................................... 32
C. Mandated Science ................................................................................................ 37
D. Adaptive Management ......................................................................................... 38
E. Risk and Stakeholder (Public) Participation ......................................................... 40
IV. RISK COMMUNICATION AND FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES ................................ 41
V. FEMINIST CRITIQUES OF SCIENCE .............................................................................. 45
VI. FRAMING ................................................................................................................. 51
VII. OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 55

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 57

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 57
A. Unit Of Analysis and Sample ............................................................................... 57

vi

B.Hcf
lites;
A.Fu:
B.Cor
C.P.W
D.ki-
E.Pan
lll. Am
3'. Ilsa:

CERPTER
IIIIRJI
IILHII

A.Gti
BIRI:
C.FE?
D.Co:
E. I»?
F.B;.
Cl. RA
H.FI{
1- In:
I.Iad
K.FR
L-RIS
XI. In:
).FE
0.Ch

IH.SIAI
A.In:
B. Ad
C. Ad
D Ag
E-RI:
F-R:s

1- Ow
IV~XEI
A.lr;
B. If,
C O.

B. Methodological Theory ........................................................................................ 58

II. UPPER PENINSULA RESIDENTS .................................................................................. 64
A. Focus Groups ....................................................................................................... 67
B. Community Dinners ............................................................................................. 69
C. Public Meeting ..................................................................................................... 70
D. Informal Angler Interviews .................................................................................. 71
E. Participant Observation ........................................................................................ 71

III. AGENCY MANAGERS ................................................................................................ 72

IV. MEDIA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 77

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 77

II. UPPER PENINSULA RESIDENTS .................................................................................. 81
A. Guidelines: Nescient Awareness .......................................................................... 81
B. What Is the Advisory? .......................................................................................... 83
C. Fish Consumption Advisory Knowledge ............................................................. 84
D. Contaminants of Concern ..................................................................................... 84
E. Fish Risk- Fatty Fish and Bottom Feeders ........................................................... 85
F. Bioaccumulation ................................................................................................... 86
G. Risk for Women and Children ............................................................................. 87
H. Fish Safety ............................................................................................................ 89
1. Trust ....................................................................................................................... 89
J. Lack Knowledge and Awareness .......................................................................... 92
K. Fish Consumption Attitudes ................................................................................. 93
L. Risk Deamplification Models ............................................................................... 94
M. Information Source .............................................................................................. 97
N. Fish Consumption Behaviors ............................................................................. 100
0. Overview ............................................................................................................ 103

111. STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGERS ........................................................... 105
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 105
B. Advisory Context- State Of Michigan ................................................................ 108
C. Advisory Context- Federal Agencies ................................................................. 118
D. Agency Managers- Purpose Of Fish Consumption Advisory ............................. 124
E. Risk Communication— Most Important Fish Consumption Message ................. 127
F. Risk Communication-What People Know .......................................................... 131
G. Obstacles to Effective Risk Communication ..................................................... 132
H. Agency Science and Expertise ........................................................................... 136
I. Overview ............................................................................................................. 137

IV. NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION MEDIA .................................................................... 138
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 138
B. Frames ................................................................................................................ 142
C. Overview ............................................................................................................ 150

IV. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 152

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 154

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 154

vii

Il. FRAMING THE MERCURY AND FISH CONSUMPTION ISSUE ....................................... 156

A. Upper Peninsula Residents ................................................................................. 156
B. Agency Staff Managers ...................................................................................... 163
C. Media Frames ..................................................................................................... 172
III. INTERACTIONS OF FRAMING PROCESSES ................................................................ 182
A. Types Of Framing Processes .............................................................................. 182
B. Interactions of Information Gathering Framing Processes ................................ 183
IV. WHOSE INTERESTS ARE (NOT) SERVED BY THESE FRAMEs? .................................. 185
A. Ineffective Advisories ........................................................................................ 185
V. IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER AND JUSTICE ............................................................... 191
A. Ineffective Advisories ........................................................................................ 191
VI. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND DECISION
MAKING ....................................................................................................................... 193
A. Long-term Solutions: Adaptive Governance ..................................................... 194
B. SHORT-TERM: IMPROva FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES STATE-WIDE ................ 198
C. SHORT-TERM: IMPROVING FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES IN THE UP. ................. 199
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 201
I. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 201
II. BRIDGES TO THE BIG PICTURE: CONNECTING HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH. 201
III. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ................................................................................. 203
A. Institutions Left Out of the Study ...................................................................... 203
B. Methodological Limitations ............................................................................... 204
APPENDCIES ...................................................................................... 206
APPENDIX A: UCRIHS CONCENT PROTOCOLS ........................................ 207
I. APPENDIX A 1.1: CONSENT FORM- FOCUS GROUP .................................... 208
11. APPENDIX A 1.2: CONSENT FORM- FOCUS GROUPS, PARENTAL
CONSENT ................................................................................................................. 210
111. APPENDIX A 1.3: CONSENT FORM- COMMUNITY DINNER ................... 212
IV. APPENDIX A 1.4: CONSENT FORM- LIFE OF LAKE SUPERIOR PROGRAM
2004- PARENTAL CONSENT ................................................................................. 214
V. APPENDIX A 1.5 CONSENT FORM- ANGLER INTERVIEW ....................... 216
VI. APPENDIX A 2.1 CONSENT FORM: GOVERNMENT AGENCY INTERVIEW
.................................................................................................................................... 218
APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS ...................................... 219

I. APPENDIX B 1.1: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUPS, PUBLIC MEETINGS,
COMMUNITY DINNERS, AND ANGLER INTERVIEWS ..................................... 220
11. APPENDIX B 2.1: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR AGENCY AND
ORGANIZATION

STAFF ............................................................................................ 222
APPENDIX C: ('ODIIS ANI) (‘()l)li [)IiI"INI’I‘I(,)NS 224
I. APPENDIS (‘ I.|: (‘()I)Ii LIS'I'S ANI) [)IEI’INI'I'IONS- UPPER PENINSULA

.I'. .11“?

313L100

11. APPENDIX C 2.1: CODE LISTS AND DEFINITIONS- AGENCY INTERVIEWS
.................................................................................................................................. 231

111. APPENDIX C 3.1: CODE LIST AND DEFINITIONS- MEDIA ANALYSIS... 237

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 244

.......

IIDSI

\flvw—

4-5ni
ISAGI

5181A
CONSI
COIRI
53 tn
COXSL
COIIII

64ITX
37,1ij

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 MERCURY AND FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY TIMELINE 1950-
1980 ................................................................................................... 11

2.2 MERCURY AND FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY TIMELINE 1980-
1996 ................................................................................................... 12

2.3 MERCURY AND FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY TIMELINE 1997—2007. . ..13
4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ............................. 66
4.2 SITE DESIGN .................................................................................. 67
4.3 AGENCY INTERVIEWS73
5.1 STATE AGENCY MISSION STATEMENTS AND ROLES IN FISH
CONSUMPTION ADVISORY DEVELOPMENT AND RISK

COMMUNICAITON ............................................................................... 106

5.2 FEDERAL AGENCY MISSION STATEMENTS AND ROLES IN FISH
CONSUMPTION ADVISORY DEVELOPMENT AND RISK

COMMUNICAITON .............................................................................. 107
5.3 NEWSPAPER FRAMES OVER TIME ................................................... 145
5.4 TELEVISION FRAMES OVER TIME .................................................... 148
6.1 NEWSPAPER FRAMES OVER TIME ................................................... 173
6.2 TELEVISION FRAMES OVER TIME .................................................... 174
6.3 TYPES OF FRAMING PROCESSES ....................................................... 183

6.4 FINDINGS FROM PAST FISH CONSUMPTION RISK COMMUNICAITON
STUDIES ........................................................................................... 196

LIST OF FIGURES

4.1 THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ABOUT MERCURY IN FISH ..................... 58

4.2 COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN’S UPPER PENINSULA CHOSEN AS RESEARCH
SITES: GOGEBIC, MARQUETTE, ALGER AND CHIPPEWA ........................... 64

4.3 OPTIONFINDER (OPTION TECHNOLOGIES INTERACTIVE LLC N.D.) FOCUS
GROUP SETUP WITH PROJECTOR ........................................................... 68

5.1 ADVISORY AWARENESS AMONG FOUCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS. ...8......2

5.2 FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY INFORMAITON, 2004 MICHIGAN SPORT
FISHING GUIDE .................................................................................... 83

5 .3 KNOWLEDGE OF CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN .................................. 85

5.4 KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUMPTION OF PREDATORY FISH RISK. . . . . . . . . . .......87

5.5 BROCHURE FROM THILLS FISH HOUSE, MARQUETTE, MI ..................... 91
5.6 SOURCES OF FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY INFORMAITON ............... 99
5.7. MOST RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION .................................... 100
5.8 MEALS OF FISH EATEN PER MONTH ................................................. 101
5.9 HOW FISH IS PREPARED PRIOR TO COOKING ..................................... 102
5.10 HOW FISH IS COOKED ................................................................... 103
5.11 AGENCY CONTEXT OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION AND FISH

CONSUMPTION .................................................................................. 1 08
5.12 NUMBER OF ARTICELS PER YEAR ................................................... 139
5.13 NETWORK TELEVISION NEWS PER YEAR ........................................ 140
5.14 MORNING VS. EVENING NEWS PER YEAR ........................................ 141
6.1 INTERACTIONS AND OUTCOMES OF FRAMING PRACTICES ................. 155

6.2 UPPER PENINSULA RESIDENTS MASTER FRAME 1: HUMAN HEALTH
ISSUE ................................................................................................ 1 57

xi

6.3 UPPER PENINSULA RESIDENTS MASTER FRAME 2: HUMAN HEALTH

ISSUE ................................................................................................ 160
6.4 AGENCY MANAGERS MASTER FRAME 1: HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE ........ 164
6.5 AGENCY MANAGERS MASTER FRAME 2: HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE ........ 166
6.6 AGENCY MANAGERS MASTER FRAME 3: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

ISSUE ................................................................................................ 170
6.7 MEDIA FRAME 1: HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE ......................................... 175
6.8 MEDIA FRAME 2: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUE ............................ 176
6.9 MEDIA FRAME 3: HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE .......................................... 178
6.10 MEIDA FRAME 4: HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE ........................................ 180
6.11 INFORMAITON GATHERING AND FRAMING PROCESSES .................... 184
6.12 PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES OF ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE ............... 195

xii

KEY II

LP. VA

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

U.P. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration
DCH: Michigan Department of Community Health
DEQ: Michigan Department Of Environmental Quality
DNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, United States Department
of Health and Human Services

xiii

 

Cha]

Intrc

P;
i’ ..
(L
.14.

"J

1..
R...
I.-IL.~:...I.

“a. N‘

I
¥--‘-I\,(;,
I o

1 .
:‘i k
- I

._ ‘ .
M.'A.~\T‘

O

4....
L‘~-$:I(
1" ‘ a .
L...~ ”I I

SLIP-F 1'
.. _

i

~7-
h \
an)“ g‘lr“

fi-I

V ‘
ll H‘h.
I. q. ‘9
n,“

"‘n\
‘
0-... L‘ .
- ‘x-IQT .

Chapter One

 

Introduction

Risks exist. HOW they are conceptualized, talked about, decided upon, studied
and experienced diverges Widely and depends on socio-cultural norms and practices
(Adam and Van Loon 2000; Beck 2000; Homing-Priest 1995: Rosa 1998) and the
physical properties of things we value, including human beings (Adam and Van Loon
2000; Kasperson 1999; Lidskog 2002; Rosa 1998; Wynne 2002). Therefore, the
conceptualization of risk is a scientific, technological and social process. However,
current environmental policy and natural resource management in the United States rely
only on scientific risk assessment and technocratic decision making (Adam and Van
Loon 2000; Beck 2000; Dietz, Frey and Rosa 1998; Rosa 1998), and such is the case of
fish consumption advisories (Chess et a1. 2003; Habron et a1. 2008). Feminist scholars
note that modern science, and its masculinist and positivistic culture of Objectivity and
truth, marginalizes certain groups, such as, women, children and ethnic minorities -
exactly those at hi gh-risk in the fish consumption issue (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000;
Fischer 2000; Harding 2001; Haraway 1989, 1991, and 2001; Merchant 1996).

The purpose Of my research is to use a case study of fish consumption advisories
in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP) to understand how risk is constructed by a)
environment, natural resource, food safety, and public health agencies at the state and
federal levels b) the national media and c) the public [Upper Peninsula Residents].
Understanding these flames enables the identification of 1) the effect that these risk

framing processes have on the people who are labeled at-risk (women, children and some

. H-n'r, '
£1.26: Ids} )-

)A.‘*‘I" "'
butSn‘e 3-.

.4 “9.9:. 0‘,
N62...»

Research I
0 II":

IR“;

I‘M

11111

L'-

minorities), its implications for gender and justice in risk issues, and how this process can
be improved to be more democratic, inclusive and proficient at achieving a more
effective and sustainable fish advisory program. It also facilitates opening the dialogue to

identify the acceptable risks, policy goals and Objectives for human and ecological health.

Research Questions

0 What is the current institutional context for the fish consumption advisory process
(scientific risk identification, assessment, characterization, data collection, and
risk communication) at the state and federal level?

0 How do individuals, federal and state agencies, and the local media frame the
mercury and fish consumption issue?

0 Whose interests, both real and/or perceived, are served, or not served, by the ways
in which mercury and fish consumption information is flamed?

. What are the implications for this in terms of gender and equality?

In order to answer these questions it is necessary to know about mercury in the
environment, human mercury exposure flom food, and a history of mercury regulation in
Michigan and the United States. Therefore, chapter two provides background
information about mercury and its danger to humans, the study of human mercury
exposure flom food sources, the history of mercury regulation by the state of Michigan
and the federal government, and an overview of fish consumption advisories, including
past and present agency collaboration.

Chapter three covers the theoretical basis for this study and its analysis. Chapter
four provides an overview of the methods used in this study in addition to a discussion of
methodological theory, potential biases, and (in)advertent omissions/neglect. Chapter

five begins with a short summary of research results and continues with a detailed report

 

14‘” '1 ,
O: -5ch Ab
v I‘M-V
Gt "5-un\k
I“..‘V‘.‘ '. -
01.1» ‘6
.n-eq - ,
3311.133 If
s, m ,m. ‘.
\oet“1ilbl~‘

_. ‘0 \ u-

‘ ‘m _
T§l «0'1

. 16.4”»...

of those results in three different sections: Participants flom the Upper Peninsula,
Government Agency Staff, and the Media. At the end of the chapter there is an overview
of these results.

Chapter six discusses the results in terms of advisory flaming activities and
provides recommendations to improve risk characterization, management, and
communication to protect human and environmental health. It follows two important
questions that stem flom research results: 1) Why create a fish consumption advisory if it
does not reach or help the effected populations at risk; and 2) If mercury contamination
affects both human and ecological health, why do government agencies treat them
separately? The answers to these questions provide the jumping Off point for

recommendations to improve the advisory and policy process.

Imp“

Ilercu

I. Ilertun

M:

5611.“? "i

IA|\

W13“... 'm '
u-Mhtu‘ml
.

I“ I, ‘L g n
‘5 14‘ MIL :LI

._ F
II ”m. .
N‘“ .‘,\{
.13.,“ .
“-1. ¢-,
wt ”1‘
.
.
01")“.
b‘“a7 ‘:
V

1'. u.
l ' “3'
It..-

"..-.v ‘..
:4": ».~
5. ' h‘
w‘h. .
I' u I.‘

"u

Chapter 2

 

Mercury: Human Exposure, Regulation, & Advisories

1. Mercury in the Environment

Mercury (Hg) is a major global environmental pollutant (Flaherty et a1. 2003). It
comes flom a variety of sources, both natural (30%), such as, volcanic eruptions, geysers,
and forest fires; and anthropogenic (70%), such as, coal-fired power plants (which make
up 41% of atmospheric Hg) (Carrington and Bolger 2002; Foulke 1995; Trasande et a1.
2005; USEPA 2000; Weiss 1995). Certain microorganisms present in water and
sediments can convert elemental mercury into its most toxic and bio-available form,
methylmercury (MeHg) (Hesse, 2005). Over 90% of total mercury present in fish tissue
is in the form of methylmercury (USEPA 2000; Foulke 1995; Great Lakes Consortium
2007). At least some level of methylmercury can be found in every fish in the world

(Carrington and Bolger 2002).

Unlike persistent organic pollutants (POPS)l (such as PCBs) mercury and
methylmercury bind to proteins in all fish tissue (Carrington and Bolger 2002; Flaherty et
a1. 2003; Foulke 1995; Mahaffey et a1. 2003). Therefore, in contrast to POPS, which bind
to fatty tissues that can be removed or reduced through special fish preparation (trimming
off the fat, skin and head, removing major organs) or cooking methods (broiling, baking
or grilling, instead of flying or smoking), high levels of mercury remain in fish no matter

how it is prepared (Flaherty et a1 2003; Hesse 2003; Mahaffey et a1. 2003; MDCH 2003,

 

I “Persistent organic pollutants (POPS) are toxic chemicals that adversely affect human health and the
environment around the world. Because they can be transported by wind and water, most POPS generated
in one country can affect people and wildlife far flom where they are used and released. They persist for
long periods of time in the environment and can accumulate and pass flom one species to the next through
the food chain.” http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/pop.pdf

 

rnssze to I
Rise :26:
Ilnitnon e

P‘ ‘1. I K;
r‘i‘ot‘c 1%.

II. The Stu

I High-Do

Iht'
'“-"":W'- -I,
Lknmjurldlt
’I’I't LI"
:-~--- Cw;
“In...

.m‘w o
‘\ hmru-IJL:

T.

lkfie 090".
.. Lg,“

as ._

2007). Fish consumption is the major source Of mercury (in the form of methylmercury)
exposure to hmnans (Carrington and Bolger 2002; Flaherty et a1. 2003; Hall et a1. 1997)
because methylmercury easily bioaccumulates and biomagnifies up the food chain
(Anderson et a1. 2004; Carrington and Bolger 2002; EPA 2000; F laherty et a1. 2003;

Foulke 1995; Hesse 1997).

II. The Study of Human Exposure to Mercury through Food
A. High-Dose Exposures: Minamata and Iraq

The first studies Of human mercury poisoning due to the consumption of highly
contaminated fish occurred in Minamata Japan in the 1960’s (Canington and Bolger
2002; Hesse 2003; Foulke 1995; Marsh et a1. 1995; Weiss 1995). For decades mercury-
contaminated effluent from an acetaldehyde plant (used for making plastics) spilled
mercury into the bay, heavily polluting the local fish that the people of Minamata relied
upon as their primary source of protein (Weiss 1995). Minamata disease, as it is now
called, was first observed in humans in 1956. Before that time it was seen in cats
exhibiting strange behavior, “dancing” in the streets, and then collapsing and dying
(Weiss 1995).

Symptoms of methylmercury poisoning in humans include loss of hearing,
peripheral vision and coordination, memory problems, impaired speech, mental
disturbances, paresthesia, and behavioral changes (Foulke 1995; Hesse 2003; Weiss
1995). In extreme cases mercury poisoning can cause death (Hesse 2003; Weiss 1995).
These often dire consequences are due to mercury’s effect on vital bodily functions such
as the central nervous system, brain and kidneys. For fetuses, babies and small children,

mercury poisoning even in small doses may cause brain damage and other developmental

if}. 12th I

. - ,l.

IStI’A - .1.”
The 11'

, .
$33. 0: ITIETI
W.‘. MI 375
.902). TR c
”N”? ‘ '0
pr. JET.) “6’.
,
IT‘TI‘. new."
4: .'I an
“F 5933...:371‘.
Ilit’ t

a.- f. .‘ I

“s ECGdt‘t‘.‘

eg ‘3 U“
I

birth defects (Marsh et a1. 1995; Myers et a1. 1995; Rice 2004; Trasande et al. 2005;
USEPA 2000).

The negative effect mercury has on fetal and child development is the primary
threat of mercury poisonng to humans (Budtz-Jorgensen 2004; Foulke 1995; Marsh et al.
1995; Myers et a1. 1995; Rice 2004; Trasande et al. 2005; USEPA 2000; 2004; Weiss
1995). The correlation between maternal mercury levels and infant developmental
problems was first suspected in Minamata when mothers exhibiting no negative effects
flom mercury poisoning gave birth to children with cerebral palsy and other
developmental difficulties (Marsh et al. 1995; Trasande et al. 2005).

The connection between maternal mercury consumption and infant poisoning was
specifically studied and scientifically confirmed in the 19703 when a community in Iraq
was accidentally poisoned With methylmercury (Bakier et al. 1973; Carrington and
Bolger 2002; Foulke 1995; Marsh et al. 1995; Meyers et a1. 2003; Trasande et a1. 2005).
The range of maternal hair mercury level in Iraq was extremely high, between 10 and
15ppm, much higher than typical mercury levels in North American fish consumers
(Marsh et a1. 1995). Until recently many US. state and federal agencies used
extrapolations of these data to develop methylmercury exposure standards for fish (NRC

2000).

B. Small-Dose Contamination: Faroe Islands, New Zealand and Seychelles Islands

The first peer-reviewed study of low-dose maternal methylmercury exposure and
its effects on child development took place in the Faroe Islands, off the coast of
Denmark, in the 1980s (NRC 2000; Rice 2004). A large sample size of 900 mother-

infant pairs were studied to understand the correlation between methylmercury content in

I I".
. '1
ER-dlhé‘

3251413

tr

. .'..,.
rpm...
1

34.. ”-
HEN-ind 1

ARC It:
pectic .

HTSIII'C

In ‘ N:
h.
E"
Fa
s‘ '6“ "‘
Ml.

umbilical cord-blood and maternal hair with later child development (at age 7 and later at
age 14) (NRC 2000, Rice 2004). Mothers in the Faroe Islands study reported eating
approximately three fish meals per week with once monthly meals of pilot Whale that
contain 10-20 times the amount Of methylmercury found in fish normally consumed
(NRC 2000). The results showed exposure-related effects in children on a range of
specific neuropsychological endpoints as a result of higher maternal methylmercury
exposure due to consuming fish (NRC 2000; Rice 2004).

At about the same time as the Faroe study, a study in New Zealand also found
exposure related effects of maternal methylmercury content on the child’s
neuropsychological development (NRC 2000; Rice 2004). In this study 38 mother-infant
pairs with high (over 6ppm) maternal mercury levels were matched with mother—infant
pairs with low mercury levels (NRC 2000; Rice 2004). Hair samples were used to
calculate maternal mercury levels (NRC 2000; Rice 2004). The children were assessed at
the age of 6 on a number of global neuropsychological scales (NRC 2000; Rice 2004).
The results show that children born to mothers with higher mercury levels perform more
poorly than those with lower maternal mercury levels (NRC 2000). Scientists and
governments rarely use the New Zealand study because it has a small sample size and
until recently did not undergo peer review (NRC 2000).

The Faroe Islands and New Zealand studies detected negative developmental
effects with relatively low-dose methylmercury exposure (NRC 2000). Conversely, a
1995 study of low-dose methylmercury contamination flom fish consumption in the

Seychelles Islands (Indian Ocean) found no negative effects of maternal methylmercury

 

Q.
‘7‘ .10 c...
.. .. .nI
5

nu
'4

I
. “92,1... _
n 03‘.- \r.£

‘
'5 s. -
:....fi '11

5:31:65“:
. 1“
l‘..: 1D,";

‘-s§o,,“

”I
Simux
*- \‘ 5.

he; H
“NHLI‘I I

.E‘hr” in-
. . H .

H.” I

‘t-
r“ ’I-. .
“in“ 1:-
u ‘A.
I.
WA

exposure on childhood neuropsychological development (Davidson et a1. 1995; Myers et
al. 1995; Myers et a1. 2003; NRC 2000; Rice 2004).

In the Seychelles study 779 mother-child pairs were followed from birth to the
age of five and half (Davidson et al. 1995; Myers et al. 1995; NRC 2000; Rice 2004).
Researchers used maternal hair samples to calculate maternal mercury concentrations
throughout the entire pregnancy (NRC 2000). Unlike the Faroe Islands or New Zealand
studies, mothers in the Seychelles ate primarily low to moderate-mercury containing fish
species in absence of any PCBS. However, they ate many more fish meals per week
(~12) (Davidson et al. 1995; Myers et al. 1995; NRC 2000; Rice 2004). And the results
demonstrated that there were no developmental differences between children with high
maternal mercury exposure and those with low.

In the year 2000, the Faroe, Seychelles Islands, and New Zealand studies were
critically reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC) (NRC 2000). The NRC
report attributed the differences in results between the Faroe and Seychelles studies to a
number of experimental parameters. For example, each study used different study design
and biomarkers for measuring mercury. In addition, the study populations consumed
different types of fish species and had different ranges of maternal mercury exposure and
different levels of other contaminants like PCBS. One important difference among the
studies was that the Seychelles study did not control for the test administrator. Therefore,
test performance may be a result of the quality of test administer and not the level of
mercury in the blood.

In addition, the NRC report speculates that the large amount of fish that mothers

in the Seychelles ate may have contributed to a “buffering effect”. High levels Of

I" T ‘I
I re."- ‘ I
Uh...“ ~

~

elf-‘9' H6".
1145.... .a uh

1,3: .3 ‘AW‘
‘u‘b‘iil. r t-Ic

tar-"aw

.eub...

’ H
I A I

it PM a

5mm II
Hfif'i'gfe I

I“??? 2::

“1.1935

Omega-3 fatty acids found in the species of fish eaten by mothers in the Seychelles aid
infant neuropsychological development and may have attenuated the negative
developmental effects of mercury exposure. However, according to the report this
hypothesis has not been tested empirically (NRC 2000).

Another potentially confounding factor is the different types of seafood people in
the Faroe and Seychelles Islands eat. Mothers in the Faroe Islands eat pilot whale, which
in addition to high doses of mercury, also have large amounts of Persistent Organic
Pollutants such as PCBS. A series of studies conducted in Michigan tested the effects of
intrauterine PCB exposure on childhood development. These studies found a correlation
between higher maternal PCB levels and later developmental difficulties for their
Children (Jacobson et al. 1985; Jacobson et al. 1997). They associate maternal PCB
exposure with a number of developmental deficits in children, such as lower birth weight,
poorer autonomic and reflex functions, and poorer visual recognition memory (Jacobson
et al. 1985:854; Jacobson et al. 1997). Therefore, the presence of other contaminants,
such as PCBS, may affect the results of the developmental tests. The authors of the Faroe
Islands study deny this claim (NRC 2000).

The NRC report (2000) suggests that the New Zealand study is similar enough to
the Seychelles study that any differences between the F aroe and Seychelles Islands study
designs are not sufficiently significant to explain the differing results. The exact reason
for the difference between the Seychelles and Faroe Islands studies is unknown and more
research is needed. Nonetheless, the three studies are important to the fish consumption
advisory issues because the low-dose mercury exposure data are more relevant to risk

assessment in the United States than either the Japan or Iraq studies with very high-dose

 

 

 

 

I
6‘. ‘I'
.IC ll 2.?

LA.

of mercury exposure (NRC 2000). They also highlight the complex nature of risk
assessment, scientific uncertainty, and balancing fish consumption benefits with the risks

(Neumann et al. 1997).

C. Human Health, Mercury, and Fish Consumption

Since the Seychelles study no new overarching research has been done to study
the neurological/developmental effects of low—dose mercury exposure in mothers and
infants. However, more recent studies suggest consuming too much mercury can also
lead to cardiovascular health (Stern 2005) or male reproductive (Chou et a1. 2002)
problems. Also, in 2002 Dr. Jane Hightower, a San Francisco internist, published a study
of her wealthy health-conscious patients who ate a lot of seafood, and, as a result had
high levels of mercury. Many of Dr. Hightower’s patients suffered from symptoms of
mercury poisoning including memory loss and heavy fatigue (Hightower and Moore
2003). Not one of these later (Chou et a1 2002; Hightower and Moor 2003; Stern 2005)
studies figures into state or federal agency risk assessment and decision making processes
that, in some cases, solely emphasize the risks of human mercury exposure to women of

childbearing age and children (U SDHHS 2004; MDCH 2003, 2007).

10

III. Regulating Methylmercury in Fish

 

 

Table 2.1 Mercugy and Fish Contamination Advisog Timeline 1950-1980

1956: First observed case of Minamata disease, mercury poisoning due to fish
consumption [Japan had second case of poisoning a few years later in Niiagata]
19608: First studies of fish consumption and mercury poisoning in Minimata
19705: First studies of the correlation between maternal mercury consumption
and fetal mercury poisoning in Iraq

Late l960-early 1970: FDA first regulates mercury content in United States
food supply (.5ppm limit for safe human consumption)

1970: High levels of mercury are found in Michigan fish (Lake St. Clair) due to
pollution fi'om a chlor-alkali facility

1970: Michigan becomes the first state to develop a fish consumption advisory
1975-76: PCBs are banned in Michigan

1977: Michigan first includes annual advisory updates to the state fishing
guides that accompany a fishing license

1977: Clean Water Act- EPA establishes reference dose for methylmercury in
water (.3 ug/kg/day)

1979: FDA is legally bound to increase their action level for methylmercury
contamination in fish from .5ppm to lppm

1979: EPA bans PCB use under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

 

ll

 

 

 

Table 2.2 Fish Contamination Advisogy Timeline Continued: 1980-1996

1985: Lake Michigan States develop a common fish consumption advisory
protocol for PCBs in Lake Michigan

1986: Great Lakes governors call for common Great Lakes fish advisory
protocols for PCBs by 1987, thereby establishing the Great Lakes Fish
Consumption Advisory Task Force to look for common methodology among
Great Lakes state health officials, FDA and EPA

1987: Faroe Islands study finds maternal consumption of fish with low level
mercury contamination has negative effects on child development

1989: Paper Reduction Act in Michigan puts an end to a mandated fish
consumption advisory program

1994: Most of the Great Lakes states implement a common Great Lakes PCB
protocol- Michigan among those that did not [New York did not use the protocol
but had a unique methodology that the EPA did not challenge]

1994: Michigan governor Engler established a “blue ribbon” panel of scientists
who ultimately recommend adopting the Great Lakes PCB protocol for women
and children only

1994: FDA consumer magazine features its first article on mercury and fish,
“Mercury in Fish: Cause for concern?”

1995: Seychelles Islands study finds no negative effects on child development
from low level mercury contamination and maternal fish consumption

1995: EPA changed their reference dose for mercury in fish (.lug/body
weight/day)

1996: Michigan relaxes salmon advisory and comes under fire by the National
Wildlife Federation, EPA, and the International Joint Commission

 

12

 

 

 

Table 2.3 Mercug and Fish Contamination Advisory Timeline Continued: 1997-2007

1999: Congressional appropriations for the EPA arrange for a study of methylmercury
toxicity in humans to resolve the differences between EPA, FDA, and ATSDR
scientific protocols.

2000: The National Academy of Science conducts this research and reports findings
on methylmercury toxicity

2000: EPA Starr Report on mercury

2000: FDA comes under fire for no longer testing fish for mercury

2001: FDA creates their first official fish consumption advisory

2002: FDA calls upon an independent scientific panel of advisors to look at the fish
consumption and mercury issue

2002: Hightower study of mercury poisoning in patients who consume a lot of fish
reported by media

2002: Michigan stops printing fish consumption advisory for distribution with fishing
licenses but makes it available to W1C clinics, local health departments, and persons
requesting copies. Since then, it has also been made available on-line.

2004: Joint EPA/F DA mercury fish consumption advisory for women of childbearing
age and children

2007: Common Great Lakes Protocol for mercury (Michigan has not yet adopted this
protocol)

2009: FDA discusses a revision of the 2004 joint mercury advisory to promote
increasing fish consumption

 

A. Federal Agencies: Food and Drug

A. Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency

Since 2004, on a national level the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warn women of childbearing age and children

against eating large ocean predators such as shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish

because of their high mercury content (EPA/F DA 2004). Some argue that tuna should

also be on the do not eat list due to the large amounts of tuna consumed in the United

States. So far, the FDA and EPA have decided to advise women to eat only one meal of

albacore tuna per week or eat only chunked light tuna that is much lower in

methylmercury (U SDHHS 2006).

13

 

 

The Pod

I
t

'5'.” ”'1'”qu

..I‘uil¥l¥ua

l I‘ 1
“my“! 3-
m: mu. 4.1.

b

Stiff-036 (1105'.

V-
. .
E“.
1.:"
' II
’TJ

A
I

am. the FD!
W51. The It
to: he C‘wmm
In 19"
Iemlimelrcv
mm let“. M
l ‘ \ ..
fine; N5€\ arc
‘2‘“.1! .
"5“ ‘v mane.

meter-OTB. tilt

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first regulated mercury (as
methylmercury) in fish in the late 1960’s (Foulke 1995, Hesse 2003). Mercury was
regulated as methylmercury because regulation is based on human health risks (instead of
ecological health risks) and methylmercury is the most bioavailable form of mercury and
therefore most harmful to humans. The FDA set their action level for methylmercury in
fish at 0.5 parts per million. The FDA action level “represents the limits at or above
which the FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market” (Foulke
1995). The removal of products from the market obviously poses major consequences
for the commercial fishing industry and is, therefore, not taken lightly by the FDA.

In 1979 the FDA was mandated by the courts to increase their action level for
methylmercury from .5ppm to lppm due to the probable negative impacts of such a low
action level on ocean fish markets (Hesse 1997). When the FDA determines an action
level they are not required to make human health their primary focus; in fact, they are
legally mandated to consider economic impacts to industry (Hesse 1997; US FDA 2000).
Therefore, the FDA action level for methylmercury remains the same, although new
epidemiological methods have prompted other state and federal regulatory agencies to
use lower action levels for methylmercury from 0.5ppm and lower (Hesse 1997; Rice
2004).

The EPA has a slightly different way of scientifically representing the risk of
mercury in fish. They use a reference dose, which is more conservative than the FDA’s
action level, but used for a completely different purpose. The EPA defines a reference
dose as “numeric values we believe will protect human health from pollutant

concentrations in aquatic media, such as ambient waters and edible tissue” (Borum et a1.

14

 

‘il‘yi.’ . '
a. 1. Ir. h
as"

as.“ .AJA...

. 9
am..-
I

‘ L
9"?» :v- "‘3'
aphids. nub ba-

sk: he EP.
some: etc?
h it.

:7 rated a :

2001). In the late 1970’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of the
requirements of the Clean Water Act, developed a reference dose for methylmercury in
aquatic media. Unlike the FDA, the EPA more cautiously set their reference dose for
human methylmercury exposure at 0.3 micrograms/kilogram of body weight/day. Since
1995 the EPA uses a reference dose of 0.1 micrograms/kilogram of body weight/day for
women of childbearing age and children (Great Lakes Consortium 2007).

In 1997, as a requirement of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the EPA
presented a report to Congress (often called the Mercury Report) about the risks and
effects of mercury in the environment (EPA 1997). As a result of this report and the
release of data from the Faroe and Seychelles Islands studies, mercury in fish gained
interest in the news in the mid to late 19903. In addition, in 1999 the Center for Disease
Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) relaxed
their minimum risk level for methylmercury in response to data fiom the Seychelles
Islands study. This change was highly criticized by some in Congress.2

For example, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont who was seen and quoted in
many newspapers and television news programs at the time,3 felt that the ATSDR should
have waited for the National Academy of Science’s review of the toxicological effects of
methylmercury on human and the environment. In 1998 congressional appropriations4 to
the EPA funded the National Academy of Science’s National Research Council for a
comprehensive study methylmercury. As a result the National Research Council’s

(NRC) Board of Environmental Science and Toxicology created a special committee on

 

2
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/mercury/index.html#efforts Accessed 2/2/09
3 http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/mercury/index.html#efforts Accessed 2/2/09

4 VA-HUD appropriations bill of 19992HR 4194; EPA grant #X 827238-01

15

 

 

“I

t n. -"
"Tail-1Ml

I .

~p.-v~~ ‘?

l‘ G I
ya... u» s - -

9' ‘
,3 " ;m-
namiuu‘t
.

Satire 9

"\- L.
1L;f€\.€\

.s
. £171. '
-\ ‘s
AH‘J‘TS
(5;).
5-

the toxicological effects of methylmercury (NRC 2000). In 2000, the NRC published
their report designating guidelines for methylmercury risk assessment and risk
characterization.

In the months and years that followed, the FDA, EPA and CDC/ATSDR
reevaluated their reference doses, guidelines and risk assessment methodology for
methylmercury. In 2001 the FDA developed their first fish consumption advisory.
Before publishing, the FDA submitted it to an independent science advisory committee
for review. The committee recommended that the FDA collaborate with the EPA, give
more specific and targeted risk communication information for women of childbearing
age and children, and include tuna as a restricted fish due to its popularity among
American households.

The FDA heeded the advice of the committee and collaborated with the EPA to
develop a common mercury advisory for women of childbearing age. The joint advisory
came out in 2004. In the advisory, tuna is not included on the list of fish in the “do not
eat” category. The joint FDA/EPA advisory does, however, include information about

albacore tuna having higher mercury levels than chunked light tuna (U SDHHS 2004).

B. Michigan Advisories

In Michigan high mercury levels are more a cause for concern in inland lakes and
reservoirs than in the Great Lakes (MDCH 2003; DEQ interviewee 2006). This is of
great importance since Michigan has more than 11,000 lakes in which people enjoy sport
fishing (MDCH 2007). In the Great Lakes the contaminants of concern are PCBS,
chlordane, dioxin, toxaphene, and then mercury. However, the threat of mercury is

increasing in the Great Lakes due to its continual atmospheric deposition into the lakes

l6

from coal-fired power plants and other industrial effluents. Conversely, the levels of
certain persistent organic pollutants, such as PCBs, decrease over time as they are
detected and banned (Groetsch 2005). Fish caught in Michigan’s rivers and streams are
less worrisome as their moving waters tend to flush contaminants into lakes, except on
highly polluted rivers such as the Kalamazoo and the Saginaw/Tittabawassee (MDCH
2007) where fish are contaminated.

Mercury contamination in Michigan was first discovered in 1970 by a graduate
student studying fish in Lake St. Clair downstream from a chlor-alkali facility (Hesse
1997). Following this discovery, Michigan became the first state to issue a fish
consumption advisory. This advisory, unlike the current advisory, was mandated by state
law. However, it included only methylmercury in the contaminated fish of Lake St. Clair
and connecting waters. With the discovery of more contamination in Michigan’s waters,
a sport-caught fish consumption advisory was developed by the Department of
Community Health (DCH) and published in 1971 as part of the Department of Natural
Resources’ (DNR) Michigan Fishing Guide distributed with sport fishing licenses. This
non-mandated advisory covered methylmercury in addition to other pollutants such as
PCBs

By 1980 widespread distribution of mercury in inland lakes and reservoirs was
found throughout the state of Michigan. Initially, Michigan used the same action levels
for sport caught fish as the FDA used for commercial fish (0.5ppm) (Interviewee DCH
2006). In the late 1980S this level changed to the levels still used today. For women of
childbearing age and children, the DCH recommends consuming fish with levels higher

than 0.5ppm not more than once per month (Interviewee DCH 2007). For the general

17

 

15:11:: a

T. - c“
' .
1165...;

t ‘ .,
-‘ ‘h’
‘lV tutu.‘

‘~.,.,__~‘
51. \.
" ‘ at.
n

gr

I

IUr']Q’
C“ 1‘

population the DCH recommends consuming fish with levels higher than 0.5ppm not
more than one meal a week. Fish with levels higher than 1.5ppm are on the “do not eat”
list for all populations (Interviewee DCH, 2007).

In 1989 the DCH issued a generic statewide advisory for mercury in inland lakes
and reservoirs (Great Lakes Consortium 2007). The generic statewide advisory followed
an intensive sampling of inland lakes between 1980 and 1988 (Interviewee DCH 2006).
The inland lake advisory which still exits today suggests that women of childbearing age
and children under the age of 15 limit themselves to no more than once a month
consumption of crappie, rock bass or perch over 9 inches in length, and any size
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike, or muskie. It also
recommends that the general population not eat these fish more than once a week
(MDCH 2007).

The first printed version of the Michigan fish consumption advisory was
incorporated into the DNR’s fishing license packets. Once the advisory became too large
to be printed in the fishing guide, a separate advisory document was distributed with the
fishing guide to license vendors. In 2001, the two booklets were distributed in a common
envelope provided with fishing licenses. Since 2003 the fish consumption advisory is no
longer printed due to lack of funding for fish consumption advisories and is only
available online from the Department of Community Health’s website.

Today the Michigan fish consumption advisory program is based on project-
specific grants from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
As a result of one such project, Michigan now has a brochure for store bought fish, in

addition to their sport fish advisory which was finally updated in 2007 (MDCH 2007).

18

ll. Ad\ 184

.t Federa

fa. ,'..,' _
lb’en h!
388688776"

..
.3' ‘H1

aks'l;,,,L ‘3‘
5

'-

1»? '-

~13 18 m‘

.4,” .
9L\L8t'rfjc~

613.5;51LTI

B. Ilichi

.. Pu: C.

PCBs

- 1.
k '1
CL: 6
s
‘A \

The previous fish consumption advisory is from 2003 and was not updated due to lack of

resources, even though the DEQ makes recommendations to do so each year.

IV. Advisory Collaboration and Consistency
A. Federal Agencies

The EPA, and to a lesser extent the FDA, sometimes collaborates with (and
sometimes pressures) the states on state-level advisory procedures. In addition, the EPA
develops guidance for state-level managers on fish sampling, analysis and risk
assessment related to fish consumption. They also hold national technical conferences
dealing with advisory issues (Farland in Hesse 1997; Interviewee EPA). Although the
EPA is not legally responsible for fish consumption advisories, consistency among state
advisories is in their best interest since it contributes to the implementation and

consistency of other EPA programs, notably Superfund (Hesse 1997: 1 52).

B. Michigan

1. Past Collaboration: Common Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisory Protocol for
PCBs

In 1983 the EPA (Region V) facilitated a state-based initiative to establish a
uniform health advisory for sport fish caught in Lake Michigan. Each of the Lake
Michigan states (Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) participated in this process
(Hesse 1997). At the end of this process, the Lake Michigan states “agreed on common
advisories for PCBs in Lake Michigan, (mercury was not considered) except where there
were distinct regional differences, developed advisory information for particular fish

species, and dedicated themselves to greater data sharing and better coordination of

19

 

‘F‘.l\"|
affirm] ...:

. I .
:‘FJ'I . .‘
llal ‘1

Ll...t

“w- >
1“ ‘u‘.-v o.
“:hhulak.

r

x.

Ufi'h.‘ '3‘»;
‘ “‘5’ -¥\g

:- _11
\‘%c1 11‘
A. l
:“‘>‘ v
«d W

monitoring plans” (Hesse 1997:158). In 1985, the Lake Michigan states created the first
uniform fish consumption advisory for PCBs in sport caught fish in Lake Michigan.

In an effort to expand collaboration and consistency among all the Great Lakes
states, in 1986 the Great Lakes Govemors met and adopted the “Govemors’ Great Lakes
Toxic Substance Agreement” (Hesse 1997). As part of this agreement the Great Lakes
states called for common fish advisories and advisory protocols across all the Great
Lakes on a lake by lake basis. The Province of Ontario and other Canadian and tribal
organizations also joined the call for common fish advisories and advisory methodology.
The Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force (the Task Force) was formed to
complete the task. The task force was made up of as many as three representatives from
each state, the FDA, EPA, the Province of Ontario and other Canadian and Tribal
organizations.

The product of the task force deliberations was a new “Health Protection Value”
for PCBs as an alternative to previous action levels or reference doses (Hesse 1997).
This level was based on the reproductive and developmental effects of PCBs on children
as well as its cancer risk. The task force felt it was important to deviate from the FDA
action levels because: one, the FDA action levels may not be sufficiently health-based to
protect human heath; two, FDA levels are based on the idea that market-bought fish
comes from a variety of sources; and lastly, FDA levels are developed to protect the
general population on a national level.

It was assumed that anglers probably visit the same lakes over and over, and, if
those lakes are contaminated, anglers will be consistently exposed to the same levels of

the same contaminant. However, they did not consider local or regional fish eating habits,

20

 

1
_,l

‘
f:
K a .
l- l.

”MU "
Connie‘s

I
m...“ p
‘ u

Ala-aka..- I
b

I
flan-v.
-‘|~I¥0AA\

UN 63". O

.
‘n. .

| .

4 «“8 fl

nor did they take into consideration the fact that anglers most likely eat more fish than the
average population. The current advisory program still uses these assumptions for
making fish consumption recommendations (Hesse 1997).

In 1996 the task force met and submitted final recommendations to the Great
Lakes Governors’ Council. It was then up to each state’s governor to make the ultimate
decision whether to adopt the protocol (Hesse 1997). Most of the Great Lakes states
implemented the Great Lakes protocol in some form, except Michigan and New York.
Governor John Engler of Michigan chose not to adopt the new “science-based” criteria
because some people in the administration felt changing the action level from the FDA’s
to this new, more restrictive level might have had negative impacts on Michigan’s
economy (Interviewee MDCH).

In the following years, Michigan was heavily criticized by the EPA and
environmental groups for not adequately protecting human health by failing to adopt the
new risk-based common protocol. The EPA threatened to issue a separate fish
consumption advisory for Michigan if the state did not comply. The EPA and the
National Wildlife Federation effectively used the media to criticize the Engler
administration. As a result, Governor Engler created another “blue ribbon” scientific
advisory committee to review the proposed common protocol for PCBs (Hesse
1997: 155). The scientific advisory committee recommended to keep FDA levels for the
general population, and use more restrictive criteria for “sensitive populations” (women
of childbearing age and children). Michigan then adopted the Great Lakes common fish

consumption advisory protocol for sensitive populations only.

21

FTC‘TKOI I

“ ‘Gr‘v'
C078”...

V
”:1 ~ 1.
”133..-!
I q .
Y... I")?!
Bul.\h~u.

2. Current Collaboration: 2007 Common Mercury Protocol

In May of 2007 the Great Lakes Consortium created an addendum to the 1993
“Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory” (the PBC
protocol described in the pervious section) called, “A Protocol for Mercury-based Fish
Consumption Advice” (Great Lakes Consortium 2007). The Great Lakes Consortium
replaced the Great Lakes Taskforce created during the joint PCB protocol process. It is
made up of state, federal, and tribal public health and environmental agency staff from
around the Great Lakes including Canadian provincial government and First Nation
representatives.

Like the common protocol for PCBS, the Consortium agreed upon a
methylmercury “Human Protection Value” for women of childbearing age and children.
The value they chose is the EPA’s reference dose for women of childbearing age and
children, 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day. The common mercury
protocol also advises public health managers to consider more strict advisories when fish
tissue tested has both mercury and PCBS. In addition to advice about the risks of
mercury contamination in fish, the common mercury protocol also calls for fish
consumption advice that includes the benefits of eating fish. The addendum (Great Lakes
Consortium 2007, p. 18-19) says this about Michigan’s potential for implementing the
common protocol:

In Michigan the Protocol will be used to stimulate discussion on fish
consumption advice that is developed using health-based mercury fish
tissue concentrations. The Protocol will act as a starting point for trying
to develop a process to update Michigan 's Fish Consumption Advisory.
The impediment is uncertainty regarding the implications of this change
compared to the need for the change. The Department of Community

Health currently does not provide explicit funding for updating or
maintaining the fish consumption advisory program.

22

 

 

l" Oxeni

1
-"P‘. {is
b—nlhn 3 JL‘

”'2
r:

V. Overview

With decreasing funds and increasing responsibilities for state agency managers
Michigan’s fish consumption advisory program is not as active as it once was. The
current advisory is only available on the DCH’s website. However, at the federal level
the mercury in fish issue seems to be growing in importance since the 2004 joint
FDA/EPA mercury advisory for women of childbearing age and children. These two
advisory processes are very different, one is for mercury in commercial fish on a national
level for women of childbearing age and children only and the other is for a variety of
chemicals found in sport-caught fish from inland lakes for women of childbearing age
and the general population. This study looks at how different actors, the public (N=244),
agency managers (N=16), and the media (N= 62 articles and transcripts) frame the issue
to understand how they talk about and react to fish consumption advisory information in
the face of political, social, and scientific limitations and uncertainty. The results will
help to improve risk assessment, management and communication through social science

research and by including the public in decisions about environmental and health policy.

23

Chap‘

iiéii
lenfil

1. [mod

I.

‘ a
5" E “

07‘5”
t. \ ""'

.-.

‘i
A

Chapter Three

 

Theoretical Frameworks and Literature Review: Risk,
Feminist Critiques of Science and Framing

I. Introduction

Three main theoretical bases serve as the framework for this dissertation:
sociological risk theory, feminist critiques of science, and theories of fi'aming processes.
These theoretical frameworks best enlighten the data analysis in order to answer the
research questions put forth in the first chapter of the dissertation. Feminist critiques of
sciences and sociological risk theory serve in tandem to analyze a) the types of frames the
public, agency managers, and the media have about the safety of eating fish, b) the fish
consumption advisory policy process, and c) whose interests these processes serve.

This chapter starts by asking the question: “what is risk?” The response will lead
to a discussion of competing conceptions of risk within and among scientific and social
analyses of risk. I defend the thesis put forth by Rosa (1998) that risk is ontologically
real, but epistemologically vast. When risk is uncertain and there are high human stakes,
such as the case of fish consumption risk, Rosa (1998) calls this post-normal risk.

However, identifying fish consumption advisories as fulfilling conditions of post-
norrnal risk does not provide an explanation for how and why we talk about risks. It is
pertinent then to study and understand how things “get done” in a scientific agency
setting to tease out agenda setting processes. A discussion of risk theory in terms of risk
communication and risk perception is necessary to identify the ways in which risk is

discussed and understood by “experts” and “non-experts”. In addition, to fully develop

24

the discussion of risk identification, evaluation and communication 1 use feminist
critiques of positivistic, patriarchal science to unmask hidden and underdeveloped
understandings of prejudices embedded in scientific risk process.

Scientists in government agencies and agency managers, albeit at times
begrudgingly, use reductionist scientific risk analyses to make decisions and policies
about risk management and communication. The methodologies used by this type of risk
analysis fail to account for the subtle (and not so subtle) ways in which government
science underscores gender and ethnic differences with regard to risk characterization,
management, and communication. In the case of fish consumption advisories this is
highly important given that the most at-risk populations are the same ones traditionally
left out by the patriarchal culture of modern science: women, children and minorities. In
addition, the current government risk processes treat human and environmental risks as
separate and do not approach risk and risk management holistically.

The final theoretical framework, social frames, describes the way people (experts
and non-experts) formalize their points of view into structured frames that they use to act
and react to information. Framing is the process of constructing one’s reality to fit within
some boundary based on experience, interests, beliefs, trust, knowledge, and socio-
cultural belonging (Benford and Snow 2000). The literature on framing is ofien
portrayed in terms of conflicting frames that develop as tactics for advancing social
movements. In the fish consumption advisory issue, framing is less about how people
develop opposing frames, but more about how and why people frame a risk issue in the

face of multiple inputs and decision vectors and how individuals can occupy multiple

25

frames at the same time, even conflicting ones (Benford and Snow 2000; Kurtz 2003;

Hoffman 2001).

II. What is Risk?
A. Introduction

In the traditional scientific paradigm, risk is defined through probabilistic risk
assessments that quantitatively identify risks and scientifically estimate the probability
and consequences of their occurrence (Dietz et a1. 1998). These risk assessments are
often articulated in the form of risk ratios. Agency managers and decision makers
integrate these risk ratios into policy and communicate them to the public through risk
communication and agency outreach. Once scientists determine an acceptable level of
risk, government agencies mobilize to avoid, reduce, mitigate, and control unacceptable
risks (Dietz et a1. 1998). However, determining how much risk is too much, and to what
extent adverse effects will be observable, measurable, and discrete is ambiguous at best
(Adam and van Loon 2000; Beck 2000; Homing-Priest 1995; Kasperson 1991; Lidskog
2000; Rosa 1998). This process is by and large a solely scientific, technological, or
engineering practice and does not include stakeholder participation (Dietz et a1 1998).

Over the past twenty years the limited conceptualization of risk that probabilistic
risk assessment offers has been critiqued and deconstructed by social science scholars
(Beck 2000; Dietz et a1. 1998; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Freudenberg 1989; Rosa
1998; Slovic 1992; Wynne 2002). These scholars propose that risk is a social
phenomenon in addition (or as opposed) to a scientific one. Many authors note the
limitations of a technological and scientific process to fully articulate risks in a reliable,

value-free, and nonbiased way (Adam and van Loon 2000; Beck 2000; Rosa 1998;

26

Verchick 2000; Wynne 2002). Adam and van Loon (2000:1-2) argue that “even the most
restrained and moderate-objectivist account of risk implications involves a hidden
politics, ethics and morality.” They go on to say that “risks are manufactured [socially
constructed] not only through the application of technologies, but also in the making
sense and by the technological sensibility of potential harm, danger or threat.” In other
words, even if the scientific process of risk analysis is technologically and
methodologically consistent among all research studies, the results would continue to be
ambiguous because different scientists study and interpret risks differently due to a
number of socio-cultural factors.

Social theorist Ulrich Beck puts forth the idea that there are societies in which the
integral component of modern life is risk, and that risk should be treated as such. Beck
and other scholars (Slovic 1992; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; F reudenburg 1989:
Wynne 2002) theorize that what we actually call risk is only a human perception (through
the interpretation of scientific and technological output) of that risk. The state of risk
cannot be separated from the way it is perceived by humans. Taking this idea further,
some like Slovic (1992) say that a risk exists only if human beings perceive the risk.
These scholars do not believe that risk is an ontologically real state of the world because
when we talk about risk we are not talking about something that is; we are talking about
something that will probably happen if we do not change in some way (Adam and van
Loon 2000; Beck 2000).

Therefore risk is not an actual state of the world, it is only the epistemological
knowledge of risk interpreted through the perception of risk (Beck 2000; Slovic 1992;

Freudenburg 1989) and technological output (Carolan 2004). This position poses several

27

 

 

'1
air". ."
I‘ng .uau.‘

f;

‘.
‘l.--. ‘

U513.» If

problems. First, some risks are undeniably real and not just an outcome of our cultural
judgment about them (Rosa 1998). That is, until the outcome of risk (death, natural
disaster, mercury poisoning) becomes a reality, the risk of these outcomes are only
perceived (or not). The failure to distinguish an ontological reality of the consequences of
risk and the epistemological perception of risk forces these theorists to adhere to a realist
view of risk, and at the same time the constructivist assertion that risk identification can
only occur from the perception of that risk. This logic is cumbersome at best (Rosa
1998). On the other hand, if what they are really saying is that “risks are entirely
subjective phenomena, then the result is a conceptualization that fuses ontology with

epistemology” and “introduces a constructivist bias” (Rosa 1998:33).

B. Post-Normal Risk

Contrary to the theories of risk described above, Rosa (1998) asserts risks exist as
a state of the world somewhere “out there,” that risk is ontologically real. Therefore,
Rosa defines risks as a “situation or event where something of human value, including
themselves, has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain (Rosa 1998:28)”
regardless of one’s level of perception. This is the definition of risk used in this
dissertation.

Rosa (1998) calls “ontological realism” the reality of risk as a state of the world
However, Rosa points out that “human limitation precludes isomorphism between the
world and our understandings of it, thus, all claims to knowledge about the world are
fallible (1998:41).” He goes on to say that not all claims to knowledge are equally

fallible. This is what he calls epistemological hierarchy.

28

Rosa says:

“Human perpetual and cognitive capabilities are inherently limited. As a
consequence we can neither generate perfect knowledge about the world,
nor can we create a ‘true’ understanding of our physical and social
environments- risky ones or otherwise. Facts seldom speak for themselves
and considerable ambiguity surrounds even the most basic facts. The
world ‘out there’ and our understanding of it can never be isomorphic:
human understanding can only approximate the world we seek to explain.
Thus, our claims to Imowledge about our worlds are always subjective-
and always fallible. ”

Rosa constructs his theory of epistemological hierarchy by relying on the
realist/positivist constructs of ostensibility and repeatability. This is where I critique
Rosa. Although it seems that his descriptions of ostensibility and repeatability are more
encompassing of non-scientific epistemologies than what is traditionally valued in the
sciences. For example, he uses gravity as an event that is of high ostensibility and
repeatability. Everyone understands that there is something keeping us from floating
away into space, no matter what cultural lens we look through. He bases his call for a
democratization of risks on business-as-usual constructs of the scientific method.

In contrast to Rosa, it may be more useful to think in terms of levels of
uncertainty rather than ostensibility and repeatability. In practice this shift fiom high
ostensibility and repeatability to differing levels of uncertainty would make it difficult to
articulate (however loosely) what post-normal risk is. Ravetz and Funtowicz (1998)
suggest the use of the term “epistemological complementaries” in the place of
“epistemological hierarchy” to accommodate a greater spectrum of types of valued
knowledge and eliminate the connotation that ostensible and repeatable knowledge is

somehow superior to knowledge lacking those properties (Ravetz and Funtowicz

l998:45,48).

29

 

-..« “I!“
1'§.'3\. - .&A

A

if" £30617

1
. l
I

I
II
8

r

0
‘sl
5
(b

“3'1“36-

b...- .5s5a ii

";i- o

In»: I" L|€ 0
- A

For

an

fill. [O N
., _, _ _.
{than} 0:

MM?”

‘39]. I
“will n”

$313“? \~
w
y
{1“

In the event of post-normal risk “risk assessment and management should be
epistemologically inclusionar'y, embracing an extended range of paradigms, perspectives,
and stakeholders with alternative claims to knowledge (Rosa 1998:41).” The goal of
post-normal science (risk) is not to turn research labs over to unqualified laypeople, but
to democratize sciences so that it is a part of the public debate along with all the other
issues affecting our society (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1992:254). I believe that agency risk
characterization, management, and communication processes could greatly benefit fi'om
this type of practice.

For Rosa, the objective of post-normal risk is to move the debate from “what is
risk?” to “what is our knowledge about risk?” and “how could we best use our various
systems of knowledge to improve our democratic decision making over risk choices”
(1998:40). Unfortunately this shift does not necessarily elaborate questions about why
certain risks are discussed over others or how knowledge is created. In governmental
agencies, knowledge gathering and decision making about risk take place as a result of
learning based on piecing together information and combining it with previous
knowledge, beliefs and values to create something new. Freeman (2007) calls this

process epistemological bricolage.

III. Risk Construction
A. Epistemological Bricolage

Epistemological bricolage is the process by which scientists in government
agencies create knowledge through learning, a processes of “successive crafting,
assembling and literally making sense of different bits of information and experience,

often creating something new from what they have acquired secondhand” (Freeman

30

k. Dane 1.3.:

L»..1
V

Fugm-
l; .b aka...

. . .
.io".~.. 7..
,

1‘35 ; ml“

63;". ,m.’ ..

kL. “Ll‘\‘
J 4.

.. I V l"
B¥r< ”Mr.

is a fun;

.
a. 1 r
”If: .,

.
A .

if?” 8.3:

S". I

t [M -.
‘L\ik'n\

2007:476).” Uncertainty creates space for learning, but this uncertainty is rarely resolved
by the varied disciplinary perspectives upon which public administration might draw
(Freeman 2007:477). lnevitably, “these disciplines tend to talk past each other” and
although learning remains a policy “good” the amount of which learning occurs in
practices remains unknown (Freeman 2007:477). Epistemological bricolage is a type of
learning that lacks evaluation, careful reflection and institutional memory, or knowledge
that is systematically passed on and remains even though individuals occupying certain
posts move on and change (Coffey and Hoffman 2003; Freeman 2007).

There are three strains of theory about learning in policy setting (Freeman 2007).
The first is rationalist theory. It privileges the scientific method. The second strain,
institutionalist, states that different organizations show different capacities for learning
depending on types and sources of information processed, and, what policy makers learn
is a function of what they believe and the way they think. Policy makers learn from
others like them or people who “speak their language” both literally and figuratively
(Freeman 2007). The third theory, the constructionist approach, states that problems and
solutions are defined by what they are conceived and agreed upon to be, and that learning
is a collective and interactive process.

Freeman found that individuals in public health agencies simultaneously learn in
ways supported by all three theories. Learning, then, “consists of ‘piecing together’ what
is known from different sources in different ways” (Freeman 2007: 484). This process is
both subtle and complex. Freeman (20072486) says that the agency manager takes on the
role of the “bricoleur” (tinkerer) which is to navigate between research and practice, ways

of knowing, and sometimes different kinds of learning. This process can sometimes

31

bring about conflicts about how to use and share information. Knowledge is “negotiated
not only between actors and interests, but between ways of thinking; more precisely,
because it is debated between differently situated actors, with different interests and
traditions, it is also built form the respective styles of thought” (Freeman 2007 : 491).
“The bricoleur acquires and assembles tools and materials as he or she
goes, keeping them until they might be used. Each is shaped in part by its
previous application but remains inevitably undetermined, imperfectly
understood, open to manipulation for whatever purpose is at hand. Not
only are the tools selected according to the bricoleur ’s purpose, but that
purpose itself is shaped in part by the tools and material available. The

properties of each-tools, materials, and project- are uncovered in the
process. " (Freeman 200 7:486)

How government managers learn and therefore what they act upon is less
systematic or rigorous than modernist visions of the scientific method put forth. The
“doing” of science adheres to technocratic science policy, however, the “why” of agency
action depends on the “crafting and assembling” of information and experience more than
systematic planning and learning in a holistic way. Due to the relative ambiguity of
scientific understanding, knowledge, and risk communication, it becomes necessary to
understand risk not only in terms of probabilistic risk assessments, but also by how it is

socially constructed and perceived by both the lay-public and experts.

B. Risk Perception

1. Introduction

Risk construction depends on how people get information, what they do about it,
and whom they trust, in addition to their past experiences with an issue or other actors in
the process (Bearnish 2001; Lidskog 2000). Risk is constructed through the “cultural and

social experience [including the impacts of the media, agency outreach, social networks,

32

‘lfiiil 96ml

Sain- v

as phxiic.‘

class, gender, etc.] that determines rules of how to select, order, and explain signals form
the physical world” (Kasperson 1991 : 158). When people make decisions about risk they
use scientific risk information infused with and based on social networks, trust,
experience, knowledge, access to information, mental models, gender, class, etc
(Beamish 2001; Bickerstaff and Walker 2001; Fischer 2000; Goldman et a1 2004; Jakus
and Shaw 2003; Kasperson 1992; Lidskog 2000; Marshall 2004).

2. Ethnic and Gender Differences in Risk Perception

In general women and minorities, especially Afiican-American women, tend to
perceive environmental risks as more serious than white males (Davidson and
Freudenberg 1996; Finucane et al. 2000; Fisher 2000; Flynn et a1 1994; Marshall 2004).
However, context matters. Marshall (2004) found that a small percentage of white males
are so completely risk accepting that it skews the results for all white males when
grouped together in statistical analysis. When data from this small overly risk accepting
group is taken out, white males are statistically almost as risk averse as women and
minorities. However, a disparity among risk acceptance between white males and
minority females remains statistically significant (Marshall 2004).

Some white males may be extremely accepting of risks because of their higher
social positions, which allow them to benefit from the sources of pollution without being
exposed to the risks. While African American women, especially those living in highly
polluted areas, are thought to be so extremely risk averse because they do not reap the
benefits from these sources of pollution but are overly exposed to their harm. Marshall
(2004) also found that men and women are risk averse about different risk issues.

Women tend to be more risk averse about issues concerning threats to their family,

33

3 5‘,er ‘

. u
”M, B
finedbl \
1
guy... .1
Lung... .L
.

. .- ,
‘ ‘5)" Oh
xu\‘e nu
" s
'SJQMY-h
I: 3&5:s>..

s. or; an:

1:11

especially heath risks to children. Also, people who live in polluted areas are more risk
averse than those who live elsewhere, regardless of gender or ethnicity.
3. Expert versus Lay Perceptions of Risk

In general experts tend to perceive industrial risks as less of a threat than the
public (Beamish 2001; Carolan 2006; Rose 2000; Sjoberg 1999). This phenomenon is
thought to result from the lack of trust among the public and experts. The public tend to
believe that experts are hiding the real dangers of risk for political or financial gain
(Beamish 2001; Sjoberg 1999). Also, people are wary of the influence that big business
has on the government (Beamish 2001).

Interestingly, for activities that people partake in voluntarily like fishing or
smoking, the public tends to accept more risk than government public health scientists.
People who partake in a risky activity are less likely to see that activity as risky (Beehler
et al 2003; Burger 2000; Jakus and Shaw 2003). This causes individuals to de-amplify
those risks, and treat them as non-risks. Risk deamplification makes it even harder for
public health managers/scientists to communicate risk, especially when there are
uncertainties surrounding whether the risk exists (Burger 2000; Kasperson 1992).

4. Risk Perception: Risk (de)amplification

When ambiguous actual risks and psychological, social, institutional, and cultural
processes act on risk perception, it often leads to the amplification or attenuation of
perceived risk (Kasperson 1992). This can cause people to be overly risk averse, or
engage in overly risky behaviors (Burger 2000; Kasperson 1992). For example, many
people (both women and men) ignore fish consumption advisory information because

they do not know what to do or whom to trust, therefore putting themselves at risk

34

 

 

H'ITMTLTIC.
an”,
«'56? Cl 8

037.7631} 3

(Beehler 2001, 2003; Burger et al 2003; Connelly and Knuth 1998; J ardine 2003).
Conversely, many people might choose to avoid fish because “all they hear” about
mercury, even those who are not at risk and who have the most to gain from heart healthy
omega- 3 fatty acids provided by some fish species (Burger 2008; Knuth et a1 2003). To
combat risk amplification/attenuation, government public health officials need to
effectively target different publics (especially at-risk populations) with appropriate risk
communication messages (Anderson et a1 2004; Beehler 2001, 2003; Burger 2000, 2008;
Burger et a1 2001; Burger et a1 2003; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; Chess et a1 2005;
Connelly and Knuth 1998; hnm et al 2007; Jardine 2003; Johnson et a1 2003; Knuth et al.
2003; Shimsack 2007; Tilden et al. 1997).
5. Risk Perception: Trust

Even the best risk communication outreach will lack efficacy if people do not
trust the information or information sources (Carolan 2006; Rose 2000; Sjoberg 1999).
Greater truth is found in statements of risk when they come fiom trusted sources (Carolan
2006). Who or what people trust often relies on cultural beliefs, past experiences and
mental models of health and safety. In the face of scientific uncertainty, non-experts and
experts (to varying degrees) “fall back on their social relations to help them make sense
of and therefore evaluate statements of risk” (Carolan 20062250). This lack of trust, often
due to past experiences, creates disagreeing public and expert assessments of risk
(Sjoberg 1999; Rose 2000). This creates policy problems not because differing expert

and lay perceptions present a knowledge gap, but because it is a gap in trust (Rose 2000).

35

6. Risk perception: Fish Consumption Advisories

Studies of risk perception and fish consumption advisories reveal the same types
of findings as studies of other risks. For example, one study of fish consumption from
freshwater lakes found that people who engage in risky behavior are more likely to accept
risks; white males perceived fewer risks compared to minorities, and that women and
anglers use prior experiences to develop their beliefs about the risks of eating fish from
polluted waters (J akus and Shaw 2003). Beehler et a1 (2003) found that most anglers
have no concerns about the fish they eat and use mental models, rather than an official
advisory to judge fish safety. Just as in a study of air pollution, (Bickerstaff and Walker
2001) several studies of fish consumption advisories (Beehler et al. 2003; Beehler et al.
2001; Burger 2001; Burger et al. 2003; J akus and Shaw 2003), found that people use
sensory cues, location and past experiences to make decisions about how polluted the air
or a fish is.

Connelly and Knuth (1998) found that both personal (past experience, risk
attenuation or acceptance) and institutional factors (credibility, format in which the
information is presented, multiple and sometimes conflicting responsibilities of agencies)
influence how people respond to fish advisory information. Overall, studies of fish
consumption advisory risk perception show that the public is not well informed and has
difficulty making safe decisions about fish consumption benefits and risks (Beehler et al.
2003; Burger 2008; Connelly and Knuth 1998; 1mm et al. 2007; J ardine 2003; Tilden et
al. 1997). The ability of governmental risk processes to adequately establish, manage, and
communicate risk, has serious limitations in its current state. However, even if

government risk processes were perfectly democratic, they may still be unable to

36

effectively reach those who are at risk because of the ways in which risk is socially
constructed. For example, people create mental models about the cleanliness and health
of the fish they eat instead of following explicit fish consumption advisory advice.
Individuals create internal mental models of themselves, their environment, others, and
artifacts of technology in order to understand and deal with their interactions with these
things (Norman 1983). Mental models are incomplete, unstable, do not have firm

boundaries, and are “unscientific” and parsimonious (Norman 1983).

C. Mandated Science

In addition, agency officials are often confined to mandated science. Mandated
science refers to “the activities of scientists in situations where they have been given a
mandate by government to make recommendations or decisions that have a large
scientific component” (Levy 2001, p. 726). Often in these situations, regulatory
authorities impose strong “experimental rigor” of uniform and rigorous measurement
standards and statistics (Levy 2001, p. 726). In these circumstances, thinking holistically
on a systems level becomes difficult or even discouraged because of pressure to
emphasize mandated projects and activities. Although many scientists are leery of
quantitative statistical tests and measurement instruments to develop concrete
recommendations or specific decisions regarding risk, they are often pressured to do so
through agency mandate and policy objectives (Levy 2001).

The types of questions governments pose can rarely be answered by the practices
and procedures of science (Levy 2001 :73 2) That is, “there is a mismatch between
questions posed by government and answers offered by science” (Levy 2001 :73 2). This

mismatch is due to issues of fact vs. value, scientific uncertainty, and the limits of science

37

and technology. The statistical and quantitative approach to the sciences mandated by
government only increases the amount of judgment that goes into establishment,
interpretation, and implementation of data as it is translated from scientific theory and
experimentation into scientific fact through risk communication and agency outreach
(Levy 2001).

Given the ambiguity surrounding many issues of risk, including fish
contamination and fish consumption, the process of quantifying and articulating risks in a
way that undoubtedly protects human health requires scientists and policy makers to
make assumptions about the people exposed to the risk as well as its consequences
(V erichich 2000). For example, when toxicologists develop statistical measures and
limits of what is safe they are fully aware of the uncertainty to which they appertain.
However, when these levels are translated into fish consumption advisories they become
“set in stone” or “set in ink” limits that a certain type of person cannot eat a certain type

of fish over a certain size.

D. Adaptive Management

An alternative to these rigid scientific and technocratic processes may be adaptive
management (AM). AM offers a way to use science and experimentation, in addition to
stakeholder participation, to systematically and rigorously plan policy actions and learn
from the process for the benefit of future initiatives. Adaptive management is a theory of
natural resource management designed to help managers make decisions despite
complexity and high scientific uncertainty (Holling 1978; Henriksen and Barlebo 2008;
Lee 1993; Schreiber et al. 2004). It adds the democratic notions of lay knowledge to

scientific process and treats management decisions as experiments that exist outside the

38

control of laboratory settings (Holling 1978; Henriksen and Barlebo 2008; Lee 1993;
Schreiber et al. 2004). This type of management strategy may provide a guide for agency
managers beyond mandates and epistemological bricolage.

The purpose of adaptive management is to learn from management action and use
that knowledge, along with stakeholder input, to improve future management decisions.
Policies and management become experiments monitored before, during and after the
intervention (Henriksen and Barlebo 2008). According to Schreiber et a1. (2004) the
process of adaptive management is to:

(1) define objectives with stakeholders

(2) model existing knowledge, promoting consensus and finding gaps

(3) identify goals relating to objectives and identify criteria for assessment

(4) model alternate management options and formulate expectations (using
steps one and three)

(5) identify decision structure

(6) implement on single or multiple sites and

(7) draw inference by monitoring and evaluation. (Schreiber et al. 2004)

In terms of fish consumption advisory information managers could use adaptive
management to gather information about risk perception and create more fitting risk
communication. In addition, the process of adaptive management allows citizens and
managers to incorporate human and environmental health issues to holistically solve
contaminant problems. However the use of adaptive management in policy and decision
making must be altered to accommodate the differences between policy and management
and the ethical considerations of research on human subjects. Folke et a1. (2005) use the
term “adaptive governance of social-ecological systems”. This will be developed in the
discussion chapter, chapter 6.

There are barriers to implementing adaptive management and challenges

incorporating the complex nature of social-ecological systems into policy and

39

3323mm:

:1 k5 ' I
11-3.7 _--.1.'Tlt.

1909 Pine

filikfhirldc,

management (Feldman 2008; Folke 2005; Gunderson 1999; Walters 1997). One of the
major barriers to overcome to successfully implement adaptive management is
overcoming the challenges the principles of adaptive management pose to existing
management systems and the political basis for these systems (F eldman 2008; Gunderson
1999; Pinkerton 1999). For example, government resource management is guided by
short-term objectives, single-issue optimum policy outcomes, and
engineering/technocratic dominated approaches to problem solving (Feldman 2008;
Gunderson 1999; Pinkerton 1999).

In contrast, adaptive management requires long-term learning that incorporates
multi-disciplinary approaches to complex resource issues with the inclusion of human
and biophysical components of ecosystems (Gunderson 1999). In addition, to develop
science and policy that support sustainability environmental and public health agencies
need to include the human dimensions of ecosystem management, an expertise rarely
found in these agencies (Folke et al. 2005). Adaptive management also requires that
stakeholders are included in the policy and decision making process. This necessitates a
great deal of social capital involving an investment in the social relationships and
networks that provide relations of trust, reciprocity and common rules, norms, sanctions,

and connectedness (Folke et al. 2005).

E. Risk and Stakeholder (Public) Participation

Like with adaptive management involving stakeholders in environmental risk
management and decision making is seen by many scholars as a policy good (Fischer
2000; Folke et a1 2005; Rabe 1999; Rosa 1998; Rose 2000). However, when scientists

interact with the public, it most often involves a one-way monologue about scientific

4O

facts (Thomas 1995; Rabe 1999; Rose 2000). Scientists rarely, if ever, ask the public
what it thinks about science and what direction science should go. They often confound
public understanding with the number of scientific facts the public knows (Rose 2000).
As a solution, Sjoberg (1999) recommends the use of an ombudsman that works in the
public’s interest on risk issues, increasing agency accountability. Others (Carolan 2004;
Judd et al. 2005; NRC 2000; Rose 2000), like Rosa (1998) propose a democratization of
risk policy where the scientist is not replaced by lay-people, but occupies a smaller and

more modest role of expert which has equal weight as any other perspective.

IV. Risk Communication and Fish Consumption Advisories

The Environmental Protection Agency defines risk communication of fish
consumption as “a process of sharing information about perceived and potential dangers
and benefits associated with fish consumption” (EPA 2001: 1-4). The steps of effective
risk communication should be: know your audience, do formative research, know the
risk- know what it is and what can be done about it, test your messages empirically
(evaluation), iterate, and involve those concerned (Bostron and Lofstedt 2003).
Unfortunately risk communication in government agencies is more of an art than a
science, relying on “intuition” rather than well-researched principles (Bostron and
Lofstedt 2003). The success of risk management and communication relies on
“formalizing these intuitions and testing them systematically” (Bostron and Lofstedt
20032246), which is what adaptive management does.

The existing scientific knowledge of risk communication and fish consumption
advisories is relatively vast. Many studies concern the communication of fish

consumption risks (Anderson et al 2004; Connelly and Knuth 1998; Beehler et al. 2001;

41

Beehler et al. 2003; Bienenfeld et al. 2003; Burger 2000, 2008; Burger et al. 2001;
Burger et al. 2003; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; Dellinger 2004; 1mm et al. 2007; J ardine
2003; Jakus et al. 1998; Johnson et al 2003; Knuth et al. 2003; Shimsack 2007; Steenport
et al. 2000; Tilden et al. 1997). Much of this research has shown that the public needs
better risk communication to understand how to balance the benefits and risks of
consuming fish. But, this cannot occur without a more concentrated effort on the part of
risk managers to understand, target, and involve audiences of concern (Anderson et al
2004; Connelly and Knuth 1998; Burger 2000, 2008; Burger et al. 2001; Burger et al.
2003; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; Irnm et al. 2007; J ardine 2003; Johnson et a1 2003;
Knuth et al. 2003; Shimsack 2007; Tilden et a1. 1997).

For example, Beehler (2001, 2003) found that anglers have little information and
do not know if they are making safe decisions about consuming fish. Therefore, the
exposure to risk information is not enough. Fish eaters need targeted risk communication,
especially for those who are labeled at risk (Anderson et al. 2004; Connelly and Knuth
1998; Bienenfeld et al. 2003; Burger 2000; Burger et al. 2001; Burger et al. 2003; Burger
and Gochfeld 2006; Steenport et a1. 2000; Tilden et al. 1997). Clearly, relying solely on
sport-caught fish consumption advisories is not enough because it often does not
represent the types of fish eaten by the at-risk population (1mm et al. 2007).

A single type of risk communication strategy that is adequate for all target
audiences does not exist (Connelly and Knuth 1998). Defining anglers as the target
audience, as the Michigan fish consumption advisory does, is insufficient to reach the
populations most at-risk (Connelly and Knuth 1998). In addition, the public often gets

fish consumption information from sources other than the official fish consumption

42

advisory such as, people they trust like fish purveyors, family, and medical professionals
(Bostron and Lofstedt 2003; Burger 2000, 2008; Johnson et al. 2003).

Researchers have developed different, but similar, solutions to more effectively
communicate fish consumption risks. Most have called for more targeted, audience-
centered risk communication (Beehler et al. 2001; Beehler et al. 2003; Bienenfeld et al.
2003; Burger 2000; Burger et al. 2001; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; Connelly and Knuth
1998; Shimsack 2007). Others recommend targeting risk communication to information
gatekeepers such as medical professionals, schools, charter boat captains, women’s
centers and health clinics (1mm et a1 2007; Jardine 2003; Johnson et al. 2003; Burger et
al. 2003). Tilden et al. (1997) and Anderson et al. (2004), who come fiom more public
health backgrounds, specifically talk about the need for increased collaboration among
the states and recommend that they work with trained risk communication specialists (i.e.
experts) to create targeted risk communication for at-risk groups.

Finally, Knuth et al. (2003) propose that risk communication should use risk-risk
and risk-benefit comparisons in fish consumption outreach materials. They also say that
agency managers need to make a better effort to clarify who is at risk and who accrues
the most benefits from fish consumption. In addition, they emphasize balancing benefit
and risk information in risk communication.

Several studies indicate that people are aware of fish consumption advisories, but
they do not have enough information to make healthy decisions about consuming fish
(Beehler et al. 2001; Beehler et al. 2003; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; J akus et a1. 1998;
Jardine 2003; Habron et al. 2008). For example, most anglers understand that chemicals

can be removed by certain fish preparation techniques (Beehler et al. 2001; Habron et al.

43

2008; Tilden et al. 1997). However, mercury is the leading fish contaminant in
freshwater inland lakes, but cannot be removed by special preparation or cooking
techniques. In addition, conflicting messages about fish consumption risks in the media
and in government risk communication add to the confusion.

Even in the event of vastly targeted risk communication, different people react
differently to risk communication. What can evoke fear in some may evoke anger in
others (Bostron and Lofstedt 2003). Past research has also found a lack of public interest
in fish consumption advisories (Burger 2000). Many people feel as though it does not
pertain to them, and therefore they ignore the advisory (Burger 2000).

Those at-risk such as women, children and minorities may not receive the risk
message due to bias in the message structure and framework that targets the general
public. This also creates a spillover effect so that those who are not at risk reduce
beneficial fish consumption (Burger 2008; Mozaffarian et al. 2006; Shimsack 2007). In
addition, fish consumption messages are rife with what Chess et a1 (2005) call
“govemment-speak”.

Government-speak is the bland, generic style commonly used by government
agencies to communicate risk (Chess et al. 2005). Government business-as-usual risk
communication involves generalizing local knowledge as a means to impose order.
Standardized reports, templates, and memos create an “official” language of government
that neglects linguistic and cultural factors that affect the usefulness or acceptability of
risk communication messages in different communities (Chess et al. 2005). Lack of
resources in state agencies cannot be the only reason for poor risk communication.

Instead, Chess et al. (2005) attribute poor risk communication to a lack of

44

expertise and management commitment as well as interagency conflict. In order to rend
fish consumption advisories more accessible to minority populations, government
agencies need to change their current risk communication strategy away from using this
“government speak”. As the authors point out, in terms of agency mandates, it is risk
assessment, not communication, which has the most power and legitimacy in

management agencies (Chess et al. 2005).

V. Feminist Critiques of Science

While risks associated with fish consumption and mercury are real (Rosa 1998),
scientific risk assessment is only able to assess these risks through the application of
technology and methodologies that are developed under the paradigm of paternal western
science. In addition, scientists and therefore “science” is often limited by fiscal concerns,
political and cultural pressures, environmental factors (such as mobility of resources),
and incongruous interpretations of results by different interests (Adam and van Loon
2000; Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Rosa 1998). For example, the type of reference
studies agencies use to develop their mercury action levels will greatly affect how risks
are articulated to the public. The choice to use one study over another may not always be
an objective decision. As Verchick (2000, pg 70) asserts:

“Much of the risk assessment data are manipulable and could easily be
used by “captured ” agencies to satisfy corporate or political goals. The
acceptability standards applied to such findings are often inconsistent
among safety and environmental laws and serve to protect some groups
more than others. Further, many agency programs fail to collect or
consider data on potentially exposed people and instead rely on more

generalized findings " [as is the case with the fish consumption
advisories].

45

How science is conceptualized, conducted, interpreted and communicated can
greatly affect people’s perception of, and ultimately exposure to, risks. Therefore, in
order to (at least partially) understand risk and risk perception, we must understand the
science by which it is created (Homing-Priest 1995). The current dominant scientific
pedagogy is based on modernist metaphysical and epistemological premises including
atomism, mechanism, universalism, objectivism, and monism (La Blond Hanks 1996;
Haraway 2001; Merchant 1996; Norgaard 1994).

Modern science emphasizes an epistemology based on observation and the ability
of the observer to be removed from what he is observing, in other words, that
observations are unbiased and value-free (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Haraway 2001;
Harding 2001). It seeks to understand the world in terms of unchanging maxims and the
strengths of fixed relationships through mathematical language and logic, technology and
organization (Haraway 2001; Harding 2001). Feminists have critiqued this process by
presenting the ways in which scientists cannot distance themselves from their
preconceptions, stereotypes, backgrounds, knowledge, education, and culture, thus
creating inequalities in risk prevention and communication (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000;
LaBlond-Hanks 1996; Merchant 1996). In addition, feminist scholars also critique the
very ideas of scientific objectivity and relativism that promise a “vision from everywhere
and no where equally and fully” which Haraway (20012176) calls one of the “common
myths in rhetorics surrounding Science”.

Buckingham-Hatfield (2000: 11) states, “a society which is stratified by economic
wealth, race or gender will seek to understand the environment in a way that reflects this.

The questions asked, the methods used in seeking the answers, and the answers

46

themselves are likely to reinforce and justify the way in which that society is organized.”
For example, the majority of research on the cause and treatment of heart attacks is based
on studies of white-males. Then, the results of these studies are applied to all other
populations of people (LaBlond-Hanks 1996). However, the causes of heart attacks for
white males may differ from those of white women or minorities.

In the past, women and minorities have been scientifically marginalized by
scientific research that sought to prove their inferiority to white males both physically
and intellectually, as exemplified by measuring skulls to prove brain size is correlated to
intellect and that white males have the largest brains (LaBlond-Hanks 1996). In addition,
minorities and sensitive populations are victims of racist research goals such as the
Tuskegee syphilis study in which Afiican American men were not treated for syphilis
long after a cure was developed. Not only are women and minorities the object of
prejudiced research, they traditionally have been kept away from scientific practice
through formalized education systems that encourage men to excel and women to stay
behind. Elite scientific clubs, such as the French Academy of Sciences and the English
Royal Scientific Society excluded women until well into the twentieth century
(Buckingham-Hatfield 2000). According to many feminists, this exclusion of women
and minorities results in a scientific and cultural paradigm that is dominated by a western
middle-class male perspective (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; LaBlond-Hanks 1996;
Merchant 1996).

From its very foundations of Aristotle and Descartes, western science creates a
gendered space where some types of knowledge are valued over others (Buckingham-

Hatfield 2000). Feminist critiques of science assert that modern science cannot make

47

“universal claims about knowledge, bodies, emotions, female “nature,” and transcended
reality—claims that reinforce domination” (Merchant 1996261). They reveal the ways in
which scientific language, imagery, and methods a) enforce the duality of women and
men, men as objective observers and women as emotional feelers; b) support racial
differences; and c) preserve inequalities (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Merchant 1996).
They say that scientific objectivity cannot truly be objective without “contestation,
deconstruction, passionate construction, webbed connections and hope for transformation
of systems of knowledge and ways of seeing” (Haraway 2001:179).
According to Merchant (1996271) feminist approaches to the history of science
have:
(I) destabilized the assumption that science can know nature; (2) linked
power and knowledge at the levels of both epistemology and practice, so
that what counts as scientific knowledge necessarily reflects the relations
of domination; (3 ) questioned the possibility of a scientific knowledge
system independent of the culture-bound influences of sex, race, and
ethnocentrism and (4) challenged the assumption that the nature behind
human representations changed only through its own evolutionary and
physical laws, asserting instead that human practices give rise to new
objects, such as chemically-induced or genetically-engineered mutants. ”
Cartesian duality and the Aristotelian identification of the female as passive
(through the passivity of her sex organs) along with the feminization of nature has,
according to some feminists, set the stage for masculine domination over nature and
women (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Merchant 1996; Shiva 1989). The lack of a
traditionally feminine presence in policy making, science and the academy has given way
to a masculine dominated world-view of objectivity and domination in western science
and culture. This does not mean that all men prescribe to this dominant world view, or

that women do not. Masculine positivist science, which looks to the scientific method as

the only way to acquire true knowledge, underlies the production of sciences in western

48

society so that the type of scientific questions asked, the interpretation of the answers,
and the methods of analysis become gendered to the point of fostering inequality
(Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Haraway 2001). Assumptions made about people exposed
to risk can have major consequences for women, minorities and the poor due to the
dominance of white middle-class masculine culture in scientific pedagogy and policy
making.

Not all people can be expected to interact with their bodies and environment in
the same way, given all of the different factors that impact their health and lifestyle, like,
poverty, geography, history of illness, and occupation (Haraway 1989, 2001; Lober 1998;
Rocheleau et al. 1996; Ward 1999). In addition, the body is an agent and not just a
“resource politics of the body” (Haraway 20012181). Therefore we cannot expect all
people to have the same actual and perceived risks. If most scientists are educated
according to the dominant masculine world-view, risk assessment and communication
and agency outreach may fail to consider differences among people, leading to
inappropriate messages about the risk and benefits of certain behaviors that either confuse
people or fail to reach them altogether (Haraway 2001; Rocheleau et al. 1996; Verchick
2004). In addition, in public forum and policy settings the style of communication is
dominated by this masculine world-view, which may intimidate others from participating
or speaking up and becoming involved in these processes (Ward 1999).

For these reasons it is important to understand the gendered implications of
scientific exploration and public-science discourse through a feminist lens to capture the
explicit and implicit gendered inequalities of risk calculation and communication. The

lens used in this dissertation is Haraway’s (2001) theory of situated knowledge. Haraway

49

1111:1211 satS 1h?“ "0"
bill 11316qu SlIUClUT
1397113111115. not in ‘11
nasal and partial; then
rinsing is necdul (1
pit-res ofbeing an arc
111638111111 the manor.
Feminist object
induction (Harris-a} I
regs 1116 here am. tr
since] by means of 1'
raids nicely with the .
inane surprises of In.
1111 P111110” decision:
This their} d1.
f3171i'1511hcm'r ad\ 0'6
Whistling the Visit
'm'cmll- The Ulric

lining in ,1
0“ 16d

gc.

i0: 9:
‘ ll DOSIIIOninQ

(20012176) says that “objectivity is not about disengagement, but about mutual and
usually unequal structuring about taking risks in a world where ‘we’ are permanently
mortal, that is, not in ‘final’ control”. The translation of science is always interpretative,
critical and partial; therefore an epistemology and politics of engaged accountable
positioning is needed (Haraway 20012179). Engaged accountable positioning is the
process of being aware of and reflexive about why we do the things we do and the biases
inherent in the creation of our knowledge.

Feminist objectivity makes room for “surprises and ironies” of knowledge
production (Haraway 2001 : 179). It recognizes that “we are not in charge of the world;
we just live here and try to strike up non-innocent conversations [interpretations of
science] by means of our prosthetic devices [technology]” (Haraway 20012179). This
melds nicely with the objectives of adaptive management which also claim to make room
for the surprises of knowledge creation and the ability to use these surprises to inform
future policy/decisions.

This theory does not privilege the “view from below” that some other types of
feminist theory advocate, and recognizes that 1) there is a danger in romanticizing and/or
appropriating the vision of the less powerful, and 2) that these positions are not
“innocent”. The object of knowledge is pictured as an actor and agent, but not as
objective knowledge. Situated knowledge promotes politics and epistemologies of
location, positioning, and situating, where partiality, and not universality, is the condition
of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. Science “becomes the paradigmatic
model not of closure, but of that which is contestable and contested” (Haraway

20012179).

50

\l. frami

Fr:
4. 4;,“
His.“ 5100‘
CDZSYUCI 1

“Hug.

RM“ 19s

Governmental agencies, like those that develop contaminant action levels and fish
consumption advisories, have long been working under the assumptions and pedagogy of
the dominant Western masculine scientific and cultural world-view (Saidel and Loscocco
2005). Partial understandings of risk are turned into universal maxims of what is safe.
However, the sociological agency of individuals within institutions to work against the
dominant paradigm can be an important factor in the discourse of risk (McLaughlin
2001). In addition, because risk really exists, science can provide helpful tools to sort out

safe and unsafe behaviors.

VI. Framing

Frames are defined slightly differently by different scholars. Overall, fi'aming is
understood to be a phenomenon by which people interpret, respond to, understand, and
construct reality (Benford and Snow 2000; Johnston 2002; Kurtz 2003; Kaufrnann and
Smith 1999). Frames organize knowledge in ways that affect individuals’ interpretation
of a situation and their choices regarding it (Kaufinann and Smith 1999). They are “a
schemata of interpretation that enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify and label
occurrences within their life space and the world at large” (Benford and Snow 20012614).
People use frames to render events or occurrences meaningful, organize experiences and
guide action (Benford and Snow 2001; Johnston 2002).

The process of framing is most often studied in terms of collective action frames
in social movements (Benford and Snow 2001; Johnston 2002). Although the fish
consumption issue is not a well defined social movement per se, collective action framing
is pertinent for fish consumption risk because of the utility of core framing tasks to

explain and study risk frames, including those about fish consumption risk. These core

51

nfifijg asks ;
H ' .‘ .
$152,334.: u
am: 5:336.
1:351 \ lac-r31
its“ M 0&A:L
50.“.8171'112011 2
In as:
1 7 "
Litigplfig C.
Discu'sn‘e '3:
hr”.
nab..‘.el 5 Ihd:
7‘ n
,o ,.
Ismrd dl'ul

f fi“‘l.‘.‘ r- ,
o‘t“1\-tddlill

‘ I

framing tasks are, l) diagnostic framing- to create a shared understanding of some
problematic condition or situation that is need of change, 2) prognostic framing- to
ascribe blame, present alternatives, and 3) motivational framing— to impel others to act to
affect change (Benford and Snow 2000: 615-17). These framing tasks reflect the fish
consumption advisory risk communication process.

In addition to the three core framing tasks of collective action frames, three
overlapping categories affect framing processes: discursive, strategic, and contested.
Discursive process are the “speech acts and written communications of movement
members that occur primarily in the context of, or in relation to, movement activities”
(Benford and Snow 2000: 622). This includes frame articulation and frame amplification
or punctuation. Strategic processes are the “frames developed and deployed to achieve a
specific purpose” (Benford and Snow 2000: 624). And finally, contested processes
include “counter-framing by movement opponents, bystanders, and the media; frame
disputes within movements, and the dialectic between frames and events” (Benford and
Snow 2000: 625).

Three main factors affect the credibility of any frame, these factors are: fi'ame
consistency, empirical credibility, and credibility of the frame articulators or claims
makers (Benford and Snow 2000: 620). Inconsistency results from either (1)
contradictions among beliefs or claims or (2) perceived contradictions between discursive
framing and real life situations or the actions of claims makers. Frames must be salient to
be effective. They must be essential to the lives of the targets of mobilization, culturally

resonant (narrative fidelity), and coalesce with everyday experience (experimental

52

33111762533

I
.-'lI-i- ‘\ vrr
;.ulhl \Oarrk

:11 Saw I

bolting cc

6281. P111111

commensurability) (Benford and Snow 2000: 621-22). Frames with greater status and/or
perceived expertise are more plausible and resonant (Benford and Snow 2000).

Framing contests are the back and forth of flaming and counter-flaming and occur
within complex, multi-organizational and sometimes multi-institutional arenas (Benford
and Snow 2000; Johnston 2002). Frames are not static or reified; they are continuously
evolving, contested, reproduced, replaced and transformed (Benford and Snow 2000:
628). Political opportunity and the media both constrain and facilitate flaming processes
by opening up or denying access to wider audiences and greater resources. The target
audience for a certain message can also affect the form and content of that message
(Benford and Snow 2000: 629). In addition, flame makers are both cultural actors and
individual agents, and influence the framing process and the credibility of the flame.

For example, flames developed during past experiences with an occurrence or
event can shape the way people flame new events and occurrences (Kauflnan and Smith
1999). Credibility lost and won in past flaming exercises influences the salience of new
flaming activities when the same actors are involved (Johnston 2002; Kauflnan and
Smith 1999). In addition, people will look to past flames to create new ones if an event
or occurrence is similar to an event or occurrence in the past (Kaufinan and Smith 1999).
Kaufinan and Smith (19992166) say that “past experiences, prevalent societal
perspectives, media images or other readily available processed information can all serve
as flames for new incidents.” For example, salient events in the media, even if reported
on in the past, are “lodged in memories” and resurface to replace real details when a

similar event occurs locally (Kaufinan and Smith 1999:] 65).

53

When flames are transferred flom one set of circumstances to another “an
imperfect match may prompt solutions that do not respond to actual needs and
conditions” (Kauflnan and Smith 1999: 164). As the complexity of a flame increases it is
difficult to assess how well past flames match current situations. This increases the
likelihood that choices about the current situation are “unsound” because they are based
on a “poor simile of reality” (Kaufinann and Smith 1999: 165). Kauflnan and Smith
(1999:164) say that it is important for managers who “want to promote processes and
outcomes rooted in actual, rather than distorted specifics of each situation” to understand
the importance of flaming processes. They propose that flames can be altered by a
process of re-flaming. Reflaming is the “deliberate attempt to alter someone else’s
flame” and “occurs during negotiations, usually to facilitate communication, but also to
promote the re-flamers preferred outcome” (Kauflnan and Smith 1999: 1 66).

Framing is a dynamic, ongoing process, but this process does not occur in a
structural or cultural vacuum (Benford and Snow 2000; Hoffman 2001). Rather, flaming
processes are affected by a number of elements of the socio-cultural context in which
they are embedded- political opportunity structure, cultural opportunities and constraints,
and audience effects. For example, scale flames can occur in which geographic scale is
not ontologically defined, but epistemologically used as a way of understanding the
world. In this case, scale is socially constructed and social actors create geographic
boundaries filtered though culture, values and beliefs rather than actual physical
geographical boundaries (Kurtz 2003). This is seen with fish consumption advisories
when anglers report that their favorite fishing locations have little pollution, but point out

other areas where they would never fish because it is too polluted when in fact the risk

54

 

  
  

:2 he 9122122 or the 3:

vs

111. Ovenien'

 

lhe risks 01mm"
61355101153110111111055 rix
121M on a number of
tire; and. liefs. 11121
1.61 information 3hr»;
1221's to shift from "u 1..
re 5651 use our ranuw
rang met risk ehniu

lfgmemmem .1
Epistemological bneiilr
incite: put into aetn if
2121an These proeo
{161111511 managcmcn

[’1 :
a“111310 teehnnerr
niisztinning.

As an alternati'

 

1115111121611 know It '
\(2.

1w ~
4115111018 efleem

3011‘ ' ; .-
llldtllduals will]

 

111nm
111111115 that de\'
Ct

may be similar or the same (Beehler et al. 2001; Beehler et al. 2003; J akus and Shaw

2003).

VII. Overview

The risks of mercury contamination in fish are real, but how people make
decisions about those risks as well as how those risks are studied and communicated
depends on a number of social factors including positionality, trust, politics, norms,
values and beliefs. Thus, different epistemological methods are needed to understand and
gather information about how to deal with risk. As Rosa proposes, the conversation
needs to shift flom “what is risk” to “what is our knowledge about risk” and “how could
we best use our various systems of knowledge to improve our democratic decision
making over risk choices” (Rosa 1998240). However, this may be easier said than done.

If government agencies make policy and risk communication using
epistemological bricolage then risk management is more of a hodg-podge of knowledge
practices put into action, lacking evaluation, systematic learning, and institutional
memory. These processes lack rigor and are unaware of how differing perceptions of risk
affect risk management and risk communication. In addition, mandated science binds
managers to technocratic decision making that lacks engaged and accountable
positioning.

As an alternative to these government processes adaptive management coupled
with situated knowledge may be able to bring differing epistemologies together to work
towards more effective and democratic risk process and risk communication. In addition,
how individuals with differing positionalities flame issues within and outside of the

institutions that develop scientific risk assessments and risk communication and outreach

55

 

:e a major in
:giperceptinn. 1h
Eel; to inform and

Frames are
nnrret realit} (E
5222'". 19991. The}
or initials den
mdSnnr 2111(1). j
‘2:ed over time
Zine risks in 11111
3“an ti

‘1. .
sensehes then 1

i‘73}311111'hteh per

 

 

can have a major impact on individual behavior, agency outreach, message flaming, and
risk perception. Therefore, understanding how different groups flame the risk issue can
help to inform and organize collaborative processes of learning.

Frames are created as a way for people to interpret, respond to, understand and
construct reality (Benford and Snow 2000; Johnston 2002; Kurtz 2003; Kauflnann and
Smith 1999). They help people organize experiences and guide action. How flames act
on individuals depends on a number of parameters such as cultural resonance,
consistency, empirical credibility and the credibility of the flame articulators (Benford
and Snow 2000). In addition, counter-flaming affects how flames are formed and
changed over time by providing alternatives to flaming processes. Different people
flame risks in different ways according to their role and positionality. In some cases, the
same person can flame an issue in differing ways depending on how they position
themselves when they create or communicate the flame. How risk is flamed affects the

ways in which people receive, understand and believe in risk messages.

56

llethn
1.1ntrodu

1.1111 01

21.

MT; :9].
bah-x AL.-
I

T M ‘H.
\o lnei'ku,
J, .

. ‘ 1 -§, .
«C .12.:

2 :.
tilt-:2" 3‘

Allht

japter Four
Methodology

1. Introduction
A. Unit of Analysis and Sample

The units of analysis for this study are individuals and written text. To
understand how different actors flame mercury pollution and fish contamination and how
those flaming processes affect public policy, agency science and the public understanding
of mercury pollution and fish contamination, this study’s sample populations include 1)
the institutions that develop, analyze and communicate scientific results and risk
information 2) the people who are affected by these risks, and 3) the media, which filters
information flom different types of sources and presents it to the public (Figure 4.1). The
sample population is operationalized as: 1) UP. residents flom Alger, Chippewa,
Gogebic and Marquette counties (N=244), 2) staff from state and federal public health
and/or environmental agencies (MDCH, MDNR, MDEQ and FDA and EPA) (N=16),
and 3) articles and transcripts flom The New York Times, The Washington Post, the

Associated Press (N=3 7), and network television (ABC, CBS, and NBC) news programs

(N=25).

57

 

Figure 4.1 The Flow of Information about Mercury in Fish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government Agencies: _ .

The r The Media:
Environment: State 0 Federal K

t t ’ Television
Mercury Congress And
pollutron- t Newspapers
water-fish t

The Public: 3

UP. Residents

 

 

 

 

 

‘—’ is used when people within a sector inform each other
H is used when people flom two different sectors inform each

 

 

 

B. Methodological Theory

To understand how the different sample populations flame mercury pollution and
fish contamination I used a composite of qualitative social science research methods
(interviews, focus groups, and content analysis). Qualitative research methods allowed
me to gain more subtle and in-depth understanding of the mercury and fish consumption
issue, as they allow for responses and observations that go beyond ascribed survey
answers. As a result I gained increased insight and an improved understanding of
informant responses. However, qualitative research results are not easily generalizable
(Creswell 1994; Kempton et al. 1995).

l. Community-Based Research Methods

The first phase of data collection with residents flom the Upper Peninsula was
designed using community-based research methods. This portion of data collection was
apart of another study funded by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) (Grant #H 75/ATH573196-01) to improve fish consumption advisories in

58

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP). The data collected during this phase was preformed
by two different researchers using community-based research methods.

Community-based research methods (CBRM) give research participants an active
role in the research study as researchers and informants (Arcury and Quandt 1999;Carr
and Halvorsen 2001; Halvorsen 2001, 2003). It places value on local knowledge and the
ability of informants to understand local conditions and develop solutions to problems of
policy and management (Carr and Halvorsen 2001). CBRM focuses on
representativeness, community-wide common good, and the incorporation of values and
beliefs into the discussion of policy and resource management (Carr and Halvorsen 2001
pp. 108-09). There are no specific methodological tools associated with community-
based research methods, for example, the use of community dinners over formal
interviews or surveys.

The way in which this study used CBRM was to collaborate with local partners
specifically flom the local Michigan State University Extension and Michigan SeaGrant
offices. Focus group participants were recruited in the local areas where our focus
groups took place by our project partners (Michigan State University Extension and
Michigan SeaGrant) in addition to local health department breastfeeding and prenatal
classes, Michigan Women Infants and Children program and the Upper Peninsula
Children’s Museum.

The first type of focus groups were called “advisory groups” comprised of a least
one of each specifically selected stakeholder group, including, women of childbearing
age, fish harvesters, medical professionals, and youth. The second type of focus group

was comprised entirely of one stakeholder group. It was important to hold focus groups

59

1
(1'? .
£30
(9
f\

with single stakeholder groups in order to make people as comfortable as possible among
their peers and colleagues. However, it was also important for us to discuss these issues
with people of different backgrounds so they could hear and understand each others’
perspective in a facilitated and respectfirl environment. Participants received a twenty
dollar gift card to a local grocery store for their participation.

There are several problems with conducting community-based research. For
example, CBRM are not representative of the population as a whole (Arcury and Quandt
1999; Carr and Halvorsen 2001). Methods are limited by time and the size of the study
area so that simple approaches to sampling are not possible (Arcury and Quandt 1999).
This greatly affects the validity of the research results because participants are not
necessarily representative of the study population. In addition, when researchers engage
to make participants equal partners in the research endeavor, participants are not always
willing or able to do so (Acker et al. 1991). I found that it was difficult to engage citizens
to participate when they are not concerned with or feel affected by the issue, such as the
case in the U.P.

2. Feminist Research Methods

Like CBRM feminist research methods do not require researchers to use any one
type of method over another. Instead the researcher uses methods that are most
appropriate to the research questions and purpose, and executes those methodologies with
competence and reflexivity (Epstein-Jayaratne and Stewart 1991, pp. 100). Reflexivity is
the crux of feminist research methodology. It requires researchers to “reflect upon,

examine critically and explore analytically the nature of the research process to gain

60

. .v

, . V 0"

«.zr’” ”‘10 'U'
AL!" A“

315m implit
.ieres ess at
[fiffled 510?
of feminist r1
:"ne-u 2n}
3.1113211; 01.
11:11.: GIT

The 1
Edmund 1

Participant

r/i

insight into the assumptions about gender relations underlying the conduct of inquiry
(Fonow and Cook 1991, pp. 2).”

In addition to reflexivity, feminist research methods emphasize “conscious
raising” and political action (Fonow and Cook 1991; Kirsch 1999). It seeks to find the
hidden implications of research findings that can lead to inequality and injustice. It
denies essentialization and strict definitions of objectivity where the researcher is
removed flom the research process (Fonow and Cook 1991; Kirsch 1999). These tenets
of feminist research methodology guide my understanding of the research process and
informed my research questions.

3. Methodological Tools
a. Focus Groups

The purpose of a focus group is “to listen and gather information” and “better
understand how people feel or think about an issue (Kruger and Casey 2000).”
Participants are selected by the researcher because they have some set desired
characteristics that relate to the topic of the focus group. In a focus group participant
conversation is led by a facilitator whose role is to engage conversation without
dominating the discussion. Focus group participants are encouraged to share their
opinions and point of view.

b. Public Meetings

Like focus groups, public meetings and community dinners are used to solicit the
participant’s values, beliefs and point of view. Unlike focus groups they are expected to
appeal to a wide variety of community members. Public meetings are most often used to

facilitate citizen participation in policy and management decisions (Adams 1991 ). The

61

protocol for a public meeting is, “an open meeting is scheduled, the date and time are
advertised to the public and the issue is discussed at the meeting” (Thomas 1995: 12).
c. Community Dinners

Community dinners are thought to be satisfying and deliberative in that they focus
upon small group discussion among members at each dinner table (Carr and Halvorsen
2001; Halvorsen 2001, 2003). Community dinners are used because they resemble a
social event that people are familiar and comfortable with, dinning at a local restaurant
(Carr and Halvorsen 2001). At a Community dinner, dinner is served and people are
encouraged to interact over the dinner table to discuss the issue at hand (Carr and
Halvorsen 2001; Halvorsen 2001, 2003). They are usually held at local restaurants and
are open to all community residents. Participants either pay a small fee for their meal, or,
as in the case of this study, the meal is paid for with research funds.
(1. Participant Observation

In addition to informal conversations and formal interviews we used participant
observation in the U.P. to gain a sense of context. Although data gained flom this
process is not directly included in the results, participant observation provided insight to
the lives of U.P. residents. In participant observation the researcher takes part in the
daily activities, rituals, interaction and events of a group of people to learn “the explicit
and tacit aspects of their life routines and their culture (Dewalt and Dewalt 2002).
Participant observation, in addition to informal conversations with community residents
and anglers, led me to think differently about my research questions and allowed me to

better assess and situate informant responses during interviews, community dinners, the

62

public meeting and focus groups. In addition it aided the development of new hypothesis
and research questions.
e. Formal and Informal Interviews

To understand how U.P. residents and agency managers interpret, respond to,
understand and construct reality we used informal and formal interviews (Kempton et al.
1995; Fonow and Cook 1991; Dewalt and Dewalt 2002). These types of ethnographic '
methods “reduce the distance between the researcher and the researched and accord the
respondent a more active role in the research processes” (Kempton et al 1995 pp. 18).
For example, questions asked using ethnographic interview methods elicit paragraph
instead of word length answers and allow respondents to bring up new topics and carry
on the discussion in ways that suit them (Kempton et a1 1995).

In my research I used both formal interviews and informal conversations. Both of
these ethnographic techniques involve using open ended questions that allow informants
to reveal how they construct and interpret the world. Ethnographic interview methods
also allowed me to be sure of the informant’s intent (Kempton et a1 1995). For example,
during the second phase of data collection when I formally interviewed agency managers
I often paraphrased informant’s responses to be sure that I understood them correctly.
This allowed for greater accuracy in data analysis. In addition, the types of questions
asked using ethnographic interviewing methods permit the informant to bring up new
topics and allowed me to probe further to explore unfamiliar or unexpected concepts

(Kempton et al. 1995; Fonow and Cook 1991; Dewalt and Dewalt 2002).

63

1. 321nm
Each 0
rese2eh quest
enestions 2nd
necessitated ti
sectors inch.
11. [pm Pe

K
I

.21

f

{Searcher

h ,

4. Summary

Each of these methodological tools influenced the way in which I developed my
research questions and implemented research methods. In order to answer my research
questions and adhere to feminist research ethics, each of the three sample populations
necessitated the implementation of different methodological strategies. The following

sections include a detailed account of that data collection.

11. Upper Peninsula Residents

 

 

Figure 4.2 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Chosen as
Research Sites: Gogebic, Marquette, Alger and Chippewa
4 \
Marquette County Alger County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gogebic County

1 Chippewa County
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

1'7

 

 

 

 

 

\VH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As mentioned before, this phase of data collection was a part of a different study
funded by the ATSDR to improve fish consumption advisories in the U.P. Two different
researchers facilitated the data collection events. A multi-method approach to data

collection was used to maximize participant diversity and comfort. This study is

64

tissues C01

netfinlh re
with sts‘re in t
you“. 22131 ers
manna) h:
randomized s

From

aL.'d‘ '
LtLt 361111121 '
\y

informed by the work of others who use community-based research and/or study fish
consumption advisories.

Data collection in the Upper Peninsula took place at or around three different lake
sites within four counties: Alger County, Chippewa County, Gogebic County and
Marquette County (Figure 4.2). The types of lake-sites identified in each county include
a Lake Superior site, an inland lake site, and an impaired site (as identified in the
advisory). Data were collected flom both the general public and individuals who were
specifically recruited to attend focus groups due to their membership in a particular group
with stake in the fish consumption advisory issue, such as, women of childbearing age,
youth, anglers, medical professionals, and commercial fishermen. (Table 4.1). Since
community based research methods were used the sample population does not represent a
randomized sample applicable across the general population of the Upper Peninsula.

From June 2004 to August 2005 focus groups were held with women of
childbearing age, expecting parents, commercial fish producers, recreational anglers,
youth and a watershed-based environmental group. In addition to these focus groups one
public meeting (Alger County) and three community dinners (Alger, Marquette, and
Gogebic Counties) took place. The public meeting and community dinners targeted a
wide range of community residents as people were recruited through an announcement in

the local newspaper, by our on-site partners or by word of mouth. In addition, we

worked through the Women, Infant and Children (WIC)5 programs at local health

departments to recruit low-income women of childbearing age. Individuals present at

 

S W1C provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition
education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to
infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/
Accessed 5/5/09

65

iris soups and the p
new store for their

compensated with a 1:

13in

[rent
Angler interviews

 

Community
Dinner

\
ML

““10 meetin

Total

in addlllOn t

111012121 inten‘iews

 

if .j .
.dres throughout 11‘
minute for theirp I

in , . I

' V
”0‘11.

if” as a Study par.

focus groups and the public meeting received a twenty dollar gift certificate to a local
grocery store for their time and participation. At the community dinners, people were

compensated with a flee fish dinner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.1. Distribution of Data Collection Activities
Event County Demographic Participants
Angler interviews Alger Anglers 27
Chippewa Anglers 1 6
Marquette Anglers 21
Community Alger Community 20
Dinner
Gogebic Community 22
Marquette Community 7
Focus Group Alger Community, Youth 7
Women 4
Youth 34 (4 subgroups)
Chippewa Anglers 12
Anglers 13
Commercial fishermen 2
Community 12
Gogebic Community 1 0
Women 5
Community 7
Marquette Anglers 9
Upper Peninsula Commercial fishermen 9
Public meetifl Alger Community 7
Total n=244

 

 

In addition to focus groups, community dinners and a public meeting, onsite

 

informal interviews with recreational anglers (n=64) were performed at 16 different water
bodies throughout the five counties (see Table 4.2). These anglers did not receive any
incentive for their participation. At the beginning of every interview with anglers an oral
consent script was read informing the interviewees of the purpose of the study and their

rights as a study participant. Anglers gave oral consent to use their responses in our

66

study (see Appendix A 1.5). At focus groups, community dinners, and the public

meeting individuals signed MSU University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (U CRIHS — now the Institutional Review Board) approved consent forms before
data collection began (see Appendix A 1.1-1 .4). In addition, UCRIHS approved
permission slips were signed by a parent of all minors participating in the study (see
Appendix A 1.2 and 1.4). At the end of data collections participants were given a copy of
the official Michigan fish consumption advisory. For Optionfinder (Option technologies
Interactive LLC n. (1.) questions see Appendix B 1.1.

Table 4.2 Site Design

 

County Lake Superior Impaired Inland

 

A18" Mumsmg 33” West Branch lakes (sw of Grand Marais) Grand Sable Lake

 

Caribou Lake (Detour
Chippewa Tahquamenon St. Mary’s River (Sault Ste. Marie) Village)

 

Langford and Pomeroy= Duck lakes Cisco Lake (W atersmeet)

Gogebic Black River harbor (Watersmeet)

 

 

 

Clt)’ 0f Maxquette _ Deer Lake Lake Independence

 

 

 

arquettr1

 

A. Focus Groups

Focus group data were collected using the computer-aided data collection tool
Optionfinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC n. (1.) (Figure 4.3). Participants sat
around a table facing a screen upon which the questions were projected to select flom a
series of mutually exclusive answers. Each participant was given a key pad with buttons
numbered 0-9. When a question appeared on the screen, people chose their answer by

pressing the corresponding button on their individual key pad. After all the questions

67

were answered, summary graphs showing the participants’ responses were shown on the

screen allowing participants to view the anonymous choices of their peers.

 

Figure 4.3 OptionFinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC 11. (1.)
focus group set up with nroiector

 

Focus group participants were asked why they chose the answers they did, if they
felt the questions and available answers were useful, what might have been left out, and if
they had any other questions. Digital voice recorders were placed on the table to record
this discussion, which was facilitated by one of two different researchers. The recordings
of focus groups were later typed verbatim for coding in Atlas.ti 5.5 (GmbH, Berlin)
computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (for U. P. resident codes and code
definitions see Appendix C 1.1). The triangulation of participant observation, the

quantitative Optionfinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC n.d.) results and the

68

qualitative data flom the discussion sections allowed for a deeper understanding of

people’s knowledge, awareness, and understanding of the fish consumption advisories.

B. Community Dinners

Three community dinners were held; one in Alger County at a popular, relatively
small, locally owned restaurant located on the highway between (~ 10 miles flom) the
two largest communities in the county (N=21). The second took place in Marquette
County at a very small, but popular, locally owned restaurant that was located on a lake
quite a distance flom the nearest town (~15 miles) (N=7). The third and final dinner in
Gogebic County was at a national chain restaurant located directly in the largest town in
the county (N=22). The choice of restaurant was made by l) the availability of a place to
hold a meeting and 2) the presence of a Friday fish fly (or fish special), and 3)
recommendations flom our on-site partners (Michigan State University Extension).

At each of these community dinners people sat in tables of 5-7 people facing each
other with a screen set up in flont. This type of set up was not optimal since some
participants had to turn around in their chair to see the screen. Some participants
commented that this arrangement conflicted with conversation and eating. In Marquette
and Gogebic Counties the dinner was held in a separate room flom the main dining room.
In the case of Alger County the meeting took over the restaurant’s main dining room.

The same data collection format was used for focus groups and the community
dinners, beginning with the signing of consent forms, moving on to quantitative data
collection using OptionFinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC n. d.) and finishing
with a group discussion of the results. However, at the community dinners people

discussed the results less with the facilitator and more among themselves at their

69

respective tables. A digital voice recorder was placed on each table to record that table’s
discussion. The recordings flom the community dinners were later typed verbatim for
coding in Atlas.ti 5.5 (GmbH, Berlin) computer aided qualitative data analysis software
(for U. P. resident codes and code definitions see Appendix C 1.1).

Each of the three community dinners was held during the traditional Friday night
fish fly at each of the restaurants. Participants were recruited through an announcement
in the local newspaper, word of mouth and by our Michigan State Extension and
community partners. For their involvement in our study participants were given a meal

of fish and unlike those of the focus groups and public meeting were not compensated

with the twenty dollar gift certificate,

C- Public Meeting

Only one public meeting took place in Alger County (N =7). The meeting was
held in a conference room of a local bank located in downtown Munising, the largest
town in the county. The data collection format and setting (seven people sitting around a
pr OJ ecmr screen; consent forms, quantitative data collection with Optionfinder (Option
technologies Interactive LLC n. d.), and finally qualitative data collection during a
disc“Ssion period in which the results were shown anonymously) was similar to the focus
gr 0' 11I38, except people were not specifically recruited by stakeholder group. Instead,
p arti Cipants were recruited through an announcement in the local newspaper and flyers
pos ted throughout the community. Digital voice recorders placed on each table recorded
any discussion and dialogue among participants. The recording of the public meeting
was later typed in verbatim for coding in Atlas.ti 5.5 (GmbH, Berlin) computer aided

qual itative data analysis software (for U. P. resident codes and code definitions see

70

 

Appendix C 1.1). Participants were given a twenty dollar gift card to a local grocery

store.

D. Informal Angler Interviews

Informal angler interviews took place at 12 different lake sites (see table 4.2)
Researchers spent flom 4 to 8 hours at each lake site during a range of hours on a range
of days, both weekdays and weekends. Each angler that was seen at the lake site was
asked to be interviewed as they went out or came back flom fishing on the lake. Anglers
gave oral consent to be interviewed after the consent script was read to them (see
Appendix A 1.5). The researcher took notes as participants responded to their questions
(see Appendix B 1.1) Angler interviews were not recorded. The interviews lasted flom

five t0 fifteen minutes and participants were not compensated for their involvement.

E‘ Participant Observation

Along with formal data collection activities participant observation offered a
diflNel‘er‘rt look into the fish culture of the Upper Peninsula. Researchers interacted with
customers and employees of grocery store fish departments, commercial (flesh) fish
retailers, and restaurants during Friday fish fly, anglers at boat access sites and fish
Cleaning stations, and participated in a local youth-oriented environmental education
PTO-gram called Life of Lake Superior. In addition, numerous photos were taken to

doculnent the presence of fish consumption culture in the daily lives of Upper Peninsula

r .
651 c1ents.

71

III. Agency Managers
After the first phase of data collection with U.P. residents I wanted to enlarge the
scope of my study to include an understanding of the official fish consumption advisory
process in addition to how agency managers and the media (the two major sources of
advisory information as reported by U.P. residents) flame fish consumption advisory
information. To study agency managers I conducted 16 interviews with state and federal
environmental and public health agency managers. One-on-one interviews, either in
person or over the phone, were conducted with agency staff associated with fish
consumption advisories and/or fish contamination: research directors, program
coordinators, and individuals charged with data collection, testing, or analysis (see
Appendix B 1.2 for interview protocol). However, interviewees often had multiple
responsibilities. For example, program coordinators were often also the individuals
Charged with data collection, testing or analysis (Table 4.3). I was therefore unable to
correlate a manager’s role in their agency with the reason they hold a particular flame
about mercury in fish
Although there are other state and federal agencies peripherally involved with fish

contamination such as the ATSDR and Michigan Department of Agriculture, the
Mi chigan Department of Community Health (2 interviews), the Michigan Department of
En wronmental Quality (3 interviews), the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (5
interViews), the United States Food and Drug Administration (3 interviews) and the

Uni ted States Environmental Protection Agency (4 interviews) were chosen for their
dirfi'C-t role in policy making, permitting, and communicating information about toxic

sub S1lances and fish consumption to the public and among each other (Table 2.2). In total

72

 

I interviewed 8 women (5 flom federal agencies and 3 flom state agencies) and 8 men (1
flom federal agencies and 7 flom state agencies). Other demographic information such

as ethnicity and age is unknown since many interviews were done by telephone.

 

Table 4.3 Agency Interviews

 

 

Agency Number of Interviews Role in Agency
. . -2 program
M
léglganugfpmig: Of 2 (face-to-face) coordinators/individuals
ty charged with data analysis

 

-1 research director
-1 program coordinator

 

 

Michigan Department of .
. . 3 (face-to-face) -1 program coordmator/
E
nVlronmental Quality individual charged with data
analysis
-2 research directors
Michigan Department of 1 (face-to-face) '1 program coordinator

 

-2 program coordinator/
individual charged with data
collection and analysis

-1 research director/pro gram

   
  
  

Natural Resources 4 (telephone)

 

 

coordinator

United States Food and 2 (tel hone) -1 program

g Administration ep coordinator/individual
charged with data collection
and analysis
-1 research director
E . United States -2 program coordinator
llVlronmental Protection 4 (telephone) -1 individual charged with
Agency data collection and analysis

 

 

 

 

Names and phone numbers of potential interviewees were found on agency
we‘bSites and flom the list of participants flom the 2005 EPA National Forum on
contaminants in Fish. A referral method was used thereafter. At the end of each
intél‘V'iew the interviewee was asked who else they felt should be interviewed. Even

though the DNR has only a small role in the fish consumption advisory issue, managers

73

flom the DNR were interviewed in this study because the DNR was cited as a popular
source of fish consumption advisory information by residents in the Upper Peninsula.

Interviewees were chosen based on their role within the agency and their role with the
fish consumption advisory.

Each interview lasted approximately an hour and a half to two hours and all were
conducted by the author. The face-to-face interviews (N=10) took place with agency
managers in Michigan agencies with offices in East Lansing. The interviews were held
either in the interviewee’s office or in an agency conference room. The interview was
recordcd and later transcribed verbatim for coding.

Telephone interviews (N =6) were held with agency staff with whom it was not
POSSibIe to interview face-to-face because travel to their office was not possible.
Telephone interviews were carried out using handless speaker phone function which
anoWGd the interviewer to type interviewee responses directly into an electronic
doc‘llllent. The interview was transcribed as close to verbatim as possible. The
interviewer reviewed the text directly after the interview took place to fix misspellings
and aSsure quality control. All agency interviews were coded using Atlas.ti 5.5 (GmbH,
Berl in) computer aided qualitative data analysis software. The list of codes and their
definitions can be found in Appendix C 1.2.

Agency interviews took place between April 2006 and June 2007. There are a

larger number of interviewees flom the DNR simply because more people in the DNR
were Willing to be interviewed. Many people flom the Michigan Department of

COMunity Health and the Food and Drug Administration declined to be interviewed

74

because, according to them, if I had talked with X or Z person they felt they had nothing

else to add.

IV. Media Analysis

In addition to government agencies many U.P. informants reported getting
information about fish contamination the media. I therefore decided to conduct a media
analysis of mercury in fish. The analysis was conducted using a Lexus Nexus article
search from 1970— January 2008 using key words “mercury AND fish”. I choose to
search for articles since 1970 because that was the year when mercury was first regulated
in fish in the United States.

Thirty-seven newspaper articles (33 national, 4 from Michigan) from the
ASSOCiated Press, eighteen from the New York Times, and ten from the Washington Post
and tVVenty-five television news transcripts from major network (6 from ABC, 8 from
NBC and 11 from CBS) news programs were used for analysis (n=65). Newspaper
a'ticles span a time flame from January l988-January 2008. Televisions transcripts are
foul1d from 2001- January 2008.

Articles chosen for analysis discussed mercury pollution and fish contamination
natioIlally or in Michigan. Unfortunately, local newspapers from the U.P. could not used
for analysis because they lack a systematic and easily searchable archive. They are only
available on microfiche at local libraries and do not have a searchable index. Articles
fro 11" the New York Times and Washington Post were chosen because of their status as
two major American newspaper sources, one known to be more liberal (New York
Tim-1 eS) and the other more conservative (Washington Post). The Associated Press was

cho . . . . .
Sen for Its breadth of news coverage, p1ck1ng up on issues other major news

75

magazines might pass over; and because many local newspapers in the Upper Peninsula
use Associated Press articles as an inexpensive and easy way to report state and national
news. Television transcripts from major networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) are used

because people from the U.P. cited print and television news as sources of fish

consumption information.

Each article was coded using Atlas.ti 5.5 (GmbH, Berlin) computer aided
qualitative software. The list of codes and their definitions are listed in Appendix C 3.1.
The articles are grouped by source (i.e. New York Times, Washington Post, and
Associated Press) and sorted by date and article content. The data include one editorial.
Letters to the editor were excluded. In addition, some journalists for the Associated Press

Wrote two or more articles on the same topic over a span of two days or less. When this

occurs, only one article is used for analysis.

76

Chapter Five
Results

1. Introduction

Results show that the processes of risk identification, management, and
communication are piecemeal collections of different agency projects. The fish
consumption advisory program lacks a rigorous scientific protocol in terms of how it is
put together and carried out. Decision/policy making is highly technocratic, but rife with
uncertainty. Agency managers do not know fish consumption patterns in the United
States (or Michigan in the case of state government), and therefore do not know who is
eating too much or not enough fish. In Michigan it is uncertain what lakes have the most
contaminated fish due to the lack of rigorous sampling by government agencies. And,
uncertainty still exists whether mercury in low doses causes health problems, even for
developing fetuses and children.

In the Upper Peninsula with its almost unlimited access to natural resources,
people are aware that fish consumption advisories exist but lack familiarity with the
Specific fish consumption advisory guidelines. U.P. residents say that they do not know
how to simultaneously reduce risks and increase the benefits of consuming fish. This
increased awareness of fish contamination coupled with the lack of an effective and
targeted official fish consumption advisory message, especially for women and children,
leads people to form their own (often incorrect) ideas about risk through mental models,
mSt’ and past experience. Trust is important to people in the Upper Peninsula. If they

d
0 not t1’I-lst the source of fish advisory information, they will be less likely to follow that

77

advice. In addition, people more likely trust others in their community than government
agencies. During focus groups and community dinners many people said they feel like
they don’t know what to believe or whom to trust.

People express confusion about what fish are (un)safe to eat due to lack of
familiarity with the official fish consumption advisory information. Fish consumption
information rarely lists what kinds of fish are low in mercury, but high in omega-3, a
comparative benefit-risk communication message that may prove more effective
informing consumers. However, agency managers and scientists do not know the utility
of various kinds of messages because they lack: a) evaluation of risk characterization,
communication or management, b) reflexive or rigorous advisory procedures, and c)
public involvement.

Government agency managers and scientists frame mercury and fish consumption
as a human health issue. All interviewees said that people should eat fish, but should also
follow the advisory. Agency managers acknowledge the current lack of adequate
information readily available to the public about the benefits and risks of eating fish. At
the federal level, agency managers also frame the fish consumption advisory issue in
terms of ecosystem health and reducing mercury emissions. They say that fish
consumption advisory information helps to fosters public awareness and political will to
regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. However, this message is not
explicitly available to the public.

Interviewees fiom the FDA are clear about their role, or lack thereof, in the
advisory process. They prioritize regulation of mercury in fish sold in interstate

commerce. FDA interviewees adhere to the claim that their sole role in fish

78

contamination issue is regulating methylmercury in interstate commerce, however they
also spend time developing advisories. A possible reason for this may be that it is easier
for the FDA, financially and politically, to develop a fish consumption advisory rather
than go through the process of testing fish and taking those with elevated mercury levels
ofi‘ the market.

Interviewees from the EPA see the fish consumption advisory issue as a state’s
responsibility. They see a sort of paternalistic role for the EPA, to help the states
consolidate advisory information, identify new fish consumption risks, and promote
collaboration and consistency among the states and with the FDA. In addition, the EPA
is a regulatory agency that regulates mercury emissions. The existence of fish
consumption advisories helps support reducing and regulating emissions.

At the state level, managers and scientists see the advisory process as doing the
best they can with the resources they have. The lack of funding and resources available
to Michigan agencies is a real obstacle to effective risk assessment, characterization,
management and communication. State fish consumption advisories (at the time of data
collection) were geared toward anglers and sport-caught fish only and only available
online. The official Michigan fish consumption advisory includes not only mercury, but
other contaminants such as dioxin, PCBS, and PBDEs.

Recently, the Michigan Department of Community Health (DCH) developed a
new fish consumption brochure and a shopping and restaurant guide for mercury in
commercial fish. Unlike previous advisory information geared toward anglers, these
outreach materials are geared toward families. However, they are still only available

online. State agency managers who do not directly work with the fish consumption

79

advisory all say that the advisory is not their responsibility, so they will not or cannot do
anything to fix it.

The media frames mercury and fish consumption in terms of issue-based news
events. Articles and broadcasts rarely tell a complex or complete story. The three ways
the media frames the fish consumption advisory issue are (1) mercury poses a threat to
human health, (2) mercury does not pose a threat to human health, or (3) the mercury and
fish consumption issue is uncertain. Sometimes all three frames occur in the same article
or transcript. Due to journalistic obligations to objectivity, articles and transcripts often
include complex or even conflicting messages about the risks and benefits associated
with fish consumption. The ways that the media frames the mercury and fish
consumption issue change with time. For example, before the year 2000 all risks are
framed in terms of sport-caught fish. After 2000 commercial fish are the topic of risk in
the majority of articles and transcripts, especially the fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list
(shark, tilefish, swordfish, and king mackerel) and tuna fish.

The quagmire for current fish consumption advisory programs is balancing fish
consumption risks with the consumption benefits of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids,
low fat and caloric content and high protein. Omega-3 fatty acids contribute to healthy
heart fimctioning and aid child neuropsychological development (Kris-Etherton et al.
2002). Adding to the complexity, not all fish are created equal. Some fish, such as shark
and swordfish, have extremely high levels of mercury contamination, but provide
relatively little omega-3 amino acids. However, fish like herring and salmon contain
very low mercury levels and provide a larger amount of Omega amino acids, but may

contain more Persistent Organic Pollutants like PCBs and dioxin (American Heart

80

Association 2008). The message prevails that fish is both good for you, and, at the same

time, risky for some.

II. Upper Peninsula Residents
A. Guidelines: Nescient Awareness

Participants were generally aware that a fish consumption advisory exists. Of all
data collection events (n=180 participants) only one adult commented to not even know
an advisory exists (Marquette Community Diner). Although most people have heard of
contamination in fish, relatively few people have actually read Michigan’s fish
consumption advisory. The majority of respondents (59%) said they had not read the
advisory (50% males and 66% females) (See Figure 5.1). This is consistent with angler
interviews (n=62) in which 89% of females and 38% males said they had not read the
advisory.

Furthermore comments made during the discussion period of focus groups and
community dinners suggest that many people who reported having read the advisory
during the Optionfinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC 11. (1.) session may not had
actually read the official advisory. Therefore, it can be presumed that even fewer people
have read the advisory than reported in the data. For example, some people who said
they read the advisory later recanted when given a copy of the Michigan’s official fish
consumption advisory. One male angler who reported to have read the advisory, when

given a copy of the official advisory said, “I’ve never seen this booklet”.

81

Figure 5.1 Advisory Awareness among Focus Group Participants

 

 

    

 

    
      

 

 

 

 

 

60 3:32;“; . 7F:
I: . .7; _ 9'33..~
fit??? 1:"
12‘??? 12‘
7" V" '.
50 e ”if; 3
$91 E;
F, J ‘ ,l‘
; ' . V‘-
.‘ , ‘. |
- £1! _ ”.7
40 is ‘ "
'3‘." E
‘1'?” -.
he... "”2:
.1 {Ii ‘ I,
30
. .1 - Jr:
:31
. ‘ 1 ti
.1, ,...-.,.
20 - ,, » .l ‘
it? 7 *
.3 y - ,1
3;;
,i 2‘ ‘e -.I
10 - at '
Pie} 5 ‘
2a, .- 7.:
'.'¢76-‘5, ’ {’le I u "712‘“ “.3th
.313 a: , -- .15; Mar; ~. ~ ,. .. ”tr-a3 7WWW7
0% . ‘ 3%”;Lm "-f ., 7W: -_”’"‘.t..?37'if's':?;s: ;‘:..<".;;fia22<s.n“_.‘.~;r.;. ‘ .. ‘
Yes No I don’t know

 

Others made comments about the fish consumption advisory that they would not
have if they had read the official advisory. For example one Marquette County woman
said, “[1] read it a couple of years ago and felt like, now what am I supposed to do. It
seemed too vague.” Likewise, one Alger County man said, “advisories aren’t specific
enough, makes people more fearful, it’s too generalized.” Others made comments that
the advisory does not give information about contamination or that it does not include the
names of lakes or species of fish. However, the official advisory provides specific and
detailed information about fish preparation, contamination in fish and bioaccumulation.

It also lists the species of contaminated fish on a lake-to-lake basis and gives the name
and map coordinates of each lake with contaminated fish, or fish less contaminated than

the criteria for the general advisory.

82

B. What Is the Advisory?

Many people seemed confused about what the fish consumption advisory actually
is. One Alger County woman who reported reading the advisory said that she gets her
advisory information from the fish market because they have instructions on how to cook
fish. This type of reflection was common among focus group participants. People often
failed to differentiate information about fish consumption or contamination with the
official fish consumption advisory. For example several anglers assumed that if they had
read the DNR’s fishing guide, then they had also read the official fish consumption
advisory. However, the DNR fishing guide deals mostly with the regulations for fishing
in Michigan, and in 2004, the year of data collection, included only a small paragraph on
the last page providing very general information about the fish consumption advisory

(Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2 Fish Consumption Advisory in Michigan Sport Fishing Guide 2004

Fish Consumption Advisory

Th9 Michigan Department of Community Health advises women of childbearing age and

fihudren under 15 to use caution when eating certain kinds and sizes of fish from the Great
akes and from some inland and streams. Fish in these waters contain levels of toxic

Xhe'.“ icals that may be harmful if those fish are eaten too often. The 2004 Michigan Fish
d"usury shows you which fish are okay to eat and how often they can be eaten. To get a

wall 800-454-8041, or go to the MDCH Web site at: www.michigan.gov

 

 

 

Among anglers, especially male anglers, the number of people who had read the
Official advisory is higher than among the general public. Anglers commonly explained
that in the past the advisory came with their fishing license. However, many mentioned
that they have not seen it in a while and no longer know where to find it. In effect, the

advisory was last distributed with the fishing licenses in 2002. New updated versions of

th
e fish consumption advisory are only available online through the Department of

83

Community Health’s (DCH) website. This is problematic since many people assume that
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the agency responsible for distributing the

fish consumption advisory.

C. Fish Consumption Advisory Knowledge

Not only did people confuse what the fish consumption advisory is, in every focus
group people made incorrect statements about contamination in fish that revealed
misinformation or a misunderstanding about contamination and fish consumption.

People often confused environmental processes like acid rain, sewage seepage and

bacteria with contaminants in the fish consumption advisory such as mercury, PCBS, and
dioxin. Participants seldom differentiated mercury contamination fi'om that of persistent
organic pollutants such as PCBs or dioxin. For example, they often mistakenly said that
mercury, like some persistent organic pollutants, can be reduced by trimming fat, organs

and skin.

D. Contaminants of Concern

During data collection events 58% of respondents identified mercury and only
15% PCBs as the main contaminant of concern in Upper Peninsula fish (see Figure 5.4).
Angler interviewees also identified mercury (75%) more often than PCBs (24%) as a
contaminant of concern. However in the Great Lakes, where the majority of participants
said they get their fish, the contaminant of concern is PCBs. Participants specifically
mentioned being concerned about mercury more than any other contaminant. For
example, one fisherman from Chippewa County said, “[I’m concerned about] Lake

Superior mercury.”

84

In Marquette County participants commented:
M: Mercury is the main contaminant [of concern]
W: In our watershed mercury is the biggest [contaminant of concern]
M2: PCBs and Dioxin are larger Downstate [the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan]
For inland watersheds mercury is the contaminant of concern, however, PCBs and Dioxin

are concerns in Lake Superior which is a major part of the Marquette County watershed.

Figure 5.3 Knowledge of Contaminant of Concern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I I I I

60 —
50 —
40 —
30 -
20 _
10 __

No data bacteria chlordane dioxin mercury nitrogen PCBs phosphorus none

E. Fish Risk- Fatty Fish and Bottom Feeders

A majority of participants correctly identified older (58%) or fatty (53%) fish as
presenting greater risk. However, people often said they chose older fish over shorter-
lived fish out of common sense instead of advisory knowledge; citing that older fish are

in the water longer so they would have more time to pick up contaminants. More people,

85

especially anglers, commented on the importance of avoiding fatty fish in order to avoid

contaniinants. For example, one male angler said:

“[My] daughter bought 501bs of lake trout for a family event but I
wouldn ’t even clean them b/c they are too fat and are contaminated, so I
went and replaced the fish with 501bs of Whitefish [a Ieanerfish]. ”
Many other anglers explained that they cut out the fat when filleting fish in order to
reduce contamination. However, certain species of fatty fish contain the most health
beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, but do not pose greater mercury risks (American Heart
Association 2008; Mahaffey et a1. 2008).

Lake trout emerged as the most frequent species of concern, principally a deep-
bodied variety called siscowet that contains a high level of fat. Bottom-feeding fish
comprised the second most frequent (28%), though incorrect response. During angler
intelf'views 25% of women correctly identified larger and longer lived fish as posing an
iIlc-‘J‘eased risk, while 42% of men mentioned large, fatty or predator fish. Women tended

to be less knowledgeable about what fish pose greater risks; correctly mentioning a fish

SP eCies of greater risk only 25% of the time, while men correctly mentioned a species of

gr eater risk 73% of the time.

F- Bioaccumulation

Few informants were aware of the processes of bioaccumulation and
biollTlagnifications whereby contaminants are passed up through the foodweb in greater
and greater quantities. Only a minority of informants (3 6% males and 44% females)
wfiectly identified piscivirous fish over non-piscivirous fish as the greatest risk, with a
plth‘ality (45%) stating that it doesn’t matter whether a fish is piscivirous. During angler

interviews, only 5% of anglers correctly identified the increased risk of eating fish-eating

86

predators. U.P. informants also incorrectly identified the pathways of contamination
fi-om the environment to fish to humans. During the discussion period many people said
they did not know the origin of mercury in fish and also made comments revealing that
th ey were unaware of water and contaminant cycles.

Figure 5.4 Knowledge of Consumption of Predatory Fish Risk

 

50 —

 

 

 

10 _

 

 

 

 

0%

 

 

 

 

 

Fish that eat other fish fish that do not eat doesn’t matter
other fish

G‘ I{isk for Women and Children

The most widely known fish consumption advisory fact was that women and
Chi ldren axe the most at risk populations. Most people were aware that certain types of
ti Sh Qonsumption should be restricted during pregnancy. The majority of focus group
Dani Qipants (77%) correctly identified a greater risk for women and children, even if they
cguld not say why. During angler interviews, a majority of women (74%) and men

(<5
4%) indicated that more fish consumption guidelines apply to pregnant women or

87

women of child-bearing age than other groups. Many women and some men commented
on reducing fish consumption during pregnancy, for women of childbearing age, or

chi ldren. For example, one Alger County woman said:

“[I am not concerned about mercury now], only when I was pregnant
because of all you hear with mercury. ”

Two men in Marquette County said:

M: [I’m] not really concerned now because of my age, but I would be

more concerned if I had a young family.
M2: If [I was] living alone I would eat more [fish], but because [I] have a

wife and kids we don ’t eat as much.
Although the fetus is at greatest risk from contaminants, heart healthy Omega-3
fatty acids also aid fetal neuropsychological development and are beneficial throughout
pregnancy and later in childhood (Mahaffey et al 2008). Unfortunately, many people

t1'101-lgl‘it that women should avoid eating fish during pregnancy. A typical case was one

arlgler in Marquette County when he said:

“When my wife was pregnant we stayed away fiom fish because it says in
the fish advisory to reduce consumption while pregnant. "

lT‘ll‘tevilise, a Gogebic County woman said:

“I stopped eating fish when [I was] pregnant. My kids used to eat tuna
two to three times a week, but now [I] switched to peanut butter and

jelly. "

I
1'1 A1 get County some women said that their doctors told them to stop eating Great Lakes
fl
Sh While pregnant. The message of healthy fish consumption as an important part of

fetal
and child development is either unknown or is trumped by the message of fish

69
r‘Sllmption risks.

88

H- Fish Safety

Many participants claimed ignorance when asked “how do you know if the fish

you eat is safe for you and your family?” The majority of respondents including 100%

of at1glers said they did not know whether their fish was safe to eat. Most people relied
on di fferent combinations of mental models, trust and past experience to answer this

question. For example, a group of Marquette County fishermen said:

M: I grew up eating fish. My Grandma is 90 years old and healthy,
there’s no one who eats more fish than my Grandparents.

MI .' I don ’t know anyone that has died from eating fish.

M2: Certain lakes are not safe, they’ll have fish with sores or tumors.
M3: I caught a pike out of Deer Lake (a lake heavily contaminated with
mercury fiom a mining operation), I ate it anyway.

M2: We know it ’s safe from experience- going out, knowing about
industrial drainage.

These comments are typical of the different types of models used to decide if fish
is Safe to eat. Some participants compared their ignorance of fish consumption risks to
their ignorance of the risks other foods pose. For example one angler from Marquette

County said, “I don’t [know if the fish I eat is safe], but I also don’t know about the
Safety of the beef, chicken or pork I eat either.” Others were more fatalistic; as many
anglers stated “you are going to die of something.” Or, as one Gogebic County man

s
Well-“ed up the situation, “[You] can have high cholesterol or glow in the dark.”
I-
Trust

Many participants, especially women, used trust to judge if a fish is safe to eat. A

tyl: -
1 Cal response is like this Marquette County woman:

89

Facilitator: How do you know if the fish you eat is safe for you and your
family?

W: unknown, do I know everything there is to know? I may read the fish
advisory once in awhile, I’ve read it in the past, but I don ’t remember
what’s in there. If I go to the store and buy salmon or Whitefish, I can’t be

certain that it is safe, I assume that it is.

Al so, in Gogebic County one woman answered the same question saying:

“ What you buy in the store... [I] trust that the federal government is regulating
what kind of fish they sell. If it has a stamp of approval then it should be safe. ”

However, one Alger County angler said, “I don’t like anything in grocery stores, can’t
as Sume FDA or seller cares.”
The notion of trusting the fish purveyor was even stronger in the three counties
(Marquette, Alger, and Chippewa) with access to locally caught fish, either from
COMCrcial fishermen, restaurants, or both. This is reinforced by slogans used by
e01'1'11’Tl'lercial fishermen (and reiterated by focus group participants) such as “the fish you
eat today, slept last night in Munising Bay (Marquette Bay) [Lake Superior] (Figure 5.5)”
In Marquette County participants discussed purchasing fish from a local fisherman; they
S a~ici :
W: Don 't think folks would sell something that is dangerous, because they
are local family people versus the grocery stores.
M: Local people, everyone knows everyone, so [we] can trust each other
W: Don ’t know where food comes from in the grocery store, some will
label that the fish is from [the local commercial fisherman]
S ‘ -
1tlplllarly, one Alger County woman commented, “why go to the store and buy fish when
y
on can go down to the docks and buy fish from the angler and ask where it came from?”
111 Q . . . . .
Inppewa County partrcrpants discussed trusting local restaurants to serve locally
Ca .
llglrt fish. However, one commercral fisherman among the group told them that while

it
Says local, it may not always be true.

90

Figure 5.5 BROCHURE FROM THILLS FISH HOUSE, MARQUETTE, Ml

hhfifa‘ .717: ‘7
in is ill
hints

this;
Mon-Fri Barn-5:30pm ‘
Saturday Barn-3pm l

 

 

250 East Main Street
Ma‘quette MI 49855

(906) 226-9851

The fish you buy
today...
Slept last night in
Marquette Bay!

 

 

L, ‘ . . .
11(ewlrse a Marquette Fishermen said:
“[1] don ’t know what to believe," don 't know what the truth is...the way they test.
Don ’t know how they do it? You hear difierent stufl... .most people trim fat and
cut the mud line out. ”

I
1'1 Qliippewa County participants said,

W: [I’m] leery of what contaminants, but don ’t have anybody to tell you
specifically.

91

M: No one really knows where contaminants are coming fiom. [I] read
information but [I] don ’t know who to believe

J- Lack Knowledge and Awareness

During the discussion period it was common for participants to talk about reading
or hearing about mercury or fish contamination. However, they often followed by saying
th at they do not know whom to trust or what to believe. A typical response was like this
A 1 get County woman, “I often hear about fish advisories, but I don’t know much about
it - ’ ’ In Gogebic County one woman said, “Each group comes up their own opinion [about
a Sh consumption], [1] don’t know who to believe.”

The response “I don’t know” was prevalent throughout all data collection events.

F 01‘ example, in Alger County when the focus group facilitator asked:
Facilitator: For those who said no, is it because you think there are no
contaminants or because you don ’t know what it is?
Man} : Don ’t know what it means.
Woman: No clue, I don ’t know.
Given the small number of participants who had actually read the official fish

consmnption advisory, it may not be surprising that people lack specific knowledge about

fi Sh consumption advisory information.

However, even those participants who reported reading the official advisory often
re
1y 0n mental models, trust and past experience to decide if fish is safe to eat. Confusion
lfled people’s ideas about what the advisory is and where to get advisory information.
P %
Dle may know less about fish consumption advisories than reported during the

gllzltltitative Optionfinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC n. (1.) sessions. This may

92

rel ate to the prevalence of contamination and fish consumption in the news or with the
I ack of a strong state fish consumption advisory risk communication process. In any
case, it is indicative of the lack of an effective risk communication message for fish

consxnnption advisory information. As a result, people lack the proper tools to make safe

decisions about consuming fish.

K. Fish Consumption Attitudes

Qualitative Optionfinder (Option technologies Interactive LLC n. (1.) results show
th at the majority of people have little concern (59%) about eating fish; however, very few
people in the discussions talked about having no concerns at all. Most people who
t.eI><>I'ted having no concerns about fish contamination are most often those who do not

eat fish. However, a few fishermen did respond with quips such as “I’m not dead yet”.
During the discussion time people talked about in order of greatest occurrence:
contamination in general without mentioning a specific chemical or species of fish,
t1lel‘cury contamination, and concerns for the sensitive population. PCBS, bottom-
feeders, site-specific concerns, eating fatty fish, eating farm raised fish and eating large
fi Sh are other topics of concern, but were mentioned with much less frequency than those
1i Sted above. A few people made comments about having concerns other than risks fi'om
contaminants, including three comments about concerns that people do not eat enough

Sh - Other types of non-contammation concerns included chokmg on bones and eating

8 -
Dolled fish or fish that is not fresh.

93

L- Risk Deamplification Models

1 - Fresh Fish
In the Upper Peninsula participants used a number of risk deamplification models
to talk about fish consumption. One of these models was the ability to consume local fish
hat is fresh and therefore better than ocean fish or fish bought in a grocery store. As one
111311 from Chippewa County said:

“I buy the freshest fish that I can find. I don ’t want indigestion fi'Om
eating older fish. ”

HOV/ever, what is ‘fresh’ differs from person to person. For some, fresh meant “from
1 ake to plate” and for others fresh was eating locally caught fish in a restaurant even if it
has been frozen beforehand. This preference for local fish may cause people to ignore
a Sh consumption advisory information, especially information that comes from the
rl‘i‘jonal government or state public health agencies from “down state” (the state’s capital
in the Lower Peninsula) as they may feel that it doesn’t apply to them in the “pristine

" “ ilderness” of the Upper Peninsula.

2 ‘ I«Ocal Goodness
Among participants there was an overwhelming preference for local fish, along
Wi th the belief that local fish is safer to eat than non-local fish. Many participants
3x131 aimed that Lake Superior is clean and that fish from Lake Superior are healthier than
fi Sh From other places.
Dufihg a focus group in Alger County a woman and a man discussing local fish
11811mption said:

W: [We] eat fish here because the water is clean
M: [It] tastes good, healthier here than elsewhere

94

In Gogebic County one man said:

M: I remember going to nice restaurants in Detroit or Chicago, you would
be served Lake Trout with ’/4 inch of fat and skin on it. It didn ’t taste good
and you know it wasn ’tfiom Lake Superior.

A group of Marquette County fishermen said:
M: Lake Superior fish are healthier than Lake Michigan. [Lake Superior
is] colder and cleaner.
MI: It just feels cleaner, it’s psychological.
M2: There is less bacteria and slime.
M: There is 10% of the industrial development on Lake Superior than
there is on Lake Michigan.

And, in Chippewa County one man simply said, “Lake Superior fish are perceived to [be]

better.” Likewise, one Alger County woman said:

“[I] grew up in Detroit where the water is filthy and wouldn ’t eat
anything out of Lake St. Clair, but [I] would eat fish from the Lake
Superior [Upper Peninsula] even when pregnant. ”

3. Experience

In addition to being fresh and healthier, local fish were described as good because
anglers can use experience and historical knowledge of different fishing locations to
decide whether fish is safe. Many focus group participants talked about using experience
and local knowledge to choose safe fishing locations. For example, when asked how he
knows fish is safe to eat one Chippewa County man said, “Location, some areas are just
kIlOWn to be contaminated.” In the same focus group another man seconded this by
Saying, “if you know the history of the area then you have an idea of places to fish.” In

Alger County a male angler said:

“In the past, [I] wouldn ’t get fish near the paper company because of the
chemicals, but now the fish don ’t bother me. I like salmon because they are only

95

in therefor a month so they won ’t be so contaminated as compared to a bottom

fish. 1!

Likewise in Marquette several anglers mentioned staying away from Deer Lake, a lake
with particularly high mercury contamination from industrial pollution. One man said,
“if you take fish out of the reservoir or Deer Lake, you know you’re going to die,
otherwise [you’re fine].”
4. Fish Consumption is Good for You
Another way people framed fish consumption risks is to say that fish is healthy or

“brain food”. People often down played the risk of contamination with respect to the
benefits of consuming fish. For example, one Gogebic County man said:

“People eat fish because of cholesterol, so advisory scares people from
eating fish. The book [the advisory] is a good tool but people will more
likely die of a heart attack than mercury poisoning. ”

Several people commented on the advisory being “scary” or “going overboard” to warn
People about risks in fish. In Alger County focus group participants said:

W: Some people have gone overboard with worrying about warning so
they don’t eat any fish.

M: I remember when we used to play with mercury in school.

There were differing opinions when people talk about fish consumption advisory
information. Some people were outraged that advisory information is not made easily
available to the public, even for those who do not eat sport-caught fish. Others claimed
that government science is biased and the advisories only serve to scare people away

from eating fish. For example, one Gogebic County man said, “If you read advisory- it’s

negative and makes people think they are gong to die if they eat fish, they give fish a bad

96

name.” Anglers, both male and female, who regularly eat fish, were more likely to see

the advisories as overprotective.

M. Information Source

Even though some participants were leery of fish consumption advisory
information in the news, a plurality of informants reported obtaining their fish
consumption information from media sources (3 8%). Many people also talked about
reading or hearing in the news about heart healthy omega-3’s found in fish. However, in
relation to fish consumption advisories, participants said that there are too many
conflicting messages about consuming fish in the media. In their minds, one day they
would read about all of the benefits of eating fish, and the next day they would read about
how fish posed a health risk due to contamination. This inconsistency often led to doubt
and apathy, For example an Alger County man said:

“[1! ’s the] boy who cried wolf if we listen to the press we’d all walk around in
Space suits, need to draw parallels to what is actually said in the media. ”

In Gogebic County a woman described the situation like this:

"[ there are] conflicting reports, some say don ’t eat [fish], other reports say its

only a concern if you ate so much fish, but reality is you would never eat that
muCh n

Anglers at access sites most frequently identified the DNR or the fish license
guide (49%) and media (47%) as information sources. Male anglers most frequently
stated they obtained their information about fish consumption issues from the fishing
license guide (58%), media (42%) and other people (13%). Female anglers identified the
media (64%), other people (29%), and the DNR or fishing guide (21%). Interestingly,

the Department of Natural Resources (16%) was the next most popular source of

97

information during focus groups, community dinners and the public meeting. This is
striking since the Department of Natural Resources is no longer responsible for any part
of the fish consumption advisory.

Both informants (40%) and angler interviewees (47%) most often identified the

DNR as the most reliable source of information. The DNR served as the most reliable
source for both male and female focus group participants. For female anglers the media
(29%) and the DNR (21%) served as the most reliable sources; whereas, male anglers
identified the DNR (56%) and media (13%). However several male participants only
reluctantly selected the DNR as the most reliable source, because they could not identify
an alternative. They expressed disappointment with the DNR’s performance with
managing natural resources, but believed that the DNR should have the most expertise
available. When asked for a reliable source of information a male angler from Marquette
county said, “none, the DNR plays around with the numbers.”

One Marquette county angler expressed more extreme distrust, suspicion and
disaPPOintInent with the DNR. This angler continued to eat fish from the one lake [Deer
Lake] in the study area with a regulatory ban on fish consumption due to high mercury
levels. The angler pointed to the sign at the boat ramp explaining the fishing ban as he
CXplained that he did not believe eating the fish posed a health risk. He believed the sign
and regulation provided another example of how the DNR wanted to prevent people from
enjoying the natural resources in the area. The angler used his belief that the DNR also
excessively and needlessly restricted deer hunter harvest as support for his doubt in the

Sincefity 0f the regulations.

98

Figure 5.6 Sources of Fish Consumption Advisory Information

 

 

 
   

 

 

40 0—4

30 l—

20 -

10 I-1 ;
i .
l
t .

0% ,_ i"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DNR Friends Anglers Health Medical Signs Media Other
Family Dept Prof.

99

 

 

Figure 5.7 Most Reliable Source of Information

 

4O

30d

204

IO-

 

 

0%.4

 

 

 

 

Store Anglers Health Medical Signs
Dept. Prof.

N. Fish Consumption Behaviors

Fish consumption traditions were expressed in all meetings. In study locations
with access to fish bought directly from commercial fishermen (Marquette, Alger, and
Chippewa Counties) a strong fish eating tradition is tied with the ability to eat ‘fresh’ and
therefore better fish. In Gogebic County where there are no commercial fishermen, there
is still a strong cultural tradition of fish consumption at Friday night fish flies. The
importance of fish fiies was seen throughout the U.P., but was especially important to
community identity in Gogebic County. However, unlike fish purchased from
comrrlercial fishermen, the species of fish eaten at Gogebic County fish fiies tend to be

“01140061 freshwater or ocean fish. In addition, fish fi'y consumption is only once a week.

100

On average people reported eating between 1-5 meals per month with more fi'equent

consumption during the summer.

Figure 5.8 Meals of Fish Eaten Per Month

 

 

21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 1-5 0

A plurality of focus group participants prepared their fish as fillets without the
Skin or bones (47%) and most frequently ate fried fish (43%). Anglers most frequently
prepared fish by filleting (88%) and frying (71%). In terms of risk reduction measures,
the mOSt frequent method comprised of trimming fat or skin (3 8%) while others (23%)
identified no risk reduction method. More men (42%) than women (29%) identified
tn'Inming the fat and other portions of fish as a suitable method of reducing contaminants.
LikeWise, during angler interviews more males (85%) than females (50%) identified

methods for risk reduction.

101

Across all data collection efforts, fiied fish emerged as the most popular way to
cook fish. Participants emphasized the role of taste in choosing to eat fiied fish fillets. A
focus group in Chippewa County generated a lot of laughter when several of the
participants noted the irony of stating the greatest benefit of eating fish are the health
benefits, despite the fact that everyone preferred to eat fish in the least healthful way:
deep-flied. Consumers removed the skin and fat mainly because of taste, and secondarily
to reduce contaminants.

Figure 5.9 How Fish is Prepared Prior to Cooking

 

50

40-

 

30-

20"

10...

 

 

 

 

0% _

 

Whole Fillet with skin Fillet no skin Steak

102

However, people noted that grilling fish required cooking the fish with the skin,
although they did not eat the skin. During a Marquette County focus group a male
bragged about how his family grilled fish regularly even through the deep snows of
winter, though most people limited the grilling of fish to the better weather during
summer and fall. Fish consumption guidelines recommend grilling fish as the best way to

reduce contaminants, because contaminants such as PCBS, but not mercury, can drip

away with the fat.

Figure 5.10 How Fish is Cooked

50 _.

3O _.

 

‘- i)
.\_‘> . \V-
5‘
,a.-.
- Agur

No Data Fried Broiled Baked Grilled Boiled Smoked Canned/
Pouch

 

 

0' Overview

Residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula who participated in our study were
aware that fish consumption advisories exist but lack specific knowledge about advisory
and Other complementary environmental information, such as bioaccumulation, the

01igins and pathways of contamination, and the types of fish that pose greater risks to

103

human health. In the absences of a clear fish consumption message, people use mental
models, trust and past experience to make decisions about whether a fish is safe to eat.
Almost everyone was aware that women and children are the populations most at-risk.
However, many people believed that these populations should avoid eating fish. This is
not necessarily the healthiest behavior since fish provides essential nutrients and fatty
acids that aid fetal development.

The majority of participants said that they do not know if the fish they eat is safe
for thernselves and their family. However, people generally had few concerns about the
fish they eat. Buying local fish and attending Friday night fish files are important
enltural traditions in the Upper Peninsula, but people eat few fish meals per month (1-5).
In addition, the species consumed are most often those with relatively low contaminant
levels such as Whitefish. Participants trust fish purveyors and restaurants to provide fish
that i S safe to eat. The main source of advisory information for the majority of
parti Cipants was the media, and the DNR was often mentioned as the most reliable source

0f fish consumption advisory information.

104

111. State and Federal Agency Managers
A. Introduction

Five state and federal agencies represent the institutional and organizational field
(Dirnaggio and Powell 1983; Hoffman 2001) of the fish consumption advisory process in
this study. These agencies are the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and
Michigan Department of Community Health (DCH). Each agency has different
Processes and procedures related to how tasks (from science, to policy, to inter and intra-
agency communication) are done. In order to understand the differences among the
ageIICi es it is pertinent to look to their differing missions (Tables 5.1 and 5.2).

Although most agencies have a mission to protect human and/or environmental
healfll’ the DCH differs from the paternalistic protector roles of these other agencies by
also Committing to “promoting access to the broadest possible range of quality services
and Supports” in lieu of only offering its protection. The DCH mission provides a more
diverse range of agency goals and programs. In addition, the DCH mission statement
differs fi'om the others as it explicitly mentions fiscal responsibility as a part of agency

mission. Although no other state or federal agency includes fiscal or budgetary maters
direCtly into their mission statement, it seems as though budgetary constraints are not

exclusive to the DCH, especially for state agencies.

105

 

wtoacw 5:5 69:8
95 c0 96 mm:

onSm 296309
9:5: 332

.bomSnw coeaEnmcoo
cwc 9: ncw

Ewnooa occozcoE
EwEEwEoo

cm: 22 a8 cosmos

on 9 cm: 28:00

02

.mco:waocom 922 new
«cotso not 8050mm: _w_3wc 99me 9: to EoE>oEo new om: .EoEomwcwE 626905
6262380 9: 2 noEEEoo 2 $0533. 6562 to EoEtwaoo cmeo=2 och

mZOE

 

EOmSnw
cecaEnmcoo cm:
89522 5.2% m5
.2 macawncoEEoom:
new 9%

82:62 monSoi

Ewtmoa mccozcoE
EwEEwEoo

can €8.65

do Swan 9: So bawo
2 nouwncwE >__wmm..

oz

.meamoa new

20:938.. 9 98:555.»: new cozw>0c5 £9495 5:865 _wEoEc9_>co oocw>nw
w>> .mo>:w:_E ncw wa_cw._octwa 9w>_.a\o:n:a new .EoEomwcwE .conwonno .cozonEwE
50:95 wEEmswooo ncw .w_wE_cw .wEwE notomcwnco ._o o>Emcom .99 699%
>__wo_mo_o_n waomoa o>> .EoEco.__>co 9: new 80508.. _w._3wc .So oocwcco on mcozow
wa:_o> omwSoocm o>> .EoEco.__>co 9: to bzwno 9: 9052 new 50 Quote omno>nw
05 :6: co mm: mewnaoaaw o5 ouoan new 2:8: 233 6295 “we. 36. 9:25

new meemoa LwLmEEnw oz, .233 9: 2 custom c. .932 oEwEwsmsw w new on: no
b=w3c 855:: am toe 29w 8an “wono 9: no Bacon 9: ho tween :0 x53 o3 .omeoc
_wEmEc9_>co m.cmeo_2 no wnnwgouw w< .£_woc 253 new EoEcoaSco mtmeoS
oocwcco new 6205 5:95 _wEoEco.._>cm co EoEtwaoo 59:22 9: E .25

ONO—2

 

 

.EOmSnw
cozaEnmcoo cmc
:03 59:22 _w_o_.to
9: co 8:33:56
new Eoan_o>mn
9: .2 0.22533.

 

who”. >m0w_>o<

 

oz

MF<QZ<E
>m0w_>o<

 

LoccwE Eonsa >__womc w E 2838 new 8228 woo—t to bo>=on 9: .8 9:6 .
2: to >596 035:: new 33:03 20an .0386 Eo>9a 2 83m oxwk .
9883 new 8223 3:96 to omcwa 9930a nonwob we. 9 wmooow 29:21 .
”=5, EoEeSon as new as
o... .cmees. _o_£_woc w .8 82.5 2.605: $.on bEaEEoo to EoEtwaoo Mcwmfoi

 

HZmeH/‘hw ZO_mw__>_

 

IUD—2

 

>02m0<

53:28 a: as Eases Es: 52528 a: s as E assess Eafi as? 2% E as:

106

 

Connie new mow mcnwonnfo
e0 :95; Low BOanw

coeaEnmcoo cm: >599: oaooa cwocoE< o5 toe EoEcoLSco

oz $5.85 cocwoo w L8 9253 coon mwc (am .2? 85m .EoEcoEcw 9: new <dmm3

w 859.85 <ou_ 9.: £_>>
.Ewcmoa octo=coE EwEEwEoo 5.8: cwEaz 6905 9 m_ 35?. Cenoocoi _wEoEc9_>cw or: no co_mm_E ozk

soc _wco=wc o5 .2 292038;

 

c2230 new new mthonEEo
no :oEoB .2 Eo£>nw
cozaesmcoo cw: Enema.

.£_woc e2: o>o._qE_ 9 mnooc. ncw moc_o_.noE mm: 9 once 35
coszLQE nomwnwocoow .QwSoow 9: com 0:25 o5 936: new ”onnaotw
99: new .aocww .oéooto 90E wnooe ncw 3:669: 39.: swE mcozw>0cE

w 093956 (am 05 55> oz nooaw on @522 E 5.8: 0:25 9: mEocw>nw L2 99388.. 0m_w 9 <0“. <Ouw3
. 9: .8293; :Eo “we: $038.5 new £26.58 .233 noon Mcozwc So .mooSon
oonoEEoo 8608 .9385 860 05 .men bwcco6> cw SE: 0 3.58m new <68. m
28225 E n_om cm: _w_o.oEEoo _ . _ . _ . . n f . t

   

9%.qu Le oaacoamom beam 05 9:5me 3 5.8; 253 m5 9:865 .2 292089 2 <9. one

 

 

 

 

MH<DZ<E

whom >mOw_>D< >mOm_>O< HZmS—wbuhm ZO_mw_E >Ozm0<

nouwomnsfifioo am?—

23 Eases SEE 5.5225 n: a as. E asses use: ass. :53 3 .2:

 

 

I07

Figure 5.11 Agency Context of Mercury Contamination and Fish Consumption

EPA FDA+
DEQ FDA EPA

////”\x DNR DCH

LAKE OCEAN
Atmospheric

. deposmon FISHING
- .- o '
oCommercial
\ \\\ \ °Recreational
-. ' , . -Subsistencc
H\ (C \ - .

     

\ \ \\ Humans and wildlife

affected primarily by
Wet and Dry eating fish containing

Impacts

Deposition mercury ~Best documented on
Emi
P ssions From . . the developing fetus:
ower Plants and Mercury transforms Into methylmercury in impaired motor and
Other Sources soils and water, then can bioaccumulate in fish cognitive skills
-Possibly other
impacts
.. . . - WW “mm"

  

' Holmium
ls_;_fi___ invest

3' Advisory Context— State of Michigan

In Michigan, three state agencies work differentially with the fish consumption
advi Sory and the fish contaminant monitoring programs (Figure 5.11). These agencies
are the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) and the Department of Community Health (DCH). The DCH as is a public health

agency charged with diverse public health issues from disease prevention and promoting
Wentless to fish consumption and lead paint advisories. The DEQ is a regulatory agency
chm'ged with protection of the environment and public health through the regulation and

re’d‘ltttion of harmful substances in the environment. And finally, the DNR is a natural

108

resource management organization that emphasizes the use and enjoyment of the State’s
natural resources.

The fish consumption advisory program is not mandated by any state agency, but
is carried out by the Department of Community Health. It provides information about
contarninants found in sport-caught fish in Michigan waters, including the Great Lakes.
A fish contaminant monitoring program is legally mandated within the Department of
Environmental Quality to monitor water quality in Michigan by testing contaminants in
fish. The DEQ uses the data from the fish contaminant monitoring program to, among
Other things, make recommendations to the DCH to update the fish consumption
advi sory. The DNR collects fish used for testing in these programs.

One interviewee from the DCH (N=2) best described the way the sport fish

Co118111nption advisory process operates in Michigan:

“[It is] best to think of it in how the state runs the advisory, starts with
DNR who collects the fish, they provide fish to DEQ, DEQ picks out what
water bodies need to be looked at, DEQ oversees the processing and
chemical analysis and data summary, which gets sent to DCH with
recommendations. [The DCH] reviews [the data] and makes new changes
to update the advisory. DCH is responsible for setting comparison values
or trigger levels and information dissemination. ”

These three agencies, in addition to the Michigan Department of Agriculture,
have worked together on contaminant issues through the Fish and Wildlife Consumption
AdVi sory Committee (FAWCAC). FAWCAC meetings were originally designed as
mal'lager meetings to inform all Michigan agencies of developments with the fish
ConSIImption advisory. This was deemed important because the fish consumption
adviSory was likely to spark large public attention and each agency was likely to be

coTltacted by members of the public with questions. FAWCAC meetings were also used

109

to work on environmental and public health contaminant issues and as a means of sharing
technical and policy knowledge among the different agencies. However, one interviewee
on the committee mentioned that the group may dissolve since no mandate to set
advisories exists and there are few resources (time and money) available to bring them
together. Currently the members of FAWCAC meet very infrequently as they struggle to

meet the goals and objectives set within their own agency with, according to

interviewees, fewer and fewer resources.

In the past, collaboration among Michigan’s environmental and public health
agencies on fish contaminant issues was more prevalent (see Chapter 2 for full
description). The DNR even published the first fish consumption advisories in their
fiShing regulations guidebook. As the fish consumption advisory grew, it became a
Separate booklet handed out to anglers along with the fishing regulations guide. In 2002
the DCH halted widespread publication and distribution of the fish consumption advisory
‘0 reduce expenses. That year copies of the advisory went exclusively to high priority
groups such as medical professionals and the Women, Infants, and Children program or

p60p1e who requested a copy directly fiom DCH. Since 2002 the advisory is only

available online or by request to the DCH.

1° Michigan Department of Community Health

The Michigan Department of Community Health is responsible for preventing
diSEases, promoting wellness, and improving the quality of life for Michigan’s residents
in a fiscally responsible manner (DCH mission, Table 5.1). Over the last few years

Within the DCH a concerted effort attempts to keep the fish consumption advisory

110

program alive despite steadily increasing agency responsibilities and decreasing funds.
AS a result, the role of the fish contamination program within DCH is weaker than in the
past. At one time it was even mandated and specifically funded by the state government.
In 1 989 with the Michigan Paperwork Reduction Act, the state decided to eliminate the
mandated fish consumption advisory.

This seemed reasonable at the time since the mandate was for a mercury advisory
on] y. In addition, the non-mandated fish advisory program was strong and more than
adequate to protect human health and address more pressing multiple contaminant
problems such as PCBs, dioxin and mercury. Currently, all funding by the state for
maintenance and upkeep of the fish consumption advisory has been eliminated.

The fish consumption advisory program relies on cooperative agreements from
the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as its main
source of funding. These agreements are in a sense grants for site-specific work with
definite outcomes and objectives. With lack of funding for an overall advisory program,
the DCH, to the best of its abilities, takes responsibility for toxicological data analysis
and 1.is}: communication for the fish consumption advisory.

The fish consumption advisory is not any one person’s responsibility, but DCH
toxicOlogists take on fish consumption advisory issues because, according to one DCH
Staff member, “it is the right thing to do.” DCH toxicologists evaluate human health risks
from exposure to chemicals found in the home and in the environment, from radon in
baseI'nents to the fish consumption advisory. According to DCH interviewees, few of the

proj ects they work on are specifically mandated by state or federal law.

111

The DCH does not develop scientific protocols for conducting risk analysis. They
use EPA and ATSDR guidelines for developing risk assessment and EPA guidelines for
risk communication. According to DCH staff the EPA regulations are the most standard
in the field. The Department of Environmental Quality also produces risk assessment
guidelines which are used to inform the fish consumption advisory process. The DCH,
like the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA, uses the Faroe Islands study as the

standard for setting fish consumption advisory advice. They collect few actual data
because they lack field staff and other resources.

The DCH uses contaminant trigger levels established by the FDA and EPA to
develop the advisory. For PCBs they use a human health protection value that was
developed as a result of the common Great Lakes protocol of the Great Lakes Task Force
(described in Chapter 2). There are two different target audiences in Michigan’s fish
consumption advisory: one for women of childbearing age and children under 15, and
anOther for everyone else called “general population.” When 10% of fish sampled
exceeds FDA limits, a “do not eat” advisory is given for women of childbearing age and

childl’en. When 50% of the fish sampled are above the FDA limit a “do not eat” advisory
is giVen for the general population.

Besides the common protocol that was developed for PCBs in the 19903, there is
progress being made to create a joint protocol for mercury (described in Chapter 2). At
preSent there is consensus among the eight Great Lakes states that the current advisory
methodologies for mercury are suitable for women of child-bearing age and children.

HoWever, there debate continues over the specifics of the risk analysis for the general

Population. According to interviewees, state health professionals still debate the number

112

of significant digits to include in the risk analysis. Others believe that a consistent joint
mercury advisory for the Great Lakes States may be too political.

According to interviewees, the DCH gets on average five to ten phone calls a
month concerning fish consumption advisories. The fish consumption advisory website
receives approximately 300-800 hits a month (more in the summer months). The amount
and quality of risk communication the DCH can perform is thought to be inhibited by the

pro j cot-specific, objective-driven funding mechanism. In addition, DCH staff members
ofien talk about the importance of a consistent, targeted and quality risk communication
message, but admit struggling to attain this goal due to lack of funding and expertise. At
the time of data collection from the public (2004-2006), the fish consumption advisory
had not been updated using current scientific analysis since 2001.

2. Department of Environmental Quality

The DEQ is responsible for the fish contaminant monitoring program, which is
used to inform fish consumption advisory decisions. The fish contaminant monitoring
Progl' am is mandated and funded by the state of Michigan, through the Clean Michigan
Act. As one DEQ manager explained, it is often cheaper to test fish for contaminants than
to test the water itself. The fish contaminant monitoring program has no field staff and
does not collect the fish that are tested. Fish are collected through collaborations
p1’in'larily with the DNR, but also with tribal organizations, commercial fishermen and

Charter boat fishermen.
Once the fish are collected, the DEQ coordinates the processing and testing.
Before testing, fish are filleted, except the samples used for trend analysis which are lefi

WhOIe. As a part of the fish contaminant monitoring program the DEQ tests mercury in

113

top predators and PCBs in Carp fi'om inland lakes. In the Great Lakes they test a variety
of contaminants, mostly in trout and Whitefish. In addition to testing wild fish, the DEQ
studies long-term contamination in caged fish. They place caged fish in a specific water
body for twenty-eight days and then test those fish for a variety of contaminants
including PCBs and mercury.

Fish testing is contracted out to different labs in the state, including labs at the
Department of Community Health. After testing, the data are sent to the DEQ where
scientists review the data for quality control. From that data analysis DEQ managers
prepare an annual report and make recommendations to the DCH for the fish
consumption advisory. The DCH makes the final decisions about any changes or updates
to the fish consumption advisory. Data from the fish contaminant monitoring program

are also used to study contaminant trends over time and may aid in the listing or delisting
of Areas of Concem6. The results of the fish contaminant monitoring program show that
Persistent organic pollutants are decreasing in the Great Lakes, but mercury is on the rise.
For iIlland lakes, the opposite phenomenon occurs.
Interviewees fiom the DEQ (N=3) all felt that the DEQ does over and above
EPA/F DA levels and testing protocols. They also said that fish contaminant information,
although controversial, is of interest to the public and government agencies. They felt
that there is a real effort to integrate monitoring with decision making, regulation and
implementation. They were aware of the different interests (sportspersons groups,

environmental groups, industry lobbies, etc) that may influence priority-setting, but they

\

6

"Geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the agreement where such failure
caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life."
U-S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol)

114

try to look at “what actual risks are and what’s most important”. As one interviewee put
it, “Ecologically you never make everyone happy.” Meaning that if you follow what the
science says for the health of the enviromnent, at least one of these “unscientific” interest

groups will be unhappy.

3 . Department of Natural Resources
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the management of
Michigan’s natural resources. According to an interviewee from the DNR, their fish
division traditionally had a “big and lots of them” fish management strategy geared
towards accommodating recreational anglers. In recent years their focus has shifted to a
more ecosystem-based approach to management, and management strategies that
accommodate all resources users, even those who “leave no trace”. Also, there is a new
focus on trying to understand what people want out of natural resources, natural resource
management and what people value, to more accurately target resource management to
meet the needs and desires of the public.
The DNR is only peripherally involved in the fish consumption advisory process.
The DNR collects the fish that get tested by the DCH and DEQ. They receive lists fi'om
the DEQ and DCH of what size and species of fish to collect. However, according to
interviewees, they are often unable to collect the specific species and sizes of fish the
DEQ and DCH request. Along with fish collection, the DNR fishing regulations
guidebook distributed with fishing licenses includes a small paragraph that references the

official fish consumption advisory (Figure 5.2). In addition, DNR’s website has a link to

the DCH ’s official fish consumption advisory.

115

One DNR interviewee (N=5) described their involvement with fish consumption
advisories by saying:

[Our role at the DNR] is to know where to find [fish consumption advisory
information] when people ask, so we know where to send them. I try to be
aware of the regulations, I don ’t ’ memorize them because they change or I
can have them in front of me. We help the DEQ get their sample [ of fish].
They tell us the bodies of water that they need assistance with. They pick
the list of lakes and they call the basin coordinator at the DNR. They also
look at the DNR sampling list. This is totally voluntary and cooperative in
nature. The DNR doesn ’t have to do it, but it’s the right thing to do. It
saves the DEQ money from having to pay a contractor.

All interviewees at the DNR made it clear that the fish consumption advisory is
not their responsibility. A second interviewee at the DNR (N=5) said, “[The fish
consumption advisory] is important but it’s the job of DCH.” The third DNR interviewee
said:

“[ T he fish consumption advisory] is in the most recent draft of our
strategic plan. It has not come up in the last couple of years in research
themes. 1 think that historically it was really separated and fisheries
division didn’t touch it. DCH toxicology people do that. We help sample,
but we don ’t study it. ”

A fourth DNR interviewee (N =5) described their role more informally saying:

“We have occasional conversations with anglers [about fish consumption
advisories]. That is not our role. Don ’t want a whole bunch of fish dudes
explaining that to the public. [We have] no credibility, we don ’t know
what we’re talking about. "

When the public asks DNR staff about fish consumption advisories, interviewees
said they tend to give their personal view of contamination risk and refer people to the
official DCH advisory. Although there is a small paragraph about the existence of a fish
consumption advisory on the last page of the DNR’s fish regulations guidebook, the DNR

has little to do with the fish consumption advisory. However as the Upper Peninsula

116

citizen data illustrate, a large number of people believe that the DNR is responsible for
the advisory.
The rhetoric of public stewardship was much stronger among employees of the
DNR than those interviewed in the other state agencies. The idea that the “public is the
customer” and has a say in agency decisions was important to interviewees at the DNR.
As the fifth interviewee said (N=5):
“That ’s the point of the management agency, to be therefor the public...
In an agency you are a steward. We do things that are scientific, but the
trump card is what people want. People run natural resources
management. The best you can do is to marry science with the public
understanding. There ’s always an aspect of what can you do. ”
However, how DNR interviewees define “the public” is unsure. Many
interviewees from the DNR cited a lack of experience or expertise with “human

dimensions” type work. As the third DNR interviewee put it:

“Human dimensions used to be a small closet on the side. Now it is seen
as a central piece of what we do... but we lack expertise. "

All interviewees from the DNR mentioned the lack of funding as a major constraint to
What, why and how things get done. As the third interviewee said:

“There are probably 100 problems and we only have enough money to
work on five. If we don ’t have someone pushing us, then we won ’t do it. ”

In addition, the second interviewee said:

“[ The] public expects the DNR to give the information on catching fish.
People think that the Department of Transportation pick up deer on the
side of the road, but it’s the DNR. So, the public might expect it, but it is
not a reasonable expectation due to fimding and programming. Outreach
and education, we don’t have the money to do it and it is not one of those
things we are required to do by law. Every time a new law gets passed it
gets passed without additional fimding. [ F or example] the ground water
bill that was passed didn ’t come with any money for additional fisheries
management. By law they have to do that, [therefore] something else has
to come ofl the plate. Good legislation gets passed, but it doesn ’t take into

117

account that the fisheries division [funding depends] 100% on license
sales, and license sales are going down and our revenue is dropping. "
All state agencies claimed that they lack the funding necessary to effectively
provide fish consumption advisory information to the public. In federal agencies,
fiinding did not seem to be such a problem. However, they felt they only have a say in
fish consumption advisories for commercial fish. They said that it is the states’
responsibility to develop sport fish advisories. According to one federal agency
interviewee, “the states do not like when we step on their toes.” With the states working
on advisories for sport-caught fish and the federal agencies working on commercial fish
there are two different approaches to two different fish consumption advisories. This
leads to a lack of consistency in advisory information and perhaps confusion among the

public.

C. Advisory Context- Federal Agencies

Two main federal agencies work with fish consumption advisories, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (Figure 5.11). As
their mission states (Table 5.2), the FDA, among other things, is responsible for the
safety of the American food supply. They also emphasize a commitment to “science-
based” risk communication to improve human health (FDA mission statement, Table
5-2). Likewise, the EPA’s mission is to protect human health as well as the environment.
The Creation of a joint F DA-EPA mercury advisory for women of childbearing age and
Children (2004) marked a new era of collaboration among the FDA and EPA,

organizations that do not traditionally work together in matters of policy.

118

1. L15. Food an

The F0(
and safety and
hehmnan l001
mos. upIo-dat
gripes. In at
sscssmem. l
he United St:-

Allh‘o
111??qu and 1
meme neun
(Foulke 1995
385mm} the
mimics-es I
More Went]
the hallona]
3000).

“he
hmkaa]
the many dii
musumptlm
regulates 0C

fish. The F]

1 , US. Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for hazard exposure analysis

and safety and risk assessments of industrial contaminants and natural toxins that occur in

the human food supply (Figure 5.11). According to interviewees at the FDA, they use the
most up-to-date science, origins of toxicity and dose response to develop exposure
analyses. In addition, they said that the FDA relies solely on quantitative risk
assessment. The FDA is responsible for regulating contaminants in fish sold nationally in
the United States. It first regulated mercury in fish in 1970.

Although fish represents only a small part of the overall American diet, the
mercury and fish issue has been a national priority at the FDA for many years due to the
extreme neurological effects of mercury especially on developing fetuses and children
(Foulke 1995). In a 1995 article the FDA Consumer Magazine for the first time
described the risks of mercury in fish to the public (Folke 1995). But as one FDA
interviewee mentioned, the FDA Consumer Magazine is not a high-impact publication.
More recently, the mercury and fish issue was brought into the national spotlight when
the National Academy of Science (N AS) developed their report on methylmercury (NAS
2000) -

When interviewees at the FDA talked about contaminants in fish they emphasize
its role as a regulatory agency addressing interstate commerce. They quickly identified
the many differences between state and federal regulation of mercury and fish
consumption advisories. For example, one interviewee explained that the FDA mostly
regulates ocean fish, whereas sport advisories are geared towards freshwater sport-caught

fiSh- The FDA regulates commercial fish that most likely come from a variety of

119

sources. and thus
a: commercial f
it is thought that
have the same er
fish are exposed
chemicals. Con
for sport-caUgh

it one FDA in'

 

sources, and thus have different levels of different contaminants. Therefore, when people
eat commercial fish they are not exposed to the same contaminant every time. However,
it is thought that anglers more often catch fish that come fi'om the same locations, and
have the same contaminants at the same levels. Therefore, people who eat sport-caught
fish are exposed to greater risks because they are consistently exposed to the same

chemicals. Consequently increased protection is needed when performing risk analysis

for sport-caught fish.

As one FDA interviewee said (N=2):

“FDA is in charge of interstate commerce. [In sport fishing regulations]
species are specific to the area, local traditions specific to local
consumption of fish. Many species that [ the FDA] deal with are marine
species, not fresh water...States are working with wild catfish rather than
farm raised catfish. There are diflerent considerations to take into

account. The public has a hard time understanding that a catfish is not a
catfish. ”

According to interviewees at the FDA (N =2), the action level for mercury
adequately keeps fish with unsafe levels of mercury from entering the American food
SUpply. The outcome of violating FDA regulation is hefty, as it requires seizing whole
Shipments of fish. There are significant financial repercussions of removing products
from commerce. For this reason in 1979 the FDA was forced to increase its tolerance
level for mercury in fish meaning that the FDA considers the economic impacts of
rt‘vglllating fish over the human heath effects (Hesse 1997). According to FDA
interviewees very few foods have FDA action levels.

Interviewees at the FDA (N=2) see no inconsistencies among their action level,

the EPA’s reference dose and state trigger levels for methylmercury in fish. The

inteI’Viewee quoted above also expressed frustration at the press’ attempt to exaggerate

120

the differences between the numbers used by the different agencies to distinguish fish

safety. The interviewee said that everybody followed the standard practices. The
different terms and different numbers reflect different purposes; in reality, all agencies
use the same science and standard operating procedures. Interviewees fiom both the
FDA (n=2) and EPA (N=4) felt that the joint mercury advisory for women of
childbearing age and young children sends a clear message to the public that the FDA
and EPA use the same tolerance levels, at least for women and children.

In addition to fish consumption advisories and regulating mercury in fish, the

FDA also conducts a total diet study to monitor contaminants in commonly consumed
foods. According to interviewees, if contaminant levels in foods are higher than
eXpected; more studies seek to find out why. These data are primarily used for trend
analysis and do not have any regulatory component to take food off the shelves in case of
contamination. However, one FDA interviewee said that it is rare to see levels of
Contaminants in food higher than expected. In addition, the results show that foods have
lower and lower levels of pesticides as a result of past regulation.

In terms of risk communication, the FDA has a whole consumer advice unit that
conducts outreach and risk communication. They work on programs such as
microbiological hazards like E. coli, and to get people to wash their hands and cook their
fOOd properly. They also conduct focus groups and test risk and other types of outreach

messages, As one interviewee said, “mercury is just another part of what they do”.

2. U . S . Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA works with fish consumption advisories at many different levels

although there is no mandate for it (Figure 5.11). The EPA creates protocols for risk

121

analysis and risk communication used by the states to develop their sport fish
consumption advisories. Along with the FDA, the EPA also puts out a mercury advisory
for women of childbearing age and children. However, all EPA interviewees clearly state
that fish consumption advisories are a state’s responsibility. One interviewee even said
that the EPA delegated the fish consumption advisories to the states.

Because of their long-time involvement in the state fish consumption advisory
issue, the EPA keeps track of what the states are doing and tries to keep them informed of
emerging contaminants like PBDEs7, a persistent organic pollutant found in fire
retardants. Unlike the FDA, the EPA has strong working relationships with the states.
For example, in the Great Lakes region a group works to keep public and environmental
health managers connected throughout the states. It is called the Great Lakes Human

Health Network and is only available to resource managers.

Through the network, managers from the eight Great Lakes states can send their
ideas out over email and share new research and technical methodologies. In addition
they gather at the EPA’s National Forum for Contaminants in Fish (often called Fish
Forum), This network helps states to work together to create common protocols and
increase collaboration and consistency among the states. At the moment they are

working to develop a common protocol for mercury advisories. They also work on other

\

“POIYBrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) are members of a broader class of brominated chemicals used
as flam¢ retardants; these are called brominated flame retardants, or BFRs. There are dozens of congeners,
or varieties of the basic chemical type, of PBDEs. These chemicals are major components of commercial
formulations often used as flame retardants in furniture foam (pentaBDE), plastics for TV cabinets,
consumer electronics, wire insulation, back coatings for draperies and upholstery (decaBDE), and plastics
for pefsonal computers and small appliances (octaBDE). The benefit of these chemicals is their ability to
slow 1gnition and rate of fire growth, and as a result increase available escape time in the event of a fire.”

(The United States Environmental Protection Agency. mwim,ggiowgpbde/#pbdes. 10/1/08)

122

Great Lakes
nemistent 10‘
Man

increasing rc

Another inti

Paternalisti

In a
fiSh coman
minim-iné
the Skin 0r

Called “dc;

Great Lakes health issues such as invasive species like the Asian Carp, issues of

persistent toxics, and report writing.

Many interviewees at the EPA (N =3) recognized that states struggle with

increasing responsibilities and decreasing funding. As one interviewee said:

“Funding is the biggest stumbling block for the states. Programs run on
small budgets, so the EPA along with the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry try to help them fimd important projects such as
evaluation of risk communication programs. ”

Another interviewee said:

“The Great Lakes Network has a bottom up strategy. Anyone with a little
bit of passion, if we can find the money in the budget [we ’1] fund them]. ”

At times, EPA interviewees described their relationship with the states in very

paternalistic ways. For example, one interviewee said,

“The Great Lakes governors look to find successes and one of the things
they see is uniform advice for mercury protocol. That is one way things

improve. We hand it to them on a plate and say, look at how well you did
in your state. ”

In addition to their work with the states, the EPA is responsible for a mandated
fish contaminant monitoring program much like the Michigan DEQ’s fish contaminant
monitoring program, except that it is national (Figure 5.11). These fish are tested with
the skin on, whole and filleted. Results still show high levels of what one interviewee
called “dead chemicals”, those that have been banned such as PCBS, but found in fish
tOdaY- According to the interviewee, even if mercury is heavily regulated today, it is
likely to be a problem well into the future.

The EPA also works on the bi-national toxics strategy in collaboration with
Canadian environmental agencies to eliminate and decrease contamination in bi-national

waters_ The fish contaminant monitoring program helps to inform the bi-national toxics

123

513955. The E
nanicals that r

pesticides and t

D. Agency Ma

Each in
eonsinnption a
sitisory was c
idtisory] is tol
particular cont
another that It

consuming co

Some

efiectiVe, F,

 

 

strategy. The EPA also works with the United States Geological Survey to monitor
chemicals that might wind up in fish. In addition the EPA regulates the use of new

pesticides and their distribution in commerce (Figure 5.11).

D. Agency Managers- Purpose of Fish Consumption Advisory

Each interviewee was asked what they believed to be the purpose of the fish
consumption advisory. Responses varied from detailed explanations of how and why the
adxrisory was created to simple straightforward answers, like, “the purpose [of the
advisory] is to let the public know what things [they] ought to be concerned about,
particular contaminants and kinds of fish.” All interviewees mentioned in some way or
another that the purpose of the advisory is to inform the public about the potential risks of
consuming contaminated fish. For example one DEQ interviewee (N =3) said:

“The reason [for the advisory] is to protect human health; people need to
be knowledgeable about what they are eating, whether it comes wildfiom
the lakes or fiom the grocery store. They should be protected. We can ’t
assume everything we eat is safe. We need to test it and let people know
about it. I think advisories, to date, are the only way to get things

across. ”

Some interviewees include reflections about the advisory and whether they find it
effective. For example, one interviewee fi'om the EPA (N=4) said:

“The purpose of the advisory is... they tend to be very focused an inland
lakes and fish species. Most people can ’t translate it. People think, so
you can go to one lake and you can ’t go to the other one. A lot of fish
[eaten] in the US. is marine fish. [Therefore] a local freshwater strategy
is myopic; treating mercury like PCBS. Fish consumption is not
dominated with local fish, and without a commercial fish advisory, people
are not getting the message. Figuring out who the populations are that
are at risk. People that consume local fish don ’t think it’s effective.
Another thing that gets mixed up is that mercury levels are in high trophic
levels fish[for example, shark, swordfish, and certain species of tuna] and
people don ’t have the equipment [to catch those species of fish ] .. ”

124

1, Choice
On

cioice: th:

to make gs

interview:

Likewise

allow pa

2. Coin?

A
crimson",
benefits,
'oodg or

m 5..

1. Choice

One theme throughout many responses is the idea that people should have a
choice; that the purpose of the advisory is to inform people of their risks and enable them
to make good decisions, but the decision is ultimately theirs. For example, one
interviewee from the EPA (N=4) said:

“The purpose is to let the public know what things they ought to be
concerned about particular contaminants and kinds of [contaminated]
fish. Aflect behavior and affect what choices people are making. Risk
reduction through public right to know and the choices they make. ”

Likewise, an interviewee from the DCH (N =2) said, “We want to do prevention and

allow people to choose.”

2. Comparative Risk
All interviewees from the DNR, who work less with the fish consumption
advisories, talked about risk ranking or balancing the fish consumption risks with its
benefits. Some interviewees made comparisons to knowing about contaminants in other
foods or lifestyle choices like smoking or drinking alcohol. One interviewee from the
DNR said (N=5):
“[ The purpose of the advisory is] to make people aware of chemical
contamination of fish. We don ’t know the chemical contamination of our
milk and our meat. I think it’s appropriate for a public health program
that deals with this, but it has the tendency to increase the awareness or

fear in fish, but not in milk I ’ve never read anything about milk You
know there are chemical contaminants in food supply. ”

125

Another interviewee from the DNR (N=5) talked about balancing benefits and risks:
“[ The purpose of the advisory is to], I guess, just to educate [the public],
at least to the point that they are comfortable with the knowledge,
especially the people who have the responsibility- who have kids. [The
message should be] somewhat balanced by the fact that fish are good for
you. [The purpose of the advisory should be] to educate and alert the
public of the potential dangers as well as the benefits of eating fish. ”

It is not surprising that the interviewees fiom the DNR were more inclined to use
comparative risk statements. No other interviewees made these kinds of comments. The
DNR has the most to lose (reduced fishing license sales) if people stop fishing. In
addition, they are environment and natural resources experts; they have the least amount
of public health or toxicology expertise. They are perhaps more likely to use mental

models to situate fish consumption risk rather than toxicological studies or public health

information.

3. Pollution Reduction
Two interviewees fiom the federal agencies that have worked with fish
consumption advisories for quite some time both commented that the ultimate purpose of
the advisory is to reduce mercury pollution by informing the public of its existence with
the hope that they will pressure the government to enact policies and regulations to
reduce emissions. One EPA interviewee said (N=4):
“Letting the public know that there are fish that have concentrations of
contaminants at certain levels can encourage public pressure on the
causes and sources of pollution. [This can lead to] public pressure to push
for changes in pollution regulation. The more people are exposed to this

information and how widespread it is the more likely it is the public will
ask questions about what can be done to reduce these levels. "

126

The interviewee from the FDA said (N=2):

“[ The purpose of the advisory is to produce] a simple message that people
will act on that doesn ’t have unintended consequences. We in the field
think we do a really nice job and pat ourselves on the back...
Environmental remediation, reducing mercury from the stack will help us
battle this problem. The advisory will not solve this problem, but it’s
something to present to public. Like global warming, it is hard to get
public focused on it. You talk about mercury emissions and people don’t
worry about it in their daily lives. People want electricity at a price they
can aflord. [Making the public aware is] easy to do in advisory,
especially if [it is] alarmist. Media love alarmist things...and the
journalists have to come up with a story... ”

In the opinion of this FDA interviewee, the 2000 National Academy of Science
report on methylmercury was driven by an effort to eliminate coal-fired power plants, the
number one source of anthropogenic mercury emissions. The interviewee also said:

“Several new studies in the Faroe Islands and Seychelles- those reports
that started coming out prompted the NAS at the behest of the EPA what
was really driving it, what EPA was driving at was coal-fired power
plants. EPA looked at contaminants coming out of stacks. The only one
that passed the threshold of concern is mercury. Mercury in fish is not
about mercury in fish it’s about coal-fired power plant. Clean Air Act-
you can imagine what 's at stake here. It’s huge. Sport, recreational
fishing or subsistence is peanuts compared to the whole energy issue.

[The report] had big implications for fish consumption advisories, but it
was not that, it was regulating emissions fiom coal fired power plants. ”

E. Risk Communication- Most Important Fish Consumption Message

Each interviewee was asked to identify the most important message about
consuming fish for the public. All interviewees responded with some variant of, fish is
healthy and/or good for you, but people should follow fish consumption advisories in
order to balance the benefits with the risks. Exact answers differed slightly depending on

level of expertise.

127

l. Balancing Benefits and Risks of Consuming Fish

For example one interviewee from the DNR (N=5) with little fish consumption

advisory role said:

“Level of knowledge, understanding risk and understand what kind of
choices you have. I didn ’t feed my daughters Great Lakes salmon, but I
would eat one. Understanding what the contaminants are, where they are,
and who they affect. What sort of processes are affected, like
reproduction... getting all the best info out on the table. But you don’t
want to... there ’s some fine line there about frightening people. I would
stand on the place of transparency.”

Another interviewee fi'om the DNR said (N=5):

“Communication to the public. All depends on how you identijy success.
Maybe people understand all of the risk. National Wildlife Federation or
Sierra Club get people to not eat fish to get strict environmental
regulations. This is not necessarily the best. T 0 me, success is
communication of the risks to people so they are working from an
informed point of view and not an ignorant point of view. [I] wouldn ’t
like to see people not buying a fishing license, but also don’t want to see
people catching predator fish and feeding it to their wife. ”

An interviewee from the EPA who has spent more time working with fish

contamination and the fish consumption advisory had a more detailed response
commenting on the benefits of heart healthy omega-3 fatty acids8 found abundantly in

fish versus the risk of mercury. The interviewee said (N=4):

“[ People] can get omega-3s without high dose of contaminants.
Delivering this message may be a risk communication message that we
may not be able to complete. Public has a hard time identijying species of
fish. Fresh fish, filleted fish, people often don ’t know what to buy. Peer
review on study from France- more access to fresh fish than we do in the

 

8 “Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown in epidemiological and clinical trials to reduce the incidence of
[cardiovascular disease]. Large-scale epidemiological studies suggest that individuals at risk for CHD
benefit from the consumption of plant- and marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids. Evidence fi'om prospective
secondary prevention studies suggests that EPA [eicosapentaenoic acid] +DHA [docosahexaenoic acid]
supplementation ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 g/d (either as fatty fish or supplements) significantly reduces
subsequent cardiac and all-cause mortality.” (Kris-Etherton et al 2002, p. 2754).

128

3. Right Mess:

lhmh
mamaEeot
hmpuiinhi
tnmflenor
fish people c
10 contamin
prklsen
middle-3g

AS One int.

United States, they couldn ’t get the women to remember which fish were
high or low in mercury and omega-3s. Tell people what to eat instead of
telling them what not to eat. It is far better off for messages to say, ‘this is
what is good to eat’ instead of ‘this is what’s bad’. ”

2. Right Message, Right Audience
Much like the responses to the advisory purpose, many interviewees stressed the

importance of choice; gearing risk communication so that “proper” audiences receive

“proper” information or “education” and are able to make their own decisions. For

example, none of the interviewees from any agency suggested regulating the amount of

fish people could catch recreationally or purchase commercially to reduce their exposure

to contamination. Many interviewees said they strive to get the right message to the right

people (sensitive populations), without spillover to populations not at-risk, such as

middle-aged men with heart disease.

As one interviewee from the EPA said (N =4):
“[ The] most important message is that the public has choices and there
are certain types of fish and species that have more and less contaminants
with diflhrent benefits. [People] can achieve the balance of health
benefits and [risks of] contaminants. Not an issue of people avoiding
contaminants in fish, but making good choices. ”

An interviewee from the DCH also talked about the importance of getting the right

message to the right people (N=2):
“There is a health risk, but it is also important to publicize the health
benefits. People must be given enough information. Issue advice in ways
that people can understand it. A past downfall of the advisory program
came fiom not speaking to the audience. Proposals [for fish consumption
advisories targeting] low-income and minority populations have been
[funded in the past] [sic]. Also [there was to be] a media blitz [about]
issuing [fish consumption] advice at [recreational fishing] sites and to
church groups. [That was] cut from the budget and we did not get to

implement it. [We need to] let people know what the negative effects
are... The most risk is for mothers and children. They need to know that

129

Likewise an 11’

Also. another

3. Variety 31.

In ad
lmmlfl'ees
[mm-mile h l
advisory) or
mmmunicai

Al the FDA

An meme

 

it ’s not just what they feed their baby; it ’s their [older] children and the
fetus [too]. ”

Likewise an interviewee from the FDA said (N =2):

“Crafting the message is one thing, then getting it out. Once it goes out
the front door, you lose control. Once in media, you try to direct that in
an appropriate way. Then you have to worry about spillover to the rest of
the population. People hear a negative message, [and think] maybe I
should stop eating fish. For middle aged men- No! They should be eating
fish, especially those with cardiovascular disease. ”

Also, another interviewee from the DNR said (N=5):
“F ishermen ask about [fish consumption advisory] stufl frequently. Some
are worried that they are eating too much fish. I would ask what their age
is and how much they are eating. I would always explain the benefits of
eating fish over the risks. Especially to those that are not in the high risk
groups. Trade ofl with heart disease... those in the high risk group; they
are the ones who know the least. Older guys are the ones more worried,
but not the young moms or kids. They are not the people to ask as much. ”
3. Variety and Moderation
In addition to stressing choice and creating a targeted risk message, many
interviewees emphasized eating fish in moderation or eating a variety of fish species to
minimize fish consumption risks. However, this messages is not available (state
advisory) or gets lost (federal advisory) in official advisory information and risk
communication
At the FDA one interviewee said (N=2):
“Fish is an important part of a healthy diet and you should just eat a

variety of foods and fish. From nutritional standpoint fish is a good food.
Eating it in moderation and a variety of fish [is best]. Not eating the same

type of seafood. ”

An interviewee fi'om the DEQ said (N=3):

“Fish consumption is a good part of a healthy diet when consumed in
moderation. [It ’s] important not to scare people away. ”

130

F. Risk Communication-What People Know

Interviewees were asked what they think the public knows about fish
consumption advisory information. In addition to their responses to this question,
interviewees made comments throughout other components of the interviews about how
they think people believe and how they behave when it comes to consuming fish. Almost
everyone said that the public is probably aware that an advisory exists, but they are
unfamiliar with the specific information found in the advisory. This is interesting
because it shows that agency managers are aware that current advisory information is
ineffective to help people make safe decisions about consuming fish, and does not fulfill
its intended purpose.

One interviewee from the EPA mentioned the results from a focus group put
together by the FDA and EPA to test the fish consumption advisory message (N=4):

“ We ’ve done a little bit of work with the FDA and additional work in
Mississippi [ with minority fishing populations]. We did some follow up
surveys after the 2004 mercury advisory. We were interested in
understanding how much information was internalized and how
accurately. It was a lot better than I feared. We weren’t talking about 80-
90% accurate internalizing. Of all focus groups and survey responses,
there were five to ten people who expressed knowledge about mercury in
fish ...and people understood that it was for women of childbearing age
and children. There is a general knowledge that different kinds of fish
have different levels [of contaminants] . ”

An interviewee from the FDA (N=2) also commented on testing the fish
consumption advisory message. The person said:

“On one hand, there are risks of mercury and then you turn around and
say fish are good to eat. We tested this message with consumers and they

basically rejected that message. All they hear is neurotoxin. Their
response is, I don 't need to eat fish; I don 't need this risk”

131

At the state level one interviewee from the DCH said (N=2):

“The fish advisory came out in the 1970’s with the [fishing] license. It
expanded and became its own book, but was distributed together [with the
fishing license]. Later they were no longer distributed together, so people
think they have read it, but have only read the blurb on the license. There
should be a broad group of folks who know that an advisory exist, but
don ’t know the depth at which they understand the advisory, other section
of people who know the advisory exist, but they don ’t care. ”

At the DEQ one interviewee said (N=3):

“Fish is good for you; people think that if they eat fish they will die,
people think one way or another. The public doesn 't know enough, it
either scares them off or they don ’t worry about it. ”

Another DEQ interviewee (N=3) said, “People know that there is an advisory, but they

don’t know what’s in it.” Likewise an interviewee from the DNR said (N=5):

“I don ’t know how much attention people pay to [the advisory] or how
much they understand it. I don ’t have hard data to back this up, but my
opinion is that people probably know that there is a problem with fish.
[They probably] get more information fiom the newspaper or T. V. rather
than the advisory. May have a general idea that there are some chemicals
in fish that are bad for people... and I think they probably know that they
have more of an eflect on kids and young women. [It’s one] of those
things... because there are no [immediate or easily observable negative]
effects, people will go on doing what they ’re doing as a part of their lives.
Don ’t know how many people are following the recommendations of how
to clean or cook the fish? ”

G. Obstacles to Effective Risk Communication

All interviewees commented on the inefficacy of the current fish consumption
advisory risk communication. As shown above, most interviewees were aware that
people may not be receiving the advisory message in an efficient and useful way.

However, they were ofien hard pressed to find solutions to this problem. Every

132

interviewee described obstacles to a quality and effective fish consumption advisory

program.

1. Tough Message to Convey
One major difficulty discussed by many managers is that a message with both

risks and benefits is a hard message to convey. As one interviewee from the DCH put it
(N=2):

“How do you balance risk and benefits if the risk is to the brain, but the
benefits are to the heart? Putting a fine point on sciences misses the
practicality of the health education side, which is providing people with
knowledge and letting them make choices ”

An interviewee from the EPA said (N=4):

“There is a concerted effort of the fishing industry to overestimate the
Omega 3s. They work very hard to undermine [the fish advisory]
message. [The fish advisory message] is diflicult enough if you didn’t
have to fight all of the other food messaging. Spin-[It ’s like the movie]
Thank You for Smoking. It’s a hard message to get out, and then you have
people diss-ing the message. People become confiised. People in focus
groups say that they don ’t want to read the whole [fish consumption
advisory]. I was surprised to see how poorly people retain [fish
consumption advisory] information. ”

Another interviewee from the EPA (N=4) commented on the Native American population
and said:

“Tribes are extremely important. Consuming fish is a cultural, religious
experience. When you talk about risk, is the risk of diabetes or heart
disease better or worse than fish contamination risks? Tough, it ’s hard to

measure that. How to give them advice to help them rather [than hurt
them]. ”

At the FDA an interviewee said (N=2):
[We] try to stress that there are benefits. Tough one, because you have to
be careful how you convey that message. Fish is a part of balanced diet.

You have to be careful about that. If someone doesn ’t eat fish are you
implying that they would not have a healthy pregnancy? A lot of pregnant

133

2. Agency C .

Anoz'
misery out
among tiger,
of collabora'

AS One inter

Another Ill:

 

women never eat fish and have healthy babies. There are some good
science about what we know is in fish. Omega 3s, I hate to focus on that
because fish is more than omega-3s, but there is very good science about
including omega-3s in your diet. Have a lot of data that show what
species have a low level [ of contaminants] . If you are pregnant or
thinking of becoming pregnant eat species low in mercury... [It is a] very
complicated story that is tailored to the group that you ’re concerned
about, that will be acted upon, one without spillover. We had to go
through several versions [of the joint FDA/EPA mercury advisory for
women of childbearing age and young children]. Really tough. Never
going to get everybody. [It needs to be] a message that is direct and
pretty simple, and it ’s understood and people will act on it. ”

2. Agency Collaboration and Consistency

Another major issue that interviewees described as an obstacle to effective
advisory outreach is the lack of collaboration and consistency of advisory information
among agencies. Three different interviewees at the EPA commented on the importance
of collaboration and consistency.
As one interviewee said (N=4):

“Working together is the biggest thing... not sweating the small details.
Accept that people are going to do things their own way, so it is better to
stay together- a pull strategy [rather] than push. Giving the states the
opportunity to work together and set guidelines uniformly, giving them
money to do outreach in the way they want to do it

Another interviewee from the EPA (N=4) said:

“I ’m not saying that the EPA/FDA advice is perfect, but the fact that they
continue to work together is really good. It ’s a huge step for our agencies.
More uniform advice instead of more conflicting advice as in the past.
The [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A T SDR)] is in
there too... we all look at things in a diflerent way. We work with AT SDR
very closely. We often agree to disagree, they have their own models for
working with risk, and their scope is different. They are funded through
Superfund so, it ’s a little difl'erent.

[The] EPA is more conservative in protecting human health. There are
always going to be exceptions to that. Consistency is the hardest thing
that is lacking with risk. [In some states there are] four diflerent advice
for the same species in the same lake. An advisory that is not too full of

134

jargon, easy to follow... but the advice is not always the same as doctors.
People are going to ask their doctors. [They are] not going to call public
health hotline. "

The third interviewee at the EPA (N=4) said this of the joint EPA and FDA advisory:

“The EPA worked with the FDA to create the [joint mercury] advisory
that applies the EPA exposure limits for women. That is a huge step
forward. ”

The lack of collaboration was also discussed at the state level. One interviewee from the
DNR said (N=5):
“All of the news [about contamination] and even the state does not lend a

straightforward message on fish consumption [which confuses the fish
consumer]. "

At the DCH one interviewee commented (N=2):

“[ The fish consumption advisory is] designed for consistency, built on
science, being conservative to protect public health. But know that it won ’t
be perfect. Monitor it and build fiom it. T 0 show a consistent message to
the public it needs to be simple and easy to use. Unfortunately, there is no
one managing the DCH component for the last 6-7 years, updates are
being made, but the science hasn ’t really been updated. Lose credibility
when there isn 't consistency between years and changing science. ”

Later in the same interview the interviewee said:
“There have been people who try to get together. Wisconsin did a good
job with the grant they were given. There has to be money to get people
together, most people don’t have the time built within their jobs to

contribute to a uniform protocol. [And] some think changing the advisory
to meet uniform standards would mess with politics.”

3. Funding
This comment touches on another large obstacle to effective fish consumption
advisory information at the state level, funding. All interviewees from state agencies and

those from federal agencies that work closely with the states, all talked about the lack of

135

finding as a

communicat:

Likewise a:‘

[1. Agency :

 

 

All,
‘USing What

In addition

AnOlher D

An inlet-M

funding as a major stumbling block towards effective fish consumption advisory risk
communication. As one interviewee from DCH said (N=2):

“[Risk communication is difficult] with decreasing staff and increasing
responsibilities for individuals within the DCH... the Engler
administration set risk communication in Michigan back. ”

Likewise an interviewee from the DEQ said (N=3):

“Budget constraints don ’t allow [the DCH] to publicize the advisories, in
the past it used to be in fishing license guide but got to be too much so
they published a separate book, and that got to be too expensive, so they
put it on a website, which hasn ’t been updated since 2004 [The DCH]
shouldn ’t rely on website because the people who need it most, or eat the
most fish probably don ’t even have a computer. ”

H. Agency Science and Expertise

All, state and federal agencies described the policy and scientific process as
“using what they know” in terms of method and expertise. As one interviewee from the
EPA (N=4) said:
“For us, we are aware of some research, but we would like to know more.
It would be helpful in our oflice to know [more] ...what I can take to
headquarters, if they know about it they will use it. ”

In addition one DNR interviewee (N=5) said:

“We have a lot of in-house expertise on a number of studies to develop
methodologies. Do tend to fall back on what we know. ”

Another DNR interviewee (N=4) said:
“ Toxic sampling is opportunistic. We only look for a problem if we are
aware of it. Why are the moose not doing well in the U.P. ? It could be a
contaminant problem, but scientists are not systematically looking for it. ”
An interviewee from the DEQ (N =3) talked about this in terms of training. They said:
“Stafl need to be really effective at communicating risk. On a daily basis

they do a good job, sure there ’s room for improvement. A scientist is
trained to do science and not trained to communicate. Training on risk

136

I. Overview

Dat.
inetlectiver
agency marl
lack of resp
the Sheer di

The curren

 

endeavor,
The
the lack of
policy mal
Effective i;
im'OlV‘emg
“W11 risk
engagemc
ofie“ get
issue is 8‘

holistic St

communication, public involvement. A big issue for the Department [of
Environmental Quality] is interest groups and mass meetings. Trying to
give staff tools to do that. I had to take a class in Natural Resource Policy
in college and I didn ’t realize how important it was. Things turn out
better when you involve the public. ”

I. Overview

Data collection with residents in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula shows the
ineffectiveness of the current fish consumption program. This inefficacy is known to
agency managers. However, they felt powerless to do anything about it for lack of funds,
lack of responsibility (as in the case of the DNR and DEQ), lack of political will, or for
the sheer difficulty of communicating both the benefits and risks of fish consumption.
The current fish consumption advisory program in agencies is a mostly scientific
endeavor, but this science is rampant with uncertainties and gaps in knowledge.

The complexity of the risk/benefit communication message, funding limitations,
the lack of social science/human dimensions expertise, and the reliance on technocratic
policy making in these agencies makes developing and providing the public with
effective information difficult at best. The advisory process does not allow for public
involvement and there is little understanding, scientific or otherwise, of how to improve
upon risk characterization, management and communication. With the lack of public
engagement, involvement, or outreach on the part of governmental agencies, the public
often get fish contaminant information from the media. In addition the fish contaminants
issue is separated into human and ecosystem health projects. There is no room for

holistic solutions to contaminant problems.

137

IV. New 5;
A. lntrodr

To
articles (.\'
(10 article
lint-3. con
programs
from I am
the news;

Nexus. IE

IV. Newspaper and Television Media
A. Introduction

To understand how the media reports the mercury and fish consumption issue,
articles (N=65) fi'om the New York Times (NYT) (18 articles), Washington Post (WP)
(10 articles) and the Associated Press (AP) (37 articles) from January 1988 to January
2008, comprise the data set for analysis. Transcripts from network television news
programs (n= 25) (NBC-8 transcripts, CBS-11 transcripts, and ABC- 6 transcripts) dating
fi'om January 2001 to January 2008 were also analyzed using the same coding scheme as
the newspaper analysis. Articles were found by searching “mercury AND fish” in Lexus

Nexus. Each article/transcript is about mercury contamination and fish consumption.

138

 

f Boer can @502 :o_m_>o_o._. x3332 26 enact

 

 

 

NOON

Mom<m 800 82!
com; .

OOON mOON VOON MOON NOON _.OON

 

 

Em; can 952 :o_m_>o_o._. £03qu 2.6 0.59".

wNCOUD‘Q'mNr-O

strode: l0 reqwnN

 

 

I39

...ww> ..mQ 950: mcEm>m m> 955.222 v46 PEEK

 

 

 

 

NOON

 

‘Bocm mEEoE D 96: mEuoEta I 7
.2;
OOON mOON VOON MOON NOON FOON

 

23> .2. 25m: m:_:o>m m> @5522 Sam 959".

  

”NCOLOVC‘ONFO

suodaj ;o JeqwnN

 

 

I40

 

/ ...wmx ..QQ mwfiztm no Ewan—:32 Nib ngDNL L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eon. c2933; K mmEc. fo> 262 D wan. Umfifloomm< I

 

23>

6811
0000
00%5

by @588

 

.5: .3 8.03.5 *0 59:32 N...m 9.39".

010/. 01016101 azazez 61
%966500100699

09

FOQCONCOIDVMNFO

FT-

salogye ;o .quwnN

 

 

|4l

B. Frames
1. Dent Ba
Ofa
I AP 3002‘)
:he Ie‘xex'isi'
issue. Ani
bias. and it
natural anc
Minimata
on the hut
mercury a
and (5 ) dc
A‘
Wesemed
govemm
Was Ofiei
an inde-p
Semant-
aCcemuE
f0undm
(AP Feh

B. Frames

1. Event Based Reporting

Of all newspaper articles (N=65) only four (2 NYT: 2003, 1991; 1 WP 2007; and
1 AP 2002) gave a complex view of the mercury and fish consumption issue. None of
the television news transcripts (N=25) provided a complex story of the mercury and fish
issue. Articles that report a complex story described the issue holistically, without overt
bias, and include: (1) the origin of mercury contamination- where it comes from, both
natural and man-man sources; (2) past research about mercury poisoning in humans, from
Minimata and Iraq to F aroe Islands, Seychelles, and National Academy of Science report
on the human health effects of methylmercury; (3) lists the benefits of eating fish low in
mercury and high in omega-3; (4) discusses the impacts of reducing mercury emissions;
and (5) describes who is at risk and who has the most to gain from consuming fish.

All other articles and transcripts were event-based, meaning that the information
presented in the article revolves around some news event, be it a new academic study,
governmental report, or a report fiom an environmental group. The tone of each article
was often set by the source of information. For example, if the information source was
an independent study that showed elevated mercury levels (like the Associated Press
September 15, 2005 article) found in store bought tuna, the article would most likely
accentuate the risks of eating contaminated fish. However, if the source was a study that
found no negative affects of maternal mercury levels on fetal and childhood development
(AP February 17, 1996), the article would most likely focus on the benefits of eating fish

or accentuate that consuming fish is not a human health threat.

142

L'nti
newspapers
mercury c0:
these anieh
resulting jC
age and yo
However;
81036:]
fish to ace

Tr
steadily ir
jomt FD;
CODSUmp'
only 0n r
Unlike 1}
risks in (

indix-idu

Until 2002 few articles about mercury contamination in fish appeared in the three
newspapers used for analysis (l-3/year) (figure 5.12). The most articles about fish and
mercury contamination appeared between 2002 and 2004 (~9/year). The majority of
these articles (46%) talked about the federal fish consumption advisory process and/or the
resulting joint FDA/EPA mercury fish consumption advisory for women of childbearing
age and young children. After 2004 the mercury and fish consumption “buzz” quieted.
However, in 2007 (Jan 2008) the mercury and fish issue became a more popular news
story (N=10), but, the tone of the articles changed from accentuating the risks of eating
fish to accentuating the benefits over the risks, even for at-risk populations.

The number of television transcripts concerning mercury and fish consumption
steadily increased from 2001 to 2007 (Fig. 5.13). Interestingly, during the years of the
joint FDA/EPA advisory process (2003 -2004) no nightly news programs reported on fish
consumption and mercury contamination issue (Fig. 5.14). The information appeared
only on morning news programs such as Good Morning America and The Early Show.
Unlike the written press, television news programs predominantly focused on mercury
risks in commercial fish. Sport-caught fish was rarely mentioned, except to say that
individuals should consult their state’s fish consumption advisory.

Unlike the nightly news programs where a reporter interviewed several different
people and used journalistic reporting to tell a story, the morning news programs were
most often arranged as an interview between the journalist and some sort of expert (most
often a medical doctor or nutritionist) who worked for the show. The journalist asked the
expert questions about a certain study, report, or government action. However, three

morning news programs (CBS’s Sunday Morning, The Osgood File [November 2005],

143

Good Mom;

 

 

3‘0“ng 513‘

Bet. I
attenuated
included in :
0mm 30;
mmpts,

llsk WPUla

 

me than Ill

2. Frames

Tlu
((353 (5%
media fiar
finlSstnS‘
after [h e jt
difie’m ‘
Some SP0:
[hI’Cat to l
human be
Some am
majo’ltb-u

emlSsiom

Good Morning America [March 2006], and the Today Show [January 2008]) used
reporting styles similar to nightly news programs.

Before the year 2000, information about mercury and fish consumption
accentuated the risks of eating fish. However, since 2000 most articles and transcripts
included information about the benefits, along with risks, of consuming fish. Afier
October 2006, with the exception of the New York Times and some television news
transcripts, there was a definite shift from accentuating the risks of mercury and fish to
promoting the benefits of consuming fish, and in some cases over the risks, even for at-
risk populations. In general, articles from the New York Times had a more risk averse

tone than those from the other news sources, including television news.

2. Frames over Time: Newspapers

The mercury and fish consumption issue was framed over time in several different
ways (see Box 5.2). In the years before the joint FDA/EPA (1988-2003) advisory the
media flames focused on sport-caught fish from inland lakes, reducing mercury
emissions, and the uncertainty surrounding mercury and fish consumption. The years
after the joint FDA/EPA advisory (2004-2008) articles fi'amed mercury in distinctly
different ways. Some articles framed mercury in fish in terms of commercial fish (57%),
some sport-caught fish (50%), some both. Some emphasized that mercury in fish pose a
threat to human health (46%), others said that mercury in fish does not pose a threat to
human health (23%), and sometimes these frames were found in the same article (30%).
Some advised people to balance the benefits and risks of eating fish (34%). In addition a
majority of all articles (51%) framed mercury in fish in terms of reducing mercury

emissions.

144

 

Table 5.3 Newspaper Frames Over Time

Frames: 1988-1994

0 Risk is from mercury in freshwater sport-caught fish

0 Reduce Mercury Emissions
Frames: 1996-1998

0 Uncertainty: does fish pose a threat to human health?

0 Risks are for some women and children

0 Reduce mercury emissions
Frames: 1999-2001

0 Uncertainty: differing government regulation of mercury in fish

0 Government not doing enough to protect human health

0 Risk are for some women and children only
Frames: 2002-2003
Uncertainty: How much is too much mercury? What is safe to eat?
There are benefits and risks associated with eating fish
Risks are from eating commercial fish
Risks are for some women and children, all fish consumers, heart
attack victims
Frames: 2004-2008
Mercury poses a threat to human health
Mercury does not pose a threat to human health
Reduce mercury emissions
Risk is from freshwater fish from inland lakes and commercial fish
Risk is from fish on the do not eat list (shark, swordfish, tilefish and
king mackerel) and tuna
Government is not doing enough to protect human health
The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information
Risk is for women of childbearing age and children, fish consumers,
the wealthy, and Native and Asian Americans

 

 

 

a. 1988-2003 pre-joint FDA/EPA advisory frames

From 1988-1994 100% (N=5) of the articles talked about mercury in sport caught
fish. No article discusses commercial fish. Sixty percent of these articles (N=3) framed
mercury in fish in terms of reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and

incinerators. From 1996-1998 (100% N=9) articles focused more on the uncertainty

145

over whether mercury in fish at the levels found in a North American diet pose a threat to
human health.

This is highlighted as a result of the Seychelles Islands study (1995) (55% N=5)
and articles that questioned the utility of EPA reference dose for mercury in fish (45%
N=4). Articles flom this time period also flamed mercury in fish in terms of reducing
mercury emissions flom coal-fired power plants (78% N=7). The majority of articles
(7 8% N=7) said that risks are for some women and children only. During this time
period articles also talked about the benefits of eating fish (22% N=2).

Between 1999 and 2001 articles (N=7) focused on the uncertainty of mercury in
fish due to the different government action levels for regulating mercury in fish (71%
N=5). In addition, these articles said that the government is not doing enough to protect
human health (71% N=5). All articles flamed risks for some women (pregnant and
nursing) and children. Also, each article flamed mercury in fish in terms of reducing
mercury emissions. Only two articles during this time (29%) talked about sport-caught
fish, the rest flamed risks in terms of commercial fish. The year 2000 was the first year
in which every newspaper source printed an article about mercury in fish.

From 2002-2003 (N=17) the majority of newspaper articles (82% N=14) flamed
the mercury and fish issue by highlighting the uncertainty surrounding how much
mercury is too much, and who should avoid or eat what species of fish. Risk was still
flamed for some women and children (94% N=16), but four articles (5%) (two that list
people who eat a lot of fish and two that mention heart attack victims as possible at risk
groups) questioned if women and children are the only at-risk populations. Again,

commercial fish was the focus of risk (88% N=15). There was only one article about

146

sport-caught fish. Also during this time period, the majority of articles said that there are
benefits and risks associated with consuming fish (88% N=15), and 41% (N=7) talked
about balancing the benefits and risks of fish consumption. One article was different
flom all others in that it reports about a study that found the form of methylmercury

found in fish may be less toxic than previously thought.

b. 2004-January 2008 post-joint FDA/EPA advisory flames

Newspaper articles flom 2004- January 2008 flamed mercury and fish
consumption in terms of the risks and benefits associated with eating fish. Some (46%
N=12) said that mercury in fish pose a threat to human health. Others (23%) said that
mercury does not pose a threat to human health, and others (3 0% =8) include both of
these flames. Thirty-three percent of articles (N =9) said to balance the benefits and risk
of consuming fish.

The majority of articles (61% N=16) framed risks in terms of the need to reduce
mercury emissions. Also, risks were flamed as commercial fish (58% N=15), sport-
caught fish (50% N=13), the fish on the FDA/EPA’s do not eat list (50% N=13), and tuna
(38% N=10). Risks are flamed for women of childbearing age and children (88% N=23),
the wealthy (15% N=4), Native and Asian Americans (15% N=4), and people who eat a
lot of fish (7% N=2). A majority of articles (54% N=14) also said that the government is
not doing enough to protect human health. Uncertainty over mercury and fish
consumption is flamed in terms of the public’s uncertainty over what fish is safe to eat

(27% N=7).

147

3. Frames over Time: Television

 

Table 5.4 Television Frames Over Time
Frames: 2001-2003
0 Uncertainty: How much is too much mercury? What fish is safe to
eat?
0 Risk is flom mercury in commercial fish, tuna, swordfish, shark, king
mackerel
Reduce mercury emissions
The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information
Risks are for some women and children, people who eat a lot of fish,
heart attack victims
Government is not doing enough to protect human health
Balance the benefits and risks of consuming fish
Risk is flom mercury in commercial fish
Eat fish low in mercury
Frames: 2004-2008
0 People should eat fish low in mercury
Risk are commercial fish, fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list (shark,
swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel)
0 Uncertainty: what are the risks and to what extent are different fish
risky for different populations?
0 The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information
0 Balance the benefits and risks of consuming fish
0 Risk is for women of childbearing age and children, people who eat a
lot of fish
0 Risks are only the four fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list for
women of childbearing age and children.

 

 

 

Like newspaper articles, television transcripts had changing flames over time.
Transcripts shifted flom flaming the issue in terms of risks only (12% of all transcripts),
to balancing the benefits and risks of consuming fish (48% of all transcripts) to
accentuating the benefits over the risks of eating fish (24% of all transcripts). Some
flames did not change over time. For example, throughout the articles (2001-January
2008, N=25) the television media flamed mercury and fish consumption in terms of the

confusion and lack of advisory awareness among the public (68% of all transcripts). In

148

addition, the television media flamed mercury and fish consumption in terms of
commercial fish (96% of all transcripts).
a. 2001-2003 pre-joint FDA/EPA advisory

Between 2001 and 2003 the television media flamed the mercury and fish
consumption advisory issue in terms of the uncertainty surrounding the risk of eating fish
(100% N=5). All transcripts flom this time period (N=5) said that the public is unaware
or confused about mercury in fish. All transcripts framed the risks of mercury in fish as
commercial fish, shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tuna. Women and children were
listed as the at risk population in all transcripts flom this time period, 60% (N=3) articles
listed other populations such as those who eat a lot of fish and heart attack victims as
possible at risk groups. In addition, 60% of transcripts during this time period said that
the government is not doing enough to protect human health. Eighty percent said that the
benefits of eating fish should be balanced with the risks and 60% say that people should
eat fish low in mercury.
b. 2004-January 2008 post-joint FDA/EPA advisory

From 2004 to January 2008 risks were flamed in terms of commercial fish (95%
N=19), fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list (75% N=15), tuna (65% N=13), and much
less so sport-caught fish (1% N=2). Risks were flamed as for women of childbearing age
and children (85% N=17) and people who eat a lot of fish (3% N=6). Twenty-five
percent of transcripts (N=5) said risks are for women of childbearing age and children
only and only for the fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list. Sixty percent (N=12) of
transcripts said that the risks of eating fish should be balanced with the benefits fish

provide, such as omega-3 fatty acids (50% N=10), (30% N=6) said that the benefits of

149

eating fish outweigh the risks. Seventy-five percent of transcripts (N=15) said that
people should eat fish low in mercury.

Twenty-five percent (N =5) of transcripts said that mercury does not pose a threat
to human health, however, twenty-five percent (N =5) of transcripts also said that mercury
does indeed pose a threat to human health. Forty-five percent (N =9) of transcripts
included both flames. The majority of transcripts between 2004 and January 2008 (80%
N=16) flamed the mercury and fish issue in terms of the uncertainty surrounding what are
the risks and to what extent are different fish risky for different populations. In addition a
majority of articles focused on the confusion and lack of awareness the public has about

consuming fish (60% N=12).

C. Overview

Before the year 2000 mercury and fish consumption risks were flamed only in
terms of sport-caught fish. After the National Academy of Sciences report in 2000, the
FDA’s first advisory for pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children in 2001,
and the joint FDA/EPA advisory in 2004 the frames changed flom sport-caught fish to
commercial fish. All television news transcripts focused on commercial fish. Both
newspaper articles and television transcripts emphasized the “forbidden fish” (shark,
swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel), the risks to women (either pregnant or of
childbearing age) and children, and the risks of eating tuna fish. Regardless of whether
articles discussed sport-caught fish or commercial fish, many flamed the mercury and
fish issue in terms of reducing mercury emissions often specifically by regulating

emissions flom coal-fired power plants.

150

Many television news transcripts and some newspaper articles focused on the
confusion or lack of knowledge the public has about mercury in fish. Newspaper media
focused on the ways in which the government is not doing enough to protect human
health or reduce mercury emissions. Both television and print media reported on the
mercury and fish consumption issue in ways that may send mixed messages to the public.
In many cases one article or transcript would come out in the beginning of the year
touting the benefits of consuming fish and a few months later another would come out
saying that too many children have potentially dangerous levels of mercury. In addition,
this often occurred within the same article.

The way the media flamed mercury and fish consumption changed through time.
When focus groups and community dinners were held in 2004 most of the media
information flamed the issue in a risk adverse manner. If we were to go back and ask the
same questions now, given that in the last few years the media flame has shifted to reflect
a more benefit-oriented risk message, maybe people would have different models.
However since 2002, both television and newspaper media focused on the benefits and
risks of eating fish. In addition, even prior to 2004 the media focused on tuna and the
four fish on the FDA/EPA’s “do not eat” list. None of these fish were mentioned by
focus group participants. While the process of bioaccumulation is mentioned in 35% of
newspaper articles and 25% of television transcripts, Upper Peninsula participants lacked
sufficient awareness of this process.

In general, television news gave a less complex story of mercury and fish
consumption than the print media. In addition, the television news reported on the 2002

Hightower study of mercury poisoning in people who eat a lot of fish much more than the

151

print media. '
mercury and
Islands. All‘
rinse peopl

fired power

IV. Oven

Res.
wnsumptic
informed cl
aware of i}
fifiources(
fiSh Consu'
SllOWs neg
different 5

Rice 2004

print media. The print media was more likely to include information about past studies of
mercury and childhood development flom Minamata and Iraq to the F aroe and Seychelles
Islands. All media articles and transcripts (since 1998) seem to support eating fish, but
advise people to choose wisely. Both the television and newspaper media stressed coal-

fired power plants most often as the source of mercury that eventually winds up in fish.

IV. Overview

Research participants in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula were aware that fish
consumption advisories exist, but did not have the information necessary to make
informed decisions about the benefits and risks of eating fish. Government agencies were
aware of the inefficacy of current fish consumption advisories, but felt they lacked the
resources or political will to do much about it. In addition, the science behind agency
fish consumption advisory information is uncertain. One study in the Faroe Islands
shows negative affects of low-level fetal and childhood methylmercury exposure, while a
different study in the Seychelles Islands shows the opposite (Marsh 1995; NRC 2000;
Rice 2004).

In Michigan, agency managers do not know who is eating enough fish to cause
concern. Even at the federal level where ostensibility is higher uncertainty still exists
regarding the negative affects, if any, that occur as a result of North American fish
consumption, or to what extent eating fish is beneficial. In addition, agency managers in
state and federal government agencies do not know how at risk populations understand
and interpret information about the benefits and risks of eating fish. It is difficult to
prioritize policy objectives with incomplete information, especially when there are both

health benefits and health risks of a certain behavior.

152

In th
often incorrl
models. nus
adxisory inl
cuntaminati
offish cons
coherent fr:
fish provid-

mercury ex

In the absence of strong risk communication programs the public forms its own,
often incorrect, ideas about the risks and benefits of consuming fish based on mental-
models, trust, and past-experience. The public’s main source of fish consumption
advisory information was the media. However, when the media reported on mercury
contamination in fish, the articles rarely told a complete story about the benefits and risks
of fish consumption, instead they focused on specific news events, and did not lend
coherent flames throughout time. One day people could read in a newspaper that eating
fish provides no risks and the next day find a list of negative health effects due to

mercury exposure flom consuming fish.

153

Chapter Six

Discussion

1. Introduction

Government agencies focus on technocratic science to make decisions and policy
about mercury in fish. Their lack of collaboration and consistency generate multiple
levels of governance over mercury in fish (e. g. trigger levels vs. response doses) that are
covered and flamed in the media upon which the public (especially women) relies for
information. Articles and transcripts focus on uncertainty over fish consumption
advisory science, the lack of public knowledge about safe and beneficial fish
consumption, and report on both the benefits and risks of fish consumption. This may
confuse the public thereby affecting risk behavior in terms of falsely amplifying or
dearnplifying risk (Burger 2000; Kasperson 1992). As a result, the targets of the concern
may ignore warnings and continue to eat risky fish, or to choose not to eat fish at all and
fail to get the benefits flom fish that they enjoy.

In the absence of purposeful risk communication government managers can not
learn about what risk communication methods are more successful than others. With the
separation of human and ecosysterrr/ecological health the fish contamination issue lacks
consistency and a holistic point of view necessary for ground policy and decision making.
What is the point of making recommendations for the fish consumption advisory if the
necessary Populations do not receive the information or nothing is done to reduce or

eliminate those risks?

154

 

 

00$

35 93. 5:3 50%
momozoa use 30336
.30 35:8 .0 8 $.38
05; 6: on 2&8."—

 

 

 

mwfion :uEsn wEOEoE
.mEBmmeoumo $852.:
05 gone noose 2m
3:38 can zwgoccouk
.513; _S=oEco.:>:u
v5 5:5: 80on

9 .0383: 33>
$358 05:2 as.
3:035:00 05 3.02
was—ME c0286 anew/x

 

 

 

2mm wctmo

Sosa mcoimooe >23:
SEE 9 cocchoOE
25653 Sim Ho: 08
:5 fimc E mEmEESSU
Eot $3. .885
0:62.. 5.6—Eu ecu own
grouse—Echo c0803

 

 

 

 

 

 

33$
5.8; E03208
atom 8: 309

 

 

 

 

gm: wfifismcou

mo mucosa ofiéme
v5 3?: oNEzfiE
9 cote—Eat:
bamboo: 0332
Ho: on .35 3:83
xwt 6 03 0:3

805 038 “o: 300

 

 

 

 

wExdE

:oEoon use .328
was 8:38 hocowa
536 0280.30
8:200:58 320m

 

 

 

 

b58525
3.328.:
dd

    

   

£5
£5 b2
9 “:9..an—
SZ 2
_C0m_>u< :
o_aE:m:oU
9:938“
.51:

 

   

  

    

     

b53583 Ex
«:82

   

 

 

   

 

2:8:
5:5: 9 50.3... m
omom 5: when .0520:
5.3: 52:5: «:62

 

 

 

 

5.3:
:25: 8 30::
a women— .0382).

2.23:

5.5:: «:62

 

 

 

 

 

m:o_mm_Ew
b.3962 wEusvom
5.8:
_wu=oE:E_>:m 5.82

3.0930
.C0m_.6<.
“.3uou<

 

 

 

 

.COmEOd.
30:0“.
AVE Em
3:3:
53:...—
.mocuu<

 

 

 

 

222:5.
€3,822
convoy.
mu:uu<

 

 

 

 

 

 

In light of these questions, this chapter discusses: 1) How Upper Peninsula (U.P.)
residents, state and federal agency managers, and the media flame the mercury and fish
consumption issue; 2) Whose interests are (not) served by these flames; 3) What are the
implications of these flaming acts in terms of gender and justice and; 4) how can the fish
consumption advisory process improve to be more participative, epistemologically

inclusive, proficient at achieving an effective and sustainable information and outreach

(Figure 6.1).

II. Framing the Mercury and Fish Consumption Issue
A. Upper Peninsula Residents
1. Fish Consumption Advisories are not Important to My Daily Life

U.P. informants flame the fish consumption issue solely in terms of human health
risks, and they flame those risks as a non-issue. They use diagnostic flaming tasks to
create a shared understanding of the non-risks of eating fish. In support of past research I
found that instead of using the official fish consumption advisory to make decisions
about eating fish, U.P. participants used mental models, beliefs, attitudes and values, trust
and incorrect understanding of the fish consumption advisory (Figure 6.2) (Beamish
2001; Bickerstaff and Walker 2001; Fischer 2000; Goldman et a1 2004; J akus and Shaw
2003; Kasperson 1992; Lidskog 2000; Marshall 2004). Participants used these
psychological, social and cultural practices to make decisions about fish safety, which led
to the de-amplification of fish consumption risks (Kasperson 1992; Burger 2000). As a

1'68““, they had little concerns about their fish consumption behavior.

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ewes:
mo 2355i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33a
Zmuozoemocatfia

benefit.
he wfivnfifiocuaflz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£235. .35:

 

 

 

 

 

$552: $33 2:
wan—ecu wag—c9. 5 ma E850
35588qu 82:on 3
on: can anew»: EoEEu>ew
was “an 2: Ev: — 05 3:5.
298m 53.0 m_ Eton-6
23m 828ch exudmmoEuEws
Java—:95 hue 5:53 onflmtm
2: «25 H..—3. m 32.3.5
3.. on“ .9.me Bhutan
m
=9» .8“ 5c swag—o a u “mam. c2800;
team :3 rue—u — 852.38..
a ii :3 a...
.532— 3“ Eu:— zaEnm 33C“. azuawo: ounce—2&3
5c 3qu wue 852.6 .2:—
u _ :3 e on
>\ 3 a x n \

157

Many i
that the adxis
example. p60]
As long as W
This type of]
risks and cau
for inditidua
consumption
population.
to the point t
fish, especia

U.P.
that contamj
Current air p
believed the
reduce all c
reduce mer
they eat be
mums aI
themselV’es
the amoUnt

not at all re

lakes.

Many informants flom the U.P. also misunderstood or lacked knowledge about
what the advisory actually says and therefore have fewer concerns about eating fish. For
example, people believed that advisory information is pertinent only to pregnant women.
As long as women avoid fish while pregnant, mercury in fish is not a health problem.
This type of logic may lead people who are not in the at-risk group to underestimate their
risks and cause pregnant women to overestimate their risks. The deamplification of risk
for individuals other than pregnant women may be dangerous because the state fish
consumption advisory lists fish to avoid or reduce consumption of even for the general
population. Conversely, this fame may cause pregnant women to be overly risk averse,
to the point that they stop eating fish and miss out on the health benefits of consuming
fish, especially the benefits to the developing fetus.

U.P. informants were also unaware of where contaminants ori
that contaminants in fish come from past industrial dumping. They seemed unaware that
current air pollution also contaminates the lakes, and therefore the fish. In addition, they
believed that the fish preparation techniques described in the fish consumption advisory
reduce all contaminants, but they do not. For example, using these techniques does not
reduce mercury content in fish. Therefore, people may have few concerns about the fish
they eat because they think that by trimming off the fat, internal organs and head they are
reducing all contaminants, when in fact they are not. People may be unknowingly putting
themselves or their families at risk because they believe they are reducing or eliminating
the amount of contaminants in fish when they use these techniques. However, they are

not at all reducing their risks for mercury the main contaminant of concern in inland

lakes.

158

informat
fish. Th
example
therefor
created
U.P. or
Penins
exister

own fi

read

Even if U.P. residents had a more accurate understanding of the official advisory
information they may not take heed because of their strong attachment to eating local
fish. The superiority of local fish was strong among anglers and participants. For
example, people believed that the wilderness of the Upper Peninsula is pristine and
therefore believe that Lake Superior is clean (i.e. lacks contaminants). People also
created scale flames (Kurtz 2003) to they make distinctions between fish caught in the
U.P. or Lake Superior and fish flom elsewhere, especially flom “downstate” in the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan. This type of scale flaming allows people to acknowledge the
existence of contaminants in fish, while creating a barrier between that pollution and their
own fish consumption.

Pollution and contamination is seen as a problem to be dealt with elsewhere in the
state, not in the U.P. Many women mentioned that they would eat Lake Superior fish
even when pregnant. Local fish are also perceived as better because people can use past
experience to judge the safety of fish. People used past experience to “just know” which
lakes are polluted and which lakes are clean. In addition, many people cited the lack of
tangible evidence of negative effects of contamination in fish. Commonly people would
talk about the large amount of fish their grandparents eat as evidence that fish does not
pose health risks.

2. Uncertainty

Another way the fish consumption advisory and contamination message fails to
reach the public, especially those at-risk, is the lack of agency consistency among the
federal and state advisories and a clear risk message that is relevant to people in the U.P.

Informants flame the mercury and fish consumption issue in terms of uncertainty

159

 

 

32 8
watontmfimficoo
fl 0059585
bemm>e<

 

 

 

oznsm 05 8
actuator: E833
AIIV 85955000 5%

820 oE>oE 8 205
cm 230% 2588300

 

 

 

 

 

908% gunmen
nausea v33

 

 

fl 05:3 8 8:3 392 race _

88:82 35:2.
0% mafia 80¢
Bacon Q03 9

9525 €050.50

 

 

«:08 05 E bacon

corms—SOS 030m moraine

wEUEcoU EoEE0>00
“may 0.8m

8m :3 _ $008 $50

980 .330 “co
3 :x . E ocutsocxuehcz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\

 

fl bfiatoonD 3Ea£b=m

 

 

l()()

met fish c
unknoss'le
maamg
eating fis
participa
versus 01
exidencr
gox'emn
LP. res

make $1

over fish consumption/contamination information because they feel unaware and
unknowledgeable about mercury and fish contamination (Figure 6.3). Participants used
both diagnostic and prognostic flaming tasks to discuss uncertainty about the risks of
eating fish. Diagnostic flames created a shared vision of the uncertainty. For example,
participants said that there is uncertainty regarding comparative risk of the safety of fish
versus other foods such as beef or chicken and uncertainty due to the lack of tangible
evidence of the negative consequences of eating fish. Interestingly, research suggests
government fish consumption advisories should provide the type of risk-risk information
U.P. residents describe (Knuth et al 2003). However, few fish consumption advisories
make such risk-risk comparisons (Scherer et al. 2008).

U.P. residents used prognostic framing tasks when they said they do not know
whom to trust or what to believe. The prognostic flaming tasks ascribed blame for the
uncertainty. For example, the majority of participants said they get information about
fish consumption flom the media, but then said that information is conflicting or
confusing. U.P. residents also feel that the government should do more to provide clear
fish consumption advisory information to the public. However, not everyone trusts the
government to this. Some informants distrust the government and may be unlikely to
except any type of risk information about fish.

3. Summary

Residents in the Upper Peninsula flame risks of mercury in fish in ways conform
to their preferred behaviors and world view. U.P. residents demonstrated how risk is
constructed through the “cultural and social experience that determines rules of how to

select, order, and explain signals flom the physical world” (Kaperson 19911158). The

161

trays HP
in a cultu

through 1

institutit
amplific
be over‘
1992). '
risk in

resider
and/or
risks f
media

While

that t‘.
the p
a Strc
21 nor
regu
COtis
Won

50m

ways U.P. informants create or acquire knowledge about contaminants in fish is situated
in a cultural context of local goodness and excellent environmental quality and is filtered
through their uncertainty pertaining to what are good sources of information.

When actual risks are uncertain or ambiguous and psychological, social,
institutional, and cultural processes act on risk perception, it often leads to the
amplification or attenuation of perceived risk (Kasperson 1992). This causes people to
be overly risk averse, or engage in overly risky behaviors (Burger 2000; Kasperson
1992). This is seen in the behaviors of the U.P. participants. The social construction of
risk in addition to conflicting media flames and the lack of trust in the media cause U.P.
residents to de—amplify the risks of consuming fish and leave people feeling confused
and/or uncertain about the safety of the fish they eat. It also leads to the amplification of
risks for women of childbearing age (pregnant and nursing) and children because the
media flames women and children as the at-risk population, U.P. residents avoid fish
while pregnant.

Government agencies stress techno-science policy solutions to mercury in fish
that neglect understanding the types of cultural processes and learning that occurs among
the public (Haraway 1989; Lober 1998; Rocheleau et al. 1996; Ward 1999). The lack of
a strong fish consumption advisory program supports U.P. resident’s flame of mercury as
a non-risk except for pregnant women. In addition, U.P. residents trust the government to
regulate contaminants in their environment and food. The absence of a strong fish
consumption advisory program may suggest to the public that there is nothing to be
worried about. However, people are not “cultural dupes”, they have agency to chose the

sources of information to formulate their opinion and to flame the issue the ways that fit

162

their worl

fish esp?

B. Agent

1. People
A
(Figure 6
make prc
affected
people a
smoking
and com

than fist

adVlSOl’}
balance
Public i
t.‘IJES 01
a Vader
mESsag

tmeal

their world view and beliefs about the state of the environment and the safety of eating

fish, especially local fish.

B. Agency Staff Managers

1. People Need Advisory Information, but They Also Should Eat Fish

All agency managers flame fish consumption advisories as a human health issue
(Figure 6.3). They use diagnostic flaming when they say that people need information to
make proper decisions about eating fish without causing alarm for populations not
affected by the advisory. Some interviewees feel that an informed public means that
people a) are able to situate the risks of eating fish among other risks, like that of
smoking, b) know the difference between contamination in sport-caught fleshwater fish
and commercial fish, or c) know that they can get omega-3 fatty acids flom foods other
than fish.

Agency managers also use prognostic flaming to present alternatives to current
advisory information. Agency managers say that individuals should be able to properly
balance the health benefits with the risks of consuming fish; something they feel the
public is currently unable to do. Some say a better way to do this is to tell people what
types of fish to eat, instead of what to avoid. Many managers said that people should eat
a variety of fish species and to eat them in moderation, a useful risk communication
message. This is not made explicit in the bland government speak (Chess et al. 2005)

typical of agency risk communication.

163

205 8 3:3

050 3000" Bob mo E055 80 8

mméwoao How 98 6&3 2003 :3. 5mm 380E800 )
BBC 05 98 team 50.509 0003:; .m>
£3, mucosa, 2:8: $823.50 05 £me macaw ”move
05 00:33 2 b:5< .505 290% 2000a BEES 9 3:54.

    
  

5.65% 502:3
5E0: SEE: 6805 8 cocgEoOE
@833 502“ omnogocx Bee 0300;

 

 

in wncao mo SE.— 05 macaque 05 0059502: 02585
0:00.“ flamenco—305. on 2:05 oicom 5 8.2L .8 .3223 a EM 2. 3 03: 038;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$5 Em 8? 2:25 than; :5 aerafinefi bofl>u< 087. «Each "ofiaumbzm g

 

a

 

l ()4

2. Risk Communication Obstacles

Agency managers say that the purpose of a fish consumption advisory is to inform
individuals so that they are able to make safe choices about eating fish and reap the
benefits of fish consumption while avoiding the risk, without spillover to populations
who are not at risk. However the current policy/decision making environment in
government agencies creates substantial barriers to quality risk communication (Figure
6.5). Agency managers all use prognostic frames to ascribe blame for these obstacles.
Agency managers blame the lack of a successful fish consumption advisory as a) the lack
of inter and intra agency collaboration and consistency, b) the lack of funding and
resources, including expertise, c) spillover to populations not at risk, d) the complexity of
a benefit-risk message, and e) the presence of counterfrarnes (Kaufi‘man and Smith 1999),
especially in the media.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines risk communication of fish
consumption advisory as “a process of sharing information about perceived and potential
dangers and benefits associated with fish consumption” (EPA 2001: 1-4). Agency
mangers say this message is too complex because it needs to include information about
both the benefits and risks of eating fish. The differences between mercury and persistent
organic pollutants also complicate the message. Many interviewees say that the lack of
collaboration and consistency among agency regulations and fish consumption advisory
advice at both the state and federal level is an obstacle to effective advisory outreach. In

addition, they say this lack of consistency decreases credibility of the advisory message.

165

358m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«Om ho.“
036:8ch mu mZQ
x55 0303 .3
3028035 0:85

 

 

>.o=2m_m=eo can
"5:32.315 .35?“

£32 Esoficobém 62:38.:
328 mum
omwtoaxo
@265 a; .8 23 Emu 2: x02
muowmmaE xocow<
Emu
owacowmmxm 8653‘ 88m
muoobo
amazon 555%
oumuomwaxm 02E
3.0,.“
F
39582
ewammoE x2958 REE—3 4|.v
moEEu-uounsov H mm: “Ea muuonom Aug”; “oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«:5 was ..85 Ho :25

 

 

\ \

 

% 8.2330 :ccaoiafiEcU xxx 382mb;

 

 

I 66

This was seen in the U.P. when informants from Gogebic County, which borders
Wisconsin, made comments about the differences between Wisconsin’s and Michigan’s
fish consumption advice. They would ask questions like, “how come in the Michigan
advisory it says X, but in the Wisconsin advisory it says Y?” Fish consumption
advisories lack consistency when people fish on lakes that border different states (any of
the Great Lakes for example) and see that the different states have different advisories for
the same lake (Burger and Gochfeld 2006). In the Upper Peninsula, people see that the
Wisconsin DNR and the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission distribute more
information about mercury than Michigan, including color coded maps that show which
lakes have higher levels of mercury. As a result, government public health and
environment agencies in Michigan lose credibility.

Government agencies also lose credibility when the media reports on the lack of
agency consistency. For example, in 1999 the Associated Press (April 19) reported that
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) increased their
tolerance dose in humans to .03 micrograms/kilogram body weight/day from that of the
EPA’s, .01 micrograms/ kilogram body weight/day. This article frames the mercury and
consumption fish issue in terms of the uncertainty surrounding government regulation of
mercury and the extent to which mercury poses a threat to human health. In a few cases,
such as with agency reference dose, this uncertainty is confounded by journalists who do
not understand the specific purposes for the different government science and regulation.

Another major obstacle for state agency mangers is funding. However, when
given the opportunity the Michigan Department of Community Health did make progress

on their fish consumption advisory. With a grant to make fish consumption advisories

167

for Saginaw Bay watershed in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan heavily polluted with
dioxin, the DCH was able to survey people to get a sense of how much fish people eat in
the area. The DCH was also able to develop and distribute, although not widely, a
brochure about choosing commercial fish low in mercury. Increased funding seems to
allow government agencies to learn more effectively instead of the bricolage-type
learning that currently takes place.

Also at the state level, agency managers say that the public’s expectations of what
agency duties are often do not match up with funding priorities, legal mandates, and
policy goals of the agency. For example, the DNR may have credibility among the
public, but the DNR is in no way responsible for fish consumption advisory information.
As a natural resource agency, the DNR is not concerned with public health issues.
Therefore, what they invest in as an agency is guided by the type of training and expertise
they have within the agency. Since public health, contamination/pollution and risk
communication are not expertise found at the DNR it is unlikely that they would take part
in the fish consumption advisory.

Regardless of expertise many agency interviewees see helping people balance the
benefits with the risks of consuming fish as a tough risk communication message to
convey. Some interviewees even question if good benefit-risk communication is
possible. They worry that people will only hear that there are risks and ignore the
benefits, creating a spillover affect to populations that are not at risk and who are situated
to benefit the most from eating fish, such as, middle aged men with heart disease.

However, fish consumption advisory risk communication may be better understood if

168

people have more knowledge about the processes of contamination and the differences
between, for example, persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals.

Some agency managers said that no matter how many resources or how good a
particular risk communication message is there will still be obstacles to an effective risk
communication message because of counterframes (Kaufinann and Smith 1999). Agency
managers described two types of counterframes, ones that exaggerate the benefits of
eating fish (like, according to interviewees, those of the fish industry) and those that
exaggerate the risks of eating fish (like, according to interviewees, those of
environmental groups and the media). However, since 2002 the majority of media
articles focus on both the benefits and risks of eating fish. Recently (since 2006)
newspaper articles and transcripts talk about placing the benefits of eating fish over the
risks, even for women of childbearing age and children.

3. Ecological/ecosystem Health

In addition to framing mercury in fish as a human health issue a few federal
agency managers (N=3) and many media articles and transcripts (53% articles and 44%
transcripts) also frame it as an environmental health issue (Figure 6.5). Federal agency
managers used motivational fiaming tasks to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power through frames about fish consumption and contamination. As one agency
manager from the EPA (N=4) commented, the reason fish consumption advisories
receive so much attention is to raise awareness about environmental contaminants or to
push for policies that reduce mercury emissions. This message is also found in the

media, in articles and transcripts about both sport-caught and commercially bought fish.

169

Reducing mercury emissions was not a theme raised by U.P. residents. Giving
the public information about contaminants and water cycles may help the public
understand the complexity of fish consumption advisories. However, the separation of
human and ecological/ecosystem health issues does not encourage this type of risk

communication.

Figgre 6.6 Agency Manager Frame 3: Environmental Health Issue
4

Sub-Frame: Purpose of FCA is to reduce mercury emissions
(Federal Agency Managers Only)

/ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fish consumption Fish consumption
advisories are used to advisories make people
push policy for increased aware of contamination
regulation for mercury

emissions

 

 

 

There are different goals when the main priority is protecting human health or
protecting environmental health. In some cases, as one FDA intervieWee (N=2) said,
“mercury in fish is not about mercury in fish”. It is about reducing mercury emissions
fiom coal-fired power plants, to call the public’s attention to contamination in fish, or to
help set priorities for enviromnental remediation (such as in cases of Areas of Concern or
Superfund sites). Likewise for the EPA, the fish consumption advisory program is
important to substantiate the need for mercury regulations. However, this message is not
explicitly available to the public and in the U.P. has not incited change or movement

among the public. In order to talk democratically about risk an explicit discussion of

170

 

 

ecosystem health issues must be incorporated into fish consumption advisory policy and
decision making.
4. Summary

Agency managers say they can only act on what they know, and what kind of in-
house expertise they have. However, many government managers say they lack the right
kind of expertise, like social science or human dimensions of natural resources, to
achieve effective risk communication. Science is done in a way that reflects social
stratification and lacks engaged accountable positioning to be aware of and reflexive
about why things are done in the way they are (Haraway 1989, 2001; Lober 1998;
Rocheleau et al. 1996; Ward 1999). In addition, many state managers have ideas for
improving fish consumption advisory information and creating targeted risk
communication, but feel they cannot implement these measures due to lack of resources
such as time and money.

Because fish consumption advisories are not mandated there is a greater effort to
work with the technical data produced from the mandated fish contaminant monitoring
programs than to prioritize risk communication and outreach or link the fish advisory
program with contaminant reduction efforts. The agencies responsible for fish
consumption advisories rarely have specific goals or rigorous methodology for risk
communication and lack the expertise necessary to undertake social science research. In
addition, the separation of human and ecological/ecosystem health creates fish
consumption advisory programs that are inconsistent among state and federal agencies
and emphasize human health over providing information about science and the nature of

different contaminants.

l7l

 

Getting the right message to the right audience is also theme throughout the media
articles and transcripts. However, once again the public does not receive this message.
For example, since 2002 the media highlights the fish on the joint FDA/EPA “do not eat”
lists, however, not one person mentioned these fish during data collection events. This
may be because the species of fish included in the federal advisory are commercial
marine fish and people in the Upper Peninsula mostly eat fish from the Great Lakes or
inland freshwater lakes, both sport-caught and commercial. This difference may cause
U.P. residents to believe that the fish they eat are not contaminated with mercury because
neither the media, nor the federal government talks about the species of fish they eat the

most.

C. Media Frames

The media does not provide a consistent message about the benefits and risks of
eating fish. This may cause confusion among the public since a majority of U.P.
residents report that the media is their number one source of information about
contaminants in fish (Figure 5.7). Although it is true that all media sources quote more
people who accentuate the risks of consuming fish over the benefits (55% of all quotes),
this does change over time from more risk-averse comments (1989-2004) to comments
that place the benefits of fish consumption over the risks even for at-risk populations such
as women of childbearing age and children (2004-2008).

The media frames contamination risk most ofien in terms of making claims that
mercury does or does not pose a threat to human health (Figures 6.7,6.9). The media also
focuses on the uncertainty surrounding the fish consumption advisory issue and the need

to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants (Figures 6.10, 6.8). The

172

 

frames presented in the media are not static; they change over time (see Boxes 6.1 and
6.2). However, they hardly help the public understand contamination or the benefits and
risks of fish consumption. Articles and transcripts are event-based and almost never give
a complete explanation of mercury contamination and fish consumption. One day an
article can say that fish is dangerous for human consumption and a few days, weeks,

months later an article will be published that says people should eat more fish.

 

Table 6.] Newspaper Frames Over Time

Frames: 1988-1994

0 Risk is from mercury in freshwater sport-caught fish

0 Reduce Mercury Emissions
Frames: 1996-1998

0 Uncertainty: does fish pose a threat to human health?

0 Risks are for some women and children

0 Reduce mercury emissions
Frames: 1999-2001

0 Uncertainty: differing government regulation of mercury in fish

0 Government not doing enough to protect human health

0 Risk are for some women and children only
Frames: 2002-2003

0 Uncertainty: How much is too much mercury? What is safe to eat?
There are benefits and risks associated with eating fish
Risks are from eating commercial fish
Risks are for some women and children, all fish consumers, heart
attack victims
Frames: 2004-2008
Mercury poses a threat to human health
Mercury does not pose a threat to human health
Reduce mercury emissions
Risk is from freshwater fish from inland lakes and commercial fish
Risks is from fish on the do not eat list (shark, swordfish, tilefish and
king mackerel) and tuna
Government is not doing enough to protect human health
The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information
Risk is for women of childbearing age and children, fish consumers,
the wealthy, and Native and Asian Americans

 

 

 

 

173

 

Table 6.2 Television Frames Over Time

Frames: 2001-2003
Uncertainty: How much is too much mercury? What fish is safe to

eat?
Risk is from mercury in commercial fish, tuna, swordfish, shark, king

mackerel

0 Reduce Mercury Emissions
The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information

Risks are for some women and children, people who eat a lot of fish,
heart attack victims

Government is not doing enough to protect human health

Balance the benefits and risks of consuming fish

Risk is from mercury in commercial fish

0 Eat fish low in mercury

Frames: 2004-2008
0 People should eat fish low in mercury
Risk are commercial fish, fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list (shark,

swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel)
Uncertainty: what are the risks and to what extent are different fish

risky for different populations?
The public is unaware of fish consumption advisory information

Balance the benefits and risks of consuming fish
Risk is for women of childbearing age and children, people who eat a

lot of fish
Risks are only the four fish on the FDA/EPA do not eat list for

women of childbearing age and children.

 

 

1. Mercury Poses a Threat to Human Health
The media uses diagnostic framing tasks to establish who is at risk and what fish

are contaminated. Mercury is framed as a threat to human health initially from
freshwater sport-caught fish from inland lakes and increasingly from the consumption of
commercial marine fish (Figure 6.7). Eating sport-caught fish is framed as a risk for

an g1 ers, and women of childbearing age (pregnant and nursing women), children, and

174

 

 

mustang.
9»me

E2954.

 

8:2 6:25 89a
am: 333:8;

 

 

 

beomE

:2 o
ccwmmfiw 35:83 wEx can :mcham
w 05 “Ed manureE< .cmcflz .fiacm um:
GEQDEEU cflm< Emmommoommv :5 “or o co :2.»
mo 5an zmm mo H2 a :8 0:3 c .

Bacon How fl xmdm

/ .

am: 95.38

ac:
£583 H

x088 teem

I75

 

A v 539.523 5c 835m Allv .Eobfifiou

\

 

 

 

 

5:3: 58:: S 39:; a 38m E3982 "oEaEbsm

 

a

 

Native Americans. Eating commercial marine fish is framed as a risk for women of
childbearing age, children, people who eat a lot of fish (male and female) and possibly
heart attack victims.

The fact that women (pregnant or of childbearing age) and children are the at-risk
group is also acknowledged by U.P. residents and agency managers. However, U.P.
residents and agency managers, unlike the media, do not talk about fish consumption F-
risks to people other than women and children. This is interesting since the state fish

consumption advisory includes fish on the do not eat list for the general population as

 

well as women of childbearing age and children under 15. “

2. Mercury in Fish as an Environmental Health Issue

Figure 6.8 Media F rame 2: Environmental Health Issue

l

Need to reduce
mercury emissions
from coal-fired
power plants

/ l\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60,000 babies born Source of mercury found Source of mercury
effected by mercury in commercial fish found in inland lakes
in fish

 

 

 

 

 

When the media talks about risk to human health they also often discuss the need
to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The media talks about
environmental health by accentuating the need to reduce mercury emissions from coal
fired power plants. Many articles explain that the cause of mercury in both commercial

and sport-caught fish is the mercury emissions from waste incineration and especially

 

176

coal-fired power plants. Unlike federal risk communication the media often linked human
and ecological/ecosystem health issues in terms of environmental (human) health. In
fact, in several media articles and transcripts the explicit message was that mercury from
coal-fired power plants needs to be regulated because mercury in fish harms babies.
3. Mercury Does Not Pose a Threat to Human Health

Many articles and transcripts use diagnostic frames to establish that benefits
outweigh the risks of eating fish; prognostic frames to say that risks are only for certain
populations or from certain fish; and motivational frames to encourage people to eat more
fish. The majority of articles and transcripts mention the benefits of consuming fish
(55% of articles (from 1988—J an 2008) and 92% of transcripts (from 2001-J an 2008)),
such as, fish is heart healthy, good source of protein and a good source of omega-3 fatty
acids. Some list species of fish that are low in mercury and/or high in omega-3 fatty
acids. Some articles and transcripts say that mercury in fish is only a risk for women of
childbearing age and children or from eating fish on the do not eat list. Others say that
the risk is only for pregnant and nursing women and children in general. Some also say
that the risk of mercury in fish is only from eating freshwater fish from inland lakes.

Some of these articles and transcripts go as far to say that the benefits of eating fish

outweigh the risks.
When the media discusses the benefits of eating fish they mostly use diagnostic

fi'aming to inform people that there are benefits of eating fish. However, motivational

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gnu wzzao

f? @8283.“
3:22. 25.35::
PE 96.:

 

 

 

baa >18 :98:an
mow—a. "Ea—E unw— una 55:35
Ea...“ Ana £523 1.8an .»._:o
3335?.“ am: :3 we: on no awn war—3:220 mo
98 ,9.me Am: :3...“ 95 SE: A w 589: 8 9:“ 83¢
cocaEsmcoo $3..

fin 3385

 

2: zwmozg :mc
nurse .3 Econom—

 

 

 

_l 513m 58:: 8 39:3. a «mom 3: moot >55qu ”us—«£55m

 

 

I78

frames are also used to get people eat fish, while balancing the benefits with the risks of
that behavior. Most articles and transcripts recommend that people eat fish, and in some
cases, increase fish consumption to at least two or three fish meals per week. When
articles and transcripts say that the benefits outweigh the risks of eating fish they still

stress that women of childbearing age and children should avoid the fish on the

F DA/EPA join mercury advisory do not eat list.

3. Uncertainty

The media also frames the mercury and fish consumption issue in terms of
uncertainty. It uses diagnostic frames to establish that there is scientific uncertainty and
that the public is unaware of the risks. It also uses prognostic framing to ascribe blame
for and present solutions to this uncertainty. Many articles focus on the uncertainties of

government regulation or the govemment’s ability to know who is at risk or which fish

are risky. Some articles focus on the fact that the FDA does not test for fish and therefore
does not know which fish are the most contaminated. Other articles focus on the fact that
different governmental agencies have different levels at which they tolerate mercury in
fish for human consumption. However, the journalists ofien confuse the FDA’s action
levels for regulating fish in interstate commerce and the EPA’s reference dose that the

EPA believes will protect human health from pollutant concentrations in aquatic media,

such as ambient waters and edible tissue (Borum et a1. 2001).

Many articles (53 %) and transcripts (44%) focus on the scientific uncertainty
surrounding whether mercury in small doses poses a threat to human health and to whom

more specifically it poses risks. The scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue is

described in articles and

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“no 8
:3 9 Pam £3 08 :mm 8:3
080:0th 8:3 Scan @3928
m 39::
m: 23:: 2:. m: 23:: 2:. 863m ;
$233 008: :owflsaoq 50:3
beam .m> mozosozom {63m $30wa
x85: :33 $3: a m: 0:3
58:3
3.: >583:—
«e: .8 “no 3 8% m_ .53: 5:5: 2 :02: to: 3:5.
:3. a = $5.60: :8 226— ...:3 3 8.3 98 325 mar—:95:— 8: 3:: 9.822:
328:: 9:“: 865%: 5c 3:3 .525— ._o 9.3:: 6:: :mc 38 Ho:
E05503» Hosts 8: o: «Zoom 93 mumtsfim 8:: 32:95.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISO

 

 

 

 

bum—3.59:9 «EM "on—«:munzm

 

 

transcripts about the conflicting findings of the Seychelles and Faroe Island studies, two
studies of the effects of mercury on heart attacks that have differing results, and the
Hightower study that suggests the risks are not just for women and children, but that at
high enough levels mercury in fish affects the population at large.

Three main factors affect the credibility of any frame. These factors are:
consistency, empirical credibility and credibility of the frame articulators or claims
makers (Benford and Snow 2000). The media emphasizes the lack of consistency and

empirical certainty with which agency managers make decisions about fish consumption

 

advisory information. The media also focuses on the lack of advisory knowledge and
understanding among the public. The media also frames risk uncertainty in terms of the
public’s confusion about fish consumption messages. In this way media reporting may
discredit the framing tasks of government agencies and support the frames of U.P.
residents by reporting on the scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue, and focusing on

the fact that people are confused or uncertain about advisory information.

3. Summary

The media frames the mercury and fish consumption issue in order to tell a story
and inform people of the latest news in a way that is fair and balanced. This leads to
confusing or mixed messages in the media. For example in one article a government
agency manager can be quoted saying that fish is good to eat and people should eat more,
while a few lines later people can read that 60,000 babies are born each year with harmful
levels of mercury. Although agency managers all recognize that fish consumption has

risks they all say that people should eat fish. However, the kinds of risk-benefits

181

 

messages found in the media may serve to confuse the public more than they help sort out
how to balance the benefits and the risks of eating fish. For example, one article can say

that fish should be avoided while a few weeks later another article comes out saying that

people should eat more fish.

III. Interactions of Framing Processes

A. Types of Framing Processes

All three study populations used the same types of framing processes (diagnostic,
prognostic, and motivational) to frame mercury in fish, except the media (Table 6.3).
Unlike U.P. residents and agency managers, when the media framed the human health
risks of mercury in fish they also used motivational frames to incite people to change
their fish consumption behaviors, to either eat less or more fish. Also, when the media
frames the environmental health issues of mercury in fish, unlike agency managers, they
use prognostic frames to ascribe blame for the problem. They most ofien blamed
government agencies for not regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants
more strictly.

Since U.P. participants said that they receive the majority of their information
from the media one can see how they may be confused about the safety of eating fish.
One day the media tells people to eat more fish and then another day they say to eat less.
The way agencies deal with fish consumption advisories adds to the confusion because
there are two different types of fish consumption advisories. One at the state level that is
geared towards anglers and focuses on sport-caught fish, and another at the federal level

made for women of childbearing age that focuses on mercury in marine fish. And there

182

 

 

is little to no collaboration or consistency between the state and federal advisories. Also,
uncertainty is emphasized by U.P. residents (figure 6.3) and the media (figure 6.10), but

not agency mangers.

Table 6.3 Types of Framing Processes

 

 

 

 

U.P. Residents Agency Managers Media
Fish consumption is not Eat fish, follow advisory Mercury does not pose a threat to
important to my daily life human health
Diagnostic
Diagnostic Prognostic Diagnostic
Prognostic Prognostic
Human Health Motivational
Mercwy poses a threat to human
health
Diagnostic
Motivational
Reduce mercury emissions Reduce mercury ermssions
Not discussed
EW‘Y‘M“ Hm“ Motivational Motivational
Prognostic
Uncertainty about the risks Obstacles to Risk Uncertainty about the risks of
of consuming fish Commmication consmning fish
Risk Communication Prognostic Prognostic Prognostic

 

 

 

 

 

B. Interactions of Information Gathering Framing Processes

The way fish consumption and contamination information is transmitted and

 

 

framed by citizens, agency managers and the media results in unsuccessful advisory
information outreach (Figure 6.11). Media information does not provide a clear view of

safe fish consumption behavior. Agency managers focus on technocratic project driven

 

agency science to make decisions and policy on contaminants in fish. As a result, citizens

do not receive the information necessary to minimize risks and maximize benefits of

183

Figure 6.1] Information Gathering and Framing Processes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Army Media
Reduce Mercury Reduce Mercury
Emissions Emissions
Merit:
Mercury Poses a
In?!” Threat to Human
Health
Health
Eat Fish. Follow
Advisory
Media
Mercury does not Pose
a Threat to Human
Health ——""
was!
Risk
Cormnunieation
Risk Uncertainty
/

 

 

 

WFish Consumption Advisory

184

 

U.P. Residents
Consumption
Advisory is Not
Important to My
Daily Life
Acuity
Advisories are
Unsuc sful
c5

 

 

 

   

  
 

UP. Residents
Uncertairuy/Risk
cormnunication obstacles

    

 

 

consuming fish. Women of childbearing age and children accrue great risks from
contaminants in fish, but are not given sufficient information to make healthy decisions
about eating fish. In addition, people do not have access to or control over the decisions
and polices about what risks they face.

According to Bostron and Lofstedt (2003) effective risk communication includes:
(1) knowing your audience and knowing the risk; (2) knowing what is and what can be
done about it; and (3) testing your messages empirically, iterating the message and
involving those concerned. No agency advisory risk communication strategy in this
study includes these steps to address fish consumption advisories. The public cannot
understand the benefits and risks of consuming fish if risk managers do not make more of
an effort to a) understand who is actually at risk, b) understand how the public receives,
interprets, and acts upon risk information; c) target audiences of concern in ways that are
relevant to them; and d) involve audiences of concern in at least the risk communication
process (Anderson et al 2004; Connelly and Knuth 1998; Burger 2000 2001, 2003, 2006,

2008; 1mm et a1. 2007; J ardine 2003; Johnson et al 2003; Knuth et al. 2003; Shimsack

2007; Tilden 1997).

IV. Whose Interests are (not) Served by these Frames?

A. Ineffective Advisories

The interests that are not served are those of the people for whom mercury in fish
poses a real risk. The lack of quality fish consumption advisory information leads people
in the Upper Peninsula feeling uncertain about their ability to make safe decisions about
consuming fish (Figure 6.3). In addition, the interests women of childbearing age are not

served by the way fish consumption advisory information is framed because they may

185

miss out on the beneficial nutrients and Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish if they stop
eating it.

In the U.P. informants feel that the risks of fish consumption and mercury
contamination do not pertain to them. Therefore, government frames of eating fish, but
following the advisory and reducing mercury emissions lack relevancy to the very people
who they are trying to reach. As a result those at-risk are less likely to adopt this fi'ame.
In addition, the media reports on the uncertainty and confusion among the public, the lack
of consistency among government regulations, and the uncertainty of government
information; leading to an ever doubtful and confused public.

For example, the majority of participants from the Upper Peninsula (40%) chose
the DNR as the most reliable source of information about fish consumption advisories.
However, it is the MDCH that is responsible for the advisory. Interviewees at the DNR
do not see fish consumption advisories or contaminants in fish as a part of their jobs.

When the public asks DNR personnel about fish consumption advisories, DNR
staff members give the public their personal opinions about the risks of eating fish
without giving official advisory information or talking about environmental health issues.
The following article (Barta 2006) from a newspaper in Lower Michigan articulates this

well. Also, even though the author knows the DCH is responsible for the advisory, he

goes to a known source at the DNR.

186

T 0 try and grasp a better understanding about safe fish consumption, I
started by reading the 2005 Michigan fish advisory, which was put out by
the Department of Community Health. T 0 get a better understanding of
what's stated in the book, I decided to call [DNR biologist], a well-
respected fisheries biologist and supervisor working out of the DNR ofiice

in [Y ourtown]. I know [DNR biologist], well and knew that I could rely on
any information that he would give me. According to [DNR biologist],
approximately 80 percent of the PCB chemicals found in fish are found in
fatty tissue. Proper cleaning and cooking methods will definitely lower
contaminates well below an acceptable level, " said [DNR biologist] ...If

the majority of fat is removed when the fish is cleaned and the rest is
allowed to drip away during cooking, such as it does during baking or
broiling, there should be very little to worry about when eating most fish.
So there you have it. If the fish is properly cleaned and cooked, you can
eat enough to start developing the same roll over your belt that I 'm

working on.

Asking the DNR for fish consumption advisory information may lead to risky fish
consumption behavior because, as this article shows, not all DNR employees give sound
fish consumption advice. While persistent organic pollutants can be reduced by trimming
and certain cooking methods, heavy metals like mercury cannot. Since many people
believe that the DNR is responsible for the fish consumption advisory, they may interpret
the lack of official advisory and contaminant information in the fishing regulations and
fiom DNR employees as a lack of importance of the advisory and pollution reduction
(deamplification of risk), even though all DNR interviewees said it is important that

people follow the advisory.

In addition, the current fish consumption advisory does not appeal to the very
audiences it is trying to inform. U.P. informants said that the official fish consumption
advisory booklet is cumbersome and boring to read. Pe0ple did not want to take the time
to look up all of the different fish. They wanted a message that is more streamlined and
easy to remember. They also asked for information about where contaminants originate

and how they affect humans and the environment. This is difficult because government

187

 

 

 

agencies currently use “government-speak” to create risk communication including fish

consumption advisories (Chess et al. 2005).

Government-speak is a bland, generic style of writing that neglects linguistic and

cultural factors that affect the usefulness or acceptability of risk communication messages

in different communities (Chess et al. 2005). The following passage from the Michigan

Fish Consumption Advisory (2007), which is entirely printed and shown on the website

in black and white with single spaced text, is an example of such government speak.

N 0 one should eat more than one meal a week of rock bass, yellow perch or
crappie over 9 inches in length from inland lakes, reservoirs or impoundments in
Michigan.

N 0 one should eat more that one meal a week of largemouth bass, small mouth
bass, walleye, northern pike or muskellunge of any size from inland lakes,
reservoirs or impoundments in Michigan

Women who are pregnant or may become pregnant in the future and
children under 15 years old should not eat more than one meal per month of
rock bass, yellow perch or crappie over 9 inches in length from inland lakes,

reservoirs or impoundments in Michigan

Women who are pregnant or may become pregnant in the future and
children under 15 years of age should not eat more than one meal per month of
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike or muskellunge of any

size from inland lakes, reservoirs or impoundments in Michigan.

Although the majority of participants do not eat enough of the particular kinds of

fish to presumably cause alarm (1-5 fish meals per month) they are unaware of good fish

consumption choices, including which fish contain the least contaminants and which fish

provide the most abundant beneficial nutrients. Given that agency managers see the

purpose of the advisories as an informed public able to make safe choices to balance the

benefits and risks of consuming fish (figure 6.3), this is a major policy gap.

In addition, the process of government science and fish consumption advisory

information creation and dissemination lacks rigor and evaluation. The process of

188

 

 

government science resembles what Freeman (2007) calls epistemological bricolage. It is
a hodgepodge of learning practices that lacks reflexivity and evaluation. The different
models, missions, and rationales used by each agency to develop fish consumption
advisory information does not allow a lot of space for collaboration and consistency.
What is accomplished is done so out of political will more than as an attempt at scientific
rigor, or quality risk communication.

The uncertainty surrounding fish consumption risks (e. g. Faroe Island vs.
Seychelles Islands) and the heavy risk of childhood developmental problems makes fish
consumption advisories a case of post-normal risk. In order to improve the relevancy and
ease of information about contaminants in fish, the focus needs to be shifted from what is
the risk, to what is our knowledge about risks, and, how we can best use our various
systems of knowledge to improve democratic decision making over risk choices (Rosa

1998). Therefore, agency managers need to be aware of the cultural context within which

people understand and make decisions about risk.

Risk assessment and management in post-normal risk should be epistemologically
inclusionary, embracing an extended range of paradigms, perspectives, and stakeholders
with alternative claims to knowledge (1998:41). However, risk assessment and
management for contamination in fish is done in a purely technocratic agency setting
with little public involvement, except, at times, ad-hoc focus groups. Agency managers
believe they know who is really at risk, but make little effort to reach out to who they call
“sensitive populations” to understand the ways in which they receive and interpret
information, and lack the expertise to carry out a successful fish consumption advisory

program. State and Federal advisories fail to adequately help people choose among the

189

 

benefits and risks of consuming fish and leave out a discussion of solving contamination
problems.
There is no shortage of research stressing the importance of targeted risk
communication that is appropriate for the intended at-risk audience (Beehler 2001;

Burger 2000, 2001; Burger and Gochfeld 2006; Connelly and Knuth 1998; Shimsack

2007). There is even research that sorts out the types of risk-benefit information for

which the public is most receptive (Knuth et a1 2003). Government managers and

scientists should not say that balancing the benefits and risks of consuming fish is a

difficult risk communication message without implementing these types of researched
benefit-risk messages or any kind of evaluation.

Although Upper Peninsula residents generally eat amounts of fish that are not
considered risky, if a woman of childbearing age eats walleye once a week that could
generate harm. State and national advisory programs must take into account who is
actually at risk and who will receive the most benefits from consuming fish. To
communicate the risks and benefits of fish consumption in a just manner, government
agency managers and scientists must then develop targeted risk and benefit information
in collaboration with other governmental agencies as well as the groups who are at risk.

Also, when agency managers create risk communication, partial understandings
of risk become definite levels of what is safe. For example, estimates of fish
contamination and body burden become concrete contaminant trigger levels in fish,
translated into definite numbers. If agency managers people to make informed decisions,
like they said they did, then they need to communicate that fish consumption advisory

information is uncertain. Giving the public a choice may mean risk communication states

190

what is known and what is unknown and lets people make decisions from there. Why is
it a problem if people stop eating fish? What are the risks of people not eating fish?
Agency managers mostly take these questions for granted, or do not feel that they have

the resources or political will to find the answers.

V. Implications for Gender and Justice
A. Ineffective Advisories

Gender, along with class, race, culture and ethnicity are critical variables in
shaping resource access and control. In addition, knowledge about the environment is
stratified among these variables (Haraway 1989, 1992, 2001; Rocheleau et al. 1996). For
example, women and child informants in the U.P. were less knowledgeable than adult
males about what fish are most contaminated. Contaminants in fish are controlled by
government agency managers and the industries that create them. Fish advisory
contaminant information fails to inform the public in order to enable them access to or
control of regulating contaminants in fish.

Government scientists and managers are responsible for a number of projects
competing for resources, especially time (state and federal) and funding (state). Their
knowledge is situated within the confines of government techno-science with objective
driven project-based goals and outcomes that fail to consider the “body as an agent and
not just a resource politics of the body” (Haraway 2001:181). Agency managers are also
subject to the political pressures of the policy making environment. As a result fish
consumption advisories are not suited to the ways women (especially those of
childbearing age) and children receive and understand advisory information, even though

they are singled out as the at risk populations.

19]

 

 

However, not all women are the same. Agency scientists are trained in certain
ways that fail to consider the differences among individuals in meaningful ways
(Haraway 1991; Rocheleau et a1 1996; Verchick 2004). The types of risk messages
agency managers develop are often inappropriate (advisories for sport anglers only) and
either confuse people (too long or use language that is boring) or fail to reach them
altogether (like in the U.P.) (Haraway 1991; Rocheleau et a1 1996; Verchick 2004). F“

Agency managers are trying to provide people with the best information possible

 

using the best science possible; however, they do not acknowledge what they deem to be i
the best science possible is a result of their experiences, training, and job responsibilities. "'1.,
As Haraway says (2001, pg. 179) the translation of science is always interpretative,
critical and partial; therefore an epistemology and politics of engaged accountable
positioning is needed. However, engaged and accountable positioning rarely takes place
for a number of reasons that are often not the fault of agency managers.

Only one agency manager specifically mentioned targeting information for
women because they are “the gatekeepers of the kitchen”. However data show that more
men (75%) than women (25%) know about fish preparation techniques that reduce the

levels of persistent organic pollutants, such as PCBS, but not mercury. In addition

 

women are less knowledgeable about what fish are the most contaminated.

The joint F DA/EPA advisory specifically designed for women of childbearing age
does give a relatively simple message especially compared to the state advisory.
However, the species of fish covered by the joint mercury advisory are not the types of
species U.P. residents reported consuming the most, therefore, they may likely ignore the

advisory or believe that fish consumption advisories do not concern the species of fish

192

they eat. Women in the Upper Peninsula may be more likely to eat lake trout, a fish
relatively high in mercury, than any of the fish listed by the joint mercury advisory. Lake
trout also serve as the most abundant and popular recreational catch in Lake Superior.
However, they may think that lake trout does not have mercury because it is not listed in
the joint advisory.

Even without knowing who eats enough fish to be at risk, agency managers

believe that the risks to the developing fetus and children are the most important.

. ...s -w~ .-xy'

Therefore, agency managers need to do more to understand how women of childbearing

 

age and parents receive, interpret, and act on risk information. Many participants said
that the official state advisory booklet is too long or boring to read in its entirety. In
addition, because they do not read through the official advisory, many women simply
stop eating fish as a response to hearing about risks. This behavior is not necessarily the
best since there are numerous benefits to consuming fish even while pregnant. In
addition the majority of women get their information about fish consumption advisories

from the media. Therefore they may become confused by the vague or changing risk-

benefits messages in the media.

VI. Suggestions for Improving Environmental Policy and Decision Making

Fish consumption advisories fail to inform people in a way that helps them,
especially those at greatest risk (women and minorities), make good decisions about
eating and avoiding fish. In addition, people do not have control over the decisions and
policies about what risks they face. So, what can be done without resorting to the

traditional one-way scientific monologue (from expert agency mangers to the unknowing

 

public) type of public participation? I propose the use of adaptive governance as a means

193

to gather information about “our various systems of knowledge” and “improve

democratizing decision making over risk”.

A. Long-term Solutions: Adaptive Governance

Normally adaptive management is used in natural resource management when
managers must make decisions about best management practices in spite of uncertainty
and complexity of the environment (Henriksen and Barlebo 2008; Holling 1978; Lee
1993; Schreiber et al. 2004). It is often described as “learning by doing” as it treats
management decisions and practices as experiments that exist outside the control of
laboratory settings to reduce uncertainty. It uses modeling to set up different
management scenarios and brings stakeholders together to debate, deliberate, and
discusses possible management solutions (Henriksen and Barlebo 2008; Holling 1978;

Lee 1993; Schreiber et al. 2004).

Adaptive governance incorporates the human dimensions of shaping ecosystem

processes into the management equation (Folke et al. 2005) Governance is the process of
connecting individuals, organizations, agency and institutions at multiple organizational

levels (Folke et al. 2005). This requires social capital to facilitate collaboration, conflict

resolution and enable legislation and co-management (idem). Adaptive governance
would then organize stakeholders as social networks that draw on different expertise,

knowledge and experience to develop common understandings and co-management of

environmental problems (Figure 6.12).

194

 

 

Figure 6.12 Process and Outcomes of Adaptive Governance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADAPTIVE GOVERANCE
Flexibility to Outreach as Evaluation and EarTSforrrrTIerltg/r la to
work “"9“ learning Reassessment oraafiigetion leguar d ry
uncertainty experiments g .23 s ow a
and change learning envrronment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4}

Integration of Human

and Ecological Health- Co-management
“social-ecological”

 

 
  

 

 
      
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This type of process could greatly improve the fish consumption advisory and risk
communication in general. The goals of these policy experiments would be two fold.
The first goal is to inform citizens, especially those at high risk, so they are able to make

their own knowledgeable decisions about consuming fish even if that means they choose
to make the unhealthy decisions. Some people may choose to eat fish even though they
know that it is unsafe. The importance and difference from current fish consumption
advisory processes is that the goal of information outreach is to give decision makers all
of the information necessary to understand whether or not they are the fish they eat are
safe. The second goal of this adaptive governance processes would be to build social

capital with diverse stakeholders and learn to work together to solve environmental

problems.

195

 

 

 

Table 6.4 Findings from Past Research

0 Need targeted risk communication for different populations

0 Risk information about sport-caught fish in not adequate

Who is at risk?: Asian Americans (Tilden et al 2004), Latinos (Beehler
2003), the wealthy (Tilden et al. 2004), people who eat a lot of fish,
women of childbearing age and children.

0 Fish consumption advisories for anglers-only is insufficient

Work with information gatekeepers: medical professionals, schools,
charter boat captains, women’s centers, health clinics, fish purveyors

Use risk communication experts

Use risk-risk and risk-benefit information

Risk communication should “speak the language” of targeted groups
People are aware of fish consumption advisories, but do not have specific

information
People have few concerns about eating fish
People use prior experience to develop beliefs about the risk of eating

fish
People use mental models of cleanliness or fish health

Personal and institutional factors influence how people respond to
advisory information

 

 

 

 

Using adaptive governance agency managers, together with stakeholders, can call
upon the plethora of scholarly work on communicating the benefits and risks of
consuming fish (Table 6.4) in addition to information brought to the discussion by
stakeholders, to rigorously and thoughtfully develop policy and management options.
Agency managers and stakeholders/collaborators would then implement the management
options and policy goals chosen at the end of this process as policy experiments.

The process of adaptive management serves as an alternative to epistemological
bricolage. Instead of creating knowledge through a processes of “successive crafting,
assembling and literally making sense of different bits of information and experience,
often creating something new from what they have acquired secondhand (Freeman

2007:476),” adaptive governance would organize and institutionalize these learning

196

 

practices so that decision makers and stakeholders can act, model, and build upon them in
a way that is reflexive, evaluated, and integrated into the institutional (organizational)
memory for future use.

In order to be truly effective these processes must be carried out in a space that is
mindful of issues of gender and equality. As feminist scholars point out, the dominant
scientific world-view that values atomism and objectivity enforces the dualities of
women with men and humans with the environment, ignores racial differences, and
preserves inequalities (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000; Merchant 1996). These scholars also
highlight that not all people interact with their bodies and environment in the same ways,
given different factors that impact their health and lifestyle like poverty, geography,
history of illness, and occupation (Haraway 2001; Lober 1998; Rocheleau et al 1996;

Ward 1999). Current technocratic and scientific government advisory processes do not

allow for these variances.

Therefore, it cannot be expected that 1) even with inclusionary epistemologies
and stakeholder involvement agency decision making would result in more effective risk

communication for disenfranchised populations such as women, children and minorities

and those deemed at risk; 2) all at-risk populations respond to advisory information in the
same way; and 3) that all people are equally at-risk or equally reap the benefits of eating
fish. To overcome the biases of technocratic and scientific practices, agency managers

must be aware that the translation of science is always interpretative, critical and partial,

and should be reflexive of why they do what they do.

197

 

 

1. Example of Possible Adaptive Governance Outreach Outcome
At the end of the stakeholder process managers may decide to develop age
appropriate classroom lessons (K-Middle School) for children 15 and under as a way to
target this important at risk group. Managers along with stakeholders would develop the
lessons in such a way that fish consumption and contamination knowledge is tested
before and after implementation. At the end of the implementation period managers
would collect data to see if classroom lessons increase participants’ knowledge of
environmental pollution and fish consumption advisories. Managers would use these
results, along with new scholarly information, to reassess hypotheses and policy goals
leading to new management experiments. If the lesson is unsuccessful, it is not a ‘policy
bad’. It is treated as a learning tool upon which to alter and improve current management
strategies.

Ideally management options and policy goals are developed with stakeholders;
however in practice often only policy goals are set with stakeholders. Management
options are often left to the scientists. I support the vision of adaptive management in
which the scientist or agency manager takes the place of stakeholder, instead of running

the show as an expert. This requires outside expertise to facilitate the meeting at which

management options are developed and policy goals are defined.

B. Short-term: Improving fish consumption advisories state-wide

People want a straightforward message about eating fish that allows them to make
safe choices when deciding what fish to eat. Also, if choice is important to agency
managers, as they reported it is, the public needs to be aware of the uncertainty

surrounding fish consumption information even if that means that some people will stop

198

 

eating fish. That should be a choice people are allowed to make. However, the quality of

risk communication should be such that people fully understand the risks of their
behaviors, unlike now, where people feel that they are doing the right thing by avoiding
fish while pregnant.

Upper Peninsula residents, especially women, reported that they get the most of
their advisory information fiom the media; the second most common answer was the
Department of Natural Resources. Although participants may be wary of what they read
in the media or the action of the DNR, these two actors may be good outlets for advisory
information. Even though the DNR does not see fish consumption advisories as their
responsibility, many U.P. residents believed the DNR develops and distributes advisory
information. Collaboration among the Department of Community Health and the DNR

may provide an effective way to reach Upper Peninsula residents about contaminants in

0

fish.

C. Short-term: Improving fish consumption advisories in the U.P.

Local newspapers in the Upper Peninsula may be a great way to reach people in
the U.P. Given their preference for all things local, U.P. residents may be more likely to
trust information read in local newspapers, which are often looking for information to fill
their pages. A quick and inexpensive way to better reach women of childbearing age of
the U.P. may be for the DCH to write an article to be published in all local newspapers (~
14), as long as it is not the only method of advisory risk communication. These articles
should include that 1) cooking and cleaning methods do not reduce mercury, 2) people
should eat a variety of fish in moderation, 3) most risks are to women of childbearing age

and children because of fetal and childhood development problems, but these groups

199

 

 

should eat some fish because it is also beneficial to fetal and childhood development, and

4) mercury in fish comes mostly from current pollution from coal-fired power plants.

 

 

200

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

1. Conclusion

Currently there is no evaluation of risk communication efforts or public
participation included in fish consumption and contamination projects. Government
agencies focus on techno—science to make decisions about fish consumption advisories.
Media articles and transcripts focus on the uncertainty over fish contamination and fish
advisory science. My question is then, why make advisories if those who are at risk do
not get the message?

Also, the separation of human and ecological health issues leads to issue-based
problem solving (e. g. fish consumption advisory projects are different and separate from
fish management and contaminant regulation projects) instead of holistic management of
the ecosystem, including human beings. Ecological change, ecologically viable
livelihoods and sustainable development depend on the equal access and control of
resources (Rocheleau et al. 1996). However, not all areas of policy are treated equally.

This is a major stumbling block towards future sustainable environmental policy.

II. Bridges to the Big Picture: Connecting Human and Ecological Health

Another way fish consumption advisories fail to serve the public is by not serving
the interests of environmental health. If people were more knowledgeable about the
scientific information of contaminants, for example, water and contaminant cycling and
processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification, they might be able to make safe

decisions about eating fish without having to explicitly read the advisory. In addition,

201

 

 

increased public knowledge of environmental problems such as pollution and fish
contamination may cause people to reflect upon their lifestyles and the use of harmful
and toxic substances. It may help push for greater pollution/contaminant reduction
efforts and a greater application of the precautionary principle in government decision-
making and policy.

Fish consumption advisories should be a part of the discussion to find solutions to
pollution problems. When we talk about fish consumption advisories we should also talk
about, for example, alternative energy or “clean coal” (if such as thing exists) technology
to replace the current mercury emitting coal-fired power plants. Since government
science and policy does not look at contamination issues holistically we as a society
never get to have discussions about what we risks we are willing to accept and what risks
we wish to do without; in addition to what the possible solutions to these problems might
be.

Instead of a risk society we are an ecological society, where issues of
enviromnental health cannot be separated from issues of human health. To do this is to
put certain interests, most notably those of techno-science, before those of the planet and
its citizens. Issues of human and environmental health must be integrated together into
sectoral policies such as transportation, commerce, and energy. There is a need for
increased multi-disciplinary competencies in government agencies and holistic
approaches to enviromnental and human health. As Haraway (1992) says, “we must find
another relationship to nature besides reification and possession. . .it is not a happy ending

we need, but a non-ending”.

202

11]. Li

A. Ins

time t
becai
educ:
Then
techr

were

gov:
info
evid
add:

ITIBC

ind
in t
km
pm
Un.

WC

III. Limitations of this Study
A. Institutions Left Out of the Study

One important institution that has been purposefully left out of this study due to
time constraints is academia. Academia is an interesting entity in the mercury story
because of its role as expert knowledge provider and educator. Academia trains and
educates organization, agency, and industry scientists, decision-makers, and employees.
Therefore preexisting institutional philosophies and biases for certain pedagogies,
techniques, and technologies will be transferred to these individuals through the way they
were educated.

In addition, academic studies can be funded and possibly influenced by
government agencies, industry, environmental organizations, and communities. The
information or knowledge created as a result of this funded research can then become
evidence for social actors to use one frame over another and discredit other actors. In
addition, the information created by the academy often becomes channeled through the
media and is therefore made available to the general public.

In addition to academia I have also left out environmental groups and the fish
industry, both commercial and sport, from my study. While these two groups have stakes
in the mercury and fish issue, I feel that they are not the most primary sources of
knowledge creation and dissemination, even thought U.P. informants listed fish
purveyors as a trusted source of information. Given more time and resources,
understanding the framing effects of these groups on the mercury issue would be a

worthwhile pursuit and an impetus for future research.

203

Elected government officials are also neglected by this study since they are not
directly involved with the risk characterization and communication of fish
contamination/fish consumption advisories. However, understanding the framing
practices of state and federal elected officials about contaminants in fish is a worthwhile
pursuit for future research. This group is important because they help control the
spending and policy practices of government agencies and are directly accountable to the
public.

The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDOA) are other Federal and State agencies
respectively, that peripherally work with fish consumption advisory information.
However, they do so to a much less extent than the five agencies chosen for this study.
Therefore, nobody from the ATSDR or MDA was interviewed for this study. In addition,
the ATSDR funding this research and including their agency may bring about conflicts of

interest.

B. Methodological Limitations

One limitation of this study is that the focus group/community dinner facilitator
was not always the same, nor did the facilitators have the same gender or ethnicity. In
addition, one facilitator is more experienced with facilitating focus groups and thus may
have run the session more smoothly and procured better information. All of these factors
could affect research results. However, there is reason to believe that these factors did
not overly influence responses since, in every focus group and community dinner people

made similar types of comments and reflections.

204

Another factor that may influence the quality of the work is the positionality of
the author as a young woman who is an environmentalist and feminist critical of
government science. Also, my status as a native of the Upper Peninsula may cause me to
take certain things for granted or overlook some types of data due to the prejudices and
biases that come with being “a local”. My position as a non-biophysical scientist may
also cause misinterpretations and misunderstandings of scientific jargon during the
interviews with agency scientists and managers. However, I am conscious of the biases I
may bring to my analysis and therefore make the best efforts at opening my data and
analysis to critique. No data are free of bias. To overcome that we researchers must be

aware of our preconceived notions, prejudices, philosophical and theoretical attachments.

205

APPENDICES

206

APPENDIX A:

UCRIHS CONSENT PROTOCOLS

207

APPENDIX A 1.1: CONSENT FORM- FOCUS GROUP
Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan's Upper Peninsula

We are concerned about people eating potentially contaminated fish
throughout the state of Michigan. We would like to improve the
communication of the benefits and risks of eating fish in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula. In order to improve communication we need the ideas, knowledge
and opinions of people who consume, produce or distribute fish harvested in
the Upper Peninsula. This study led by Dr. Geoffrey Habron at Michigan
State University, plans to determine the informational needs of people and
to develop a small project to improve communication of benefits and risks.
To pay for this project we received money from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry within the US. Department of Health and
Human Services.

We would like you to participate in an activity that will provide ideas for the
research that we conduct. We will use focus group discussions where a group
of people sits around a table and shares their knowledge and concerns
regarding eating fish. We will include up to 12 people in each group. We will
have separate groups for sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, women,
charter boat captains, youth, health department and medical professionals.
Each may have different concerns about eating fish. The focus group
interview will last approximately 2 hours. The interview will be audio taped to
assist in correcting our notes. Following the focus group we will discuss your
experience and share more about the research project. For your
participation in our focus group, we will offer you a $20 gift certificate to a
local store upon completion of the discussions.

We will make sure that no one outside of the group will know what you
shared since your name and identity not be used in any reports. We will use
the audio recordings and notes to describe everyone's concerns and provide
us suggestions to help our research. You will have the opportunity to look at
any of our reports prior to our sharing or using the information. We will
report our findings in scientific articles and popular articles such as
newspapers. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law. Participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all,

208

refuse to answer certain questions or leave the study at any time without
any penalty.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Geoffrey Habron
at 517-432-8086, habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are unhappy at
any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - without using your
name, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research
Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

By signing this form, you are agreeing to your voluntary participation in
today's focus group and granting your permission for us tape-record you to
ensure an accurate description of the discussion.

 

(Print Name) (Sign Name)

 

(Signature of principal investigator or authorized representative)

(Date)

209

APPENDIX A 1.2: CONSENT F ORM- FOCUS GROUPS, PARENTAL CONSENT

Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
Dear Parent or Guardian,

Currently there exist advisories regarding eating potentially contaminated
fish throughout the state of Michigan. There is a need to improve the
communication of the benefits and risks of eating fish in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula. Key to the success of improving communication is obtaining the
unique input, knowledge and diverse views of those who consume, produce or
distribute fish harvested in the Upper Peninsula. This study led by Dr.
Geoffrey Habron at Michigan State University, plans to determine the
informational needs of vulnerable populations and to develop a pilot project
to improve communication of benefits and risks. Funds for this project
originate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within
the US. Department of Health and Human Services.

The focus group interview will last approximately 2 hours. The interview will
be audio taped to assist in correcting our notes. Following the focus group
we will discuss our experience and share more about the research project.
For her/his participation in our focus group, we will offer her/him a $20 gift
certificate to a local store upon completion of the discussions.

l
You may be assured that your chi ld's responses will remain completely
confidential, as references to her/ his identity will be deleted from any
reports or transcriptions. We will use the audio recordings and notes to
develop a summary of concerns and suggestions to guide our research. You
will have the opportunity to review any of our summaries prior to our
distribution or use of the information. We will report our findings in
research and popular articles. Your chi ld's privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Participation is voluntary and you may
choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer certain questions or
withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

210

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Geoffrey Habron
at 517-432-8086, habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections,
(517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

By signing this form, you are acknowledging your child's voluntary
participation in our focus group and granting your permission to be tape-
recorded to ensure an accurate record of the discussion.

I agree to allow my child, . to participate in
the fish consumption advisory focus group.

Parent/Guardian signature
Date:

 

Parent/Guardian name (please print)

 

211

APPENDIX A 1.3: CONSENT FORM- COMMUNITY DINNER

Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
Community Dinners

We are concerned about people eating potentially contaminated fish
throughout the state of Michigan. We would like to improve the
communication of the benefits and risks of eating fish in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula. In order to improve communication we need the ideas, knowledge
and opinions of people who consume, produce or distribute fish harvested in
the Upper Peninsula. This study led by Dr. Geoffrey Habron at Michigan
State University, plans to determine the informational needs of people and
to develop a small project to improve communication of benefits and risks.
To pay for this project we received money from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry within the US. Department of Health and
Human Services.

We would like you to participate in an activity that will provide ideas for the
research that we conduct. We will use community dinners where a group of
people from your community sits around tables and shares their knowledge
and concerns regarding eating fish. Each person may have different concerns
about eating fish. The dinner discussion will last approximately 2 hours. We
will audio tape the discussion to assist in correcting our notes. Following the
dinner we will discuss your experience and share more about the research
project. For your participation in our project, we will offer you a $20 gift
certificate to a local store upon completion of the discussions.

We will make sure that no one outside of the group will know what you
shared since your name and identity not be used in any reports. We will use
the audio recordings and notes to describe everyone’s concerns and provide
us suggestions to help our research. You will have the opportunity to look at
any of our reports prior to our sharing or using the information. We will
report our findings in scientific articles and popular articles such as
newspapers. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law. Participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all,

212

refuse to answer certain questions or leave the study at any time without
any penalty.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Geoffrey Habron
at 517-432-8086, habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are unhappy at
any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - without using your
name, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research
Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

By signing this form, you are agreeing to your voluntary participation in our
project and granting your permission for us to tape-record you to ensure an
accurate description of the discussion.

 

(Print Name) (Sign Name)

 

(Signature of principal investigator or authorized representative)

(Date)

213

APPENDIX A 1.4: CONSENT FORM- LIFE OF LAIGE SUPERIOR PROGRAM
2004— PARENTAL CONSENT

Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
(Life of the Lakes parental consent)

Dear Parent or Guardian,

Currently there exist advisories regarding eating potentially contaminated
fish throughout the state of Michigan. There is a need to improve the
communication of the benefits and risks of eating fish in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula. Key to the success of improving communication is obtaining the
unique input, knowledge and diverse views of those who consume, produce or
distribute fish harvested in the Upper Peninsula. This study led by Dr.
Geoffrey Habron at Michigan State University, plans to determine the
informational needs of vulnerable populations and to develop a pilot project
to improve communication of benefits and risks. Funds for this project
originate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within
the US. Department of Health and Human Services.

During the Life of Lake Superior program, we would like your permission to
allow your child to participate in a fish consumption advisory activity. The
activity teaches kids about how aquatic animals get food and how pollution
can get passed along through the food web. We will ask each child about
their knowledge of food webs before and after the activity to see how well
the activity helps the children understand what they can do to maximize the
benefits and reduce the risks of eating fish. They can then share their
thoughts on the activity. The activity and questions will last approximately 1
hour. Following the activity we will discuss our experience and share more
about the research project.

We think your child will benefit by getting information about the animals in
the Great Lakes and learning how to maximize the benefits while minimizing
the risks of eating fish. We do not anticipate any risks for participating
since these activities are those assembled by educators and designed for
use in Michigan schools.

214

You may be assured that your chi ld's responses will remain completely
confidential, as references to her/ his identity will be deleted from any
reports or transcriptions. You will have the opportunity to review any of our
summaries prior to our distribution or use of the information. We will report
our findings in research and popular articles. Your child's privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Participation is voluntary
and you may choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer certain
questions or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Geoffrey Habron
at 517-432-8086, habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
13 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections,
(517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

 

By signing this form, you are acknowledging your child's voluntary
participation in our activity.

I agree to allow my child, . to participate in
the fish consumption advisory activity.

Parent/Guardian signature
Date:

 

Parent/Guardian name (please print)

 

215

APPENDIX A 1.5 CONSENT FORM- AN GLER INTERVIEW

Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula
Angler Interviews Oral Consent Script

Hi, I am working with Michigan State University to collect information about what
anglers think about the benefits and risks of eating potentially contaminated fish in the
Upper Peninsula. We are trying to determine the informational needs of anglers to
improve communication of benefits and risks in the future. We would like to know if
you would be able to spend 5 minutes answering a few questions about catching and
eating fish.

We will report our findings in scientific articles and popular articles such as newspapers.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Participation is
voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer certain questions
or leave before we are finished without penalty.

We will give you this postcard if you have any further questions or issues about our
project or the information you provide today.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Geoffrey Habron at 517-432-
8086, habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the
Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) at Michigan State University, by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

216

U.P. Fish Advisory Angler Interview Log

 

Date Location Time Consent (yes or no) Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217

 

APPENDIX A 2.1 CONSENT FORM: GOVERNMENT AGENCY INTERVIEW

Improving Fish Advisories in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula
Government Agency Oral Consent Script

First, let me say that what you say here is confidential. Nothing you say will ever be
associated with your name. The purpose of this project is to improve the communication
of the benefits and risks of eating fish in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. This study, led by
Dr. Geoffrey Habron at Michigan State University, is funded by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry within the US. Department of Health and Human
Services. This interview will last approximately one hour and a half. If possible, this
interview will be recorded using a digital audio recorder. We will use the audio
recording and notes to help with data analysis. We will report our findings in scientific
articles and popular articles such as newspapers. You will have the opportunity to review
our reports before publication if you so desire. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. You will have the opportunity to look at any of our
reports prior to our sharing or using the information. Participation is voluntary and you
may choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer certain questions or leave the study
at any time.

Your participation in this study will help us provide recommendations to improve the fish
consumption advisory process which, we believe, is good for the people of Michigan.

We may also be able to share data with you in order to help your agency assess the status
of the Michigan fish consumption advisory program. This is an opportunity to better
inform the public about the fish consumption advisory process. Participating in this study
may involve risks to you or your agency due to the lack of anonymity that we are able to
provide given the small population involved with the fish consumption advisory program.
Please be aware that the public may judge your agency based on the results of our study.
We will protect you and your agency to the greatest extent possible.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Melanie Barbier,
barbierm@msu.edu, 517-432-5037 or Geoffrey Habron at 517-432-8086,
habrong@msu.edu, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1222. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824. By giving verbal consent, you are agreeing to your voluntary
participation in our project and granting your permission for us to tape-record you to
ensure an accurate description of the discussion.

218

APPENDIX B:

DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS

219

AP'

Bacl
Age
Gem

Prim

C01

Fis

Fl:

APPENDIX B 1.1: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUPS, PUBLIC MEETINGS,
COMMUNITY DINNERS, AND AN GLER INTERVIEWS

Background Information
Age
Gender
Male
Female
Primary Demographic descriptor
Commercial fishing
Recreational fishing
Charter fishing
Youth
Breastfeeding woman
Medical professional
Extension
Woman of childbearing age (non-breastfeeding)
Tribal member
County
Alger
Baraga
Chippewa
Gogebic
Marquette

Fishing Behavior Questions

1. Do you fish (for work? For food? For pleasure?)
2. What kind of fish do you catch?

Fish Consumption Questions

1. What kind of fish do you eat?
2. How much fish do you eat per month?
3. How do you prepare your fish?

Risk/Benefit Behavior Questions
1. What do you consider the benefits of eating fish from the U.P.?

2. What concerns do you have about eating fish from the Great Lakes or inland
waters?

220

Advisory 1

Questions

1. What
2. Whal
3. How

lnformat

l. Whe
2. Wha
infor

F. Quest

1. D0 3
mal
2. Are
cult

H. Rese:

1- Wha
fish
2. Ho“
advi

Advisory Awareness Questions

1. How do you know if the fish you eat is safe for you and your family?
2. Have you read Michigan’s fish consumption advisories?

Questions about Advisory Knowledge

1. What are the main contaminants of fish in Michigan?
2. What kinds of fish are the most contaminated in the Great Lakes?
3. How are guidelines different for men, women, and children?

Information Questions

1. Where do you get your information about the benefits and risks of eating fish?
2. What do you feel is the most reliable source of fish advisory consumption
information?

F. Questions about Barriers

1. Do you feel that the fish advisory guidelines provide enough information for you to
make informed decisions about safe fish consumption for you and your family?

2. Are there cautions/issues that we need to consider, such as religious beliefs or
cultural traditions?

H. Research Data Collection Possibilities
1. What would be the most effective way to determine how much people know about
fish consumption advisories?

2. How can we involve the community in developing better fish consumption
advisories?

221

APPENDIX B 2.1: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR AGENCY AND
ORGANIZATION STAFF

Questions about Personal Involvement with Fish Consumption Advisories and
Background

1. What is your role in the agency: job, duties, responsibilities; goals and outcomes

2. Tell me about your background.
a. How has your background influenced your work?

3. How are you involved with the fish consumption advisories or advisory
awareness?

4. What do you think is the most important message to get out to the public about
consuming fish? Why?

Questions about Fish Consumption Advisories

5. What do you know about advisories? What is the purpose of fish consumption
advisories?
a. What affects the success of the advisory program? How do you know that
the advisory program is working?-

6. What do you think the public knows/thinks about advisory information? How
do they get their information?
3. Why do you think that is?
b. What should/can be done about this?

7. Can you tell me who sets the action levels for chemicals in fish? Why do
different agencies have different action levels?

Questions about Agency/Organization in Advisory Information
Creation/Dissemination

8. How is your agency/organization involved with the fish consumption advisories?
In what ways does your agency/organization communicate the risks and/or
benefits of consuming fish?

a. What exactly do they do?
b. Do you think the agency’s role is sufficient? What else should/could they

do?

222

9. How does your agency/organization decide what risks and benefits to study
and/or communicate?
a. What kinds of considerations are taken into account in making those
decisions (scientific, political, economic, etc)?

10. Is your agency or organization involvement with fish consumption mandated by
the state or federal government?
a. In what ways does that affect how you communicate information to the
public?

223

APPENDIX C:

CODES AND CODE DEFINITIONS

224

 

 

APPENDIX C 1.1: CODE LISTS AND DEFINITIONS- UPPER PENINSULA
RESIDENTS

Awareness
A-Guidelines - Statements made by participants that correctly identify the source
(MDCH and/or EPA and FDA) and/or content of fish consumption advisory guidelines.

Responsible institution- Statements made by participants that correctly identify the

responsible agenc(y)ies for developing and distributing the fish consumption advisories,
either the MDCH, EPA or FDA.

Guidelines-Participant comments that reflect acknowledgement of the existence of fish
consumption advisory guidelines.

A-Don’t Know- Participant comments about not knowing or being unsure of fish
consumption advisory information.

Contamination— Comments made by participants stating that they are unaware of what
contaminants are found in fish or how fish become contaminated.

Hear about/read about advisories- Statements made by participants about “reading
about” or “hearing about” contamination in fish or fish consumption advisories, without

recall of what they read or heard.

Fish safe for family- Statements made by participants stating that they do not know
whether the fish they eat is safe for themselves or their family.

Guidelines- Statements made by participants about being unsure or not knowing the
information found in the fish consumption advisory guidelines.

Attitudes and Beliefs

Local Goodness- Statements that reflect participant attitudes and beliefs about the
goodness of the local environment and fishing culture.

Local fish better- Statements that reflect participant’s attitudes and beliefs about
pollution being elsewhere- not locally, or fish from local lakes being better than those

from elsewhere

Clean Water- Attitudes and beliefs about local waters being clean, pristine, non polluted
or local fish are less polluted

Ease— Attitudes and beliefs about the ease of catching local fish

Fresh- Attitudes and beliefs about the goodness of “fresh” local fish

225

Healthy- Attitudes and beliefs about the healthiness of eating fish
Inexpensive- Attitudes and beliefs about local sport caught fish being inexpensive

Local- Attitudes and beliefs about the benefits of eating local fish- Great Lakes (read
Lake Superior) or fish purchased locally.

Recreation- Attitudes and beliefs about the recreational benefits of sport fishing

Sustainability- Attitudes and beliefs about the goodness of local fish as a sustainable
food source.

Taste- Attitudes and beliefs about the importance or benefits of taste in relation to fish
consumption behaviors

Tradition- Attitudes and beliefs about the goodness of local fishing and fish-eating
traditions

Eating fresh fish- Statements made about local “flesh fish” consumption behaviors.

Inforrnation- Participant attitudes and beliefs about fish consumption advisory
information creation and dissemination.

Available information— Participant comments about what kind of information should be
made available.

Bias information- Statements made by participants about fish consumption advisory
information being bias.

Trust— DNR- Statements about trusting the DNR as a source of fish consumption
advisory information.

Trust— fish purveyor- Statements about trusting fish purveyors as a source of fish
consumption advisory information.

Trust- internet- Statements about trusting the internet as a source of fish consumption
advisory information.

Trust- media- Statements about trusting the media as a source of fish consumption
advisory information

Trust- science- Statements about trusting science or scientists as a source of fish
consumption advisory information.

Concerns

226

Contamination - Statements referring to concerns about contamination in fish.

F arm-raised fish- Statements referring to specific concerns about contaminants in farm-
raised fish.

Fat fish- Statements referring to specific concerns about contaminants in fatty fish.
Contamination- Statements referring to general concerns about contaminants in fish
Fish size- Statements referring to specific concerns about contamination in large fish.
Mercury- Statements referring to specific concerns about mercury contamination in fish
PCBs- Statements referring to specific concerns about PCBs contamination in fish.

Sensitive population- Statements referring to specific concerns about contaminants in
fish for sensitive populations.

Site specific- Statements referring to specific concerns about contaminants in fish at
certain lake sites.

No concerns

No concerns- Statements that reflect participant’s awareness of fish contamination and
consumption risk, and ignoring those risks.

Low fish consumption- Statements referring to participant’s lack of concern about
contaminants in fish due to infrequent fish consumption.

Fish preparation- Statements referring to participant’s lack of concern about
contaminants in fish due to using contamination reducing fish preparation techniques

Low contamination- Statements referring to participant’s lack of concern about
contaminants in fish due to perceived low levels of contamination.

Other- Statements made about participant concerns other than fish contamination.
Bones- Statements referring to concerns about choking on fish bones.
Not enough fish- Statements refen'ing to concerns about people not eating enough fish.

Spoiled fish- Statements referring to concerns about eating spoiled or “not fresh” fish.

Knowledge

Correct Information- Statements that reflect knowledge and understanding of fish
consumption advisory and contamination information.

227

Bioaccumuli
bioaccumulal

Contaminat
effects of con

PCBs vs Mr
differences 1
fish contami

Misinforma'
consumptio

Contaminaz
contaminati

Contamin:
the human

Contamin:
the sources

Enviroum
misunderst
human infl-

NO eat pr:
Pregnant

PCB vs N
nisinfom
"1 bottom

PCB vs It
about the
lhe fat of

Bioaccumulation- Statements that reflect knowledge and understanding of
bioaccumulation

Contamination effects- Statements that reflect knowledge and understanding of the
effects of contaminants in fish on humans.

PCBs vs Mercury- Statements that reflect knowledge and understanding of the
differences between mercury and persistent organic pollutants like PCBs and Dioxin and
fish contamination and fish consumption risk.

Misinformation- Statements that reflect misinformation and misunderstanding of fish
consumption advisory and contamination information.

Contamination- Statements that reflect misinformation and misunderstanding of fish
contamination.

Contamination effects- Statements that reflect misinformation and misunderstanding of
the human effects of fish contamination.

Contamination source- Statements that reflect misinformation and misunderstanding of
the sources of contamination in fish.

Environmental impacts vs. contamination- Statements that reflect misinformation and
misunderstanding of the differences between contamination in fish and other natural or
human influenced environmental processes, such as, for example, fish reproduction.

No eat pregnancy- Statements about how women should avoid eating fish while
pregnant

PCB vs Mercury- bottom feeders- Statements that reflect misunderstanding or
misinformation about the differences between mercury and persistent organic pollutants
in bottom dwelling fish

PCB vs Mercury-fat fish- Statements that reflect misunderstanding or misinformation

about the difi‘erences between mercury and persistent organic pollutants in fatty fish or
the fat of fish.

PCB vs Mercury- fish size- Statements that reflect misunderstanding or misinformation
about the differences between mercury and persistent organic pollutants relative to fish
size.

PCB vs Mercury- Great lakes vs. inland lakes- Statements that reflect

misunderstanding or misinformation about the differences between mercury and
persistent organic pollutants in the Great Lakes (Lake Superior) and inland lakes.

228

Guidelines- Statements that reflect misinformation or misunderstanding of the Michigan
fish consumption advisory and/or its source.

Guidelines- Statements that reflect misunderstanding or misinformation of the Michigan
fish consumption advisory.

Information source- media- Statements saying the official fish consumption advisory is
printed in the media.

Information source- DNR— Statements saying the official fish consumption advisory is
developed and distributed by the DNR.

Information source- fish purveyor-Statements saying the official fish consumption
advisory is distributed by fish purveyors.

Information source- medical professional- Statements saying the official fish
consumption advisory is distributed by medial professionals.

Behavior

Contamination avoidance - Statements that reflect using behaviors perceived to reduce
fish consumption risk.

Fish species- Statements made referring to behaviors that are purposefully used to reduce
exposure to pollution in fish consumed due to the particular fish species consumed.

Experience- Statements made referring to behaviors that are purposefully used to reduce
exposure to pollution in fish consumed based on prior experience.

Avoiding fat fish- Statements made referring to behaviors that are purposefully used to
reduce exposure to pollution in fish consumed due to avoiding “fat fish” or the fatty parts
of fish.

Location- Statements made referring to behaviors that are purposefully used to reduce
exposure to pollution in fish consumed due to avoiding certain locations or eating fish
from sources with little or no pollution.

Fish consumption/preparation preferences- Statements made about using perceived
pollution reduction fish preparation techniques , but admitting to do so because of

personal preferences (taste, cooks better, etc) over contamination reduction.

The five senses- Statements made about avoiding pollution in fish by using the senses
(taste, feel, look, smell).

Fish Consumption Advisory guidelines- Statements made about avoiding pollution in
fish by using the fish consumption advisory guidelines.

229

Preparati
special cc

Sensitive
oonsump

No C ont.
Experier

Fish pre
reduce f1

Taste pr
not redur

Preparation practices- Statements made about avoiding pollution in fish by using
special contaminant-reducing fish preparation practices.

Sensitive population- Statements made about avoiding pollution in fish by reducing fish
consumption only for sensitive population.

No Contamination avoidance - Statements that reflect no risk adverse behavior.
Experience— Statements that reflect no purposeful risk aversion due to prior experience

Fish preparation practices- Statements about fish preparation practices that do not
reduce fish consumption risk.

Taste preferences- Statements about fish preparation and consumption practices that do
not reduce fish consumption risk due to taste preferences.

230

APPENDIX C 2.1: CODE LISTS AND DEFINITIONS- AGENCY INTERVIEWS

Backggound
PhD- Interviewee holds a PhD

MS— Interviewee holds a Master of Science Degree

88- Interviewee holds a Bachelor of Science Degree

Science- Interviewee holds a degree in the bio-physical sciences

Social Sciences/Communication- Interviewee holds a degree in the social sciences,
humanities or communication arts

Job Responsibilities
Policy/Administration- Statements which reveal that the majority of the interviewee’s

job responsibilities involve administrative or policy work

Laboratory Science- Statements which reveal that the majority of the interviewee’s job
responsibilities involve laboratory science

Outreach- Statements in which interviewees say that outreach is a part of their job
responsibilities

Fish Consumption Advisory- Statements in which interviewees report that fish
consumption advisory work is a formal part of their job responsibilities

No Fish Consumption Advisory- Statements in which interviewees report that fish
consumption advisory work is NOT a formal part of their job responsibilities

Fish Consumption Advisogy
Mandated:don’t know- Statements in which interviewees report not knowing if his/her

agency is mandated to produce fish consumption advisory information

Mandated:yes- Statements in which interviewees report that his/her agency is mandated
to produce fish consumption advisory information

Mandatedzno- Statements in which interviewees report that his/her agency is not
mandated to produce fish consumption advisory information

Fish Consumption Advisogy Process
EPA- Statements about fish consumption advisory development, dissemination, and/or

evaluation at the EPA

FDA- Statements about fish consumption advisory development, dissemination, and/or
evaluation at the FDA

Federal- Statements about fish consumption advisory development, dissemination,
and/or evaluation at the federal level

State- Statements about fish consumption advisory development, dissemination, and/or
evaluation at the state level

State and Federal- Statements about fish consumption advisory collaboration among
state and federal agencies

Fish Analysis- Statements about agency scientific processes for fish analysis for fish
consumption advisory

Reference dose- Statements about agency scientific processes for determining reference
dose

231

Other State
actitities otl

Adu'sog F
Advisory 0
Awareness-

knowledge
disseminati.

Awareness
as aware, bi
current adv

Ignore infr
result of cu
either i gnor

Fish prepa
techniques
disseminati

Confusion
result of or;

Multi-mes
different t}
fish as a re

PERM
Inform“!
consumpti
“better” 0:

Protect h

Sport list.
adVlSOrieS

V180
aECDCy is I

Other State-level processes- Statements about scientific/policy/risk communication
activities other than the Fish Consumption Advisories at the state level

Advisogy Frames
Advisory Outcome

Awareness- Statements in which interviewees talk about increased public awareness and
knowledge as an outcome of current fish consumption advisory information and/or
dissemination

Awareness with out knowledge- Statements in which interviewees describe the public
as aware, but unknowledgeable, of fish consumption advisory information as a result of
current advisory information and/or dissemination

Ignore information or stop eating fish- Statements in which interviewees say that as a
result of current fish consumption advisory information and/or dissemination people
either ignore fish consumption advisories or stop eating fish

Fish preparation behavior- Statements that identify risk-reducing fish preparation
techniques as an outcome of current fish consumption advisory information and/or
dissemination

Confusion- Statements in which interviewees talk about people being confused as a
result of current fish consumption advisory information and/or dissemination

Multi-message- Statements in which interviewees talk about how people receive several
different types of messages about contamination and the benefits and risks of consuming
fish as a result of fish consumption advisory information and dissemination

Purpose of Advisory

Informed public- Statements in which interviewees talk about the purpose for fish
consumption advisories as a more informed citizenry able to make “smart”, “healthy”,
“better” or “proper” choices

Protect human health- Statements in which interviewees talk about the purpose for fish
consumption advisories as protecting human health

Sport fish- Statements in which interviewees talk about the purpose for fish consumption

advisories as elevated levels of chemicals in sport-caught fish

F_rames: Fish Consumption Advisog Process
Advisory responsibility- Statements in which interviewees talk about who and/or what
agency is responsible for the fish consumption advisory process

232

Advisory responsibility: Not Me- Statements in which interviewees renounce
responsibility for fish consumption advisories and/or when they refer to another person or
agency as being responsible.

Collaboration and consistency- Statements in which interviewees discuss current or
past inter/intra-agency collaboration and consistency in scientific protocols, outreach
and/or communication messages

Collaboration and consistency: Need- Statements in which interviewees discuss the
need for more and/or better inter- and intra-agency collaboration and consistency in
scientific protocols, outreach and/or communication messages

Best Job Possible- Statements in which interviewees say their agency is doing the best
job possible communicating to the public environmental risks and agency decision
making with the resources they have

Could Do Better- Statements in which interviewees say their agency could do a better
job communicating environmental risks and agency decision making to the public

Complex- Statements in which interviewees say communicating environmental risk and
benefit messages are (perhaps too) complex for agencies

Complex: FCA- Statements in which interviewees say that communicating fish
consumption advisory information in an effective way is (perhaps too) complex.

Defer to Science- Statements in which when discussing fish consumption advisories
and/or risk communication interviewees defer to scientific studies, “researc ” and/or
scientists as a way to explain or talk about policy decisions and/or
communication/outreach strategies.

Best efforts- Statements in which interviewees say that successes in the fish consumption
advisory process come organically from a person (people) with a passion or their best
efforts to work for success

Public risk perception- Statements in which interviews talk about outreach and
communication effectiveness as dependent on individual perceptions of risk held by the

public

Advisory Success: Don’t know- Statements in which interviews say they do not know
what effects fish consumption advisory or risk communication success.

233

Frame: Personal RileMessage (What interviewees think themselves about fish

consumption advisories or consuming fish)

FCA=pollution reduction- Statements in which interviewees link communicating fish
consumption advisory information with inciting public pressure for reducing mercury
emissions and other pollution.

Follow FCA- Statements in which interviewees say that people should follow state and
national fish consumption advisories.

People should eat fish- Statements in which interviewees say that people should eat fish
or should not stop eating fish as a result of fish consumption advisory information.

HG vs PCB- Statements in which interviewees discus the differences between mercury
and persistent organic pollutants when communicating fish consumption advisory
information.

Moderation- Statements in which interviewees stress the importance of consuming fish
in moderation

Variety- Statements in which interviewees stress the importance of consuming a variety
of fish

Scare- Statements in which interviewees talk about fish consumption advisories scaring
people and stress the importance of reducing this fear

Frame: Advisory Risk Messagg Wt interviewees thian their agency should say about
fish consumption advisories)

Balancing benefits and risks- Statements in which interviewees say that fish
consumption advisory information should stress balancing the risks and benefits of fish
consumption

Focus on what to eat- Statements in which interviewees say that fish consumption
advisory information should focus on what to eat and not what not to eat.

Sport and commercial- Statements in which interviewees say that state and national fish
consumption advisory information should include both sport and commercial fish

consumption advisory information

Stay as is- Statements in which interviewees say that the fish consumption advisory
message should remain as it is.

234

Frame: What Should be Done

Use Science- Staternents in which interviewees say that science should be used to
develop fish consumption advisory information

Targeted risk communication- Statements in which interviewees say that risk
communication should be specifically targeted to different audiences through multiple
outlets

At-risk Population- Statements in which interviewees discuss the need to focus fish
consumption advisory information and outreach specifically towards at-risk populations
(women, children, and minorities)

DNR/Fish industry- Statements in which interviewees say that the agencies/people
responsible for fish consumption advisories should work to achieve natural resource

agency and fishing industry buy-in.

Media- Statements in which interviewees say that the media should be used as an outlet
for distributing fish consumption advisory information

Medical Community- Statements in which interviewees say that the medical community
should be involved in the fish consumption advisory process

Tribal- Statements in which interviewees say that tribal communities should be involved
in the fish consumption advisory process

Frame: Obstacles

Environmental Groups- Statements in which interviewees say that environmental
groups are an obstacle to successful fish consumption advisory communication/outreach

Media- Statements in which interviewees say that the media is an obstacle to effective
fish consumption advisory communication/outreach

Anti-FCA message- Staternents in which interviewees say that exaggerated information
about the benefits of fish consumption are an obstacle to effective fish consumption
advisory communication/outreach

Frame: What’s Needed- institutionaIIJJ

Expertise- Statements in which interviewees say that more expertise, especially in terms
of the social sciences, is needed to achieve successful and effective fish consumption

advisories, risk communication, and outreach

Funding- Statements in which interviewees say that more funding is needed to achieve
successful fish consumption advisories, risk communication, and outreach

23S

Risk Evalu
needed to a
outreach

Frame: Wh
Available '
consumpti<

Easy to ur
consumpti

Frame Wt

Public un
understan.
infonnatir

No Spill-e
effects to
childbear

Fram\ets
Top do“
are tOp (1

Good SC
When an

M
Contami

Fram\e:
Frame.

Policy 1
gets do:

Epistei
1n Whic
gained
eplSIEH
(Freem

Risk Evaluation- Statements in which interviewees say that more risk evaluation is
needed to achieve successfiil fish consumption advisories, risk communication, and
outreach

F_rame: What’s Needed- access
Available infomation- Statements in which interviewees discuss the need to make fish
consumption advisory information more physically (or digitally) available to the public

Easy to understand- Statements in which interviewees discuss the need to make fish
consumption advisory information easier to understand for the public

Frame What’s Needed- Outcomes

Public understanding- Statements in which interviewees say that public knowledge and
understanding is not currently, but needs to be an outcome of fish consumption advisory
information and/or any risk communication/outreach effort

No spill-over- Statements in which interviews talk about the need to stop spill-over
effects to populations that are not at risk (men over age 15 and women not of
childbearing age) as a result of fish consumption advisory information

Frame: Theog
Frame: Science

Top down- Statements in which interviewees describe scientific practices in use which
are top down, objectivist, and/or materialist

Good science- Statements in which interviewees describe what is “good science” and
when and where it should be used.

Frame: Nature/Human- Statements about connecting or putting barriers around
contamination in terms of human and environmental health

Frame: Gender- Statements about gendered differences in attitudes and behaviors
Frame: Policy Process

Policy and Politics- Statements in which interviewees describe policy processes: what
gets done, how it gets done and why it gets done

Epistemological Bricolage- Statements in which interviewees describe policy processes
in which they assemble and make sense of different bits of information and experiences
gained through formal institutional and scientific, as well as, more socially situated

epistemological strategies or rationale to create policy and management decisions
(Freeman, 2007)

236

APP

AIL-ME
Balancir
reader/vi

in contar.

Balancir
benefits 1

Balancir
health be

Benefit-t

Benefit-1
brain fur,

Benefit;
Benefit-

Benefit.
a benefit

Benefit,

Benefit:
eating fi

Benefit
and eati

mercup

Connie
other or

APPENDIX C 3.1: CODE LIST AND DEFINITIONS- MEDIA ANALYSIS

AP-Michigan: Michigan Associated Press Articles

AP-National: National Associated Press Articles

TV News: Network television news stories

Balancing benefit and risk- fish vs fish: Passages or statements in which the
reader/viewer is encouraged to eat certain types of fish over others because they are low

in contaminants(specifically Hg)

Balancing benefit and risk-fish vs other food: Passages or statements that discuss the
benefits of eating fish over other types of food that may be less healthy

Balancing benefits and risks: Statements that specifically talk about balancing the
health benefits and risks of consuming fish

Benefit-cost: A benefit of eating fish is its low cost.

Benefit-fetal brain/development: A benefit of eating fish is improved fetal/childhood
brain functioning and development

Benefit-healthy/nutritious: A benefit of eating fish is that they are healthy and nutritious
Benefit-heart healthy: A benefit of eating fish is that it promotes heart health.

Benefit-omega 3: Statements in which the term Omega 3('s) (fatty acids) is mentioned as
a benefit of eating fish

Benefits-fatty fish: The benefits of eating fish come fiom fatty fish

Benefits before risks: Articles/News segments that begin by relaying the benefits of
eating fish prior to discussing the risks

Benefit— cultural: Passages or statements that talk about the cultural importance of fish
and eating fish

Biaaccumulation: Passages that describe or explain the process of bioaccumulation of
mercury in fish in greater or less detail

Conflicting message: Passages or statements in an article that directly contradict each
other or when there are two or more conflicting statements/positions reported in an article

237

Confusing message_: Statements in which the journalist or someone quoted in an article
says that fish consumption advisory information is confusing/uncertain/or gives mixed
messages

Date: Year of article publication

Decreased consumption= mercury reduction: Passages or statements that say one can
reduce blood-mercury content by reducing fish consumption

Do not eat fish: Instances when eating fish is/should be prohibited

Eat small/young fish: Passages that recommend eating small/young fish to avoid
mercury pollution

Eat variety: Passages that recommend eating a variety of fish to avoid mercury pollution
Environmental policy/politics: Passages or statements that discuss the policy process
and politics of mercury pollution, including fish consumption advisory information

development and communication

Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA)-responsible agency: Passages that indicate the
agency responsible for creating fish consumption advisories

FCA facts: Passages that describe, reiterate, or summarize official government fish
consumption advisory information

FCA facts-fish preparation and mercury: Passages or statements that inform people
the way fish is prepared makes no differences in the amount of mercury included in a

serving

FCA process: Passages that discuss the history, study, or processes of creating and
disseminating fish consumption advisory information and mercury pollution

Fish cook matters: Passages that discuss the how the way a fish dish is prepared (fiied,
baked, breaded, grilled, etc) affects the healthfulness of eating fish.

Follow advisory:_Passages recommending the reader to follow state and/or federal fish
consumption advisories

Gender: Passages or statements that single out gendered behavior or target specific
gendered populations with regard to mercury contamination and/or fish consumption

Mercury symptoms: Passages or statements about the symptoms of mercury poisoning

Mercury testimonial: Testimonials from individuals or medical professionals who have
experienced mercury poisoning themselves or in their patients

238

FCA stu
poisonin

Intemai
countrie

Journal

Lay ide
behind 1

Low ri:

Other :
polluta

Other
power

Past rr
Peeple

Pressr
80Ven

Probe
mercu

Refer
dlffeI'i

*The
differ

Posit.
Posit

Posit
Ame,

Posit
the C

F CA studies: Passages that reference or talk about scientific studies of mercury
poisoning and/or fish consumption

International examples: Passages about fish consumption advisory information in other
countries besides the US

Journalist: Author of article

Lay ideas of science: Passages that reflect lay people’s or non-expert ideas of the science
behind mercury contamination

Low risk fish: Passages that list or discuss types of fish which are low in Mercury

Other advisory chemicals: Passages that talk about fish consumption advisory
pollutants other than mercury

Other sources of human mercury: Human sources of mercury other than coal fired
power plants or incinerators

Past mercury uses: Past uses of mercury
People should eat fish: Passages or statements that recommend people to eat fish

Pressure on government: Passages that talk about individuals or groups pressuring
government to act in some way or another on the mercury and fish issue

Probable solution-technological: Passages that talk about technological solutions to the
mercury problem

Reference dose: Passages or statements that talk about the mercury reference dose for
different agencies

*The following codes represent the framing of the mercury and fish issue through
different organizations as presented by the media

Position- commercial fish: Frame of mercury and fish issue by commercial fish industry
Position-academia: Frame of mercury and fish issue by academics

Position-American Heart Association: Frame of the mercury and fish issue by the
American Heart Association

Position-government-Center for Disease Control: Frame of mercury and fish issue by
the CDC/ATSDR

239

Position-government-Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority: Frame of mercury and
fish issue by CORA

Position-governmeat-Department of Community Health: Frame of mercury and fish
issue by Michigan Department of Community Health

Position-govemment-Dapartment of Natural Resources: Frame of mercury and fish
issue by Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Position-government-Environmental Protection Agency: Frame of mercury and fish
issue by EPA

Position-government-Food and Drug Administration: Frame of mercury and fish issue
by FDA

Position-govemment-legislature: Frame of mercury and fish issue by members of
congress

Position-government-food safety administration: Frame of mercury and fish issue by
the food safety administration

Position-govemment—state/local: Frame of mercury and fish issue by state and local
governments

Position-govemment-National Academy of Science: Frame of mercury and fish issue
by the National Academy of Science

Position-journalist: Frame of mercury and fish issue by the journalist

Position-Medial Professionals: Frame of mercury and fish issue by medical
professionals

Position-NGO-world health organization: Frame of mercury and fish issue by the
World Health Organization

Position consumer groups: Frame of mercury and fish issue by consumer groups

Position environmental groups: Frame of mercury and fish issue by environmental
groups

Position: energy: Frame of mercury and fish issue by energy providers
Position: Native Americans: Frame of mercury and fish issue by Native Americans

Risk- Upper Peninsula: Passages that talk specifically about mercury risk in the Upper
Peninsula

240

black/His

Code: Ri:
lot of fisl

Code: Ri
fetusi’yOL

Code: Ri
FDA/EP

Code: R
as more

Code: ri
governn

pOpulat

Code: I
risks m

Code: Risk-concern-Blacks/Hispanics: Passages or statements that identify
black/Hispanic populations as populations of concern

Code: Risk-concem-eat lots of fish: Passages or statements that identify people who eat a
lot of fish as a population of concern

Code: Riskfi-concern-fetus/young children: Passages or statements that identify
fetus/young children as a population of concern

Code: Risk-concem-forbidden fish: Passages that identify the types of fish on the
FDA/EPA advisory’s do not eat list for women of childbearing age and young children

Code: Risk-concem-freshwater fish: Passages or statements that identify fieshwater fish
as more contaminated than other fish

Code: risk-concerrhgovemment not testing: Passages that talk about the concern for
government no longer testing fish for mercury

Code: Risk-concem-health fans: Passages or statements that identify health fanatics as a
population of concern

Code: Risk-concern-hg effects-brain/development: Passages about the developmental
risks mercury poses to a fetus/child’s brain and/or mental/physical development

Code: Risk-concern-Hgffects-heart: Passages about the elevated risks that mercury
poses to heart health

Code: RisJk-concern-Hg effects-kidneys: Passages about the elevated risks mercury poses
to the kidney health

Code: Risk-concern-hmemissions: Passages and statements that associate the risks of
mercury contamination in humans to man-made mercury emissions through coal-fired

power plants and incinerators.

Code: Rislgwncern-large fish: Passages or statements that identify large fish as having a
higher mercury contamination risk

Code: Risk-concern-Native Americans: Passages or statements that identify Native
Americans as population of concern

Code: risk-concern-reducing hg standard: Passages that talk about concerns of
government agencies elevating their mercury reference dose.

Code: Risk-concern-subsistence: Passages that identify subsistence fisherpeople as a
population of concern

241

Code: Risk-concern—wealthy: Passages that identify the wealthy as a population of
concern

Code: Risk-concern-women: Passages that identify women as a population of concern

Code: Risk-concem-women of childbearingitge and children: Passages that specifically
identify women of childbearing age and children as a population of concern

 

Code: Risk-concerns-changing lifestyle: A risk of fish contamination is to be forced
change ones habits or lifestyle

Code: Risk-concerns-elevated hg levels-environment: Passages or statements about
elevated levels of mercury found in the environment, including fish

Code: Risk-concerns-elevated hg levels-humans: Passages or statements about elevated
levels of mercury in human beings

Code: Risk-concerns-hg poisoning; Passages that talk about the risks and/or concerns of
mercury poisoning through fish consumption

Code: Risk-concems-human and environment: Passages that make a direct link between
human and environmental health

Code: Risk-concerns-tuna: Passages that talk about mercury contamination in tuna fish
and the risk that poses to human health

Code: Risk-Great Lakes States: Passages about mercury contamination in the Great
Lakes

Code: Risk-hg effects-nervous system: Passages that talk about the negative effects of
mercury poisoning on the nervous system

Code: Risk-hgfloxic/poison: Statements that specifically describe mercury as toxic, fatal,
or poison

Code: risk amplification: Passages that describe mercury contamination and fish
consumption in a way that accentuates risks, or appeals to emotive feelings of fear or pity

Code: risk dearmrlification: Passages and statements that down play the risks of mercury
poisoning and/or contamination or accentuate the benefits of consuming fish or the

products of polluting industries

Code: Risk communication: Passages that talk about risk communication

242

Code: risks before benefits: These articles begin by talking about the risks of mercury
contamination prior to the benefits of fish consumption

Code: romantic outdoorsmen/tribe: Passages that romanticize the image of outdoors- or
tribesmen

Code: scare: Passages or statements that talk about fish consumption advisory or mercury
contamination information “scaring” people.

Code: science/scientists: Passages or statements that talk about science, scientists,
research or studies

Code: scientific uncertainty: Statements that say there is scientific uncertainty concerning
mercury contamination and/or mercury poisoning

Code: site specific: Passages or statements that attribute mercury contamination to site
specific pollution

Code: source- natural: Passages or statements that say mercury come from natural
sources

Code: source-coal-fired power and natural: Passages and statements that attribute
mercury contamination to both natural and man-made sources

Code: source: coal-fired power: Passages or statements that attribute mercury
contamination to coal-fired power plants.

Code: sport vs commercial: Passages or statements that talk about the differences in
mercury contamination found in sport caught and commercial fish

Code: supplements: Passages or statements about taking fish oil supplements to get heart
healthy omega 3 fatty acids

Code: Title: The title of the article
Code: vague information: Vague information about mercury contamination, mercury

poisoning, and/or fish consumption advisories. Vague is defined as information that
relates the existence of something without explaining what it is.

243

BIBLIOGRAPHY

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, Barbara, and Joost van Loon. 2000. "Introduction: Repositioning Risk; the
Challenge for Social Theory." In The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues
for Social Theory. Ed. Ulrich Beck, Barbara Adam, and Joost van Loon, Pp.
1-32. (London: Sage).

Acker, Joan, Kate Barry and Johanna Esseveld. 1991. “Objectivity and Truth: Problems
in Doing Feminist Researc ” In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as
Lived Research Ed. Mary Margaret F onow and Judith A. Cook. Pp. 133-153
(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press)

Allchin, Douglas. “The Poisoning of Minamata” [cited 2005]. Available from
http://wwwl .umn.edu/ships/ethics/minamata.htm.

American Heart Association. “Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids” 2008. [cited September 24
2008]. Available from
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632.

Anderson, H. A., L.P. Hanrahan, A. Smith, L. Draheim, M. Kanarek, and J. Olsen. 2004.
"The Role of Sport-Fish Consumption Advisories in Mercury Risk
Communication: A l998-1999 12-State Survey of Women Age 18-45."
Environmental Research 95: 315-324.

Bakier, F., S. F. Damluji, L. Amin-Zaki, M. Murtadha, A. Khalidi, N.Y. al-Rawi, S.
Tikriti, H. I. Dahahir, T. W. Clarkson, J. C. Smith, and R. A. Doherty. 1973.
"Methylmercury Poisoning in Iraq." Science 181(96): 230-241.

Barta, J. 2006. “Understanding what the regulations mean” The View, A Heritage
Newspaper Weekly Publication. February 23.
http://www.bellevilleview.com/stories/O22306/spo_20060223008.shtml

Bearnish, Thomas D. 2001. “Environmental Hazard and Institutional Betrayal: Lay-

Public Perceptions of Risk in the San Luis Obispo County Oil Spill” Organization
and Environment. 14(1 ):5-33

Beck, Ulrich. 2000. "Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research
Programmes." In The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory.
E.d. Ulrich Beck, Barbara Adam, and J cost van Loon. Pp. 211-229. (London:
Sage).

Beehler, Gregory R, John M. Weiner, Susan E. McCann, John E. Vena, and David E.
Sandberg. 2002. “Identification of Sport Fish Consumption Patterns in Families
of Recreational Anglers though Factor Analysis” Environmental Research. 89: 19-
28.

245

Beehler, Gregory R, Bridget M. McGuinnes, and John E. Vena. 2001. "Polluted Fish,
Sources of Knowledge and the Perception of Risk: Contextualizing Afi‘ican
American Anglers' Sport Fishing Practices." Human Organization 60(3): 288-297

 

. 2003."Characterizing Latino Anglers' Environmental Risk Perceptions, Sport
Fish Consumption and Advisory Awareness." Medical Anthropology Quarterly
17(1): 99-116.

Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology 26:
611-639.

Bickerstaff, Karen and Gordon Walker. 2001. "Public Understandings of Air Pollution:
The ‘Localization’ of Environmental Risk." Global Environmental Change 11.
pp. 133-145.

Bienenfeld, Laura Anne, Anne L. Golden and Elizabeth J. Garland. 2003. “Consumption 4‘
of Fish From Polluted Waters by WIC Participants in East Harlem.” Journal of
Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 80(2): 349-357

Borum, Denis, Mary Ko Mahibusan, Rita Schoeny, and Erik L. WInchester. 2001.
"Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury."

US. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Science and Technology and
Office of Water.

Bostron, Ann and Ragnar E. Lofstedt. 2003. "Communication Risk: Wireless and
Hardwired." Risk Analysis 23(2): 241-247.

Buckingham-Hatfield, Susan. 2000. Gender and Environment. (New York: Rutledge)

Budtz-Jorgensen, E., Philippe Grandjean, Paul J. Jorgensen, Pal Weihe, and Niels
Keiding. 2004. "Association between Mercury Concentrations in Blood and Hair
in Methylmercury-Exposed Subjects at Different Ages." Environmental Research
95: 385-93.

Burger, Joanna. 1998. “Fishing and Risk Along the Savannah River: Possible
Intervention” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 55:405-419

 

2000. "Consumption Advisories and Compliance: The Fishing Public and the
Deamplification of Risk." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
43(4): 471-488.

 

. 2008. "Fishing, Fish Consumption, and Awareness About Warnings in a
University Community in Central New Jersey in 2007, and Comparisons with
2004." Environmental Research 108: 107-116.

246

Burger, Joanna, Karen F. Gaines, and Michael Gochfeld. 2001. "Ethnic Differences in
Risk from Mercury among Savannah River Fishermen." Risk Analysis 21(3):
533-542.

Burger, Joanna, Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers, Lynn Waishwell, Camilla
Warren, Bernard D. Goldstein. 2001. “Science, Policy Stakeholders and Fish
Consumption Advisories: Developing a Fish Fact Sheet for the Savannah River”
Environmental Management. 27(4):501-5 l 4.

Burger, Joanna, Melanie Hughes McDerrnott, Caron Chess, Eleanor Bochenek, Marla
Perez-Lugo, and Kerry Kirk Pflugh. 2003. "Evaluating Risk Communication
About Fish Consumption Advisories: Efficacy of a Brochure Versus a Classroom
Lesson in Spanish and English." Risk Analysis 23(4): 791-803.

Burger, Joanna and Gochfeld, Michael. 2006. "A Framework and Information Needs for
the Management of Risks from the Consumption of Self-Caught Fish."
Environmental Research 101: 275-85.

Carolan, Michael S. 2004. “Risk, Trust and “The Beyond” of the Environment: A Brief
Look at the Recent Case of Mad Cow Disease in the United States”
Environmental Values. 15(2):233-252.

Carr, Deborah and Halvorsen, Kathleen. 2001. “An Evaluation of Three Democratic,
Commmrity-Based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations

With Community Groups, and Community Dinners” Society and Natural
Resources. 14: 107-126

Carrington, Clark D., and Michael P. Bolger. 2002. "An Exposure Assessment for

Methylmercury from Seafood for Consumers in the United States." Risk Analysis
22(4): 689-99.

Chou, K., Lin, C.-Y., Huang, A., Inglis, R., Lin, S., 2002. “Great Lakes' contaminants
reduce sperm production and fertilizing ability in mice”. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research and Management 7: 231-239.

Chess, Caron, Joanna Bruger, and Melanie Hughes McDermott. 2005. “Speaking Like a
State: Environmental Justice and Fish Consumption Advisories.” Society and
Natural Resources 18:267-278

Connelly, Nancy A., Barbara A. Knuth, and Tommy L. Brown. 1996. “Sportfish
Consumption Patterns of Lake Ontario Anglers and the Relationship to Health
Advisories” North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:90-1 01 .

Connelly, Nancy A., and Barbara A. Knuth. 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication:

Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for
Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information." Risk Analysis 18(5): 649-59.

247

Connolly, John P., and Mary P. Logan. 2004. “Adaptive Management as a Measured
Response to the Uncertainty Problem”. Paper Presentation at Addressing
Uncertainty and Managing Risk at Contaminated Sediment Sites October 27,
2004 St. Louis, MO

Coffey, John and Robert Hoffman. 2003. “Knowledge Modeling for the Preservation of
Institutional Memory”. Journal of Knowledge Management. 7(3): 38-52.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Davidson, Debra and William Freudenberg. 1996. "Gender and Environmental Risk
Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research". Environment and
Behavior 28: 302-369.

Davidson, Philip W., Christopher Cox, Elsa Cernichiari, Martin A. Tanner, Wayne
Lednar, Conrad F. Shamlaye, Octavie Choisy, Claire Hoareau and Maths Berlin.
1995. "The Seychelles Study of Fetal Methylmercury Exposure and Child
Development." Neuro Toxicology 16(4): 583-596.

Dietz, Thomas, R. Scott Frey, and Eugene A. Rosa. 1998. "Risk, Technology, and
Society. " In Handbook of Environmental Sociology, E.d. Riley E. Dunlap and
William Michelson. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press)

DiMaggio, Paul J. & Powell, Walter W. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”. American
Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160.

Dellinger, John A. 2004. “Exposure assessment and initial intervention regarding fish
consumption of tribal members of the Upper Great Lakes Region in the United
States” Environmental Research. 95:325-240

Dewalt, Kathleen M. and Billie R. Dewalt 2002. Participant Observation: A guide for
fieldworkers. (Altamira Press: Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford).

Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: The Selection of Technological
and Environmental Dangers. (Berkeley. CAzUniversity of California Press).

Epstein-Jayaratne, Toby and Abigail J. Stewart. 1991. “Quantitative and Qualitative
Methods in the Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies”
In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research Ed. Mary
Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook. Pp. 133-153 (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press)

248

Feldman, David. 2008. “Barriers to Adaptive Management: Lessons fi'om the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-F lint Compact” Society and Natural Resources.
21 :512-525

F inucane, Melissa L., Paul Slovic, C.K. Mertz, James Flynn, and Theresa A. Satterfield.
2000. "Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The 'White Male' Effect." Health, Risk,
and Society. 2: 159-72.

Fisher, Frank 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local
Knowledge. (Durham and London; Duke University Press). ,

Flaherty, Colleen M., Greg G. Sass, and Kaelyn E. Stiles. 2003. "Human Mercury
Toxicity and Ice Angler Fish Consumption: Are People Eating Enough to Cause
Health Problems?" Risk Analysis 23(3): 497-503.

Flynn, J ., Paul Slovic, and CK. Mertz. 1994. "Gender, Race and Perception of
Environmental Health Risks." Risk Analysis 14: 1101-1108.

Fonow, Mary M. and Judith A. Cook. 1991. “Back to the Future: A Look at the Second
Wave of Feminist Epistemology and Methodology” In Beyond Methodology:
Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research Ed. Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A.
Cook. Pp. 133-153 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press)

Foulke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Job Norberg. 2005. “Adaptive Governance
of Social-Ecological Systems” Annual Review of Environmental Resources.
30:441-473

Foulke, Judith E. 1995. “Mercury in Fish: Cause for Concern?” US. Food and Drug
Administration Consumer Magazine [cited 2/7/05 2005]. Available from
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/mercury.html.

Freeman, Richard. 2007. “Epistemological Bricolage: How Practitioners Make Sense of
Learning” Administration and Society. 39(4):476-496

Freudenberg, W. 1989. “Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of
Probabilistic Risk Assessment” Science. 242:44-49.

Funtowicz, Silvio and Jerry Ravetz. 1992. “The Good, the True, and the Post-modem”
Futures. 24:963-976

Gamson, W. A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public Opinion on

Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." The American Journal of Sociology
95(1): 1-3 7.

249

Goldman, Lisa, Brenda Eskenazi, Asa Bradman, and Nicholas P. Jewell. 2004. “Risk
Behaviors for Pesticide Exposure Among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker

Households in Salinas, California” American Journal of Industrial Medicine
45 :491 -299.

Goldman, Michael and Rachel A. Schurman 2000. “Closing the ‘Great Divide’: New
Social Theory on Society and Nature.” Annual Review of Sociology. 26:563-84

Great Lakes Consortium. 2007. "A Protocol for Mercury-Based Fish Consumption
Advice: An Addendum to the 1993 ‘Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport

9”

Fish Consumption Advisory .

Groetsch, Kory 2005. “Mercury in Fish: A Michigan Perspective” Powerpoint
presentation given at Food Safety Alliance Meeting October 2005. Michigan
Department of Community Health.

Gunderson, L. 1999. “Resilience, Flexibility, and Adaptive Management: Antidotes for
spurious certitude?” Conservation Ecology. 3(l)7

Habron, Geoffrey B., Melanie Barbier, and Ron Kinnunen 2008. “Local Understanding
of Fish Consumption Advisory Risks in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula: The Role of
Structure, Culture, and Agency” Rural Sociology 73(2) 275-299

Hall, B.D., R.A. Bodaly, R.J.P. Fudge, and D.M. Rosenberg. 1997. “Food as the
Dominant Pathway of Methylmercury Uptake by Fish.” Water, Air and Soil
Pollution. 100(1-2): 13-24.

Halvorsen, K. E. 2001. “Assessing Public Participation Techniques for Comfort,
Convenience, Satisfaction, and Deliberation” Environmental Management.

28(2): 179-1 86

-2003. “Assessing the Effects of Public Participation” Public
Administration Review. 63(5):535-543

Harding, Sandra. 2001. “Feminist Standpoint Epistemology” In The Gender and Science

Reader, E.d. Muriel Lederrnan and Ingrid Bartsch. (London; New York:
Routledge)

250

Haraway, Donna J. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of
Modern Science. (New York: Routledge)

 

.1992. “The Promises of Monsters: A regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d
Others.” In Cultural Studies e.d. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A.
Treichler (New York; Routledge) Pp.285-337.

 

. 2001. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and Privilege
of Partial Perspective." In The Gender and Science Reader, e.d. Muriel Lederman
and Ingrid Bartsch. (London; New York: Routledge) Pp. 169-188

Henriksen, Hans Jorgen, and Heidi Christiansen Barlebo. 2008. "Reflections on the Use
of Bayesian Belief Networks for Adaptive Management." Journal of
Environmental Management 88(4): 1025-1036.

Hesse,'John. Personal Communication, February 10 2005.

Hesse, John L. 1997. "Case Study: Sport Fish Consumption Advisories in the Great
Lakes Region." In Environmental Risk Harmonization: Federal and State

Approaches to Environmental Hazards in the USA. Ed. by Michael A. Kamrin,
Pp. 151-170. (Chichester; New York: Wiley)

 

. 2003. Encyclopedia of Toxicology: Fish Consumption Advisory.

Hightower, J. and D. Moore 2003 "Mercury Levels in High-End Consumers of Fish."
Environmental Health Perspectives 111(4): 604-608.

Hoffman, Andrew J. 2001. “Linking Organizational and Field-level Analysis: The
Diffusion of Corporate Environmental Practice” Organization and Environment
14(2) 133-156.

Holling, CS. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Management and Assessment.
(Chichester: Wiley)

Homing-Priest, Susanna. 1995. "Information Equity, Public Understanding of
Science, and the Biotechnology Debate." Journal of Communication 45(1): 39-54.

1mm, Pamela, Lynda Knobeloch, and Henry A. Anderson. 2007. "Maternal Recall of
Children's Consumption of Commercial and Sport Caught Fish: Findings from a
Multi-State Study." Environmental Research 103: 198-204.

Jacobson, Sandra W., and Greta G. Fein, Joseph L. Jacobson, Pamela M. Schwartz,

Jeffrey K. Dowler. 1985. “The Effect of Intrauterine PCB Exposure on Visual
Recognition Memory.” Child Development 56(4):853-86O

251

Jacobson, J .L. and SW. Jacobson. 1997. “Evidence for PCBs as a neurodevelopmental
toxicants in humans. Neurotoxicology. 18:415-424.

J akus, Paul M., Dimitrios Dadakas, and J. Mark Fly. 1998. “Fish Consumption
Advisories: Incorporating Angler-Specific Knowledge, Habits, and Catch Rates in

a Site Choice Model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5) Pp.
1 01 9-1 024.

J akus, Paul M., and W. Douglass Shaw 2003. “Perceived Hazard and Product Choice:
An Application to Recreational Site Choice.” The Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty. 26(1) 77-92

J ardine, C. G. 2003. "Development of a Public Participation and Communication
Protocol for Establishing Fish Consumption Advisories." Risk Analysis 23(3):
461-471.

Johnson, Branden B., Joanna Burger, Sheila Shukla, and Michael Gochfeld. 2003.
"Perceived Impacts of Fish Consumption Advisories on the Recreational Fishing
Boat Industry in New Jersey. " New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.

Johnston, H. 2002. “Verification and Proof in Frame and Discomse Analysis” in Methods
of Social Research. Ed. Bert Klandermas and Suzanne Staggenborg. Pp. 62-91.

Judd, Nancy L., Christina H. Drew, Chetana Acharya, Todd A. Mitchell, Jamie L.
Donatuto, Gary W. Burns, Thomas M. Burbacher, and Elaine M. Faustrnan. 2005.
"Framing Scientific Analyses for Risk Management of Environmental Hazards by

Communities: Case Studies with Seafood Safety." Environmental Health
Perspectives 113(1 1): 1502-1508.

Kasperson, RE. 1992. "The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an
Integrative Framework." In Social Theories of Risk. E.d. S. Krimsky and D.
Golding, Pp. 153-178 (Praeger)

Kaufman, Sanda, and Janet Smith. 1999. "Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change
Conflicts." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 16 (2): 164-180.

Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values
in American Culture (MIT Press: Cambridge, London)

Kirsch, Gesa E. 1999. Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The politics of location,
interpretation and publication. (State University of New York Press: Albany)

Knuth, Barbara. A., Nancy A. Connelly, Judy Sheekhka, and Jacqueline Patterson. 2003.

"Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk lnforrnation When Consuming Sport-
Caught Fish." Risk Analysis 23 (6): 1185-1197.

252

Kris-Etherton, Penny, William Harris, and Lawrence Appel. 2002. "Fish Consumption,
Fish Oil, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Cardiovascular Disease." Circulation 106:
2747-2757.

Kurtz, Hilda E. 2003. "Scale Frames and Counter-Scale Frames: Constructing the
Problem of Environmental Injustice." Political Geography 22(8): 887-916.

Kurtzweil, Paula 1997. “Critical Steps Toward Safer Seafood” FDA Consumer. US.
Food and Drug Administration

La Bond-Hanks, Sharon. 1996. Ecology and the Biosphere: Principles and Problems.
(Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press).

Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the
Environment. (Washington DC: Island Press)

Levy, Ed. 2001. "Quantification, Mandated Science and Judgment." Studies in History
and Philosophy of Science 32(4): 723-737.

Lidskog, R. 2000. "Scientific Evidence or Lay People's Experience? On Risk and Trust
with Regard to Modern Environmental Threat." In Risk in the Modern Age. E.d.
M. Cohen (MacMillan)

Lober, Judith. 1998. "The Social Construction of Gender." In Race, Class, and Gender in
the United States: An Integrated Study, edited by Paula Rothenberg. Pp. 33-45
(St. Marlins Press)

Mahaffery K. R., Robert P. Clickner, and Catherine B. Joseph. 2003 "Blood Organic
Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake: National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000." Environmental Health Perspectives.

Mahaffery K. R., Robert P. Clickner, and R. A. Jefferies. 2008. "Methylmercury and
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Co-Occurrence of Dietary Sources with Emphasis on Fish
and Shellfish." Environmental Research 107(1): 20-29.

Marsh, David 0., Michael D. Turner, John Crispin Smith, Paul Allen and Natalie
Richdale. 1995. "Fetal Methylmercury Study in a Peruvian Fish-Eating
Population." Neuro Toxicology 16(4): 717-26.

McLaughlin, Paul. 2001. "Toward an Ecology of Social Action: Merging the Ecological
and Constructivist Traditions." Human Ecology Review 8(2): 12-28.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1995. Earthcare: Women and the Environment. (New York:
Routledge)

253

Marshall, Brent K. 2004 “Gender, Race, and Perceived Environmental Risk: The “White
Male” Effect in Cancer Alley, LA” Sociological Spectrum (24) 453-378

Michigan Department of Community Health. 2003. "2003 Michigan Family Fish
Consumption Guide: Important F acts to Know If You Eat Michigan Fish."
Michigan Department of Community Health: State of Michigan

Michigan Department of Comrmmity Health. 2007. “2007 Michigan Family Fish
Consumption Guide: Important Facts to Know If You Eat Michigan Fish.”
Michigan Department of Community Health: State of Michigan

Mozaffarian, Dariush, Eric B. Rimm. "Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health:
Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits." Journal of the American Medical
Association 296, no. 15 (2006): 1885-99.

Myers, Gary, J ., David O. Marsh, Christopher Cox, Philop W. Davidson, Conrad F.
Shamlaye, Martin A. Tanner, Anna Choi, Elsa Cernichiari, Octavie Choisy and
Thomas W. Clarkson. 1995. "A Pilot Neurodevelopmental Study of Seychellois
Children Following in Utero Exposure to Methylmercury Form a Maternal Fish
Diet." NeuroToxicology 16(4): 629-938.

National Research Council. 2000. "Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury."
Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology.

Neurnann, C. M., K. W. Kauffinan, D. J. Gilroy. 1997. “Methylmercury in fish fi'om
Owyhee Reservoir in Southeast Oregon: Scientific Uncertainty and Fish
Advisories. The Sciences of the Total Environment. 204:205-214.

Norgaard, Richard B. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a
Co-evolutionary Re-visioning of the Future. (London: Routledge)

Norman, Donald. 1983. “Some Observations on Mental Models”. In Mental Models Ed.
Deidre Gentner and Albert Stevens. (Psychology Press) Pp. 7-14

Pinkerton, E. 1999. “Factors in Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Co-Management
in BC. Salmon Fisheries”. Conservation Ecology 3(2).

Rabe, Barry G. 1994 Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United
States. (Wasington D.C.:The Brookings Institution)

Ravetz, Jerry and Silvio F untowicz. 1998. “Commentary” Journal of Risk Research 1(1):
44-48.

Rice, Deborah C. 2004. "The USEPA Reference Dose for Methylmercury: Sources of
Uncertainty." Environmental Research 95: 406-413.

254

Rocheleau, Diane, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Esther Wangari. 1996. "Gender and
Environment: A F eiminst Political Ecology Perspective." In Feminist Political
Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. E.d. Barbara Thomas-Slayter,
Dianne Rocheleau, and Esther Wangari, Pp. 3-23. (New York: Routledge)

Rosa, Eugene. 1998. "Metatheoretical Foundation for Post-Normal Risk." Journal of
Risk Research 1(1): 15-44.

Rose, Hilary 2000. “Risk, Trust and Skepticism in the Age of the New Genetics” In The
Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. E.d. Ulrich Beck,
Barbara Adam, and J oost van Loon, Pp. 63-77. (London: Sage).

Saidel, Judith R., and Karyn Loscocco. 2005. "Agency Leaders, Gendered Institutions,
and Representative Bureaucracy." Public Administration Review 65(2): 158-170.

Scherer, Alison C., Ami Tsuchiya, Lisa R. Younglove, Thomas M. Burbacher, and Elaine
M. F austrnan “A Comparative Analysis of State Fish Consumption Advisories
Targeting Sensitive Populations” Environmental Health Perspectives Online
August 1S" 2008.

Schreiber, E., Sabine G., Andrew R. Bearlin, Simon J. Nicol and Charles R. Todd. 2004.
"Adaptive Management: A Synthesis of Current Understanding and Effective
Application." Ecological Management and Restoration 5(3): 177-82.

Sjoberg, Lennart. 1999. "Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in
Risk Management." Human Ecology Review 6(2).

Shimsack, Jay R, Michael Ward, and Timothy K. M. Beatty. 2007. “Mercury Advisories:
Information Education and Fish Consumption.” Journal of Environment, Ecology
and Management. 53: 1 5-179

Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development.
(London/New Jersey: Zed Books)

Slovic, Paul. 1992. “Perceptions of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm” in
Social Theories of Risk. Ed. S. Krimsky and D. Golding Pp. 117-152 (W estpoint,
CT: Praeger)

Steenport, Dyan M., Henry Anderson, Lawrence Hanrahgan, Claire Falk, Laurie
Draheim, Marty Kanarek, and Henry Nehls-Lowe. 2000. “Fish Consumption
Habits and Advisory Awareness Among Fox River Anglers” Wisconsin Medical
Journal. November 2000.

Stem AH. 2005. “A Review of the Studies of the Cardiovascular Health Effects of

Methylmercury with Consideration of their Suitability for Risk Assessment”.
Environmental Research. 98(1):] 33-142

255

 

Thomas, John Clayton 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions: New skills and
strategies for public managers. (Jossey-Bass: San Francisco)

Thompson, Paul B., and Wesley Dean 1996. “Competing Conceptions of Risk” Risk:
Health, Safety and Environment. 7:361-3 84

Tilden, John, Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Henry Anderson, Charles Palit, Joseph Olson,
William MacKenzie, and the Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium. 1997. "Health
Advisories for Consumers of Great Lakes Sport Fish: Is the Message Being
Received?" Environmental Health Perspectives 105(12): 1360-1365.

Trasande, L., P.S. Landrigan and C. Schechter 2005. “Public Health and Economic
Consequences of Methylmercury toxicity to the developing brain.” Environmental
Health Perspectives. 113(5) 590-596.

US. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 2000. “Findings from Focus
Group Testing of Mercury-in—fish Messages.” Report Submitted to Interagency Working
Group on Mercury Communications. October 23, 2000

----- 2004. "What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish: 2004 EPA
and FDA Advice for Women Who Might Become Pregnant, Women Who Are
Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, and Young Children." U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services Food and Drug Administration and US. Enviromnental
Protection Agency

------ 2006. "FDA and EPA Announce the Revised Consumer Advisory on
Methylmercury in Fish." US. Department of Health and Human Services Food
and Drug Administration and US. Environmental Protection Agency.

US. Department of Health and Human Services and The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 2005. "225-05-2001: Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental
Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish between the US. Food and Drug
Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the US.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. " pp. 1-3:

------- 2006. "FDA and EPA Announce the Revised Consumer Advisory on
Methylmercury in Fish." US. Department of Health and Human Services Food
and Drug Administration and US. Environmental Protection Agency.

US. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. "Star Report." Office of Research and
Development's Science To Achieve Results Research in Progress. Pp. 1-8

-------- 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish

Advisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis, Fish Advisories. Volume 1:
Fish Sampling and Analysis 3”d edn. Washington, DC: Office of Water.

256

 

-------- 2001. “Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use In Fish
Advisories: Volume IV Risk Communication.” Office of Science and
Technology Office of Water US. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. February, 1995. EPA 823-R-95-001.

-------- 2002. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories

-------- 2002. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 3: Risk Management. Washington, DC: Office of Water

Verchick, Robert R. M. 2004. "Feminist Theory and Environmental J ustice." In New
Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality, and Activism. E.d.
Rachel Stein. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)

Walters, C. 1997. “Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal
Ecosystems” Conservation Ecology [online]. 1(2):1
http://www.consecol.org/vol1/issZ/art1

Ward, Martha C. 1999. A World Full of Women. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon)

Wiess, Bernard. 2000. "Perspectives on Methylmercury as a Global Health Hazard."
NeuroToxicology 16(4): 577-582.

Wynne, B. 2002. “Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology:
Reflexivity Inside Out?” Current Sociology. 50(3):459-477

257